HomeMy WebLinkAboutX2017-0231 - SoilsX201}-02 31
Z(oZo Diff Dr.
0141,01417
LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL
NCIONEERING INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED/EXISTING RETAINING YARD WALLS
O'CONNER RESIDENCE
2620 CLIFF DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
SALEM PROJECT NO. 3-217-0185
FEBRUARY 24, 2017
PREPARED FOR:
MS. CLAUDIA O'CONNER
2620 CLIFF DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92623
PREPARED BY.•
SALEM ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
11650 MISSION PARK DR., #108
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 91730
P: (909) 980-6455
F: (909) 980-6435
www.salem.net
SAN JOSE • STOCKTON • FRESNO • BAKERSFIELD • RANCHO CUCAMONGA
DALLAS, TX • DENVER, CO - CHARLESTON, SC
i
February 24, 2017
11650 Mission Park Dr., #108
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Phone (909) 980-6455
Fax (909)9li0-6435
Ms. Claudia O'Conner
w 2620 Cliff Drive
s Newport Beach, CA 92623
u
SUBJECT: LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED/EXISTING RETAINING YARD WALLS
O'CONNER RESIDENCE
2620 CLIFF DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Ms. O'Conner:
Project No. 3-217-0185
At your request and authorization, SALEM Engineering Group, hie. (SALEM) has prepared this
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report for the proposed/existing Retaining Yard Walls
to be located at the subject site.
The accompanying report presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the
geotechnical aspects of designing and constructing the project as presently proposed. In our opinion, the
proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided our recommendations are
incorporated into the design and construction of the project.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this project. Should you have questions regarding this
report or need additional information, please contact the undersigned at (909) 980-6455.
Respectfully Submitted,
SALEM ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
fr'
Clarence Jiang, GE
Senior Geotechnicat Engineer
RGE 2477gT
No. 2477
Exp. 8130117
R. Sammy Salem, MS, PE, GE
Principal Engineer
RCE 52762 / RGE 2549
f GE 2549 " )r
*1. Exc.. iW 31,21118 �*
SAN JOSE • STOCKTON • FRESNO • BAKERSFIELD • RANCHO CUCAMONGA
DALLAs,TX - DENVER,CO • CHARLESTON,SC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE .....................................................................................................
I
2.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................. ....................................................
I
3.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................
2
4.
FIELD EXPLORATION .....................................................................................................
2
5.
LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................
2
6.
GEOLOGIC SETTING .......................................................................................................
3
i.
7.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .....................................................................................................
3
7.1 FULdtaig and Seismicity .............. .......................... .................... t .......... ................................
3
7.2 Surface Fault Rupture .............................................................................................................
4
7.3 Ground Shaking ................ .............................................................. .... .................................
4
7.4 Liquefaction ............................................................................................................................
4
7.5 Lateral Spreading ............................................................ .......................................................
4
7.6 Landslides .................................................... ....................................................... ..................
4
7.7 Tsunamis and Seiches .............................................................................................................
5
8.
SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS .................................................................
5
8.1 Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................................................
5
8.2 Groundwater ...........................................................................................................................
5
8.3 Soil Corrosion Screening ........................................................................................................
5
9.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................
6
9.1 General .............................. .............................................. .....................................................
6
9.2 Seismic Design Criteria ........................................................... ..............................................
8
9.3 Soil and Excavation Characteristics ........................................................................................
9
9.5 Shallow Foundations ............................................................ .............................................
- 10
9.6 Lateral Earth Pressures and Frictional Resistance .................................................................
I I
9.7 Retaining Walls ....................................................................................................................
12
9.8 Temporary Excavations ........................................................................................................
13
10.
PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING ........................
14
10.1 Plan and Specification Review ..............................................................................................
14
10.2 Construction Observation and Testin2 Services ....................................................................
14
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
FIGURES
Figure 1, Site Plan
Figure 2, Vicinity Map
APPENDIX A — FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figures A-1 and A-2, Logs of Exploratory Soil Borings B-1 and B-2
APPENDIX B — LABORATORY TESTING
Direct Shear Test Results
Gradation Curves
Corrosivity Test Results
Expansion Index Test Results
Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture Proctor Test Results
APPENDIX C — EARTHWORK AND PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS
11650 Mission Park Dr., #108
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
k�y L Phone (909) 980-6455
engineering group i n c. Fax (909) 980-6435
LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED/EXISTING RETAINING YARD WALLS
O'CONNER RESIDENCE
2620 CLIFF DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of our Limited Geotechnical Engineering hrvestigation for the
Proposed/Existing Retaining Yard Walls located at 2620 Cliff Drive in Newport Beach, California.
The purpose of our geotechnical engineering investigation was to observe and sample the subsurface
conditions encountered at the site, and provide conclusions and recommendations relative to the
geotechnical aspects of constructing the project as presently proposed.
The scope of this investigation included a field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and the
preparation of this report. Our field exploration was performed on February 17, 2017 and included the
drilling of two (2) small -diameter soil borings to a maximum depth of 10 feet at the site. The locations of
the soil borings are depicted on Figure 2, Site Plan. A detailed discussion of our field investigation and
exploratory boring logs are presented in Appendix A.
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained during the investigation to evaluate
pertinent physical properties for engineering analyses. Appendix B presents the laboratory test results in
tabular and graphic format.
The recurmnendations presented herein are based on analysis of the data obtained during the investigation
and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. If project details vary significantly from those
described herein, SALEM should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision
of this report. Earthwork and Pavement Specifications are presented in Appendix C. If text of the report
conflict with the specifications in Appendix C; the recommendations in the text of the report have
precedence.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We understand that retaining yard walls have recently been constructed along the front property line at
the existing single family residence. The maximum height of the yard walls is approximately 4 feet. No
structures will be constructed behind the walls. A site grading plan was not 'available at the time of
preparation of this report.
Project No. 3-217-0145 I - SALEM
3. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located at the northeast corner of Riverside Avenue and Cliff Drive in Newport Beach.
California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The site's physical address is 2620 Cliff Drive. At the time of
our field investigation, the site was occupied by a one-story single-family residence, a swimming pool,
retaining yard walls, and landscaping. The site is gently sloping to the northwest with elevations ranging
from 59 to 54 feet above mean sea level based on google earth imagery. The house level is approximately
4 to 5 feet higher than street grade levels, An approximately 4 to 5 feet retaining wall is present at the site
botmdaries adjacent to Cliff Drive and Riverside Street.
4. FIELD EXPLORATION
Our field exploration consisted of site surface reconnaissance and subsurface exploration. The
exploratory test borings (B-1 and B-2) were drilled on February 17, 2017 in the areas shown on the Site
Plan, Figure 2. The test borings were advanced with 3 -inch diameter hand auger. The test borings were
extended to a maximum depth of 10 feet below existing grade.
The materials encountered in the test borings were visually classified in the field, and logs were recorded
by afield engineer and stratification lines were approximated on the basis of observations made at the time
of drilling. Visual classification of the materials encountered in the test borings were generally made in
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487).
A soil classification chart and key to sampling is presented on the Unified Soil Classification Chart. in
Appendix "A." The logs of the test borings are presented in Appendix "A" The Boring Logs include the
soil type, color, moisture content, and the applicable Unified Soil Classification System symbol. The
location of the test borings were determined by measuring from features shown on the Site Plan, provided
to us. Hence, accuracy can be implied only to the degree that this method warrants. The actual boundaries
between different soil types may be gradual and soil conditions may vary. For a more detailed description
of the materials encountered, the Boring Logs in Appendix "A" should be consulted.
Soil samples were obtained from the test borings at the depths shown on the logs of borings. Tube samples
were capped on both ends and bag samples were recovered and placed in a sealed bag to preserve their
natural moisture content. The borings were backfilled with soil cuttings atter completion of the drilling.
5. LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and
engineering properties. The laboratory -testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation
of natural moisture, in-situ density, shear strength, expansion index, maximum density and optimum
moisture determination, and gradation of the materials encountered.
In addition, chemical tests were performed to evaluate the corrosivity of the soils to buried concrete and
metal. Details of the laboratory test program and the results of laboratory test are summ;xized in
Appendix "B." This information, along with the field observations, was used to prepare the final boring
logs in Appendix "A."
Project No. 3-217-0185 - 2 - SALEM
j� 19 /(
.,U L.,i19'$.
6. GEOLOGIC SETTING
Regionally the site is located in the southeastern portion of the central block of the Los Angeles basin,
along the southwestern margin of the Santa Ana Mountains. The Santa Ana Mountains are essentially a
southeast -trending, southwest -tilted fault block uplifted along the Elsinore fault zone. The core of the
range, in the higher elevations, is comprised of the Bedford Canyon and Santiago Peak Volcanic
Formations of Triassic to Jurassic age that are intruded by plutonic rocks of Cretaceous age. This
basement complex is overlain on the flanks of the range by a thick section of marine and nonmarine
sedimentary strata of Tertiary age. Deposits encountered on the subject site during exploratory drilling
are discussed in detail in this report.
7.`' GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
7.1 Faulting and Seismicity
The Peninsular Range has historically been a province of relatively high seismic activity. The nearest
faults to the project site are associated with the Newport Inglewood Fault system located approximately
0.9 miles from the site. There are no known active fault traces in the project vicinity. Based on mapping
and historical seismicity, the seismicity of the Peninsular Range has been generally considered high by
the scientific community. The project area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault (Special
Studies) Zone and will not require special site investigation by an Engineering Geologist. Soils on site
are classified as Site Class D in accordance with the California Building Code. The proposed structures
are determined to be in Seismic Design Category D. To determine the distance of known active faults
within 100 miles of the site, we used the United States Geological Survey (USGS) web -based application
2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters. Site latitude is 33.6227° North and site longitude
is 117.9211' West. The ten closest active faults are summarized below in Table 7.1.
TABLE 7.1
REGIONAL FAULT SUMMARY
Fault Name
Distance
to Site
(miles)
Maximum Earthquake
Magnitude, M,
Newport Inglewood (Connected) alt 2
0.9
7.5
Newport Inglewood alt 1
1.1
7.2
Newport Inglewood (Offshore)
2.2
7.0
San Joaquin Hills
4.9
7.1
Palos Verdes Connected
12.7
7.7
Puente Bills (Coyote Hills)
17.1
1 6.9
Elsinore; W+GI+T+J+CM
20.3
7.9
Puente Hills (Santa Fe)
22.0
6.9
Coronado Bank
23.6
7.4
Elsinore; GI+T+J+CM
23.7
7.7
The Jnults lahrdaled shove and numerous of/ (mdl, in dee regirni ore sowres of potential ground motion. However,,
ea, thggales Malmightnccuron odierlaully it, iniughout California urn alio pomrvin/generators0/ Aigwlk all?grnum7nmtior
and could suljec t the site to intense ground shaking.
Project No:, 3-217-0185 -3-
SALEM
z��-
7.2 Surface Fault Rupture
The site is not within a currently established State of California Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault
rupture hazards. No active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly
beneath the site. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site during
the design life of the proposed development is considered low. -
7.3 Ground Shaking
We used the USGS web -based application US Seismic Design Maps to estimate the peak ground
acceleration adjusted for site class effects (PGAm). Because of the proximity to the subject site and the
maximum probable events for these faults, it appears that a maximum probable event along the fault
zones could produce a peak horizontal acceleration of approximately 0.696g (2% probability of being
exceeded in 50 years). While listing PGA is useful for comparison of potential effects of fault activity in a
region, other considerations are important in seismic design, including frequency and duration of motion
and soil conditions underlying the site.
7.4 Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is a state of soil particles suspension caused by a complete loss of strength when the
effective stress drops to zero. Liquefaction normally occurs under saturated conditions in soils such as sand
in which the strength is purely frictional. Primary factors that trigger liquefaction are: moderate to strong
ground shaking (seismic source), relatively clean, loose granular soils (primarily poorly graded sands and
silty sands), and saturated soil conditions (shallow groundwater).
Due to the increasing overburden pressure with.depth, liquefaction of granular soils is generally limited to
the upper 50 feet of a soil profile. However, liquefaction has occurred in soils other than clean sand. The
soils on the project site consisted predominately of silty sand with various amounts of clay. Low to very
low cohesion strength is associated with the sandy soil. A seismic hazard, which could cause damage to
the proposed development during seismic shaking, is the post -liquefaction settlement of the liquefied
sands. According to SPI 17, a single-family dwelling is exempted for liquefaction evaluation. Therefore.
no mitigation measures are warranted.
7.5 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which soils move laterally during seismic shaking and is often
associated with liquefaction. The amount of movement depends on the soil strength, duration and intensity
of seismic shaking, topography, and free face geometry. Due to the relatively flat site topography and low
liquefaction potential, we judge the likelihood of lateral spreading to be low.
7.6 Landslides
There are no known landslides at the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides.
We do not consider the potential for a landslide to be a hazard to this project.
Project No. 3-217-0185 -4- A MEl>1 /f
7.7 Tsunamis and Seiches
In accordance with the State of California, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency and Planning, Newport
Beach Quadrangle, dated March 15, 2009 the site is NOT located within a tsunami inundation area.
Therefore, tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are not considered a significant hazard at the site. Seiches are large
waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. No major water -retaining
structuresare located immediately up gradient from the project site. Flooding from a seismically -induced
seiche is considered unlikely.
8. SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
8.1 Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions encountered appear typical of those found in the geologic region of the site. Data
obtained during the field exploration indicates the soils within the depth of exploration consisted of silty
sand with various amounts of clay.
No significant fill materials were encountered in our borings. However, fill soils may be present onsite
between our test boring locations. Verification of the extent of fill should be determined during site
grading. Field and laboratory tests suggest that the deeper native soils are moderately strong and slightly
compressible. Soil conditions described in the previous paragraphs are generalized. Therefore, the reader
should consult exploratory boring logs included in Appendix A for soil type, color, moisture, consistency,
and USCS classification of the materials encountered at specific locations and elevations.
8.2 Groundwater
The. test boring locations were checked for the presence of groundwater daring and after the drilling
operations. Free groundwater was not encountered as part of this investigation.
It should be recognized that water table elevations may fluctuate with time, being dependent upon seasonal
precipitation, irrigation, land use, localized pumping, and climatic conditions as well as other factors.
Therefore, water level observations at the time of the field investigation may vary from those encountered
during the construction phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this
report.
8.3 Soil Corrosion Screening
Excessive sulfate in either the soil or native water may result in an adverse reaction between the cement in
concrete and the soil. The 2011 Edition of ACI 318 (ACI 318) has established criteria for evaluation of
sulfate and chloride levels and how they relate to cement reactivity with soil and/or water.
A soil sample was obtained from the project site and was tested for the evaluation of the potential for
concrete deterioration or steel corrosion due to attack by soil -borne soluble salts and soluble chloride.
The water-soluble sulfate concentration in the saturation extract from the soil sample was detected to be
494 mg/kg. ACI 318 Tables 4.2.1 and 43.1 outline exposure categories, classes, and concrete requirements
by exposure class. ACI 318 requirements for site concrete based upon soluble sulfate are sunnmarized in
Table 8.3 below,
Project No. 3-217-0 11 185 -5 SALEM
a uc ��: ,-
TABLE 8.3
WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE EXPOSURE REQUIREMENTS
Water -Soluble
Sulfate (SO4) in
Soil, % by Weight
Exposure
Severity
Exposure
Class
Maximo
m w/cm
Ratio
Minimum Concrete
Compressive
Strength
Cementitious
Materials
Type
0.0494
Not
Applicable
SO
N/A
2,500 psi
No Restriction
The water-soluble chloride concentration detected in saturation extract from the soil samples was 152
mg/kg: This level of chloride concentration is not considered to be severely contusive. It is reconmiended
that a qualified corrosion engineer be consulted regarding protection of buried steel or ductile iron piping
and conduit or, at a minimum, applicable manufacturer's recommendations for corrosion protection of
buried metal pipe be closely followed.
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 General
9.1.1 Based upon the data collected during this investigation, and from a geotechnical engineering
standpoint, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed construction of improvements
at the site as planned, provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated
into the project design and construction. Conclusions and recommendations provided in this
report are based on our review of available literature, analysis of data obtained from our field
exploration and laboratory testing program, and our understanding of the proposed development
at this time.
9.1.2 The exposed subgrade in the wall footing and exterior flatwork areas should be scarified to a
depth of 12 inches, worked until uniform and free from large clods, moisture -conditioned to
near the optimum moisture, and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density
based on ASTM D1557 Test Method.
9.1.3 The northwest retaining wall (Detail C-1 on sheet A-03 of the plans) is proposed to have a 10%
slope backfill (10:1 horizontal to vertical) and the southwest retaining wall system (Detail D
on sheet A-03 of the plans) is proposed to have a level backfill. Equivalent Lateral earth
pressures in section 9.3 of this report.
9.1.4 The upper retaining wall will be located approximately 5 feet away from the lower retaining
wall and the upper wall footing will be approximately 2 feet above the lower wall footing (see
Detail D of Sheet A-03). Based on the detail, it's our opinion, from a geotechnical standpoint,
the upper retaining wall will not impose additional surcharge loads to the lower retaining wall
since the upper wall footing is not located within the 1:1 influence zone of the lower-etaining
wall.
Project No. 3-217-0185 - 6 -
SALEM
101..troitxl.
Fill soils should be placed in thin lifts (6 to 8 inches in loose thickness), moisture conditioned to
near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density based
on ASTM D1557 Test Method.
All slopes should be planted with ground cover vegetation and deep rooted vegetation. The
proper maintenance of proper lot drainage and vegetation should be performed. Over -irrigation
should be prevented. A rodent control program should be established and maintained.
9.1.7 All surface runoff should be directed away from the retaining walls, and toward approved
drainage devices.
9.1.8 An existing swimming pool is located approximately 4 feet behind the upper retaining wall.
The retaining wall should be designed to consider the loadings and provide sufficient support
for the pool.
9.1.9 Fill materials may be present on site between boring locations. Undocumented fill materials
are not suitable to support any future structures and should be replaced with Engineered Fill.
Priorto fill placement, Salem Engineering Group, Inc. should inspect the bottom of the
excavation to verify the fill condition.
owl
9.1..10 Site demolition activities shall include removal of all surface obstructions not intended to be
incorporated into final site design. In addition, underground buried structures and/or utility lines
encountered during demolition and construction should be properly removed and the resulting
excavations backfilled with Engineered Fill. It is suspected that possible demolition activities of
the existing structures may disturb the upper soils. After demolition activities, it is recommended
that disturbed soils be removed and/or recompacted.
9.1.1 I SALEM shall review the project grading plans and foundation plans, and specifications prior to
final design submittal to assess whether our recommendations have been properly implemented
and evaluate if additional analysis and/or recommendations are required. if SALEM is not
provided plans and specifications for review, we cannot assume any responsibility for the future
performance of the project.
9.1..12 SALEM shall be present at the site during site demolition and preparation to observe site
clearing/demolition, preparation of exposed surfaces after clearing, and placement, treatment and
compaction of fill material.
9.1.13 SALEM's observations should be supplemented with periodic compaction tests to establish
,Y.
substantial conformance with these recommendations. Moisture content of footings and slab
subgrade should be tested immediately prior to concrete placement.
9.1.14 SALEM should observe foundation excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel or
concrete to assess whether the actual bearing conditions are compatible with the conditions
anticipated during the preparation of this report.
tg
M.
Project No. 3-217-0185 - 7 -
SALEM
¢
fl:M
9.2 Seismic Design Criteria
9.2.1 For seismic design of the structures, and in accordance with the seismicpro\ isions of the 2016
CBC, our recommended parameters are shown below. These parameters are based on
Probabilistic Ground Motion of 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years. The Site Class was
determined based on our knowledge of soil profiles in the vicinity of the site.
TABLE 9.2.1
2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
9.2.2 Conformance to the criteria in the above table for seismic design does not constitute any kind of
guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a
large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all
damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.
Project No. 3-217-0185 - 8 - 'SALEM
2011) ASCE 7 or
Seismic Item
Symbol
Value
2016 CBC Reference
33.6227 Lat
Site Coordinates (Datum = NAD 83)
-117.9211 Lon
Site Class
D
ASCE 7 Table 20.3
Soil Profile Name
Stiff Soil
ASCE, 7 Table 20.3
Risk Category
II
CBC Table 1604.5
Site Coefficient for PGA
FPGA
1.000
ASCE 7 Table 11.8-1
Peak Ground Acceleration
(adjusted for Site Class effects)
PGAm
0.696
ASCE 7 Equation 11.8-I
Seismic Design Category
SDC
D
ASCE 7 Table] 1.6-1 & 2
Mapped Spectral Acceleration
Ss
1.699 g
CBC Figure 1613.3.1(1-6')
(Short period - 0.2 sec)
Mapped Spectral Acceleration
Si
0.627 g
CBC Figure 1613.3.1(1-6)
(1.0 sec. period)
Site Class Modified Site Coefficient
Fo
1.000
CBC Table 1613.3.3(1)
i
Site Class Modified Site Coefficient
F,
1.500
CBC Table 1616.3.3(2)
MCE Spectral Response Acceleration
SMs
1.699 g
CBC Equation 16-
(Short period - 0.2 sec) Sms = F. Ss
MCE Spectral Response Acceleration
M
SMi
0:941 g
CBC Equation 16-38
(1.0 sec. Period) S,w =F, Si
Design Spectral Response Acceleration
SDS
1.133 g
CBC Equation 16-39
Sns=�L,S;�s (short period - 0.2 sec)
Design Spectral Response Acceleration
SDI
0.627 g
CBC Equation 16-40
SDI='/3SMI (1.0 sec. period)
9.2.2 Conformance to the criteria in the above table for seismic design does not constitute any kind of
guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a
large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all
damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.
Project No. 3-217-0185 - 8 - 'SALEM
9.3 Soil and Excavation Characteristics
9.3.1 Based on the soil conditions encountered in our soil borings, the onsite soils can be excavated
with moderate effort using conventional excavation equipment
9.3.2 It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that all excavations and trenches are properly
shored and maintained in accordance with applicable Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) piles and regulations to maintain safety and maintain the stability of
adjacent existing improvements.
9.3.3 The upper soils are moisture -sensitive and moderately collapsible under saturated conditions.
These soils, in their present condition, possess moderate risk to construction in terms of possible
post -construction movement of the foundations and floor systems if no mitigation measures are
employed. Accordingly, measures are considered necessary to reduce anticipated collapse
potential. Mitigation measures will not eliminate post -construction soil movement, but will
reduce the soil movement. Success of the mitigation measures will depend on the thoroughness
of the contractor in dealing with the soil conditions.
9.3.4 The near surface soils identified as part of our investigation are, generally slightly moist due to
the absorption characteristics of the soil. Earthwork operations may encounter very moist
unstable soils which may require removal to a stable bottom. Exposed native soils exposed as
part of site grading operations shall not be allowed to dry out and should be kept continuously
moist prior to placement of subsequent fill.
9.4 Materials for Fill
9.4.1 Excavated soils generated from cut operations at the site are suitable for use as general
Engineered Fill in structural areas, provided they do not contain deleterious matter, organic
material, or rock material larger than 3 inches in maximumdimension.
9.4.2 The preferred materials specified for Engineered Fill are suitable for most applications with the
exception of exposure to erosion. Project site winterization and protection of exposed soils
during the construction phase should be the sole responsibility of the Contractor, since they
have complete control of the project site.
9.4.3 Environmental characteristics and corrosion potential of import soil materials should also be
considered.
9.4.4 Proposed import materials should be sampled, tested, and approved by SALEM prior to its
transportation to the site.
9.4.5 Import soil shall be well -graded, slightly cohesive silty fine sand or sandy silt, with relatively
impervious characteristics when compacted. A clean sand or very sandy soil is not acceptable
for this purpose. This material should be approved by the Engineer prior to use and should
typically possess the soil characteristics summarized below in Table 9.4.5.
SALEM.
TABLE 9.4.5
IMPORT FILL REQUIREMENTS
Minimum Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve
15
Maximum Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve
50
Minimum Percent Passing No. 4 Sieve
80
Maximum Particle Size
2"
Maximtun Plasticity hidex
10
Maximum CBC Expansion Index
15
9.5 Shallow Foundations
9.5.1 The bearing wall footings considered for the retaining wall should be continuous with a minimum
width of 18 inches and extend to a minimum depth of 18 inches below the loin est adjacent grade.
The bottom of footing excavations should be maintained free of loose and disturbed soil. Footing
concrete should be placed into a neat excavation.
9.5.2 All footing subgrade should have a minimum dry density of 90 percent of maximum density
based on ASTM D1557 Test Method.
9.5.3 Footings proportioned as recommended above may be designed for the maximum allowable soil
bearing pressures shown in the table below.
Loading Condition
Allowable Bearing
Dead Load Only
1,200 psf
Dead -Plus -Live Load
1,500 psf
Total Load, Including Wind or Seismic Load.
2,000 psf
9.5.4 For design purposes, total settlement not exceeding 1 -inch may be assumed for shallow
foundations. Differential settlement should not exceed 'A -inch, producing an angular distortion
of 0.002. Most of the settlement is expected to occur during construction as the loads are applied.
However, additional post -constriction settlement may occur if the foundation soils are flooded
or saturated. The footing excavations should not be allowed to dry out any time prior to pouring
concrete.
9.5.5 Resistance to lateral footing displacement can be computed using an allowable coefficient of
friction factor of 0.35 acting between the base of foundations and the Engineered Fill material.
9.5.6 Lateral resistance for footings can alternatively be developed using an allowable equivalent fluid
passive pressure of 350 pounds per cubic foot acting against the appropriate vertical Engineered
Project No. 3-217-0185 - 10 - A T EM
Fill footing faces. The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be combined without
reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. .
9.5.7 Minimum reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of four No. 4 steel reinforcing
bars; two placed near the top of the footing and two near the bottom. Reinforcement for spread
footings should be designed by the project structural engineer.
9.5.8 Underground utilities running parallel to footings should not be constricted in the zone of
influence of footings. The zone of influence may be taken to be the area beneath the footing and
within a 1:1 plane extending out and down from the bottom edge of the footing.
9.5.9 The foundation subgrade should be moisture conditioned as necessary to maintain a moist
condition without shrinkage cracks as would be expected in any concrete placement. Prior to
placing rebar reinforcement, foundation excavations should be evaluated by a representative of
SALEM for appropriate support characteristics and moisture content. Moisture conditioning may
be required for the materials exposed at footing bottom, particularly if foundation excavations
are left open for an extended period:
9.6 Lateral Earth Pressures and Frictional Resistance
9.6.1
Active and at -rest unit lateral earth pressures against footings and walls are summarized in the
table below:
Lateral Pressure - Drained Condition
Equivalent Fluid Pressure, pef
Active Pressure — Level Backfill
40
Active Pressure — 10% Slope
42
At -Rest Pressure - Levet Backfill
60
Passive Pressure — Level Ground
350
Passive Pressure— 10% Slop Down
320
Related Parameters
Allowable Coefficient of Friction
0.35
1n -Place Soil Density (Ibs/ft')
120
9.6.2 Active pressure applies to walls, which are free to rotate. At -rest pressure applies to walls, which
are restrained against rotation. The preceding lateral earth pressures assume sufficient drainage
behind retaining walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure.
9.6.3 The top one -foot of adjacent subgrade should be deleted from the passive pressure computation.
9.6.4 A safety factor consistent with the design conditions should be included in the usage of the
equivalent fluid pressures above.
I I BADE
9.6.5 For stability against lateral sliding, which is resisted solely by the passive pressure, we
recornmend a minimum safety factor of 1.5. For stability against lateral sliding, .which is resisted
by the combined passive and frictional resistance, a minimum safety factor of 2.0 is
recommended. For lateral stability against seismic loading conditions, we reconuriend a
minimum safety factor of 1.1.
9.6.6 For dynamic seismic lateral loading the following equation shall be used:
Dynamic Seismic Lateral Loading Equation
Dynarnic Seismic Lateral Load = %yKi,H2
Where: y = In -Place Soil Density
Ki, = Horizontal Acceleration = zhPGAN
H = Wall Height
9.7 Retaining Walls
9.7.1 Retaining and/or below grade walls should be drained with either perforated pike encased in free -
draining gravel or a prefabricated drainage system. The gravel zone should have a minimum
width of 12 -inches wide and should extend upward to within 12 -inches of the top of the wall.
The upper 12 -inches of backfill should consist of native soils, concrete, asphaltic -concrete or
other suitable backfill to minimize surface drainage into the wall drain system. The gravel should
conform to Class II permeable materials graded in accordance with the current CalTrans Standard
Specifications.
9.7.2 Prefabricated drainage systems, such as MiradrainClt�, Enkadraina , or an equivalent substitute, are
acceptable alternatives in lieu of gravel provided they are installed in accordance with the
manufacturer's recommendations. if a prefabricated drainage system is proposed, our firm
should review the system for final acceptance prior to installation.
9.7.3 Drainage pipes should be placed with perforations down and should discharge in a non-erosive
manner away from foundations and other improvements.
9.7.4 The top of the perforated pipe should be placed at or below the bottom of the adjacent floor slab
or pavements. The pipe should be placed in the center line of the drainage blanket and should
have a minimum diameter of 4 -inches. Slots should be no wider than 1/8 -inch in diameter, while
perforations should be no more than '/4 -inch in diameter.
9.7.5 If retaining walls are less than 5 feet in height, the perforated pipe may be omitted in lieu of weep
holes on 4 feet maximum spacing. The weep holes should consist of 2 -inch diameter holes
(concrete walls) or unmortared head joints (masonry walls) and placed no higher than 18 -inches
above the lowest adjacent grade. Two 8 -inch square overlapping patches of geotextile fabric
(conforming to the CalTrans Standard Specifications for "edge drains") should be affixed to the
rear wall opening of each weep hole to retard soil piping.
Project No. 3-217-0185
12 -
SALEM
9.7.6 During grading and backfilling operations adjacent to any walls, heavy equipment should not be
allowed to operate within a lateral distance of 5 feet from the wall, or within a lateral distance
equal to the wall height, whichever is greater, to avoid developing excessive lateral pressures.
Within this zone, only hand operated equipment ("whackers;" vibratory plates, or pneumatic
compactors) should be used to compact the backfill soils
9.8 Temporary Excavations ,
9.8.1 We anticipate that the majority of the sandy site soils will be classified as Cal -OSHA "Type C"
soil when encountered in excavations during site development and construction. Excavation
slopingbenching, the use of trench shields, and the placement of trench spoils should conform
to the latest applicable Cal -OSHA standards. The contractor should have a Cal -OSHA -approved
"competent person" onsite during excavation to evaluate trench conditions and make appropriate
recommendations where necessary.
9.8.2 It is the contractor's responsibility to provide sufficient and safe excavation support as well as
protecting nearby utilities, structures, and other improvements which may be damaged by earth
movements. All onsite excavations must be conducted in such a maturer that potential surcharges
from existing structures, construction equipment, and vehicle loads are resisted. The surcharge
area may be defined by a 1:1 projection down and away from the bottom of an existing foundation
or vehicle load.
9.8.3 Temporary excavations and slope faces should be protected from rainfall and erosion. Surface
runoff should be directed away from excavations and slopes.
9.8.4 Open, unbraced excavations in undisturbed soils should be made according to the slopes
presented in the following table:
RECOMMENDED EXCAVATION SLOPES
Depth of Excavation (ft) Slope {Horizontal :Vertical)
0-5 1:1
5-10 2:1 II
9.8.5 If, due to 'space limitation, excavations nearr existing structures are performed in a vertical
position, braced shorings or shields may be used for supporting vertical excavations. Therefore,
in order to comply with the local and state safety regulations, a properly designed and installed
shoring system would be required to accomplish planned excavations and installation, A
Specialty Shoring Contractor should be responsible for the design and installation of such a
shoring system during construction.
9.8.6 Braced shorings should be designed for a maximum pressure distribution of 30H, (where H is the
depth of the excavation in feet). The foregoing does not include excess hydrostatic pressure or
surcharge loading. Fifty percent of any surcharge load, such as construction equipment weight,
should be added to the lateral load given herein. Equipment traffic should concurrently be limited
to an area at least 3 feet from the shoring face or edge of the slope.
Project No. 3-217-0185 13 - SALEM
([
„,
9.8.7 The excavation and shoring recommendations provided herein are based on soil characteristics
derived from the borings within the area. Variations in soil conditions will likely be encountered
during the excavations. SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. should be afforded the opportunity to
provide field review to evaluate the actual conditions and account for field condition variations
not otherwise anticipated in the preparation of this recommendation. Slope height, slope
inclination, or excavation depth should in no case exceed those specified in local, state, or federal
safety regulation, (e.g. OSHA) standards for excavations, 29 CFR part 1926, or Assessor's
regulations:
10. PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
10.1 Plan and Specification Review
10.1.1 SALEM shall review the project drainage plans, foundation plans, and structural plans and
specifications prior to final design submittal to assess whether our recommendations have been
properly implemented and evaluate if additional analysis and/or recommendations are required.
If SALEM is not provided plans and specifications for review, we cannot assume any
responsibility for the future performance of the project.
10.2 Construction Observation and Testing Services
10.2.1 The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that we will continue
as Geotechnical Engineer of Record throughout the construction phase. It is important to maintain
continuity of geotechnical interpretation and confirm that field conditions encountered are similar
to those anticipated during design. If we are not retained for these services, we cannot assume
any responsibility for others interpretation of our recommendations, and therefore the future
performance of the project.
10.2.2 SALEM shall be present at the site during site demolition and preparation to observe site
clearing/demolition, preparation of exposed surfaces after clearing, and placement, treatment and
compaction of fill material
10.2.3 SALEM's observations should be supplemented with periodic compaction tests to establish
substantial conformance with these recommendations. Moisture content of footings and slab
subgrade should be tested immediately prior to concrete placement. SALEM should observe
foundation excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete to assess whether the
actual bearing conditions are compatible with the conditions anticipated during the preparation
of this report,
11. LIMITATIONS AND CHANGED CONDITIONS
The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test
borings drilled at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. The report does not reflect
variations which may occur between borings. The nature and extent of such variations may not become
evident until construction is initiated.
Project No. 3-217-0185 -14-M 14 -A �1S /f
If variations then appear, a re-evaluation of the recommendations of this report will be necessary after
performing on-site observations during the excavation period and noting the characteristics of such
variations. The findings and recommendations presented in this report are valid as of the present and for
the proposed constriction. If site conditions change due to natural processes or human intervention on the
property or adjacent to the site, or changes occur in the nature or design of the project, or if there is a
substantial time lapse between the submission of this report and the start of the work at the site, the
conclusions and recommendations contained in our report will not be considered valid unless the changes
are reviewed by SALEM and the conclusions of our report are modified or verified in writing.
i The validity of the recommendations contained in this report is also dependent upon an adequate testing and
4 observations program during the construction phase. Our firm assumes no responsibility for construction
compliance with the design concepts or recommendations unless we have been retained to perform the on-
site testing and review during construction. SALEM has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the
r-
owner and project design consultants.
SALEM does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. It is recommended that a qualified corrosion
engineer be consulted regarding protection of buried steel or ductile iron piping and conduit or, at a
minimum, that manufacturer's recommendations for corrosion protection be closely followed. Further, a
corrosion engineer may be needed to incorporate the necessary precautions to avoid premature corrosion of
concrete slabs and foundations in direct contact with native soil. The importation of soil and or aggregate
materials to the site should be screened to determine the potential for corrosion to concrete and buried metal
piping. The report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
practices in the area. No other warranties, either express or implied, are made as to the professional advice
provided under the terns of our agreement and included in this report.
If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our
office at (909) 980-6455.
Respectfully Submitted,
SALEM ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
15 �
Ibrahim Ibrahim, MS, PE
Geotechnical Staff Engineer
RCE 86724 jJ
Clarence Jiang, GE p Sstp R. Sarmny Salem, MS, PE, GE��ft=�sst+�ti
Senior Geotechnical Engineer �r�}1GE r� red Principal Engineer �t c�4 y 41
RGE 2477 9y 4 RCE 52762 / RGE 2549 <tm
ca 0 No. 2471 0i GE 2549
EY4 /a0Jt7 �30 * Exp Oec 31 2�r3
ct�. QTFrt3N�G _,�i r �TEciNSG .r
I
IL
!
r1} tl�r{4'"=y x r p�a✓4^`+�,� r,F
J� ! ✓ � t /%� A �'iA� rtga 5C ifhwm•'r �Yk d �� W
t
wZ 4r - Z
Q O x d' �l I d r jr o
tB �. FN ! 1" fi
! 1 Q v
m yi^ U to
r
F ivr 3y ..,- y7 Mfr ti� LO
•vZ; tj d� �� z 1 !�' a Cl) o
4, > r Z N w O i
ri r f i o a
O
T-
0
i4 k�
z c
f7 F 'O
5y,li ml o w� R
O Zm
> c
LL
U? R R
} W OI41,
,wL
LL,
z
R O m
OL
2
ask y� ^��, w
"A-P,
�i\/. w a
+r<.
00
�� ff
Im
to
Fi
w i
b rF
F
�'
z C
�
z C
�
o
C 'tilt f
Q�
x
J
~
W U
Z d d
n
N d _
.:.
J
i�CU
'
d.
t
W. OIe � d
W
K:9 'a U w
H
f7� o Ill
Vi
W K N o
0
J p
c 3
U .N Z
2 'X
S W
{
U
F.d
N
�.0
IL
y
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
Fieldwork for our investigation was conducted on February 27, 2017 and included a site visit, subsurface
exploration, and soil sampling. The locations of the exploratory borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figure
2. Boring logs for our exploration are presented in figures following the text in this appendix. Borings were
located in the field using existing reference points. Therefore, actual boring locations may deviate slightly.
The test borings were advanced with a 3 -inch diameter hand auger. The test borings were extended to a
depth of 10 feet below existing grade. Subsurface soil samples were obtained from the auger cuttings at the
depths shown on the logs of borings.
Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory boring were visually examined, classified and logged
in general accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice for Description
and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure D2488). This system uses the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) for soil designations. The logs depict soil and geologic conditions
encountered and depths at which samples were obtained. The logs also include our interpretation of the
conditions between sampling intervals. Therefore, the logs contain both observed and interpreted data. We
determined the lines designating the interface between soil materials on the logs using visual observations,
penetration rates. excavation characteristics and other factors. The transition between materials may be
abrupt or gradual. Where applicable, the field logs were revised based on subsequent laboratory testing.
a
«
Unified Soil Classification System
Major Divisions
Letter
Symbol
Description
°
Well -graded gravels and gra% el -sand mixtures,
ami
❑
Clean
GW
little or no fines.
cy
$b
Gravels
c_
_
Poorly -graded gravels and gavel -sand mixtures.
N
; c.N
GP
o'. -::a[
little or no fines.
GM --
Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures.
z
° 6
d
o Z
Gravels
GC
Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures.
c
w
With Fines
i b
Well -graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no
❑
SW
fines.
d
c
d
° z
Clean Sands
"j' `;`
Poorly -graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no
U
>
SP
fines.
SM
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures
v
o
Surds With
SC
f/ '
Clayey sands, sandy -clay mixtures.
Fines
Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock flour, silty or
s
ML
clayey fine sands.
c
Silts and Clays
astrcit rave
nor rme c a s o ow to mec iumpy gravelly
= y
Liquid. Limit less than
CL
%�
clays, sandy clays, silty clays. lean clays.
UD c
'O 'y
50%
OL
,.i,
to high
}'Organic
clays of medium plasticity.
N
MH
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fines
z
Silts and Clays
sands or silts elastic silts.
Liquid Limit greater than
CHS
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
0
�
50%
OH
y;
l�%
Organic clays of medium to high plasticity.
Highly Organic Soils
PT
Peat, muck, and other highly organic soils.
Consistency Classification
Granular Soils
Cohesive Soils
Description - Blows Per Foot (Corrected)
Description - Blows Per Foot (Corrected)
MCS SPT
MCS SPT
Very loose <5 <4
Very soft <3 <2
Loose 5- 15 4-10
Soft 3 - 5 2-4
Medium dense 16-40 11-30
Firm 6-10 5 - 8
Dense 41-65 31 -50
Stiff 11 -20 9- 15
Very dense >65 >50
Very Stiff 21-40 16-30
Hard >40 >30
MCS = Modified California Sampler SPT = Standard Penetration Test Sampler
Boring No. B-1
Project: Proposed/Existing Retaining Walls Project No: 3-217-0185
Client: Ms. Claudia O'Conner Figure No.: A-1
Location: 2620 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, CA Logged By: A.A
Grnd. Surf. Elev. (Ft. MSL) N/A Initial: None
Depth to Water>
At Completion: None
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
Penetration Test
a>i
0
r
m
i
°
'o
v
o
Description
d
o
d
L)
y
y
aoi
o
i
rn
?
o °
o o
2 U
m
m
a°i
a
0
m
20 40 60 80
------
m
0
Ground Surface
Ground
Silty SAND (SM)
w
Moist; mottled brown; fine-grained; with trace
104.3
17.2
Tube
,1.
clay.
-
109.4
5-
'',
Grades as above.
15.2
Tube
Grades as above; no clay.
10.4
Bag
10
_
End of Borehole
15
20
L25
y a.
Drill Method: Hand Auger Drill Date: 02/17/2017
Drill'Rig: N/A Borehole Size: 3 inches;,
Driller: Salem Engineering Group, Inc. Hammer Type: N/A
Sheet: 1 of 1 Weight & Drop: NIA�^
Boring No. B-2
Project: Proposed/Existing Retaining Walls Project No: 3-217-0185
Client: Ms. Claudia O'Conner Figure No.: A-2
Location: 2620 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, CA Logged By: A.A
Grnd. Surf. Elev. (Ft. MSL) N/A Initial: None
Depth to Water>
At Completion: None
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
d
v
o.
oc
'o
Penetration Test
ani
a
Description
m
w d
°'
v
CL
a
d
G
T �'
m
08
o o
2U
M
rn
m
a
c
m
20 40 60 80
0
Ground Surface
_
Silty SAND (SM)
Moist; mottled brown; fine-grained; with trace
107.6
15.9
Tube
clay.
5-
Grades as above.
112.0
16.3
Tube
I
I
I
Grades as above.
i
_
16.0
Bag
10
End of Borehole
15-
520-25Drill
20-
25—
DrillMethod: Hand Auger Drill Date: 02/17/2017
Drill Rig: N/A Borehole Size: 3 inches 7 w
Driller: Salem Engineering Group, Inc. Hammer Type: N/A
Sheet: 1 of 1 Weight &Drop: N/A �
f.'
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Caltrans, or other suggested procedures. Selected samples were
tested for it -situ moisture content and density, shear strength, expansion index, maximum density and
optimum moisture, corrosivity, and grain size distribution. The results ofthe laboratory tests are summarized
in the following figures.
Project No. 3-217-0185 B-1 b"ALE 1
tz
CJ
CL
wU
aza
cam
gz
tet;
a
X
-T T I I
I
LEN
m N
0
SHEAR
STRESS, KSF
Q
❑
z
0
M�
NW_N
1.1.
H
W
N
w
W
V
a
N
a
0
F-
F-
F -
co F -
co
W
F
z
O
Q
a
z
I
p
U
I 1
to
1 I
ry
-
N
oi
------ - -'--- ------
o N
C7
a
m
--------------------
IT --II
�M
—_ —.—.
------------------
%.
--
- - __
-
--------------------------------- ------ --------------------------
---
______ --------------------------I _____-.______
------
m
_ m
C
ry. `
6 M
_
—
_ _
i —�
I
N
N
D
eL
5uissed luemed
z
DRY SIEVE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422 without Hydrometer)
Sieve Size
Particle Size, mm
Percent
Passing
1 1/2 -in.
37.5
100.0%
1 -in.
25
100.0%
3/4 -in.
19
100.0%
1/2 -in.
12.5
100.0%
3/8 -in.
9.5
100.0%
No.4
4.75
100.0%
No.8
2.36
99.7%
No. .16
1.18
99.5%
No. 30
0.6
98.0%
No. 50
0.3
87.5%
No. 100
0.15
56.9%
No. 200
0.075
40.3%
Proposed Retaining Walls, 2620 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, CA
Project Number: 3-217-0185
Boring: B-1 @ 2'
NALEM
en1 g!r,eering
Q
g
0
z
0
H
D
W
H
D)
0
LU
N
V5
W
J
U
a
CL
F-
U)
W
H
z
0
a
O
It
(9
0
a
z
„
o
tz
U
M
�
�
O
�
3"
A
� C
z o
u �
'o
�
,G
I
Ico
QI
r,
0.
c
c
o
c
I
d
d
f —T JJ
I
o
g--;
--- --
-----------------------------
--- h -----
Z
c
-------------------
D______
__-----------
______F____________ ______ _____
m n
E2
N
�
L
T
C �
N\
0 __
______
____________
i
______ ______
d
dLn_
______
____________
_____0
______ ______ __ _______ _____________ ------
120
buissed;uamad
0
a
z
„
o
tz
U
M
�
�
O
�
3"
A
� C
z o
u �
'o
�
,G
L
Pi
^o
N
H
0
QI
r,
0.
Q
Q N
o CN
0
o�
I- y
ma
F-
N H
O O
W
N
55 p
W
J y
U
Q
a
♦'f.�
I
1
♦'f.�
EXPANSION INDEX TEST
ASTM D 4829 / UBC Std. 29-2
Project Number: 3-217-0185
Proposed Retaining Walls, 2620 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, CA
Date Tested: 2/17/17
Sample location/ Depth: B -I @ 0'- 2'
Sample Number: 1
Soil Classification: Silty SAND (SM) with trace clay
Trial #
1 2 3 .
Weight of Soil & Mold, gms
604.5
Weight of Mold, gms
186.7
Weight of Soil, gins
41.7.8
Wet Density, Lbs/cu.ft.
126.0
Weight of Moisture Sample (Wet), gins
300.0
Weight of Moisture Sample (Dry), gms
274.8
Moisture Content, %
9.2
Dry Density, Lbs/cu.ft.
115.4
Specific Gravity of Soil
2.7
Degree of Saturation, %
53.9
Time
I Intal
1 30 min
1 hr
6 brs 12 hrs
24 hrs
Dial Reading
1 0
--
91 - 130
-- --
1 0.007
Expansion Index,,,,,,,,,d
Expansion Index 50
Expansion Index =
7
8.7
D
Expansion Potential Table
Exp. Index
Potential Exp.
0-20
Ve-y Low
21 -50
Low
51 -90
Medium
91 - 130
High
>130
Very High
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
SO4 - Modified Caltrans 417 & CI Modified Caltrans 417/422
Proposed Retaining Walls, 2620 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, CA
Project Number: 3-217-0185
Date: 2/17/17
Soil Classification: Fine Silty SAND (SM) with trace clay
Sample
Sample
Soluble Sulfate
Soluble Chloride
p H
Number
Location
SO4-S
Cl
I a.
B-1 @ 0'- 2'
494 mg/Kg
152 mg/Kg
7.3
lb.
B-1 @ 0'- 2'
494 mg/Kg
152 mg/Kg
7.3
la
B-1 @ 0' - 2'
494 mg/Kg
153 mg/Kg
7.3
Average:
494 mg/Kg
152 mg/Kg
7.3
LABORATORY COMPACTION CURVE
ASTM - D1557, D698
Proposed Retaining Walls, 2620 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, CA
Project Number: 3-217-0185
Date Tested: 2/17/17
Sample Location: B-1 @ 0'- 2'
Soil Classification: Fine Silty SAND (SM) with trace clay
Sample/Curve Number: I
Test Method: 1557 A
1
2
3
Weight of Moist Specimen & Mold, gm
4281.1
4356.5
4307.8
Weight of Compaction Mold, gm
2255:6
2255.6
2255.6
Weight of Moist Specimen, gm
2025.5
2100.9
2052.2
Volume of mold, cu. ft.
0.0333
0.0333
0.0333
Wet Density, lbs/cu.ft.
134.1
139.1
135.9
Weight of Wet (Moisture) Sample, gm
200.0
200.0
200.0
Weight of Dry (Moisture) Sample, gm
182.9
179.5
176.4
Moisture Content, %
9.3%
11.4%
13.4%
Dry Density, lbs/cu.ft.
122.6
124.8
119.8
MEMMEMINEEM
=====M
Maximum Dry Density: 125.0
'—q Optimum Moisture Content:
lbs/cu.ft
11.5 %
�,_
MEESE
MENEM
ME
ME ME ME
ME ME Mmmmamm—
I f
a=�
I
m -max
EM
_ M
SEE
M ME
�,_
jar �
t
S�
M di <
k
tl T
C
n
APPENDIX C
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS
When the text of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the recormnendations
in the report have precedence.
1.0 SCOPE OF WORK: These specifications and applicable plans pertain to and include all
earthwork associated with the site rough grading, including, but not limited to; the furnishing of all labor,
tools and equipment necessary for site clearing and grubbing, stripping, preparation of foundation materials
for receiving fill, excavation, processing, placement and compaction of fill and backfill materials to the lines
and grades shown on the project grading plans and disposal of excess materials.
2.0 PERFORMANCE: The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all
earthwork in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work shall be inspected and tested
by a representative of SALEM Engineering Group, Incorporated, hereinafter referred to as the Soils
Engineer and/or Testing Agency. Attainment of design grades, when achieved, shall be certified by the
project Civil Engineer. Both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer are the Owner's representatives. If
the Contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements embodied in this document and on
the applicable plans, he shall make the necessary adjustments until all work is deemed satisfactory as
determined by both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer. No deviation from these specificat: ons shall
be made except upon written approval of the Soils Engineer, Civil Engineer, or project Architect.
No earthwork shall be performed without the physical presence or approval of the Soils Engineer. The
Contractor shall notify the Soils Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the commencement of any aspect
of the site earthwork.
The Contractor shall assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of
construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this requirement shall apply
continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and that the Contractor shall defend, indenntify
and hold the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection
with the performance of work on this project, except for liability arising from the sole negligence of the
Owner or the Engineers.
3.0 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS: All compacted materials shall be densified to no less that 95
percent of relative compaction (90 percent for cohesive soils) based on ASTM D1557 Test Method (latest
edition), UBC or CAL -216, or as specified in the technical portion of the Soil Engineer's report. The
location and frequency of field density tests shall be detennined by the Soils Engineer. The results of these
tests and compliance with these specifications shall be the basis upon which satisfactory completion of work
will be judged by the Soils Engineer.
4.0 SOILS AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS: The Contractor is presumed to have visited the
site and to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in
the Geotechnical Engineering Report. The Contractor shall make his own interpretation of the data
contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Report and the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability for
any loss sustained as a result of any variance between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report
and the actual conditions encountered during the progress of the work.
Project No. 3-217-0185 C-1 SALEM
1n
5.0 DUST CONTROL: The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention
of any dust nuisance on or about the site or the borrow area, or off-site if caused by the Contractor's operation
either` during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor
leaves the site. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including court costs of codefendants, for all claims
ix
related to dust of wind-blown materials attributable to his work. Site preparation shall consist of site clearing
and grubbing and preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill
i..
6.0 CLEARING AND GRUBBING: The Contractor shall accept the site in this present condition
and shall demolish and/or remove from the area of designated project earthwork all structures, both surface
and subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter and all other matter determined by the Soils
s
Engineer to be deleterious. Such materials shall become the property ofthe Contractor and shall be removed
S
from the site.
:
Tree root systems in proposed improvement areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet and to
rug
w;
such an extent which would permit removal of all roots greater than 1-inch in diameter. Tree roots removed
in parking areas may be limited to the upper l'/ feet of the ground surface. Backfill of tree root excavations
is not permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the Soils Engineer is present for the
proper control of Backfill placement and compaction. Burning in areas which are to receive fill materials
shall not be permitted.
7.0 SUBGRADE PREPARATION: Surfaces to receive Engineered Fill and/or building or slab loads
shall" be prepared as outlined above, scarified to a minimum of 12-inches, moisture-conditioned as
necessary, and recompacted to 95 percent relative compaction (90 percent for cohesive soils).
Loose soil areas and/or areas of disturbed soil shall be moisture-conditioned as necessary and recompacted
to 95 percent relative compaction (90 percent for cohesive soils). All nits, hummocks, or other uneven
surface features shall be removed by surface grading prior to placement of any fill materials. All areas
"
"which are to receive fill materialsshallbe approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of any fill
,.,
material.
8.0 EXCAVATION: All excavation shall be accomplished to the tolerance normally defined by the
Civil Engineer as shown on the project grading plans. All over-excavation below the grades specified shall
be backfilled at the Contractor's expense and shall be compacted in accordance with the applicable technical
requirements.
'
9.0 FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL: No material shall be moved or compacted without the
presence or approval of the Soils Engineer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for
construction site tills; provided prior approval is given by the Soils Engineer. All materials utilized for
constnteting site tills shall be free from vegetation or other deleterious matter as determined by the Soils
Engineer.
10.0 PLACEMENT, SPREADING AND COMPACTION: ` The placement and spreading of
approved fill materials and the processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials shall be the
}
responsibility of the Contractor. ° Compaction of fill materials by flooding, ponding, or jetting shall not be
s
= permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the Soils Engineer. Both cut and fill shall
be'surface-compacted to the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer prior to final acceptance.
Y
A 1
y
Pa be No. 3,-217-0185 C-2 SALEM
- N
A,
11.0 SEASONAL LIMITS: No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen or
thawing, or during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill
operations shall not be resumed until the Soils Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of
previously placed fill is as specified.
12.0 DEFINITIONS - The tens "pavement" shall include asphaltic concrete surfacing, untreated
aggregate base, and aggregate subbase. The term "subgrade" is that portion of the area on which surfacing,
base, or subbase is to be placed.
The term "Standard Specifications": hereinafter referred to, is the most recent edition of the Standard
Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation. The term"relative compaction"
refers to the field density expressed as a percentage of the maximum laboratory density as determined by
ASTM D 1557 Test Method (latest edition) or California Test Method 216 (CAL -216), as applicable.
13.0 PREPARATION OF THE SUBGRADE - The Contractor shall prepare the surface of the various
subgrades receiving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and dimensions given on the plans.
The upper 12 -inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section shall be compacted to a minimum
relative compaction of 95 percent based upon ASTM D1557. The finished subgrades shall be tested and
approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of additional pavement courses.
14.0 AGGREGATE BASE - The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted on the
prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate
base material shall conform to the requirements of Section 26 of the Standard Specifications for Class 11
material, 3/4 -inch or 1'/z -inches maximum size. The aggregate base material shall be compacted to a
minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based upon CAL -216. The aggregate base material shall be
spread in layers not exceeding 6 -inches and each layer of aggregate material course shall be tested and
approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers.
15.0 AGGREGATE SUBBASE - The aggregate subbase shall be spread and compacted on the
prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate
subbase material shall conform to the requirements of Section 25 of the Standard Specifications for Class 11
Subbase material. The aggregate subbase material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction
of 95 percent based upon CAL -216, and it shall be spread and compacted in accordance with the Standard
Specifications. Each layer of aggregate subbase shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to
the placement of successive layers.
16.0 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACING - Asphaltic concrete surfacing shall consist of a
mixture of mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at a central mixing plant and spread and
compacted on a prepared base in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans.
The viscosity grade of the asphalt shall be PG 64-10, unless otherwise stipulated or local conditions warrant
more stringent grade. The mineral aggregate shall be Type A or B, '/z -inch maximum size, medium grading,
and shall conform to the requirements set forth in Section 39 of the Standard Specifications. The drying,
proportioning, and mixing of the materials shall conform to Section 39. The prime coat, spreading and
compacting equipment, and spreading and compacting the mixture shall conform to the applicable chapters
of Section 39, with the exception that no surface course shall be placed when the atmospheric temperature
is below 50 degrees F. The surfacing shall be rolled with a combination steel -wheel and pneumatic rollers,
as described in the Standard Specifications. The surface course shall be placed with an approved self-
propelled mechanical spreading and finishing machine.
Project No. 3-217-0185 C-3 SALE