HomeMy WebLinkAboutCnb 95 301 Newport Blvd G Part 3P/C. v& -m'
REPORT OF CONSULTATION REGARDING
FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED CARDIAC SERVICES ADDITION
301 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
FOR
HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN
(O92072.AB)
DECEMBER 16, 199/
RECEIVED
,!.h 71994
Davit.; A. Boyle Eng,
/y?- 94
December 22, 1992
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
301 Newport Boulevard
Box Y
Newport Beach, California 92658-8912
Attention: Mr. F. W. Evins
Gentlemen:
Drilled Pile Capacities
Proposed Cardiac Services Addition
301 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California
(O92072.AB)
It has come to our attention that the drilled pile capacities plate was missing from our
report of consultation regarding foundation design, dated December 16, 1992, for the
subect project. Drilled pile capacity plates are enclosed; please make the necessary plate
inset tion
We are sorry for this error and for the resulting inconvenience. Please call us if you
require additional information.
Sincerely,
LAW/CRANDALL, INC.
Shahen Askari
Principal Engineer
Branch Manager
0C19/PS/mw
Attachments (1)
(2 copies submitted)
cc: (1) Taylor & Gaines
Attn: Mr. Saurin Chakrabarti
(3) Barry Klein Architects
Attn: Mr. Barry Klein
h
cx
RECEIVED
JAN 06 1994
FACILITIES DESIGN
& CONSTRUCTION
PENETRATION BELOW PILE CAP in Feet
ui
0
r.
O
0
10
20
30
40
50
DOWNWARD PILE CAPACITY in Kips
100
150
200
250
Recommended
(Due to depth
Pile Penetration
a1 er. 'sting fill)
Minimum
1
Pile diameter
in Inches
®
yip
0
NOTES:
(1)
25 50 75 100
UPWARD PILE CAPACITY in Kips
The indicated values refer to the total of dead plus live loads; a one-third increase may
be used when considering wind or seisrnic bads.
125
(2) Piles in groups should be spaced a minimum of 2-12 diameters on centers, and should
be drilled and filled ahemately with the concrete permitted 10 set at least 8 hours before
drilling an adjacent hole.
(3) The indicated values are based on the strength of the soils; the actual pile capacities
may be Iimned to lesser values by the strength of the piles.
DRILLED PILE CAPACI`"IES
LAW/CRANDALL, INC.3S:
PLATE 2
December 16, 1992
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
301 Newport Boulevard
Box Y
Newport Beach, California 92658-8912
Attention: Mr. F. W. Evins
Gentlemen:
(092072.AB)
We are pleased to submit our "Report of Consultation Regarding Founda ion Design,
Proposed Cardiac Services Addition, 301 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California,
for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian:
The scope of the consultation was planned in collaboration with Mr. Hodge C. Gaines of
Taylor & Gaines, Structural Engineers. We were advised of the structural features of the
addition by Taylor & Gaines, and the results of our consultation and preliminary
foundation recommendations were discussed with them.
The results of our prior investigation at the site and recommendations for design of
foundations, grading, and for floor slab support are presented in the report.
It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to you on this project. Please call if
you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW/CRANDALL, INC.
Pau! R. Sehade
Project Engineer
OCI&PS/mw
(2 copies submitted)
cc: (1) Taylor & Gaines
Attn: Mr. Hodge G. Gaines
(3) Barry Klein Architects
Attn: Mr. Barry Klein
— 1
ShaF..r Askari
Prin.;ipal Engineer
Branch Manager
Qp ESSle
`,EEN AS* f�
by No.1Gl ?.1
a)Lio.12-31-9320
T
Cat -
OF CAI\%t
REPORT OF CONSULTATION REGARDING
FOUNDATION DESIGN
CARDIAC SERVICES ADDITION
301 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA
FOR
HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN
O92072.AB Page 1
SCOPE
This report presents the results of our geotechnical consultation performed for the
proposed Cardiac Services Addition. The locations of the proposed addition and our
prior nearby exploration borings are shown on Plate 1, Plot Plan.
This investigation was authorized to review the field and laboratory data obtained in our
prior nearby investigations, and to provide recommendations for foundation design and
floor slab support for the proposed addition. More specifically, the scope of the
investigation included the following objectives:
To evaluate the subsurface conditions, including the soil and ground
water conditions within the area of proposed construction.
To recommend appropriate foundation systems along with the
necessary design parameters.
To provide recommendations concerning construction procedures and
quality control measures relating to earthwork.
To provide recommendations for floor slab support.
The assessment of general site environmental conditions or the presence of pollutants in
the soil and ground water at the site was beyond the scope of this investigation.
Our recommendations are based on the results of o.: prior field explorations and
laboratory tests and appropriate engineering analyses. The results .:f the field
explorations and laboratory tests are presented in the attached Appendix.
Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill
ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants
O92072.AB Page 2
practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made
as to the professional advice included in this report. This report has been prepared for
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian and their design consultants to be used solely in
the design of the proposed development. The report has not been prepared for use by
other parties, and may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or
other uses.
PRIOR STUDIES
We have performed several investigations for nearby projects, within the hospital complex.
We have been able to use the results of those prior investigations in this study. The logs
of nearby prior borings are presented in the Appendix. The pertinent prior investigations
are as follows:
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed South Tower Addition, for Hoag
Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (AE-84159).
Foundation Investigation, Proposed Nursing Wing and Power Plant,
for Hoag Memorial Hospital (A-69080).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Cardiac Services Addition will be located on the west side of the existing
hospital building. The addition will be one story in height and will be of light frame
construction. The maximum column loads are estimated to be about 40 kips. The floor
of the addition will match the lower floor elevation of the adjacent existing hospital; some
compacted fill will be required to achieve the desired floor elevation. We understand the
foundations of the adjacent hospital may be about 10 to 12 feet below grade.
O92072.AB Page 3
EXPLORATIONS AND TESTS
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The soil conditions beneath the site were explored during our previous investigations by
drilling four borings. The locations of the prior borings are shown on Plate 1, Plot Plan.
Details of the explorations and legs of the prior borings are presented in the Appendix.
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed during our previous investigations on selected samples
obtained from the borings to aid in the classification of the soils and to determine their
engineering properties. The fallowing tests were performed: moisture content and dry
density determinations, direct shear, consolidation, and compaction. Details of the
laboratory testing program and test results are presented in the Appendix.
SOIL CONDITIONS
Fill soils, 2 to 11 feet in thickness, were encountered in the borings. The fill consists of
moderately firm silty sand, clay and silt, and contains only slight debris. Deeper and/or
poorer quality fill could occur between borings.
The natural soils consist primarily of medium dense to dense sand and silty sand and
medium stiff silt and clay.
ground water seepage was encountered at depths of 27 to 32 feet below ground surface.
Ground water levels were measured at 34 to 49' feet below ground surface.
O92072.AB Page 4
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Feasible Foundation Types
Shallow and deep foundation systems have been considered for support of the proposed
addition. The fill soils are not considered suitable for support of the proposed addition
be -ause of settlement considerations. If the existing fill soils are excavated and properly
recompacted, the addition could be supported on spread footings in the compacted fill.
Alternatively, the addition could be supported on drilled cast -in -place concrete piling
extending through the fill and into the natural soils.
Recommendations for grading and support of floor slabs are presented in following
sections of the report.
Spread Footings
Bearing Value
Spread footings for the addition supported in the undisturbed natural soils or properly
compacted fill, compacted to at least 90%, and extending at least 2 feet below the
adjacent grade or floor level may be designed to impose a net dead plus live load pressure
of 2,500 pounds per square foot.
Footings for minor structures (retaining walls Tess than about 5 feet in height, etc.)
established in the undisturbed natural soils or properly compacted fill may be designed to
impose a net dead plus live load pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot at a depth of
11 feet below the adjacent grade.
A one-third increase in the bearing values may be used fo- wind or seismic loads. The
recommended bearing values are net values. The weight of concrete in spread footings
O92072.AB Page 5
may be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot and the weight of soil backfill neglected when
determining the downward loads.
While the actual bearing value of any required fill will depend on the material used and
the compaction methods employed, the quoted bearing values will be applicable if accept-
able soils are used and are compacted as recommended. The beating value of the fill
should be confirmed during the grading.
Settlement
The settlement of the proposed addition, supported on spread footings in the manner
recommended will be about 'A -inch.
Lateral Loads
Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction and by the passive resistance of the soils. A
coefficient of friction of 0.4 may be used between footings or the floor slabs and the
supporting soils. The passive resistance of the natural soils or properly compacted fill
against footings may be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a
density of 250 pounds per cubic foot. A one-third increase in the passive value may be
used for wind or seismic loads. The frictional resistance and the passive resistance of the
soils may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral rt.istance.
Footing Observation
To verify the presence of satisfactory soils at design elevations, all footing excavations
should be observed by personnel of our firm. Footing excavations deeper than 5 feet
should be sloped back at 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or shored.
Inspection of footing excavations may also be required by the appropriate reviewing
governmental agencies. The contractor should be familiar with the inspection require-
ments of the reviewing agencies.
IX 1
O92072.AB Page 6
All applicable requirements, including OSHA requirements, should be met.
Backfill and Drainage
All required footing backfill and utility trench backfill within the building areas should be
mechanically compacted; flooding should not be permitted. Measures should be taken to
prevent ponding of water adjacent to the proposed structures. The exterior grades should
be sloped to drain away from the structure to minimize ponding of water adjacent to the
foundations. Proper grade and drainage devices should be provided to direct water away
from the building areas.
Drilled Piling
Drilled Pile Capacities
The downward and upward capacities of 18-, 24-, and 30-inch-diameter piles are presented
on Plate 2, Drilled Pile Capacities. Dead plus live Load capacities are shown; a one-third
increase may be used when considering wind or seismic loads. The capacities are based
on penetration into undisturbed natural soils. Longer piles will be required if the 611
thickness is found to be greater than 11 feet during installation. The capacities are based
on the strength of the soils; the compressive and tensile strength of the pile section itself
should be checked to verify the structural capacity of the piles.
Piles in groups should be spaced at least 21/2 diameters on centers. If the pile are so
spaced, no reduction in the downward capacities of the piles need be considered due to
group action.
Settlement
The settlement of the proposed structure, supported on drilled piling in the manner
recommended, will be about Winch.
r
0
O92072.AB Page 7
Lateral Loads
Lateral loads may be resisted by the piles, by soil friction on the floor slab, and by the
passive resistance of the soils. The soils adjacent to a 18-inch-diameter pile, at least 20
feet long, can resist horizontal loads imposed at the top of the pile up to 9,000 pounds.
The lateral resistance of other sizes of piles may be assumed to be proportional to the
diameter.
In calculating the maximum bending moment in a pile, the lateral load imposed at the top
of the p,,e may be multiplied by a moment arm of 5 feet. For design, it may be assumed
that the maximum bending moment will occur near the top of the pile and that the
moment will decrease to zero at a depth of 20 feet below the pile cap. The lateral
capacity and reduction in the bending moment are based in part on the assumption that
any required backfill adjacent to the pile caps and grade beams will be properly
compacted.
A coefficient of friction of 0.4 may be used between the floor slab and the supporting
soils. The passive resistance of the natural soils or properly compacted fill soils against
pile caps and grade beams may be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a
fluid with a density of 250 pounds per cubic foot. A one-third increase in the quoted
passive value may be used when considering wind or seismic loads.
The resistance of the piles, the passive resistance of the soil: against pile caps and grade
beams, and the frictional resistance between the floor slab and the supporting soils may
be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. If the actual
lateral loads on the structure can be resisted by the piles or by the passive resistance, or
by a combination of these elements, it is our opinion that foundation tie -beams between
piles will not be necessary unless there are other reasons for including them.
O92072.AB Page 8
Installation
All drilled pile excavations should be observed by personnel of our firm. Longer piles will
be required if the fill thickness is found to be greater than 11 feet during installation.
Our prior exploration borings were drilled to depths of up to 50 feet with 18-inch-
diameter bucket type drilling equipment. Heavy caving and sloughing of the auger boring
walls occurred during drilling in one boring below a depth of 32 feet from the ground
surface. Precautions should be taken during the installation of the piles to reduce caving
and raveling. Among other precautions, the drilling speed should be reduced as necessary
to minimize vibration and sloughing of the sand deposits.
Piles located 5 diameters on center or closer should be drilled and filled alternately, with
the concrete permitted to set at least eight hours before drilling an adjacent hole. Pile
excavations should be filled with concrete as soon after drilling and inspection as possible;
the holes should not be left open overnight. The concrete should be placed with special
equipment so that the concrete is not allowed to fall freely more than 5 feet and to
prevent concrete from striking the walls of the excavations.
GRADING
General
After clearing the site, the existing fill soils within the proposed building area should be
excavated. If the building is to be supported on piling extending into the natural soils and
the slab is to be structurally supported, the existing fill may be left in place. If the slab
is to be supported on grade and some potential for future settlement of the floor slab is
acceptable, at least the upper two feet of fill below the existing grade could be excavated,
but not less than 3 feet below the final grade. The exterior grades should be sloped to
drain away from the structure to minimize ponding of water adjacent to for foundations.
O92072.AB Page 9
Compaction
After excavating as recommended, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of
6 inches and rolled with heavy compaction equipment. The upper 6 inches of exposed
soils should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the
ASTM Designation D1557-78 method of compaction. All required fill should be placed
in loose lifts not more than 8 inches in thickness and compacted to at least 90%. it is
recommended that the moisture content of the sands and silts at the at the time of
compaction vary no more than 2% below of 2% above optimum moisture content. The
moisture content of the clay soils should be brought to about 4% o•'er optimum moisture
content.
Material for Fill
The on -site soils, less any debris or organic matter within existing fill, may be used in
compacted fills. Clay soils should not be used within 1 foot of the subgrade beneath
concrete slabs on grade.
Field Observation
The reworking of the upper soils and the compaction of all required fill should be
observed and tested by a representative of our firm. This representative should have at
least the following duties:
Observe the clear: ig and grubbing operations to assure that all
unsuitable materials have been properly removed.
Observe the exposed subgrade in areas to receive fill and in areas
where excavation has resulted in the desired finished subgrade,
observe proof -rolling, and delineate areas requiring overexcavation.
Perform visual observation to evaluate the suitability of on -site and
import soils for fill placement; collect and submit soil samples for
required or recommended laboratory testing where necessary.
092072.AB Page 10
• Perform field density and compaction testing to determine the
percentage of compaction achieved during fill placement.
• Observe and probe foundation bearing materials to confirm that
suitable bearing materials are present at the design grades.
• Observe the installation of drilled piles.
The governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project should be notified prior
to commencement of grading so that the necessary grading permits may be obtained and
arrangements may be made for the required inspection(s).
'i.00R SLAB SUPPORT
If the existing fill soils are excavated and properly recompacted, the floor slab and
adjacent walks and slabs may be supported on grade. If the fill is left in place and the
addition is supported on piling, we recommend that the slabs be structurally supported.
However, if the fill thickness is too great making the reworking of it uneconomical, and
if some risk of settlement is acceptable, the upper soils may be excavated to a depth of
at least 2 feet below the existing grade but not Tess than 3 feet below the final grade. If
only the upper fill soils are excavated, there is a potential for up to 2 inches of additional
settlement due to consolidation of the and=rlying left in place fill soils.
Construction activities and exposure to the environment can cause deterioration of
prepared subgrades. Therefore, we recommend that our field representative observe the
condition of the final subgrade soils immediately prior to slab on grade construction and,
if necessary, perform further field density and moisture content tests to determine the
suitability of the final prepared subgrade.
O92072.AB Page 11
Where a floor slab covering that would be critically affected by moisture, such as vinyl,
is to be used, we suggest that the floor slab be supported on a 4-inch-thick layer of gravel
or on an impermeable membrane as a capillary break. A suggested gradation for the
gravel layer would be as follows:
Sieve Size Percent Passing
3/4" 90 - 100
No.4 0-10
No. 100 0 - 3
If the membrane is used, a low -slump concrete should be used to minimize possible
curling of the slabs. The concrete slabs should be allowed to cure properly before placing
vinyl or other moisture -sensitive floor covering.
052072.AB Page 12
BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the
described project information and on our interpretation of the data collected during the
subsurface exploration. We have made our recommendations based on experience with
similar subsurface conditions under similar loading conditions. The recommendations
appiy to the specific project discussed in this report; therefore, any change in building
loads, building location, or site grades should be provided to us so we may review our
conclusions and recommendations and make any necessary rr -idifications.
The recommendations provided in this report are also based on the assumption that the
necessary geotechnical observations and testing during construction will be performed by
representatives of our firm. The field observation services are considered a continuation
of the geotechnical investigation and essential to verify that the actual soil conditions are
as anticipated. This also provides for the procedure whereby the client can be advised of
unanticipated or changed conditions that would require modifications of our original
recommendations. In addition, the presence of our representative at the site provides the
client with an independent professional opinion regarding the geotechnically related
construction prorMtlures. If another firm is retained for the geotechnical observation
services, our professional responsibility and liability would be impaired.
-oOo-
d
u
DATE 6 i 29 89
13
Q 23
Q
Q 24
Q 14
Q Ip
21
Q 2
Q9
n_
E XI STI N G
HOSPITAL
0'
B.Y.FOR BOA. ELEVS.
FE OF EXIST. IOSPITSL
•63 0
r
(55)
32 Q2
[511
19
•
PROPO
SERVIC'4
o-2
N1/4.
\°z-,
EXISTING PARKING
STRUCTURE
®5
3ED CARDIAC
ES ADDITION
REFERENCE:
PLAN ( UNDATED) BY
BOBROW / THOMA S ASSOCIATES.
KEY :
3•PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION (AE-84159)
9O PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION (A-71235)
3 0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION (A-69080)
L BORING LOCATION
BORING NUMBER
(55) ELEVATION OF SURFACE OF FIRM SOILS
PLOT PLAN
SCALE I" = 100'
PLATE I
PENETRATION BELOW PILE CAP In Fee!
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
50
DOWNWARD PILE CAPACITY in Kips
100
150
1
1 /7rJ
Minimum
Recommended
(Due to depth
PYa Penetration
of existing 1111)
T
in Inches
Pile diameter
UPWARD PILE CAPACITY in Kips
NOTES:
100
(1) The indicated values refer to the total of dead plus live loads; a one-third Increase may
be used when considering wind or seismic loads.
(2) Piles in groups should be spaced a minimum of 2•12 diameters on centers, and should
be drilled and filled alternately with the concrete permitted to set at least 8 hours before
drilling an adjacent hole.
(3) The indicated values are based on the strength of the soils; the actual pile capacities
may be limited to lesser values by the strength of the piles.
DRILLED PILE CAPACITIES
125
LAW/CRANDALL, INC.
PLATE 2
Ng
092072.AB Page A-1
APPENDIX
EXPLORATIONS
The soil conditions beneath the site were explored during two previous investigations by
drilling four borings at the locations shown on Plate 1. The borings were drilled to depths
of 45 to 51 feet below the existing grade using 18-inch-diameter bucket -type drilling
equipment. Caving of the boring walls did occur during the drilling of one boring with the
bucket auger but casing or drilling mud was not used to extend the bucket borings to the
depths drilled.
The soils encountered were logged by our field technician, and undisturbed and loose
samples were obtained for laboratory inspection and testing. The logs of the previous
borings are presented on Plates A-1.1 through A-1.4; the depths at which undisturbed
samples were obtained are indicated to the left of the boring logs. The energy required to
drive the sampler 12 inches is indicated on the logs. The soils are classified in accordance
with the Unified Soil Classification System described on Plate A-2.
LABORATORY TESTS
The field moisture content and dry density of the soils encountered were determined by
performing tests on the undisturbed samples. The results of the tests are shown to the left
of the boring logs.
Direct shear tests were performed on selected undisturbed natural samples from our two
previous investigations to determine the strength of the sells. The tests were performed
at field and increased moisture contents and at various surcharge pressures. The yield -point
values determined from the direct shear tests are presented on Plate A-3.1 and A-3.2,
Direct Shear Test Data.
O92072.AB Page A-2
Confined consolidation tests were performed on four undisturbed samples to determine the
compressibility of the soils. Water was added to one undisturbed sample during the test.
The results of the tests are presented on Plates A-4.l through A-4.3, Consolidation Test
Data.
-o00-
041E ORILLED:
EOUioMENt USED:
W •., % V FLEW
8.5
129
3
SM
ML
CL
60
SM
55
5
9.8
11.0
122
117
1
1
10
117
9
50
15
MP
M
45 -
4.6
100
5
SP
20
2.5
100
10
1114"
40 -
lc
m
OW
tION 63.7*
BORING I
June 4, 1984
18"-Diameter Bucket
(PRIOR JOB AE-84159)
FILL - SILTY SAND, SANDY SILT and SILTY
CLAY - mottled brown
FILL - SILTY SAND - fine, brown
Grey and brown
SANDY CLAY - light brown
SILTY CLAY - light brown
Thin layers of Sand, light brown and light
grey
SAND - fine, light brown
Thin layers of Sandy Silt
CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PLATE)
*See Plate 1 for location and elevation of
bench mark.
LOG OF BORING
LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES
a
0
g
C
W
h
0
z
W
E
IL
35
30
25
0
20 '
45
15
50
10'
— 55
72.1 56
71.1
2.1
55
66
8
5
DATE GRILLED
COUIPMENT USED
BORING I (CONTINUED)
June 4. 1984
18"-Diameter Bucket
Thin layer of Clay
SANDY SILT - light grey
SILTY CLAY (POSSIBLE WEATHERED SHALE) - grey
Light greyish -brown
Gypsum fragments
SHALE - massive, dark grey to black
NOTE: Slight water seepage encounteredat a depth
of 27'. Water level measured at 4911' 10
minutes after completion of drilling. No
caving.
LOG OF BORING
LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES
a
uu
4S
(J
• E
/ W
/ 7 V
C-C/C�/7 ELEVA
SM
/1'
SM
60-
0:il:
15.4
110
1
1,11
:'
iii
5
IPIM
17.4
102
1
1:I
�1V1
C14
55-
Ia
/14
10
17-3
111
<11I
CL
50 ^
17.8
111
3
I It
SM
f
/jjjt/
CL
15
26.9
96
2
45
��
28.1
94
5
�///
20
3
:'::
11
BORING
2
DATE DRILLED: June 4, 1984
EOUIPMENT USED: 18"-Diameter Bucket
(PRIOR JOB AE-84159)
1IOtM 62.6
SILTY SAND - fine, brown
FILL - CLAY and SILTY SAND - fine,
brown
Lenses of Sandy Silt
Some concrete chunks
SANDY CLAY - light brown
mottled
SILTY SAND - fine, light brown
SILTY CLAY (FOSSIBLE WEATHERED SHALE) -
light brown and light grey
Some cementations
SAND (POSSIBLE WEAKLY CEMENTED SANDSTONE) -
fine, light brown
(CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PLATE)
LOG OF BORING
LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES
0
x
U
tk
3
MS
2
S
0
a
Q
mp
0
a
N
E
LL
Lu�
o.
¢_
Wy
Y Wtr
BORING 2 (CONTINUED)
DATE DRILLED: June 4, 1984
EDUIPMENT USED: 18"-Diameter Bucket
y v' v\
35
�t.
30
5
p:
25
20,1
106
10
f %,
40
20-
- 45
.
-I
15-
n
NOTE:
Some ,rave].
Some medium Sand
(BORING TERMINATED DUE TO HEAVY CAVING,
SLOUGHING, AND LACK OF PROGRESS)
Water seepage encountered at a depth of
32'. Water level measured at 34' 20
minutes after completion of drilling.
Heavy caving and sloughing below 32'.
LOG OF BORING
LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES
m
w
0
0
e
m
0
BORING 3
DATE DRILLED : April 28, 1969
EQUIPMENT USED: 18"-Diameter Bucket
(PRIOR JOB A-aonent
® 'c-/ / 7 //
ELEVATION 62.0
60 -
5
8.5
113
0'
.i
C
L
FILL - CLAYEY SAND and SILTY CLAY MIXTURE -
brown
SS -
16.4
113
%i
- 10
8.5
113
P
SAND - fine, some Clay, bown
6.7
4.5
101
109or
Coarse, few gravel
L
SILTY CLAY - mottled grey and brown
- 15
NOTE: Water encountered depth 39';
45
30.7
91
/
at a of water
level at a depth of 40' 15 minutes after com-
pietion of dri:ling. No caving.
20
30.0
94
40-
(�!
7.8
88
SP
SAND - fine, light grey
35 -
-25
30
17.6
101
`'`'`
- Cemented layer
30 -
.35
4.2
111
6
;,
Layer of SILTY SAND
Few gravel
25 -
- t0
19.5
106
Layer of SILTY SAND
20-
Clayey, mottled dory grey and brown
45
38.1
83
.
'AL
SANDY SILT - mottled grey and brown
moo.... ......._... --- ---
P� PTc A..
w
0
JO8 A69O80
♦. •
JP a ayo�` 0''1
BORING 5
DATE DRILLED: May 2, 1969
EQUIPMENT USED: 18"-Diameter Bucket
•
l `°"/
/ /
- - ---
ELEVATION 0
0
ML
FILL SAND and CLAYEY SILTMIXTURE -
brown
�
60
8.3
9.8
105
105
CLAYEY SAND -fine, rootlets, brown
55
10
4.7
3.3
104
100
:':
$P
SAND - fine, some Clay, light brown
29.3
95
/
L
SILTY CLAY - jointed, mottled grey and brown
Sp_
_ 15
29.7
94
NOTE: Water encountered at a depth of 36'; water
level at a depth of 38' 15 minutes after com-
pletion of drilling. No caving.
45-
l
20—
E•5
94
,SM
SILTY SAN D - fine, light grey
40 -
2,➢
5.0
93
Brownish
35-
r
-grey
Layer of CLAYEY SAND
30
24.7
95
ML
SANDY SILT - some mica, brownish -grey
30
C
CLAYEY SAND - Fine, few gravel, brownish -grey
25-.
14.3
117
>F
SAND - fine, few gravel, some Clay, mottled brown
and grey
20-
49
42.3
78
/
L
SILTY CLAY - jointed, grey
LOG OF BORING
. -.,-.. • ^--- -- -
SOCIATES
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GROUP
snneoLs
TYPICAL. NAMES
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
(Mao than 50% dMama) n LARGER
than No.200 moil
sail
GRAVELS
(Mae Ivan 50% of
caws* fraction is
LARGER than Less
Na. ♦ sisal
CLEAN
GRAVELS
(Little Or P hires j
'OM
Will eroded grovels. gravel -sand mixtures.
a no Urea.
el.
W.t
wS}
GP
Poorly graded grovels w a gravel -sand maca,
!mil a re fire..
GRAVELS
WITH FINES->,
(ApaKiable amt.
of fines)
5
S `
40
GM
Silty gravel a, gravel- sand - Sit muutna.
GC
Clayey gravel., graveq l-Sdnd-tlromans.GRAINED
SANDS
(More Man 50% cif
agree Noction is
SMALLER tan the
No. ♦ sees Sisal
CLEAN SANDS
(Little or no Ines)
':.-
$Wr
Well grodsd Sands, gravelly sands. html. a
no fines.
-�
_
SP
Poorly probed ulnas at gravelly sands, IitIN
of no fines.
SANDS
WITH FINES
(Ape amt.
offinesfires))
$M
Silty ands, sand -silt mistura.
SC
Clayey sands. sand•clay misters.
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
(Mae tthn 50% ofInorganic
material s S ALLER
No. 0 sitesize)
SILTS AND CLAYS
(livid Inuit LESS than 50)
ML
Inorganic of says and very line alas, rock slow,
wily a Gaya fine woos a red., aids
Mill' slight plasticity.
CL
Inorganic cloys of ba la Madan pldaaity,
gravelly clays, eandY clays, illty CMS., lean
clays.
OL
Organic sills and organic silty days al low
gavials .
SILTS AND CLAYS
(Liquid had GREATER than 50)
r
ail:, m,aa0os a aiamm0CENS
fine sandy a silly ails, elastic sillsMOthan
•
rr
yy rfl
CH
Inorganic cloys of nigh plasticity, la clays.
•
Organic cloys 01 medium to high plasticity.
tilts
YOrganic
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
Pt
Pat and other highly organic sans.
BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS: Sods possessing cars fermi cS of tea groups are designated by
combination Of group trawls.
PARTICLE
SIZE LIMITS
SILT OR CLAY
SAND
GRAVEL
R0.200
sive I maws
comae rise J COARSE
s
COBBLES
NO40 NaO N0.♦ Sy3e. 112.0
u. S. S T A N O A R D SIEVE Si E
BOULDERS
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Reference :
ire United Sal Classifi:ohm System, Cups of
enemas. U.S. Army Tedinicai MNlnatondum No.3-357.
MN. 1, Mardi. 1953. (Ransil April. 1960)
LAW
C
RANDALL,
INC.
p, err A.9
M
c
0
JOB AE-E4159
z
6
0
SHEAR STRENGTH in Pounds per Square Foot
1000 2000 3000 4000 50J0
amao "it;
3s/2
3:/e•
000
• 2r/2
0
2e/5 /t/4
3a9,
111
BORING NUMBER
SAMPLE DEPTH
B
(ET.)
/e20 ds//
•30/2 2B/2
•?P/5
• /®/G
9
VALUES
IN ANALYSES
USED
IIIII
KEY:
• Tests at field moisture content
o Tests at increased moisture content
DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA
(PRIOR JOB AE-84159)
LEROY CRANDALL B ASSOCIATES
PLATE A•9.1
0
0
SHEAR STRENGTH in Pounds per Square Foot
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
53Cc
\y'"a
incsACes 0
a@73t
•sae
•I.U.e
•
•9e-s
c91•S
,iii.,m z:
PPOP05EC NJRS!N'G vr:NG
98
•6Qd
•_4Rir� 4
�i•
I rte F6/5
•
1
30Rd:5 \J :'BER 8
:dP_E LE- -i ;.T
,'S.:1 .
O^+ 23
•
•
\
r: 20
•aa27
I
I
&% 36
• `
I
1
I/
VALUES USED_.;
.N AN.L YSES
ea./ \
•
I
KEY.
• Tests of field moisture content
o Tests ct increased moisture content
DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA
(PRIOR JOB A-69080)
LEROY CRANDALL 8 ASSOCi.TES
PLATE A-3.2
:S
2
0
•
a
U
z
NCHES PER
NSOLIDATION
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
J.07
LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
0.5 0.6 07 0.8 0.9 IA
0
70 8A
.
(POSSIBLE
1
Boring 1 at
SILTY CLAY
WEATHERED
i
35'
SHALE)
f
__
Boring-2
(POSSIBLE
at
SILTY CLAY
WEATHERED
15'
SHALE)
•
•
r /
A
NOTE: Samples tested at field moisture content.
CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA
(PRIOR .JOB AE-B4159)
LARDY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES
01 ATC A A
CONSOLIDATION
as
LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
0.6 0.8 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 60 8.0 1
,O
I
�‘'...
I
T
,
' rSILTY
F
i
boring
t f
3 at
CLAY
I
15'
I
--
4__
1
Bo
ing 4 of
SAND
27i
1
I
NOTE: Samples tested at field moisture content.
CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA
(PRIOR JOB A-69080)
LEROY CRANDALL 8 ASSOC i ATES
.0
0
Y
0
u
1
tsI
0
4
04
0
0.01
— 0.02
cc
W
a.
U1
0.0.5
CONSOLIDATION
0.04
0.0
0.0
0.0
LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
0.6 0.8 i.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
6.0 8.0 10.0
20.0 30.0
....•
fill
1 1 l 1
I
I
[
1 1
Boring 5 at
SILTY SAND
i
f
4'
\
N
I
\
1
I
j1
I
1
Boring
I SANDY
I
6 at 30'
SILT
J i
I
1
NOTE: Water added to sample from Eoring 5 after consolidation
under o load o 3.6 kips per squa e foot The other
sample tested at field moisture content.
CONSOLIDATION TEST DMA
(PRIOR JOB A-690803
LEROV CRANDALL a ASSOC ATES
RECEIVED
hAJ; 0 3 1394
FACIL11ILS DESkJN
& CONSTRUCTION
February 16. 1994
LAW/CRANDALL, INC.
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
P/c, 197&--9
75/
Ala/ h ,....eT K
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
301 Newport Boulevard
Box 6100
Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 (O92072.AB)
Attention: Mr. Gunther Kilfoil. A.I.A.
Project Manager
Ladies/Gentlemen:
Supplementary Geotcchnical Recommendations
Proposed Cardiac Services Addition
301 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach. California
As requested by Mr. Gunther Kilfoil, A.I.A., this letter presents supplementary
recommendations for grading the area of the proposed cardiac services addition. It also
presents recommendations for excavation and design of a shoring system. We provided
geotechnical consultation services for the project and submitted our findings and
recommendations in a report dated December 16, 1992 (Our Job No. O92072.AB).
Subsequently, we submitted a letter dated February 9. 1994 that presented the results of
supplementary explorations at the site and our opinion regarding the applicability of those
findings to our 1992 report.
The professional opinions presented in this letter have been developed using that degree of
care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances. by reputable geotcchnical
consultants p :icing in this or similar localities. No other warranty. expressed or implied.
is made as to the professional advice included in this letter.
lVe stated in our 1992 report that the existing till soils should be excavated and properly
recornpacted. We also stated that the proposed addition may be supported on spread footings
established in the resulting properly compacted fill or the underlying undisturbed natural soils,
and that the floor slab of the addition may be supported on grade.
200 CITADEL DRIVE • LOS ANGELES. CA 90040
(213) 889-5300 • FAX (213) 721-6700
OPIEOFTME Law commons
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian February 16, 1994
Page 2 (O92072.AB)
SOIL CONDITIONS
Existing fill soils, 2 to 13 feet in thickness, were encountered in the borings and test pits at the
site. The locations of the borings and test pits, with the depth of fill encountered at each
location, arc shown on Plate 1, Plot Plan. The fill consists of silty sand, clayey sand, and clay
with varying amounts of debris. The fill does not appear to be uniformly well compacted, and
documentation regarding the placement of the fill is not available. The natural soils
underlying the fill consist of sandy clay. Details of the test pits are presented on Plates 2.1
through 2.3, Logs of Test Pits.
RECOMMENDATIONS
GRADING
General
The existing fill soils are not considered suitable for support of the proposed addition on
spread footings. After clearing the site, the existing fill soils within the proposed building area
should be excavated. The base of the excavation should extend ; least 5 feet beyond the
building in plan, where possible. Beyond the 5-foot setback, the excavation may be sloped
back at 1:1 or flatter. Care should be taken when excavating adjacent to the existing hospital
building to avoid undermining the existing foundations and floor slab. Adjacent to the existing
building, and where space is not available for deep, sloped excavations, shoring will be
required. Recommendations for shoring arc presented in a following section.
The finished exterior grades should be sloped to drain away from the addition to minimize
ponding of water adjacent to the foundations and floor slab of the addition.
Compaction
After excavating the existing fill soils as recommended, the exposed natural soils should be
scarified to a depth of 6 inches and mllcd with heavy compaction equipment. The upper
6 inches of exposed natural soils should be compacted to at lean 90% of the maximum dry
density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557-78 method of compaction. All required
fill should be placed in loose lifts not more than 8 inches in thickness and compacted to at
least 90%. It is recommended that the moisture content of the sands at the at the time of
compaction vary no more than 2% below or 2% above optimum moisture content. The
moisture content of the clay soils should be brought to about 4% over optimum moisture
content.
Material for Fill
The on -site soils, less any debris or organic matter within the existing fill, may be used in
compacted fills. The clayey soils should not be used within 1 foot of the subgn le beneath
concrete slabs -on -grade.
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyteri,r February 16, 1994
Page 3 (O92072.A8)
Field Observation
The reworking of the upper soils and the compaction of all required fill should be observed
and tested by a representative of our firm. This representative should have at least the
following duties:
Observe the clearing and grubbing operations to assure that all unsuitable
materials have been properly removed.
Observe the exposed subgrade in areas to receive fill and in areas where
excavation has resulted in the desired finished subgrade, observe proof -rolling,
and delineate areas requiring overexcavation.
Perform visual observation to evaluate the suitability of on -site and import
soils for fill placement; collect and submit soil samples for required or
recommended laboratory testing where necessary.
Perform field density and compaction testing to determine the percentage of
compaction achieved during fill placement.
Observe and probe foundation bearing materials to confirm that suitable
bearing materials are present at the design grades.
The governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project should be notified prior to
commencement of grading so that the necessary grading permits may be obtained and
arrangements may be made for the required inspection(s).
SHORING
General
Where there is not sufficient space for sloped embankments, cantilevered shoring will be
required. Adjacent to the existing building, shoring may be required to avoid unde.mining the
foundations and floor slab of the adjacent existing building. The shoring could consist of steel
soldier piles placed in drilled holes and backfilled with concrete. The following information
on the design and installation of the shoring is as complete as possible at this time. We can
furnish any additional required data as the design progresses. Also, we auggcst that our firm
review the final shoring plans and specifications prior to the owner's bidding or negotiating
with a shoring contractor.
Lateral Pressures
For design of cantilevered shoring, a triangular distribution of lateral earth pressure may be
used. It may be assurned that the retained natural soils with a level surface behind the cantile-
vered shoring will exert a lateral earth pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a
density of 30 pounds per cubic foot.
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian February 16, 1994
Page 4 (O92072.AB)
In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper 10 feet of shoring adjacent to the
streets should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot,
acting as a result of an assumed 300 pounds per square foot surcharge behind the shoring due
to normal street traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet from the shoring, the traffic
surcharge may be neglected. The shoring system should also be designed to support the
lateral surcharge loads imposed by the foundations cf the adjacent existing buildings.
Design of Soldier Piles
For the design of soldier piles spaced at least two diameters on centers, the allowable lateral
bearing value (passive value) of the soils below the level of excavation may be assumed to be
500 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth, up to a maximum of 4,000 pounds per square
foot. To develop the full lateral value, provisions should be taken to assure firm contact
between the soldier piles and the undisturbed soils. The concrete placed in the soldier pile
excavations above the planned excavation level may be a lean -mix concrete. However, the
concrete used in that portion of the soldier pile which is below the planned excavated level
should be of sufficient strength to adequately transfer the imposed Toads to the surrounding
soils.
The coefficient of friction between the soldier piles and the retained earth may be taken as
0.4. (This value is based on the assumption that uniform full bearing will be developed
between the steel soldier beam and the lean -mix concrete and between the lean -mix concrete
and the retained earth.) The soldier piles below the excavated level may also be used to resist
downward loads, provided that the portion of the soldier piles below the excavated level is
backfilled with structural concrete. The frictional resistance between the concrete soldier piles
and the soils below the excavated level may be taken as equal to 300 pounds per square foot.
Lagging
Continuous lagging will be required between soldier piles. The lagging should be placed as
the excavation proceeds. Timber lagging should be treated if it is to remain in place after
completion of the excavation.
The soldier piles should he designed for the full anticipated pressure. We recommend that
the lagging be designed for the lateral pressures recommended for the design of the soldier
piles.
The foundation design recommendations presented in our report of December 16, 1992 arc
still applicable.
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian February 16, 1994
Page 5
(O92072.AB)
We trust this letter satisfies your current needs. Please call if you have any questions or
require additional information.
Sincerely
LAW/CRANDALL, INC.
Paul R.'Schade
Senior Engineer
atymc
(2661.30689.0001)
Attachments:
Plot Plan
Logs of Test Pits
(4 copies submitted)
raz
Principal Engineer
cc
NKS
a
N
n
0
9-
'1
U
CV
w
Rd I. 'inn
s /
9L J
EX. RAISED No I% 2 i (9,) e
PLANTER 2 I/ (g'J C-L 2 `
ppwoy, 1/ i 6. Ah UO')
�.1 - / 6 ASPHALT
1 2 NP
EX 24'W
q !N!SHED FLOOR EL 63 84 1 r
PAD EL-63 3 1
m� 161 /� oe fS.PP
Ca JII 66 5 Ca cd
QW I N g RIDGE LINE.W—
i1I x
.0X CC T (In /L o_ _ -'
Li 0- ®' SEX/.L_ .- ASPY.AIT
36
3
o_ei 6c F -zZ1 /.CLL4.401 14./cid.z 4.t<114 72 „e
-
J _!� 63.45TC TC8/94 C o
EXIST. BUILDING LINE
PATIO
62.T5TC
6208F S
- —EX 24-w—
bey
KEY
(131 I •3 TEST PIT NUMBER AND LOCATION
(2681.30689.0001)
BORING NUMBER AND LOCATION
(109®'a (AE-84159)
(2.) ® 5 BORING NUMBER AND LOCATION
(A-69080)
L DEPTH OF EXISTING UNCOMPACTED FILL SOIL
63.21 TC
62.54 FS g
REFERENCE
GRADING LIMITS PLAN (DATED 1-31-94)
BY DAVID A. ROYLE ENGINEERING
PLOT PLAN
SCALE 1 20'
LAW/CRANDALL, INC. A
PLATE 1
0-
u
0
0
JOB 2681.30689.0001
ELEVATION (ft.)
60 —
55 —
50 —
0-
a
w
0
SAMPLE LOC.
5 —
10
15
DATE DRILLED:
EQUIPMENT USED
ELEVATION 63"
SM
TEST PIT 1
February 3, 1994
30" - Diameter Backhae
6" Asphalt Paving
FILL - SANDY CLAY and SILTY SAND - few pieces of asphalt, mottled brawn
Pieces of concrete
%/ CL Z SANDY CCLAY -E OF Nlight brown
wAL SOIL
0 0
J
ur
o-
O
SAMPLE LOC.
NOTE: Water not encountered. No caving.
Elevations are approximate and based on average site grade.
DATE DRILLED:
EQUIPMENT USED:
ELEVATION 63
TEST PIT 2
February 3, 1994
30" - Diameter Backhoe
oro
L c
m
� N
m
2 60—
o n
0
0 a
e -0
t
N 'c
= m
55
o —
a c
— N
L
m
O
50-
5
Of. SM
10 —
15
6" Concrete Slab
FILL - SANDY CLAY and SILTY SAND - some debris and organic matter,
mottled brown
—CLA SURFACE OF NATURAL SOIL
SANDY CLAY - light brown
NOTE: Water not encountered. No caving.
LOG OF TEST PIT
LAW/CRANDALL, INC A
PLATE 2.1
0
U
co
0-
u
O
81.30689.0001
m
0
r-
m
Ts
L_
m
0 N
('
0 E
1=60
U �
O
w
Q
m Co.,
a t
a o
m`0
L c
i C
N to
• 0
0 c
,ni m
m O
m m
am
CI.
t
N
O j
m
L O
C j
O m
N C
O
O 2
a 2
0 m
.0
m O
CO 0
t m
• c
a
co
a
O
3
a =
N
L
m
O
Z
crc a_
w
0
w
J
w
rn
DATE DRILLED:
EQUIPMENT USED:
ELEVATION 63
TEST PIT 3
February 3, 1994
30' - Diameter Backhoe
60 -
- 5
55 -
-10
S0 -
15
7, 7
if4
CL
CL
„jAsphal Paving - 4-Base Course
FILL - SANDY CLAY and SILTY SAND - few Gravel and Plebes of asphalt paving,
mottled brown
Some Silty Clay
+ SURFACE OF NATURAL SOIL
SANDY CLAY - light brown
NOTE: Water not encountered. No caving.
LOG OF TEST PIT
LAW/CRANDALL, INC A
PLATE 2.2
LAW/CRANDALL, INC.
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVI
July 8, 1994
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
301 Newport Boulevard, Box 6100
Newport Beach, California 92658-6100
Attention: Mr. Gunther M. Kilfoil
Gentlemen:
Interim Report of Compacted Fill
ardi` ac $ tees Add-M
301 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, Cali Ia
As of June 30, 1994, we approve the compacted fill placed for foundation and floor slab support of
the proposed building. Our approval is limited to the building area as shown on the attached Plot
Plan. The earthwork was performed during the period of June 23 through June 30, 1994, and in
accordance with the project specifications and the recommendations of our report of consultation
regarding foundation design dated December 16, 1992 (092072.AB), our letter of supplementary
explorations and applicability of prior report dated February 9, 1994 (092072.AB), and our letter of
supplementary geotechnical recommendations dated February 16, 1994 (092072.AB). The scope of
our services did not include either the responsibility for job safety or surveying. The grading work
was done to the limits and at the locations indicated by stakes and hubs set by others.
h/)
Grading Permit No. 1476-94
(2667.40451.0001)
We made observations and performed ASTM Designation D1556 (equivalent to UBC 70-2)
sand -cone field density tests as the job progressed. The results and approximate locations of the tests
are attached as a part of this report.
731 EAST BALL ROAD, SUITE 104 • ANAHEIM, CA 92805-5145
(714) 776-9544 • FAX (714) 776-9541
OMf a, ME NW COMPANIES
2667.40451.0001 Page 2
The specifications required that the fill be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density
obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557-78 (equivalent to UBC 70-1) method of compaction.
The following foundation design recommendations were presentcd in our report of consultation
regarding foundation design:
Spread footings for the addition supported in the undisturbed natural soils or properly
compacted fill, compacted to at least 90%, and extending at least 2 feet below the adjacent
grade or Jlobr level may be designed to impose a net dead plus live load pressure of 2,500
pounds per square foot.
Footings for minor structures (retaining walls less than about 5 feet in height, etc.) established in
the undisturbed natural soils or properly compacted fill may be designed to impose a net dead
plus live load pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot at a depth of 1 r/t feet below the adjacent
grade.
A one-third increase in the bearing values may be used for wind or seismic loads.
We will submit a final report providing the locations and results of all tests and observations when
the soil -related work for the project is completed.
After the site was stripped and cleared, existing fill and disturbed natural soils were excavated from
the building area to depths ranging from approximately 6 feet to 14 feet. The excavation was carried
outside the building limits approximately 6 feet in plan, except at the northern portion where it
abutted against the existing building. Underground obstructions encountered during excavating were
removed. Following excavating, the resultant exposed soils were scarified to a depth of 6 inches,
brought to approximately optimum moisture content, and rolled with heavy compaction equipment.
The required fill soils, consisting of on -site silty sand, were then placed in loose lifts approximately
8 inches in thickness. The soils were brought to near optimum moisture content. The loose lifts
were compacted using a 955 and 963 track loaders.
The fill, at the locations and elevations tested by us, was compacted to at least the specified degree
of compaction. The geotechnical related work was performed in general conformance with the
project plans, specifications, and the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and is considered
suitable for the intended use.
2667.40451.0001 Page 3
The City of Newport Beach requires, prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy, a statement from the
geotechnical engineer that all subgrades supporting either concrete slabs -on -grade or asphaltic paving
have been observed for adequacy for the intended use. To comply with this requirement it is
essential that a representative of our firm observe all such subgrades so that we can confirm their
proper preparation. Our firm must observe the subgrade for all concrete slabs -on -grade and for
asphaltic paving, immediately prior to placement, so that our final report can provide the required
documentation to. the City of Newport Beach.
In providing professional geotechnical observation and testing services associated with the develop-
ment of the project, we have employed accepted engineering and testing procedures, and have made
every reasonable effort to ascertain that the soil -related work was carried out in general compliance
with the project plans and specifications. Although our observation did not reveal obvious deficie-
ncies, we do not guarantee the contractor's work, nor do the services performed by our firm relieve
the contractor of responsibility in the event of subsequently discovered defects in his work.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW/CRANDALL, INC.
C_C\Cm„,„;
Shahen Askari
Principal Engineer
Branch Manager
OCI-9/SW/sw
Attachments (3)
(4 copies submitted)
cc: (2) City of Newport Beach
Attn: Mr. Richard T. Higley
Grading Engineer
TEST RESULTS
Moisture Dry Maximum
Test Elevation Content Density Dry Density Percent Retest Date of
No. (ft.) (% of dry wt.) (lbs./cu. ft.) (lbs./cu. ft.) Compaction No. Testing
1 55 13.9 122 126 97 06/23/94
2 57 9.8 123 126 98 06/23/94
3 59 11.7 124 126 98 06/23/94
4 611/2 12.4 121 126 96 06/27/94
5 53 11.4 118 126 94 06/27/94
6 541/2 12.2 118 126 94 06/27/94
7 51 11.7 124 126 98 06/27/94
8 561/2 12.5 123 126 98 06/27/94
9 52 10.7 115 126 91 06/28/94
10 50 16.6 111. 122 91 06/28/94
11 55 11.2 121 126 96 06/28/94
12 581/2 10.3 113 126 90 06/28/94
13 61 9.9 115 126 91 06/28/94
14 62 11.4 124 126 98 06/29/94
15 63 12.9 114 126 90 06/30/94
NOTE: Elevations refer to job datum.
2667.4045l.900l/rhL4/0C3l59//ak 07/0/94
Pagel
COMPACTION TEST DATA
Soil Type
Source
Maximum
Dry Density*
(Ibs./cu. ft.)
Optimum
Moisture Content
f% of dry wt.).
Silty Sand
On -Site
126
10.0
Silty Sand
On -Site
122
11.0
NOTE: Maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM D1557-78 (equivalent to UBC 70-1)
method of compaction.
2681.20229.0001/i9120CI-9/6W/sw 05/10/94
HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIe
EXIST. BUILDING LINE
mei mom
II
Z II
II
Z
a a a-
3
m
EX. RAISED
PLANTER
PATIO
In
x 0*
W o f 0'1
ml mal
Cr1 ¢zI
6I YFI II I
U_
ml ctwl �•,
mo11 NI r-:
wl wa_ xI iI
I N, w ,I
II 1 iNN®I
v
2r 162.0gFC '62.021TC I61.951T6 ■1,
��\C 161EBIFS 61.691F5 1616___S \__ _ if
CONCRETE
PATIO
I I
CONCRETE
I I
I I
I_
%o°
co
°
—3'GAS— -
-_
Otir
OAX r.00
s
y rym� rs9 r�rr� �s\sv (rev'Fe
��—__—vir �.- l�1_-
L_
pi NI GM MIS
✓4
- --il—Ex 241
Exe
cup
aye J
�00 0'
14 '-
A SPb41.
15F.F. ELr
PAD EL:1?
tt
-to —EX
b%' 12 ASP 15III
5-5
LIMITS;
7•5C
aN
33.84
63.17
15'S
161.91
,LT•13 FG
Ex11' _
OF PAD
0
a
0
LL
O
H - -
EXIST. BUILDING LINE
r F.'
,---4 tt
to
oL
CJNZkETE
;
0;4
i I ;3
6). I m or -F.DT,E 'E
�A6P A T 4---.I
L_
'MI NI all
II if
AP XIMATE LIMI+S a '
,/ Di
ihTAS EgY.,)
II tfr'--
ou- ASGHALT
1.
--'y
13LOC:IFTT IN AND NUMBER ' s `°���
FIELD "DENSITT TEST
O/ o
^j- u_
Q/N
—3' GAS --`� -
e
i
Oro j6i
b;b %}'
NOTE:
THE FIELD DENSITY TEST LOCATIONS,
AS GRAPHICALLY SHOWN ON THIS PLOT
PLAN, ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY, AND DO
NOT REPRESENT PRECISE LOCATIONS.
4_PETE
REFERENCE:
ROUGH GRADING AND DEMOLITION
PLAN (DATED 3-9-94) BY DAVID A.
BOYLE ENGINEERING.
ADDRESS:
301 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
PLOT PLAN
CARDIAC SERVICES ADDITION
SCALE 1 Ir 20'
LAW/CRANDALL, INC
FINAL R.EPORT
GEOTECHNICAL INSPECTION SERVICES
DIAG SE
301 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
FORNIA
FOR
HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN
(2667.40451.0001)
LAW/CRANDALL, INC.
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ONE Of THE LAW COMPANIES
Mat
LAW/CRANDALL, INC.
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
March 14, 1995
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
301 Newport Boulevard, Box 6100
Newport Beach, California 92658-6100
Attention: Mr. Gunther M. Kilt'oii
Gentlemen:
Final Report -
Gcotechnical Inspection Services
Cardiac Services Addition
301 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California
SCOPE
Grading Permit No. 1476-94
(2667.40451.0001)
This report provides a formal record of our observation and testing of the compacted fill
placed to grade the site for the subject Cardiac Services Addition; confirmation of our
observation and approval of the excavations for the foundations is included. The location
of the site is shown in relation to an adjacent street and existing structures on the attached
Plot Plan. When requested we performed the geotechnical observation work during the
period of June 23 through September 28, 1994. The earthwork was performed in
accordance with the project specifications and the recornmendations of our report of
consultation regarding foundation design dated December 16,1992 (092O72.AB), our letter
dated February 9, 1994 (092O72.AB) of supplementary explorations and applicability of our
prior, and our letter of supplementary geotechnical recommendations dated February 16,
1994 (092072.AB)
731 EAST BALL ROAD, SUITE 104 • ANAHEIM, CA 92805-5145
1714) 776.9544 • FAX (714) 776.9541
ONE OF ME LAW COMMIES
(2667.40451.0001) Page 2
Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily
exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical engineers practicing in this
or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional
opinions included in this report. The scope of our services did not include either the
responsibility for job safety or the function of surveying. The grading work and the
foundation excavation work were done to the limits and at the locations indicated by stakes
and hubs set by others.
OBSERVATION AND TESTING OF COMPAL 1 F.D FILL
The grading work for the project consisted of placing compacted fill to grade the site for
the subject development and provide support for the building foundations and floor slab,
as well as subgrade support for adjacent walks and slabs. The earthwork also included
placing compacted soils as backfill in the trenches for storm drain and sewer line
installations. The specifications required that the fill and backfill be compacted to at least
90% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557-78
(equivalent to UBC 70-1) method of compaction.
The soils used for the required filling and backfillin , consisted of on -site silty sand.
Compaction tests were performed on representative soil samples to establish the maximum
dry density. The tests were performed in accordance with the specified method of
compaction, which uses a 1/30-cubic-foot mold in which each of five layers of soil is
compacted by 25 blows of a 10-pound hammer falling 18 inches. The results of the
co) npaction tests were used in establishing the degree of compaction achieved during and
aft r the placing of the fill and backfill.
After the site was stripped and cleared, existing fill and disturbed natural soils were
excavated from the building area to depths ranging from approximately 6 to 14 feet. The
excavation was carried outside the building limits approximately 6 feet in plan, except at the
(2667.40451.0001) Page 3
northern portion where it abutted the existing building. During excavation, underground
obstructions encountered were removed. Next, the resultant exposed natural soils were
scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to approximately optimum moisture content, and
rolled with heavy compaction equipment. The required fill materials were then placed in
thin, loose lifts approximately 8 inches in thickness, brought to nearly optimum moisture
content, and compacted. The loose lifts were compacted using 963 and 955 track loaders.
Moisture was added, when necessary, by spraying with a fire hose.
Areas that we observed to receive backfill were first cleared of construction debris and
loose soils; the required backlit' soils were then placed in thin, loose lifts approximately 8
inches in thickness, brought to nearly optimum moisture content, and mechanically
compacted using a backhoe with an impact attachment and hand -guided impact equipment.
To establish the degree of compaction achieved, ASTM Designation D1556 (equivalent to
UBC 70-2) sand -cone field density tests were made as the filling and backfilling progressed.
The results of the field density tests are presented in the attached table, Test Results; the
approximate locations of the tests are shown on the Plot Plan.
An interim report on the compacted fill placed to grade the building area and to provide
foundation and floor slab support was issued on July 8, 1994.
OBSERVATION OF FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS
After completion of the building area filling, excavations were made for conventional spread
footings to support the building. When requested our field technician observed and probed
the footing excavations to verify that the soils were properly compacted fills or undisturbed
natural materials recommended for foundation support. Loose soils were removed from
the excavations prior to our approval. After our observations indicated satisfactory condi-
(2661.40451.0001) Page 4
tions, written notice of our approval was left at the job site for the information of
responsible parties.
The following foundation recommendations were presented in our report of consultation
regarding foundation design:
Spread footings for the addition supported in the undisturbed natural soils or
properly compacted fill, compacted to at least 90%, and extending at least 2 feet
below the adjacent grade or floor level may be designed to impose a net dead
plus live load pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot.
Footings for minor .structures (retaining walls less than about 5 feet in height,
etc.) established in the undisturbed natural soils or properly compacted fill may
be designed to impose a net dead plus live load pressure of 1,500 pounds per
square foot at a depth of 11/1 feet below the adjacent grade.
A one-third increase in the bearing values may be used for wind or seismic loads.
CONCLUSIONS
This final report is limited to the earthwork performed through February 28, 1994, the date
of our last observation and/or testing of the soil -related work for the project.
The fill and backfill, at the locations and elevations tested by us, were compacted to at least
the specified degree of compaction. Also, the foundation excavations we observed were
made in accordance with the project plans. Based on our observations, we are satisfied that
the subgrade for the concrete slabs and walks were prepared in accordance with the project
plans and specifications. The geotechnical related work was performed in general
conformance with the project plans, specifications, and the City of Newport Beach
Municipal Code and is considered suitable for the intended use.
In providing professional geotechnical observations and testing services associated with the
development of the project, we have employed accepted engineering and testing procedures
(2667.40451.0001)
Page 5
and have made every reasonable effort to ascertain that the soil -related work we observed
was carried out in general compliance with the project plans and specifications. Although
our observation did not reveal obvious deficiencies, we do not guarantee the contractor's
work, nor do the services performed by our firm relieve the contractor of responsibility in
the event of subsequently discovered defects in his work.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW/CRANDALL, INC.
-
Shahen Askari
Principal Engineer
David Atkinson
Project Manager
OCI-11/SW/sw
Attachments (3)
(4 copies submitted)
cc: (2) Millie and Severson, Inc.
Attn: David Keenan
(2) City of Newport Beach
Attn: Mr. Richard T. Higley
Grading Engineer
pPOEESS1047
7``�y�''P\EN As '`rye+
i
cc No.101 `�
* Exp. 12.31-97
LP c.
TEST RESULTS
Moisture Dry Maximum
Test Elevation Content Density Dry Density Percent Retest Date of
No. (ft.) (% of dry wt.) (lbs./cu. ft.1 (Ibs./cu. ft.). Compaction No. Testing
1 55 13.9 122 126 97 06/23/94
2 57 9.8 123 126 98 06/23/94
3 59 11.7 124 126 98 06/23/94
4 611/2 12.4 121 126 96 06/27/94
_. 5 53 11.4 118 126 94 06/27/94
6 541/2 12.2 118 126 94 06/27/94
7 51 11.7 124 126 98 06/27/94
8 561/2 12.5 123 126 98 06/27/94
9 52 10.7 115 126 91 06/28/94
10 50 16.6 111 122 91 06/28/94
11 55 11.2 121 126 96 06/28/94
12 581/2 10.3 113 126 90 06/28/94
13 61 9.9 115 126 91 06/28/94
14 62 11.4 124 126 98 06/29/94
15 63 12.9 114 126 90 06/30/94
16 61 8.8 118 126 94 08/26/94
17 601/2 11.0 117 126 93 09/15/94
18 52 13.0 120 126 95 09/15/94
19 621/2 13.4 118 126 94 09/16/94
20 63 11.2 115 126 91 09/16/94
21 63 9.5 122 126 97 09/16/94
22 62 9.9 125 126 99 09/21/94
23 61 14.0 119 126 94 09/22/94
24 611/2 9.9 115 126 91 09/22/94
25 63 11.1 121 126 96 09/23/94
26 63 10.0 116 126 92 09/23/94
27 611 9.9 116 126 92 09/28/94
28 62 11.1 122 126 97 09/28/94
29 62 10.2 116 126 92 09/28/94
NOTE: Elevations refer to job datum.
9E59.40451.0001/ EL V0aI11/DNmE 03/15/95
COMPACTION TEST DATA
Soil Type
Source
Maximum
Dry Density*
(lbs./cu. ft.)
Optimum
Moisture Content
f % of dry wt.)
Silty Sand
On -Site
122
11.0
Silty Sand
On -Site
126
10.0
NOTE: * Maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM D1557-78 (equivalent to UBC 70-1)
method of compaction.
2667.i W 51.0001/ihl2/IXt.11/S W /,w 03/13/95
•
PATIO
CONCRETE
HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIA
CA
wll
162.011% (62.0217G 16195ITC
\E' l$1,68iF5 \ i61,691FS 161.621F5 �— Ipl ~EX 6W
x
co
--EX 24'N
•
y bo \ �
—r— 0—+----i - F
6.50
16
tc4t_
— iF.
-0.
o y\u
y1 4
.. 4
a
LL
EXIST, BUILDING LINE
-®I®®
!' 17
LIMITS OF' GRADING
LIMITS OF1 PAD
CONCR: TE
PA YO fr=1` _ _ -s
:: II Ex taw- -�
—?i r
1.
25
o 14'. 5
.. ASPHSi:T'.
15 F.F.
24PAO EL
ti Ex 1=
' 12 asPnA*.
LIMITS
—Ex 24•V
A
' ' O Vti
+� x/4y 2.00 r 1''4y k 2.5c �'by
mot- 1
-1 Ii F- y.1
-/- f -o-EX 6-EX ti
m 5 v
b R
h�
-- —
b1\
✓4
CUR"
.3
9
5
�3.84
63.17"
15'S- g1 191
ET.13 FG
x1A°1--
OF PAD
EXIST. BUILDING LINE
CONCRETE
{oil.
J
I a.
I J.58L co
-ED"E _w_R_T_
NOTE
NOTE
THE FIELD DENSITY TEST LOCATIONS,
AS GRAPHICALLY SHOWN ON THIS PLOT
PLAN, ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY, AND DO
NOT REPRESENT PRECISE LOCATIONS.
A SPHALT - — — i
L_
e
AP KOXIMATE LIMI+S e s
• OE _GRADING/ E*
ASHEIjY „�'
Ir.-Ex 4'W—
FIEL0'"6ENSITY TEST
5 m°O4
eEQ16iTfON AND NUMBERS'* °j
e..J, l/b j }•
—3' GAS :90 �.
r
m
% 24'W —
KEY TO TRENCHES: (APPROx. LOCATIONS)
STORM DRAIN
SEWER
REFERENCE
ROUGH GRADING AND DEMOLITION
PLAN (DATED 3-9-94) BY DAVID A.
BOYLE ENGINEERING.
ADDRESS:
301 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
PLOT PLAN
CARDIAC SERVICES ADDITION
SCALE 1 :20'
LAW/CRANDALL
ate®
301 NEWPORT BLVD GPC2277-94
cEc 30 '94 ea: 37AM LAW CRANDPLL, INC.
LAW/CRANDALL, INC.
FNOINF FNINO ANO zNNrNONsEN}AF MUM
December 28, 1994
Mr. Guns erM- Rilf®il, ALA.
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
Fealties Design & Construction
301, Newport Boulevard, Box 6100
Newport Beach, California 92658-6100
V
ARK e.1lN,Wyti,i
rytae fsa'ras
7'' 2
Subjex: Pavernert Design
Emergency Care Unit Parking Lot
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
Newport Bach, California
Dear Mr. Kufotil:
P.1
24a6.4043.s.0001
At your request Law/Crandall (Ltd) has developed asphalt concrete (AC) and pore'and cement
concrete (per.) pavement seraon_s for the subject parking lot. The subgade soil was sampid
November 18, 199d as par, of our pavement candidon survey.
The purpose of the samplL.. etas to obtain information to design a pavement stucu:al section.
Our I"ofessional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily
exercised, under similar circumstance, by reputable construction materials consultants practicing
in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the
professional advice included la this report.
ASPHALT CONCRETE STRUCTURAL SECTION
To assist in determining a pavement strucarrai section, an 'R•-value test was conducted on the soil
sample. The pavement structural section was determined using Caltrans' design manual for flexible
pavements. It is our understanding that the existing parking lot is to be removed and replaced with
a reconfigured parking lot tying into the west service road. The soil conditions encountered are
similar to the west service road and the stone structural sec ion may be used for both the west
service road and the ECU parking lot.
Np eN Nat CI • uN e103a a am
919 pests, ns a1N51LnCO
VI O Kwwr,N a
DEC 30 '94 03:37AM LAW CRANDALL. INC.
P.2
Ada Cevtar EVdt, &q uswertd llapdmt Presbyterian Drerndn ?d, !99/
Ptrwene hameodaXw
2406.40455.Ct101
The rrommended section b as follows:
Thickness `C o
UCUL
2' AC surGee
3' AC base
10° 3/4' aggregate base
An alternative asphalt rubber hot mix (ARHM) is as follows:
Thleknesa Cam
1.5" ARRM surface
2.5" AC base
10.3" 3/4' aggregate base
This section has been previously submitted and is based an an R-value of 19 and a 'i'! of 7. As
discussed with Mr. Gunther Kilfoil, a TI of 7 will be used for the west service road and the ECU
parking lot. The base should be Caimans Class 2 and compacted to at least 95% of he maximum
laboratory density as determined by ASTM Di557.
PORTI"AND CEMENT CONCRETE CROSSING AND CURB AND GUTTER
A Portland cement concrete crossing sedon was designed using the Portland Cement Association's
Thickness Design for Concrete Highway and Street Pavements design manual and computer
program. We recommend an 8' thick unreinforced PCC pavemem an a minimum of 3" of base.
This design is based on a subgrade Revalue of 19 and heavy traffic loading. For the curb and
gutter, we recommend a Caltrans Type A monolithic curb -n:,. gutter on a minimum of 3 inches
of base. All base material should be Caitrans Class 2, compacted to at least 95% of the maximum
laboratory density as determined by ASTM 01557. To simplify construction, a thicker base
section may be used. The concrete should conform to Caltrans Standard Specifications section 90
except as modified below.
2
DEC 30 '54 08:38PM LAW CRANDAL , INC.
P.3
Mr. 6rdier Md. Hay Memorial Hwldal Presbyterian D.e.,.6,r 22. 1994
Pavement Retamnmdadav 2434e41ss.020/
Max Design
The concrete mix design should be in accordance to ACI-301 WW1 the following parameters.
• Design strength- 650 psi flexural strength
• Maximum slump e
• Minimum portend cement content- 6 sacks/cubic yard
• Maximum w/c ratio- 0.55 tbsflb
• A. water reducing admixture is required
• Approximate aggregate gradation proportions
Washed Concrete Sand- 42%
Coarse Aggregate 1'- 46%
Coarse Aggregate 3/8'- 12%
Cu ig
Proper curing is essential for a quality r :.emem. A Coltrane approved curing compound should
be applied after finishing oprations are complete and immediately before the moisture sheen
disappears from the surface but shall not be applied over free standing water. All traffic should
be I..pt off the anerete for a minimum or 7 days ther the coo el. the has been placed. Heavy trucks
should be kept off the concrete for a minimum of 28 days after the concrete has been placed.
Central and Construction joints
Control joints should be soft cut as loop as possible after the concrete has set (approximately 2
hoars). Conventional wet saw the concrete to a depth of 1 1/2 inches and clean prior to the
application of joint filler. Joints should be cut so the pavement is divided into sections no greater
than 15'. Saw cut joints shall be filled with a Coltrane approved joint filler. Metall joint filler to
the full depth of the joint, flush wiLi the top of the pavemenv. On construction jo'r-
recommend 3/4" diameter, 24' lotg, smooth dowel bars 18' on center. One end t.E.0 be
ground smooth and greased to allu;„ movement. The dowels should be placed mid depth in the
stab. In areas where water will sheet drain from the AC onto the PCC, the PCC should be slightly
lower than the AC to prevent collection and infiltration of water at the joint. At locations where
the PCC will sheet drain to the AC, the PCC should be slightly higher.
3
DEC 30 '94 ea:3EPM LFW CRANDALL. INC.
eh. Gather WA Hoag Menneea( Hared Pnebwxfaa
Matey k ee.wwNaanr
Mom let us know if you have any questions..
Sincerely,
LAW/CRANDALL, INC.
David C. Wilson
Staff Engineer
DVIeafRMNDCW
4
P.4
December 28. IHe
DOS IOW. I
tufm/2:TIFI. OW C.P 128
Principal Engin
LAW/CRANDALL, INC.
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
May 5, 1995
Mr. Leif Thompson, A.I.A.
Facilities Desien and Construction
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
301 Newport Boulevard, Box 6100
Newport Beach. California 92658-6100
('s'Li9 `i 0
?AYLOR & P SSCC. ARCHiTLCIS
Subject: Supplemental Grading Recommendations
Proposed ECU Paving Improvements
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
Newport Beach, California
Law/Crandall Project 2407.40435.0001
Dear Mr. Thompson:
As requested Sy Mr. Michael Cunningimm of Taylor & Associates. this letter presents
supplemental grading recommendations for the proposed emergency care unit (ECU) paving
improvements. We performed paving studies of the site and presented recommendations for
asphalt and portland concrete cement in a letter dated December 28. 1994. We have be on provided
with the civil drawings for the project (three sheets) by David A. Boyle Engineering. dated
December 9. 1994.
The professional opinions presented in this letter have been developed usine that degree of care and
skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants
practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied. is made as to the
professional advice included in this letter.
Proper compaction of the pavement subgrade soils is recommended to provide good support for
paving. The preparation of the pavement subgrade should he done immediately prior to the
placement of any base course or paving. Good drainage of the paved surface must be provided
to reduce infiltration of water into the subgrade soils.
After clearine the site, the exposed soils should be proofrolled and carefully inspected to verify the
removal of all unsuitable deposits. Next, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 6
inches. brought to about optimum moisture content, and rolled with heavy compaction equipment.
The upper 6 inches of exposed soils should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum density
obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557-78 method of compaction. The moisture content of
the soils should be within 2% of the optimum moisture content.
After compacting the exposed soils, any required fill should be placed in loose lifts not more than
8 inches in thickness and compacted to at least 90%. The moisture content of the soils at the time
of compaction should be within 2% of optimum moisture content.
200 CITADEL DRIVE • LOS ANGELES. CA 90040
(213) 889-5300 • FAX (213) 721.6700
C IIE OFt Euw CCY41MiEs 21
- - Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
May 5, i995
Page 2
The on -site soils, less any debris or organic matter, may be used in the required fills. The existing
concrete and asphalt pavement at the site may he reused as part of the compacted fill. The
concrete and asphalt paving should be crushed to a size not exceeding 1 inch in maximum
dimension. The crushed paving should be mixed thoroughly with soil such that the crushed paving
does not exceed 40% of the total volume of the mixture. This ratio should he checked in the field
to assure that no voids will develop within the compacted fill. In addition, the crushed paving may
be used as part of the proposed pavement base course. Such base course should meet the latest
specifications for public works construction. Any required imported fill should consist of relatively
non -expansive soils with an Expansion Index of less than 35. and an R value of at least 20.
We recommend that the site preparation activities be conducted under the observation of a
representative of our firm.
Please call if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely.
LAW/CRANDALL, INC.
/1746
Paul R. Schade
Senior Engineer
o61/40435/cIy
(1 copy submitted)
cc: Taylor & Associates
Attn: Mr. Michael Cunningham
David A. Boyle Engineering
Attn: Mr. Joseph Boyle
))fl&
Barry J. Meyer
Chief Engineer
artarairmenta
301 NEWPORT BLVD GPC 1465-94
P/C 1445 - 9Y
NCO LEMAN GEOTECHNICAL
3002 DOW AVENUE, SUITE 414
TUSTIN, CA 92680
PHONE (714) 573.6776 FAX (714) 573.0438
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
September 30, 1994
GeoRemediation, Inc.
3002 Dow Avenue, Suite 414
Tustin, CA 92680
Attention: Mr. Gary Carlin
Subject: Review Shee€Respenees-
�Somu�l�fu��r Treatment Facilities
°tMemorial Hospital Presbyterian
Superioi•Avenue and West Coast Highway
Newport Beach, CA
City Plan Check No. 1465-94
3f'i
dePiement Design
References:1. Geotechnical Investigation prepared by this firm dated September 17,
1992.
2. Mitigation Measures 1 & 2 response letter dated July 20, 1994.
3. Review Sheet prepared by city of Newport Beach (last page transmitted
to this office by David A. Boyle Engineering).
Dear Mr. Carlin:
This letter presents our responses to a review sheet prepared by the city of Newport
Beach and presents pavement design criteria for the approach area to the scrubber
facility.
REVIEW SHEET RESPONSE
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
1) The geotechnical report by Coleman Geotechnical dated July 20, 1994 shall also be
signed by the Engineering Geologist,
RESPONSE
Attached to this letter is a copy of our July 20, 1994 letter which has been signed
by the Engineering Geologist.
1132res.gw
Page 1
OCT 041994
Pavia A. Boyle Engr.
2) Provide a grading and foundation plan review rrom the project Soil Engineer and
Engineering Geologist.
RESPONSE
The undersigned engineer and geologist have reviewed the grading and founda-
tion plans for the subject project. The plans have been found to be in compliance
with the recommendations presented in our geotechnical investigation.
PAVEMENT DESIGN
Soil samples were obtained at the site and transported to our laboratory. The stability of
the soil at the site has beer determined by performing "R" Value tests in accordance
with California Test Method '01G. The results of the tests are as follows:
Location "R" Value
Approach Area 5
Based on the test results and our estimate of traffic conditions .f a reported 51,000
pound gross weight of the typical 5 axle vacuum truck, the following pavement section
has been computed in accordance with State of Califomia design procedures:
Pavement Traffic Pavement
Area Index —TI Section
Heavy Truck Driveways 5.0 4" AC over 9" AB
It is assumed in these designs that the subgrade soils immediately below the aggregate
base will be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.
Unless otherwise specified by others, aggregate base should conform to either Pro-
cessed Miscellaneous Base as per the Standard Specifications for Public Works Con-
struction, latest edition or Class II Aggregate Base as per Caltrans Specifications, latest
edition. Aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum
density determined in accordance with California Test Method 216.
Unless otherwise specified by others, asphaltic concrete (AC) should conform to Section
39 of the State of California, Caltrans Standard Specifications, latest edition. Asphaltic
concrete should be Type B, 1/2 inch maximum size, medium graded.
It should be noted that grading of the project may alter the distribution of the subgrade
soils and, as such, additional testing will be needed after grading to finalize the pave-
ment designs.
This pavement design may be subject to approval by the governing agency who may
have minimum sections in excess of those presented above.
1132res.gw Page 2
We trust that these responses and design criteria are suitable. Please call if there are
any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
COLEMAN GEOTECHNICAL
iames R. Coleman
G.E. 229
Paul Davis
C.E.G.320
ceEssioN
a
�? Q No GE 229
PAUI, DAVIS
No. EG s20
CERTIFIED
D EN1:INEERING
"L. LOGIST `yQ
1132res.gw Page 3
COLEMAN GEOTECHNICA!: �y�5 ��
3002 DOW AVENUE, SUITE 414
TUSTIN, CA 92680
PHONE (714) 573.5778 FAX (714) 573-0438
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
October 4, 1994
GeoRemediation, Inc.
3002 Dow Avenue, Suite 414
Tustin, CA 92680
Attention: Mr. Gary Carlin
Subject: Gravel Area Pavement Design
Sulfur Treatment Facilities
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway
Newport Beach, CA
City Plan Check Na 1465-94
References:1. Geotechnical Investigation prepared by this firm dated September 17,
1992.
2. Mitigation Measures 1 & 2 response letter dated July 20, 1994.
3. Review Sheet Response letter prepared by this firm dated September
30, 1994.
Dear Mr. Carlin:
This letter presents pavement design criteria for the approach area to the scrubber
facility.
PAVEMENT DESIGN
Based on tht est results presented in our September 30, 1994 letter and our estimate
of traffic cone:bons of a repo; - d 51,000 pound gross weight of the typical 5 axle va-
cuum truck, the following gravel pavement section has been computed in accordance
with State of California design procedures:
Pavement Traffic Pavement
Area Index - TI Section
Heavy Truck Driveways 5.0 12" AB over Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric (or
approved equal)
1132gray.gw
RECEIVED
OCT 0 41994
Pageulmitl A. Boyle hngr.
•� o
It is assumed in this design that the subgrade soils immediately below the aggregate
base will be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.
Unless otherwise specified by others, aggregate base should conform to either Pro-
cessed Miscellaneous Base as per the Standard Specifications for Public Works Con-
struction, latest edition or Class II Aggregate Base as per Caltrans Specifications, latest
edition. Aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum
density determined in accordance with California Test Method 216.
The Mirafi 140 filter fabric, or approved equal, should be placed as recommended by the
manufacturer after compaction of the subgrade soils.
This pavement design may be subject to approval by the governing agency who may
have minimum sections in excess of those presented above.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of further service on this project. Please call if
there are any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
COLEMAN GEOTECHNICAL
James R. Coleman
G.E. 229
pP0fEss,04, C\
he1,..,
S R. C0
Fy
ti
No. GE 229 y
Er'
1132gray.gw Page 2
Pit 1 511
COLEMAN GEOTECHNICAL
3002 DOW AVENUE, SUITE 414
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680
PHONE (714) 573-5776 FAX (714) 573-0438
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
'4'
July 20,1994
GeoRemediation, Inc.
3002 Dow Avenue, Suite 414
Tustin, CA 92680
Attention: Mr. Gary Carlin
Subject: Sulfur Treatment Facilities
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway
Newport Beach, CA
References:1. Geotechnical Investigation prepared by this firm dated September 17,
1992.
2. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Exhibit "A", Findings and
Conditions for Approval, Environmental Impact Report No. 142, Amend-
ment No. 744, Development Agreement No. 5, Traffic Study No. 81,
Variance No. 1180, as transmitted to our office on July 11, 1994.
Dear Mr. Carlin:
This letter presents our responses to Mitigation Measures 1 and 2, as shown on the
above referenced Planning Commission Exhibit "A". Their comments and our responses
are as follows:
MITIGATION MEASURE 1:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall document to the City of
Newport Beach Building Department that grading and development of the site shall be
conducted in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and with
plans prepared by a registered civil engineer. These plans shall incorporate the recom-
mendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist, subsequent to the comple-
tion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproduc-
ible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans shall be fumished to the Building
Department by the project sponsor.
1132mmItgw Page 1
ber 21, 1992. Although the location of the facilities have been moved slightly
from the locations planned at the time of our investigation, it is our opinion that
the conclusions and recur +mendations presented in Reference No. 1 are still
applicable for the currently planned project.
MITIGATION MEASURE 2:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall submit documentation to
the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all cut slopes shall be monitored for
potential instabilities by the project geotechnical engineer during all site grading and
construction activities.
RESPONSE:
This is to verify that this firm has been retained to monitor the proposed cut
slopes for the sulfur treatment facilities during grading and construction. Any
potential instabilities will be noted and appropriate actions taken to provide safe
conditions, both for the construction conditions and the long-term.
The opportunity to be of additional service is appreciated, Please call if there are any
questions.
Very truly,
COLEMAN GEOTECHNIC
imes R. Coleman
G.E. 229
Paul Davis
C.E.G-320
of ESS,04
g w �°C FZc
F' z
�
s. tc No. 3E 229 v
' r
f
rxr ii 2'-95
SrRFO�ECHp�c t
440F CAL1f0P
7
1132mmltgw Page 2
JUL 11 '94 16:32 DAVID
Cji2
f
GRU DOIK PE].. WRIGHT 714370523 TO:
Planning Co.,,,,,ieetnn 13.
(aoM l Ut E
TtW
SIT AND COND1Tlo 3 FOB APPROVAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 142
AMENDMENT NO. 744
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 5
TRAFFIC STUDY NO.81
VARIANCE NO.1180
714 573 0408 P01
A. Environmental impact Report No. I42
Findings:
1. That an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines and City Policy.
2. That all potential significant environmental effects which could result from the
project have been identified and analyzed in the E¢i.
3. That based upon the information contained in the Environmental P::act Report,
mitigation measures have been identified and incorporated into the project to reduce
potentially significant environmental effects to a level of insignificance, except in the
areas of Land Use and Construction Noise, and that the only remaining environmen-
tal effects are significant only op a cumulative basis. Further. that the economic and
social benefits to the community ovcrriV.. the remaining significant environmental
effect anticipated as a result of 'the project.
4. That the information containe}S in the Environmental Impact Report has been
considered in the various decisi$nns made relative to this project.
Mitigation Measures'
Prior to the issuance of a
City of Newport Beach Buildi
site shall be conducted in ace
Ordinance and with plans pr
incorporate the recommended
subsequent to the completion o
the site. Permanent reproduce
shall be furnished to the Buildi
g permit, the project sponsor shall document to the
Department that grading and development of the
rdance with the City of Newport Beach Grading
ed by a registered civil engineer. These plans shall
ns of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist,
a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of
le copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans
g Department by the project sponsor.
JUL 11 '94 16:32 DRUID 6 LTFSCHY Py 4RIGHr 714377E583 TO:
Planning Conunission - 14.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall submit documen-
tation to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all cut slopes shall be
monitored for potential instabilities by the project geotechnical er ^ulcer during all
site grading and construction activities.
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shalt conduct compre•
hensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. This investigation shall also
identify construction excavation techniques which ensure no damage and mitilmize
disturbance to adjacent residents. This investigation shall provide verification of the
potential presence of the Balco and unnamed faults on site. All recommendations
contained in this investigation shall be incorporated into project construction and
design plans. A copy of this investigation shall be submitted to the City for review.
4. Prior to the completion of the final design phase, the project sponsor shall demon-
strate to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be
designed and constructed to the most recent seismic standards applicable to hospital
related structures and as specified in the City adopted version of the Uniform Build-
ing Code.
3. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase of development, the project
sponsor shall ensure that geotechnical recommendations included in "Report of Geo-
technical Evaluation for Preparation of Master Plan and Environmental. Impact
Report, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Campus, 301 Newport Boulevard,
Newport, California" as prepared by LeRoy Crandall Associates, June, 1989, and in
the report prepared pursuant to Mitigation Measure 3, arc followed.
6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall conduct a soil
corrosivity evaluation This evaluation shall be conducted by an expert in the field
of corrosivity. The site evaluation shall be designed to address soils to at least the
depth to which excavation is planned. At a minimum, at least one sample from each
soil type should be evaluated. Appropriate personnel protection should be worn by
field personnel during the field evaluation. In the event soils are found to be
corrosive, the source and extent of the corrosive soils should be determined and fully
understood. This Is important for the development of midgation measures to control
the potential impact of corrosive soils over time.
7. Based on the corrosion assessment and source determination, a soils and construction
materal compatibility evaluation should also be undertaken, concluding with the
appropriate mitigation measures and designcriterla. Corrosion resistant construction
materials are commonly available and should be used where design specifications
require protection. Fnr example, there are many elastomers and plastics, hike PVC,
which are resistant to corrosion by up to 70 percent sulfuric acid at 140 degrees
Fahrenheit.
2220 UNIVERSITY NNE. SURE 200
NEWYNIT BEACH, GIIiOWA 12240
714.524.1225 FAX 714.9211250
ARCHREcmIE AND INTEEIGR DESIGN
TAYLOR
'(cures
nlnI
PROJECT
Pic, I N105-cY
SHEET /g OF /
BY
keie~
SUl pUK rca.-1 rdle lP PROJECT N0. sz 9 /9
DATE A'sG `914
7A . PV4AC. Ati) yyAci-s-*l T.'c
A'CSiC wens i 4 it f/t -
R,L^, c 2g/,G7
=o .! A oc L oC.c.2
5C G
, Se ,›
—� (%B `"F.84j /
5s6 =d•c2
Cd
< C4a
G= ZGort_;
OCT 0 4 1994
David A. Boyle Eng*.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.J. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92658-8915
SOILS REPORT REVIEW
G.P.C. No.: 1088-94 Date: October 12, 1994
(Use G.P.C. No. in all correspondence)
REPORT BY: Sladden Engineering
6782 Stanton Ave., Ste E
Buena Park, CA 90621
Job No.: 422-4088, Report Dated: October 7, 1994
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3050 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, California
REVIEWER: Rick Higley, Grading Engineer - Building Department
COMMENTS
1. Sladden Engineering is not on the City list of approved geotechnical firms.
Reports cannot be accepted from firms not on this list. For consideration,
please provide the resumes of the company principals demonstrating
experience n the field of geotechnical engineering and a laboratory resume
indicating access to appropriate equipment for performing a range of ASTM
soil tests.
2. The project soil engineer shall indicate that all foundation excavations were
inspected and approved.
3. Verify that all foundation soils were observed to be adequate for providing
the assumed bearing capacity of 1000 psf.
4. Indicate that all interior and exterior slab or grade areas were inspected and
approved.
5. Indicate that pavement subgrade, rock base and ac placement were
inspected, tested and approved.
6. Verify that the minimum pavement design section was installed.
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Sladden Engineering
October 12, 1994
Page Two
7. Verify that all fills were inspected, tested and approved.
8. Provide a positive approval statement such as ..:Based on our periodic
inspection and testing , it is our opinion that the site earthwork meets job
specifications as well as our recommendations and is suitable for its intended
use."
c: Clark Contractors, Inc.
COLEMAN GEOTECHNICAL
3002 DOW AVENUE, SUITE 414
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680
PHONE (714) 573-5776 FAX (714) 573-0438
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
GEOTECHNICA! REPORT OF PRECISE GRADING
Sulfur Treatment Vessel Pit
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
301 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA
Grading Plan Check No. 1465-94
Client:
GeoRemediation, Inc.
3002 Dow Avenue, Suite 414
Tustin, CA 92680
Attention: Mr. Ed Ceislak
Job No. 1132
December 7, 1994
14
•
COLEMAN GEOTECHNICAL DAILY REPORT OF
3002 DOW AVENUE. sun 414
TUSTW, CALIFORNIA 92660
GRADING CONTROL
JO®N j/fl
ORIENT
i/(��//"r-JD1_7
TIME i
DATE -!
JOB ADDRESS Cm L
3 / /fro-k a,/ /el
TEC,XW IIAN A
�1UJi(i i--�
P110:E EER
CJ�
tz . 66J0./>17 Y ')
GENERAL LOCATION L ,F/
PURPOSE OF FILL ORCNAATURE OF STRUCTURE TOSE SUPPORTED
DATE DAYOPWf[EEK
49/
GENERAL CONTRACTON"
—�
GRADING OR EARTITOJIKt TOR
X..--( r
DENSITY STANDARD
SLAYER ❑ GI.
GEN. CONTRACTOR'S SUPT.
/�.�
Jac S Lcivua .
SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL
WEATHE
1 _.L-
CHARGED TO PROJECT
TIME
TIME ACKNOWLEDGED
HAULING EQUIPMENT
SPREADING EQUIPMENT
WATERING EQUIPMENT ❑ HOSE ❑ GAL. TRUCK ❑ GAL. PULL
COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
�€
OTHER EQUIPMENT
LIFT THICKNESS
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF AREA S LNG WORKED ,MEETINGS. TRENCH WIDTHS AND DEPTHS FOR UTILITY LINE TESTS, ETC.
.VVISITORS.
�-e .uln-i G�.aO NiE,42A./Cx... ,fr
K / az— �1.caL /--
�OY / j2
/A o ',
'
re.
TEST
NO.
��I
r�
LOCATION
ELEVATIONS
FIELD
MOIST.
FIELD
DENS.
OPTIMUM
MOIST.
MAX
DENS.
%
COMPACT.
RETEST
REMARKS
TEST
NATURAL
FINAL
1 COPY SENT TOCLIENT .
CONGNUE00NN(XTPAGE u
PAGE OF
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Project Description 1
1.2 Scope of Work 1
2.0 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY 1
2.1 Pregrading Activities 1
2.2 Grading 1
3.0 TESTING PROCEDURES 1
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS 2
5.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 2ECOMMENDATIONS 2
5.1 Foundation Design and Construction 2
5.1.1 Vertical and Lateral Bearing 2
5.1 2 Seismic Design 3
5 2 Expansive Soils 3
5.3 Utility Trench Backfiil 3
5.4 Other Construction Considerations 4
6.0 OPINION OF COMPLIANCE AND CLOSURE
APPENDIX
Table of Test Results A
Test Locations B
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents :he results of our geotechnical observations and testing performed
during the precise grading on a portion of the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian property
located at 301 Newport Boulevard in the city of Newport Beach, California. Specifically, the
project is the new sulfur recovery project located along Pacific Coast Highway, south of
Superior Avenue.
1.1 Project Description
Planned for construction is a new sulfur recovery system, the vessels of which will be locat-
ed in an excavated pit about 4 feet deep below the surrounding grade.
Prior to grading, the site was vacant and mostly barren, with only scattered grasses and
weeds.
1.2 Scope of Work
The work performed by Coleman Geotechnical has consisted of testing and observation of
the pregrading and grading activities, including attendance at the pregrade meeting, field
density tests, and laboratory testing for compaction control. Also included has been site
observations by our professional staff, review of field data, and preparation of this report.
2.0 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
2.1 Pregrading Activities
Prior to grading and the placement of compacted fill, the structure area was stripped and
cleared of existing vegetation and previously existing debris and structures. This material
was disposed of outside the site limits.
2.2 Grading
The existing soil in the structure pad area was cut to rough grade and then scarified to a
depth of 12 inches and recompacted.
3.0 TESTING PROCEDURES
The following test procedures were used during the grading of the subject site.
In Place Density
Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture
ASTM D-2937
ASTM D-1557
The results of tests are shown on the attached "Table of Test Results".
1132grad.gw COLEMAN GEOTECHNICAL Page 1
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS
It is the opinion of this office that tha graded pad area is suitable for support of the proposed
development without detrimental effects on the adjacent properties. The vessel pit construc-
tion, backfilling, and other construction supported by the earth materials should be conduct-
ed in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code (U.B.C.), including Chapt-
ers 23 and 70.
5.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
51 Foundation Design and Construction
5.1.1 Vertical and Lateral Bearing
Vertical
The soil materials on this site are considered suitable for the support of the proposed struc-
tures using conventional shallow continuous and/or pad footings.
Footings may be designed using an allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot
for footings placed to a minimum width of 12 inches and a minimum depth of 12 inches
below the lowest adjacent finished grade. An increase of 1/3 of the above bearing value is
permissible for short duration win-1 or seismic loading.
The above bearing values have been based on footings placed into approved natural soil or
compacted fill.
These bearing values are considered to be net values and as a result the weight of the
footings and/or backfill above the footings nay be ignored in calculating the footing loads.
Lateral
For purposes of resisting lateral forces, an allowable lateral soil pressure of 330 pounds per
square foot per foot of depth may be used fur the design. A coefficient of friction of 0.40
may be used for concrete placed directly on the natural soils or compacted fill. These values
may be combined without reduction for resisting lateral forces. An increase of 1/3 of the
above values may be used for short term wind or seismic loads.
The above values are based on footings placed directly against native soils or previously
compacted fill. In the case where footing sides are formed, all backfill against footings
should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density.
Construction
All foundation excavations should be observed by the project soils engineer prior to the
placement of forms, reinforcement, or concrete. The excavations should be trimmed neat,
level, and square. All loose, sloughed, or moisture softened soil should be removed prior to
concrete placement.
Excavated material from footing excavations should not be placed in slab -on -grade areas
unless properly compacted and tested.
1132grad.gw COLEMAN GEOTECHNICAL Page 2
5.1.2 Seismic Design
Seismic design of the structures should be performed using criteria presented in the Uniform
Building Code for Zone 4 seismic conditions.
5.2 Expansive Soils
The results of tests indicate that the soils in the structure area possess high expansion
ootential. The test results are as follows:
Optimum Expansion
Location Moisture Index
Vessel Pad 26.5 97
The relatively thick concrete mat foundation of the vessel pit is expected to suitably reduce
the effects of the highly expansive soils.
The potential for post construction movement of finished surfaces due to the presence of
soils with high expansion, potential must be considered in the drainage design at this site.
Such considerations may include the use of greater surface gradients than normal as well as
the use of planters with solid bottoms and drainage pipes immediately adjacent to structures
or pavement.
It is important that drainage patterns established during finish grading of the site be main-
tained throughout the life of the structures. Property owners should be aware that altering
drainage pattems during landscaping or at any other time can affect the performance of the
structures and other site improvements supported by earth materials.
In addition, variations in irrigation and seasonal rainfall can also affect the performance of
earth materials and, as such, this site should be designed, constructed, maintained, and
monitored by the owner to reduce fluctuations in the soil moisture content.
5.3 Utility Trench Backfill
Materials to be used for backfilling utility trenches may consist of imported sand having a
sand equivalent (SE) of 40 or more, or excavated soil, at the contractors option.
Material used for backfill should be placed in thin lifts and each lift should be mechanically
compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction and tested by the soil engineer.
It should be noted that the City of Newport Beach requires that the compaction of all utility
trench backfills be tested and commented on by the project soil engineer prior to final com-
pletion of the project and issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
This firm will give an opinion of the adequacy of the backfill of utility trenches only if the
backfill operations are observed during the backfilling work and only if tests are obtained as
the work progresses.
1 1 32grad.gw
COLEMAN GEOTECHNICAL Page 3
If testing is performed after all backfilling is complete, without the benefit of observation of
the work, only the test results at the test locations can be reported.
No surcharge loads should be permitted above unshored or unretained excavatiors. This
includes, but is not limited to vehicles carrying material or stockpiles of lumber, concrete
block, or soil. Drainage above excavations must be directed away from the banks. Care
must be taken to prevent saturation of the soils.
5.4 Other Construction Considerations
All remaining grading and fill compaction should be observed and/or tested by this firm,
including installation of special drainage devices retaining wall backfills, utility trench back -
fills, and pavement subgrade and aggregate base, if applicable.
6.0 OPINION OF COMPLIANCE AND CLOSURE
It is the opinion of this firm that the grading described in this report was performed in accor-
dance with the recommendations of this firm and the city of Newport Beach grading code.
Based on the results of our testing and observations, it is our opinion that the earthwork
described herein has been compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density, and that
the graded areas are suitable for their intended use.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his
representative to review the recommendations presented herein and to authorize the other
design consultants and contractors to perform such work as necessary to comply with the
recommendations as well as to inform this firm when necessary additional observations or
testing are needed.
This firm strives to perform it's services in a manner consistent with generally accepted
current professional principles and practice in geotechnical engineering. We make no other
warranty, either expressed or implied.
This report is subject to review by the controlling governing authorities for the subject pro-
ject.
Respectfully submitted,
COLEMAN GEOTECHNICAL
times R. Coleman
G.E. 229
JRC:
1132grad.gw COLEMAN GEOTF CHNICAL Page 4
APPENDIX
1132grad.gw COLEMAN GEOTECHNICAL Page 5
r:..' s,-:-- s --
COLEMAN GEOTECHNICAL -- TABLE OF TEST RESULTS
CLIENT: GeoRemediation, Inc. LOCATION: Sulfur Treatment Facility, Newport Beach, CA
JB NO. 1132 — Vessel Pit Pad Tests
NO. TYf DATE LOCATION TEST ORIG. FINAL FLD MOIS FLO DEN: OPT MOI£ MAX DEN % CON REMARKS
1 T 12/06194 VESSEL PIT PAD 13.8 13.8 s 3 86.3 26.5 95.4 90
2 S 12X6/94 VESSEL PIT PAD 15.0 15.0 32.4 87.3 26.5 95.4 92
TEST TYPE CODE: S=SAND CONE, T=DRIVE TUBE Appendix Page A
Scale: 1" = 20'
N®•®O
FaNtl?1ME11:
GETA.
s-11¢.1.1
c
A c_
t
wintrgeg
GAS
WELL
D L
TUt
-
-
co INV,
V/L
v
/1,
vim �
LEGEND
Approximate Test Locations,
Limits of Grading covered
by this report
COLEMAN GEOTECHNICAL
3007 DOW AVENUE, SUITE 414, TUSTIN, CA 92680
PHONE (714) 57: 5776 FAX (714) 573-0435
TEST LOCATIONS
JOB NUMBER
DRAWN BY
APPEND»( PAGE
iri,90,044
FINAL REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL INSPECTION SERVICES
CARDIAC SERVICES ADDITION
301 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
FOR
HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBY I'ERIAN
(2667.40451.0001)
LAW/CRANDALL, INC.
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ONE OF THE LAW COMPANIES
LAW/CRANDALL, INC.
.\ ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
March 14, 1995
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
301 Newport Boulevard, Box 6100
Newport Beach, California 92658-6100
Attention: Mr. Gunther M. Kilfoil
Gentlemen:
Final Report -
Geotechnical Inspection Services
Cardiac Services Addition
301 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach. California
SCOPE
Grading Permit No. 1476-94
(2667.40451.0001)
This report provides a formal record of our observation and testing of the compacted fill
placed to grade the site for the subject Cardiac Services Addition; confirmation of our
observation and approval of the excavations for the foundations is included. The location
of the site is shown in relation to an adjacent street and existing structures on the attached
Plot Plan. When requested we performed the geotechnical observation work during the
period of June 23 through September 28, 1994. The earthwork was performed in
accordance with the project specifications and the recommendations of our report of
consultation regarding foundation design dated December 16,1992 (092072.AB), our letter
dated February 9, 1994 (092072.AB) of supplementary explorations and applicability of our
prior, and our letter of supplementary geotechnical recommendations dated February 16,
1994 (092072.AB)
731 EAST HALL ROAD, SUITE 104 • ANAHEIM, CA 92605-5145
714) 776-9544 • FA0 (714) 776-9591
oI E N TIE LAwcoWWANES e
(2667.40451.0001) Page 2
Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily
exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical engineers practicing in this
or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional
opinions included in this report. The scope of our services did not include either the
responsibility for job safety or the function of surveying. The grading work and the
foundation excavation work were done to the limits and at the locations indicated by stakes
and hubs set by others.
OBSERVATION AND TESTING OF COMPAL 1 ED FILL
The grading work for the project consisted of placing compacted fill to grade the site for
the subject development and provide support for the building foundations and flo r slab,
as well as subgrade support for adjacent walks and slabs. The earthwork also included
placing compacted soils as backfill in the trenches for storm drain and sewer line
installations. The specificatiors required that the fill and backfill be compacted to at least
90% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557-78
(equivalent to UBC 70-1) method of compaction.
The soils used for the required filling and backfilling consisted of on -site silty sand.
Compaction tests were performed on representative soil samples to establish the maximum
dry density. The tests were performed in accordance with the specified method of
compaction, which uses a 1/30-cubic-foot mold in which each of five layers of soil is
compacted by 25 blows of a 10-pound hammer falling 18 inches. The results of the
compaction tests were used in establishing the e :ree r f compaction achieved during and
after the placing of the fill and backfill.
After the site was stripped and cleared, existing fill and disturbed natural soils were
excavated from the building area to depths ranging from approximately 6 to 14 feet. The
excavation was carried outside the building limits approximately 6 feet in plan, except at the
(2667.40451.0001) Page 3
northern portion where it abutted the existing building. During excavation, underground
obstructions encountered were removed. Next, the resultant exposed natural soils were
scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to approximately optimum moisture content, and
rolled with heavy compaction equipment. The required fill materials were then placed in
thin, loose lifts approximately 8 inches in thickness, brought to nearly optimum moisture
content, and compacted. The loose lifts were compacted using 963 and 955 track loaders.
Moisture was added, when necessary, by spraying with a fire hose.
Areas that we observed to receive backfill were first cleared of construction debris and
loose soils; the required backfill soils were then placed in thin, loose lifts approximately 8
inches in thickness, brought to nearly optimum moisture content, and mechanically
compacted using a backhoe with an impact attachment and hand -guided impact equipment.
To establish the degree of compaction achieved, ASTM Designation D1556 (equivalent to
UBC 70-2) sand -cone field density tests were made as the filling and backfilling progressed.
The results of the field density tests are presented in the attached table, Test Results; the
approximate locations of the tests are shown on the Plot Plan.
An interim report on the compacted fill placed to grade the building area and to provide
foundation and floor slab support was issued on July 8, 1994.
OBSERVATION OF FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS
After con.pletion of the building area filling, excavations were made for conventional spread
footings to support the building. When requested our field technician observed and probed
the footing excavations to verify that the soils were properly compacted fills or undisturbed
natural materials recommended for foundation support. Loose soils were removed from
the excavations prior to our approval. After our observations indicated satisfactory condi-
(2667.40451.0001) Page 4
tions, written notice of our approval was left at the job site for the information of
responsible parties.
The following foundation recommendations were presented in our report of consultation
regarding foundation design:
Spread footings for the addition supported in the undisturbed natural soils or
properly compacted fill, compacted to at least 90%, and extending at least 2 feet
below the adjacent grade or floor level may be designed to impose a net dead
plus live load pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot.
Footings for minor structures (retaining walls less than about 5 feet in height,
ete.) established in the undisturbed natural soils or properly compacted fill may
be designed to impose a net dead plus live load pressure of 1,500 pounds per
square foot at a depth of Ph feet below the adjacent grade.
A one-third increase in the bearing values may be used for wind or seismic loads.
CONCLUSIONS
This final report is limited to the earthwork performed through February 28, 1994, the date
of our last observation and/or testing of the soil -related work for the project.
The fill and backfill, at the locations and elevations tested by us, were compacted to at least
the specified degree of compaction. Also, the foundation excavations we observed were
made in accordance with the project plans. Based on our observations, we are satisfied that
the suhgrade for the concrete slabs and walks were prepared in accordance with the project
plans and specifications. The geotechnical related work was performed in general
conformance with the project plans, specifications, and the City of Newport Beach
Municipal Code and is cons lered suitable for the intended use.
In providing professional geotechnical observations and testing services associated with the
development of the project, we have employed accepted engineering and testing procedures
(2667.40451.0001) Page 5
and have made every reasonable effort to ascertain that the soil -related work we observed
was carried out in general compliance with the project plans and specifications. Although
our observation did not reveal obvious deficiencies, we do not guarantee the contractor's
work, nor do the services performed by our firm relieve the contractor of responsibility in
the event of subsequently discovered defects in his work.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW/CRANDALL, INC.
Shahen Askari
Principal Engineer
f(0
Davi. • tkinson
Project Manager
OCI-11/SW/sw
Attachments (3)
(4 copies submitted)
CC:
6.
(2)
(2)
Millie and Severson, Inc.
Attn: David Keenan
City of Newport )3each
Attn: Mr. Richard T. Higley
Grading Engineer
TEST RESULTS
Moisture Dry Maximum
Test Elevn Lion Content Density Dry Density Percent Retest Date of
No. (al_ (% of dry wt.' flbs./cu. ft.) (Ibs./cu. ft.) Compaction No. Testing
1 55 13.9 122 126 97 06/23/94
2 57 9.8 123 126 98 06/23/94
3 59 11.7 124 126 98 06/23/94
4 61 %z 12.4 121 126 96 06/27/94
5 53 11.4 118 126 94 06/27/94
6 54/ 12.2 118 126 94 06/27/94
7 51 11.7 124 126 98 06/27/94
8 561/2 12.5 123 126 98 06/27/94
9 52 10.7 115 126 91 06/28/94
10 50 16.6 111 122 91 0628/94
11 55 11.2 121 126 96 06/28/94
12 581/2 10.3 113 126 90 06/28/94
13 61 9.9 115 126 91 06/28/94
14 62 11.4 124 126 98 06/29/94
15 63 12.9 114 126 90 06/30/94
16 61 8.8 118 126 94 08/26/94
17 601/2 11.0 117 126 93 09/15/94
18 62 13.0 120 126 95 09/15/94
19 621/2 13.4 118 126 94 09/16/94
20 63 11.2 115 126 91 09/16/94
21 63 9.5 122 126 97 09/16/94
22 62 9.9 125 126 99 09/21/94
23 61 14.0 119 126 94 09/22/94
24 61 % 9.9 115 126 91 09/22/94
25 63 11.1 121 126 96 09/23/94
26 63 10.0 116 126 92 09/23/94
27 61' 9.9 116 126 92 09/28/94
28 62 11.1 122 126 97 09/28/94
29 62 10.2 116 126 92 09/28/94
NOTE: Elevations refer to job datum.
3567.4p.51.0001/ThWOO.1 VONmg O3/15/95
Patel
COMPACTION TEST DATA
Soil Type
Source
Maximum
Dry Density*
fibs./cu. ft.)
OFtimum
Moisture Content
(% of dry wt.l
Silty Sand
On -Site
122
11.0
Silty Sand
On -Site
126
10.0
NOTE: * Maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM D1557-78 (equivalent to UBC 70-1)
method of compaction.
2667.40451.0001/TB11/00 i/SW/sw 03/13/95
r
C:1
6
O
162.011TC (62.021TC (61.95)1C
, p\C61.681F$ 161.691F5 )61.621F5�
- — -- -EX e'w— -- — F J�
Ex 24'W u
0
�b
0
„
— f 7
Ex 24'W — —
t
EXIST. BUILDING LINE
SI N
4117
LIMITS OP GRADING
LIMITS 0F1 PAD
CO NCP'''t TE
PA:?O
Y 25
0
a
0
16_•2
it •I,t, 's
ASPH
15 F.F. E
24PAD EL4
M
— � —EX
e"2., 12 ASPnt1
—EX 24'0
4y 1 O�TE' CUR;
oJ' s OG— e ah
7 b (5 \r• a Q o
C.
y I r `i •Oo y "a y m `'o 4y
6.50
°'� F ty
o
oq'Y0�_3' OAS __ rod __qO. J ya ro —— --- y0 ..
EXIST. BUILDING LINE)
r--1
I I
I I
I I
I I
HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTER!/
PAT10
CONCRETE
r4.
EX. BRICK RIBBO
l
87)
.SC
N
9
EXIST. BUILDING LINE
a
et
C3NCRETE
'et I (3.58%1
ygi>g� ASPHALT F - -
OXIMATE LIMI#S g
OF GRADING' E*
ASHEjYT`„) 3
NOTE;
THE FIELD DENSITY TEST LOCATIONS,
AS GRAPHICALLY SHOWN ON THIS PLOT
PLAN, ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY, AND DO
NOT REPRESENT PRECISE LOCATIONS.
KEY TO WENCHES: (APPROX. LOCATIONS)
STORM DRAIN
SEWER
.-EDGE ]F „N:RETE
11
k � ,:.... -EX 4"W -
B 5p
FIELD. ITY TEST
sit/aFTTfON AND NUMBER -El- 04 �
0/�X_
f4
qo
- U� ..h'brb
B _
�r OhaCiEx / /�
�b N b b y-� / �- /
REFERENCE:
ROUGH GRADING AND DEMOLITION
PLAN (DATED 3-9-94) BY DAVID A.
BOYLE ENGINEERING.
ADDRESS:
301 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA
PLOT PLAN
CARDIAC SERVICES ADDITION
SCALE 1"_ 20•
LAW/CRANDALL, INC./—\