The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutF2014-0552 - Soils` • t F2.0i�-o�z COAST GEOTECHNICAL IIYUDVI VI. 1200 W. Commonwealth Avenue, CA 92838 Ph: (714) 870-1211 Pax: (7Z4) 870-1222 E-mail: coastgeotecQabeglobal.net August 29, 2013 Mr. and Mrs. Talleur RLLTF Trust P.O. Box 1369 Ontario, CA 91762 References: W. 0.405310-04 Subject: Rough Grade Compaction Report for 15 Troon Drive, Newport Beach, California 1. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed New Residence, 15 Troon Drive, Newport Beach, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, W.O. 4053 10-01, dated October 1, 2010. 2. Update of Existing Geotechnical Report for 15 Troon Drive, Newport Beach, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, W.O. 405310-02, dated January 21, 2013. 3. Bottomless Trench Drains for 15 Troon Drive, Newport Beach, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, W.O. 405310-03, dated March 29, 2013. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Talleur: Forwarded herewith is the rough grade compaction report for the subject site. The grading operation was conducted from August 20, 2013 to August 29, 2013 utilizing the referenced geotechnical report. PLACEMENT OF FILL Compacted fill material was placed on the subject site to provide adequate support for the proposed structure. Overexcavation extended down to competent existing certified fill soil. Cut areas exposed competent materials. The depth of over -excavation was about two feet below original grade. The exposed surface was scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Subsequent fills were placed in six to eight inch loose lifts and compacted to a minimum of 90% by track rolling. Limits of grading are shown on the attached Plate 1. Equipment used for compacting the fill soils consisted of a 963 track loader and Cat 613 scraper. Soils were moisture conditioned as needed. Earthwork was by Tight Quarters, Inc. COAST GEOTECHNICAL Mr. and Mrs. Talleur 2 W.O. 405310-04 Rough Grade Compaction Report August 24 2013 TESTING Maximum density optimum moisture relationship determinations were performed for each soil type encountered during grading operations. Test results were as follows:_ Laboratory Standard: (ASTM:D-1557-00) 4 -inch diameter mold; 1/30 b0 volume; 5 layers at 25 blows per layer; 10 lb. hammer dropped 18 inches rt�t15 I Orange Brown Silty Sand 9.5 120 Red Brown Silty Sand w/ 11 10.0 125 Gravels Compaction tests were performed a minimum of every two feet and/or 500 cubic yards of compacted fill soils placed. These tests were performed in accordance with ASTM test method. The test results are summarized in Table 1. The approximate test locations are shown on Plate 1. Areas not tested were probed to show adequate compaction. FOUNDATIONS — COMPACTED FILL The proposed structures may be supported by continuous spread footings only placed a minimum depth of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade utilizing an allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot. This value is for dead plus live load and may be increased 1/3 for total including seismic and wind loads where allowed by code. Foundations should be reinforced with at least four #4 bars, two top and two bottom. Footing excavations shall be observed by a representative of COAST GEOTECHNICAL prior to placement of steel or concrete to verify competent soil conditions. If unacceptable soil conditions are exposed mitigation will be recommended. LATERAL DESIGN Lateral restraint at the base of footings and on slabs may be assumed to be the product of the dead load and a coefficient of friction of .35. Passive pressure on the face of footings may also be used to resist lateral forces. A passive pressure of zero at the surface of finished grade, increasing at the rate of 300 pounds per square foot of depth to a maximum value of 3,000 pounds per square foot, may be used for compacted fill at this site. If passive pressure and friction are combined when evaluating the lateral resistance, the value of the passive pressure should be limited to 2/3 of the values given above. COAST GEOTECHNICAL Mr. and Mrs. Talleur 3 W.O. 405310-04 Rough Grade Compaction Report August 29 2013 EXPANSIVE SOILS Results of expansion tests indicate that the near surface soils have a very low to low expansion potential. FLOOR SLABS Slabs on grade should be at least four inches thick and reinforced with #3 bars on 12 -inch centers both ways. The slabs shall be supported on engineered fill compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Subgrade soil should be kept moist prior to casting the slab. However, if the soils at grade become disturbed during construction, they should be brought to approximately optimum moisture content and rolled to a firm, unyielding condition prior to placing concrete. In areas where a moisture sensitive floor covering will be used, a vapor barrier consisting of a plastic film (10 mil polyvinyl chloride or equivalent) should be used. The vapor barrier should be properly lapped and sealed. Since the vapor barrier will prevent moisture from draining from fresh concrete, a better concrete finish can usually be obtained if at least two inches of sand is spread over the vapor barrier prior to placement of concrete. The capillary break material shall comply with the requirements of the local jurisdiction and shall be a minimum of four inches in thickness. Some jurisdictions require the use of a capillary break, consisting of four inches of 1{2 inch (or larger) clean aggregate, underlying a vapor barrier. If such a capillary break is incorporated into the design, the use of heavy filter cloth (Mirifi 140N) between the rock and vapor barrier is strongly recommended. The use of the filter cloth will mitigate the potential for perforation of the vapor barrier. Additionally, it is highly recommended that a vibratory compaction plate be used on top of the rock to smooth out any sharp protuberances. SWIMMING POOL AND SPA The swimming pool and spa shall maintain a seventeen -foot foundation setback and shall be designed as free standing. The pool and spa shall be founded in compacted fill in all areas. Deepened grade beams may be necessary near the slope. The pool shell and decking should be separated with a flexible joint. Pool walls should be designed to support the water, having a density of 62.4 pounds per cubic foot without bearing from the adjacent soil. The walls should be able to support the adjacent backfill soil when the pool is empty. The active earth pressure may be calculated as an equivalent fluid pressure of 70 pcf, plus the lateral pressure due to any superimposed surcharge when the pool is empty. Expansion joints should be placed between the deck and the pool. The pool excavation shall be observed by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. to verify acceptable conditions. COAST GEOTECHNICAL Mr. and Ms. Talleur 4 W.O. 405310-04 Roag_h Grade Compaction Report August 29 2013 POST -GRADING SERVICES During construction of the residence, it is recommended, and at times required by the regulatory agency, the following be observed and/or tested by the geotechnical engineer: Excavation of footings • Backfill of interior slab areas • Backfill of interior trenches • Slab subgrade moisture and density testing • BackfilI of exterior utility trenches • Hardscape subgrade It is the responsibility of the developer to schedule the required observations and testing REGULATORY COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that the subject grading was observed by a representative from this office, and the work was done in full compliance with the Grading Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach and in accordance with the best accepted practices of the applicable chapter of the California Building Code. All cuts, fills or processing of original ground under the purview of this report have been completed under the observation of and with selective testing by COAST GEOTECHNICAL and found to be in compliance with the Grading Code of the City of Newport Beach. The completed work has been observed by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, and is considered adequate for the development. Our findings were made and recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practices, and no further warranty is implied nor made. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. Respectfully submitted: COAST GEOTECHNICAL Ming-Tamg Chen RCE 54011 COAST GEOTECHNICAL Mr. and Mrs. Tafleur 5 W.O. 405310-04 Roug-ji Grade Compaction Report August 29.2013 COMPACTION TEST RESULTS TABLE 1 iw. ie@ I Pad Area 2.02.5 9.8 112.0 1 93.3 8/20/13 2 Pad Area 2.02.5 10.3 111.5 1 92.9 8/20/13 3 Pad Area 0.51.0 9.5 110.9 1 92.4 8/21/13 4 Pad Area 0.51.0 12.3 113.5 1 94.6 8121/13 5 Pad Area 0.51.0 10.0 110.3 1 91:9 8/21113 6 Pad Area 2.02.5 9.9 112.3 1 93.6 8123/13 7 Pad Area 2.0-2.5 11.5 108.9 1 90.7 8/23/13 8 Pad Area 0.5-1.0 11.7 113.7 11 91.0 8/26/13 9 Pad Area 1.01.5 11.5 114.7 11 91.8 8/26/13 10 Pad Area 0.00.5 10.3 115.9 11 92.7 8/26/13 11 Pad Area 0.00.5 11.4 116.1 11 92.9 8/26/13 12 Pad Area 0.00.5 12.4 116.0 11 92.8 8/26/13 13 Pad Area 0.00.5 11.1 116.4 11 93.1 8/26/13 14 Pad Area 0.00.5 11.9 116.0 11 92.8 8/26/13 15 Pad Area F.G. 9.6 111.4 1 92.8 8/27/13 16 Pad Area F.G. 11.1 114.9 11 91.9 8/27/13 17 Pad Area F.G. 10.6 116.5 11 93.2 8/27/13 18 Pad Area F.G. 10.7 116.8 11 93.4 8/27/13 19 Pad Area F.G. 10.9 116.4 11 93.1 8/27/13 20 Pad Area F.G. 8.1 116.5 11 93.2 8/29/13 Approximate Compaction Test Locations o F- ,-, C O C ML t ® 1 Z +O+E g O d X00 I � �g5 � 1 � _ a. R � m � p O yi 4 ioIt eaw M F I— O L° •. sK. � �y-'fie,, ' _ � 91F , lI lob ML E Q �1yunS A 1 i _ 11 1 t L PY ga `Lh U V f gig v :} Jill i �'t i. I lit 15, �`� t�,. 2. Y az h W LG sf RL E i qE gtir Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Work Order 405310-04 15 Troon Drive Newport Beach, California Plate No. 1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL.. INC. UOAST UEOTECHNICAL, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed New Residence 15 Troon Drive Newport Beach, California BY: COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. W. 0.405310-01, dated October 1, 2010 FOR: Mr. and Mrs. Talleur RLLTF Trust P.O. Box 1369 Ontario, CA 91762 COAST GEOTECHNICAL 14747 Artesia Blvd., Suite 1-D, La Mirada: CA 90088 Ph: (7)4) 521.0109 ar (714) 521-2827 Fax: (714) 521.0179 October 1, 2010 Mr. and Mrs. Talleur RLLTF Trust P.O. Box 1369 Ontario, CA 91762 Reference: W.O. 405310-01 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed New Residence, 15 Troon Drive, Newport Beach, California Project Grading Report, Tract 15332, Phase I, (Lot 71-77, 124-198, 254-262, 380-404 and Recreation Area), City of Newport Beach; by pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., W.O. 500378, dated February 21, 1997. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Talleur: Pursuant to your request, a geotechnical engineering investigation has been performed at the subject site. The purposes of the investigation were to determine the general engineering characteristics of the earth materials on and underlying the site and to provide recommendations for the design of foundations and underground improvements. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon our understanding of the proposed development and analyses of the data obtained from our field and laboratory testing programs. This report completes our scope of geotechnical engineering services authorized by Mr. Phillip Talleur in the executed proposal dated March 5, 2010. PROJECT DESCRIPTION It is our understanding that the project will consist of a two-story residence over slab on grade. Significant grade changes are not anticipated. Design recommendations for, retaining walls and landscaping are also addressed in this report. Structural loads are anticipated to be light. PROJECT WORK SCOPE The purpose of our services was to evaluate the project site soil and bedrock conditions and to provide preliminary geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations relative to the proposed development. Our scope of services consisted of the following: COAST, GEOTECHNICAL RLLTF Trust 2 W.0.405310-01 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation October 1 2010 1. Review of available geotechnical reports. 2. A cursory geotechnical and geologic reconnaissance of the site and surrounding area. 3. Exploration of the site's subsurface earth material conditions by placement of borings. 4. Logging and collection of soil samples. 5. Geotechnical laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings excavated for this project. 6. Engineering analyses of the data obtained from the exploration, review and testing programs. 7. A summary of our findings and recommendations in this report. RECORDS REVIEW Records reviewed at the City of Newport Beach consisted of the following report: "Project Grading Report, Tract 15332, Phase I, (Lot 71-77, 124-198, 254-262, 380-404 and Recreation Area), City of Newport Beach"; by pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., W.O. 500378, dated February 21, 1997." A summary of our review of this report is as follows: • Adverse geotechnical or geologic conditions were not encountered during mass grading. • The lot has about 26 feet of compacted fill. • Onsite soils have a very low expansion potential. • Graded slopes are considered stable. SITE CONDITIONS The project is located on the west side of Troon Drive, in the City of Newport Beach, California. The site is identified as 15 Troon Drive, Newport Beach, California, and is shown on the Site Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The property exhibits a graded near level building pad to the rear property line where a 2:1 (H:V) offsite slope descends westerly to Northhampton Court, about 50 feet below. The site is void of vegetation. Site configuration is further shown on Plate 2. COAST GEOTECHNICAL RLLTF Trust 3 W.O. 4053 10-01 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation October 1 201 o FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation was performed on August 26, 2010, and consisted of the excavation of three exploratory borings by a hollow stem auger drill rig, at locations shown on the attached Site Plan, Plate 2. As excavation progressed, personnel from this office visually classified the earth materials encountered and secured representative samples for laboratory testing. Undisturbed samples for detailed testing in our laboratory were obtained by pushing or driving a sampling spoon into the earth material. A solid -barrel type spoon was used having an inside diameter of 2.5 inches with a tapered cutting tip at the lower end and a ball valve at the upper end. The barrel is lined with thin brass rings, each one inch in length. The spoon penetrated into the soil below the depth of boring approximately twelve inches with a 140# slide hammer with a 30 inch drop. The central portion of this sample was retained for testing. All samples in their natural field condition were sealed in airtight containers and transported to the laboratory. Descriptions of the earth materials encountered are presented on the attached Boring Logs, Plates B C & D. The data presented on these logs is a simplification of actual subsurface conditions encountered and applies only at the specific boring locations and the date excavated. It is not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times. The site does not exhibit geotechnical conditions that are expected to be adverse to site development. LITHOLOGY Earth materials encountered within the exploratory borings were visually identified by a COAST GEOTECHNICAL geologist. The materials were classified as artificial fill, and bedrock. Artificial fills encountered in the borings consisted of fine-grained, silty, slightly clayey sand, with rock fragments, generally moist and dense below two feet. The bedrock was encountered at 19 feet below grade in Boring No. 1 and consists of sandstone with interbedded siltstone. Bedrock was not encountered in Boring No's. 2 and 3 to the maximum depth explored of 15 feet. The existing fill material below two feet is competent and may be used for foundation support. The upper two feet shall be moisture conditioned and recompacted to 90% relative compaction. Earth materials are further described on the appended Boring Logs, Plates B, C, and D COAST GEOTECHNICAL RLLTF Trust 4 W.0.405310-01 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation October 1. 2010 GROUNDWATER Groundwater was not encountered during our exploratory work, nor were seeps observed on nearby slopes. SLOPES Both onsite and offsite slopes are judged to be grossly and surficially stable. Proposed site development will not adversely affect slope stability provided proper construction and slope maintenance is followed. SEISMICITY Southern California is located in an active seismic region. Moderate to strong earthquakes can occur on numerous local faults. The United States Geological Survey, California Division of Mines and Geology, private consultants, and universities have been studying earthquakes in Southern California for several decades. Early studies were directed toward earthquake prediction and estimation of the effects of strong ground shaking. Studies indicate that earthquake prediction is not practical and not sufficiently accurate to benefit the general public. Governmental agencies are shifting their focus to earthquake resistant structures as opposed to prediction. The purpose of the code seismic design parameters is to prevent collapse during strong ground shaking. Cosmetic damage should be expected. Within the past 39 years, Southern California and vicinity have experienced an increase in seismic activity beginning with the San Francisco earthquake in 1971. In 1987, a moderate earthquake struck the Whittier area and was located on a previously unknown fault. Ground shaking from this event caused substantial damage to the City of Whittier and surrounding cities. The January 17, 1994, Northridge earthquake was initiated along a previously unrecognized fault below the San Fernando Valley. The energy released by the earthquake propagated to the southeast, northwest, and northeast in the form of shear and compression waves, which caused the strong ground shaking in portions of the San Fernando Valley, Santa Monica Mountains, Simi Valley, City of Santa Clarita, and City of Santa Monica. Southern California faults are classified as: active, potentially active, or inactive. Faults from past geologic periods of mountain building, but do not display any evidence of recent offset, are considered "inactive" or "potentially active". Faults that have historically produced earthquakes or show evidence of movement within the past 11,000 years are known as "active faults". There are no known active faults within close vicinity of the subject property. The principal seismic hazard to the subject property and proposed project is strong ground shaking from earthquakes produced by local faults. It is likely that the subject property will be shaken by future earthquakes produced in Southern California. Secondary effects such as surface rupture, lurching, liquefaction, or flooding, are not considered probable. COAST GEOTECHNICAL RLLTF Trust 5 W.O. 4053 10-01 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation October 12010 LIQUEFACTION During earthquakes, major destruction of various types of structures has occurred due to the creation of fissures, abnormal and/or unequal movement, and loss of strength or stiffness of the ground. The loss of strength or stiffness of the ground results in the settlement of buildings, failure of earth dams, landslides and other hazards. The process, by which a loss of strength in soil occurs, is called liquefaction. The phenomenon of soil liquefaction is primarily associated with medium to fine grained, saturated, cohesionless soils (sand and silts). Based on the "Seismic Hazards Zone Map" published by the State of California, January 2001, Tustin Quadrangle, as shown on Plate 3, the site is not in an area where historic occurrences of liquefaction, or local geologic, geotechnical or groundwater conditions indicate a potential for liquefaction. The liquefaction potential of the site is considered negligible. GEOTECHNICAL DISCUSSION The proposed building site is underlain by compacted fills placed during mass grading of Tract 15332. These fills are considered adequate for support of additional fill soil and foundations of the proposed structures. The development of the site as proposed is considered feasible from a soils engineering standpoint and is not expected to adversely impact adjoining properties, provided that the recommendations stated herein are incorporated in the design and are implemented in the field. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Development of the site as proposed is considered feasible from a soils engineering and geologic standpoint, provided that the recommendations stated herein are incorporated in the design and are implemented in the field. The existing competent compacted fill or new compacted fill is recommended for foundation support. PROPOSED GRADING Based on review of the grading plan earthwork will consist of the following: • Minor cut and fills for building pad construction. • Foundation excavations. • Retaining wall backfills. • Utility trench backfills. COAST' GEOTECHNICAL RLLTF Trust 6 W.O. 4053 10-01 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation October 1 2010 FILL AREAS Existing artificial fills shall be overexcavated down to competent earth material. Competent earth material shall exhibit a relative compaction of 90% or better, or shall consist of competent material as determined by the project geotechnical engineer. Excavation depths are expected to extend about two feet below existing grade. The overexcavation areas shall include areas proposed for fill placement, retaining wall backfills, slabs, hardscape, asphaltic concrete or other areas as determined by the geotechnical engineer. The excavations shall extend five feet beyond the structure's outline, except where contained by designed wails. Exposed excavation bottoms shall be observed by the geotechnical engineer or representative and the City Grading Inspector prior to processing. Field recommendations will be made depending on conditions encountered. Upon approval, the excavation bottoms shall be processed, moisture conditioned to two percent over optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Subsequent fills shall be placed in 6- to 8 -inch lifts, moisturized to a minimum of 2% over optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. This process shall be followed to finish grade. 10101 W.11 ,I X11 Cut areas below two feet within the building pad area are expected to expose existing compacted fills. At finish grade the cut areas shall be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. TRANSITION AREA Transition areas are not expected to occur beneath the building. GENERAL GRADING NOTES The entire grading operation shall be done in accordance with the attached "Specifications for Grading". Any import fill materials to the site shall not have an expansion index greater than 20, and shall be tested and approved by our laboratory. COAST GEOTECHNICAL RLLTT Trust 7 W.0.405310-01 Geotechnical Eneineerine Investigation October 1 2010 Grading and/or foundation plans shall be reviewed by the soil engineer and geologist. All recommendations are subject to modification upon review of such plans. FOUNDATIONS ON COMPACTED FILL Foundations for the structures shall consist of continuous or isolated footings placed a minimum of 24 inches into competent compacted fill, utilizing an allowable bearing value of 2000 psf. This value is for dead plus live load and may be increased. 1/3 for total including seismic and wind loads where allowed by code. Isolated pads shall be tied in two directions with grade beams into adjacent foundations. Foundation excavations shall be observed by a representative of COAST GEOTECHNICAL prior to placement of steel and/or concrete to verify compliance with geotechnical recommendations. If unacceptable conditions are exposed mitigation will be required. Minimum geotechnical reinforcement for foundations shall be four #4 bars, two top and two bottom. Structural requirement may be more severe. LATERAL, DESIGN Lateral restraint at the base of footings and on slabs may be assumed to be the product of the dead load and a coefficient of friction of .35. Passive pressure on the face of footings may also be used to resist lateral forces. A passive pressure of zero at the surface of finished grade, increasing at the rate of 300 pounds per square foot of depth to a maximum value of 3,000 pounds per square foot, may be used for compacted fill or competent bedrock at this site. If passive pressure and friction are combined when evaluating the lateral resistance, the value of the passive pressure should be limited to 2/3 of the values given above. CREEP LOAD This site is not subject to creep loads. SEISMIC DESIGN Based on the 2007 CBC the following seismic design parameters are provided. These seismic design values were determined utilizing latitude 33.631254and longitude -117.871252 for the property, a site class D, and the USGS seismic design parameter program. 0 Site Class = D COAST GEOTECHNICAL RLLTF Trust 8 W.O. 4053 10-01 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation October 1 2010 • Mapped 0.2 Second Spectral Response Acceleration, Ss =1.6938 • Mapped One Second Spectral Response Acceleration St = 0.613g • Site Coefficient from Table 1613A5.3(1), Fa =1.00 • Site Coefficient from Table 1613A5.3(2), Fv =1.50 • Maximum Design Spectral Response Acceleration for short period, SMS=1.693g • Maximum Design Spectral Response Acceleration for one -second period, SMI = 0.919g 5% Design Spectral Response Acceleration for short period, SDs=1.129g • 5% Design Spectral Response Acceleration for one -second period, SDI = 0.613g SHRINKAGE Onsite soils are not expected to have shrinkage during earthwork. SULFATES A chemical analysis of a typical soil samples for soluble sulfates showed a sulfate content of 200 ppm per California Test Method 417. Based on the current 2007 CBC this is a moderate exposure to sulfate corrosion. Per Table 4.3.1 of ACI 318-05, Type II cement, with a minimum 4,000 -psi of compressive strength should be utilized with a maximum water to cement ratio of 0.50. SETTLEMENT The maximum total post -construction settlement is anticipated to be on the order of 1/2 inch. Differential settlements are expected to be less than 1/2 inch, measured between adjacent structural elements over 40 horizontal feet. The estimated settlement is applicable to the residential structure and pool. Seismic induced settlements are anticipated to be negligible. EXPANSIVE SOILS Results of expansion tests indicate that the near surface soils have a very low to low expansion potential. The low recommendations on the accompanying Expansive Soil Recommendations Chart, Plate A, shall be utilized in design of exterior hardscape. FLOOR SLABS If slabs -on -grade is utilized, the slabs shall be supported on engineered fill compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. COAST GEOTECHNICAL RLLTF Trust 9 W.O. 405310-01 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation October 1 2010 The surface soils are non -plastic. Per Section 1805.8.4, of the 2007 CBC, stabilization of expansive soils will be accomplished through moisture conditioning of expansive soils to 2-3% over optimum moisture content during grading and moisture condition slabs areas prior to concrete placement in accordance with our PIate A. Subgrade soil should be kept moist prior to casting the slab. However, if the soils at grade become disturbed during construction, they should be brought to approximately optimum moisture content and rolled to a firm, unyielding condition prior to placing concrete. hi areas where a moisture sensitive floor covering will be used, a vapor barrier consisting of a plastic film (10 ml polyvinyl chloride or equivalent) should be used. The vapor barrier should be properly lapped and sealed and underlain by two inches of clean sand. Since the vapor barrier will prevent moisture from draining from fresh concrete, a better concrete finish can usually be obtained if at least 2 -inches of clean coarse sand is spread over the vapor barrier prior to placement of concrete. Minimum slab reinforcement shall be #3 bars at 12 inches on center each way, with a 4 -inch actual slab. The structural engineer may have more severe requirements. UTILITY LINE BACKFILLS All utility line backfills, both interior and exterior, shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction and shall require testing at a minimum of two -foot vertical intervals. DRAINAGE Positive drainage should be planned for the site. Drainage should be directed away from structures via non -erodible conduits to suitable disposal areas. The structure should utilize roof gutters and down spouts tied directly to yard drainage. Drainage shall not be directed onto or over slopes. Unlined flowerbeds, planters, and lawns should not be constructed against the perimeter of the structure. If such landscaping (against the perimeter of a structure) is planned, it should be properly drained and Iined or provided with an underground moisture barrier, Irrigation should be kept to a minimum. Minimum drainage for landscape and hardscape areas shall be 2%. While Section 1803.3 of the 2007 CBC recommends 5% slope for landscape areas, 2% slope is allowable where justified. Our justification is the use of area drains and site grading which will mitigate the potential for moisture problems beneath a slab on grade. COAST, GEOTECHNICAL RLLTF Trust 10 W.0.405310-01 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation October 1 2010 We do not recommend the use of infiltration best management practice (BMP) such as infiltration trenches, infiltration basins, dry wells, permeable pavements, subsurface reservoir beds, or similar systems designed primarily to percolate water into the subsurface soils. Due to the physical characteristics of the site earth materials, infiltration of waters into the subsurface earth materials has a risk of adversely affecting building foundations, slope stability, slabs, hardscape, pavement and other site improvements. Fossil filtration systems such as KriStar Enterprises, Inc. shallow catch basin systems are currently being employed in the Newport area with similar soil conditions instead of bottomless catch basins. HARDSCAPE Exterior hardscape shall be underlain by a minimum of 12 -inches of engineered fill soils, and designed for low expansive soils conditions. 111301"1 lt0ei..'IAK: Freestanding retaining walls may be founded in competent bedrock utilizing stated bearing values found in the referenced reports. Walls retaining drained earth under static loading may be designed for the following: Surface Slope of Retained Material Horizontal to Vertical Equivalent Fluid Pressure Pounds per Cubic Foot Level 35.9 5 to 1 41.7 4 to 1 43.6 3 to 1 47.5 2 to 1 60.6 For a retaining wall under earthquake loading, the designed equivalent fluid pressure is as follows: Surface Slope of Retained Material Horizontal to Vertical Equivalent Fluid Pressure Pounds per Cubic Foot Level 49.1 5 to 1 60.8 4 to 1 65.4 3 to 1 77.2 2 to 1 120.6 COAST GEOTECHNICAL RLLTF Trust 11 W.O. 405310-01 Geotechnical Eneineerine Investigation October 1 2010 Calculations for the stated equivalent fluid pressures are based on the Coulomb theory and the Mononobe-Okabe method provided on Plates F and G. The point of resultant force under static loading is at H/3 above the base of the retaining wall. For a retaining wall with different slope angles, the point of the resultant force under earthquake loading is provided on Plate H. Retaining walls shall be waterproofed to the degree desired by the client. Footing excavation, subdrain placement, and compaction of backfills requires observation and approval by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. SUBDRAINS Subdrain systems shall be installed behind retaining walls and stem walls and at a minimum shall consist of four inch diameter SCH 40 or SDR 35 perforated pipe surrounded with one cubic foot, per lineal pipe foot, of 3/4 inch gravel. The gravel shall be wrapped in filter fabric. The general contractor is responsible for proper outletting of pipes. The subdrain system shall be independent of site area drains or roof drains. SETBACKS Foundations shall maintain a setback as measured horizontally from the bottom outside footing edge to a descending slope face of H/3 where H is the slope height. Based on a slope height of 50 feet the H/3 setback shall be seventeen feet and shall be measured from the bottom outside footing edge horizontally to the slope face. SWIMMING POOL AND SPA The swimming pool and spa shall maintain a seventeen -foot foundation setback and shall be designed as free standing. The pool and spa shall be founded in compacted fill in all areas. Deepened grade beams may be necessary near the slope. The pool shell and decking should be separated with a flexible joint. Pool walls should be designed to support the water, having a density of 62.4 pounds per cubic foot without bearing from the adjacent soil. The walls should be able to support the adjacent backfill soil when the pool is empty. The active earth pressure may be calculated as an equivalent fluid pressure of 70 pcf, plus the lateral pressure due to any superimposed surcharge when the pool is empty. Expansion joints should be placed between the deck and the pool. The pool excavation shall be observed by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. to verify acceptable conditions. COAST GEOTECHNICAL RLLTF Trust 12 W.O. 405310-01 Geotechnical Engineerine Investigation October 1.2010 TEMPORARY CUTS Temporary construction cuts are anticipated for grading and construction of the project. The following recommendations are for unsurcharged conditions, and are subject to modification based on field observations. Temporary cuts in compacted fill may be made eight foot vertical, then sloped back at a 1:1(H:V) angle. No cuts shall be allowed which would remove lateral support from adjacent properties, structures, or public right of ways. All cuts shall be observed by the project geologist at the time of excavation. If adverse conditions are exposed, remedial measures will be recommended and implemented. OSHA guidelines shall be followed where workers are to enter confined spaces, trench work, or excavations. All cuts shall be observed by the project geologist or geotechnical engineer. Field observations will determine final construction cuts allowed. SUPPLEMENTAL CONSULTING During construction, a number of reviews by this office are recommended to verify site geotechnical conditions and conformance with the intentions of the recommendations for construction. Although not all possible geotechnical observation and testing services are required by the City of Newport Beach, the following site reviews are advised, some of which will probably be required by the City: Site grading Foundation excavation review for the all structures Reinforcement placement for all foundations Slab subgrade compaction testing Compaction and moisture checks for all slab areas Slab steel placement, primary and appurtenant structures Compaction of utility trench backfill Hardscape subgrade testing Retaining wall backfills Pool excavation COAST GEOTECHNICAL RLLTF Trust 13 W.0, 405310-01 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation October 1 2010 AGENCY REVIEW All soil, geologic, and structural aspects of the proposed development are subject to the review and approval of the governing agency(s). It should be recognized that the governing agency(s) can dictate the manner in which the project proceeds. They could approve or deny any aspect of the proposed improvements and/or could dictate which foundation and grading options are acceptable. Supplemental geotechnical consulting in response to agency requests for additional information could be required. ENGINEERING CONSULTATION, TESTING AND OBSERVATION We will be pleased to provide additional input with respect to foundation design once methods of construction and/or nature of imported soil has been determined. Grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by this office prior to commencement of grading so that appropriate recommendations, if needed can be made. Areas to receive fill should be inspected when unsuitable materials have been removed and prior to placement of fill, and fill should be observed and tested for compaction as it is placed. LIMITATIONS This report presents recommendations pertaining to the subject site based on the assumption that the subsurface conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by our exploratory excavations. Our recommendations are based on the technical information, our understanding of the proposed construction, and our experience in the geotechnical field. We do not guarantee the performance of the project, only that our engineering work and judgments meet the standard of care of our profession at this time. In view of the general conditions in the area, the possibility of different local soil conditions may exist. Any deviation or unexpected condition observed during construction should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer. In this way, any supplemental recommendations can be made with a minimum of delay necessary to the project. If the proposed construction will differ from our present understanding of the project, the existing information and possibly new factors may have to be evaluated. Any design changes and the finished plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Of particular importance would be extending development to new areas, changes in structural loading conditions, postponed development for more than a year, or changes in ownership. COAST GEOTECHNICAL RLLTF Trust 14 W.O. 405310-01 Geotechnical Engineering Investi ation October 1 2010 This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the Architects and Engineers for the project and incorporated into the plans and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the Contractors and Subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. Respectfully submitted: COAST GEOTECHNICAL Ming-Tarng Chen RCE 54011 I� No. 54011 *` Exp. 12 31-11 s/)"'CIV\V an E. HercG Staff Geologist COAST GEOTECHNICAL RLLTF Trust 15 W.O. 405310-01 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation October 1 2010 APPENDIX A This appendix contains a description of the field investigation, laboratory testing procedures and results, site plan, and expansive soil recommendations. FIELD INVESTIGATION Field investigation was performed on August 26, 2010, consisting of the excavation of three exploratory borings at locations shown on the attached site plan (Plate 2). As the excavations progressed, personnel from this office visually classified the soils encountered, and secured representative samples for laboratory testing. Undisturbed samples for detailed testing in our laboratory were obtained by pushing or driving a sampling spoon into the material. A solid barrel -type spoon was used having an inside diameter of 2.5 inches with a tapered cutting tip at the lower end and a ball valve at the upper end. The barrel is lined with thin brass rings, each one inch in length. The spoon penetrated into the soil below the depth of the excavation approximately 6 inches. The central portion of this sample was retained for testing. All samples in their natural field condition were sealed in airtight containers and transported to the laboratory. Descriptions of the soils and bedrock encountered are presented on the attached Boring Logs. The data presented on these logs is a simplification of actual subsurface conditions encountered and applies only at the specific boring locations and the date excavated. It is not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times. LABORATORY TESTING Field.samples were examined in the laboratory and a testing program was then established to develop data for preliminary evaluation of geotechnical conditions. Field moisture and dry densities were calculated for each undisturbed sample. The samples were obtained per ASTM:D-2937 and tested under ASTM:D-2216. Maximum density -optimum moisture relationships were established per ASTM: D-1557 for use in evaluation of in-situ conditions and for future use during grading operations. Direct shear tests were performed in accordance with ASTM:D-3080, on specimens at near saturation under various normal loads. The results of tests are based on an 80% peak strength or ultimate strength, whichever is lower, and are attached as Plates D and E. Expansion tests were performed on typical specimens of natural soils in accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTN:D-4829. COAST GEOTECHNICAL RLLTF Trust 16 W.O. 405310-01 Geotechnical Eneineerine Investisation October 1 2010 TEST RESULTS Maximum Density/Outimum Moisture (ASTM:D-1557) Boring No. Depth in Feet Maximum Density, pef Optimum Moisture, 1 0-4 123 10.5 Direct Shear - In-situ Samples Boring No. Depth in Feet T Cohesion Angle of Internal Friction 1 5-10 (lbs./sq. ft.) fde ees 2 2.5 300 31 Expansion Index (ASTM:D4829) Boring No. Depth in Feet Expansion Index Expansion Potential 1 5-10 10 Very Low 1 10-15 27 Low Soluble Sulfate Analysis (USEPA Method 375.4) Boring No. Depth in Feet Soluble Sulfate, ppm 1 0 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING SITE CLEARING All existing vegetation shall be stripped and hauled from the site. PREPARATION After the foundation for the fill has been cleared, plowed or scarified, it shall be disced or bladed until it is uniform and free from large clods, brought to a proper moisture content and compacted to not less than ninety percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM:D-1557 (5 layers - 25 blows per layer; 10 lb. hammer dropped 18'; 4" diameter mold). MATERIALS On-site materials maybe used for fill, or fill materials shall consist of materials approved by the Soils Engineer and may be obtained from the excavation of banks, borrow pits or any other approved source. The materials used should be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances and shall not contain rocks or lumps greater than six inches in maximum dimension. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTING FILL MATERIALS The selected fill material shall be placed in layers which, when compacted, shall not exceed six inches in thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during the spreading to ensure uniformity of material and moisture of each layer. Where moisture of the fill material is below the limits specified by the Soils Engineer, water shall be added until the moisture content is as required to ensure thorough bonding and thorough compaction. Where moisture content of the fill material is above the limits specified by the Soils Engineer, the fill materials shall be aerated by blading or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is as specified. After each layer has been placed, mixed and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to not less than 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM:D-1557 (5 layers -25 blows per layer; 10 lbs. hammer dropped 18 inches; 4" diameter mold) or other density tests which will attain equivalent results. Compaction shall be by sheepfoot roller, multi -wheel pneumatic tire roller, track loader or other types of acceptable rollers. COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING PAGE 2 Rollers she be of such design that they will be able to compact the fill to the specified density. Rolling shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specified moisture content. Rolling of each layer shall be continuous over the entire area and the roller shall make sufficient trips to ensure that the desired density has been obtained. The final surface of the lot areas to receive slabs on grade should be rolled to a dense, smooth surface. The outside of all fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction operations shall be continued until the outer nine inches of the slope is at least 90 percent compacted. Compacting of the slopes may be progressively in increments of three feet to five feet of fill height as the fill is brought to grade, or after the fill is brought to its total height. Field density tests shall be made by the Soils Engineer of the compaction of each layer of fill. Density tests shall be made at intervals not to exceed two feet of fill height provided all layers are tested. Where the sheepfoot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth of several inches and density readings shall be taken in the compacted material below the disturbed surface. When these readings indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion there is below the required 90 percent density, the particular layer or portion shall be reworked until the required density has been obtained. The grading specifications should be a part of the project specifications The Soil Engineer shall review the grading plans prior to grading. INSPECTION The Soil Engineer shall provide continuous supervision of the site clearing and grading operation so that he can verify the grading was done in accordance with the accepted plans and specifications. SEASONAL LIMITATIONS No fill material shall be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather conditions. When heavy rains interrupt work, fill operations shall not be resumed until the field tests by the Soils Engineer indicate the moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified. EXPANSIVE SOIL CONDITIONS Whenever expansive soil conditions are encountered, the moisture content of the fill or recompacted soil shall be as recommended in the expansive soil recommendations included herewith. Vicinity Map y 6 / grist ` is "J"TA °l it T%q YIStP,.— -OF, U (qi�'lP" 1 \ LV. I,c$�yt1P NitaR_p_ $ R, OR R�VISTq �1— �='�• y' I /}� .ft7E N0.VL6.S 'f SUERTFm VtP <is�r ,ov4 47' IT-r� Va<Exc�a RCA 11 34 yy /�' It EIiSTQtiI i� �' U`un[A6i' INTERIOR 1Q MWER 5� mfs� DESINERS CORR 1 INSTIWE oR o •�•:.. PO jj u C � xnvaer n¢ eLLais r' a B LL S Sr 4 R5 ST / 8q��QPu,4 •�:DR � IE�URY _. �Q r s; IRE - w: W CHC BEEM. Y-Z, T8 C�.IA$YEINIIUO� iCT Y fDAf DR °s/t t : S1 R vW. tota awanc "i t, Rer oa rN �+r 1 t '<DEL MAR [rR "L' o Ap �MI ERRIRo J eTUEN f` R.. us _ 4 �, 'YFD STI DR < 4VpRS VISTq OR %p °" 4, Yy l a/r/ A�, cr aNNf CAMPANILE 4l�cgP"-atop r i C ecoSITE n9 `� 'rRDR T 81 0.m4° LOGGIA(o GOS COY St MUIP k e A J POR' P. PUR Z. . t F I ME' . OR7 n APS I +'� I Poor )n . PO 41 H ti M/S I. (C�:tP` Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Work Order 405310-01 15 Troon Dr. Newport Beach, California Plate No. 1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Site Plan, Sketch B-1 B-2 ... / ,.,Jl,�, i 0 -:.V Scale l"= 40' m � g o y ?�pi k d _ as G- B-3 i A This plate is not a survey, it is intended for illustration of Geotechnical data only. The indicated scale is for rough measurements only. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Work Order 405310-01 15 Troon Drive Newport Beach, California Plate No. 2 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES SITE ,per 0 MAP EXPLANATION Zones of Required Inv4%tigatfon: 1 A STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES. Ul.W.01.0 a.�ehm x r, Chert IAD TUSTIN OUADRANG LEE."hq.wk,l.dor.d L..d.11d.. h OFFICIAL REVISED MAP Inp-a'soW. 9snw,4. 9w==olaw wale Effective: January 17, 2001 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Work Order 405310-01 15 Troon Drive Newport Beach, CA Plate No 3 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. C'n Ac'r r i-wrECHNICAL. INC. (Text Supercedes) PLATE A EXPANSION INDEX VERY LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH . : VERY HIGH 0-20 21 - 50 . 51-90 41-130, 130+ Footing Width I Story 12" 12" 12" 15" 15" 2 Story 15" 15" 15" 15" 15" 3 Story 18" 18" 18" 18" 18" Exterior: Footing Depth 1 $tory . 18" 24" 24" 24" 36" 2k3 Story 24" 24" 24" 24" 36" Interior Footing Depth I Story 18" 18" 24" 24" 36" 2813 Story 24" 24" 24" 24" 36" Footing Reinforcement 4 #4 Bars 4 #4 Bars 4 #5 Bars 4 #5 Bars 4#5 Bars 2 Top 2 Top 2 Top 2 Top 2 Top 2 Bottom 2 Bottom 2 Bottom 2 Bottom 2 Bottom Slab Thickness 4" Nominal 4" Nominal 5" Nominal 5" Actual 5" Actual Slab Reinforcement #3 Bars on #3Bars on #4 Bars on #4 Bars on #4 Bars on 18" 12" 12" 12" 12" Centers Both Centers Both Centers Both Centers Both Centers Both Was Was Was Was Ways Moisture Barrier (2) 10 mil 10 mil 10 mil 10 mil 10 mil Visqueen Visqueen Visqueen Visqueen Visqueen 2" Sand 2" Sand 2" Sand 2" Sand 2" Sand Garage Reinforcement #3 Bars on #3 Bars on #4 Bars on #4 Bars on #4 Bars on 18" 12" 12" 12" Center 12" Center Centers Both Centers Both Centers Both Both Ways Both Ways Ways Ways Ways Free Floating Free Floating Grade Beam - Same as Adj. Same as Adj. Same as Adj. Same as Adj. Same as Adj. Garage Entrance Ext. Ftg. Ext. Ftg. Ext. Ftg. Ext. Ftg. Ext. Ftg. Subgrade Not Required Not 4" Coarse 4" Coarse 4" Coarse Required Sand (3) Sand (3) Sand (3) Presaturation Not Required Above Opt. 110% of Opt 130% of Opt 130% of Opt To M/C to MIC to M/C to Depth of Ftg. Depth Depth Depth (No Testing) Footing Footing Footing 1. The surrounding areas should be graded so as to ensure drainage away from the building. I Concrete floor slab in areas to be covered with moisture sensitive coverings shall be constructed over a 10 mil plastic membrane. The plastic should be properly lapped, sealed and protected with sand. 3. Two inches orsand over moisture barrier may be included in this four -inch total. SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 1 Date: 8/26/20101I� Elevation: E.G. o a Description O —o N e1 0 U a U B U FILL: SAND --- silty, dry to damp Light Grey to Medium Brown Dense to Dense FILL: SAND --- silty, damp, with minor gravel Mottled Dense 111.0 8.1 Orange Brown/ Light Grey 112.6 14.5 5 FILL: SAND ---silty, moist, with minor gravel 115.3 10.2 FILL: SAND --- silty and moist Dark Olive Grey 114.7 8.6 10 FILL: SAND --- silty, slightly clayey Mottled Dark Grey/ Olive Grey 114 13.6 FILL: SAND --- clayey, and moist Mottled 15 Brown/ Olive Green 107.5 13.9 BEDROCK --- Sandstone with interbedded Light Grey Moderate Siltstone, moist Orange i Hard I 20 Brown End of Boring at 20 feet No Groundwater No Caving Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Work Order 405310-01 15 Troon Drive Plate No. B Newport Beach, California COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SUMMARY OF BORING NO.2 Date: 8/26/2010 Elevation: E.G. H E C LL cTi o y z o D E Description —o° H U G u B 0 FILL: SAND --- silty, dry Orange Medium Brown/Light Dense to Grey Dense SPT 8.6 FILL: SAND --- silty, damp to moist Orange Dense Brown SPT 3.3 FILL: SAND --- silty wl gravel, damp to moist 5 SPT 8.2 FILL: SAND --- silty, slightly clayey and moist Mottled Dark Very Grey/ Yellow Dense Brown SPT 6.6 10 FILL: SAND --- silty, moist, clayey with depth Y Y Y P Mottled Dark Dense Grey/ Olive Brown FILL: SAND --- clayey, moist Mottled SPT 11.3 Brown/ Olive Green 15 End of Boring at 15 feet No Groundwater I T No Caving Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Work Order 405310-01 15 Troon Drive Plate No. C Newport Beach, California COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 3 Date: 8/26/2010 Elevation: E.G. N . j Q LL C o f o oa Description 0 U B o U FILL: SAND --- silty, Dry to damp Orange Medium Brown/Light Dense to Grey Dense FILL: SAND --- silty, moist Orange Dense Brown 112.0 8.9 5 110.9 10.4 FILL: SAND --- silty, clayey and moist, concrete Olive Grey Dense fragments 10 FILL: SAND --- clayey, moist, difficult drilling Dark Grey Very Dense 116.8 10.4Mottled FILL: SAND --- silty, slightly clayey and moist Olive Grey/ Brown End of Boring at 14.5 feet 15 No Groundwater No Caving Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Work Order 405310-01 15 Troon Drive I Plate No. D Newport Beach, California COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SHEAR TEST RESULT Boring No.1 @ 2.5 Feet 4 3 a 2 - Y_ N 0 0 t 2 3 4 Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.) Existing fill soil samples were tested at saturated conditions. The sample had a density of 111 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 18.9 Cohesion = 300 psf Friction Angle = 31 degrees Based on 80% peak strength or ultimate strength, whichever is lower Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Work Order 405310-01 15 Troon Drive Newport Beach, California Plate No. E COAST GEOTECHNICAL ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE BY COULOMB THEORY The total active thrust can be expressed as PA=0.5KAy H2 where the active earth pressure coefficient, KA, is given by KA _ cos, (0 - 0) sin(b +0) sin(o -p) cos2B cos(b + 8) ( 1 + [ Where: cos(6 + 0) cos(B - 0) )0.5 )2 9 = slope of the back of the wall with respect to the vertical d = angle of friction between the wall and the soil = slope of the backfill with respect to the horizontal Properties of earth material: Wet Density (y) = 125 pcf Cohesion (C) = 300 psf Angle of Friction (0) = 31 degrees = 0 b = 18 Caculate KA based on slope of the backfill Surface Slope Slope Angle (A) KA EFP (= y * KA ], pcf Level 0.0 0.287 35.9 5:1 (H:V) 11.3 0.333 41.7 4:1 (H:V) 14.0 0.348 43.6 3:1 (H:V) 18.4 0.380 47.5 2:1 (H:V) 26.6 0.485 60.6 1.5:1 (H:V) 33.7 0.773 96,6 t;eotecnnical Engineering Investigation Work Order 405310-01 15 Troon Drive Newport Beach, California I Plate F COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE BY MONONOBE-OKABE METHOD The total active thrust with earthquake effect can be expressed as PAE=0.5KAEVH2(1-K�) where the active earth pressure coefficient with earthquake effect, KqE, is given by KqE case (0 _0 - 0) _ sin(b + 0) sin(¢ -fi - ti) cosy, cos -0 cos(d + 0 +,y) ( 1 + [ cos(d + 0+w) cos(a - 0) 10.5 )2 Where: -,6 > or = tp 0 = slope of the back of the wall with respect to the vertical rV = tan' [ kh / (1 - k„) ] d = angle of friction between the wall and the soil = slope of the backfill with respect to the horizontal Properties of earth material: Wet Density (y) = 125 pcf Cohesion (C) = 300 psf Angle of Friction (0) = 31 degrees kh = 0.15 k„ = 0 i = 8.53 0 = 0 d = 18 Caculate KqE based on slope of the backfill Surface Slope Slope Angle (8) KqE EFP [ = y " KqE' 0 - k j j, pcf Level 0.0 0.393 49.1 5:1 (H:V) 11.3 0.487 60.8 4:1 (H:V) 14.0 0.523 65.4 3:1 (H:V) 18.4 0.618 77.2 2:1 (H:V) 26.6 0.965 120.6 1.51 (H:V) 33.7 0.965 120.6 15 Troon Drive ort Beach, California Work Order 405310-01 Plate G COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. POINT OF RESULTANT FORCE The total active thrust, PAE, can be divided into a static component, PA, and a dynamic component, APAE. The static component is known to act at H/3 above the base of the wall. The dynamic component is recommended by Seed and Whitman to be taken at approximately 0.6 H. APAE Proposed = Retaining PAE Wall o PA L x Surface Slope Slope Angle (fl) PAE PA OPAE h Level 0.0 49.1 '(H2/2) 35.9 •(H2/2) 13.2 '(1-12/2) 0.41 H 5:1 (H:V) 11.3 60.8 "(1-12/2) 41.7 *(H2/2) 19.1 *(H2/2) 0.42 H 4:1 (H:V) 14.0 65.4 *(H2/2) 43.6 '(1-12/2) 21.8 *(H2/2) 0.42 H 3:1 (H:V) 18.4 77.2 •(1-12/2) 47.5 *(1-12/2) 29.7 *(H2/2) 0.44 H 2:1 (H:V) 26.6 120.6 '(H2/2) 60.6 -(H2/2) 60.0 •(H2/2) 0.47 H 1.5:1 (H:V) 33.7 120.6 '(H2/2) 96.6 *(H2/2) 24.0 •(1-12/2) 0.39 H h: point of resultant force above the base of the wall with earthquake effects Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Work Order 405310-01 15 Troon Drive Newport Beach, California Plate H COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. iTouchMap.com MWI. ..d D—M., U.I. Maps I I Places I ooglo LcwI Cities I Lat -Long Home . Latitude and Longitude ce a r,&,i To find the latilude and longitude of a point Click on the map. Drag the marker, or enter the... Address: 15 troon drive newport beach 60, Map Canter-, Q n elAddress - La d.Plat Size - %neel View - Google Earth 3D- Area photographs Try out tIm.QQogle EartbP11jit-irt. Google Earth gives you a 3D look of the area around the center of the map, which is usually your last click point, and Includes latitude, longitude and elevation Information. Latitude and Longitude of a Point �5 iT..chM.p com 2007-2010 Need movie times? to Wv, .. , " vo ef .. ". C..'l http://itoLicIiiiiap.coiii.11,,itioiig.iiiiii1 10/1/2010 If 0 N ' N ' U ' r_ :j V 1 iy I O '� NW N � a rri m — 4 11 N y � i1 _N M V'1 q q N tl oa N w ✓l = n V q 41 r •1 R 9�1 N N tL W Y p O H <Y N t) O +Ni rUl (il N Ii 1 n U nr h V N A WW M .71 n yl ti V 1 — 4 p � ti V p ti