Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS061992 - SOILS113 BAGAHI ENGINEERING INC. GEOTECHNICS & FOUNDATIONS 71 GREAT LAWN IRVINE, CA 92620 11.L (949) 552-2006 • FAX (949) 552-2007 October 10, 2006 LYNN PHILLIPS CIO MARK SAVEL ARCHITECTS 10351 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 230 Los Angeles, CA Attention: Mr. Mark Savel SUBJECT: Dear Mr. Savel: Project No.: 167S-200-00 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OF DISTRESS 5 Shoreline Drive Newport Beach, California In accordance with your request, we have completed our preliminary geotechnical investigation of water intrusion into the basement at the subject residence. As part of our investigation, we performed subsurface drilling, sampling, laboratory testing of selected soil samples, and analysis of data. The attached report presents the results of our investigation and our findings and recommendations. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call us. Very truly yours, BAGAHI ENGINEERING INC. Ken H. Bagalii, .A :h.D., G Principal KI-IB\at Distribution: (3) Addressee Pr-167s.doc PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OF DISTRESS 5 SHORELINE DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: LYNN PHILLIPS C/O MARK SAVEL ARCHITECTS 10351 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste 230 Los Angeles, California Prepared By: BAGAHI ENGINEERING INC. 71 Great Lawn Irvine, CA 92620 Job No. 167s-200-00 October 10, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 Purpose 4 Scope of Services 4 Site Description and Observation 5 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION 5 Site Exploration 5 Laboratory Testing 6 FINDINGS 6 Observed Distress Summery of Findings 6 Distress Causation 8 REMEDIAL RECOMMENDATIONS 9 Site Preparation and Grading 10 Slab Recommendations 11 General 11 Perimeter Drainage 12 Landscaping and Planters 13 Type of Cement 13 Plan Review 13 Supplemental Consulting 14 LIMITATIONS 14 APPENDIX A — SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION APPENDIX B — LABORATORY TESTING 6 Mr. Mark Savel Project: 5 Shoreline Drive, Newport Beach, CA Project No: 167s-200-00 / October 10, 2006 Page 4 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 5 Shoreline Drive Newport Beach, California INTRODUCTION PURPOSE This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation of distress resulting from water intrusion into the basement at the subject site in Newport Beach, California. The purpose of our investigation was to perform subsurface investigation to evaluate subsurface conditions and present remedial course of action. Conclusions and recommendations relative to the site grading, slab subgrade preparation, slab design, subdrain installation, temporary excavations, and type of cement for construction are presented herein. SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services provided during the course of this investigation included: a. Review of previous reports for the site, b. Subsurface exploration consisting of 2 hand excavated test pits, c. Logging and sampling of the tests pits and collection of soil samples for laboratory testing, d. Laboratory testing of soil samples representative of subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, Bagahi Engineering Inc. Mr. Mark Savel Project: 5 Shoreline Drive, Newport Beach, CA Project No: 167s-200-00 / October 10, 2006 Page 5 e. Geotechnical analysis of field and laboratory data to develop site stratigraphy and provide a basis for our conclusions and recommendations, and f. Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations. SITE DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATION The subject site is currently occupied by a two-story detached single family residence with a basement. Portion of the basement is utilized for parking with a ramp leading to the street. Improvements include a Koi pond in the side yard, a swimming pool in the rear yard and landscape areas around the house. The site was visited by a representative of our office on August 23, 2006. At the time our visit the basement was vacant with floor slab exposed in several rooms and in the garage. The slab in the garage appeared intact but those in the other rooms had signs of movement and minor cracking. No standing water was observed in the basement; however, the area was damp with smell of mildew. The Koi-pond was empty at the time of our visit but the pool was in service. Around the house perimeter, the grade is typically low with water draining towards the house. Sprinkler systems are used for irrigation of landscaping around the house with sprinkles next to the house wall in some areas. Downspouts around the house typically discharge about 4 inches above grade into an intake drain below. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION SITE EXPLORATION Subsurface conditions for this study were explored by drilling excavating two test pits to a maximum depth of 11 feet. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Plot Plan in Appendix A. Sampling included collection of bulk samples from cuttings derived during drilling. Continuous logs of the subsurface conditions, as encountered in the test pits, were recorded at the time of the excavation. A summary of these conditions is given in the log of borings in Appendix A. Bagahi Engineering Inc. Mr. Mark Savel Project: 5 Shoreline Drive, Newport Beach, CA Project No: 167s-200-00 / October 10, 2006 Page 6 Test pits were located in the field by pacing from known landmarks. Their locations as shown are therefore within the accuracy of such measurement. Subsequent to logging and sampling, the test pits were backfilled and tamped utilizing the soils excavated. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests on both bulk and split spoon samples of the on -site soils were performed as part of this investigation to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials. The details of the laboratory testing program and the test results are presented in Appendix B. FINDINGS OBSERVED DISTRESS Our observations were limited to moisture migration issues in the basement. Based on our discussions with you and our site visit, we understand that flooding of the basement is common after periods of heavy rainfall. Previous cores taken through the basement floor slab have revealed wet soils conditions beneath the slab. At the time of our site visit, no standing water was observed in the basement, however, mildew smell was prevalent throughout the basement. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Following observation are made based on our review of previous reports dealing with the site: 1. Rough grading of the site was performed during January to July 1990 under the observations and testing of Leighton and Associates. 2. Rough grading report indicates between 20 to 25 feet of compacted fill underlies the site. The fill thickness below the basement is about 10 to 15 feet. 3. Below the fill is bedrock of Monterey formation consisting of clayey siltstone with interbeds of diatomaceous siltstone, fine-grained silty sandstone, and cemented siltstone. 4. On -site fill soils are clayey silt with a medium expansion potential. Bagahi Engineering Inc. Mr. Mark Savel Project: 5 Shoreline Drive, Newport Beach, CA Project No: 167s-200-00 / October 10, 2006 Page 7 5. Geotechnical recommendations for the present house was prepared by Petra in February 1999, and a final report of their observation during the construction was completed in June 2000. 6. Basement wall backdrain recommendations by Petra call for installation of a 4- inch perforated pipe encased in open -grade gravel with the gravel extending above the wall footing to an elevation equal to two-thirds the wall height, (or to a minimum height of 1.5 feet, whichever greater). In tight areas, a geotextile drain mat such as Miradrain 6000 or equivalent could be used instead. 7. County review requested consideration of a sub -drain beneath the Koi pond. Response to review comments by Petra indicated that the Koi pond was eliminated from the plans. 8. No groundwater was reported in previous excavations for the basement and its foundation. Our subsurface investigations revealed that the basement retaining wall are backfilled with pea gravel to within 3 to 4 feet of finish grade and then capped with on -site silty soils. Considerable silt contamination of pea gravel was observed in the test pit in the rear yard (TP- 2). No separation geofabric was noted between the pea gravel and the on -site silty soil cover to mitigate such sugration. The silty pea -gravel had enough fines mixed in to stand on near - vertical cut with minor to some cave-in. Very little, if any silt contamination of pea -gravel was noted in the test pit in front of the building (TP-1). Severe cave-in of the excavation in pea - gravel in this area required shoring of the test pit below about 4 feet. Pea -gravel extended from the basement wall to a distance of about 3 feet away from the wall at the test pit locations. Very moist to wet subsoils condition was observed in both test pits from surface to the maximum excavated depth of 11 feet. Top of footing was at about 11 feet below existing ground at the test pit locations. Probing the bottom of excavation revealed footing extending about 2 feet beyond the basement wall. Standing water was observed at about 0.5 feet above the top of footing in Test Pit TP-2. Wet subsoil was observed in Test Pit, TP-1 at about the same depth. Bagahi Engineering Inc. Mr. Mark Savel Project: 5 Shoreline Drive, Newport Beach, CA Project No: 167s-200-00 / October 10, 2006 Page 8 DISTRESS CAUSATION Following observation are based on the results of our review of previous reports, our observations during our site visit, our analysis of the results of our subsurface investigation and laboratory testing and our discussions with you. Based on the results of our limited subsurface exploration and testing and our field observation, it is our opinion that the water intrusion into the basement can be attributed to (a) poor subsurface drainage around the basement, (b) downspouts not properly maintained with some of their exit drains plugged or covered with plants, (c) faulty basement wall backdrain system that lacks separation fabric between on -site silty soils and pea -gravel backfill (d) other possible factors including: i) Possible lack of a continuous backdrain system behind the basement wall. Based on the soil report by Petra, in limited access areas, perforated pipe drain could be replaced with a mat drain placed against the basement wall. Such a transition would result in termination of the perforated pipe behind the wall and possible ponding of accumulated water, ii) Even though our investigation revealed a cap of 3 to 4 feet over the pea -gravel backfill, the geotechnical report requires only a cap thickness of 18 to 24 inches. The cap cover could be penetrated by excavations for landscaping plants and possibly by service lines to the pool or Koi pond. Such penetrations would result in direct access for water from surface irrigation and runoff to reach the pea -gravel around the basement, iii) Excavation for the Koi pond could have partially or totally removed the soil cover over the pea -gravel thereby opening direct access of surface water from landscape area around the perimeter of Koi pond, and from any cracks in the Koi pond. (We understand pool lines and water lines have been tested for leak and found to be water tight). In our opinion the reported water intrusion is not groundwater related as evidenced by (a) lack of any reported groundwater condition during basement excavations, and (b) observed presence of very moist to wet soils in the cap cover over pea -gravel, and (c) presence of a buried sprinkler head near test pit TP-2 with wet soil below it. Bagahi Engineering Inc. Mr. Mark Savel Project: 5 Shoreline Drive, Newport Beach, CA Project No: 167s-200-00 / October 10, 2006 REMEDIAL RECOMMENDATIONS Page 9 In our opinion the reported water intrusion into the basement may be mitigated through: 1. Removal of existing backfill and backdrain behind the basement retaining walls, re- installing a new and improved backdrain system around the basement, properly backfilling the excavation and then re -grading the area around the house. Although this method is considered as a highly desirable mitigation method, it has cost limitations as it would lead to total removal of pool equipment shed with its associated piping, total removal of Koi pond, possible underpinning of the porch footings, relocation of utilities and their connections, and excavation difficulties near the house entry. 2. A lower degree of mitigation may be achieved through installation of a new drain system from inside the basement that connects to existing backdrain behind the basement wall. In this system, basement wall is cored through near the top of footing at spacings of 5 to 6 feet on center and a drain pipe is installed to carry any accumulated water to sump pump for discharge. The general layout of this system is illustrated in Figure 1. Since the existing basement slab subgrade soils have been soaked and the slab cracked or heaved in some areas, it is recommended that the slab and slab subgrade soils to a depth of about 2 feet be removed and replaced with granular backfill and compacted to achieve a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D-9557. Prior to backfilling stabilization of the bottom of excavation may be necessary if soft wet soils are uncovered. In addition, perimeter drainage and landscaping around the basement needs to be modified as discussed subsequently. Recommendations for subgrade preparation for slab -on -grade, bottom stabilization, fill placement and compaction, slab recommendations, temporary excavations, site drainage and type of cement for construction, are presented in the following sections. All slabs should be properly reinforced in accordance with recommendations of the Project Structural Engineer. It is anticipated that the slabsubgrade soils will have a high expansion potential. The recommendations presented herein deal with removing the distressed slab, installing a subdrain system, and preparing the subgrade for placement of a thicker, better -reinforced slab. Following slab installation, the area around the basement needs to be regraded for proper drainage. Bagahi Engineering Inc. NEW DRAIN PIPE @ S TO 6 FEET ON CENTER CLEAN -OUT 1 I —3 EXISTING BASEMENT WALL • Source: Plan by Others NOT TO SCALE PLOT PLAN JOB NO.: 1 67S-200-00 DATE: October 10, 2006 FIGURE: 1 C:1My DocumentslBoder PlateslPlotPlan FormTaixls BAGAHI ENGINEERING INC. Mr. Mark Savel Project: 5 Shoreline Drive, Newport Beach, CA Project No: 167s-200-00 / October 10, 2006 Page 10 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING 1. Clearing and Stripping All existing concrete slab in the basement and garage should be removed. Debris and rubble from the clearing operations should be discarded off site. Areas around the building and extending to about 8 feet beyond the basement wall shall be cleared of vegetation and plants. 2. Subgrade Preparation Slab -on -grade subgrade areas should be overexcavated a minimum of 24 inches below the bottom of slab and replaced with granular fill and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM D-1557 at a moisture content of about optimum. The depth of overexcavation should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant during construction. Any surface or subsurface obstructions, buried structural elements, and unsuitable material encountered during grading, should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer for proper exposure, removal and processing as recommended. All exposed surfaces in the excavations should be observed and approved by this office prior to backfilling. Any localized soft or loose subgrade conditions observed at excavation levels should be excavated and backfilled with compacted granular fill. No excavation shall extend below the bottom of foundation of adjacent structures unless special precautions such as shoring are taken to protect the adjacent structures as discussed under "Temporary Excavations." 3. Import Fill Material Any import fill material for subgrade should be well graded, predominantly granular, have an expansion index less than 20, and be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to importing. Bagahi Engineering Inc. Mr. Mark Savel Project: 5 Shoreline Drive, Newport Beach, CA Project No: 167s-200-00 / October 10, 2006 Page 11 4. Fill Placement and Compaction Import fill materials should be placed at a moisture content near the optimum and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction as determined by current ASTM D-1557, the Five -Layer Method. All fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal loose lifts not exceeding 6 inches. 5. Bottom Stabilization Due to the potential for encountering wet subsoil during grading operation, stabilization of excavation bottoms may become necessary. Stabilization may consist of the placement of a crushed rock (± 3/4 inch diameter) blanket in affected areas. Thickness of the rock blanket may vary between 6 to 12 inches. In order to increase the effectiveness of the rock stabilization blanket, a geo-textile fabric may be incorporated into the plan. The fabric, consisting of a Mirafi 500X or equivalent, should be installed at the bottom of the excavation and overlain with the rock blanket. The fabric shall be installed and overlapped per manufacturer's recommendations. SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS 1. General The following slab recommendations are based on the subsurface conditions observed in the test pits and reported in previous reports for the site and are considered generally consistent with the Standards of Practice. Implementing these recommendations should reduce the risk of distress resulting from expansive soils but some risk always remain as there is no simple economically feasible method of treating such soils. The potential for favorable foundation performance can be further enhanced by maintaining proper site drainage. The slab configurations and reinforcement recommendation herein should not be considered to preclude more restrictive criteria by the governing agencies or by structural considerations. A Structural Engineer should evaluate configurations and reinforcement requirements for structural loadings, shrinkage, temperature and subgrade stresses. Bagahi Engineering Inc. Mr. Mark Savel Project: 5 Shoreline Drive, Newport Beach, CA Project No: 167s-200-00 / October 10, 2006 Page 12/ Expansion index of the soils exposed at grade should be determined following gra ,ing and these recommendations re-evaluated accordingly. / 2. Slab -on -Grade / All floor slab subgrades should be prepared in accordance with therrecommendations under "Site Preparation and Grading, Subgrade Preparation." ,Slab -on -grade floors should be designed by the Structural Engineer using applicableAC requirements and designed for the intended use and loading. As a minimum, labs should be reinforced with # 4 bars at 18-inch spacing, located at mid -height of the slab unless greater reinforcement is necessary based on structural computa ions using Uniform Building Code requirements. Thickness of floor slabs should le at least 5 inches actual and determined by the project Structural Engineer foy/the project loading and service conditions. Slabs in moisture sensitive areas sho d be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of rounded gravel or clean coarse san base and a minimum of 10-mil thick polyethylene moisture retarder, plus additio 2 inches of fine to medium coarse sand between the moisture retarder and th slab. oisture retarder shall be properly lapped and sealed. Section 1803 of the 1997 U resting on soils with an exp considerations in accordance building slab -on -grade shoul , /be an effective plasticity in• -x of Engineer. Consideratio should slabs. PERIMETER DRAI AGE Building Code (U.B.C.) specifies that foundations ion index greater than 20 require special design h section 1815. Slab thickness and reinforcement for designed in accordance with U.B.C. section 1815 using 34. The design is referred to the project Structural be given to use of "Waterproofing" concrete for the At the present to topography, a low area exists along the basement walls. Water from landscaping . o rainstorms accumulate in this area and soak into subgrade. It is recommended that the are around the basement and extending to 8 feet beyond be re -graded to provide positive s ace gradients adjacent to the building so as to direct surface water runoff drainage away fr basement wall and toward suitable discharge facilities such as area drain system. Reco ended minimum gradient is four (4) percent for unpaved areas and one percent for con ete areas. Roof gutter discharge should be directed away through solid PVC pipes to sub able discharge points. Grading and draining plan shall be submitted to our offices for view. Bagahi Engineering Inc. Mr. Mark Savel Project: 5 Shoreline Drive, Newport Beach, CA Project No: 167s-200-00 / October 10, 2006 LANDSCAPING AND PLANTERS Page 13,f� Planters that are located within 8 feet of building should be provided with sealed bottoms and bottom drains to prevent infiltration of water into the adjacent foundation soils.the surface of the ground in these areas should also be maintained at a minimum gradient of 2 percent and direct drainage to surface area drains. The sealed planter bottoms should consist of either reinforced concrete having a minimum thickness of 4 inches, or a polyvinyl chloride membrane of sufficient thickness to prevent puncturing by plant roots. If concrete is used to line the planters, minimum reinforcement should consist of No. 3 bars spaced at 18 inches on centers, both ways, or 6-inch by 6-inch, No. 6 by No. 6 welded wire mesh. If a polyvinyl chloride membrane is used, a minimum thickness of 30-inils is recommended. Furthermore, the bottoms of,the planters should be sloped to direct subsurface water to collector drains connected to drain lines designed to carry water to suitable discharge area. j Planter walls should be supported by continuous concrete footings constructed in accordance with the recommendations presentfd for masonry block screen wall footings, including construction near descending slopes,\ TYPE OF CEMENT Import granular soils shall be,tested for sulfate and shall have a low sulfate content. f It is recommended that/all concrete in contact with subgrade soils meet requirements of Table 19-A-4 of 1997 UBCJ,for concrete exposed to negligible sulfate exposure. PLAN REVIEW/ i Grading, ainage and landscaping plans should be made available to us for review to verify confo ce of these plans with the intent of the recommendations contained herein. Any soils importtd to the site for use as subgrade fill or backfill materials should be tested and approved by t13c Geotechnical Engineer prior to importing. Bagahi Engineering Inc. Mr. Mark Savel Project: 5 Shoreline Drive, Newport Beach, CA Project No: 167s-200-00 / October 10, 2006 Page 14 SUPPLEMENTAL CONSULTING During construction, a number of geotechnical reviews and observations 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 Governing agency, the following site reviews are advised, some of which are required by the Governing agency. • Slab subgrade moisture barrier membrane placement ..Advised • Slab and flatwork subgrade observation prior to concrete placement ..Advised • Slab steel placement, primary and appurtenant structures ..Advised • Observation of bottom of overexcavation Required • Testing of import soil Required • Observation and testing of overexcavation and recompaction Required • Observation of subdrain installation Required LIMITATIONS Our investigation was performed in accordance with generally accepted practice in the geotechnical field. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative of the entire project; however, soil conditions can vary significantly between observation points. As in most projects, conditions revealed by excavation may be at variance with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant and designs adjusted as required or alternate designs recommended. It should be understood that the geotechnical consulting provided and the contents of this report are not perfect. Any errors or omissions noted by any party reviewing this report and/or any other geotechnical aspects of the project, should be reported to this office in a timely fashion. This report is intended for design of this specific project and for sole use and benefit of our client. It is not intended to necessarily be adequate for a contractor to provide a fixed price bid or for a client to expect that no changed conditions will exist. Subsequent use of this report can only be authorized by the client. Any transferring of information or other directed use by the Bagahi Engineering Inc. Mr. Mark Savel Project: 5 Shoreline Drive, Newport Beach, CA Project No: 167s-200-00 / October 10, 2006 Page 15 client should be considered advice by the client. Evaluation of other conditions of the existing building was not within the scope of this study. Conclusions and recommendations presented herein are partly based on the evaluations of technical information gathered, partly on experience and partly on professional judgment. The conclusions and recommendations presented should be considered "advice". Other consultants could arrive at different conclusions and recommendations. Typically "minimum" recommendations have been presented. Although some risk will always remain, lower risk of future problems would usually result if more restrictive criteria were adopted. Final decisions on matters presented are the responsibility of the governing agencies and/or the client. Observation and testing by the geotechnical consultant during construction should not relieve the contractor of his primary responsibility to perform the work in accordance with the specifications. 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 brought to the attention of the Architect and Engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the Contractor and Subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. Bagahi Engineering Inc. APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 'qi ;- • • r ' I • • / • 7 -... • I • t Vqn cl:stla.pe /Slope I iroCalf Colirse • ••• „ •• TRANSPARENT PORTION Cr %0E- , YARO WALL PER APPROVED PLANS . • . ' 1 • NOTE: . TRANSPARID41PORODN Cr. 90E- YARD WALL -PER APPROVED PLANS -, • ', - • -- 108.17 r.S. N. 80 3o Era" w --- ---- .. ..... ........ .... KEY TP-1 APPROX. LOCATION OF TEST PITS .......................... r- ' Entry Courtyard. 108.92 E•S•• . ?O. lin. I 0 9 R SOURCE: PLAN BY OTHERS • .- • 1.. • 113 NOT OT SCALE BAGAHI ENGINEERING INC. SCALE: DATE: APPROVED BY : DRAWN BY REVISED PLOT PLAN 5 Shoreline Drive DRAWING NUMBER A-1 11 X 17 PNiNTIO ON k. 100oH CULAN MINT • DEFINITION OF TERMS Primary Divisions COARSE -GRAINED SOILS More Than Half of Material Is Larger Than No. 200 Sieve Size G RAVELS More Than Half of Coarse Fraction is Larger Than No. 4 Sieve Symbols CLEAN GRAVELS (Less Than 5% Fines) GW Secondary Divisions Well graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines. GP Poorly graded gravels or gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines. GRAVEL WITH FINES GM Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mbdures, nonplastic fines. GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mbdures, plastic fines. SANDS More Than Half of Coarse Fraction is Smaller Than No. 4 Sieve CLEAN SANDS (Less Than 5% Fines) SW Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines. SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands, sand -silt mbdures, nonplastic fines. SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. FINE-GRAINED SOILS More Than Half of Material Is Smaller Than No. 200 Sieve Size SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS LESS THAN 50% ML CL Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey sitts with slight plasticity. Inorganic clays of lay to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, lean days. OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of law plasticity. SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS GRATER THAN 50% MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic sifts. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils. GRAIN SIZES SILTS AND CLAYS 200 40 10 U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE GRAVEL BOULDERS SAND FINE 1 MEDIUM 1 COARSE FINE 1 COARSE 3/4" 3" 12" CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS RELATIVE DENSITY Cohesionless Sands and Silts Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense Blows/ft* 0-4 4-10 10-30 30-50 Over 50 Blows/ft** 0-30 30-80 80-200 200-400 Over 400 4 COBBLES CONSISTENCY Cohesive Soils Very soft Soft Firm Stiff Blows/ft* Very stiff Hard 0-4 2-4 4-8 8-16 16-32 Over 32 Blowslft** 0-4 4-11 11-50 50-110 110-220 Over 220 * Blows/foot for a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2-inch O.D., 1-3/8-inch I.D. Split Spoon sampler (Standard Penetration Test) ** Blows/foot for a 36-pound hammer falling 24 inches to drive a 3.25 O.D., 2.41 I.D. sampler (Hand Sampling). Blow count convergence to standard penetration test was done in accordance with Fig. 1.24 of Foundation Engineering Handbook by H.Y. Fang, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991. Key to Sample Types: R=Ring Sample S=Split Spoon B=Bulk JOB NO.: 151d-200-00 KEY TO LOGS DATE: August 2005 1 FIGURE: A-2 DATE OBSERVED: 9/15/06 LOGGED BY: SG LOG OF BORING NO. TP-1 METHOD OF DRILLING: 30-inch+ Hand Exc. DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Mike's Excavating HAMMER: LOCATION: See Plot Plan GROUND EL.: FALLING: Depth (ft.) 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- Soil Type Sample Type Blows/ Foot Field Moist (%) 35.2% 2.1% 2.7% Field Density (pcf) This log is part of the report prepared by Bagahi Engineering Inc. and should be read together with the leput for complete interpretation. The summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. The data contained in this log is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. ARTIFICIAL FILL Light brown and gray sandy SILT, trace rock fragment, very moist, soft. @3' PEA GRAVEL, very moist to wet. @4' Cave-in, shored the sides. @9' Became wet. Severe Cave-in Stopped drilling, probed bottom, footing at about 11', probe wet @10.5'. @ 10' Bottom of hole. Backfilled with pea gravel and then native. JOB NO.: 167S-200-00 Shoreline Dr. FIGURE: A-3 SHEET 1 OF 1 BAGAHI ENGINEERING INC. DATE OBSERVED: 9/12/06 LOG OF BORING NO. TP-2 LOCATION: See Plot Plan LOGGED BY: SG METHOD OF DRILLING: 30-inch+ Hand Exc. GROUND EL.: DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Mike's Excavating HAMMER: FALLING: This log is part of the icpurt prepared by Bagahi Engineering Inc. Field Field and should be read together with the report for complete Depth Soil Sample Blows/ Moist Density interpretation. The summary applies only at the location of this (ft.) Type Type Foot (%) (pcO boring and at the time of drilling. The data contained in this log is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. ARTIFICIAL FILL 1- 2- B 23.5% Light brown SILT, stone sand and rock fragments, soft, wet. 3- @2' Broken sprinkler head, buried. 4- 5- B 6.8% @4' PEA GRAVEL, with trace of some silt, very moist to wet. 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- B 10.2% @I0' Wet 11- @ 10.5' Standing water 12- Top of Footing @ 1 1' ,footing 2.5'± wide 13- Bottom of hole @ l 1' 14- At the end of drilling backfilled with pea gravel and then native. 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- JOB NO.: 167S-200-00 Shoreline Dr. FIGURE: A-4 SHEET 1 OF 1 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Mr. Mark Savel Project: 5 Shoreline Dr. Newport Bea Project No: 151d-200-00 / August 4, 2005 Page 1 LABORATORY TESTING MOISTURE -DENSITY Moisture Density determinations were made on ring samples obtained from drilling. Moisture content tests were performed on bulk samples. Test results are presented in the boring logs. SULFATE A sulfate test was performed on a representative sample of the on -site soils. The laboratory standard used was California 417 A. The test results show a low sulfate content of less than 0.1 percent. MAXIMUM DENSITY / OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT The maximum dry density / optimum moisture content relationship was determined for typical sample of the onsite soils. The laboratory standard used was ASTM: D 1557-78. The test results are summarized in table below. BORING NO. DEPTH (ft.) MAX. DRY DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (%) TP-1 0-3 120.0 12.0 Bagahi Engineering Inc.