Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel 3 Limited Geotechnical Investigation & Evaluation ENGINEERING / ;J& <g'54 - / I II I I I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1U!2~!2~l&2~2~s pet " 3 fOR ~fSIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 . (760) 839-7302 . Fax: (760) 480-7477' www.designgroupca.com LIMITEDiGEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGA nON AND EVALUA TION For the Proposed New Ybarra Residence Mountain View Temecula, California EDG Project No. 043310-1 October 20, 2004 PREPARED FOR: Larry Ybarra 5974 Rio Valle Bonsall, CA 92003 \ I I II I I I I I I I I I :1 ,I I I I I I I I ENGINEERING IUDESIGN GROUP C,OTECHNICAL, CMl. STRUCTURAl& ARCHITECTU~AlCCNSUlTANIS FOR RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL CONS1RUC'IO~i 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 . (760) 839-7302' Fax: (760) 480-74,77 . www.designgroupca.com Date: October 20, 2004 To: Mr. Larry Ybarra 5974 Rio Valle Bonsall, CA 92003 Re: Proposed New Ybarra Residence be Located on Mountain View in the City of Temecula, California Subject: Geotechnical Investigation and Report In accordance with your Authorization, we have performed a limited subsurface investigation of the subject site for the proposed residential development. The findings of the investigation, earthwork recommendations and foundation design parameters are presented in this report. In general, it is our opinion that the proposed construction, as described herein, is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations of this report and genel'll1 y acce ted construction practices are followed. If/~~estio regarding the following report please do not hesitate to contact our office. inCereIY,./ /' rJ.-i - C. . Erin E. Rist ~ ~ California Civil Engineer: RCE #65122 YBARRA RESIDENCE Mountain View, Ternecula, California Page No.2 Job No. 043310 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNiCAl, CIVIL, STRUCTURAl & ARCHITECTURAL CONSUlTANTS y I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................ 1 FIELD INVESTIGA TION ... .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . , .. . .. . . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. 1 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS ...................................................... 1 GROUND WA TER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 LIQUEFACTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA TIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 GENERAL ............................................................ 3 EARTHWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 FOUNDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 RETAINING WALLS .................................................... 7 SURFACE DRAINAGE .................................................. 8 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING.................................. 8 MISCELLANEOUS ........................................................... 9 FIGURES Site Vicinity Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Figure No.1 Site Location Map ................................................... Figure NO.2 Approximate Location ofTest Pits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Figure No.3 Test Pit Logs ..................................................... Figures No. 4-5 APPENDICES References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Appendix A General Earthwork and Grading Specifications ............................. Appendix B Testing Procedures ................................................... Appendix C Retaining Wall Drainage Detail .......................................... Appendix D YBARRA RESIDENCE Mountain View, Temecula, California Page No.3 Job No. 043310 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNiCAl, CIVIl, STRUCTURAl & ARCHITECTURAL CONSLI. TANTS 17 I I I I I I .. I I II i I I I I I I I I I I I SCOPE This report gives the results of our limited geotechnical investigation for the property located on Mountain View, in the City of Temecula, Califomia. (See Figure No.1, "Site Vicinity Map", and Figure No.2, "Site Location Map"). The scope of our work, conducted on-site to date, has included a visual reconnaissance of the property and surrounding areas, a limited subsurface investigation of the property in the area of proposed improvements, field analysis, soil testing and preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION For the purposes of this report the front of the property is assumed to face west. At the time of our report the property is bordered to the south by a single family residential home, and to the west by Ynez Road, and to the ,north and east by vacant lots. The general topography of the site area consists of pre-graded residential lots. The general topography of the site itself consists primarily of flat building pad, with a gradual slope on the west end of the property. Based upon our conversations with the project owner, we understand that developmentwill consist of the following: . Design and construction of a new single family residence founded on shallow perimeter foundaiion system and slab on grade floors. FIELD INVESTIGA TJON Our field investigation of the property, consisted of a site reconnaissance, site field measurements, observation of existing conditions on-site and on adjacent sites, and a limited subsurface investigation of soil conditions. Our subsurface investigation consisted of visual observation of two test pits in the approximate area of the new structure, logging of soil types encountered, and sampling of soils for laboratory testing. The locations of the excavations are given in Figure No.3, "Site Plan, Approximate Location of Test Pits". Logs of the exploratory test pit excavations are presented in Figures No, 4-5, "Test Pit Logs". SUBSOIL CONDITIONS Materials consisting of primarily topsoil and fill underlain by decomposed granite were encountered during our subsurface investigation of the site. Soil types are described as follows: TODsoil/Fill: Topsoil and fill consisted of rust brown to light brown with small roots and other debris. These profiles extend to depths of approximately 3 to 4 feet below adjacent. grade in areas observed. YBARRA RESIDENCE Mountain View, Temecula, California Page No. 1 Job No. 043310 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAl, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSlA. TANTS A.. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Topsoil and fill materials are not considered suitable for the support of structures in their present state, but may be used as compacted fill. Slightly Silty sands classify as SW-SM according to the Unified Classification System, and based on visual observation generally possess potentials for expansion in the low range. Granite Decomposed granite material was found to underlie the topsoil/fill material within the test pit excavations. Decomposed granite materials consisted of rust brown to tan, slightly moist to dense, granite in various stages of decomposition. Decomposed granite materials are considered suitable for the support of structures and structural improvements, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Decomposed granite materials classify as SW-SM according to the Unified Classification System, and based on visual observation and our experience possess potentials for expansion in the low range. For detailed logs of soil types encountered in our test pits, as well as a depiction of observed locations, please see Figure No.3, "Approximate Location ofTest Pits", and Figures No. 4-5, "Test Pit Logs". GROUND WATER Ground water was not encountered during our subsurface investigation of the site. Ground water is not anticipated to be a significant concern to the project provided the recommendations of this report are followed. LIQUEFACTION It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake along any of the faults in the Southem Califomia region. However, the seismic risk at this site is not significantly greater than that of the surrounding developed area. Liquefaction of cohesion less soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose, granular soils underlain by a near-surface ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most silty clays and clays is not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Because of the dense nature of the soil materials underlying the site and the lack of near surface water, the potential for liquefaction or seismically-induced dynamic settlement at the site is considered low. The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code and current design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of Califomia. YBARRA RESIDENCE Mountain View, Temecula, California Page No.2 Job No. 043310 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CML, STRUCTURAl & ARCHTECTURAL CONSULTANTS ? I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL In general, it is our opinion that the proposed construction, as described herein, is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations of this report and generally accepted construction practices are followed. We anticipate minor grading associated with the proposed project. At a minimum, a local removal and recompaction of topsoil and fill to anticipated depths of 3 to 4 feet as described in the "Earthwork" section below. EARTHWORK We anticipate grading and earthwork will include the removal and recompaction beneath the building footprint in the area of the new slab on grade floors and other structural improvements. Removal and recompaction should extend to a minimum of 5 feet outside of the building footprint. 1. Site Preparation Prior to any grading, areas of proposed improvement should be cleared of surface and subsurface organic debris (including topsoil). Removed debris should be properly disposed of off-site prior to the commencement of any fill operations. Holes resulting from the removal of debris, existing structures, or other improvements which extend below the undercut depths noted, should be filled and compacted using on-site material or a non-expansive import material. 2. Removals Topsoil/fill soils found to mantle the site in our original exploratory test pits (I.e., upper approximately 3 to 4 feet), are not suitable for the structural support of buildings or improvements in their present state, and will require removal and re- compaction in areas of proposed slab on grade floors or other settlement sensitive locations. In general, grading should consistofthe removal offill soils, scarification of removal bottom and re-compaction of fill materials to 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM 1557-91. (See Appendix B of above referencedreport for grading detailing). Excavated fill materials are suitable for re-use as fill material during grading, provided they are cleaned of debris and oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter (oversized material is not anticipated to be of significant concern) and are free of contamination. Improvements should be constructed on uniform building pad. Removals and undercuts should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the footprint of the proposed structures and settlement sensitive improvements. Where this condition cannot be met it should be reviewed by the Engineering YBARRA RESIDENCE Mountain View, Temecula, California Page No.3 Job No. 043310 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL. CIVIL. STRUCTURAl & ARCHITECTURAL CONSUl. rANTS Co II I I I I I II I i I I I I I II II II il , 'I I I Design Group on a case by case basis. Removal depths should be visually verified by a representative of our firm prior to the placement of fill. 3. Fills Pad subgrade should be scarified a minimum of 12 inches into competent formational material. Onsite soils to be utilized as compacted fills in the area of the building footprint should be cleaned of loose debris, oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter, brought to near optimum moisture content, and re-compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557 -91). Surficial, loose or soft soils exposed or encountered during grading (such as any undocumented or loose fill materials) should be removed to competent formational material and properly compacted prior to additional fill placement. Fills should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. If the import of soil is planned, soils should be non-expansive (EI<50) and free of debris and organic matter. Prior to importing, soils should be visually observed, sampled and tested at the borrow pit area to evaluate soil suitability as fill. FOUNDA TlONS The following design parameters may be utilized for new foundations extended to into properly compacted sandstone. 1. Footings bearing in competent formational or compacted fill material may be designed utilizing maximum allowable soils pressure of 2,000 psf. 2. Seismic Design Parameters: Bearing values may be increased by 33% when considering wind, seismic, or other short duration loadings. YBARRA RESIDENCE Mountain View, Ternecula, Califomia Page No.4 Job No. 043310 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CML.. STRUCTURAl & ARCHITECTURAl CONSlA.. TAmS l I I II il , I I I II I .1 I I I I II I I I I I I 3. The following parameters should be used as a minimum, for designing footing width and depth below lowest adjacent grade: -Footing depths to be confirmed in the field by a representative of Engineering Design Group prior to the placement of steel. 4. All footings founded into competent formational material should be reinforced with a minimum of two #4 bars at the top and two #4 bars at the bottom (3 inches above the ground). For footings over 30 inches in depth, additional reinforcement, and possibly a stemwall system will be necessary, and should be reviewed by project structural engineer prior to construction. 5. All isolated spread footings should be designed utilizing the above given bearing values and footing depths, and be reinforced with a minimum of #4 bars at 12 inches o.c. in each direction (3 inches above the ground). Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width and depth of 24 inches. 6. For footings adjacentto slopes, a minimum 12 feet horizontal setback in formational material or properly compacted fill should be maintained. A setback measurement should be taken at the horizontal distance from the bottom of the footing to slope daylight. Where this condition can not be met it should be brought to the attention of the Engineering Design Group for review. 7. All excavations should be performed in general accordance with the contents of this report, applicable codes. OSHA requirements and applicable city and/or county standards. 8. All foundation subgrade soils and footings shall be pre-moistened to 2% over optimum to a minimum of 18 inches in depth prior to the pouring of concrete. CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE The following design parameters should be utilized as minimums where new slabs are founded on properly recompacted fill material. 1. Concrete slabs on grade of the building should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches (5 inches at garage and driveway locations )and should be reinforced with #3 bars at 18 inches o.c. placed at the midpoint ofthe slab. YBARRA RESIDENCE Mountain View, Ternecula, California Page No.5 Job No. 043310 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAl CONSlL TANTS ~ I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I All concrete shall be poured per the following: . Slump: Between 3 and 4 inches maximum . Aggregate Size: 3/4 - 1 inch . Air Content: 5 to 8 percent . Moisture retarding additive in concrete at moisture sensitive areas. . Moisture Sensitive Areas: Water to cement Ratio - 0.5 maximum. Compressive Strength = 4000 PSI Minimum . Non Moisture Sensitive Areas: Compressive Strength = 2500 PSI Minimum. 2. All required fills used to support slabs, should be placed in accordance with the grading section of this report and the attached Appendix B, and compacted to 90 percent Modified Proctor Density, ASTM D-1557. 3. A uniform layer of 4 inches of coarse sand is recommended under the slab in order to more uniformly support the slab, help distribute loads to the soils beneath the slab, and act as a capillary break. Coarse sand material should have an Sand Equivalent (S.E.) greater than 50, and be washed clean of fine materials. In moisture sensitive areas, a visqueen layer (10 mil) should be placed mid-height in the sand bed to act as a vapor retarder. Sand should be rounded to avoid puncture of visqueen vapor retarder. 4. Adequate control joints should be installed to control the unavoidable cracking of concrete that takes place,when undergoing its natural shrinkage during curing. The control joints should be well located to direct unavoidable slab cracking to areas that are desirable by the designer. 5. All subgrade soils to receive concrete f1atwork. are to be pre-soaked to 2 percent over optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches. 6 Brittle floor finishes placed directly on slab on grade floors may crack if concrete is not adequately cured prior to installing the finish or if there is minor slab movement. To minimize potential damage to movement sensitive flooring, we recommend the use of slip sheeting techniques (linoleum type) which allows for foundation and slab movement without transmitting this movement to the floor finishes. 7. Exterior concrete f1atwork and driveway slabs, due to the nature of concrete hydration and minorsubgrade soil movement, are subjectto normal minor concrete cracking. To minimize expected concrete cracking, the following may be implemented: . Concrete slump should not exceed 4 inches. . Concrete should be poured during "cool" (40 - 65 degrees) weather if possible. If concrete is poured in hotter weather, a set retarding additive should be included in the mix, and the slump kept to a minimum. . Concrete subgrade should be pre-soaked prior to the pouring of concrete. The level of pre-soaking should be a minimum of 4% over optimum moisture to a depth of 24 inches. . Concrete may be poured with a 10 inch deep thickened edge. Where concrete YBARRA RESIDENCE Mountain View, Temecula, California Page No.6 Job No. 043310 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CMl, STRUCTURAl & ARCHITECTURAl. CONSUl.. TANTS ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f1atwork is poured along the top of a slope, a footing should be excavated along the outside edge to achieve a minimum of 7 feet distance to da~ight. . Concrete should be constructed with tooled joints or sawcuts (1 inch deep) creating concrete sections no larger than 225 square feet. For sidewalks, the maximum run between joints should not exceed 5 feet. For rectangular shapes of concrete, the ratio of length to width should generally not exceed 0.6 (i.e., 5 ft. long by 3 ft. wide). Joints should be cut at expected points of concrete shrinkage (such as male corners), with diagonal reinforcement placed in accordance with industry standards. . Drainage adjacent to concrete f1atwork should direct water away from the improvement. Concrete subgrade should be sloped and directed to the collective drainage system, such that water is not trapped below the f1atwork. . The recommendations set forth herein are intended to reduce cosmetic nuisance cracking. The project concrete contractor is ultimately responsible for concrete quality and performance, and should pursue a cost-benefit analysis of these recommendations, and other options available in the industry, prior to the pouring of concrete. RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls up to 6 feet may be designed and constructed in accordance with the following recommendations and minimum design parameters: 1. Retaining wall footings should be designed in accordance with the allowable bearing criteria given in the "Foundations" section of this report, and should maintain minimum footing depths outlined in "Foundation" section of this report. 2. Unrestrained cantilever retaining walls should be designed using an active equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf. This assumes that granular, free draining material with low potential for expansion (E.I. <50) will be used for backfill, and that the backfill surface will be level. Where soil with potential for expansion are not low (E.1. > 50) a new active fluid pressure will be provided by the project soils engineer. Backfill materials should be considered prior to the design of the retaining walls to ensure accurate detailing. For sloping backfill, the following parameters may be utilized: Backfill Sloping Condition 2:1 Slope 1.5:1 Slope Active Fluid Pressure 50 pcf 65 pcf Any other surcharge loadings shall be analyzed in addition to the abo\A3 values. 3. If the tops of retaining walls are restrained from movement, they should be designed for an additional uniform at-rest soil pressure of 65 psf. 4. Passive soil resistance may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pd. This value assumes that the soil being utilized to resist passive pressures, extends horizontally 2.5 times the height of the passive pressure wedge of the soil. Where the horizontal YBARRA RESIDENCE Mountain View, Temecula, California Page No.7 Job No. 043310 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSlA. TANTS 'f) I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I distance of the available passive pressure wedge is less than 2.5 times the height of the soil, the passive pressure value must be reduced by the percent reduction in available horizontal length. 5. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 between the soil and concrete footings may be utilized to resist lateral loads in addition to the passive earth pressures above. 6. Retaining walls should be braced and monitored during compaction. If this cannot be accomplished, the compactive effort should be included as a surcharge load when designing the wall. 7. All walls shall be provided with adequate back drainage to relieve hydrostatic pressure. 8. Retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the "Earthwork" section of this. report. Backfill shall consist of soil with a very low expansion potential, granular, free draining material. SURFACE DRAINAGE Adequate drainage precautions at this site are imperative and will playa critical role on the future performance of the dwelling and improvements. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond against or adjacent to foundation walls, or tops of slopes. The ground surface surrounding proposed improvements should be relatively impervious in nature, and slope to drain away from the structure in all directions, with a minimum slope of 2% for a horizontal distance of 7 feet (where possible). Area drains or surface swales should then be provided to accommodate runoff and avoid any ponding of water. Roof gutters and downspouts shall be installed on the new and existing structures and tightlinedto the area drain system. All drains should be kept clean and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts. Area drains should be kept free of debris to allow for proper drainage. During periods of heavy rain, the performance of all drainage systems should be inspected. Problems such as gullying or ponding should be corrected as soon as possible. Any leakage from sources such as water lines should also be repaired as soon as possible. In addition, irrigation of planter areas, lawns, or other vegetation, located adjacent to the foundation or exterior flat work improvements, should be strictly controlled or avoided. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVA TION AND TESTING The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by our investigation of the project area. Interpolated subsurface conditions should be verified in the field during construction. The following items shall be conducted prior/during construction by a representative of Engineering Design Group in order to verify compliance with the geotechnical and civil engineering recommendations provided herein, as applicable. The project structural and geotechnical engineers may upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during the development of the proposed improvement(s). YBARRA RESIDENCE Mountain View, Ternecula, California Page NO.8 Job No. 043310 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CML, STRUCTURAl & ARCHITECTURAL CONSlA.. TANTS "k I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II II I I 1. Attendance of a pre-grade/construction meeting prior to the start of work. 2. Review of final approved structural plans prior to the start of work, for compliance with geotechnical recommendations. 3. Testing of any fill placed, including retaining wall backfill and utility trenches. 4. Observation of footing excavations prior to steel placement. 5. Field observation of any "field change" condition involving soils. 6. Walk through of final drainage detailing prior to final approval. The project soils engineer may at their discretion deepen footings or locally recommend additional steel reinforcement to upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during site observations. Engineering Design Group shall, priorto the issuance ofthe certificate of occupancy, issue in writing that the above inspections have been conducted by a representative of their firm, and the design considerations of the project soils report have been met. The field inspection protocol specified herein is considered the minimum necessary for Engineering Design Group to have exercised "due diligence" in the soils engineering design aspect of this building. Engineering Design Group assumes no liability for structures constructed utilizing this report not meeting this protocol. Before commencement of grading the Engineering Design Group will require a separate contract for quality control observation and testing. Engineering Design Group requires a minimum of 48 hours notice to mobilize onsite for field observation and testing. MISCELLANEOUS It must be noted that no structure or slab should be expected to remain totally free of cracks and minor signs of cosmetic. distress. The flexible nature of wood and steel structures allows them to respond to movements resulting from minor unavoidable settlement of fill or natural soils, the swelling of clay soils, or the motions induced from seismic activity. All of the above can induce movement that frequently results in cosmetic cracking of brittle wall surfaces, such as stucco or interior plaster or interior brittle slab finishes. Data for this report was derived from surface observations at the site, knowledge of local conditions, and a visual observation of the soils exposed in the exploratory test pits. The recommendations in this report are based on our experience in conjunction with the limited soils exposed at this site and neighboring sites. We believe that this information gives an acceptable degree of reliability for anticipating the behavior of the proposed structure; however, our recommendations are professional opinions and cannot control nature, nor can they assure the soils profiles beneath or adjacent to those observed. Therefore, no warranties of the accuracy of these recommendations, beyond the limits of the obtained data, is herein expressed or implied. This report is based on the investigation at the described site and on the specific anticipated construction as stated herein. If either of these conditions is changed, the results would also most likely change. Man-made or natural changes in the conditions of a property can occur over a period of time. In addition, changes in requirements due to state of the art knowledge and/or legislation, are rapidly occurring. As a result, the findings of this report may become invalid due to these changes. Therefore, this report for the specific site, is subject to review and not considered valid after a period of one year, or if conditions as stated abolA:l are altered. YBARRA RESIDENCE Mountain View, Ternecula, California Page No.9 Job No. 043310 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL. CIVIL, STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAl. CONSUl. TANTS \1/ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I It is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information in this report be incorporated into the plans and/or specifications and construction of the project. It is advisable that a contractor familiar with construction details typically used to deal with the local subsoil and seismic conditions, be retained to build the structure. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. We hope the report provides you with necessary information to continue with the development of the project. YBARRA RESIDENCE Mountain View, Ternecula, California Page No; 10 Job No. 043310 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIl., STRUCTURAl & ARCHITECTURAl CONSlI. TANTS \'>; I . I I . I I I . I I I ,I '. I I . I II VICINI7Y MAP NOT TO SCALE THOUAS GUIDE: 979 A-I PRaJEcr SITE SITE VICINITY MAP PROJECT NAME YBARRA RESIDENCE I I PROJECT ADDRESS 'JOB NUMBER MOUNTAIN VIEW, TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 043310-2,5,7 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAl, CML. STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAl CONSULTANTS 2121 Monliel Road, San Mareos, CA 92069 Phonll:(760)839-7302 FIlx:(760)48G.7477 FIGURE 1 C:\WINDOWS\Oesktop\GREG'S\MASTER . SITE VICINITY. FIG 1.wpd ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROJECT NAME I PROJECT ADDRESS JOB NUMBER I 043310-2,5,7 I SITE LOCATION MAP YBARRA RESIDENCE MOUNTAIN VIEW, TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAl CONSULTANTS ~~~(mfJ~~~o~an ~::c(7~O'if~~46l7 2 C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\GREG'S\MASTER - SITE LOCATION. FIG 2.wpd 'vc6 I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I APPROXIMATE LQCA.T.10/\LOF TEST PITS "" " " " ~~. -- " .....0 '--~~ ~ " --(c>- ..... " '6) ~~ ........ "" '-.. \ \ \ \ \ \ <C).... 00 <0<0 00 -- 1\ 1\ ~~ - 0> .<c) ~o ~ii \ ~~ PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT NUMBER 043310-2,5,7 YBARRA RESIDENCE MOUNTAIN VIEW, TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos. CA 92069 Phone: (760)839-7302 Fax: (760)480-7477 \ \ "-' " ~ .(3 ....-c, . ~ o .0.. o a:: 0.. \ -10 \ i:t r; p, J l:8 " " "" 00 ~fu~/' --- . 'v . l\O ~ ;A. g l ~ .:::- --- 1>'1. .Ll.! - - <0 o - II II e: . . .v . '. ..' FIGURE 3 \jo r- ~ ~ a n G) .s. Ol CD ~. ~ n a ~ .::! .s ~ CD' n :I ~ f ~ ~ en 0 -< m .... III m to )> ." to ;:u ~ cO' 0 ~ '" , ~ /\) m -", ;:u to :... m en 6 m z 0 m '. . ... m ,en ... "ll - ... " r- Q ,0 en c iCi) :r ;:u CD m ~ :z ... I~ 0 S- o ... .... :s:~ r- ~tl a CD n CQ n!!:. SOl CQ Ol CD a <: CD <:'iii' Q,Ol Q, Ol--. o. g. ~ lD CD ::. ':'; ~ I G> ~ )> N 0 - Z ~ 0 '" - )> 0 C .... Gl m ;:u !!!):o QI CD:g .,. :0: ... - a tl ~ lq .g S ~ .. n CD ~ to 0 " Cl ~ -i lD r-G) Ol CD ... n <: 0 ,.. It'" ~ .. ::. ::::: ~ CD Q, Cb ... -< Z m 0 C/l " m CI) a -. - /\) ~ ~ 'ti CD "1 0 tl , , .g to "1 S ;:Il <-iO enr-i "'cO' 0 ~.~ m (0 :r "(J 0_0 ~-C/) "'00 -<g"O <n....,.s: C/lo- en '" =:;:r -en"(J -<!',," ~-O C/l _ ~ cog-en Ol 0 enom "e. 0:;:0 e.Ol ~ CD -" ~.~ ::I. e. - G> Ol ~~~ stg- - en a tl o:rz 3 :;: m 3~_ 'C '< -i ~? n 5l 3 f1:I -C/l ... ~ - '5' a: Q. a -. ace ~. 0", _:r a ".- '" <:!: < . '< ::. m 3 Ol .:2 0 ::. e. Vj' Q, m .- :<!: " 3 a '" ~ .m m m e. ce "'. OJ 3 " .. e. m m Dl " - '" .m en en c: ~ ~ l;l en s: 0 s: CI) Ol ~ - CD !'" Cl '" .... to /\) ~ oiG> , !;:U I)> !"(J I;!; iO i;:u 1m l""[] 1;:U 1m len 1m Iz !-i 1)> i-i 10 iz ;.. I I i ! , I I I , I I i@ E I I " .' ~ , " I ~ ~. , . . . , I ,.... . . i . ,", " " ~ ! . :~ ' . I I i , I ! ! ! ! i ! l I , I 1 , , I , I , I j ! I , ! , ! j I ! i I I I ~ . ~ .. :('; o " " ~ ~ " " " 8 ~ " " '" '" z o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... gJ ~ 0 " Ci) .E. ., CD - ~ -. " 0 - :'! .E. ~ CD " 3 - ~ !'! tl" ~ (/) 0 -< CD ... OJ CD W )> w -n ~ ;0 ce' 0 ~ <:: , CD N '" ;0 W :..., m (/) a m Z () m -I m en -I "ll - -I 'TI ... G5 0 (/) c: ::r ;0 G) CD CD m Z .... ~ z 0 0 9 . ... ~ en N ~w ... ~li? 0 <Q " - S., <Q ., CD ~~ CD <-"ii;' Q, .,"'- ", ::!'. - 0 ~ CD " R- I " ~ )> N 0 - z ~ 0 U1 - )> 0 c ... " m ;0 . ~~ 0' ~~ Ol' - 0 0 !< lq ~ ~ ~ " CD ~ ... 0 -n Ol 0 :-I txJ "'Ci) ., CD .. " <: 0 ,.. 12.<:: :!l .. " ::::: ~ CD Q, - ~ -< z CD a '" '" CD C/) 0 :::: N ~ ~ CD "-l 0 0 , , ~ ... w S ? "l "1 <-I 0 "'r-l ~ ., m 5ce' 0 -. '" () ::T::T"U a.... ::!:.....(I) ~ a 0 ,<g-O ~2 ;s:: "'a- "U =::EC: ., !e- O ~"'-n ceO" (/) (fJ.....F CD ~ ~ '" a m Olor- a ::E 0 :::::l Co" 0. III ;- ...'" " ::E ~ c.- ::! CD II> ;0 ",," .,' (")= )> ::TO" - ace ~ Z '" a 0 3a =i 3 ::E m "C '< ~? a m " !1!.3 :;-~ ::! cl'. a a -. ..,' a -. ace - ::'_~ ....::T o' II> "" < '< " '" 3 ., -=1 a " 0. ~[ Q, '" ~ '" 3 '" - '" '" m ce 0. ~ ",' III 3 '" "" 0. '" '" III '" .... '" -'" (/) (/) c: ~ ~ 0 (/) (/) C/) ;s:: ;s:: 0 C/) ., ~ - CD Ol U1 ... w N ~ 01" I~ !"U I (i ;0 m "U ;0 m (/) m z S 5 z 0 0 . " , . .>- ,- -fi'( ",."1 ~ '. . .' . ~,lJ.,' ; ,-' .;'; ! ~,\ t r. 1:1 . . <n ,.. "! I ! j , , ~ . ~ .. ~ ~ o " " ~ ~ " ~ 8 ~ <D ,. " " ,. iJ z o ~ " ~ ~ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Fault-Rupture Zones in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 1990. 2. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. 3. Hart, Michael, June 17, 1994, Gelogic Investigation, 7505 Hillside Drive, La Jolla,CA, File NO: 153- 94. 4. Engineering Design Group, Un-published In-House Data. 5. Ploessel, M.R. andSlossan, J.E., 1974 Repeatable High Ground Acceleration from Earthquakes: California Geololgy, Vol. 27, No.9, P.195-199. 6. State of Califomia, Fault Map of Califomia, Map No:1, Dated 1975. 7. State of Califomia, Geologic Map of Califomia, Map No:2, Dated 1977. 1.P I . . . . . . I I I I . I I I . . :. I APPENDIX -B- I -z,.\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I !I I I GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1.0 General Intent These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations for grading and earthwork to be utilized in conjunction with the approved grading plans. These general earthwork and grading specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and shall be superseded by the recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to read and understand these specifications, as well as the geotechnical report and approved grading plans. . 2.0 Earthwork Observation and Testina Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes, at least 24 hours in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No grading operations should be performed without the knowledge of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical consultant is aware of all grading operations. . It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, recommendations in the geotechnical report, and the approved grading plans not withstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant. If, in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical report and the specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recomrnend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. Maximum dry density tests used to evaluate the degree of compaction should be performed in general accordance with the latest version of the American Society for Testing and Materials test method ASTM 01557. -1- 17 I I I I I I I ! I I I I I II I I I I I I 3.0 Preoaration of Areas to be Filled 3.1 Clearing and Grubbinq: Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots and all other deleterious material should be removed or properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, design engineer, governing agencies and the geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. In general, no more than 1 percent (by volume) of the fill material should consist of these materials and nesting of these materials should not be allowed. 3.2 Processinq: The existing ground which has been evaluated by the geotechnical consultant to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction. 3.3 Overexcavation: Soft, dry, organic-rich, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to competent ground, as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. For purposes of determining quantities of materials overexcavated, a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should be utilized. 3.4 Moisture Conditioninq: Overexcavated and processed soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 3.5 Recomoaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed, screened of deleterious material, and moisture-conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant. -2- 1/~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.6 Benchina: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, at least 2 feet into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Other benches should be excavated into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 should be benched or otherwise overexcavated when recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 3,7 Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and toe-of-fill benches, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement. 4.0 Fill Material 4.1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed as recommended by the geotechnical consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 4.2 Oversize: Oversize material, defined as rock or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade, within 2 feet of future utilities or undergmund construction, or within 15 feet horizontally of slope faces, in accordance with the attached detail. -3- ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4.3 Import: If importing offill material is required for grading, the import material should meet the requirements of Section 4.1. Sufficient time should be given to allow the geotech n ical consu Itant to observe (and test, if necessary) the proposed import materials. 5.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas prepared and previously evaluated to receive fill, in near-horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 5.2 Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 5.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture- conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (unless otherwise specified). Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree and uniformity of compaction. . 5.4 Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the fill out to the slope face would be at least 90 percent. -4- 1P I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II II I I 5.5 Compaction Testina: Field tests of the moisture content and degree of compaction of the fill soils should be performed atthe consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. In general, the tests should be taken at approximate intervals of 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils. In addition, on slope faces, as a guideline approximately one test should be taken for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. 6.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems, if recommended, should be installed in areas previously evaluated for suitability by the geotechnical consultant, to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials should not be changed or modified unless recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The consultant, however, may recommend changes in subdrain line or grade depending on conditions encountered. All subdrains should be surveyed by a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation. Sufficient time shall be allowed for the survey, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrains. 7.0 Excavation Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical consultant (as necessary) during grading. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation, overexcavation, and refilling of cut areas and/or remedial grading of cut slopes (Le., stability fills or slope buttresses) may be recommended. 8.0 Quantitv Determination For purposes of determining quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or determining the limits of overexcavation, a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should be utilized. -5- ~ I I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I il I I 'MINIMUM RETAINING WALL WATERPROOFING & DRAINAGE DETAIL FINAL WATERPROOFING SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS TO BE PROVIDED BY PROJECT ARCHITECT . TOP OF REf AINING WALL MASTlC TO BE APPUED TO TOP OF WALL MASTlC NPE WATER PROOFING (HLM 5000 OR EOUIV) INSTALLED PER MANUFAC1IJRES SPECIFlCA TlONS 4< PROTECTED \\1TH BACKER BOARD (AeOVE M'RAORAIN) MASl1C NOT TO BE EXPOSED TO SUNUGHT NO MIRADRAlN (top) / It. PROPOSED SlOPE: BAC1<CtJT VER OSHA STANDARDS OR PER A~TERNATlVE SlOPINc PlAN. OR PER APPROVED SHORlNC PLAN 2" SOl~ BACKFILl.. COMPACTED TO 90" RElJ<TlVE COI.tPAcTlON PER REFERENCE " a.... z :i '"' . Xiii! S '-'"--, . . RETAiNING WALl. MIRAiliwN iAhiliRANE: INSTALl.ED PER MANUF AC1IJRES SPEaFlCA lIONS OVER MASl1c WA 1!RI'RQ(lfING - HUI llOOO OR [QU'VNDlT ... FI~TER FAeRlC EN'.fl.Cf'E (MIRAFI l40N OR . APPROVED EQUIVALENT) 12" IlIN. LAP 3/4" - , 1/2" ClEAN GRA'.fl. 4"X4" (4!5d) CONCRETE CANT o FOOTlNG/WAI.L CONNEC11ON (UNDER WATER PROOFlNG) 4" (MIN'.) DIAMETER PERFORATED P\'C PIPE (SCIlEllULE 40 OR EO.) 1\11H PERFORA liONS oRIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED MIN. 2lI GRAOIENT TO SUITABLE CUllET. ENe MIRAORAIN (bottom) . 4 =111 ' 111=111=111 111- ~IIIWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II=I!I III " =III_II~ 11-111- . <~~ :OMPACTEO FILL W'.., FOOliNG lR BEDROCK . - 4 .. '4 '" COI.tPETENT BEDROCK OR FILL MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAl. CONSU~TANT SCALE: 1" = l' -0" PROJECT NAME PROJECT ADDRESS JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 2121 Montiel Road, San MafUls, CA 92069 Phone: (760)839-7302 Fax: (760}480-7477 FIGURE \\Mainlfile on main\FORMS\1 FRM\2000\MASTER. FIG.wpd 'V\. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL FINISHED SLOPE FACE PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF KEY EXISTING GROUND -- SURFACE~..-- __-- - "...._ ./"./" "..-""- "..- ...- ./" "..- ~"..- /./'" "..-'- ./ FtNISHED CUT PAD .- ./ \ ",.Ill=. l-::. I I OVERBURDEN OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL -;/ PAD OVEREXCAVATION DEPTH AND RECOMPACTION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT BASED ON ACTUAL,FIELD .._- ---COMD~T-ION-S-EH-Cou.N-TEREl)'d_d 2' I MIN. KEY DEPTH r'l_ 15' MIN. LOWEST BENCH (KEY) ~OMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALU~TED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT N,orE: Subdrain details and key width recommendations to be provided based on exposed subsurface conditions 1JO I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I STABILITY FILL I BUTTRESS DETAIL , I-II OUTLET PIPES .." 91, NONPERFORATED PIPE, 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY, 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY BACK CUT 1:1 OR FLATTER SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL LOWEST SUBDRAlN SHOULD BE SITUATED AS LOW AS POSSIBLE TO ALLOW SUITABLE OUTLET KEY ~ 10' MIN. H EACH SIDE CAP Il:: \\- . T-CO.NNECTION DETAIL e" MIN. OV0RLAP ii 3/.."-1-'/2'. 7 CLEAN GRAVEL ~9 -:1 e' MIN. (3ftiJ/ft. MIN.> #/"'1 COVER . , . . ~ ..1lJ . . NON-PERFORATED ' .' ~ I PIPE . · . :J.- ~-- -~ - FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE (MIRAFI 1..0N OR APPROVED EQUIV ALENT> * SEE T-CONNECTION DETAIL * IF CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEAeLE MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF 3/.."-1'1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL .." 12l PERFORATED PIPE U.S. Standard Sieve Size ''''MiNT 4" MIN. BEDDING I" 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 :: Passinq 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 lB-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL Sand Equivalent>75 NOTES: Fo, buttre.. dlmenelons. see geotechnical report/plans. Actual dlmenalons of buttrass and .ubdraln ma~ be changed by the geotechnical consultant based on field conditions. SUBDRAtN INSTALLATION-Subd,aln pipe should be installed with perforationa. down aa depleted. At locallon' recommended by the geotechnical consultant, nonperlorated pipe should be Installed SUBDRAIN TYPE-Subdraln type should be Acrylon t,lIe Butadiene Styrene (A.B.S.>, polyvinyl Chloride (PVC> 0' app,oved equivalent. Cia.. 12S,SDR 32.5 should be u.ed for maximum fill deptha 01 3S feet. Cia., 20O,SDR 21 .houldbe u.ed lor maximum fill depth. of 100 f.et. '7/~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS eXlaTINe GROUND SUR,ACI :\ II ::\\\ rrtll SUBDRAIN TRENCH SEE BELOW SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAILS FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE /,,6" MIN. OVERLAP (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED I.-f-.J EQUIVALENT)'* \ I , .--'>Iiiii: 6' MIN. , ....'. 'l' - I;:;. COVER = . . . , .' .11 I 1"1'.' '.1- =. ,. . - . 3/4"-1-1/2' CLEAN GRAVEL (9ft.31ft. MIN.) 4' ",IN. BEDDING 3/4'-1'-1/2' CLEAN GAA VEL (lIft.3/1t. MIN.) '* IF CAL TRANS CLASS :I PERMEABLE MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF 3/4'-1-1/2" GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED 6" 11 MIN. PERFORATED PIPE DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL U.S. Standard Sieve Size ~ Passinq 1" 100 3/4" 90-100 3/8" 40-10d No. 4 25-40 No.8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0-3 Sand Equi va 1 ent > 75 DESIGN FINISH GRADE SUBDRAIN . . . PERFORATED 8" 11 MIN. PIPE Subdraln Should be conslrucled only on coml)etenl material as evalualed by Ihe geolechnlcsl conaultant. SU8DRAIN INSTALLATION Subdraln I)ll)e should be inslalled wllh I)erloratlons down as del)lcred. At locatlona recommended by rhe geotechnical consultant. nonl)erforated I)ll)e should be Installad. SUBDRAIN TYPE-Subdraln IYl)e should be Acrylonllrlle Butadiene Slyrene (A. B.S.), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) or al)l)roved equivalent. Class 125, SDR 32.5 should be uaed for maximum fill del)tha of 35 leet. Class 200, SDR 21 should be uaed lor maximum fill del)tha of 100 leel. ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS EXISTING GROUND SURFACE PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE "ROM TOE OF SLOPE . FILL SLOPE ~ , FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE - 2.r-(g~~,:;-l.' MIN, BENCH D~~H (KEY) CUT SLOPE (TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT) /,/ EXISTING / / GROUND // SURFACE~ / 'K / / ?l~Y / L. "'~ / CUT SLOPE (TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FILL . PLACEMENT) CUT-OVER""'FILL SLOPE PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO COMPETENT MATERIAL REMOVE UNSUITABLE 'MA TERIAL BENCH '?\. I ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL I PIN&8H GAADE I .coP. "c. .~~"tJ!~_I.I"< ---:;_~~:~~~-g:~~ ~~~~~~~~~v.~ ------=--:..-:.."':..- ------..:"- ---:_-.:-- --_'":."":.."":.."":...~.;"":.."":..---- -----..: _-j:~~:t~:t~:t:f:BEggg::-':-_:-~Slji'PACfED-FlCL:l.~~~~~ -----~~"-:*---:~-.:---~--r ]--_.....................--~---- --~--., _-j:~!I&'il~ii~if~..f~:tJ!'@!~~~)J"- --------- ~-- - --- ---------- ------...:it=:::------~1- -- --- 'Wlii.~iil".l'Z~Ji.i!iJli~~~;>:AX. - - OVERSIZE WINDROW I I I I GRANULAR SOIL (S,E.i!: 30) TO BE DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY FLOODING I I DETAIL I --------------- -------------- --------------- I -----~o-r- - rx:)l _) rx-] --------------- I -------------- --------------- TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW I I 1) Rock with maximum dimensions greater than 6 inches should not be used within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (or 2 feet below depth of lowest utility whichever is greater), and 15 feet horizontally of slope faces, 2) Rocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4 feet should not be utilized in fills. 3) Rock placement, flooding of granular soil, and fill placement should be observed by the geotechnical consultant. . I I 4) Maximum size and spacing of windrows should be in accordance with the above details Width of windrow should not exceed 4 feet. Windrows should be staggered vertically (as depicted). 5). Rock should be placed in excavated trenches. Granular soil (S.E, greater than or equal to 30) should be flooded in the windrow to completely fill voids around and beneath rocks. I I I ?jt-. I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I APPENDIX -C- "??? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES Direct Shear Test Direct shear tests are performed on remolded and/or relatively undisturbed samples which are soaked for a minimum of 24 hours prior to testing. After transferring the sample to the shearbox, and reloading, pore pressures are allowed to dissipated for a period of approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples are sheared in a motor- driven, strain controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus. After a travel of approximately 1/4 inch, the motor is stopped and the sample is allowed to "relax" for approximately 15 minutes. Where applicable, the "relaxed" and "peak" shear values are recorded. It is anticipated that, in a majority of samples tested, the 15 minutes relaxing of the sample is sufficient to allow dissipation of pore pressures set up due to application of the shearing force. The relaxed values are therefore judged to be good estimations of effective strength parameters. EXDansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of representative samples is evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 29-2. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water for 24 hours or until volumetric equilibrium is reached. Classification Tests: Typical materials were subjected to mechanical grain-size analysis by wet sieving from U.S. Standard brass screens (ASTM 0422-65). Hydrometer analyses were performed where appreciable quantities offines were encountered. The data was evaluated in determining the classification of the materials. The grain-size distribution curves are presented in the test data and the Unified Soil Classification is presented in both the test data and the boring logs. ?/\ I I I I I I II I I I 'I , I I II II I I I I I APPENDIX .0. ~~ RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL RETAINING WALL WALL WATERPROOFING PER ARCHITECT'S SPECIFICA TIONS FINISH GRADE ':.o-_-:"-_~~-_~"'::..-:"-:"-:"-:"-:"-:"-:"-_-:"-:"-:"-:,,~-:,,-:,,~~-:,,"'::..-:,,~ t~~~~~~~~~~:t~it=t~~~~ ._~_-.:_-~-- ---------_..:-...:-..::.:-.:_-..:-: ---------:..:::~:.?~.::-::-==-==-==..;:~ WALL FOOTING OJ NO.T TO SCALE SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL U.S. Standard Sieve Size :I: Passinq 1" 100 3/4" 90-100 3/8" 40-100 No. :4 25-40 No.8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 No .50 0-7 No. .200 0-3 . Sand Equivalent>75 SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION'" ,;:,;:~:,;:,;:,;:,;:,;:,;:,;:,;: ~-,;:-~,;:,;:,;:,;::t,;::t~::--. "-"-"-"<-"-"-"-"-"-"--1"-"-"-"-"-"-"-"-"-"-"-"-- IIII~' ~iil?- I-:--c;r..,~ :t:t:t:t~:t~- o ,.... t' I :::::::-:. 10S' MIN. 0 ~~:f~ FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE OVERLA~ ,;:,;::t:f (MIRAFI 1~ON OR APPROVED ',~. '..:' .11 2:~~:.:::N::N .RA '" W . . I.: 0 I : ..' (MIN,) DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE ~o OR EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT "'BASED ON ASTM 01557 ".". IF CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL (SEE GRADATION TO ~EFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF 3/.0-1-112' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED. CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERtAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATlV~ COMPACTION'" NOTE:COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS M1RAORAIN OR J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNA11VE TO GRAVEL OR ~ CLASS 2.INSTALLA11ON SHOULD BE PERFCRM:D IN ACCORDANCE r wrTH MANUFACTURER'S SPEClACA 11CNS.