HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical Design & Construction
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
'.
I
l,stl
(i
A Wholly Owned Subsidary of The Converse Professional Group
. Converse Consultants
Inland Empire
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
RECOMMENDATION REPORT
Tract 24188-1
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Community
T emecula, CA
RECEIVED
AUG 05 1999
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Prepared for:
Newland Associates
27555 Ynez Road, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92591
Converse Project No. 96-81-420-03
November 3, 1997
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
10391 Corporate Drive
Redlands, CA 92374
Telephone 909/796-0544
FAX 909 796-7675
\
-
~ ~
~ ~
I
..
.
I
!".
I
..
I
i
1
I
I
I
I
I
. .
I
I
.,
J
.
I
i
I
A Wholly Owned Subsidary of The Conyers: Professional Group
Converse Consultants
Inland Empire
November 3. 1997
Mr. Dean Meyer, R.C.E.
Director of Engineering & Development
Newland Associates
27555 Ynez Road, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92591
Subject:
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATION REPORT
Tracts 24188-1
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Community
Temecula, California
Converse Project No. 96-81-420-03
Dear Mr. Meyer:
Converse Consultants Inland Empire (Converse) has prepared this report to present
geotechnical design parameters and construction recommendations for the above-
referenced Tract, located in the city of Temecula, California. This report also
contains results of finish pad field density and laboratory tests performed at the
completion of rough grading. These services were rendered in accordance with our
proposal dated November 1, 1996.
Results of the finish pad field density tests performed at the completion of rough
grading are summarized in Table No. A-l, Summary of Finish Pad Field Density Test
Results, in Appendix A, Field Testing.
Results of relevant laboratory tests performed on representative samples of
subgrade soils retrieved from the building pads and street areas are presented in
Appendix S, Laboratory Testing, and Appendix C, Soil Corrosivity Study. Results of
a preliminary R-value test and a pavement structural section analysis are presented
in Appendix D, Preliminary Pavement Design Recommendations.
This report also contains geotechnical design and construction recommendations for
various facilities generally associated with residential developments including
foundations for one- and two-story wood-frame buildings, slabs-on-grade, retaining
walls, street pavements, concrete driveways, walkways, curb and gutter; and
buried utilities.
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
10391 Corporate Drive
Redlands, CA 92374
Telephone 909 f 796-0544
FAX 909 796-7675
2-
I
"
I
I
I
,
I
I
"
i
I
'j
i
~
I
I
I
,
I
I
-I
I
I
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to Newland Associates. If you have
any questions, or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
CONVERSE CONSULT TS INLAND EMPIRE
Hashmj S. E. Quazi, Ph. D., P. E.
Senior Vice President/Principal Engineer
Dist.: 51 Addressee
MSI/HSQ/bac
96-81-420-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
\CC I ENT\O F FI C E\JOB F I L E\N EW LA N 0\420\420-03\420- 88 rpl
2
3>
I
I"
I
I
, .
I
,-"
.
I
OJ
't
l
l
l
I
-.
J
l
.
I
I
J
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
This report has been prepared by the staff of Converse Consultants Inland Empire
(Converse) under the supervision of the professional engineers whose seals and
signatures appear hereon,
The findings, conclusions, recommendations, or professional opinions presented in
this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional
engineering principles and practice in effect in Southern California at this time,
There is no other warranty, either express or implied.
fJ,J2- ~...F~ ['71-
J11~ cd
Mohammed S, Islam, Ph.D., P. E.
Senior Project Engineer
Michael O. Cook, C, E, G.
Project Engineering Geologist
-
~,;~
,
~Q
Hashmi S, E, Quazi, Ph. D" p, E.
Senior Vice PresidentlPrincipal Engineer
96-8 I -420-03
Converse Consulrants Inland Empire
ICC I EN TIO FF I C E\J 0 B F I L EIN E W LA N 0'4201420-031420-88 rpt
3
4.
I
I -:
.
.
.
1
.
.
I"
i
I
i
i
--.
.
.
.
,
I
I
-I
.
J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION. ........ ..... .................. ........................................................ 1
2.0 SITE CONDITIONS .. .... ........ ........ ....... ............ ... ........ .................................2
2.1 GENERAL...... .....,........................,.......................,........,... ...... .......... ......... 2
2,2 GROUNDWATER..,..",.........." ......................,..".................................., .......2
2.3 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ............................................................................3
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................... ............. ..... .............. .....................3
4.0 SCOPE OF WORK ......................................................................................3
4.1 FIELD SERVICES .......................,.............................,.,.......,...............,.........4
4.2 LABORATORY TESTING............,..,......,.. ................................. ....................".4
4.3 ANALYSIS AND REPORT PREPARATION ..............................................................5
5.0 . FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS...................................................................5
6.0 LABORATORY TESTS ........... ................... ................. ...... .................... ....... 5
7.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ....................................................6
8.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATION .....................................8
8,' BUILDING FOUNDATIONS AND RETAINING WALLS ...............................................,8
8,2 SLABS-ON-GRADE ....,......"............."........,..,.......,.................................", 1 0
8.3 PAVEMENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, ........................................................ 11
8.4 CONCRETE WALKS, DRIVEWAYS, ACCESS RAMPS, CURB AND GUTTER.........,..,....... 12
8,5 CORROSION PROTECTION ........................................................................,... 12
8,6 SITE DRAINAGE, SLOPE PROTECTION AND LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS 13
9.0 ON-SITE TRENCH BACKFILL COMPACTION................................................ 14
9.1 GENERAL..".....,. ...."..,......... ......,..,., ... ,.."........., ...,.,........,........ ,.. ,..,... .... 14
9.2 RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLACEMENT OF TRENCH BACKFILL .......... ......... 14
10.0 CLOSURE ...............................................................................................15
REFERENCES .......... ................................. ............................... ........................17
96-81--120.03
Converse Consultonts Inland Empire
IC C I ENT'O FF I C EIJO B F I L EI N E WLA N 01-120\-120-03 \4 2 O. 88 rpt
-:S
'.
I~
.
I
I
'\
I
I
"I
-
.,.
11
II
l
.
J
l
.
J
I
.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A,
APPENDIX B,
APPENDIX C,
APPENDIX D,
FIELD DENSITY TESTING
LABORATORY TESTING
SOIL CORROSIVITY STUDY
PA VMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
TABLES
TABLE No.1, LOT CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS (TRACT
.24188-1) ..............................................,...........,.........,......c................,....... 7
GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF FOUNDATIONS AND SLABS-ON-GRADE FOR
ONE- AND TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ....................................................10
ILLUSTRA TIONS
FIGURE No, 1, SITE MAP ................................................................ FOLLOWING PAGE 1
96-81-420-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
ICC I ENTIO FF I C E\j 0 B F I L EIN E W LA N 0\4 2 0\4 20-03\4 2 0- 88 rpl
ii
~
I
I:
II
I
1'1
I ,
1:1
I
-1
I
It
I'
1t
II
--
I
,I
,
I
I
-I
,I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report contains geotechnical design parameters and construction
recommendations for the development of the residential Tract 24188-1, located in
the city of Temecula, California. This report also contains results of the finish pad
field density and laboratory tests performed at the completion of rough grading.
The earthwork contractor ACI, Corona, California, rough graded the subject Tract.
Earthwork associated with the rough grading was performed in accordance with the
requirements and the recommendations set forth in the grading plans developed by
The Keith Companies-Inland Empire, Inc" the grading requirements of the city of
Temecula, Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (1994) and the
following project geotechnical investigation report:
. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Eastern and Southern Portion of "The
Meadows", Approximately 800-Acre Site, City of Temecula, California, dated
April 26, 1996, prepared by Converse for Newland Associates, Converse Project
'No, 96-81-420-01.
Converse performed full-time geotechnical observations, field density and laboratory
testing during rough grading of the subject Tract, Results of field observations,
geologic mapping, field density and laboratory tests performed during rough grading
were presented in the following report:
. As-Built Geology and Compaction Report of Rough Grading, Tract 24182
through 24186 and 24188-1, Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Community,
Temecula, California, dated August 20, 1997, prepared for Newland Associates,
Converse Project No, 96-81-420-03.
This report was prepared for the subject Tract that is proposed to be developed as
. a residential housing complex comprising one- and two-story single family
residences. This report is intended for use solely by Newland Associates and its
authorized agent(s). It may not contain sufficient information for use by others
andlor for any other purposes.
96-81-420-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
ICC I ENTlOFFIC EIJOBFI LEINE WLA N DI.J2Q\420-03\420-88rpt
1
SITE
....--.---..-......
24186
ee
"a
(0'
'"
".
".
;
\24184-F
24184-1i
.........
24185,2
"'""'-.
....\
,
-.'
I
24183
\
U\3
(,af1"?3f'
24183
.-.:
To 1-15
Highway 79
\
· Not To Scale
SITE LOCATION
MAP
tRACT 24188-1
~o Del Sol Master Planned Community
~cula, California
',Q7 Converse Consultants Inland
-I
Empire
='o,ec: .....0
96-81-420-03
= 'i""~ '.c
1
~
I
'I
I
I
,
I
i I
.. .
I
-
",
Ii
i
.,
I
I
:,1
,
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 SITE CONDITIONS
2.'1 General
The subject Tract IS located within the proposed Paseo Del Sol Master Planned
Community in the city of Temecula, California. This Tract encompasses
approximately 27.5-acre of graded land, The subject Tract, as shown in Figure No.
1, Site Location Map, is bounded on the south by Jerez Lane, on the east by
Butterfield Stage Road, on the north by undeveloped land and on the west by
Sunny Meadows Drive.
Prior to rough grading, the subject Tract consisted of undeveloped rolling hills
bisected by two (2) small narrow canyons, The existing ground surface elevation
ranged from approximately 1,175 feet to 1,265 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
The hills were underlain by Pauba Formation bedrock mantled with a veneer of
colluvium. Recent alluvial/colluvial deposits were present at the bottom of the
narrow canyons with moderately sloped sidewalls. The ground surface was
generally covered with native grasses and brush, with thick vegetation in the
canyons. Both small canyons drained from east to west,
The topography of the graded Tract is characterized by terraced residential building
pads, gently sloped streets and future open space/greenbelt areas, and cut and fill
slopes of varying heights constructed in accordance with the grading plans
developed by The Keith Companies-Inland Empire, Inc, These grading plans are
included in the above-referenced As-Built Geology and Compaction Report of Rough
Grading, dated August 20, 1997, The ground surface elevation of the rough
graded lots ranged from approximately 1,192 feet to 1,225 feet above MSL.
Tract grading involved cut and fill to reach the proposed finish grade elevations, Cut
and fill, exclusive of any remedial overexcavation, was on the order of 40 feet and
20 feet, respectively, to reach the proposed finish grade elevations, Site grading
also included 2: 1 (Horizontal:Vertical) (H:V) cut and fill slopes on the order of 10
feet and 20 feet, respectively.
2.2 Groundwater
No groundwater was encountered during site exploration performed for the
preparation of the above-referenced "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation" report
dated April 26, 1996, Groundwater was not encountered during rough grading.
96-81-4"0-03
Converse Consultonls Inland Empire
IC C 1 E NT,O F F I C E\J 0 B F I L E\N E WL A N 0\4 "0'4 "0-0 3 \4" 0- 8 8rpt
2
q
I
-;
I
I
I
~
I
I
.'1-
I
,
,
,
,
i
I
I
1
I
-I
,
I
2.3 Faulting and Seismicity
The subject Tract is located in Seismic Zone 4 in accordance with Figure 16-2,
Seismic Zone Map of the United States, of the UBC (1997). This Tract, however,
is not located within a currently designated State of California Earthquake Fault
Zone, No active fault projects toward or through this Tract. The nearest known
active fault is the Wildomer segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone, which is located
approximately 2,0 miles (3.2 km) west-southwest of the Tract. This fault may be
classified as the "Type AU seismic source as defined in Table 16-U, Seismic Source
Type, of the UBC (1997) and is capable of generating a Maximum Credible
Earthquake IMCE) of Moment Magnitude (Mwl 7.5. A MCE is defined as the
maximum seismic event that a particular fault is theoretically capable of producing
and is evaluated based on existing geologic and seismologic evidences.
A deterministic seismic hazard analysis indicates the subject Tract may experience
a maximum peak horizontal ground acceleration on the order of O,60g, where g is
the acceleration due to gravity, during an Mw = 7.5 seismic event generated by the
movement of the Wildomer Fault.
The subject Tract is not considered susceptible to soil liquefaction due to the
absence of shallow groundwater and the nature of the subsurface materials,
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The subject tract is proposed to be developed as a single-family residential housing
complex. The development will include construction of one- andlor two-story
single-family residences and associated driveways, streets with curb and gutters,
sidewalks and above- and under-ground utilities. The residences are likely to be of
wood-frame structures founded on continuous andlor isolated spread-type concrete
footings with slabs-on-grade, The vertical loads on continuous and isolated
footings are anticipated to be less than 2,000 pounds per linear foot and 50,000
pounds, respectively, The project does not include construction of any retaining
walls of significant height, The perimeter retaining walls for such residential
developments are usually on the order of six (6) feet in height, constructed of
masonry blocks and founded on concrete footings,
4.0 SCOPE OF WORK
Our scope of work for this report included the following:
96-81-420-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
ICC I ENTDFFICEVOBFI LEINE WLA'-i D'.420\420-031420-88rpt
3
\0
I
I
, I
,I
I
I
I
i
t
i
,
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.1 Field Services
Our services included finish grade field density for the fill lots and retrieval of
representative samples of subgrade soils from the building pads and street areas for
relevant laboratory testing. Bulk samples, designated as Bl, B2 etc, were retrieved
from the fill lots, Two (2) relatively undisturbed ring samples, designated as Sl and
S2 were retrieved from the cut lots. The ring samples were retrieved by means of
driving a Modified California Sampler lined with ring samples into the ground. These
samples were retrieved from the bottom of six-(6) to 12-inch deep bore holes drilled
with a hand-auger. The sampler was lined with thin-walled, 2.42-inch inside
diameter, and one-inch long brass rings. A 40-pound hammer was used to drive the
sampler.
A total of 16 bulk samples, designated as Sample 1 through 16, were also
collected from the fill as well as the cut lots for soil corrosivity testing. Based on
visual observation and classification in the laboratory, eight (8) of these samples
were tested for soil corrosivity,
At the time of this report preparation, streets within this Tract are mass graded to
interim grades to facilitate storm water flow. Finish grading of these streets will
involve placement of minimal amounts of compacted fills. Bulk samples
(designated as RV1, RV2 etc,) were retrieved from the street areas to provide
preliminary pavement design recommendations. All samples were retrieved from
the upper 12 inches of the existing ground surface. Final pavement
recommendations should be based on R-values of representative street subgrade
soils retrieved at the completion of finish grading,
The bulk samples were collected in plastic bags and the relatively undisturbed
samples were collected in rings and placed in airtight plastic containers. These
samples were immediately transported to Converse laboratory for testing.
4.2 Laboratory Testing
Our scope of work included laboratory testing to determine relevant engineering
parameters for the purpose of providing geotechnical design parameters and
construction recommendations,
96-81-420-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
ICC I ENTIOFFICEIJOBFI LEIN E WLAND\420\420-03\420-88rpt
4
\\
I
~
.
I
I
;. .
il
~
I
",
I
r.!
I
.~
,
i
I...~
I
I
..
lJ
I
I
I
I
4.3 Analysis and Report Preparation
Geotechnical analyses were performed on the data obtained from the laboratory
tests. Results of these analyses and our design and construction recommendations
are presented in this report.
5.0 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Finish pad field density tests were performed by Converse for the fill lots at the
completion of rough grading. Nuclear Gauge (ASTM Standard D-2922-91) andlor
Sand Cone (ASTM Standard D1556-90) test methods were utilized to evaluate the
field density of compacted subgrade soils at random locations. The results of the
field density tests are summarized in Table No, A-l, Summary of Finish Pad Field
. Density Test Results, in Appendix A, Field Density Testing, The test numbers in
this table are not consecutive as blocks of test numbers were assigned to finish pad
field density tests performed at concurrently graded adjacent Tracts 24184, 24185
and 24186, All finish pad field density tests performed for the Tracts 24188-1 are
included in this table.
The relative compaction for the field density tests reported in Table No. A-l,
Summary of Finish Pad Field Density Test Results, is obtained by dividing the
measured in-place dry density by the laboratory maximum dry density of the same
"soil type" presented in Table No, B-2, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry
Density and Optimum Moisture Content Tests, in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing.
The required minimum relative compaction, as defined by ASTM Standard D1557-
91, was 90 percent for each test.
6.0 LABORATORY TESTS
Bulk samples and relatively undisturbed ring samples were tested in the laboratory
to determine relevant engineering parameters, Laboratory testing included the
followings:
,. In-situ moisture contents (ASTM Standard D2216-63) and dry density tests,
. Sieve Analysis (ASTM Standard D422-63)
'. Laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content relationship
tests (ASTM Standard D1557-91),
,. Expansion index tests (UBC Standard 18-2)
,. Direct shear tests (ASTM Standard D3080-90)
,. Consolidation tests (ASTM D2435-90)
96-81-420-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
\CC I ENT,O F F I C EJ 0 B F I L E\N E WLA N 0\42 0\4 20-03\4 2 0- 8 8 rpl
5
\z..
;
I
.
I
I
-I
~
I
I
I
:1
,
,
,
;,
,
I
J
,
I
J
I
I
. Soil corroslvlty tests (ASTM Standards D512, D513, G516, D 1125, Dl126,
D2791, G51 and G57)
.. R-value tests (California Test Method 301-G).
A brief description of the procedures and results of the laboratory tests are
presented in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing. Results of the soil corrosivity tests
are presented in Appendix C, Soil Corrosivity Study. Results of the R-value tests
are presented in Appendix D, Preliminary Pavement Design Recommendations,
7.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
This section contains results of our analysis and interpretation of data obtained
during laboratory testing.
Prior to grading, the existing ground surface was grubbed of vegetation.
Deleterious debris was removed and disposed off-site, Unsuitable surficial alluvial
and colluvial soils were removed to competent older alluvium or Pauba Formation
bedrock. Excavated site soils were placed as compacted fills. The alluvial and
colluvium soils comprised mainly of silty sands and sands, Compacted fill soils
derived from the Pauba Formation bedrock are comprised of mainly silty sand,
clayey sand and sandy claylsilt,
The cut lots are underlain by Pauba Formation bedrock consisting of poorly
interbedded to massive, moderately- to well-consolidated, fine- to coarse-grained
sandstone and occasional interbedded siltstone and claystone layers.
For additional description of the subsurface conditions, see the above-referenced
project Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation report dated April 26, 1996 and the
As-Built Geology and Compaction Report of Rough Grading, dated August 20,
1997.
. Typical gradation range of the subgrade soils within the subject Tract is presented
in Figure No. B-1, Grain-Size Distribution in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing.
Results of laboratory compaction tests performed on representative samples of fill
soils retrieved during rough grading of the Tracts 24182 through 24186 and
.24188-1 are presented in Table No. B-2, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry
Density and Optimum Moisture Content Tests, in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing,
Results of two additional tests performed on bulk samples of fill soils retrieved at
the completion of grading are included in Figure No.2, Compaction Test. Based on
these tests, the laboratory maximum dry density and the optimum moisture content
96-81-420-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
ICC I ENT..O FF ICE JOB F I L EIN E W LA N 014 2Q\4 2 0-03 \420- 8 8 rpt
6
\~
I
.
I
I
I
,
I
I
!'-r
I
i
I
,
,
I
I
I
-i
I
I
i
I
of the compacted fill soils ranged from 112 pounds-per-cubic-foot (pcf) to 133 pcf
and eight (8.0) percent to 16,5 percent, respectively,
Results of expansion index tests performed on representative bulk samples of
subgrade soils retrieved from the building pad areas are presented in Table No, B-3,
Summary of Expansion Index Test Results, In Appendix B, Laboratory Testing. The
lot classifications are presented in Table No, 1, Lot Classification Based on
Expansion Index Test Results.
TABLE NO.1, LOT CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS (Tract 24188-1)
EXDansion Very Low Low Medium Hig"
Potential 0-20 21-50 51-90 91-130
Expansion
Index (EI)
LOT '-23 and 29-51 24-28 and 52-67 None None
NOS,
. Results of direct shear tests performed on remolded as well as relatively
undisturbed ring samples are presented in Figure Nos, B-3 through B-6, Direct Shear
Test, in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing. Based on these results, the cohesion and
internal friction angle of the soils within the Tract range from 0,0 to 557,0 pounds-
per-square-foot (psf) and 23 to 47,0 degrees, respectively.
Consolidation tests were performed on relatively undisturbed ring as well as
reconstituted ring samples. Results are presented in Figure Nos, B-7 through B-9,
Consolidation Test, in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing, Based on these results, the
compression index of the subgrade soils corresponding to the vertical stress range
of 1.0 to 2,0 ksf varies from about 0,03 to about 0.10. At higher stress levels, the
compression index of sandy clay (CL) subgrade soils representative of lot 24-28
and 52-67 was found to be about 0.17.
When inundated with water at 2,0 kips per square foot (ksf), the undisturbed
sample experienced collapse on the order of 1,5 percent. The reconstituted
samples experienced less than 0,5 percent collapse when inundated with water at
2.0 ksf vertical load,
A soil corrosivity study was performed by M, J, Schiff and Associates, Claremont,
California, on representative samples of subgrade soils retrieved from Tracts
24186-1,-2, Tract 24184-1 and 24188-'. The results of the study were included
in the above-referenced As-Built Geology and Compaction Report of Rough, dated
96-81-~:O-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
ICCI ENTIOFFIC E\JOBFI LEIN E WLAN D\4:Q\~:O-0314:0-88rpt
7
V\
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
. ,
-I
I
I
l
I
-,
I
I
I
I
I
-I
,
I
-I
August 20, 1997, A copy of the M. J. Schiff report is also included at the end of
this report in Appendix C, Soil Corrosivity Study.
Samples of subgrade soils from various streets were tested in accordance with the
State of California Test Method 301-G to determine Resistance (R-) values. These
R-values are used to determine preliminary flexible pavement sections for estimating
purposes. Results of the R-value tests are presented in Appendix D, Preliminary
Pavement Design Recommendations (Tract 24188-1).
8.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATION
This section contains our design and construction recommendations for various
structures and facilities including building foundations, slabs-on-grade, retaining
walls, pavements, driveways, walkways and curb and gutter.
8.1 Bui/ding Foundations and Retaining Walls
One- or two-story building structures and retaining walls may be supported by
continuous andlor isolated spread footings. Continuous footings should be at least
12 inches and 18 inches wide for one-story and two-story buildings, respectively,
The recommended minimum width for an isolated spread footing for an individual
column is 24 inches and 30 inches for one-story and two-story buildings,
respectively.
The recommended minimum depth of embedment and reinforcement for footings
for various ranges of expansion potential of subgrade soils are included in Table No,
2, .Suggested Guidelines For Design and Construction of Foundations and Slabs-on-
Grade for One- and Two-Story Residential Buildings, For lot classifications based
on expansion potential, see Table No, 1, Lot Classifications Based on Expansion
Index Test Results.
Footings should be designed based on an allowable net bearing pressure of 2,000
pst. This bearing stress may be increased by one-third for short duration loading
such as wind or seismic forces, This allowable bearing pressure should be used
with the allowable stress design load combinations specified in Section 1612.3,
Load Combinations Using Allowable Stress Design, of the UBC (1997).
Structural designs may require wider footings andlor more reinforcement than
recommended in this report.
96-S 1--120-03
Converse ConsultJ.ms Inland Empire
ICC I ENT\OFF Ie E\JOBFI L E\N E WLA N 0\-I20\-I20-03\-I20-8Srpl
8
\-5'
I
...
I I
I
I
~
I
I
...~
I
,
,
,
,
1
I
J
l
I
J
'I
J
Building clearance from ascending slopes, footing setback from descending slopes
and foundation elevations should meet the requirements of Section 1806,5,
Footings on or Adjacent to Slopes, of the UBC (1997).
Active lateral earth pressures from soils at the site may be taken as equal to that
developed by a fluid of density of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). At-rest earth
pressure may be taken as equal to that developed by a fluid of density of 60 pet,
Resistance to lateral loads can be assumed to be provided by friction acting at the
base of foundations and by passive earth pressures against the sides of the
foundations andlor walls. An ultimate value of the coefficient of friction of 0,36
between concrete and soil may be used with the dead load forces,. An ultimate
value of the passive earth pressure resistance of 300 psf per foot of depth may be
used for the sides of footingslretaining walls. The maximum value of the passive
pressure should be limited to 2,000 psf. The lateral resistances provided by the
friction and the passive pressures may be combined directly without any reduction.
These lateral resistances may be increased by one-third for short duration
seismiclwind forces,
For earthquake-resistant design of above-ground structures, the soil profile at the
site may be classified as "Se" with very dense soil and soft rock conditions as
defined in Table 16-J, Soil Properties, of the UBC (1997). Based on the distance
of the Wildomer fault to the Tract and Seismic Source classification of Type "A',
the Near-Source Factors, N, and Nv' as defined in Table 16-$, Near Source Factor
N. and Table 16-T, Near Source Factor Nv, of the UBC (1997), may be taken as 1.5
and 2.0, respectively.
Footings should be founded on firm and uniform native soils or compacted fills,
Footing excavations should be observed and approved by the project geotechnical
consultant after the rebars are in place and prior to placing any concrete.
The total footing settlement will depend, among other factors, on the actual load
applied to the subgrade soils, type of subgrade materials (e,g. native or compacted
fills), soil type, thickness of compacted fills underneath the footings and changes in
the moisture conditions of the subsurface soils, Anticipated total settlements of
footings, designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations
provided herein, should be less than one (1) inch, The expected differential
settlement between similarly loaded footings for individual residences may be taken
as equal to half of the total settlement,
96-81--120-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
\C C I E N T,O F F I C EIJ 0 B F I L E\ NEW LA N D\-l2 0\-12 0-03\-120-88 rpt
9
\<;..
I~
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
r
I
i
'1
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.2
Slabs-On-Grade
Based on the expansion index tests, the pad subgrade soils for the subject Tract
can be classified as having very low to low expansion potential as shown in Table
1, Lot Classification .Based on Expansion Index Test Results. Recommendations
regarding slab-on-grade thickness, reinforcement and presoaking of subgrade soils
at the time of construction are provided in Table No.2, Suggested Guidelines For
Design and Construction of Foundations and Slabs-on-Grade for One- and Two-
story Residential Buildings.
.TABLE NO.2 SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF FOUNDATIONS AND
SLABS-ON-GRADE FOR ONE- AND TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
Foundation Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V
System
Exoansion Very low Low Medium HiQh Very HiQh
Potential 0-20 21 - 50 51 - 90 91- 130 Above 130
Expansion
Index lE.1)
Footing Depth One Two One Two One Two One Two One Two
Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story
Perimeter 11.: ll.:: 11.: ll.:: ll.:: ll.:: ll.:: ll.:: 30" 30"
Interior 12" 18- 12- 18" 12" 18" 18" 18- 18" 18"
, Footing ,- # 4 Bar , - # 4 Bar 1 . # 4 Bar 2 - 4 Bars 2. # 4 Bars
Reinforcement Top and Bottom Top_and Bottom Top and Bottom Top and Bottom Top and Bottom
Garage Grade 12"x12~wf 12R x 12" wi 12" x 12" wi 12" x 12" wI 18" x 18" wI
Beam At Door ,. # 4 Bar ,- # 4 Bar ,- # 4 Bar ,- # 4 Bar ,- # 4 Bar
Opening Tap and Bottom Tap and Bottom Top and Bottom Top and Bottom Top and Bottom
Floor Slab 4" Nominal 4" Nominal 4" Nominal 4" Nominal 6" Nominal
Thickness
Floor Slab 6" x 6" , #10/ # 10 6Mx6~-1/101Ifl0 6" x 6- - #10/ # 10 1/ 4 at IBM o.c.
Reinforcement Not Mandatory Not Mandatory 6" x 6" - #10/ # 10 6- x6". #10/# 10 Each Way
DwelJinQs 6" x6" -#6/# 6
Garages
Subgrade Optimum 120 % of Optimum 120% of Optimum 120% of Optimum 120% of
Moisture or Higher Moisture to 12" Moisture to 12" Moisture to 18" Optimum Moisture
Requirement at Below Slab Below Slab Below Slab to 18" Below Slab
Time
of
Construction
Structural designs may require slab thickness andlor reinforcement greater than
recommended in herein.
Slabs-on-grade should be underlain by 6-mil Visqueen (or equivalent) moisture
barrier. To help break capillary rise of soil moisture, to aid concrete curing and to
prevent puncture, we recommend that the moisture barrier be placed above two (2)
96-81--120-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
\Ce I ENTIO FFICE'JO SF I L E\N E WLA?\ D\-I20'-I20-03\420-88rpt
10
\\.
I
..
I
I
, .
I
"
I
I
,
I
i
I
I
:,
i
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
inches of clean sand. Two (2) inches of clean sand should also be placed above
the moisture barrier. Joints in the moisture barrier should be lapped a minimum of
six (6) inches and properly sealed,
Slab-on-grade subgrade soils must be firm and uniform. All loose or disturbed soils
including under slab utility trench backfills should be recompacted prior to the
placement of clean sand base underneath the moisture barrier.
Joints for concrete slab-on-grade must be carefully designed, Joint spacing is
dependent upon slab thickness and concrete properties and should be selected by
the structural engineer. Joints should be properly sealed, Unless local conditions
and concrete properties indicate otherwise, the joint spacing (in feet) should not
exceed approximately twice the slab thickness (in inches), Joint spacing may be
increased if slabs are heavily reinforced,
During hot weather, the contractor should take appropriate curing precautions after
placement of concrete to minimize cracking of the slabs. The addition of fiber
mesh to the concrete, andlor control of waterlcement ratio may lessen the potential
for slab cracking. Concrete should be cured by protecting it against loss of
moisture and rapid temperature change for at least seven days after placement.
Moist curing, waterproof paper, white polyethylene sheeting, white liquid
membrane compound, or a combination thereof may be used after finishing
operations have been completed. The edges of concrete slabs exposed after
removal of forms should be immediately protected to provide continuous curing.
Recommendations regarding garage grade beam at door opening for various
expansion potential conditions are also included in Table No.2, Suggested
Guidelines For Design and Construction of Foundations and Slabs-on-Grade for One-
and Two-Story Residential Buildings,
8.3 Pavement Design and Construction.
An analysis was performed for various streets within the subject Tract to determine
preliminary flexible pavement structural sections, These pavement structural
sections are presented in Appendix D, Preliminary Pavement Design
Recommendations, The final recommendations regarding pavement structural
sections for various streets should be provided based on R-value testing of the
subgrade soils obtained at the completion of finish grading.
96-81-420-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
ICCI ENTlOFFIC UO B FI L EIN E WLA NDI.120'A20-03\420-88rpt
II
\~
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
....
,
I
~
,
,
i
'I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
8.4 Concrete Walks, Driveways, Access Ramps, Curb and Gutter
Except as modified herein concrete walks, driveways, access ramps, curb and
gutters should be constructed in accordance with Section 303-5, Concrete Curbs,
Walks, Gutters, Cross-Gutters, Alley Intersections, Access Ramps, and Driveways,
of the of the Standard Specifications for Public Works (SSPWC, 1994).
At least the upper 12 inches of the subgrade soils under these structures should be
scarified, moisture conditioned, if necessary, to slightly above optimum and
compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction as defined in ASTM Standard
D1557-91.
The subgrade soils under the driveways of various lots should be, pre-soaked prior
to: pouring concrete in accordance with the applicable recommendations provided
for concrete slab-onograde in Section 8.2, Slab-on-Grade. The thickness of
driveways for passenger cars should be at least four (4) inches, Transverse control
joints for driveways should be spaced not more than 10 feet apart. Driveways
wider than 12 feet should be provided with a longitudinal control joints.
Concrete walkways subjected to pedestrian and bicycle loading should be at least
. four (4) inches thick. Transverse joints should be spaced 15 feet or less and should
be cut to a depth of Y. the slab thickness.
Positive drainage should be provided away from all driveways and sidewalks to
prevent seepage of surface andlor subsurface water into the base andlor subgrade
materials.
.8.5 Corrosion Protection
Based on the corrosion study report presented in Appendix C, Soil Corrosivity
Study, subgrade soils within the subject Tracts are not significantly deleterious to
concrete. Type I or II Portland Cement may be used in concrete construction.
Standard concrete covers, that is, 2.0 inch if placed against form and 3.0 inches if
placed directly against earth, may be used to protect reinforcing rebars,
Site soils are classified as severely corrosive to ferrous metal. For corrosion
protection recommendations of steel, iron pipes, copper tubes, plastic and vitrified
clay and other types of pipes, see the attached soil corrosivity study report in
Appendix C, Soil Corrosivity Study. If additional corrosion recommendations are
desired, we recommend that a qualified corrosion specialist be contacted.
96-81-.J"0-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
\CC I ENT\OFFIC E'lOBFI LE\NEWLA N D\.J"O\.J"0-03\.J"0-88rpt
11
\'\
..
I
I
I
~
I
I
"
.r
I
'I
I
I
'i
'1
I
I
I
'7
I
I
I
I
I
8.6 Site Drainage, Slope Protection and Landscape Irrigation
Recommendations
Adequate positive drainage away from structures should be provided to prevent
ponding and to reduce percolation of water into subgrade andlor other structural
fills, Building pad drainage should satisfy the requirements of Section 3315,
Drainage and Terracing, of the UBC (1997). Planters and landscaped areas adjacent
to the building perimeter should be designed to minimize water infiltration into the
subgrade soils. Gutters and downspouts should be installed on the roofs, and
runoff should be directed to storm drains through non-erosive devices.
Subdrains were installed along the main canyon bottoms to collect and transport
infiltrating groundwater from rainfall and/or landscape irrigation and other sources.
However, the presence of relatively permeable fill soils and sandsto'ne materials over
less permeable siltstone and claystone materials within the Pauba Formation bedrock
can trap infiltrating landscaping andlor rainfall water at the contacts and results in
wet conditions in areas away from the subdrains. Trapped water, if any, may
produce seepage at the surface exposure of these contacts, Seepage conditions
daylighting out on slope surfaces may produce nuisance raveling and possible surficial
instability, Local drainage andlor seepage collection devices may require to be
installed, if these conditions develop in the future,
Slopes should be provided with adequate erosion control measures as soon as
possible. Erosion control may include planting the slopes with appropriate drought-
resistant vegetation as recommended by a landscape architect. Landscaping should
disturb the soils as little as possible. Care should be exercised to prevent loose fills
from being placed on slopes during construction and landscaping, Slopes should not
be over-irrigated, as this can soften the near surface soil resulting in surficial slope
failures,
Rodents burrowing, small concentrations of uncontrolled surfacelsubsurface water, or
localized depression of utility trench backfill on slopes should be controlled and/or
repaired as soon as possible,
Most hillside residential lot problems are associated with water, Homeowners should
be, aware that altering drainage patterns, landscaping and the addition of patios,
planters and other improvements, broken pipe, as well as irrigation and variations in
seasonal rainfall all affects moisture conditions of the subgrade soils, Excessive
landscape irrigation may significantly increase the subgrade soil moisture conditions
resulting in localized ponding and saturation of the subsurface soils, Percolating
groundwater water may even flow from upper-grade lot areas to adjacent lower-grade
lot areas, Excessive soil moisture affects performance of buildings and other
structures, slopes and pavements, as well as landscaping, Homeowners should
96-81-~:O-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
\CC I ENT,OFFICEdOB F I L E\N E WLA N D\~20q20-03\~20-88rpt
13
z,c
I
..,
I
I
I
,
I
I
'.
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
consult a professional landscape architect for planting and
recommendations, Local drainage collection and transporting devices
subdrains may be required if waterlogging conditions develop in the future.
irrigation
such as
Modifications to the graded pad areas should not be attempted without the approval
of a qualified soils engineer andlor geologist.
Additional site drainage recommendations are provided in the above-referenced As-
Built Geology and Compaction Report of Rough Grading, dated August 20, 1997.
9:0 ON-SITE TRENCH BACKFILL COMPACTION
9,1 General
Except as modified herein, the trenches for underground utilities, including water,
sewer and gas pipelines and conduits for electrical, fiber optics etc., should be
backfilled in accordance with the recommendations contained in Section 306 of the
Standard Specifications for Public Works (SSPWC, 1994). The pipes should be
bedded as recommended by the pipe designer. The gradation of the bedding
material, if used, should be selected to prevent migration of fines from the
surrounding native soils. Bedding materials should be tested and approved by the
project soils consultant prior to importing them to the site,
The excavated soils should be suitable for use as trench backfill, These materials
may need to be processed involving mixing and moisture conditioning prior to
compaction.
Bedding material, if used, should be vibrated in-place, and care should be taken to
densify the bedding material below the spring line of the pipe, Flooding or jetting of
the bedding material should not be attempted because the water from the trench is
not expected to drain freely. Long-term accumulation of water in the pipe trench
from any sources should be avoided, and trenches should be pumped dry if water
collects inside,
9.2 Recommended Specifications for Placement of Trench Backfill
Trench backfill shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent
as per ASTM Standard D1557-91, At least the upper 12 inches of trench
underlying pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative
96-81-420-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
\CC I ENTIa FFIC E'JOB FI LE\N E WLAN D\420\420-03\420-88rpt
14
2.\
I
..
I
I
, .
I
..
I
I
t
.~
I
I
'i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
compaction as per ASTM Standard D1557-91. Additional trench backfill placement
and compaction recommendations are provided below:
· The pipe design engineer should select bedding material for the pipe. Bedding
. material should have a Sand Equivalent (SE) greater than or equal to 30, as
determined by the ASTM Standard D2419 Test Method,
.. . Trench backfill shall be compacted by mechanical methods, such as sheepsfoot,
vibrating or pneumatic rollers, or mechanical tampers, to achieve the density
'specified herein. The backfill materials shall be brought to two (2) to three (3)
: percent above optimum moisture content, then placed in horizontal layers, The
. thickness of uncornpacted layers should not exceed eight inches. Each layer
shall be evenly spread, moistened or dried as necessary, and then tamped or
. rolled until the specified density has been achieved.
.. The contractor shall select the equipment and processes to be used to achieve
'the specified density without damage to adjacent ground and completed work.
· The ASTM Standard D1556-90 (Sand Cone) or ASTM Standard D2922-91
. (Nuclear Method) test method or equivalent shall measure the field density of
'the compacted soil.
,. Observation and field tests should be performed by the project soils consultant
during construction to confirm that the required degree of compaction has been
obtained, Where compaction is less than that specified, additional compactive
'efforts shall be made with adjustment of the moisture content as necessary until
. the specified compaction is obtained.
. It should be the ~esponsibility of the contractor to maintain safe conditions
. during excavation, backfilling and compaction operations,
.. Trench backfill shall not be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather
conditions, When the work is interrupted by heavy rain, fill operations shall not
. be resumed until field tests by the project's geotechnical consultant indicate that
: the moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified,
10.0 CLOSURE
The findings and recommendations of this report are provided in accordance with
generally accepted professional engineering and engineering geologic principles and
practice in effect at this time in Southern California, Our conclusions and
96-81-420-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
ICC I ENT,OFFI CE' JO B FI LE\N E WLA:'\ 0\420 420-03\420-88rpt
15
v-
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
i
I
*
i
~
,
I
II
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
recommendations are based on field observation, field and laboratory testing
performed in accordance
analysislinterpretation and our
express or implied.
with applicable industry standards, data
experience. We make no other warranty, either
Although the grading for lots was considered suitable at the time of completion,
natural weathering and degradation of the near-surface soils may occur with time.
It I has been our experience that significant deterioration of surficial soils, in
particular growth of vegetation and erosion, may occur if a significant period of
time elapses before construction. We recommend that a qualified geotechnical
engineer prior to construction, if any, reevaluate the conditions of impacted lots.
96-S 1-420-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
ICC I ENTlOFFICE'dOBFI LEIN E WLA N D\420Q20-03'.420-SSrpl
16
z.~
I
:7
I
I
,
I
.,
I
I
I
i
l
i
:i
I
I
-I
I
I
I
,.
.1
REFERENCES
ANNUAL BOOK OF ASTM STANDARDS (1997), Vol. 04.08, Soil and Rock;
Dimension Stone; Geosynthetics.
BOWLES, J, E., 1982, Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hili, Inc,
CARTER, M. and BENTLEY, S. P. (1991), Correlations of Soil Properties, Pentech
Press, London.
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE (1996), Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation, Eastern and Southern Portion of "The Meadows", Approximately
800-Acre Site, City of Temecula, California, dated April 26, 1996, prepared for
Newland Associates, Converse Project No. 96-81-420-01,
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE (1997), As-Built Geology and
Compaction Report of Rough Grading, Tract 24182 through 24186 and 24188-1,
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Community, Temecula, California, dated August 20,
1997, prepared for Newland Associates, Converse Project No. 96-81-420-03,
KENNEDY, M. p, (1997), "Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore
Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California", CDMG Special Report 131,
LAMBE, T, W., and WHITMAN, R. V., 1979, Soil Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons,
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (1994),
Building News, Inc" Los Angeles, California.
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (1997), International Conference of Building Officials,
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (1994), International Conference of Building Officials.
96-81--110-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
\CC I ENT,OFF I C EJOB FI LE\N E WLA NO\-I10'-l10-03\-I10-88rpt
17
zA.
I
~
.
I
I
I
I
I
;
I
I
I
I
.
I i
II
II
I
I
APPENDIX A
FIELD DENSITY TESTING
IT
II
I
I
I
i
I
~
I
I
I
I
-i
Ql
0-
CD
2
o
>-
I
-
-i
(l)
'"
-
2
o
-i
(l)
'"
o
Cl
-
(l)
-i
~
Cl
n
-
2
o
A
o
'"
'"
A
o
'"
"'
A
o
"'
o
A
o
"'
A
o
"'
'"
A
o
"'
"'
A
o
"'
A
A
o
<.>
~
A
o
<.>
0>
A
o
<.>
~
A
o
<.>
'"
A
o
"'
"'
A
o
...
o
A
o
A
A
o
"
"
A
o
"
'"
A
o
"
"'
...
o
'"
o
...
o
'"
...
o
'"
'"
')"?-
...
a:
"'
~
...
<D
"
~
A
<D
"
~
...
<D
~
~
...
<D
"
~
A
<D
"
~
A
<D
~
~
...
<D
"
~
'"
<D
~
~
'"
<D
"
~
'"
<D
"
~
'"
<D
"
~
'"
<D
"
~
0>
"'
"
~
'"
<D
"
'"
;::;
0>
"'
"
'"
;::;
0>
"'
"
'"
;::;
'"
<D
"
'"
;::;
0>
<D
"
'"
;::;
'"
"'
"
'"
;::;
'"
<D
"
'"
;::;
'"
<D
"
'"
A
'"
'"
'"
...
'"
'"
'"
A
'"
'"
'"
A
0>
0>
'"
A
'"
'"
'"
A
'"
'"
'"
A
CO
CO
'"
A
'"
'"
'"
A
CO
CO
'"
A
'"
'"
'"
A
0>
'"
'"
A
CO
0>
'"
A
'"
0>
'"
A
CO
0>
'"
...
'"
'"
'"
...
0>
0>
'"
...
0>
0>
'"
A
'"
'"
'"
...
CO
0>
'"
...
'"
0>
'"
...
'"
CO
-
-
,-
"-
~
-
:e
-
'"
'"
....
I
I
I
I
L
,
I
,
I
I
I
! .
I
(J)
::
3
3
Ql
...
'<
o
-
:!1
:l
VI
::r
CD
c.
"'C
Ql
C.
"T1
CD
C.
o
CD
:l
VI
...
'<
-i
CD
VI
...
:0
CD
VI
::
...
VI
r-
o
-
2
o
0:;
-
"'
"
~
"'
'"
A
0>
'"
o
;:;
:.:
<.>
<.>
"'
~
'"
....
'"
"'
::
...
'"
...
~
~ m-i
(l) - (l)
(l) (l) '"
- <: -
_ Cl
-
0'
:>
'"
'"
~
'"
'"
'"
~
'"
o
"'
'"
o
"'
-
"'
"
-
"'
'"
-
"'
A
'"
o
o
'"
o
0>
'"
'"
'"
CO
'"
'"
...
'"
'"
~
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
o
'"
'"
'"
o
'"
'"
o
"'
'"
"
'"
'"
o
::; 0 "'M
CD m" =.:
(l) "C -
- -
- ::r
'"
~
o
'"
0>
o
'"
'"
<=>
"
<=>
'"
o
~
o
'"
o
~
<=>
'"
o
'"
o
'"
'"
<=>
'"
o
o
'"
...
o
'"
0>
<=>
'"
o
~
o
'"
<=>
'"
o
"'
o
'"
"
<=>
"'
o
<=>
00
(l) ~
:>'<
'"
.;:;
n
-
-
...
"
-
"'
0>
-
"
-
'"
...
'"
...
'"
-
"'
"
'"
0>
'"
"'
'"
CO
-
0>
0>
'"
~
-
0>
o
CO
'"
'"
:..
'"
o
<=>
~
'"
-
?'
'"
<=>
"
"
"'
"'
-
...
"
s
o
iii'
-
'if!.
-
'"
o
-iVl
2 '< 0
o "C ==
. (l)
-
"
"
"'
"
"'
'"
."
~
'"
<0
0>
'"
'"
"
0>
"
"
0>
'"
"'
"'
0>
<0
"'
CO
'"
"'
"
en
"
"'
"'
(.,
'"
'"
('):xl
_ 0 (l)
~ 3 '"
o _
-"C -.
. <:
(l)
"'
~
"'
"' "' "'
o "' ~
"' "' "'
"'
"'
"'
"'
o
"'
"'
o
"'
"' "'
"' "
'"
"'
"'
"'
"'
"'
o
"
"'
o
"
"'
'"
"' "'
"' "'
'" 0
"'
"'
'"
"' "'
~
~
"'
"'
"'
"'
"'
'"
"'
~
:xl:xl
(l) (l)
to - :-.0
ol?f. ("")~.
- 0 (l)
3 a.
"C
"'
o
"'
o
"'
o
"'
o
"'
o
"'
o
"'
o
"'
o
"'
o
"'
o
"'
o
"'
o
"'
o
"'
o
"'
o
"'
o
"'
o
"'
o
"'
o
"'
o
I
l.
I
I
I
:L
I
:xl
(l)
3
Cl
~
""
'"
o
~
,
C>
n
o
,
~
o
~
,
0.
n
o
,
~
o
~
,
0.
n
o
,
~
'"
~
,
C>
n
o
,
~
'"
~
,
0.
n
o
,
~
'"
~
,
C>
n
o
,
~
'"
~
,
0.
n
o
,
~
-
0-
;;
"-
-
~
....
-I I
<tl
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A en
::; ::; ::; ::; ::; ::; ::; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0 0 0
'" '" "" -
en '" A ~ N - 0 OD '" ~ en '" A ~ en '" A 2: I
0
-I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <tl
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N en -f
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" "" "" - I
<C <C <C <C <C <C <C <C <C <C <C <C <C <C <C <C <C 0 tll
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
OJ CT
-
<tl CD
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N -I 2 I
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A ~ 0
0; 0; OJ
'" '" "" "" '" "" "" "" "" '" "" "" "" "" "" C'l .
"" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" -
- ;.. ;.. ;.. 2: ;J>
0 I I
-
r- en
'" '" A ... A A ~ ~ ~ A en en en en '" en en 0 c:
"" en "" en A N A en "" 0 0 N A en OD ~ - - 3 I
2:
0 3
tll
...
-< I
0
....
- m-l -n
- - - - - - - <tl -<tl I
;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; - - <tl en ::
<0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <tl < -
0 0; N <0 :;: N ::; 0 OD OD -
OD '-' 0 N en OD "" OD OD <0 ~ OD "" - OJ en
- :l"
0" CD i,
::l
Q. I
N N '-' N N N - 0" "tl
N '" '" 0 OD OD '" '" '" '" '" N '" 0 '" '" '" <tl <tl
<:> <:> <:> <:> <:> <:> <:> <:> <:> <:> <:> <:> <:> <:> 0 <:> <:> <l> "C - ell
- - Q. j
::l"
-0 00 ::!! t
- <5 - - - - - <5 - <5 - ;; ;; - - - - CD
- - C'l <tl ~
'" '" N '" ... en OD '" '" A N '-' en en A - ::l-< Q.
'" '" :.. <co '" <co OD '" '" :.. N '" '" <:> '" OD '" en
.."
0
S CD f
0 ::
en en en "" ~ OD ~ !" ~ en OD en en .~ "" OD !" 'if. in" en
OD '" :.. "' '" ~ '" '" N '-' ~ A ~ ""
- :-' ....
-<
, -I en -f I
'" ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; '" <;; 2: -< 0
N N '" '" OD OD OD "C - CD
0 <tl en ,
.... .
(") ::l:l :0
0 <tl I
OD OD OD OD OD OD OD OD '" OD OD OD OD OD OD OD OD 'if. 3 OJ CD
A N '" "" '" ~ OD '-' '" N - "" "" en N '-' - - en
- "C c" c: ;
<l> ....
::l:l::l:l en I
<tl <l>
OD OD OD OD OD OD OD OD OD OD OD OD OD OD OD OD '" ~.c
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'if. (") !:,
o ;;;
3 c. I
"C
,
:D I
<tl
3
OJ
~
,..
en I
I
_.
I
\.:Z
-
,-
1
-
.'"
-
'"
'"
....
-
--
~
'"
~.
'"
I
II
I
I
I
I
~. .
I
f
I
,
I
i
I
I
-I
'.
I
.-
'Y1,
.,
-I
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
z2>
,
I
I
'I
>
.
I
"1
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
.1
I
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were conducted on representative samples of the subgrade soils
from the building pad and street areas for the purpose of evaluating physical
properties and engineering characteristics, A brief description of the test
procedures and results are presented below:
, In-situ Moisture and Densitv
Results of these tests performed on relatively undisturbed ring samples of subgrade
soils retrieved from the cut lots are presented in Table No. B-1, Summary of In-Situ
Moisture and Density Test Results.
TABLE NO. B-' SUMMARY OF IN-SITU MOISTURE AND DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Sample Lot Soil Classification Moisture (%1 Dry
No. No, Density
(pcfl
. , Tract'241SS:,.L
, ',' ,.-.. :.,' ...t~... . ,"'~
Sl 23 Sand IS?), fine- to medium-grained. trace clay. brown 13 94
S2 67 Silty Sand ISM!. fine- -to coarse-grained. brown 11 104
Grain-Size Analvsis
The grain-size distribution covers the quantitative distribution of particle sizes in
soils, The particle distribution is used to aid in the classification of the soils, The
results of the gradation tests performed on representative samples of bulk and
relatively undisturbed ring samples are presented in Figure No. B-1, Grain-Size
Distribution.
Laboratorv Maximum Drv Densitv and OPtimum Moisture Tests
Laboratory compaction tests were performed to determine maximum dry density
and optimum moisture contents of representative bulk samples of fill soils retrieved
during grading, These tests were performed in accordance with the ASTM Standard
D1557-91 Method, The results are presented in Table No. B-2, Summary of
96-420-03
Con verSt: Consu]wnts Inland Empire
ICC I ENT,OFFICE\JOBFI LE\NE WLA N D'420\420-03\42 P-PG88
z.q
I
.
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
j
i
-y
I
.
I
!
I
.
I
r
I
.1
Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Tests, Two
additional tests were performed on bulk samples of subgrade soils retrieved from
the fill lots at the completion of grading. These results are presented in Figure No,
B~2, Compaction Test.
Direct Shear Tests
Direct shear tests were performed on undisturbed ring samples as well as remolded
ring samples. The undisturbed ring samples were retrieved from the cut lots. The
molded ring samples were prepared from the bulk samples retrieved from fill lots.
Ti;lese samples were remolded at 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density
and at or near optimum moisture content. Individual ring samples were prepared
and soaked prior to placing into the shearing box. A pre-selected normal load was
then applied and the sample sheared at a constant rate of strain.. For each test,
three (3) rings were sheared at three different normal loads 0.5. 1.5 and 3,0 kips
per square-foot. Results of the tests are presented in Figure Nos. B-3 through B-6,
Direct Shear Test.
Consolidation Tests
Consolidation tests were performed on a ring sample retrieved from cut lot and on
ring samples molded from bulk samples retrieved from fill lots. The remolded
samples were prepared at 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry densi_ties and
at or near optimum moisture contents, This test involved loading an undisturbed
ring or remolded ring sample into the test apparatus, which contained a porous
stone at the bottom to accommodate vertical drainage during testing. An additional
porous stone was then placed on top of the ring sample and a seating load of 0,1
kips-per-square-foot (ksf). The sample was then allowed to stabilize prior to
increasing the vertical load to 0.5 ksf. The resulting deflections were recorded at
various time interval. Additional load was then applied in increments after the
sample reached a reasonable state of equilibrium under each load The specimen
was submerged after the sample reached equilibrium at 2.0 ksf vertical load, Each
sample was loaded to a maximum of 8,0 ksf before unloading, Test results are
presented in Figure Nos. B-7 through B-9, Consolidation Test.
Expansion Index (EI) Test
Representative samples of the pad soils were tested in accordance with UBC
Standard 18-2 to evaluate their expansion potential. Test results are presented in
Table No, B-3, Summary of Expansion Index Test Results.
96-420-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
\CCI ENTlOFFIC EiJOBFI LEIN EWLAN 01420\420.03\42 P-PG88
2
~o
I
..
.
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
;i
...,
I
.
-I
..,
.
I
-I
I
-I
Table No. B-2 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE
CONTENT TESTS
Soil Soil Description Max Dry Optimum Moisture
Type Density (pel) Content ("to)
1 Silty Sand (8M), fine~ to coarse-grained. traee day, brown 133,0 8,0
2 Clayey Sand (Se), fine- to coarse-grained, reddish brown 130,0 8,5
3 Silty Sand (8M), fine. to coarse-grained, with clay and mica, yellowish brown 121.0 13,0
4 Clayey Sand (Se), fine. to coarse-grained, orange brown 131,0 8,5
5 Silty Sand (8M), fine- to coarse-grained, some clay, light brown 125,5 10,5
6 Clayey Sand (Se),tine- to coarse-grained. with mica. yellow brown 122,5 12,0
7 Clayey Sand (SC), fine- to coarse-grained, yellowish brown 129,5 9,5
8 Silty Sand (8M), fine- to coarse-grained, trace clay, brown 131,0 8,0
9 Clayey Sand (SC), fine- to medium-grained, with mica. yellow brown 126.0 10.0
10 Silty Sand (8M), fine-to medium-grained, trace clay, brown 133,0 8,0
11 Silty Sand (8M), fine. to coarse-grained, trace clay and mica, brown 118,0 9.5
12 Clayey Sand (SC), fine-grained, with mica, yellow-brown 118,0 12,0
13 Clayey Sand/Sandy Clay (SC/CL), fine-grained, yellowish brown 115,5 15,0
14 Silty Sand (SM), fine- to medium-grained, some clay and mica, brown 118,0 13.5
15 Clayey Silt (ML), fine-grained, with mica, yellowish-brown 112.0 16.5
16 Silty Sand (8M), fine- to medium-grained, trace mica and clay, yellow brown 120,0 11,5
17 Silty Sand (SM), fine- to coarse-grained, yellowish brown 130,5 9.0
18 Silty Sand (8M), fine- to medium-grained, trace mica. yellowish brown 119,0 13.5
19 Silty Sand (8M), fine- to medium-grained, trace clay and mica. brown 131,5 9,0
20 Silty Sand (SM), fine. to medium-grained, with clay, orange brown 122.5 11.0
21 Clayey Sand (SC), fine-grained, with mica, olive 119.0 14,0
22 Sand (SP), fine. to medium-grained, trace silt, grayish brown 119.0 11.5
23 Clayey Sand (SC), fine. to medium-grained, dark brown 125,0 12.0
24 Sandy Silt (ML), with clay, dark brown 120.0 12,5
25 Sand (SP), fine-grained. with clay and trace mica. gray 113.0 14,0
26 Silty Sand (8M), fine to medium-grained, trace organic. brown 120.5 12,5
27 Sandy Silt (ML), with clay and trace mica. dark-brown 114.0 15.5
28 Sandy Silt (MLl. with clay and trace mica. dark brown 115.0 15.0
29 Clayey Sand (SC), fine- to coarse- grained. brown 120.0 12.5
30 Clayey Sand (SC), fine-grained. with mica, orange brown 122,0 12.0
31 Silty Sand (SM). fine-grained, trace clay and mica. brown 1210 12,0
96-420-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
\CC I ENr'.OFFICE'JOB FI LE\N EWLAN 01420420-03'.42 P- PG 88
3
~\
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
i
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
TABLE NO. B-3, SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
Sample Lot Representative Soil Classification Expansion
! No. No, Lots Index (EI)
i~~.Wi.~~~i:~~~~!~;t'1r[klJ~!~tilr~~IJJtliitl!f~~~
61 13 12-14 Silty Sand (8M), fine- to coarse- grained, trace clay and mica, brown 2
82 10 9-11 Silty Sand (8M), fine. to medium- grained. trace clay and mica. brown 3
83 8 7-8 Clayey Sand (SC), fine- to medium-grained, brown 9
84 5 4-6 Silty Sand (8M), fine- to coarse-grained. trace clay, reddish brown 1
65 2 1-3 Clayey Sand (SC), fine- to coarse- grained, brown 6
86 16 15-19 Silty Sand (8M), fine- to coarse-grained, brown 1
87 21 20-23 Sand (SP), fine- to coarse- grained, brown 0
88 31 29-32 Silty Sand (8M), fine- to medium- grained, brown 1
I 89 26 24-28 Sandy Clay (CL), with some mica, grayish brown 26
810 61 59-67 Sandy Clay (CL), with some mica. grayish brown 46
811 38 37-40 Silty Sand (8M), fine- to coarse-grained, some clay. brown 0
,812 34 33-36 Clayey Sand (SC), fine- to medium- grained, with some mica, brown 16
813 46 44-46 Silty Sand (SM), fine- to coarse-grained, with some clay, brown 0
.814 48 47-51 Silty Sand (SM), fine- to medium-grained, brown 2
,815 53 52-58 Sandy Clay (CL), with some mica, trace clay, brown 39
.816 43 41-43 Silty Sand (8M), fine- to medium-grained, trace clay, brown 1
Soil Corrosivitv Tests
· Bulk samples of representative pad subgrade soils from variOUS tracts were
. retrieved and tested for soil corrosivity. These tests were performed by M, J,
Schiff and Associates, Claremont, California. Test results are included in Appendix
C,Soil Corrosivity Study,
R-value Test Results
Samples of subgrade soils were retrieved from the various streets within the
subject Tract. These samples were tested to determine their R-value in accordance
with the State of California Test Method 301-G, Test results are included in
Appendix D, Preliminary Pavement Design Recommendations.
96-420-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
ICC I ENTlOFFIC E\JOBFI LEIN EWLA N D\420'420-03142P-PG 88
4
~
I
-;
I
I
, ,
I
I
I
.".
J
i
I
i
,
--
I
-I
I
I
:I
II
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION
COBBLES CRA VEL SAND I
COARSE I FiNE COARSEr MEDIUM I FINE I
U,S, SIEVE SIZE III I!lC:!=:" I v,s, ST.'u'iDAP.D SIEVE No, I
snT OR eLIY
H.iDROMEiER
3/"; 3/a 4
10 20 40 80 140 2GC
:3
IDa
A ~
I ... ~ ~~~ I
I I I
'\A I\~
~ ~\
.\ \\
\ \ ~
c
I 1\ I ~\f I
i m
i I \ I , I
, 1
I I
! I ! I
I ( IT T 1
I I
1
I
,
I , i ,
, I ,
I 1\ I i ,
1 !
!
, I I
I
! i
~ !
,
I !
, " I. , I' , " ,.. , I"'" , ,
8.0
f-
..c.
W
(;j
"-
-
>-
en 6.0
w
z
rn
(f)
<
c...
f- 4.0
z
w
u
er:
[:J
c...
2.0
a
1.03 1.02
1.0 1 10-1
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETER
1 co2
SAMPLE NO, DEPTH
SYMBOL Lor NO, (ft)
o 51/23 0-1
o 52/67 0-1
DESCRIPTION
Sand (SP)
Send; Clay (eL)
Silt; S'Jnd (SM), with
SandI Cloy (CL)
'- " ~:
83/8
6.
c
8\5/53
0-1
0-1
:;:.; ,-;
GR.-UN SIZE DISTRIBUTIO:\
c
20
..c.
S
W
"-
-
>-
en
4.0 0
w
z
:::
~
er:
6.0 f-
z
C_,
[3
er:
[:J
c...
ec
1.0.0
o
11:;--
Tract 24188-1
Fer: Newhnd Associates
Fr:)jef:-t \.:.
9e.-31-"';'::~)-C;3
.1 COl1\;erSe Consultants Inland Empire
L:w.C' C-:c 8-1
?~
I
,
I
I
II
; I
I
I
I
i
i
'I
i
I
I
I
II
i
I
i I
,I
I
I
140
135
tOO PERCENT SATURATION
SPECIFIC eRA VITY = 2.70
G 130
c...
z
t:
-'-
o
~
;;=
125
t:
S
>-
cc.
c
120
115
110
0 5 10 15 20
MOISTURE CONTENT IN PERCENT
SAMPLE NO, DEPTH TEST OPTIMUM MAXIMU11 DRY
SYMBOL LOT NO. (It) DESCRIPTION ~IETEOD MOISTURE (0;;) DENSITY (pcf)
0 83/8 0-1 Silty S.:md (SM), w/,:la:1 015::,7-91 8,9 128,3
0 815/:\3 0-1 S,:r.dy (10/ (eL) [115:::7 -'31 10.9 125,2
CO\IPACTION TEST
TriC,-t 2..188-1
fer: 'i",-N!.;r,d Associ;;les
Frojed N0
96-61-420-03
C'Ol1\-erse Consultants Inland EmpIre
Fig\l:.f? Nc. B-2
?A
I
':1
I
I
I
,
I
I
i
i
I
t
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
.1
4,0
I , !
I I
I i
) I
!
V !
i
I
/ I
/
'=-
en
::<:
z
en
en 2,0
r::l
c::
E-
en
c::
<I;
r:J
::J:
en
,0
,0
2.0
4,0 60
NORMAL STRESS IN KSF
8,0,
10,0
4,0
'=-
en
::<:
z I I
~
en
en T T T
r::l 2,0
0:: 1 1 1
E-
en T
~
c:: , I .,. .,.
<I; I 1 1 1
~
~
[jj T T T .~
,0 I
,0 ,1 2 ,3 .4
~
I
2)
5
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION IN E\CH
SAMPLE NO./LOTNO, : S1/23 DEPTH (it)
DESCRIPTION : Sand (SP)
STRENGTH INTERCEPT (ksf) ,000
FRICTION ANGLE (degree) 470
0-1
(PEAr; STRENGTH)
(PEJ.K STRE~,IGTH)
MOISTURE DRY DENSITY VOID NORMAL PEAl': RESIDUAL
SYMBOL CONTENT (:;) (per) RATIO STRESS (k~f\ SEEAR (k3r) SEEAR (ksf)
0 15_7 lOO.(j .t,55 .:..j ,. ,';1
-
0 10.5 1 'J2.3 .~,..),: 1.50 i .6- 1.18
L 1 1./ 102_3 .';'''';;':' 3.0[- . , '0
-- _._v
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Tract 24162-1
For: New12.:'ld Associ,,,~es
Fr::>j,"d "0
y(3-81-4-:2~)-CJ
Con\'erse Consultants Inland EmpIre
t:;::ll:'", i'ic, B-3
":$.s
I
.
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
j
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
2,0
"'-
if!.
:><:
:z:
if!.
[2 1.0
c:::
E-
if!.
c:::
<:
w
if!.
,0
,0
5,0
1.0
2,0 3,0
NORMAL STRESS IN KSF
4,0
4,0
"'-
if!.
~
Z
if!.
if!.
W 2,0
c:::
,E-
if!.
.~
<:
w
:r:
if!.
,0
,0
1
I
1
I
T
1
T
2
I
I T
T ~
1 :=)
T
.4 5
I
I'
1
,
,,3
,1
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION IN INCH
SAMPLE NO./LOTNO, ; 52/67 DEPTH (It)
DESCRIPTION ; Sandy Clay (eL)
STRENGTH INTERCEPT (kst) ,572
FRICTION ANGLE (degree) 23,0
0-1
(PEAK STRENGTH)
(PEAK STRENGTH)
MOISTURE DRY DENSITY VOID NORMAL PEAK RESIDUAL
SYMBOL CONTENT (:>;) (pef) RATIO STRESS (ksf) SHEAR (ksf) :::EEAR (ksf)
0 19.7 104,0 .620 .50 .71 ' c
,'~
0 18.0 11 :2-5 '~::l 1.50 1.3..:. 1.20
."-'-'
.:. 20.9 101.0 .667 3:J[- 1 -~ 1.74
./:'
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Trad 2~188-1
Fer: :Je-.vland Associates
Fr::lj;;d "',.,
9.:;-Sl-4:2:)-C3
ConH,>l'Se Consultants Inland En1pire
L;ll:-i? t'c, B-+
u
. .
I
~
. ,
I
I
I
,
I
I
, ,
I
i
i
'i
i
--
I
I
l'
I
I
I
,
I
I
2,0
z
I
r:..
cr.:
:=::
cr.:
cr.: 1.0
'"
c::
E-
cr.:
c::
<:
'"
cr.:
,0
,0
1.0
2,0 3,0
NORMAL STRESS IN KSF
4,0 . 5,0
4,0
r:..
cr.:
:=::
z
cr.:
cr.:
'" 20
c:: I I I
E- I
cr.:
c:: I
<: 1 1 1 1
~ 1
Ui T r T
0
,0 ,1 2 3 ,4
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION IN INCH
T
.5
SAMPLE NOJLOTNO. : 83/8 DEPTH (it)
DESCRIPTION : Silty Sand (8M)
STRENGTH INTERCEPT (ksf) ,129
FRICTION ANGLE (degree) 31.9
0-1
(PEAK STRENGTH)
(PEAK STRENGTH)
MOISTURE DRY DENSITY VOID NOR~[AL PEAK RESIDUAL
SnlEOL CONTENT (~) (pel) R~ TIO STRESS (ksl! SHEAR (ksf) SHEAR (ksf)
Co 16.4 117.7 .4,32 .:.,:1 .4.i ..1]
0 16,0 110..2 .l:::~ ) .51~' 1.10 1,10
- 15,7 l1e.4 J:J. ~1..jC' 1.9c 1.98
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Tract 2-l182-1
fer: ~e-,vl.":1d Asseci",t,"s
Projr:(:t No
98-8 I --l2~)-C:3
COl1yersE' Consultants Inland EmpirE'
Pi;ll:-'" Nc B-5
~1
I
.,
I
I
I
,
I
I
01
I
I
i
'I
i
",
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2,0
r:..
U)
~
z
U)
i2 1.0
c.:::
E-
U)
c.:::
<:
(:l
::r:
U)
,0
,0
1.0
2,0 3,0
NORM_4l STRESS IN KSF
4,0,
5,0
4,0
r:..
U)
~
Z
U)
U)
(:l 2,0
c.:::
E- I I I I
U)
c.:::
<: I I I T
~
U) T T S>
,0
,0 ,1 2 ,,) ,4 5
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION IN INCH
SAMPLE NOJLOTNO, : 815/53 DEPTH (ft)
DESCRIPTION : Sandy Clay (CL)
STRENGTH INTERCEPT (kst) ,138
FRICTION ANGLE (degree) 30,4
0-1
(PEAK STRENGTH)
(PEAK STRENGTH)
MOISTURE DRY DENSITY VOID NORMAL PEAK RESIDUAL
SYMBOL CONTENT (<;;) (pct) RATIO STRESS (ksf) SE:::AR IksfJ 0: I-i::: AR (ksf)
0 19.1 113.2 Ase .5() .~3 .~2
0 16.5 112.6 .496 1.5e- I,:': 1::'2
~ 15,5 113.1 ,490 3.00 i.9': 1.;0
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Trad 24188-1
For: Ne'Nland Associates
Froject ;.; <}.
96-51-42:)-(:3
~
Converse Consultants Inland Enlpire
F:::;1i:"'" 1\0, 8-6
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
, 1
I
i'
l
')
I
I
I
I
I
I
1--'- ---------- -- ---
I
_I (on\',.')':,(:'
LOAD IN KIPS PER
SQUARE fOOT
10
,
?
10-
. .! .522
IC-'
I~
,
,
I
i
,
:
.;
!
-
~
-
"'-
,
Z
C.
- i
z
.-,:
~
Z 12
-/
~
-
1
,
I I I
I I i
I I ! I
I I I [
1\ 1I111
, I , II
i i i\llll
I: I li,llll
11__ I 1\) II,:
. 1111---- ' , , . '\{I"
: I --t--~-$-J._~l\Cli
Ii. , ! t ,'1i I ~
i I! II . i : ' - : ! !!
; ; I'
! " i
! ,::J I ill
;II~
I :! I' ,,\l,
! I
, I
I,
.749
.e...e
c
<
e:::
, i , i
! , ,
! i
i I
,
; : !;
I II
I
I I I'
I ill
I
I ,
I; I
! Ii
. ,
i i i
: ~ !
. ,
. ,!
.:.::::'
~
c
.t':~.::. >
i I
, ;.
: '
.:;J
, .
,
.4'~.-:
SAMPLE NO./LOT NO,
nE,'TH (fl.,'
r../
CL.CRIFT:<:'\
-,
\1(;::~Tr.rRE
: ;~\T:::';T \'~_!
['RY DE;\,~'IT'.'
:p<:.r:
[:':[':-10\1.
IT,:,'
'" c'
\',1:- :::)11'1 :'.:""1";: 1::-:1,',':-:- r~'::':Jl:~~ :,:I~:' .\:l:I:I::.[: ~A ".''',,:-r
C(l\SULID,\TIU\ TEST
Tr,.... t :2_II,C"CO _ I
Fel" '</';;""'v!.-::l'-! .":";:;;;';C'
.'" ..F-~
Fr:>je(;t ~;')
0'~-61-~2~)-C3 ~'\
Cun:,llll ,In Is Inl" nd Emp I rt'
f:;II:-" i\c 6-~'
I
..,
I
I
I
,
I
I
')
I
I
i
i
1 '
II
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
E--
V
C=l
-'-
Z
,4
C:l
V
Z
<
U
E--
Z 6
C=l
U
C<:
c,:
c..
10-1
o ,
LOAD IN ~]PS PE:~
1
SQUARE FOOT
10
,
,
10-
.4-47
AIB
,389
0
1=
<
e::
0
0
.3eo >
.331
.;J02
a
.. ,
I III I
I II
' I
! I
rrtt~ i
I
, -rl" II ~
rTr--__
-r---L I I'
I -irr-r
I I
I
I
I'I'
i I i I
I III! II I I n IllJ
I I
I ,
I , I . : I I I I I I I
, I ; i I , I
I i I , I I I I
I " I
I 'I! I I
I i I: ' I I I i I
I ' ! I , , I I
I ' I I I
, .
Ii I ! I
10
SAMPLE NO.lLOT NO,: 83/2
DEPTH (tt) 0-1
CESCRIFTiON : Silt; 5"n,J (5.,), wlelo;
MOISTURE
CONTENT (.. .
DR'! DENSITY
:pcfl
INITIAL
Fli'i,',~
, ,': -'
1: ~
i':':, :.
Nr/t~ 5olirl. C'~;c1~:.~ irt':l'~.':''' I'~,;.riir:~~ .:,:te:- ,"'I:1:1)..on of ..........:-:-r
('():\SOLIDATIO\ TEST
Tr~,~~. 2'+1111"-1
Fer': :.Je'.vl,~:1<l :\$$Ct~:.'1;_~S
Fr:'"Jji7l:t ?'-itl
~lf~ -6 t -~:2~}-f.~J
F:::II:'p :\c, 8-5
Converse Consl.llL:lIlh Inl~lnd Ernplre
A,D
I'
II
I
I
~
I
I
-
,
I
i
t
i
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
SOIL CORROSIVITY STUDY
A:Z-
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
'I
I
I
I
i
i
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
M. J. SCHIFF & .ASSOcIATES, INC.
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont. California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-1419
E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOl.COM
June 9, 1997
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE
10391 Corporate Drive
Redlands, California 92374
Attention:
Mr. Mohammed Islam
Re: Soil Corrosivity Study
Paseo Del Sol
Temecula, California
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
INTRODUCTION
Laboratory tests have been completed on 46 soil samples you provided for the referenced single
family residences project. The purpose of these tests was to determine if the soils may have
deleterious effects on underground utilities and concrete foundations.
The soil samples were provided from three of six tracts that compose the 830 acre site. The site is
half hilly terrain and half a flat, alluvial plain. The hilly portion of the site is classified,
geologically, as the Pauba Formation. The Pauba Formation is in a cut area and will be used as fill
over the alluvial plain. We assume that the samples provided are representative of the most
corrosive soils at the site.
The scope of this study is limited to a determination of soil corrosivity and general corrosion
control recommendations for materials likely to be used for construction. If the architects and/or
engineers desire more specific information, designs, specifications, or review of design, we will be
happy to work with them as a separate phase of this project.
TEST PROCEDURES
The electrical resistivity of each sample was measured in a soil box per ASTM G57 in its as-
received condition and again after saturation "vith distilled water. Resistivities are at about their
lowest value when the soil is saturated. The pH of the saturated samples was measured. A 5:1
water:soil extract from each sample was chemically analyzed for the major anions and cations.
Test results are shown on Table 1.
"'~
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS . FAILURE ANAL YSIS . EXPERT WITNESS' CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS
. .
I
-,
I
I
I
1
I
I
'-1
*
i
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
,
I
-I
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE
MJS&A #97002-14
June 9, 1997
Page 2
SOIL CORROSIVITY
A major factor in determining soil corrosivity is electrical resistivity. The electrical resistivity of a
soil is a measure of its resistance to the flow of electrical current. Corrosion of buried metal is an
electrochemical process in which the amount of metal loss due to corrosion is directly proportional
to the flow of electrical current (DC) from the metal into the soil. Corrosion currents, following
Ohm's Law, are inversely proportional to soil resistivity. Lower electrical resistivities result from
higher moisture and chemical contents and indicate corrosive soil.
A correlation between electrical resistivity and corrosivity toward ferrous metals is:
Soil Resistivity
in ohm-centimeters
Corrosivity Category
rnildly corrosive
moderately corrosive
corrosive
severely corrosive
over
2,000 to
1,000 to
below
10,000
10,000
2,000
1,000
Other soil characteristics that may influence corrosivity towards metals are pH, chemical content,
soil types, aeration, anaerobic conditions, and site drainage.
Electrical resistivities were in mildly and moderately corrosive and corrosive categories with as-
received moisture. When saturated, the resistivities dropped into mildly through severely corrosive
categories. The resistivities dropped considerably with added moisture because the samples were
dry as-received. The wide variations in soil resistivity can create concentration type corrosion cells
that increase corrosion rates above what would be expected from the chemical characteristics alone.
The corrosive and severely corrosive resistivities measured on saturated soil samples are
summarized in the following table.
Tract l&! Saturated Resistivity (ohm-cm) Soil Tvpe
.24186-1 9 1,350 silty sand
.24186-1 49 1,300 silty sand
24186-2 47 1,550 silty sand
24186-2 53 850 silty sand
24186-2 59 1,300 silty sand
24186-2 117 1,600 silty sand
.24188-F 10 980 silty sand
24188-F 13 1,350 silty sand
.24188-F 26 1,000 silty sand
24l88-F 53 1.200 silty sand
24l88-F 61 850 clayey silty sand
M
I
I
1
1
,
I
I
;
I
i
I
,
i
I
I
I
I
I
-I
~
I
.1
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE
MJS&A #97002-14
June 9, 1997
Page 3
Soil pH values varied from 5.7 to 7.5. This range is moderately acidic to mildly alkaline and does
not particularly increase soil corrosivity.
The chemical content of the samples was low. No concentration was high enough to be of
particular concern.
Tests were not made for sulfide or negative oxidation-reduction (redox) potentials because they
would not exist in these dry, aerated samples.
This soil is classified as corrosive and severely to ferrous metals.
CORROSION CONTROL
The life of buried materials depends on thickness, strength, loads, construction details, soil
moisture, etc., in addition to soil corrosivity, and is, therefore, difficult to predict. Of more practical
value are corrosion control methods that will increase the life of materials that would be subject to
significant corrosion.
Steel Pipe
Abrasive blast underground steel utilities and apply a high quality dielectric coating such as
extruded polyethylene, a tape coating system, hot applied coal tar enamel, or fusion bonded epoxy.
Bond underground steel pipe with rubber gasketed, mechanical, grooved end, or other
nonconductive type joints for electrical continuity. Electrical continuity is necessary for corrosion
monitoring and cathodic protection.
Electrically insulate each buried steel pipeline from dissimilar metals, cement-mortar coated and
concrete encased steel, and above ground steel pipe to prevent dissimilar metal corrosion cells and
to facilitate the application of cathodic protection.
Apply cathodic protection to steel piping as per NACE International RP-0169-96.
As an alternative to dielectric coating and cathodic protection, apply a 3/4 inch cement mortar
coating or encase in cement-slurry or concrete 3 inches thick, using any type of cement.
Iron Pipe
Encase ductile iron water piping in 8 mil thick low-density polyethylene or 4 mil thick high-
density, cross-laminated polyethylene plastic tubes or wraps per AWWA Standard CI05 or coat
with a high quality dielectric coating such as polyurethane or hot applied coal tar enamel. As an
alternative. encase iron piping with cement slurry or concrete at least 3 inches thick surrounding the
pipe. using any type of cement. Bond all nonconductive type joints for electrical continuity.
A.e5
I
I
I
I
I
I
-J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
.1
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE
MJS&A #97002-14
June 9, 1997
Page 3
Soil pH values varied from 5.7 to 7.5. This range is moderately acidic to mildly alkaline and does
not particularly increase soil corrosivity.
The chemical content of the samples was low. No concentration was high enough to be of
particular concern.
Tests were not made for sulfide or negative oxidation-reduction (redox) potentials because they
would not exist in these dry, aerated samples.
This soil is classified as corrosive and severely to ferrous metals.
CORROSION CONTROL
The life of buried materials depends on thickness, strength, loads, construction details, soil
moisture, etc., in addition to soil corrosivity, and is, therefore, difficult to predict. Of more practical
value are corrosion control methods that will increase the life of materials that would be subject to
significant corrosion.
Steel Pipe
Abrasive blast underground steel utilities and apply a high quality dielectric coating such as
extruded polyethylene, a tape coating system, hot applied coal tar enamel, or fusion bonded epoxy.
Bond underground steel pipe with rubber gasketed, mechanical, grooved end, or other
nonconductive type joints for electrical continuity. Electrical continuity is necessary for corrosion
monitoring and cathodic protection.
Electrically insulate each buried steel pipeline from dissimilar metals, cement-mortar coated and
concrete encased steel, and above ground steel pipe to prevent dissimilar metal corrosion cells and
to facilitate the application of cathodic protection.
Apply cathodic protection to steel piping as per NACE International RP-O 169-96.
As an alternative to dielectric coating and cathodic protection, apply a 3/4 inch cement mortar
coating or encase in cement-slurry or concrete 3 inches thick, using any type of cement.
Iron Pipe
Encase ductile iron water piping in 8 mil thick low-density polyethylene or 4 mil thick high-
density, cross-laminated polyethylene plastic tubes or wraps per A WW A Standard C I 05 or coat
with a high quality dielectric coating such as polyurethane or hot applied coal tar enamel. As an
alternative. encase iron piping with cement slurry or concrete at least 3 inches thick surrounding the
pipe. using any type of cement. Bond all nonconductive type joints for electrical continuity.
4'-
I~
II
I
I
I
I
-I
I
1
']
I
-
I
I
-
I
--
1--'
-
--
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE
MJS&A #97002-14
June 9, 1997
Page 4
Electrically insulate underground iron pipe from dissimilar metals and above ground iron pipe with
insulated joints.
Encase cast iron drain lines in 8 mil thick low-density polyethylene or 4 mil thick high-density,
cross-laminated polyethylene plastic tubes or wraps per A WW A Standard CI 05. As an alternative,
encase iron piping with cement slurry or concrete at least 3 inches thick surrounding the pipe, using
any type of cement. Electrically insulate underground iron pipe from dissirnilar metals and above
ground iron pipe with insulated joints.
Copper Tube
Copper tubing for cold water should be bedded and backfilled in sand with a saturated resistivity
above 5,000 ohm-cm. Hot water tubing may be subject to a higher corrosion rate. The best
corrosion control measure would be to place the hot copper tubing above ground. If buried, encase
in plastic pipe to prevent soil contact or apply cathodic protection.
Plastic and Vitrified Clay Pipe
No special precautions are required for plastic and vitrified clay piping placed underground from a
corrosion viewpoint. Protect any iron valves and fittings with a double polyethylene wrap per
A WW A C I 05 or as described below for bare steel appurtenances. Where concrete thrust blocks are
to be placed against iron, use a single polyethylene wrap to prevent concrete/iron contact and to
eliminate the slipperiness of a double wrap.
All Pipe
On all pipe, coat bare steel appurtenances such as bolts, joint harnesses, or flexible couplings with a
coal tar or elastomer based mastic, coal tar epoxy, moldable sealant, wax tape, or equivalent after
assembly.
Where metallic pipelines penetrate concrete structures such as building floors or walls, use plastic
sleeves, rubber seals, or other dielectric material to prevent pipe contact with the concrete and
reinforcing steel.
, Concrete
Any type of cement and standard concrete cover over reinforcing steel may be used for concrete
structures and pipe in contact with these soils.
L\1
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
'I
.
-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'M.J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont, California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-1419
E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOLCOM
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Page I of I
Paseo del Sol, Tracl24184
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
May 5,1997
Tract 24184-1 Tract 24184-1 Tract 24184-1 Tract 24184-1 Tract 24184-1
Sam pie ID Sample #3 Sample #4 Sample #7 Sample #8 Sample #9
Lot 10 Lot 13 Lotn Lot 67 Lot61
Soil Type silty silty silty silty silty
sand sand sand sand sand
Resistivity Units
as-received ohm-cm 49,000 24,500 14,000 25,000 3,800
saturated ohm-cm 3,900 21,000 4,300 3,600 2,200
pH 7.0 6.4 6.9 6.9 7.1
Electrical
Conductivity mS/cm 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.05
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium cl" mglkg 16 NO NO NO NO
magnesium M '. mglkg NO NO NO NO NO
g-
sodium Nal+ mglkg 57 14 28 46 64
Anions
carbonate CO,'" mglkg NO ND NO NO NO
bicarbonate HCO,'" mglkg 122 37 73 98 98
chloride CI'- mg/kg 46 NO NO 14 43
sulfate SO,'" mglkg NO NO NO ND NO
Other Tests
sulfide 52- qual na na na na na
Redox mv na na na na na
ammonium NH/" mglkg na na na na na
nitrate NO,'- mglkg na na na na na
Electrical conductivity in milIisiemens/cm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil-to-water extract.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
NO = not detected
na = not analyzed
dncs97\9700Z.I-I.xls
4B
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PLANS AND SPECIFICA TIONS . FAILURE ANAL YSIS . EXPERT WITNESS' CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS
I iM.,J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
~
I
-I
I
I
I
".
J
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
J
I
I
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont. California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-1419
E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOL.COM
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Page I of 4
Paseo del Sol
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
May 5, 1997
Sample ID
Tract 24186-1
Sample #2
Lot 8
Tract24186-1 Tract24186-1 Tract 24186-1
Sample #6 Sample # I 0 Sample # 13
Lot 27 Lot 59 Lot 49
Tract 24186-1
Sample #4
LOl18
,'.'."F ,:",,,,~,,;':'";;;C::;"":-'1'''''~:~:', - .~:;'.
.. -'. ';-"'. ,"""c"' "~c;:,,,:'";.:;;:::...; ,.," ,.,_.
.'''-'.;~ ,,"~' ""
. ./,'; ..",'::-;';:::::~;'",
Soil Type
silty
sand
silty
sand
silty
sand
silty
sand
silty
sand
Resistivity
as~received
saturated
Units
ohm-cm 520,000 335,000 200,000 600,000 8,400
ohm-cm 6,700 8,200 4,500 5,350 1,300
6.8 6.2 6.7 6.8 6.4
mS/cm 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.08
pH
Electrical
Conductivity
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium Ca2+ mglkg NO ND NO NO 16
magnesium Mo)+ mglkg ND ND NO ND ND
~
sodium Nal-- mglkg i8 18 28 37 76
Anions
carbonate CO," mglkg ND NO NO NO NO
bicarbonate HCO,'- mglkg 49 49 49 73 49
chloride CI'- mg/kg ND ND 14 14 99
sulfate 50,'- mglkg ND NO NO ND 25
Other Tests
sulfide S2- qual na na na na na
Redox mv na na na na na
ammonium NH," mglkg na na na na na
nitrate NO,'- mglkg na na na na na
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis are ofa 1:5 soil-to-water extract.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
NO = not detected
na = not analyzed
dllcs97\97002-1 ~_:x]s
~
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. FAil (IRF ANAl Y~rs . EXPERT WITNF_,S . r.nRRn~IV1TY ANn n.o.~"~r..~ .o.~~~~~^-"l::I\IT~
II
I
I
I
,
I
I
J
I
1
J
.
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont, California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-1419
E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOL.COM
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Page 2 of 4
Paseo del Sol
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
May 5, 1997
Tract 24186- I Tract 24186-1 Tract 24186-1 Tract 24186-1 Tract 24186-1
Sample ID Sample # 15 Sample # 18 Sample # 19 Sample #21 Sample #23
Lot 46 Lot 73 Lot 76 Lot 114 Lot 99
Soil Type silty silty silty silty silty
sand sand sand sand sand
Resistivity Units
as-received ohm-cm 240,000 14,000 36,000 420,000 230,000
saturated ohm-cm 3,700 2,900 2,500 5,200 4,400
pH 6.7 5.7 6.3 6.4 6.8
Electrical
Conductivity mS/cm 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.01
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium ci+ mglkg ND ND ND ND ND
magnesium Ma2+ mglkg ND ND ND ND ND
"
sodium Nal+ mglkg 23 23 41 28 18
Anions
carbonate COo"~ mglkg ND ND ND ND ND
,
bicarbonate HCO,'- mglkg 61 37 49 49 49
ch loride CI'- mglkg ND 14 35 14 ND
sulfate SO/ mglkg ND ND ND ND ND
Other Tests
sulfide 52- qual na na na na na
Redox mv na na na na na
ammonium NH,I+ mglkg na na na na na
nitrate NO,'" mglkg na na na na na
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil-to-water extract.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox '= oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
N D = not detected
na = not analyzed
dOl.:s97\97002-14..xls
:>0
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PI ~f\r<:: IJ.l\ln <::Dl:'..-rcrr^Trr.""" .. I:"~" "n,...,. "'~'^' v('.c- .. CVClCOTI,."...Ur-t"... .. .............."n......."I\I1...'V ^.,~ ....A..A,........ ................,....,......-............
I
,
I
I
-I
,
I
.
J
I
--
)
I
1
I
_I
1
I
J
-I
I
! M.- J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont. California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-1419
E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOL.COM
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Page 3 of 4
Paseo del Sol
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
May 5, 1997
Tract 24186-1 Tract 24186-1 Tract 24186-1 Tract 24186-1 Tract 24186-1
Sam pie ID Sample #24 Sample #28 Sample #29 Sample #30 Sample #31
Lot 107 Lot 90 Lot 87 Lot 84 Lot 80
---,-..,.....",..-. C', ~" ,,~-;: ';:';:'~~~::::."i";. ,;. ;c;, ';;.;': ~
.>"" ,."",...".,.0"';'-.,'-' .""
.-.._--~......- -.--, , -..-_.___.00..','""'"
Soil Type silty silty silty silty silty
sand sand sand sand sand
Resistivity Units
as-received ohm-em 590,000 9,400 250,000 70,000 16,000
saturated ohm-em 3,800 4,700 3,000 3,300 9,800
pH 6.8 6.9 6.5 6.9 6.9
Electrical
Conductivity mS/cm 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.Q2 0.01
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium C ,. mglkg ND ND ND ND ND
a-
magnesium Mo.2'" mgfkg ND ND ND ND ND
0
sodium Na'- mg/kg 28 28 23 28 18
Anions
carbonate CO,'" mglkg ND ND ND ND ND
bicarbonate HCO,'- mglkg 73 73 37 73 49
ch loride CI'- mglkg ND ND 14 ND ND
sulfate SO./" mglkg ND ND ND ND ND
Other Tests
sulfide S20 qual na na na na na
Redox mv na na na na na
ammonium NH,'- mglkg na na na na na
nitrate NO)]' mglkg na na na na na
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil-to-water extract.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
ND = not detected
na = not analyzed
UOC::i97\97002-14.:-::ls
5\
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS' FAILURE ANAL YSIS . EXPERT WITNESS' CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS
I M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOcIATES,INc.
...
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
-
1
I
I
'1
I
I
.
I
J
1
J
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont. California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-1419
E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOL.COM
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Page 4 of 4
Paseo del Sol
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
Moy 5, 1997
Tract 241 86-1
Sample ID Sample #39
Lot9
". ....."
'.., .
Soil Type silty
sand
Resistivity Units
as.received ohm-em 39,000
saturated ohm-em 1,350
pH 7.1
Electrical
Conductivity mS/cm 0.01
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium Ca2+ mglkg ND
magnesium Mo21' mglkg ND
;,
sodium Nal+ mglkg 18
Anions
carbonate CO,'" mglkg ND
bicarbonate HCO,'- mglkg 49
chloride C1'- mglkg ND
sulfate 50/ mglkg ND
Other Tests
sulfide S2. qual na
Redox mv na
ammonium NH,'. mglkg na
nitrate NO,'- mglkg na
Electrical conductivity in millisiemenslcm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil-la-water extract.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
N D = not detected
na = not analyzed
docs97\97002.14.xls
~z,.
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. FAILURE ANAL YSI$ . EXPERT WITNESS. CORRO$IVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS
-
I
I
I
--
I
I
]
:1
I
I
I
I)
-I
I -
J
1
I
J
t
I
I M.,J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont. California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621.1419
E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOL.COM
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Page I of 4
Paseo del Sol
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
May 5, /997
Trac124186-2 Trac124186-2 Trac124186-2 Trac124186-2 Trac124186-2
Sam pie ID Sample # I Sample #3 Sample #4 Sample #6 Sample #8
LOl2 LOl9 LOl14 LOl24 LOl32
.,"'::C:;",;;;,"'-,.
".'.;;..."';'..-'"
Soil Type silty silty silty clayey silty
sand sand sand sand sand
Resistivity Units
as-received ohm-cm 28,000 830,000 15,000 14,000 54,000
saturated ohm-cm 5,900 2,300 3,500 2,000 3,200
pH 7.5 7.3 7.3 7.1 7.3
Electrical
Conductivity mSlcm 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.04
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium C '+ mglkg ND 16 NO NO NO
a-
magnesium Mo2+ mglkg ND NO NO NO NO
"
sodium Nal'" mglkg 28 71 32 76 46
Anions
carbonale CO-'- mglkg NO ND NO NO NO
,
bicarbonate HCOJ" mglkg 73 98 85 98 85
chloride CI'- mglkg NO 82 NO 60 21
sulfate SO/" mglkg ND NO NO NO NO
Other Tests
sulfide 52- qual na na na na na
Redox mv na na na na na
ammonium NH," mglkg na na na na na
nitrate NOjl. mglkg na na na na na
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil-lo-water exlract.
mgikg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
NO = not detecled
nil = not analyzed
docs9i\97002-1 ~..'(rs
5.?
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
01 t.fl.I<: tJ.l\li'I <:Ol::ru::I,.....^T'''~.... _ ......, ,....... ...., ",...... . ...v...................._..___
I
I
I
I
-,
I
I
-.
i
11
')
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
_I
M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont. California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-1419
E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOL.COM
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples Page 2 of 4
Paseo del Sol
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
May 5,1997
Tract24186-2 Tract24186-2 Tract 24186-2 Tract24186-2 Tract24186-2
Sample ID Sample #9 Sample # II Sample #12 Sample # i 3 Sample # 16
Lot 37 Lot 63 Lot 47 Lot 59 Lot 53
. .-
...-,. ---
Soil Type silty silty silty silty silty
sand sand sand sand sand
Resistivity Units
as-received ohm-cm 13,000 28,000 13,000 10,200 81,000
saturated ohm-em 2,500 2,100 1,550 1,300 850
pH 7.3 7.1 7.3 7.4 6.8
Electrical
Conductivity mS/cm 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.14 0.18
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium C ,. mglkg ND 16 ND 16 12
a-
magnesium M ,. mglkg ND ND ND ND ND
g-
sodium Nal+ mglkg 48 74 116 146 192
Anions
carbonate CO,'" mglkg ND ND ND ND ND
bicarbonate HCO,'" mglkg 98 49 49 134 61
chloride cl'" mglkg 18 71 113 1I3 245
sulfate 50,'- mglkg ND 59 50 84 50
Other Tests
sulfide 520 qual na na na na na
Redox mv na na na na na
ammonium NH"J+ mglkg na na na na na
nitrate NO,'- mglkg na na na na na
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil-to-water extract.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (pans per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
ND = not detected
na = not analyzed
docs97\97002-] 4..-.:15
SAt
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PLANS AND SPEC1F1C:ATlnN, . s:'ll.1l I tl:l!: lI.lI.l~t VC::IC:: . l=YOl=CT \^,IT"!~C'C' . rI""lDO......c-""T"V "...... ........,..~ . ..............._. ._. .__
I
...
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
1
I
,1
I
J
1
I
'J
:1
.I
i M" J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont. California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-1419
E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOL.COM
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Page 3 of 4
Paseo del Sol
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&.A #97002-14
May 5, 1997
Tract24186-2 Tract24l86-2 Tract 24 186-2 Tract24l86-2 Tract24l86-2
Sample ID Sample # 17 Sample # I 9 Sample #20 Sample #2 I Sample #25
Lot 67 Lot 78 Lot 81 LOl84 LOll13
"_... -.-..:
Soil Type silty silty silty silty silty
sand sand sand sand sand
Resistivity Units
as-received ohm-em 500,000 330,000 750,000 400,000 97,000
saturated ohm-em 3,100 2,600 3,900 3,600 2,600
pH 7.0 7.4 7.1 6.8 7.3
Electrical
Conductivity mSlcm 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.08
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium Ca2+ mg/kg ND ND ND ND ND
magnesium Mo2'" mglkg ND ND ND ND ND
=>
sodium Na]. mglkg 37 80 28 46 92
Anions
carbonate CO-'- mglkg ND ND ND ND ND
,
bicarbonate HCO,]- mglkg 49 49 49 49 61
chloride CI]- mg/kg 28 74 14 43 85
sulfate SO/" mglkg ND 28 ND ND 28
Other Tests
sulfide S2~ qual na na na na na
Redox mv na na na na na
, ammonium NH/" mglkg na na na na na
nitrate NO)]' mglkg na na na na na
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/crn and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil-ta-water extract.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
I Redox = oxidation.reduction potential in millivolts
ND = not detected
. nn = not analyzed
ducsQ7\9700:Z.14.xls
65
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PLANS AND SPECIFIr.A TU')N<::. . l:" tJ.tl I IDe: ^"rtJ.1 v<::tC . C:YCC:OT 1^"T..'r...... _ ............................" "...." . ~.... ........ __ _ ____ _ _
I M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
1
I
I
I
.
I
1
J
I
1
I
_I
I
1
~I
~I
,
1
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont. California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-<;21-1419
E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOL.COM
. Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Page 4 of 4
Paseo del Sol
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
May 5, 1997
Tract 24186-2
Sample In Sample #26
Lot 117
"0- ... ". .' ._:,,:<_:.-:_,~~ '-".'
Soil Type silty
sand
Resistivity Units
as.received ohm-cm 390,000
saturated ohm-cm 1,600
pH 6.8
Electrical
Conductivity mS/cm 0.14
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium Ca2+ mglkg ND
magnesium M ,- mglkg ND
g-
sodium Na'+ mglkg 162
Anions
carbonate CO,2- mglkg ND
bicarbonate HCO,'- mglkg 61
chloride cl'" mglkg 191
sulfate SO/- mglkg 31
Other Tests
sulfide 52- qual na
Redox mv na
ammonium NH/+ mglkg na
nitrate NOt mglkg na
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil-to-water extract.
mglkg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
ND = not detected
na = not analyzed
doc597\97001-14..'(15
~0
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
DI.ll.l'\rc::.ll.l\lr. C::O':f""ICIf""ATjl"'\t.,(' .. .-~" ......... A.'" "....<".. ...vn,...,..,.....,..........___ ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
-J
I
1
1
I
,]
II
J
I
I
iJ
~I
1
M. .J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont. California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-1419
E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOL.COM
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Page I of 2
Paseo del Sol
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
May 5, 1997
Tract 24188-F Tract24188-F Tract24188-F Tract24188-F Tract 24188-F
Sample ID Sample # I Sample #5 Sample #8 Sample #9 Sample # I 0
Lot 13 LotiO Lot3! Lot 26 Lot61
-'-"'-~:' ,;-,-.: :C";"_"-'-'.'
~- .._',~,'--.
Soil Type silty silty silty sandy clayey
sand sand sand silt silty sand
Resistivity Units
as-received ohm-cm 600,000 14,000 42,000 5,300 46,000
saturated ohm-cm 1,350 980 10,000 1,000 850
pH 7.1 7.1 7.1 6.9 6.6
Electrical
Conductivity mSlcm 0.12 0.18 0.01 0.10 0.10
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium C '- mglkg ND 16 NO NO ND
a-
magnesium M '- mglkg ND NO NO ND NO
o'
"
sodium Na'- mglkg 143 184 18 117 108
Anions
carbonate CO.'- mglkg ND ND NO ND NO
,
bicarbonate HCOJ ,- mglkg 49 49 49 49 49
chloride CI'- mglkg 191 284 NO 152 138
sulfate SO/- mglkg ND ND ND ND NO
. Other Tests
sulfide 51. qual na na na na na
Redox mv na na na na na
ammonium NH;' mglkg na na na na na
nitrate NO,'- mglkg na na na na na
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil-to-water extract.
mglkg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidarion-reduction potential in millivolts
NO = not detected
na = not analyzed
docs9i\97002-14.xls
51
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PI t.f\I<:' :"f\ln <:::p::rll:If"'!l.Tln"lC' . t:'^" I rOC: ^"'^1 VC'IC' . l::VCC:OT '^IIT"IC:C'C" . r-"""OOf"'lC'I\JlTV ^..,n nA ..",..c: ^C"C"c:e-r......~'.......
i I M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
--:
I
1
I
I
I
-I
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
J
I
1
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
Sample ID
Soil Type
Resistivity
as-received
saturated
pH
Electrical
Conductivity
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont, California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-1419
E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOL.COM
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Page 2 of 2
Paseo del Sol
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
May 5, 1997
Tract 24188-F Tract 24188-F Tract 24188-F Tract 24188-F
Sample #13 Sample #14 Sample #15 Sample #16
Lot 46 Lot 48 Lot 53 Lot 43
,",,-, ~,
'-___m__'.=...:,~:~c:~" .
silty
sand
Units
ohm-cm
ohm-cm
10,800
2,350
7.1
.--
""_c"'__'~~""'_.'._~~
_.:.. "''':~ On., "_"" .,'. _ ,
mS/cm
0.07
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium Ca1+
magnesium Mg:!+
sodium Na 1+
Anions
silty
sand
silty
sand
silty
sand
carbonate
bicarbonate
chloride
sulfate
Other Tests
sulfide
Redox
ammonium
nitrate
mglkg
mglkg
mglkg
ND
ND
78
6,000
3,050
6.9
25,000
1,200
6.6
75,000
3,100
6.8
co,'" mglkg
HCO/ mglkg
CIl- mglkg
SO,'- gIk
m g
ND
49
92
ND
0.05
0.08
0.04
S'- qual
mv
NH"I+ mglkg
NO,I. mglkg
na
na
na
na
ND
ND
60
ND
ND
87
ND
ND
46
ND
49
64
ND
ND
49
106
ND
ND
49
43
ND
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Electrical conductivity in millisiemenslcm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil-to-water extract.
mg/kg ~ milligrams per kilogram (pans per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
N D ~ not detected
na = not analyzed
docs97\97002.14.xls
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
~
PLANS AND SP~C:IFIr.ATf{IN~ . i=tJ.lllIR~ lJ.N.41 v~'-c: . !=)(PI=PT \^,ITI\JJ:C::C:: . rnQPnC::I\IITV /J.f\,n nt.....JIIJ.f:.1= t.c:.c::J:<:::c::::....,1t:P\rTc::
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
II
I
J
I
_I
APPENDIX D
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
6~
..
I
l
I
'I
I
I
..
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
J
I
I
~
~
A Wholly Owned Subsidary of The Converse Professional Group
Converse Consultants
Inland Empire
November 3, 1997
Mr. Dean Meyer, R.C.E.
Director of Engineering & Development
Newland Associates
27555 Ynez Road, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92591
Subject:
Dear Mr. Meyer:
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Tract 24188-1
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Community
Temecula, California
Converse Project No. 96-81-420-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire (Converse) has prepared the enclosed report to
present preliminary flexible pavement structural sections for various streets within the
above-referenced Tract. The subject Tract is located within the proposed Paso Del Sol
Master Planned Community in the city of Temecula, California.
In preparing this pavement design report, we have performed the following tasks:
. A study to evaluate a subgrade soil improvement method for the purpose of
increasing the resistance of the street subgrade soil to traffic loading.
. Retrieved bulk samples of the subgrade soils from the street areas.
· Performed laboratory testing to determine the Resistance (R) value of the
basement soils in accordance with the State of California Test Method 301-
G.
, . Performed detailed flexible pavement structural section design analysis in
accordance with the method contained in the California Department of
Transportation (CAL TRAN) "Highway Design Manual".
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
'0391 Corporate Drive
Aedlands, CA 92374
Telephone 909/796-0544
FAX 909 796-7675
"0
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
.-
I
I
'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The methodology and findings of the subgrade soil improvement study were presented in
the following report:
· Pavement Design Recommendations, Infrastructure - Phase I Streets,
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Community, Temecula, California, dated -
March 3,1997, Converse Project No. 96-81-420-03.
Based on the results of the soil improvement study, the street subgrade soils with low R-
values may be improved by mixing with two (2) percent cement in accordance with the
recommendations presented in the above-referenced report.
Subgrade soils treated with two (2) percent cement should have an R-value of at least 60
determined in accordance with the State of California Test Method 301-G and a 7-day
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of at least 150 pounds-per-square-inch (psi)
determined in accordance with the ASTM Standard Test Method 01633-84. Using the
formula for gravel factor of lime treated soils provided in the CAL TRANS Highway Design
Manual, the Gravel Factor for such soil-cement may be taken as 1.05. Type I or Type II
Portland Cement may used for soil improvement.
At the time of this report preparation, various streets with the subject tract were graded to
interim elevations to facilitate storm flow . Final grading will involve placement of minor
amounts of compacted fills. Three (3) bulk samples of the existing subgrade soils were
retrieved from the street areas to provide preliminary pavement structural sections..
These samples were collected from the upper one-foot of subgrade, visually classified in
. the field in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System and transported to
Converse Laboratory in plastic bags. The samples were visually reexamined in the
laboratory for the purpose of verifying field classifications. The results of the R-value test
are summarized in Table No.1, Summary of R-value Test Results.
Table No.1, Summary of R-value Test Results
Sample No. Sample Location Classification R-value
Tract 24188-1
RV1 Fermo Court, 5ta. 14+11 Clayey Sand (SC), fine-to-medium grained. trace clay, 29
brown
RV2 Verona Court. Sta. 12+24 Silty Sand (SM), fine-la-coarse grained, trace mica, 49
brown
RV3 Messina Street, 5ta. 15+05 Crayey Sand (SC), fine-ta-medium grained, trace mica. 29
brown
96-420-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
\CC I ENT\OFFIC EVOBFI LE\NEWLAN 01420\420-03\420- P A V 88
2
Cp\
I
I
I
I
I
I
'1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
We have performed flexible pavement design analysis to provide three (3) combinations
of structural sections for each street or segment thereof. These combinations included
the followings:
. COMBINATION NO.1: This alternate considers the pavement structural section
consisted of an Asphaltic Concrete (AC) layer over Class II Aggregate Base
(AB) placed directly over untreated subgrade soils.
. · COMBINATION NO.2: This alternate considers the pavement structural section
consisted of an Asphaltic Concrete (AC) layer over Class II Aggregate over
Class I Aggregate Subbase (AS) placed over untreated subgrade soils.
. · COMBINATION NO.3: This alternate considers the pavement structural section
consisted of an Asphaltic Concrete (AC) layer over Class II Aggregate Base (AB)
placed over Cement Treated Subgrade (CTS).
The flexible pavement structural section design analysis was performed in accordance
. with the method contained in the CAL TRAN Highway Design Manual and in the
"Flexible Pavement Structural Section Design Guide for California Cities and Counties".
The pavement design is modified as necessary to provide a minimum AC layer
thickness of 0.25-foot required by the City of Temecula for TI of up to 7.0 and a
minimum AB layer thickness of 0.35-foot as suggested in the CAL TRAN Highway
Design Manual. The thickness of Class I AS layer and cement-treated subgrade (CTS)
layer were calculated to provide the total Gravel Equivalent (GE) for the pavement
strtlctural section as required by the CAL TRANS method based on the R-value of the
untreated subgrade soils. The recommended minimum thickness for CTS is 0.35 feet.
The results of the pavement design analysis are presented in Table No.2, Preliminary
Flexible Pavement Structural Sections. The pavement structural sections provided in
this table are for preliminary cost estimate purposes only. Final pavement structural
sections should be based on R-value testing of street subgrade soils at the completion
of finish grading.
96-420-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
\CC I ENTlOFFIC E\JOBFI LE\N E WLAND\420\420-03\420- P A V88
3
rot.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
'J
I
1
1
-
J
l
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
7!
Table No.2, Preliminary Flexible Pavement Structural Sections
I I DESIGN TI DESIGN R- PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTIONS
STREET SEGMENT VALUE COMB. #1 COMB. #2 COMB. #3
AC/AB(It) AC/ABlAS lit) AC/AB/CTS (It)
STA.10+48.47
TO 6.0 28 0.25/0.75 0.25/0.35/0.45 0.Z5/0.35/0.40
FERMO STA.13+52.05
COURT STA 13+52.05
TO 5.0 28 0.25/0.50 0.25/0.3S/0.3S 0.25/0.35/0.35
STA. 17+08.10
STA. 10+47.00
ASTI WAY TO 6.0 28 0.25/0.75 0.25/0.35/0.45 0.25/0.35/0.40
STA. 11+84.50
STA.10+00.00
TO 6.0 28 0.25/0.75 0.25/0.35/0.45 0.25/0.35/0.40
MESSINA STA. 15+53.78
STREET STA. 15+53.78
TO 5.0 28 0.25/0.50 0.25/0.35/0.35 0.25/0.35/0.35
STA. 16+97.98
VERONA STA.10+28.00
COURT TO 5.0 49 0.25/0.35 0.25/0.35/0.0 0.25/0.35/0.0
STA.13+95.16
The cement treated subgrade should be compacted to at 95 percent relative
compaction as per ASTM Standard 01557-91.
For Combinations Nos. 1 and 2, prior to the placement of the aggregate base
and/or subbase, at the least the upper 12 inches of the untreated subgrade soils
shall be compacted to at 95 percent relative compaction at a moisture content at or
near optimum as defined in ASTM Standard D1557-91.
The aggregate subbase shall conform to the requirements for Class 1 subbase and
. placed in accordance Section 25, "Aggregate Subbases' of the CAL TRAN Standard
Specifications.
Aggregate base material shall conform to requirements for Class 2 aggregate base
and placed in accordance with Section 26, "Aggregate Bases" of the CAL TRAN
Standard Specifications.
Asphaltic materials should conform with Section 203-1, "Paving Asphalt," of the
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (SSPWC) and should be
placed in accordance with Section 302-5, "Asphalt Concrete Pavement." of the
SSPWC.
Cement for soil stabilization shall conform to the requirements of Section 201-1.2.1,
Portland Cement. Except as modified herein, soil-cement shall be uniformly mixed,
96-410-03
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
\CC I ENTIOFFIC E\JOB FI L E\N EWLANDI410\420-03\410-P A V88
4
cPo?
I
'I
I
I
I
I
,oj
I
1
'11
11
.
:1
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
compacted, finished and cured in accordance with Section, 301-3.1, Soil Cement, of the
SSPWC. Prior to the application of cement, the subgrade soils shall be brought to
optimum by the addition of water, by the addition and blending of dry suitable materials
or by the drying of existing materials. Two percent cement by dry weight of soil shall be
spread uniformly on the surface to the soil to be treated.
Prior to importing material and equipment to the site for soil treatment, the contractor
shall submit a detailed work plan outlining his proposed soil-cement mixing,
compaction, finishing and curing procedure for review and approval by the project
geotechnical consultant.
We hope the information provided will be helpful. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. We appreciate this
opportunity to be of service to Newland Associates.
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE
/2cR - ~ ... y;~ I'~"-
. Mohammed S. Islam, Ph.D., P.E.
Project Engineer
MSl/bac
96-410-03
Converse Cunsultants Inland Empire
-'CCI ENT-OFFICE\JOBFI LE\NEWLA '\ D 410'.410-03\410-PA V88
5
~"'