HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical Investigation(M
"
03-17-96:01 :CCPM;SOILS SCUTHWEST l~lC.
:9C9370'?:1:se
I'
,
J!'./
~-
,
~
lio-
-"'"
'0
SOilS SOUTHWEST, INC.
I
SOILS, MAl1:RIALS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
I
,
897 VIA LATA, SUITE IN . COLTON, CA 92324 . (909) 370-0474 . (909) 370-0481 . FAX (909) 370-3156
TRAC1 f:-- J..g3o 9
MDNlf- V\ )1A-
March 18, 1997
Regency Homes, Inc.
4532 Sharon Drive
La Palma, California 9$23
(310-865-7788) !
Lo ~ {,~ /7 (?'- 01/(
Attention:
Subject:
Mr. Aseet Patel
proposeFsi . ract Development
T entativ ract
Nicholas ad
Temecula, California
Reference:
Report of Geotechnical Investi9ation
Prepared by Leighton & Associates
Report Dated January 2, 1996
PRDJnT: '"f\". r r 9503G4-001
Gentlemen:
i
I
Based on the SPT blowfcounts presented in the referenced report prepared for the Tract 28309, it is our
opinion that the upper! existing fills should be termed as 'medium dense to dense' in consistency.
Considering above, along with the fact that imported soils will be required to elevate the present grades
. by about 3 to 5 feet, it i~ our opinion that such new fills may be placed following 18" of processing of the
present surface in formlof scarification, moisturization and recompaction to 90% of better. Such surficial
processing should inclu~e all the areas planned to receive new fills, including planned rear and front yards,
,
I
While no additional SUb~xcavations of the existing grades are anticipated prior to new fill placement, such
if required, will be brought to your attention during grading.
i
Import soils used, Sho~ld be free of any chemical contaminations, organic and clay, preferably sandy,
granular in nature. Import soils selected, should be verified by Soils Southwest, Inc. prior to their
importation to the s~e. i 'EO
~Il.()c ,"SIO""
Respectfully submitted, I '. .#~'dJ i' - -G:i,;;: (~
Soils Southwest, Inc, i !:} <if -"}\ ~
'" ...
... !W1f18 ';;
*. E'tP./z.."r-lJO l}
\
U'''4r. ,IVIL ~'<;-
. f! 0 ALI~()~
dist/1-addressee (by FB!< 310-40
i
J
Mol y upta, P.E.
.
\
Established 1984
,
,
'j"
"
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIA TES, INC.
GeotedInlcal and Environmental Engineering Consultants
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION,
PROPOSED RANCHO ROSES,
TENTATIVE lRACf 28309,
NICHOLAS ROAD,
CTIY OF TEMECULA,
RIVERSIDE COUNIY, CALIFORNIA
January 2, 1996
Project No. 11950364-001
Prepared For:
REALIT MANAGEMENT ADVISORS
4350 La ]olla Village Drive, Suile 300
San Diego, California 92122
1134 MURPHY CANYON ROAD. SUITE B20S. SAN DIEGO, C" 92123
(619) 292,5030 . ,BOO1 4-+7,2626 7..-
=AX ~ 6! ?"! 292-0771
~
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIA TES, INC.
GeotedInlcal and Environmental Engineering Consultants
January 2, 1996
Project No. 11950364-001
To: Realty Management Advisors
4350 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, California 92122
Attention: Mr. Bill Kennedy
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Rancho Roses, Tentative Tract 28309, Nicolas
Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California
In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton and Associates, Inc. has performed a
geotechnical investigation for the proposed above-referenced site. The accompanying report presents
a summary of our investigation and provides conclusions and recommendations relative to the
proposed site development.
Based on the results of our investigation and review of the current project plan prepared by Robert
Bein, William Frost and Associates, the proposed residential development is considered feasible from
a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations outlined in this report are implemented
during site grading and construction.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We
appreciate this opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, me.
<{~~
Associate ogist
f~
Jose!> G. Franzone, R 9552
. tor of Engineering
KABIMB/JGF/keb
Distribution:
(4) Addressee
.J
39 H MUPPHY CrNYON ROAD. SUiTE 8205. SAN DIEGO. CA 92123
(619) 292,8030 . ,eoO) 447-2626
FAX (6:9) 292-077i
~
11950364-001
.,.
TABLE OF CONTENfS
Section
Pal!e
1.0 IN1RODUCTION
. .............................. ......................
1
1.1 Purpose and Scope ................................................. 1
1.2 Site Location and Description ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Proposed Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ............ 2
2.1 Subsurface Investigation ............................................. 2
2.2 Laboratory Testing ................................................. 2
3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDmONS .......................... 3
3.1 Regional Geologic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2 Site Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2.1 Fill Soils ..................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2.2 Alluvial Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3 Ground Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICTIY ......................................... 5
4.1 Faulting.......................................................... 5
4.2 Seismicity ........................................................ 5
4.2.1 Lurching.................................................... 6
4.2.2 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.3 Subsidence and FISSuring ....................................... 6
5.0 CONCLUSIONS...................................................... 7
5.1 Seismicity ........................................................ 7
5.2 Excavatability ..................................................... 7
5.3 Fill Suitability ..................................................... 7
5.4 Ground Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
~
- i -
~!I
~ ~
IEI8KrDII AIID ASSDCIA rES. IMe.
':
-:
11950364-001
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
Pal!e
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
...............................................
8
6.1 General Earthwork. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.1 Site Preparation .............................................. 8
6.1.2 Removals and Excavations ...................................... 8
6.1.3 Structural Fills ............................................... 8
6.1.4 Trench Backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2 Control of Ground Water and Surface Water ............................. 9
6.21 Surface Drainage and Erosion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3 Foundation Design ................................................. 9
6.4 floor Slabs ....................................................... 10
6.5 Settlement.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
6.6 Lateral Earth Pressures and Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
6.7 Preliminary Pavement Design ......................................... 12
7.0 CONSlRUCTION OBSERVATION AND PLAN REVIEW.................... 13
Accompanying Figures and Appendices
Fil!Ures
Figure 1 - Site Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rear of Text
Plates
Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map ............................................. In Pocket
Aooendices
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Boring Logs
Appendix C - Laboratory Testing Procedures and Results
Appendix D - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
~
- 1 -
lEIIIHrIIMUD ASSDCIAmI, lilt:,
'"
11950364-001
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Puroose and Scooe
This report presents the results of Leighton and Associates, Inc.'s (Leighton) geotechnical
investigation of the proposed Rancho Roses, Tentative Tract 28309, Nicolas Road in the City
of Temecula, California. The purpose of our investigation was to identify and evaluate the
pertinent geotechnical conditions present at the site and to provide geotechnical conclusions
and recommendations relative to the proposed development. Our scope of services included:
.
Review of referenced documents and maps (Appendix A).
.
Site reconnaissance.
.
Subsurface exploration, consisting of the excavation, logging and sampling of five smaIl-
diameter borings on the site. Logs of these borings are presented in Appendix B.
.
Laboratory testing of representative soil samples obtained from the subsurface exploration
program. Results of these tests are presented in Appendix C and on the boring logs
(Appendix B).
.
Compilation and analysis of the geotechnical data obtained from our background studies,
field investigation and laboratory testing.
.
Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations
regarding the proposed development.
1.2 Site Location and Descriotion
The site is located on Nicolas Road approximately 1 mile east of the intersection of Nicholas
Road and Winchester Road in Temecula, California (Figure 1 - Site Location Map). The
subject site is currently a vacant dirt lot covering approximately 11.4 acres. Several vacant
structures, including greenhouse-type structures, and a large section of asphalt and concrete
were being demolished near the southwest comer of the property during this inve::tigation.
Current site elevation ranges from approximately 1,119 feet mean sea level (msl) at the
southwest comer of the site to 1,127 feet msl at the southeast comer of the lot.
1.3 Prooosed Develooment
The proposed development consists of a residential development with associated streets,
hardscapes, and landscaping. We anticipate minor cuts and fills to create the desired building
pads and street elevations. Development plans depicting the anticipated grading configuration
were not available at the time of this report preparation.
"
- 1 -
lE/SI/TO. A.D _m.l.c.
.
11950364-001
"
2.0 'SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
2.1 Subsurface Investil!ation
Our subsurface investigation consisted of the excavation of five 8-inch-diameter, hollow-stem
auger borings to depths between 21 to 41 feet below the existing ground surface. The purpose
of these excavations was to evaluate the engineering characteristics of the onsite soils relative
to the proposed developmenL
The borings were logged by a geologist from our finn. Representative relatively undisturbed
and bulk samples were collected during drilling for laboratory testing. The approximate
locations of the borings are shown on Plate 1. Logs of borings are presented in Appendix B.
Subsequent to logging, the borings were backfilled with borehole cuttings. Some settlement of
the boring backfill soils should be expected with time.
2.2 Laboratory Testinl!
Representative samples were tested for the following parameters: in-situ moisture content and
density, expansion potential, and consolidation. The results of our laboratory testing along with
a summary of the testing procedures are presented in Appendix C. In-situ moisture and density
test results are presented on the boring logs <Appendix B).
"\
- 2 -
~.:! ~., m__
~R-
.' -
LEISHTOII A/lD AS$OCIA rES. INC.
,
=
11950364-001
3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDmONS
3.1 Rel!ional Geolol!ic Settin2
The site is located in the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province of California. The Peninsular
Ranges are characterized by steep, elongated valleys that trend northwestward. More
specifically, the property is located adjacent to a fault-rontrolled, down-dropped graben known
as the Elsinore Trough. This graben is believed to contain as much as 3,000 feet of alluvium
which has accumulated since Miocene time. The Elsinore Trough is bounded on the northeast
by the Wildomar fault and on the southwest by the Willard fault. These faults are part of the
Elsinore fault zone which extends from the San Gabriel River Valley southeasterly to the
United States/Mexico border. The Wildomar fault is considered active, and the Willard fault
is considered to be potentially active.
The Santa Ana Mountains lie along the western side of the Elsinore fault zone and the Perris
Block is located along the eastern side of the fault zone. The mountain ranges are underlain
by Pre-Cretaceous metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks and Cretaceous plutonic rocks on
the Southern California batholith. Tertiary and Quaternary rocks are generally comprised of
non-marine sediments consisting of sandstones, mudstones, conglomerates and occasional
volcanic units.
3.2 Site Geolol!V
Based on our subsurface exploration and review of our referenced reports (Appendix A), the
site is apparently underlain by fill soils which are, in turn, underlain by a thick sequence of
alluvial soils with bedrock material at depth. A brief description of the onsite units encountered
during our subsurface investigation is presented below.
3.2.1 Fill Soils
Fill soils onsite were encountered to depths ranging from 3 to 8 feet below the existing
ground surface in our borings. These soils were descnbed as brown, damp to moist,
sandy silt to silty sand with scattered construction debris. Expansion index testing of
a representative sample of the fill soils indicates a low expansion potential (UBC
index = 34). The fill soils were evaluated to be relatively dry in the upper portions
and relatively competent and suitable for support of the proposed development below
the upper 3 feet.
~
- 3 -
lEISHfO. AltD ASSIIC/A rES. IMe.
,
11950364-001
~
3.2.2 AlIuviaI Soils
Alluvial soils were encountered below the fill soils (at a depth of 3 to 8 feet) to the
total depth explored (41 feet). These soils were descnbed as light brown, damp,
medium dense, sandy clay to medium dense, clayey sand with layers of medium dense,
fine to medium sand. The alIuvial soils are also relatively competent and suitable for
the support of fill and/or structural loads. Our laboratory testing indicated a low
potential for hydroconsolidation, which could be further reduced by remedial measures
during grading (see Section 6.1).
3.3 Ground Water
Ground water was not observed at the time of drilling. Ground water is not anticipated to be
a constraint to the proposed at-grade construction. However, ground-water depths and
localized seepage can be expected to fluctuate in response to rainfalI, irrigation and broken
water lines.
q
- 4-
UlBHTO. AMD ASSOCIATES. I.e.
~
~
,
11950364-001
4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICTIY
4.1 Faultinl!
Our discussion of faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California legislation and
policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults. By definition
of the California Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is a fault which has had surface
displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years). The State Geologist
has defined a POtentiallv active fault as any fault considered to have been active during
Quaternary time (the last 2,000,000 years). 1bis defmition is used in delineating Special Studies
Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of 1972, and as
subsequently revised in 1975, 1985, 1990, and 1992. The intent of this act is to assure that
unwise urban development, and certain inhabitable structures, do not occur across the traces
of active faults. The subject site is not included within any special study zones as created by
the Alquist-Priolo Act
A review of available geologic literature pertaining to the subject site (Appendix A) indicates
that there are no known active faults crossing the property. The nearest known active regional
fault is the Elsinore fault zone located approximately 3.1 miles southwest of the site.
4.2 Seismicity
The subject site can be considered to lie within a seismically active region, as can all of
southern California A maximum probable earthquake is the maximum exnectable earthquake
produced from a causative fault during a l00..year interval
The Elsinore fault zone is considered to have the most significant affect at the site from a
design standpoint A maximum probable earthquake of Richter Magnitude 6.75 is expected to
produce a peak horizontal ground acceleration of approximately O.5g at the site. The effect
of seismic shaking may be mitigated by adhering to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and
state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California
1bis site is located within UBC Seismic Zone 4.
Secondary effects associated with severe ground shaking, following a relatively large earthquake
on a regional fault which may affect the site, include ground lurching, soil liquefaction and
dynamic settlement These secondary effects of seismic shaking are discussed in the following
sections.
\0
- 5 -
tElSHTOM AMD ASSDClArES. 'Me.
,
,
11950364-001
4.2.1 LurchiDlz
Soil lurching refers to the rolling motion on the surface due to the passage of seismic
surface waves. Effects of this nature are not considered significant on sites (such as
the subject site) where the thickness of soft sediments does not vary appreciably under
structures.
4.2.2 Liauefaction and DYnamic Settlement
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose shear strength for short periods of
time during an earthquake, which may result in a very large total and/or differential
settlements for structures founded on liquefying soils. In order for the potential effects
of liquefaction to be manifested at the ground surface, the soils generally have to be
granular, loose to medium dense, saturated relative Iv near the 1IT0und surface. and
must be subjected to a sufficient magnitude and duration of shaking. The subject site
is located in an area delineated by the County of Riverside as an area of potential
liquefaction. However, liquefaction is not considered likely to occur in clayey alluvial
materials, dense formational materials or properly compacted fill soils. It is our
opinion that (due to the depth to ground water) adverse liquefaction and associated
dynamic settlement to surface structures due to a design earthquake event are unlikely
at this site.
It should be recognized, however, that many of the parameters used in liquefaction
evaluation are subjective and open to interpretation. It should also be understood that
much of southern California is an area of moderate to high seismic risk and it is not
generally considered economically feasible to build structures totally resistant to
earthquake-related hazards. However, current state-of-the-art standards for design and
construction are intended to reduce the potential for major structural damage at this
time.
4.2.3 Subsidence and rlSSurinl!
The subject site lies relatively adjacent to a region which has been delineated by the
Riverside County Planning Department to have the potential for differential settlement
or subsidence and associated surface fissuring. It is our opinion given that no active
faults are known to transect the subject site and that the site is underlain by fill soils
over a relatively uniform deposit of competent alluvial soils, that the potential for
differential settlement and/or subsidence at the site due to the design earthquake event
is considered low.
\\
- 6.
W/IIfflIN ANO ASSDClArES. INC.
o
=
11950364-001
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation of the site, it is our opinion that
the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations
contained herein are incorporated in the project design. The following is a summary of the
geotechnical factors which may affect development of the site.
5.1 Seismicirv
Active faults are not known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The maximum
anticipated ground acceleration on the site due to a maximum probable earthquake on the
Elsinore fault zone is estimated to be approximately 0.5g.
5.2 Excavatabilirv
We anticipate that excavations of the surficial soils could generally be accomplished with
conventional earthwork equipment in good working condition.
5.3 Fill Suitabilirv
The existing onsite soils appear to be suitable material for structural fill provided they are
relatively free of rock fragments larger than 6 inches in maximum dimensions, organic material
and/or deleterious debris. Oversize material, if encountered, should be exported offsite.
5.4 Ground Water
Ground water was not encountered in any of the borings during our investigation. Ground
water is not anticipated to have a significant adverse effect on the proposed at-grade
construction.
\1.--
- 7-
W6Kf0M DD ASSDCJAffS.'MC.
11950364-001
,
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General Earthwork
Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading
Specifications in Appendix D, and the following recommendations. The recommendations
contained in Appendix D are general grading specifications provided for typical grading projects
and may not be strictly applicable to this project. The specific recommendations contained in
the text of this report supersede the general recommendations in Appendix D. The contract
between the developer and earthwork contractor should be worded such that it is the
responsibility of the contractor to place the fill properly and in accordance with the
recommendations of this report and the specifications in Appendix D, not withstanding the
testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant.
6.1.1 Site Preoaration
Prior to grading, the site should be cleared of existing structures, surface and
subsurface obstructions (including any existing buried electrical, storm drain, water,
sewer pipes and/or septic systems which are to be abandoned), existing asphalt,
pavement, deleterious debris, and landscape vegetation. Vegetation, oversize material
and debris should be disposed of olIsite. Holes resulting from removal of buried
obstructions which extend below finished site grades should be filled with properly
compacted soil.
6.1.2 Removals and Excavations
" Landscaping topsoil, loose, dry soils and existing asphalt should be removed below and
j.e e. 1'" t within 5 feet (measured horizontally) of the pro structure or proposed fill areas,
/)\tC<-~ ......,JtJl'"
r S "".. <: ent-sensitive structures. Th removal d recompaction depth should
_ $;" S 0 be approximate 3 feet below t e ground su ace r roposed rough grade
,t' ;2,o<{J(L!{,~i elevations and may be locally deeper based on ac con 1 ons encountered during
~ ,-' QliJ ~ding. After removals, the base of removaIs should be thoroughly moistened with
! "I ~I/, :.) I' I/~~ water truck until the moisture penetration has reached a depth of 3 feet from the
(;Ilu )4:, · ~ \,IV' base of the removals. We anticipate that excavations may be accomplished using
, :1 [~ IV standard, heavy-duty grading and excavation equipment. All excavations should be in
M V /l1N) accordance with Cal-OSHA regulations.
L~lp,
6.13 Structural Fills
The onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fiIl, provided they are free
of organic materials and debris, asphalt concrete, and material larger than 6 inches.
The compacted fill soils should be brought to at least 1 percent above the optimum
\'?
- 8-
WSNTIIII AJ/D ASSDCIArES. INC.
:
11950364-001
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General Earthwork
Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading
Specifications in Appendix D, and the following recommendations. The recommendations
contained in Appendix D are general grading specifications provided for typical grading projects
and may not be strictly applicable to this project. The specific recommendations contained in
the text of this report supersede the general recommendations in Appendix D. The contract
between the developer and earthwork contractor should be worded such that it is the
responsibility of the contractor to place the fill properly and in accordance with the
recommendations of this report and the specifications in Appendix D, not withstanding the
testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant.
6.1.1 Site Preoaration
Prior to grading, the site should be cleared of existing structures, surface and
subsurface obstructions (including any existing buried electrical, storm drain, water,
sewer pipes and/or septic systems which are to be abandoned), existing asphalt,
pavement, deleterious debris, and landscape vegetation. Vegetation, oversize material
and debris should be disposed of offsite. Holes resulting from removal of buried
obstructions which extend below finished site grades should be filled with properly
compacted soil.
6.1.2 Removals and Excavations
Landscaping topsoil, loose, dry soils and existing asphalt should be removed below and
within 5 feet (measured horizontally) of the proposed structure or proposed fill areas,
and all settlement-sensitive structures. The removal and recompaction depth should
be approximately 3 feet below the existing ground surface or proposed rough grade
elevations and may be locally deeper based on actual conditions encountered during
grading. After removals, the base of removals should be thoroughly moistened with
a water truck until the moisture penetration has reached a depth of 3 feet from the
base of the removaIs. We anticipate that excavations may be accomplished using
standard, heavy-duty grading and excavation equipment. All excavations should be in
accordance with Cal-OSHA regulations.
6.1.3 Structural Fills
The onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill, provided they are free
of organic materials and debris, asphalt concrete, and material larger than 6 inches.
The compacted fill soils should be brought to at least 1 percent above the optimum
\b...
- 8-
I' &1--
. -~
-
1E16HrD. AJlO ASSIJCIA rES. I.e.
,
11950364-001
,
moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The
optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type
and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in unifonn
lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Fill soils should be placed a minimum of 90
percent relative compaction, at least 1 percent above optimum moisture content based
on ASTM D1557-91.
Import soils should be of low to very low expansion potential (less than 50 per
UBC 18-2).
6.1.4 Trench Backfill
The onsite soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided they are screened
of rocks and other material over 6 inches in diameter and organic matter. Trench
backfill should be compacted in unifonn lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in compacted
thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM
D1557-91).
6.2 Control of Ground Water and Surface Water
Our experience indicates that surface or near-surface ground-water conditions can develop in
areas where ground-water conditions did not exist prior to site development, especially in areas
where a substantial increase in surface-water infiltration results from landscape irrigation.
Drainage devices for reduction of water accumulation can be recommended if these conditions
are observed. We recommend that landscape irrigation be kept to the minimum necessary to
maintain plant vigor.
6.2.1 Surface Drainal!e and Erosion
Surface drainage should be controlled at all times. Positive surface drainage should
be provided to direct surface water away from the structures, toward the street or
suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of water should be avoided adjacent to structures.
6.3 Foundation Desirn
We assume that the structures will be underlain by soils of low expansion potential (less than
50 per UBC 18-2). Footings bearing in properly compacted fill should extend a minimum of
12 inches (for one-story structures) or 18 inches (for two-story structures) below the lowest
adjacent grade. At this depth, footings may be designed using an allowable soil-bearing value
of 2,000 pounds per square foot (pst). This value may be increased by one-third for loads of
short duration, including wind or seismic forces. Footings should be reinforced with four No.
t'
\?
-9-
LEIBHTDII AIID ASSfJCIATE$. IMe.
,
11950364-001
o
4 rebars, two near the top and two near the bottom of the footing. The footings should have
a minimum 7-foot setback (measured horizontally) from the base of the footing to daylight
6.4 Floor Slabs
All slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches. Reinforcement should consist of No.
3 bars at 18 inches on center (each way) or No.4 bars at 24 inches on center (each way). We
emphasize that it is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the slab reinforcement
is placed at midheight of the slab. Slabs should be underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand
(sand equivalent greater than 30) to aid in concrete curing, which is underlain by a 6-mil (or
heavier) moisture barrier, which is in turn underlain by 2 inches of clean sand to act as a
capillary break. All penetrations through the moisture barrier and all laps should be sealed.
Our experience indicates that use of reinforcement in slabs and foundations can generally
reduce the potential for drying and shrinkage cracking. However, some cracking should be
expected as the concrete cures. Minor cracking is considered normal; however, it is often
aggravated by a high water/cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of placement,
small nominal aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due to hot, dry and/or windy weather
conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and moisture
fluctuations can also be expected. The use of low slump concrete (not exceeding 4 inches at
the time of placement) can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking. To reduce the
potential for moisture migration through the concrete to have a detrimental affect on floor
coverings, we recommend that the floor coverings contractor test the moisture-vapor flux rate
prior to attempting application of moisture-sensitive floorings. "Breathable" floor coverings
should be considered if the vapor flux rates are high. Floor covering manufacturers should be
consulted for specific recommendations.
If tile or other crack-sensitive flooring is planned, a slipsheet should be used. Rextble joint
material should be used where crack-sensitive flooring overlies concrete joints.
6.5 Settlement
The recommended allowable bearing capacity is generally based on a total allowable settlement
of 3/4 inch. Actual settlement can be estimated on the basis that settlement is roughly
proportional to the net contact bearing pressure. Since settlements are a function of footing
size and contact bearing pressure, some differential settlement can be expected between
adjacent columns or walls where a large differential loading condition exists.
However, for most cases, differential settlements are considered unlikely to exceed 1/2 inch.
With increased footing depth/width ratios, differential settlements should be less.
\~
- 10-
LEJSHrDM AIID ASSDCfArES. IMC.
11950364-001
6.6 Lateral Earth Pressures and Resistance
Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The
magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can
withstand under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the
soil, it can be designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load,
the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such
walls should be designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the
resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance.
For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure in each case for walls founded
above the static ground-water table and backfilled with soils of very low to low expansion
potential are provided below. All backfill soils should have an expansion potential of 50 or less
(per UBC 18-2).
Equivalent fluid Weight (pet)
Condition Level
Active 35
At-Rest 55
Passive 350
(Maximum of 3 lest)
The above values assume very low to low expansion potential backfill and free-draining
conditions. If conditions other than these covered herein are anticipated, the equivalent fluid
pressure values should be provided on an individual case basis by the geotechnical engineer.
A surcharge load for a restrained or unrestrained wall resulting from automobile traffic may be
assumed to be equivalent to a uniform pressure of 75 psf which is in addition to the equivalent
fluid pressures given above. All retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate
drainage and waterproofing. Typical retaining wall drainage design is illustrated in Appendix
D. Wall backfill should be compacted by mechanical methods to at least 95 percent relative
compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91).
Wall footings design and setbacks should be performed in accordance with the previous
foundation design recommendations and reinforced in accordance with structural considerations.
Soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be obtained from the passive
pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.35 may
be used at the concrete and soil interface. These values may be increased by one-third when
considering loads of short duration, including wind or seismic loads. The total resistance may
be taken as the sum of the frictional and passive resistance provided that the passive portion
does not exceed two-thirds the total resistance.
\"\
- 11 -
LEISJITtJ. AIID ASSOCIATES. IIIC.
11950364-001
,
6.7 Preliminary Pavement Desim
Our evaluation of the onsite soils indicates they should possess an R-value of approximately
35. Utilizing this, with a traffic index of 5.0 and 5.5 for the interior streets, a preliminary
pavement section of 3.0 inches of asphalt concrete over 5.0 inches (for a traffic index of 5.0)
or 6.5 (for a traffic index of 5.5) of Class II aggregate base should be anticipated. The final
pavement section should be based on R-value samples obtained near the fInish grade during
earthwork operations.
\~
- 12 -
~&I"
't!._ .
i'-, ~
-
WBHrON AIID ASSOCIA TES. INC.
11950364-001
.7.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND PLAN REVIEW
The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by field
reconnaissance and widely spaced exploratory borings. The interpolated subsurface conditions should
be checked in the field during construction by a representative of Leighton. We recommend that
onsite excavations be observed during grading by a representative from Leighton. Construction
observation and field density testing of compacted fill should be performed by a Leighton
representative so that construction is in accordance with the recommendations of this report and
requirements of the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside. Revisions to the grading and/or
building plans should be reviewed by this office prior to construction.
\'\
- 13 .
LEIIlHTDM AJID ASSOCIATES, IMC.
~
SITE LOCATION MAP
BASE MAP: U.S.G.S. 7.5
min. Murrieta and
Bachelor Mtn~ Topographic
Quadrangles
RANCHO ROSES
Project No.
Scale
Engr.lGeol.
Drafted By
Date
11950364-001
1-/24.000'
JGF/MB
KAB
12/22/95
7P
Nicolas Rd., Temecula
'042 889
Figure No. 1
~
APPENDIX A
7>
~
11950364-001
APPENDIX A
References
Albee, AL., and Smith, J.L., 1966, Earthquake Characteristics and Fault Activity in Southern
California, in Lung, R and Proctor, R., 00., Engineering Geology in Southern California,
Association of Engineering Geologists, Special Publication, dated October 1966.
Bolt, B.A, 1973, Duration of Strong Ground Motion, Proc. Fifth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Rome, Paper No. 292, pp. 1394-1313, dated June 1973.
Bonilla, MJ., 1970, Surface Faulting and Related Effects, in Wiegel, R, 00., Earthquake Engineering,
New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., pp. 47-74.
California, State of, Department of Transportation, 1988a, Standard Specifications, dated January
1988.
, 1988b, Highway Design Manual, 4th Ed., dated August 5, 1988.
Greensfelder, R W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Accelerations from Earthquakes in California,
California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23.
Hart, E. W., 1992, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones
Act of 1972, with Index to Special Study Zones Maps: Department of Conservation, Division
of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42.
Ishihara, K., 1985, "Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes", Proc. of the Eleventh
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, AA Belkema
Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Jennings, C.W., 1992, Fault Activity Map of California: California Division of Mines and Geology,
DMG Open-FIle Report 92'{)3.
Lamar, D.L., Merifield, P.M., and Proctor, RJ., 1973, Earthquake Recurrence Intervals on Major
Faults in Southern California, in Moran, D.E., Slosron, J.E., Stone, RD., Yelverston, C.A, cds.,
1973, Geology Seismicity, and Environmental Impact: Association of Engineering Geologists,
Special Publication.
Robert Bein, William Frost, Inc., 1983 (Revised 1988), Riverside County Comprehensive General
Plan Seismic-Geologic Map, Compiled by Riverside County Planning Department, dated
January 1983 (revised April 1988).
Schnabel, B., and Seed, J.B., 1973, Accelerations in Rock for Earthquakes in the Western United
States, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, V. 63, No.2, pp. 501-516.
7/1/
A-I
~
11950364-001
APPENDIX A (Continued)
Seed, H.B., Ideiss, I.M., and Kiefer, F. W., 1969, Characteristics of Rock Motions During Earthquakes,
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, V. 95, No. SMS, Proc. Paper 6783,
pp. 119-1218.
A-I
7P
~
APPENDIX B
~
.
Datc
Project
Drilling Co.
Hoic Diamctcr
Elcwtion Top of Holc +/-
S05A("I77)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG KEY
Sheet 1 of 1
Project N;;:"" _.
Type of Rig
KEY TO BORING LOG GRAPHICS
C
o^
;+-
.QI
>QI
~~
'"
Drive Weight
ft. Rcf. or Datum
J:^
....
Q,QI
....
c'"
"
U
J:lll
11.0
......
c..
'"
..
QI
..
o
z
o
w
~
5
'/
~
10
......
I
~
"'.'-
0.""..,:..:
\J' (
O'
15
'r f
'2~
.~
-=== '
=:?'
==---==
20
oo.Oq
~~
'\ '
'- -
'J'-: <
-l "'"
~.
.
-
-
'"
.
o
Z
QI
11.
E
"
CII
"
.. ..
\It 0 .-
:]0
0'"
-c..
lCQI
l1.
..^
C'"
QlU
CQ,
~
"
c..
c
^
QloN'
c.."
"..
"c
"QI
.0....
J:c
o
u
Drop
in.
.;.~
..'
"Ul
-c..i
u.
_C11
._~
ell"
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged By
Sampled By
CL
CH
lnorganec day 0{ low to medium pwtic1ry. pwvelly clay; sanc:ly day: SIlty day; lean
clay
(narpn;c clay of high pluticiry: (a! clay
OL-OH Organic clay. ~lt or silty ciay...clayey silt mtxtura
~L Inorganic silt: very fine sand: silty or clayey fine sand: e1.aycy adt with low pluhciry
l.fH
'norganlc silt: diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils.: elutic silt
CL.Ml Low plastiC'ity clay to silt mixture
~L-SM Sandy silt to silty sand mixture
CL-SC Sandy clay to clayey sand mixture
SC.SM Oaycy sand to silty sand mixture
SW Wen graded sand: grnelly IOIld, little or no naco
SP
SM
SC
Paoliy graded sand; grnelly IOIld, little or no naco
Silly sand; peony graded sand-<il' mixture
C1a~ sand: peony p1Ided _<lay mixI1Ire
Wen graded grne~ grnel_ mixtu.... little Dr no naco
Paoliy graded grne~ grnel_ mixI1I.... little or no r....
Silly grnel: grnel.gacj-<ilt miDure
C1a~ grnel: grnekaad-<iay mixture
Sandstone
OW
OP
OM
OC
Sil......
Uoysr...
Breccia: (anpiar ~I and cobbla or mauix...ppotted conpomenlc)
Con&lomera'e (rounded grnel aad albble, <IaIl-ouppane<l)
Igneous p1Ioitic: or puitic: type rod<
Metavok:anic or metamorphic roct
Aniracial or man-made fill
AspbaJtic conm::le
Ponland Cemenl Concrecc
pt
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
~
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1
Dale
Project
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter
Elevation Top of Hole
11.20-95
81D.
+1- tIn ft.
Kennedy Properties
IIarRes Drllllna ServIce
Drive Weight
Ref. or Datum
Shcct -L
Project No.
Type of Rig
of-L
4950364-001
HaIlowoStem Almer
Drop 3Oin.
;,. ~ "'~
c: 0 +- +- &Ix GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
o~ " z ,"0 - L~ '" .
.I:.~ '" '"~ ..Ill
-... ...... 30 "...
"'GI .I:." II GI C:... -u
"GI Q,GI 0.0 +- 0.... II" "'c: U.
>... GIGI .....J 0 Q, -L co. '"GI _CIl
.!~ c::; L Z COGl ~ -... Logged By KAB
(.!) e :II Oc: '-~
Lll .. Q.. L 1:0
CIl c u cll~ Sampled By KAB
0 SM AR'nFInAI PIll.
-: @O': Browa, dry, medium de.... silty fiae to roar&<: SAND
- "
" t 42 1t2.S 4.2
','
- "
',' -51.1- -olJArnRNARY-AlftMtTM - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
-: "
: 2 36 @4': Browa silty fiae to medium SAND; sliablly damp, medium de.... sIigIlIy
'. 104.7 4,0
s- -
-: " 3 19 111.4 3.2 @ 6': Tan, sliablly damp, Ioooe, medium to """"" SAND
"
-
-: :,: 4 11 106.1 3.4 @ S': Aul Heel
-: ','
"
10-". S 16 117.5 7.1 @ 10': Tan, damp, Ioooe, medium to """"" SAND with scattered pebbles
-
- : :.: . '
, '
- ' ','
- :
"
IS ~' 6 34 123.2 11.3 SMISC @ 15': Toa to ___, damp, medium dellle; sliablly cia,.", fiae to """""
- SAND with scattered pebble-cized _
'i:: @ ISS: Driller teporu sliablly tigtlter drilIiag
-
-:
- ~
2D 7 30 107.5 6.0 SM @20': upllalt, damp to moiot, medium delIIc, silty fiae to c:oone SAND
, ,
- ToW Depth . 211'cet
No Grouad Water Eacr>uatcred al Tuae 0( Drilling
- D ~11Nt 00 November 20, 1995
-
15-
-
-
- 1Y
-
140 DOnnds
meaa sea level
505A( 1 un)
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
:'
~
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
Dale
Project
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter
Elevation Top of Hole
11.20-95
8 In.
+/-
KeJmedy Properties
IlarRes Dtillllll! ServIce
Drive Weight
ft. Ref. or Datum
Sheet -L
Project No.
Type of Rig
of --L
4~1
HoIIow-Stem ARuer
Drop 30 in.
. Jt '" ;,'"
C 0 +- +- IIX GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
0", U - .. .
.t:.'" z ..0 t.~ ..lI!
:;:+- .. ..'" "+-
+-+- .t:.lll QI :]0 C...
..Q/ 0.Q/ 0.0 +- QI OIL QlU +-c u~
-
>QI Q/QI ..... 0 0. -t. co. "QI _(II
.!:!; c~ t. z e <OQI ~ 'O+- Logged By KAB
l!l II l1. Jt E;C -~
ILl (II t. 0 cll~ Sampled By KAB
c l.J
0 SM ARTIFTOAJ FIll
:
-: " @O': Tan. dry, ICIeR, medium to coarse SAND with scattered constnaction debris
:
-
:
"
- " 1 77 105.9 9.5 -SM- olM~R~Ry~fmmThi----------------------
- '. @3': up. brown to ..... damp, medium de...; .ligll.1y c~, oilty rme SAND
Bag-2
5- " @4'-6'
- J' . 3 20 113.5 10.6 @6': up. brown to ..... damp, medium de..., slightly clayoy, oilty fiae SAND
- "
"
:
- "
"
-, " 4 25 105.9 5.2 @9': Taa, damp, medium de..., rme to COOJSe SAND; oliglltly oilty
"
:
10-, "
','
"
-, :
..
-: :', 5 2t 106.7 7.9 @t2.: Mat 9 feet; moia: to wet
_: :,' "
"
-:
"
1S-' : Taa, medium to <XlIJSC SAND
" 6 16 107.8 6.8 @t2':
"
-' "
- :
"
-: "
"
-. "
20-: "
: 7 28 1tl.4 7.1 @20': A< .tlS reel
- "
-: "
'.
- "
"
- "
"
25- 8 18 61.4 66.t ML @2S': upt brown, moist, 5lilf, oliglltly clayoy SD..T
-
-
- @28': Sliptly Ioarcr driI1ia& reported '7/ ^'
-
140 DOoods
meaD sea IeveI
505A( 1 1/77)
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
.
Date
Project
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter
Elevation Top of Hole
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
11-20-95
Jl ~ .;~
c ci .. .. ell X GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
o~ 0 z ..0 - L~ .. .
~~ .. ..~ ""l
:;:+- ..+- ~Dl .. ;)0 C'" "..
.... 0." 0.0 .. III ell.. "0 ..c -u
>.. .... ....J 0 - co. .!!lU U.
0. -L _Ul
.!~ c'" L Z "'.. ~ o+- Logged By KAB
~ l!l E Jl :1:6 -;:j
lJJ .. Q, d
Ul u ell'" Sampled By KAB
30 9 50/4" 116,8 21.8 ML OIJATPRNARY AI r lNIUM (Cnnrinuecf)
- @30': Ughl blOWll, damp. de... 10 ""'1 d..... SILT
-
- @ 33': Loooer drilliag reponed
-
)5-
-
- @ 37': TIghI drilliag reponed
-
-
40- 10 50/4' 109.0 16.7 ML @ 40': BlOWIl, damp. de... 10 ""'1 dcIlse, aligblly dayey sn.T
- Total Depth . 411'eet
No Grouad Wlter Eaeounl.red II Tune ol DriIliag
_tiled OQ NoYember 20, 1995
-
-
45-
-
-
-
-
50-
-
-
-
-
55-
-
-
- ~tb
-
8ID.
+/-
Kennedv Properties
Ban!es DriUlI1l! Service
Drive Weight
ft. Ref. or Datum
Sheet 2 of 2
--
Project No. 49S03644lO1
Type of Rig HoIJ_-Stem Almer
140 DOUDds Drop 30 in.
mean sea level
SOSA( 11/77)
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
~
Date
Project
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter
Elevation Top of Hole
11-%0-95
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3
. :II ~ .~
C 0 ... ... Q,I:-: '" . GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
o~ .r;~ U Z ,"0 - L~ '"en
;... '" '"~ "... .. .
...... .r;Cl III :.0 c",
..Ill 11. III 11.0 ... III 01J. IlIU "'c -u
> III III III ..... 0 CQ, .~QI U.
11. -L _en
Ill'" C~ L Z e 10 III '" 0'" Logged By KAB
-'" '" :ll ._~
ILl .. 11. L J:!j
en C u ell.... Sampled By KAB
0 SM AR'TTFJOAI FIll
" @ 0': Tan. dry, 1oo&c. medium to coarse SAND with scattered debris
-
"
- 1 24 112.9 2.7 @2': BI'OWIl. dry, medium deasc, s:iJty fme to coarse SAND
"
-: "
:
- 2 24 1~.8 2.6 @4': Brown, damp. medium dense, fme to medium SAND
r: "
5- -sM'- 01~TPRNARYMrlnmnM----------------------
- " 3 15 1115,9 4,0 @ 6': Tan, damp, Ioooc, Iilty, medium to couse SAND
'.
- :
"
-: " 4 16 1115,0 2.8 @ 8': As II Heel
"
':
-,
'.'
10-::.: "
5 :Ill 107.4 2.7 @ 10': As II 8 ree~ Ili8btly Iilty medium 10 couse SAND
- '.
-' :.: "
-, ,
-' :
15- "
'. 6 36 107,1 6.9 @ 15': Till, Ili8btly damp, medium delllC, silty fine to couse SAND
-
-:' '
- "
"
-:' ' "
"
:Ill- " 7 29 1125 18.2 @20': OIiYe-gny, damp, medium delllC, Iilty (me SAND
"
- Total Depth . 211'ce1
No Grouacl WI"'r I!oc:oualered II TIDIO of Dri11iag
- Iladd'IIIed aa Nooember:lll, 1995
-
25-
-
-
- vo...
-
5OSA(11/77l
8 In.
+/- 1.124 ft.
Kennedv ProJM!rties
IIarRes DrilIinR: Service
Drive Weight
Ref. or Datum
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
Sheet ~
Project No.
Type of Rig
of .....L.
~1
HoUow.Slem Almer
Drop A in.
140 DOunds
meaD sea 1eveI
<
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4
Dale
Project
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter
Elevation Top of Hole
11.Z0-95
8 In.
+/- l.rn it.
KeJmedy Pro1Jerties
B8rRes Drilllll2 Service
Drive Weight
Ref. or Datum
Sheet ~ of ~
Project No. 49~1
Type of Rig HoIIow-Slem Aeuer
140 DOUDds Drop 30 in.
mean sea level
0 ~ ~ .i.~
C .... .... .~ GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
0", .t:~ 0 Z 010 .- ,-v 01 .
:;:.... 01 OI~ .."!
........ .t:lll .. :00 C'" "....
.... Q," Q,O .... .. ou. "0 ....c -u
>.. ,," ...... 0 - CQ, .~QI U.
Q, -'- _VI
~~ C~ '- z e "'.. v 0.... Logged By KAB
(!I .. a.. ~ :E:C ._~
LlJ VI '- D ell v
C u Sampled By KAB
0 '. SM ARTIF'lrTAI FlU
,
" @ 0': TlUI, dIY. loose, Ally fine to coone SAND witb scattered COIlStructioo deb';'
-
"
-
-: "
, 1 34 122.1 11.1 @3': Dart brown, clamp, medium dense, silty liae to coarse SAND
-, "
5-:
"
'"
-, 2 22 120.1 14.5 @ 6': Iu at 3 reet
"
-' ',:,
- ,I-', , ' -SM" - -rnMTPRNARyMJrnmni----------------------
"
-:, : 3 37 116.9 12.1 @9': Light to medium brown, mottled, clamp, medium de.... Ally fine SAND
to-:> ' '
-' , "
"
-:> '. 4 117.3 @12': Light blOMl 10 blOMl, clamp, medium de.... Alty fIDe SAND
46 9,4 SM
-: ',: "
"
"
- "
15- " 5 46 116.1 11.2 @ 1.5': ~ at 12 reel, fine 10 medium SAND
-
- @17': Loooc clriIliog reported
-: ,
'.
-: ,"
"
20- 6 16 99.8 18.0 @ 20': 01iw-gray 10 light JfO)', clamp, _. silty liae SAND
"
- Total Dcptb . 21 Pcct
No Groulld Water &oouatcred at Tunc at DriUiJIg
- _1lIed DO NoYember 20. 1995
-
25-
-
-
- ?j)
-
505A( 11/77)
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
<
GEOTECHNICAL 80RING LOG 8-5
Date
Project
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter
Elevation Top of Hole
11-20-95
8 In.
+/- 1.120 ft.
Kennedy Propel1les
IlanIes DriUIna ServIce
Drive Weight
Ref. or Datum
Sheet 1 of 1
--
Project No. ~1
Type of Rig HoIIow-8tem A2uer
140uouncls Drop AiD.
mean sea level
. =" ~ ui~
c ... QlX GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
o~ u 0 ... - '" .
.J:.~ '" Z ",0 "'~ 1..'" ..~
:;:... ...... .J:.lll .. 30 C... "...
.... 0." 0.0 ... .. oLL. ..u "'c -u
u.
>.. .... .....J 0 0. -I.. co. "'.. _lIl
.!~ c~ I.. Z lC.. '" -... KAB
l!l E '" Oc ._~ Logged By
l.LI .. ~ I.. 1:0
III C u ell'" Sampled By KAB
0 SM ARTIFlnAJ F'T1l.
','
- @O': Brown, dry, ioo&e. silty, rme to coarse SAND
- 1 76 127.t 5.9 @ 2': Dart broom, damp. dense, silty fUle SAND
','
-: ~-2
: @3-4'
"
:
- " 3 127.0 @ 4': M at 2 (eet medium dense
62 8,9
5-::: "
'.
- :~ 4 25 113.5 7.1 -sM'- -rn~TRR~RYMLmmThi----------------------
"
- : ' ' '. @6': Tan, damp, _ to medium de_ silty fioe SAND
-: :
" 5 46 109,0 7,6 @8': ~.t6fcet
:
-: :
"
"
10-, : 6 27 llS.8 5.2 @ 10': UPI browa to lipt gray allOp, medium de.... silty fiae SAND
-: :.: ' '
-: :-:
- : :.: "
@ U': Driller _ _r material
-: :-:
"
15-: :
7 27 106.9 12.3 @ 15': Tan, damp, medium de_ silty fIDe to couse SAND
"
-: "
"
-
:
-: "
:
- "
"
20-:, ' "
" 8 22 R.R. @ 20': 01Mo-gny. damp. medium de.... silty fiae SAND
- Total Depth . 21 Feet
No Grouad Water EDcxluDteRd at Tune 0{ Drilliag
- Bactfdled DO _ 20, 1995
-
25-
-
-
-
-
505A(11/77)
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
;,
:
APPENDIX C
'?'
11950364-001
APPENDIX C
Laboratorv Testinll Procedures and Test Results
Consolidation Tests: Consolidation tests were performed on selected, relatively undisturbed ring
samples. Samples were placed in a consolidometer and loads were applied in geometric progression.
The percent consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as the ratio of the amount of venical
compression to the original I-inch height The consolidation pressure cutveS are presented in the
test data.
Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Expansion
Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 18-2 Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to
approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation or
approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared I-inch thick by 4-inch diameter
specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until
volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the table below:
Compacted 01)' Expansion Expansion
Sample Location Sample Description Density (pet) Index Potential
B-5,3'-4' SM 108.2 34 Low
Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content and dry density determinations were
performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings. The results of these
tests are presented in the boring logs. Where applicahle, only moisture content was determined from
.undisturbed. or disturbed samples.
?J'I/
C-2
..
~
~
5 "
I'"
6 .... 'I
7
8
9
0
11
12 1 10
.
o
2
3
4
0.1
VERTICAL STRESS (ksf)
Test Method: ASTM D2435-90
. Before Adding Water
. After Adding Water
Boring No.
Sample No.
Depth (feet)
SoU Type
Type of Sample
CONSOLIDATION
- PRESSURE CURVE -
8-1
3
8.0
8M
Dry Density (pel) 108.4
Moisture Content (%):
Before 3.2
After 15.2
Undisturbed
ProJect No. 4950384-001
ProJect Name KennedY Prooertl..
Date 12/28/95 FIgure No. ...!-
mOJ
~
1 -
r-
..,
""'r-...
'"
~
'"
11
;
o
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.1
10
VERTICAL STRESS (ksf)
Test Method: ASTM D2435-90
. Before Adding Water
. After Adding Water
Boring No.
Sample No.
Depth (feet)
SoD Type
Type 01 Sample
CONSOLIDATION
- PRESSURE CURVE -
B-1
4
8.0
8M
Dry Density (pel) 104.2
Moisture Content (%):
Before 3.4
After 18.4
Undisturbed
Project No. 4950384-001
Project Name Kennedy ProDertI..
Date 12/28/95 FIgure No. ~
Cfj[l]
;}\
, ~
...... ..........
~
'- '"
'-., 'I
.
o
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.1
10
VERTICAL STRESS (ksf)
Test Method: ASTM D2435-90
. Before Adding Water
. Atter Adding Water
Boring No.
Sample No.
Depth (feet)
SoD Type
Type of Sample
CONSOLIDATION
- PRESSURE CURVE -
B-2
1
3.0
8M
Dry Density (pel) 106.8
Moisture Content (%):
Before 9.5
Atter 19.3
Undisturbed
Project No. 4950384-001
Project Name KennedY ProlHlr1les
Date 12/26/95 FIgure No. ....!..-
[]ITJ
/
~?
.
o
3
1
~
~
"
1"-
I-
10
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.1
VERTICAL STRESS (ksf)
Test Method: ASTM D2435-90
. Before Adding Water
. After Adding Water
Boring No.
Sample No.
Oepth (feet)
Sol Type
B-2
8
15.0
8M
Dry Denslty (pcl) 99.7
Moisture Content (%):
Before 8.8
After 20.8
Type of Sample
Undisturbed
CONSOLIDATION
- PRESSURE CURVE -
Project No. 4950384-001
Project Name Kennedy Prooertles
Date 12/28/95 FIgure No. ....!..-
[][TI
y
.
I-- ---
I'"
"
..
6
7
8
9
0
11
12 10
o
2
3
4
s
0.1
VERTICAL STRESS (ksf)
Test Method: ASTM D2435-90
· Before Adding Water
. After Adding Water
Boring No.
Sample No.
Depth (feet)
SoU Type
B-2
8
25.0
ML
Dry Density (pet) 60.4
Moisture Content (%):
Before 88. 1
After 70.0
Type of Sample
Undisturbed
CONSOLIDATION
- PRESSURE CURVE -
Project No. 4950384-001
Project Name Kennedy ProDertI..
Date 12/26/95 FIgure No. ~
[][TI
1;'\
r--
~
""
"-
"-
f'
"-.
,
o
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.1
10
VERTICAL STRESS (ksf)
Test Method: ASTM 02435.90
. Before Adding Water
. After Adding Water
Boring No.
Sample No.
Depth (feet)
SoD Type
Type of Sample
CONSOLIDATION
- PRESSURE CURVE -
B-3
3
8.0
8M
Dry Oenslty (pet) 105.0
Moisture Content (%):
Before 4.0
After 19.1
Undisturbed
Project No. 4950384-001
Project Neme KennedY ProDertles
Oete 12/28/95 FIgure No. ...!..-
m[l]
~
5
1
..
"-
f'\.
'\
I
\
\
1\
\
1\
\.
6
o
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.1
10
VERTICAL STRESS (ksf)
Test Method: ASTM D2435-90
. Before Adding Water
. After Adding Water
BorIng No.
Sample No.
Depth (feet)
SoU Type
B-4
6
20.0
8M
Dry Density (pet) 109.6
Moisture Content (%):
Before 12.7
After 15.2
Type of Sample
Undisturbed
CONSOLIDATION
- PRESSURE CURVE -
Project No. 49SOM4-001
Project Name KennedY ProlH!l1lH
Date 12/26/95 figure No. ...L-
rnrn
'1?~
APPENDIX D
~o
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INe.
GENERAL EARTIIWORK AND GRADING SPECIFlCATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING
1.0 General
1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and
earthwork shown on the approved grading plane s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical
report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the
geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the
geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations
of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading
may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these
specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner
shall employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The
Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical
report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings,
conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the
"work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule
sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and
compaction testing.
During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall
observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical
design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different
than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical
Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to
accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. '
Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or
tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill
is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made
on sloping ground to receive fill
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing
of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to
determine the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall
provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent
basis.
1.3
The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be
qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and
processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and
compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical
report( s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The
l<llO.l...
A.\
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTIlWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 2 of 6
Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with
the plans and specifications.
The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical
Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number
of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for
the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner
and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the
work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate
observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not
assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes
and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the
approved geotechnical report(s) and grading planes). If, in the opinion of the
Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper
moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse
weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these
specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend
to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.
20 PreDaration of Areas to be Filled
2.1 C1eariDl! and Grubbinl!: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious
material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable
to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending
on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent
of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of
organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in
the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately
for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in
that area.
As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products
(gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that
are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or
spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by
fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed.
""",09<
A,1,.,
.
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTIIWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 3 of 6
2.2 Processinl!: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by
the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches.
Existing ground that is not satisfactory shaIl be overexcavated as specified in the
following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free
of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and
free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.
2.3 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the
approved geotechnical report( s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated,
spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shaIl be
overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant
during grading.
2.4 Benchinl!: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1
(horizontaIto vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the
Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shaIl be a
minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as
evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant Other benches shaIl be excavated a
minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by
the Geotechnical Consultant Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 sha11 also
be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill.
2.5 EvaluationlAcceotance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and
processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shaIl be observed, mapped, elevations
recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as
suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shaIl obtain a written acceptance from the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement A licensed surveyor shaIl provide the
survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.
3.0 Fill Material
3.1
General: Material tu be used as fill shaIl be essentially free of organic matter and
other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant
prior to placement Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation,
high expansion potential, or low strength sha11 be placed in areas acceptable to the
Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill materiaL
3.2
Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irredUCIble material with a
maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shaIl not be buried or placed in fill unless
location, materials, and placement methods are specifica11y accepted by the
Geotechnical Consultant Placement operations shaIl be such that nesting of
oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely
surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material sha11 not be placed
within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or
underground construction.
"""'094
h.,.?/
'.
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTIIWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 4 of 6
3.3 Imoort: If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material
shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be
given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before
importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests
performed.
4.0 Fill Placement and Comoaction
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
,.""",
4.1
Fill Lavers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill
(per Section 3.0) in near-horiwntallayers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness.
The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading
procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread
evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture
throughout.
Fill Moisture Conditioninl!: Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or
mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over
optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be
performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM
Test Method 01557-91).
Comoaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and
evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of
maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method 01557-91). Compaction equipment shall
be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of
proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with
uniformity.
ComDaction of Fill Slooes: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified
above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with
sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods
producing satisfactory results acceptable to the G~technical Consultant. Upon
completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be
at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method 01557-91.
Comoaction Testinl!: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the
fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency
of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered.
Compaction test locations will not necesurily be selected on a random basis. Test
locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are
judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the
fillJbedrock benches).
Af\
'.
Leighton and A""""'''$, Inc.
GENERAL EARTIIWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 5 of 6
4.6 Freauencv of Comoaction Testinl!: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding
2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment.
In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each
5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The
Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be
accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow
down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met.
4.7 Comoaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the
approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The
Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade
stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test
locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal
distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations
shall be provided.
5.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s),
the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend
additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending
on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land
surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time
should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys.
6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the
Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical
plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be deteimined by the
Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading.
Where fill-QVeHut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made,
evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for
construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
7.0 Trench Backfills
7.1
The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and CaIlOSHA requirements for safety of
trench excavations.
"""I'"
/'
I>tP
,
Leighton and As-.",.;.t"" Inc.
GENERAL EARlHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFlCATIONS
Page 6 of 6
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
3m",,..
All bedding and bacldill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the
applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction.
Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The
bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting.
Bacldill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from
1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface.
The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench bacldill for relative compaction.
At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of filL
Lift thickness of trench bacldill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard
Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate
to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum
relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
~
---- - --
_-_-_-COMPACTED :..-..:.
_~-:-~- --:-:-=_F1!L.::---r
---- -----~-."..-
- -- ~
- ::.?::':-
=
7.
FlU SLOPE
NATlJRAL
GROUND
BENCH
4' TYPICAL
LBEHCH
HEIGHT
REMOVE
UNSUITAIllJ:
MA ll:RIAL
2' MIN.
KEY DEPTH
~
FIU-oVER-CUT
SLOPE
NATlJRAL
GROUND
'\.-
-
--
-
-
-
'2% MIN._
~ 1" "iot1N....J
LOWEST BEHCijI
2' MIN.
KEY DEPTH
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
cur fACe
SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR
TO f1LL Pl ~.lEIlT TO ASSURE
AIlECI.JAll: GEOLOGIC CONDIT1ONS
cur fACe
TO BE CClNSTRIJC'TE) PfIOR ,;/
TO f1LL Pl M:eMENT /' /'
NATURAL /"
GROUND /
)</~
~
CUT -oVER-FIU
SLOPE
PllOJECTED PlAHE
I TO I MAXIMUM FROM
TOE OF 9LOPE TO
APPROYED GROUND
OVERIlUILT AND
TRIM BACK
AI!IIOVE
NSUITAIlLE
MATERIAl.
For Subdrains See
Standard Detail C
2' MIN.
KEY DEPnt
ElCI.leI SHALL BE DOtE MEN SLOPES
AHGl.E IS ECUAL TO OR GREAlCR THAN 5:1
1M. ~ 1M BENCH HEICJK1' SHALL BE 4 FEET
IM-- '"4 f1LL WIDTH SHALL BE , FEET i><, "\
KEYING AND BENCHING
GENERAL EARntWORK AND GRADING rnml
SPECIFICATIONS tl
STANDARD DETAILS A !~L
4/Ql1
.
.
------
--------- -------------------.
--------- --------------------
---------- -------------------.
-----~---~-------1-0.-M-IN-:-----::..-C-OM-P-A~D-Fl-LL-:-:..-----...;-
----------- .--_. ......... -----
------------~------------------
------------- --------------------
--------------- -------------------
--------------- - - - ------
--------~-- -- --
------~-------- -----
------:...-----...:--- -n---------------n-:...----------~--~a--..::
--:::::~:~:~~~=::-:-===::::=::_::::::-:-:~:~~::::~::~~-::~::
-------------~-----a---------~------- ----=--------------n------=---~---:...-:..
------ -- ----- - -------- -------
_-:-5~.~F;~::::-~:::::::------(::::-----:.-- -:~:--::::::l----~:::~~:--
------~- -------------.. MIN --~15. MIN - _-_-__:...-_-_"7'
-----~- ------------- . -- ---_..:.-- -----,
~------:-:=:=:=:=-=--==::~----~=~=~~====:~~~==::~:=:::=:=~:~:=~:~==_-:-.
~-::____...:_7____~ ________~-:~-:_____________ ,
________r~______ __________________________
~-:-:-:-:-;c:::-=-O~;lfs~~--:- :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-~-:-: :-:-:-:-:-:-:---:. - - JETTED OR FLOODED
:-:-:--:7:-:-:-:WINDROW :.-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:------..:: ~-- GRANUlAR MATERIAL
-~------ ---------
FINISH GRADE
. Overstze rocIc Is larger than 8 inches
in largest cfllTl8llSion.
. Excavale a tnlnch in the compacted
flU deep enough to bury all the rock.
. BackfiD wiIt1 granular soil Jetted or
IIooded In place to 11ft all the voids.
. Do nol bury rocIc within 10 f8et of
IInIsh grade.
. Wlndrow of buried rocIc shall be
paraUeI to the finished slope fiI.
ELEVATION A-A'
PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
_A- -_--=--
JETTED OR FLOODED
GRANUlAR MATERIAL
/JIb
OVERSIZE
ROCK DISPOSAL
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING [][81',
SPECIFICATIONS U
STANDARD DETAILS B
4/ll5
"
-NATURAL
~ GROUND
"
BENCHING
- ~ - ----------------------- --
--- -----------------------------~~
-- - --:-- -:-CO-MPAciEDFiLC~-:-:---::=-=---~-::7--
~--~-------------------~---
--~~--------------------- - REMOVE
- --~-~:----------------- - -
---- ---- _ _ - _ ~ UNSUITABLE
:.. - ~ ~ - MATERIAL
.- -----------------
---~-------------- -
--- -------------- --
---- ---------~~---
~--~-------...;=--I'~"
. .: ~
."Q ..........
'\
\
\
CALTRANS CLASS II
PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK
(8FT.'IFT.) WRAPPED IN
FILTER FABRIC
PERFORATED PIPE
6". MIN.
FILlER FABRIC
(MIRAFl140 OR... '
APPROVED '-COLlECTOR PIPE SHALL
EQUIVALENT) BE MINIMUM eo DIAMETeR
SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED
PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL D
FOR PIPE SPECIFlCA110N
CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET DETAIL
~20'MIN'~
NON-PERFORATED 5' MIN.
6". MIN.
FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFl140 OR
APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)
DESIGN
FINISHED
GRADE
#2 ROCK WRAPPED IN FILlER
FABRIC OR CALTRANS CLASS II
PERMEABI ~
h{\
CANYON SUBDRAINS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING [1j[lJ
SPECIFICA110NS U
STANDARD DETAILS C i
4,o;Nl
.
,-'
OUTLET PIPES
4.. NON-PERFORATED PIPE,
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY,
30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY
115' MIN. j
BACKCUT 1:1
OR FLATTER
BENCHING
-
-----
----------
------:..---:..-:..-_-:..-_-:..-_-:..-:: -/
- -------------
-- -----------..
--- -------------
---- ----------
---- ----------
----_-:..---- ---------:..---:..-:..--:.. /
------- --------
-------- --------
--:..---:..---------- ------:..-_-:..7_ - \
----~--~--~---::..~- ----::..----::t.;
~~TH .11': -----:..:::.:--:::=--:..2~----::..- -:..:---=- .......... /
-L::f= - - '-f.. \
---- -
.------:..---:..------------ / --..........
2' ~IN. 1:-------1~'~:.IN.------ ~VER~ FROM THE TOP
KEY WIDTH POSITIVE SEAL ,HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET
SHOULD BE ~ \
PROVIDED AT \ FILTER FABRIC
niE JO~ /' -.: (M1RAF1140 OR
s" . ,. APPROVED
Af/N._ EQUIVALENT)
Oun.ET PIPE /1. J
(NON.pERFORATEDI~-::' ....
\ T~ONNECTlONFOR
CALTRANS CLASS II COLLECTOR PIPE TO
PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK Oun.ET PIPE
(3FT.'/FT.) WRAPPED IN . /"
FILTER FABRIC ~
. SUBORAlN INSTAUA'TlON . SubdraIn collector pipe shaD be jratellAri with perforaIioIlS down or.
unless 0lheI wise deslgnaecl by lI1e geot......... c:onsuIlarl. OUll8t pIpeS 8I'IaI be 1lClIl1*1o. aIed
pipe. The 8Ubdraln pipe shaI haII8 . least 8 perforaIioIl8 uniformly spaced per foct Perforation shaI
be v.' to 'n' r dilled holes are used. Aft sutldraln pipes shaI have a gradient at least 2'Jf. towards the
outlet.
. SUBDRAlN PIPE. Subdraln pipe shall be ASn.4 D2751, SDR 23.5 or ASTM 01527, Schedule 40, or
ASn.4 D3034, SOR 23.5, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride PIasllc (PVC) pipe.
. AD outlet pipe shaI1 be placed In a trench no wider than twtce lI1e subdraIn pipe. Pipe shall be In soli
01 SE>30 Jeltecl or flooded In place except for the 0l1lSlde 5 feel which shall be nallve sail backfitI. '50
BUTTRESS OR
REPLACEMENT FILL
SUBDRAINS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS 0
~m
W~
4185
.
"
.
CUT AND CUT-FILL LOT
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
GROUND
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
'~-:::'COMPACTiD-F1u:.::::-=-=-:-2-~-~------=---
--------------~-
~~::=~:=:~~:~=~::F::=::f===~-~=-~=
-- ~
~-- -~-
'=:::-~-=--::::-=-=-~-=-=-
,
OVEREXCAVATlON
AND RECOMPACT
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR ~
~ MATERIAL APPROVED BY
~ THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
SIDE HILL FILL
FOR CUT PAD
NATURAL
......
GROUND) ..- ..-
- ..-
-
-
-
..-
."..
-
."..
./
.....
.....
.....
..... FINISHED CUT PAD
OVERBURDEN
OR UNSUITABLE
MATERIAl..:
./
..,.,.
./
PERFORMED If SPECIFIED
BY THE QEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
SEE STANDARD DETAIL FOR SUBDRAlN
DETAIL WHEN REQUIRED BY GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
8 FEET MIN.
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR
~ MATERIAL APPROVED BY THE ----.s--
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
-5\
TRANSITION LOT FILLS AND
SIDE HILL FILLS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING mCQ,
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS E
4,'IlI5
.
( .
; ,
!
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~%~~~~~~=~~~~~~i~i~~
- - ------ -- ---- -- ----:-:-: :~-: :;:~:t~:t:t:;:~::t
RETAINING WALL
WALL WATERPROOFING
PER ARCHITECT'S
SPECIFICATIONS
FINISH GRADE
WALL FOOTING ITi
NOT TO SCALE
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size
~ Passino
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
1"
3/4"
3/8"
No. 4
No.8
No. 30
No. 50
No. 200
Sand Equivalent>75
SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO
eo PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION*
III~~IIIIIII ~?IaJ~~~:~--
-=--=~ - --
lOOp' ""'-""'-""'-""'-""'-""'---~
o ~ ::-::-::-::-::-:::-:=-'
I ot"E~L'i'po ~~~;:f.: FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
o 0 0 . ~~~~ (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
. ~~~~ EQUIVALENT)-
o
o
o ,
3/4"-1.112" CLEAN GRAVEL-
11' MIN.
. "
I.: 0
I:
1/.::iIG
.",(MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED
PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE .0 OR
EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS
ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED
MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT
TO SUITABLE OUTLET
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL
AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULT ANT
*BASED ON ASTM D115157
**IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
(SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF
3/.'-1-1/2" GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE
DELETED. CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE 1"1/
MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO eo J
PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION *
NOTE:COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS tJlRADRAIN
OR J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNAllVE TO GRAVEL OR
CLASS 2.INSTALLAllON SHOULD BE PERFORtJI:D IN ACCORDANCE
WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPEClFlCAllONS.
~