Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
15000 Stockdale Hwy - Drainage Study
Visalia Office 324 S. Santa Fe, Suite A Visalia, CA 93292 P: (559) 802.3052 F: (559) 802.3215 Porterville Office 881 W. Morton Avenue, Suite D Porterville, California 93257 P: (559) 781. 0102 F: (559) 781.6840 www.4-creeks.com March 21, 2016 City of Bakersfield Public Works Department 1600 Truxtun Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: Drainage Study for 15000 Stockdale Hwy Dear Manny Behl, Upon receiving your comments we have made the following revisions: 1. Calculations have been provided for all stormdrain pipes designed for a 10 year -24 hour event. Please see pipe sizing analysis and profiles. 2. On-Site Catch Basin calculations have been provided with a design for a 5 year -24 hour event. The analysis of a Catch Basin assuming 50% blocked has also been provided. Please see Inlet Reports. 3. The minimum pipe in the City Right of Way has been changed to a minimum of 18” diameter. 4. The min. depth between the pipe invert and normal flow line has been adjusted to meet the City of Bakersfield minimum depth of 4.37’. 5. A soils report has been attached with borings and permeability tests for the proposed sump. Please see appendices. 6. Flowage and drainage easements are in the process of being approved for this project. 7. Notes to grading plan have been added. 8. Dimensions showing a 12’ min. road pad have been added to the grading plan. Should you have any questions, please contact Steven J. Macias at (559) 802-3052. Sincerely, Steven J. Macias, PE Drainage Study for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7291 Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose 3 2.0 Assumptions 3 3.0 Summary of Results 3-4 4.0 Appendices 5 Soil Map Storm Drain Pipe Sizing Analysis and Profiles Inlet Reports Storm Drain Pipe Exhibit Proposed Basin Volume Analysis Strom Drainage Basin Exhibit Storm Drainage Basin Tributary Areas NOAA Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Slope Evaluation of Retention Basin 1.0 Purpose This study will show the findings for the anticipated storm water runoff for the drainage areas in reference to the proposed storage basin. This study also shows the analysis for proposed storm drain pipe capacities and for proposed drainage inlet flows for the proposed Stockdale Highway, Derrel’s Mini Storage, Facility #67. Derrel’s Mini Storage, Facility #67, located in Bakersfield, CA, is approximately 27.29 acres. 2.0 Assumptions The following was assumed and applied in this study: 1. A Soils Survey Map and tables has been enclosed in this study 2. The runoff coefficient (c) : Commercial = 0.90 Pavement, Drives & Roofs = 0.95 3. Rainfall Intensity Curves shown on D-1 of the City of Bakersfield, Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual. 4. Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 810 – Hydrology 3.0 Summary of Results The analysis of flows for a 10-year storm was calculated for the proposed storm drainage system. The proposed storm drainage pipes in this system were sized to 18” RCP and 24” RCP. The time of concentration was computed using the City of Bakersfield Subdivision Design Manual, Section 2.8.2.1. The proposed storm drain pipe system was analyzed using Storm Sewers for the tributary areas contributing to the proposed basin. All partial flow rates within the proposed 18” and 24” pipes are much less than the design capacity. Hydraulic grade line calculations were also calculated for the proposed storm drainage system at each pipe reach. The hydraulic grade line calculations of the 18” and 24” lines all comply with the minimum freeboard of 0.5ft per City of Bakersfield Standards. Storm Drainage Inlet Analysis for a 5-year storm was completed to for the proposed inlets for Facility #67. Hydro Flow Express was used to show the anticipated flow to the drainage inlets. Drainage Inlet sizing was taken from the City of Bakersfield Storm Drainage Design Manual. The assumption of 50% blocked was used to analyze a Christy V-64 catch basin at worst case scenario. The analysis showed 100% efficiency with a gutter spread of less than 5.0 ft. Off-Site Catch Basins were analyzed and were found to to capture the runoff flows without exceeding the proposed 6” curb height per City of Bakersfield Standards. The analysis of the proposed drainage basin has been carried out to show the available storage for the new construction of Facility #67 .The basin and its areas can be seen in the Storm Drainage Basin Tributary Areas Exhibit enclosed in this study. A high water mark of approximately 15 ft was used in the design of the storm drainage basin. Using this high water mark and all other resulting tributary areas, the required capacity is 3.70 ac-ft. The proposed storm drainage basin has a total available volume of 8.0 ac-ft. In conclusion, the proposed storm drainage basin has an excess storage volume of 4.30 ac-ft. Soil Map Soil Map—Kern County, California, Northwestern Part Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/14/2016 Page 1 of 3 39 1 4 4 3 0 39 1 4 5 0 0 39 1 4 5 7 0 39 1 4 6 4 0 39 1 4 7 1 0 39 1 4 7 8 0 39 1 4 8 5 0 39 1 4 9 2 0 39 1 4 9 9 0 39 1 4 4 3 0 39 1 4 5 0 0 39 1 4 5 7 0 39 1 4 6 4 0 39 1 4 7 1 0 39 1 4 7 8 0 39 1 4 8 5 0 39 1 4 9 2 0 39 1 4 9 9 0 302630 302700 302770 302840 302910 302980 303050 302630 302700 302770 302840 302910 302980 303050 35° 21' 32'' N 11 9 ° 1 0 ' 2 0 ' ' W 35° 21' 32'' N 11 9 ° 1 0 ' 2 ' ' W 35° 21' 12'' N 11 9 ° 1 0 ' 2 0 ' ' W 35° 21' 12'' N 11 9 ° 1 0 ' 2 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0100200400600Feet 04080160240Meters Map Scale: 1:2,910 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Kern County, California, Northwestern Part Survey Area Data: Version 8, Sep 9, 2015 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 13, 2013—Oct 23, 2013 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Soil Map—Kern County, California, Northwestern Part Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/14/2016 Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Legend Kern County, California, Northwestern Part (CA666) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 127 Granoso sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, overwash 22.4 60.4% 152 Excelsior sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 17 14.7 39.6% Totals for Area of Interest 37.1 100.0% Soil Map—Kern County, California, Northwestern Part Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/14/2016 Page 3 of 3 Storm Drain Pipe Sizing Analysis and Profiles Calculations Completed By:E. Mejia Calculations Checked By:S. Macias Date:2/26/2016 TRIBUTARY AREA NAME RUNOFF COEFF., C INTENSITY, I (IN/HR) 5YR INTENSITY, I (IN/HR) 10 YR TOTAL AREA, A (AC) TIME CONC., Tc (MIN.) LENGTH, L (FT) ELEV. DIFFERENCE, Dh (FT) GUTTER SLOPE, Sg (FT/FT) FLOW, Q (CFS) 5 YR FLOW, Q (CFS) 10 YR STREET TYPE VELOCITY, V (FPS) TRIAL Tc (MIN.) ROOF TO GUTTER TIME (MIN.) TRAVEL TIME, Tm (MIN.) 1 0.95 1.75 2.17 1.19 6.8 614 1.23 0.20%1.98 2.46 60 2.00 1.7 1.72 5.12 2 0.95 1.95 2.50 0.53 5.0 399 0.80 0.20%0.98 1.26 60 2.00 1.7 1.72 3.33 3 0.90 1.00 1.17 13.44 20.4 1247 6.24 0.50%12.10 14.09 -2.00 10.0 10 10.39 4 0.90 1.13 1.32 5.75 16.7 803 4.02 0.25%5.85 6.83 -2.00 10.0 10 6.69 5 0.90 1.03 1.20 6.37 19.5 1142 5.71 0.25%5.90 6.87 -2.00 10.0 10 9.52 Tc Calculations NOTE: Time of Concentration was determined using Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 810 - Hydrology, See section 816.6 for reference. Sheet Flow Time of Concentration Project Name:DMS Stockdale Hwy. Date:1/18/2016 Completed By:Steven Macias Checked By: L 55.00 n 0.015 P2 1.00 S 2.00 TT 1.72 Notes: References: Caltrans Highway Design Hydraflow IDF Report Page 1 of 1 ReturnEquation Coefficients (FHA) Period (Yrs)BDE(N/A) 10.00000.00000.0000-------- 20.00000.00000.0000-------- 30.00000.00000.0000-------- 528.064310.60000.9709-------- 1014.48844.40000.7854-------- 250.00000.00000.0000-------- 500.00000.00000.0000-------- 1000.00000.00000.0000-------- P:\CAD Files\Storm Sewers\City of Bako.IDF Intensity = B / (Tc + D)^E Return Intensity Values (in/hr) Period (Yrs)5 min1015202530354045505560 10.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 20.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 30.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 51.951.491.201.010.870.770.690.620.570.520.480.45 102.491.781.411.181.020.900.810.740.680.630.590.55 250.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 500.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 1000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 Tc = time in minutes. Min Tc = 5 Calculations Completed By:E. Mejia Calculations Checked By:S. Macias Date:3/3/2016 LINE NO. LENGTH, FT DIAMETER, IN AREA, SF Q, CFS VELOCITY, FT/SEC HGL GROUND ELEVATION FREEBOARD (ft) 1 62.503 24 3.14 21.63 7.76 338.84 353.50 14.66 2 108.147 24 3.14 14.88 4.74 349.56 352.91 3.35 3 51.57 18 1.77 6.84 4.40 352.37 353.09 0.72 4 348.337 24 3.14 8.83 2.81 350.38 354.54 4.16 5 36.595 18 1.77 2.40 1.45 350.55 354.00 3.45 6 252.468 18 1.77 1.70 2.28 350.1 354.72 4.62 7 252.468 18 1.77 2.00 2.70 350.86 355.43 4.57 8 24.502 18 1.77 2.41 2.84 351.44 355.81 4.37 9 538.249 18 1.77 2.46 2.33 351.63 355.31 3.68 10 64.95 18 1.77 1.26 0.85 350.59 354.47 3.88 11 88.38 12 0.79 7.04 9.01 350.78 352.00 1.22 HGL Calculations NOTE: PER CITY OF BAKERSFIELD STANDARDS CLOSED CIRCULAR CONDUIT MAX. ALLOWABLE IS 0.8D OF CIRCULAR PIPE Inlet Reports 18'' SD18'' SD 18'' SD 18 ' ' S D (E ) W Calculations Completed By:E. Mejia Calculations Checked By:S. Macias, PE Date:2/23/2016 Proposed Pond L =215.00 ft W =154.00 ft d =15.00 ft s=2.00 Available Volume =348,600 ft3 =8.00 ac*ft Required Volume Design Storm: 10 year, 5 day 24-hour Rainfall, i =2.41 in =0.20 ft Tributary Area 1 Total Area=52,024 ft2 =1.19 ac C =0.95 Tributary Area 2 Total Area=23,086.80 ft2 =0.53 ac C =0.95 Tributary Area 3 Total Area=1,113,829.20 ft2 =25.57 ac C =0.90 Total Area =1,188,940 ft2 =27.29 ac Subdivision Design Manual 2.8.2.1 Q = .015 ∑A(CA•A ) Q = 0.15∑(C•A) =3.70 ac-ft Excess Volume =4.30 ac-ft Proposed Pond #1 Wastewater Retention Pond Volume Analysis DERREL'S MINI STORAGE, #67 STOCKDALE HWY. b d w L 18'' SD18'' SD 18'' SD 18 ' ' S D (E ) W NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2 Location name: Bakersfield, California, US* Latitude: 35.3565°, Longitude: 119.1696° Elevation: 356 ft* * source: Google Maps POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Michael Yekta, Tan Zhao, GeoffreyBonnin, Daniel Brewer, LiChuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials PF tabular PDSbased point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)1 Duration Average recurrence interval (years) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000 5min 0.070 (0.060‑0.082) 0.088 (0.076‑0.104) 0.116 (0.099‑0.137) 0.141 (0.119‑0.167) 0.179 (0.147‑0.220) 0.212 (0.170‑0.267) 0.249 (0.195‑0.321) 0.291 (0.221‑0.387) 0.356 (0.259‑0.493) 0.448 (0.314‑0.644) 10min 0.100 (0.086‑0.117) 0.126 (0.109‑0.149) 0.166 (0.142‑0.196) 0.202 (0.171‑0.240) 0.256 (0.210‑0.316) 0.304 (0.244‑0.382) 0.357 (0.279‑0.461) 0.417 (0.317‑0.555) 0.510 (0.371‑0.707) 0.642 (0.451‑0.923) 15min 0.121 (0.104‑0.142) 0.153 (0.131‑0.180) 0.201 (0.172‑0.237) 0.244 (0.207‑0.290) 0.310 (0.254‑0.382) 0.367 (0.295‑0.462) 0.431 (0.337‑0.557) 0.505 (0.383‑0.671) 0.616 (0.449‑0.855) 0.776 (0.545‑1.12) 30min 0.166 (0.143‑0.195) 0.211 (0.181‑0.248) 0.276 (0.237‑0.326) 0.336 (0.285‑0.400) 0.427 (0.350‑0.526) 0.506 (0.406‑0.637) 0.595 (0.465‑0.768) 0.695 (0.528‑0.925) 0.849 (0.618‑1.18) 1.07 (0.751‑1.54) 60min 0.233 (0.201‑0.274) 0.296 (0.254‑0.348) 0.389 (0.333‑0.458) 0.472 (0.401‑0.562) 0.600 (0.492‑0.740) 0.711 (0.570‑0.895) 0.835 (0.653‑1.08) 0.977 (0.743‑1.30) 1.19 (0.869‑1.66) 1.50 (1.05‑2.16) 2hr 0.334 (0.287‑0.392) 0.417 (0.358‑0.491) 0.537 (0.459‑0.633) 0.642 (0.545‑0.764) 0.799 (0.655‑0.984) 0.931 (0.747‑1.17) 1.08 (0.842‑1.39) 1.24 (0.940‑1.64) 1.48 (1.07‑2.05) 1.68 (1.18‑2.41) 3hr 0.398 (0.342‑0.468) 0.498 (0.428‑0.586) 0.639 (0.547‑0.754) 0.763 (0.647‑0.908) 0.944 (0.774‑1.16) 1.10 (0.879‑1.38) 1.26 (0.985‑1.63) 1.44 (1.09‑1.92) 1.71 (1.24‑2.37) 1.93 (1.35‑2.77) 6hr 0.511 (0.439‑0.600) 0.645 (0.554‑0.759) 0.832 (0.713‑0.982) 0.994 (0.844‑1.18) 1.23 (1.01‑1.51) 1.42 (1.14‑1.79) 1.63 (1.27‑2.10) 1.85 (1.41‑2.46) 2.18 (1.59‑3.02) 2.45 (1.72‑3.52) 12hr 0.610 (0.524‑0.716) 0.794 (0.681‑0.934) 1.05 (0.899‑1.24) 1.27 (1.08‑1.51) 1.59 (1.30‑1.96) 1.85 (1.48‑2.33) 2.13 (1.67‑2.75) 2.43 (1.85‑3.23) 2.87 (2.09‑3.98) 3.22 (2.27‑4.64) 24hr 0.744 (0.676‑0.835) 1.00 (0.908‑1.12) 1.36 (1.23‑1.53) 1.67 (1.50‑1.89) 2.11 (1.84‑2.48) 2.48 (2.12‑2.97) 2.88 (2.40‑3.52) 3.31 (2.69‑4.16) 3.95 (3.09‑5.16) 4.48 (3.39‑6.05) 2day 0.863 (0.785‑0.969) 1.16 (1.06‑1.31) 1.59 (1.44‑1.79) 1.96 (1.76‑2.23) 2.50 (2.18‑2.93) 2.95 (2.52‑3.53) 3.45 (2.88‑4.21) 3.99 (3.24‑5.01) 4.79 (3.75‑6.26) 5.47 (4.14‑7.39) 3day 0.933 (0.848‑1.05) 1.26 (1.14‑1.41) 1.72 (1.55‑1.94) 2.12 (1.90‑2.41) 2.71 (2.36‑3.18) 3.21 (2.74‑3.83) 3.75 (3.12‑4.58) 4.34 (3.53‑5.46) 5.23 (4.09‑6.83) 5.99 (4.53‑8.08) 4day 0.995 (0.905‑1.12) 1.34 (1.22‑1.51) 1.83 (1.66‑2.07) 2.26 (2.03‑2.57) 2.89 (2.52‑3.39) 3.41 (2.91‑4.08) 3.98 (3.32‑4.87) 4.61 (3.74‑5.78) 5.53 (4.32‑7.22) 6.30 (4.76‑8.50) 7day 1.13 (1.03‑1.27) 1.53 (1.39‑1.72) 2.10 (1.90‑2.36) 2.58 (2.32‑2.93) 3.28 (2.85‑3.84) 3.84 (3.28‑4.59) 4.44 (3.70‑5.43) 5.08 (4.13‑6.38) 6.01 (4.70‑7.85) 6.77 (5.12‑9.13) 10day 1.21 (1.10‑1.36) 1.66 (1.50‑1.86) 2.27 (2.05‑2.56) 2.79 (2.50‑3.16) 3.52 (3.07‑4.13) 4.11 (3.51‑4.92) 4.73 (3.95‑5.79) 5.39 (4.38‑6.77) 6.33 (4.95‑8.27) 7.08 (5.36‑9.56) 20day 1.49 (1.36‑1.68) 2.04 (1.86‑2.30) 2.80 (2.54‑3.16) 3.44 (3.09‑3.91) 4.35 (3.79‑5.10) 5.07 (4.33‑6.06) 5.82 (4.85‑7.12) 6.61 (5.37‑8.30) 7.70 (6.02‑10.1) 8.57 (6.48‑11.6) 30day 1.76 (1.60‑1.98) 2.40 (2.18‑2.70) 3.29 (2.98‑3.71) 4.04 (3.63‑4.59) 5.11 (4.45‑5.99) 5.95 (5.08‑7.12) 6.83 (5.70‑8.36) 7.76 (6.31‑9.74) 9.04 (7.07‑11.8) 10.1 (7.60‑13.6) 45day 2.15 (1.95‑2.41) 2.90 (2.64‑3.26) 3.95 (3.58‑4.45) 4.84 (4.35‑5.50) 6.12 (5.33‑7.17) 7.14 (6.10‑8.54) 8.21 (6.84‑10.0) 9.32 (7.57‑11.7) 10.9 (8.49‑14.2) 12.1 (9.13‑16.3) 60day 2.48 (2.26‑2.79) 3.32 (3.01‑3.73) 4.49 (4.07‑5.06) 5.50 (4.94‑6.24) 6.93 (6.04‑8.12) 8.09 (6.90‑9.66) 9.29 (7.75‑11.4) 10.6 (8.58‑13.3) 12.3 (9.62‑16.1) 13.7 (10.3‑18.5) 1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS). Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for agiven duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are notchecked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values. Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information. Back to Top PF graphical Back to Top Maps & aerials Small scale terrain Large scale terrain Large scale map Large scale aerial Map data ©2016 Google, INEGIReport a map error50 km Map data ©2016 GoogleReport a map error2 km Map data ©2016 GoogleReport a map error2 km Back to Top US Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service National Water Center 1325 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Questions?: HDSC.Questions@noaa.gov Disclaimer Imagery ©2016 TerraMetricsReport a map error2 km SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED DERREL’S MINI-STORAGE #67 STOCKDALE HIGHWAY (BETWEEN RIDER STREET AND CLAUDIA AUTUMN DRIVE) BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: MS. KAREN KENDALL DERREL’S MINI STORAGE, INC. 3265 W. ASHLAN AVENUE FRESNO, CA 93722 PREPARED BY: SALEM ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. 2809 UNICORN ROAD, SUITE 103 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 (661) 393-9711 Job No. 2-212-0726 September 28, 2012 2809 Unicorn Road, Suite 103 Bakersfield, CA 93308 (661) 393-9711 Fax (661) 393-9710 Geotechnical ● Environmental ● Geology ● Materials Testing & Inspection ● Forensic ● Laboratory 4729 W. Jacquelyn Avenue Fresno, CA 93722 (559) 271-9700 Fax (559) 275-0827 2809 Unicorn Road, Suite 103 Bakersfield, CA 93308 (661) 393-9711 Fax (661) 393-9710 11650 Mission Park Dr.# 108 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 980-6455 Fax (909) 980-6435 3850 North Wilcox Road, Suite F Stockton, CA 95215 (209) 931-2226 Fax (209) 931-2227 2211 Fortune Drive, Suite C San Jose, CA 95131 (408) 577-1090 Fax (408) 577-1099 3420 C Street NE, Suite 304 Auburn, WA 98002 (253) 737-5992 Fax (253) 929-6094 Geotechnical ● Environmental ● Geology ● Materials Testing & Inspection ● Forensic ● Laboratory SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. September 28, 2012 Job No. 2-212-0726 Ms. Karen Kendall Derrel’s Mini Storage, Inc. 3265 W. Ashlan Avenue Fresno, CA 93722 Re: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Derrel’s Mini-Storage #67 Stockdale Highway (between Rider Street and Claudia Autumn Drive) Bakersfield, California Dear Ms. Kendall: At your request and authorization, SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. (SALEM) has prepared this Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the site of the proposed Derrel’s Mini-Storage to be located at the above-referenced site. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this project. Should you have questions regarding this report or need additional information, please contact the undersigned at (661) 393-9711. Respectfully submitted, SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. R. Sammy Salem, MS, PE, GE, REA Principal Engineer RCE 52762 / RGE 2549 Distribution: 3 copies TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................................1 3.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION....................................................................................2 4.0 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC CONDITIONS.............................................................................2 5.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE..................................................................................................................3 6.0 FIELD EXPLORATION..................................................................................................................3 7.0 LABORATORY TESTING..............................................................................................................4 8.0 SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS.........................................................................4 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................5 9.1 Groundwater Influence on Structures/Construction......................................................................................................5 9.2 Soil Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement..........................................................................................................................6 9.3 Site Preparation and Grading..............................................................................................................................................6 9.4 Engineered Fill and Compaction........................................................................................................................................7 9.5 Surface Drainage Control....................................................................................................................................................8 9.6 Excavation Stability..............................................................................................................................................................8 9.7 Foundations – Conventional...............................................................................................................................................9 9.8 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade.....................................................................................................................................................10 9.9 Lateral Earth Pressures and Frictional Resistance............................................................................................................10 9.10 Soil-Borne Salt Protection.................................................................................................................................................11 9.11 Utility Pipe Bedding and Backfillings...............................................................................................................................11 9.12 Pavement Design................................................................................................................................................................12 9.13 Seismic Site Coefficients....................................................................................................................................................12 9.14 Permeability Testing...........................................................................................................................................................13 10.0 PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING........................14 11.0 CHANGED CONDITIONS..........................................................................................................14 SITE PLAN................................................................................................................................................Following Text LOG OF TEST BORINGS / LABORATORY TESTING...................................................................Appendix A GENERAL EARTHWORK/PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS........................................................Appendix B SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. 4729 W. Jacquelyn Avenue Fresno, CA 93722 (559) 271-9700 Fax (559) 275-0827 2809 Unicorn Road, Suite 103 Bakersfield, CA 93308 (661) 393-9711 Fax (661) 393-9710 11650 Mission Park Dr.# 108 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 980-6455 Fax (909) 980-6435 3850 North Wilcox Road, Suite F Stockton, CA 95215 (209) 931-2226 Fax (209) 931-2227 2211 Fortune Drive, Suite C San Jose, CA 95131 (408) 577-1090 Fax (408) 577-1099 3420 C Street NE, Suite 304 Auburn, WA 98002 (253) 737-5992 Fax (253) 929-6094 Geotechnical ● Environmental ● Geology ● Materials Testing & Inspection ● Forensic ● Laboratory GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED DERREL’S MINI-STORAGE #67 STOCKDALE HIGHWAY (BETWEEN RIDER STREET AND CLAUDIA AUTUMN DRIVE) BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the proposed Derrel’s Mini- Storage #67 to be located at the north side of Stockdale Highway, between Rider Street and Claudia Autumn Drive, in Bakersfield, California. The investigation included a field exploration program consisting of drilling a total of six (6) test borings, the collection of intact and bulk soil samples, and geotechnical laboratory tests to supplement the field data. Discussions regarding site conditions are presented herein, together with conclusions and recommendations pertaining to site preparation, Engineered Fill, utility trench backfill, drainage and landscaping, foundations, concrete floor slabs and exterior flatwork, retaining walls, soil liquefaction, seismic-induced settlement, and soil to cement reactivity testing. The approximate location of the test boring is shown on Figure 1, Site Plan. The results of the field exploration and laboratory test data are included in Appendix "A." Earthwork / Pavement Specifications are presented in Appendix "B." If conflicts in the text of the report occur with the specifications in the appendices, the recommendations in the text of the report have precedence. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that development of the site includes construction of a proposed storage facility, office, residence, and garage. In addition, there will be a 17 foot deep onsite retention basin in the west-central portion of the site (See Site Plan, Borings B-1 and B-2). The construction will consist of Phases 1 through 7. Based on plans, the building square footage for storage for each phase will be 144,975 square feet, 110,925 square feet, 25,125 square feet, 20,100 square feet, 23,450 square feet, 30,150 square feet, and 48,600 square feet respectively. Other structures will include an office (804 square feet), a residence (1,327 square feet), and a garage (391 square feet). The buildings will consist of steel or wood framed with concrete slab-on-grade. Wall loading and column loadings will be light. Job No. 2-212-0726 - 2 - Site improvements including parking facilities, utilities and landscaping will be associated with the development. No other buildings, aside from storage/residence/office/garage structures, will be constructed. Concrete and asphaltic concrete pavement for parking area, customers travel lanes, and truck lane are to be designed for standard duty and heavy-duty traffic loading based on an Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) of 18,000 kip, a maximum load of 60,000 ESAL, and a design life of 20 years. The pavement design recommendations provided herein are based on the State of California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) design manual. Site grading plan was not available at the time of preparation of this report. In the event that changes occur in the nature or design of the project, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of our report are modified. 3.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The project site consists of one parcel APN 408-020-48, and a gross land acreage of ±31.30 acres. At the time of our field exploration, the site was vacant. The site is relatively flat with elevations ranging from ±356 feet to ±358 feet. The property is bounded by either residential development or vacant properties. 4.0 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC CONDITIONS The San Joaquin Valley, which includes the Bakersfield area, is a topographic and structural basin that is bounded on the east by the Sierra Nevada and on the west by the Coast Ranges. The Sierra Nevada, a fault block dipping gently southwestward, is made up of igneous and metamorphic rocks of pre-Tertiary age that comprise the basement complex beneath the Valley. The Coast Ranges contain folded and faulted sedimentary rocks of Mesozoic and Cenozoic age, which are similar to those rocks that underlie the Valley at depth and non-conformably overlie the basement complex; gently dipping to nearly horizontal sedimentary rocks of Tertiary and Quaternary age overlie the older rocks. These younger rocks are mostly of continental origin and in the Bakersfield area; they were derived from the Sierra Nevada. The Coast Ranges evolved as a result of folding, faulting and accretion of diverse geologic terrains. They are composed chiefly of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks that are sharply deformed into complex structures. They are broken by numerous faults, the San Andreas Fault being the most notable feature. Geologically, the property is situated on the eastern flank, near the south end of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province. This province is a large northwesterly trending geosyncline or structural trough between the Coast Ranges and the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Erosion from both of these mountain systems has resulted in the deposition of immense thickness of sediments in the Valley floor. Heavily-laden streams from the Sierra Nevada have built very prominent alluvial fans along the margins of the San Joaquin Valley. This has resulted in a rather flat topography in the vicinity of the project site. The site is composed of alluvial deposits which are mostly cohesionless sands and silts. The south end of the San Joaquin Valley is surrounded on all sides, excluding the north, by active fault systems (San Andreas, White Wolf-Breckenridge-Kern Canyon, and Garlock Faults). Numerous smaller faults exist within the valley floor. There is on-going seismic activity in the Kern County area, with the most noticeable earthquake being the July 21, 1952 Kern County Earthquake. Job No. 2-212-0726 - 3 - The initial shock was 7.3 moment magnitude seismic event with the epicenter along the White Wolf fault near Wheeler Ridge, about 25 miles south of Bakersfield. Vertical displacements of as much as 3 feet occurred at the fault line. The estimated average value of the maximum bedrock accelerations from the 1952 event are about 0.20g at the project site. Both the Sierra Nevada and Coast Range are geologically young mountain ranges and possess active and potentially active fault zones. Major active faults and fault zones occur at some distance to the east, west and south of the Bakersfield area. The Owens Valley Fault Zone bounds the eastern edge of the Sierra Nevada block and contains both active and potentially active faults. Portions of the San Juan and Rinconada Faults, which are to the west, and the Big Pine and Garlock faults located to the south, are considered potentially active. The San Andreas Fault is possibly the best known fault and is located about 30 to 40 miles to the west. There are no active fault traces in the project vicinity. Bakersfield residents could feel the affects of a large seismic event on one of the nearby active or potentially active fault zones. Bakersfield has experienced ground shaking from earthquakes in the historical past. According to the USGS isoseismal map for the July 21, 1952 Kern County Earthquake, ground- shaking of VII to VIII intensity (Modified Mercalli Scale) was felt in Bakersfield. This is the largest known earthquake event affecting the Bakersfield area. The closest known faults to the property are subsurface faults located at the Elk Hills Oil Field approximately 11 miles to the southwest. These faults cut the older sediments and, although numerous, are not thought to be active in the last 2 million years. No evidence was observed that indicated surface faulting has occurred across the property during the Holocene time. Faults not yet identified, however, may exist. The site is not within an earthquake fault zone (special studies zone). The subject site is located in an area of anticipated moderate seismic shaking, and the proposed structures should be designed accordingly. Secondary hazards from earthquakes include rupture, seiche, landslides, liquefaction and subsidence. Since there are no known faults within the immediate area, ground rupture from surface faulting should not be a potential problem. Seiche and landslides are not hazards in the area either. Liquefaction potential (sudden loss of shear strength in a saturated cohesionless soil) should be low since groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depth of our borings at 45 feet below grade. Lastly, deep subsidence problems may be low to moderate according to the conclusions of the Five County Seismic Safety Element. However, there are no known occurrences of structural or architectural damage due to deep subsidence in the Bakersfield area. 5.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate the subsurface conditions encountered during field exploration and to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for site preparation, earthwork procedures, and foundation design parameters. The scope of our investigation included a program of field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and preparation of this report. 6.0 FIELD EXPLORATION Our field exploration consisted of site surface reconnaissance and subsurface exploration. The exploratory test borings (B-1 through B-6) were drilled on September 19, 2012 at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1, Site Plan. The test boring was advanced with a 4½-inch diameter auger rotated by a truck-mounted CME-45C drill rig. The test borings were extended to depths ranging from 16 to 45 feet below the existing grade. Job No. 2-212-0726 - 4 - The materials encountered in the test borings were visually classified in the field, and logs were recorded by a member of our professional staff at that time. Visual classification of the materials encountered in the test borings was generally made in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487). A soil classification chart and key to sampling is presented on the Unified Soil Classification Chart, in Appendix "A." The log of the test boring is presented in Appendix "A." Subsurface soil samples were obtained by driving a Modified California sampler (MCS) and a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler. Penetration resistance blow counts were obtained by dropping an automated 140-pound trip hammer through a 30-inch free fall to drive the sampler to a maximum depth of 18 inches. The number of blows required to drive the last 12 inches is recorded as Penetration Resistance (blows/foot) on the logs of the boring. The MCS samples were recovered and capped at both ends to preserve the samples at their natural moisture content; the SPT samples were recovered and placed in a plastic bag. At the completion of excavation, the boring was backfilled with excavated soils. 7.0 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties. The laboratory-testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation of natural moisture, density, consolidation potential, gradation, and permeablity characteristics of the materials encountered. In addition, chemical tests were performed to evaluate the corrosivity of the soils to buried concrete and metal. Details of the laboratory test program and the results of laboratory test are summarized in Appendix "A." This information, along with the field observations, was used to prepare the final boring log in Appendix "A." 8.0 SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Based on our findings, the subsurface conditions encountered appear typical of those found in the geologic region of the site. In general, the surface and near-surface soil predominately consisted of loose silty sand to sand. The surface soils are disturbed and dry. Below the surface soils, predominately medium dense silty sands, sands, silty sand/sand, and sandy silt were encountered to the termination depth of our borings. The soils were classified in the field during the drilling and sampling operations. The stratification lines were approximated by the field engineer on the basis of observations made at the time of drilling. The actual boundaries between different soil types may be gradual and soil conditions may vary. For a more detailed description of the materials encountered, the Boring Logs (Figures A-1 through A-6, in Appendix "A") should be consulted. The Boring Logs include the soil type, color, moisture content, dry density, and the applicable Unified Soil Classification System symbol. The locations of the test borings were determined by measuring from features shown on the Site Plan, provided to us. Hence, accuracy can be implied only to the degree that this method warrants. Job No. 2-212-0726 - 5 - Test boring locations were checked for the presence of groundwater during and immediately following the drilling operations. Free groundwater was not encountered during the drilling operations. It should be recognized that water table elevations may fluctuate with time, being dependent upon seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, and climatic conditions as well as other factors. Therefore, water level observations at the time of the field investigation may vary from those encountered during the construction phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report. 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the data collected during this investigation, and from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed construction. The proposed storage buildings may be supported on mat type foundations (Raft-Slab) provided that the recommendations presented herein are incorporated in the design and construction of the project. The site is covered by sparse weed growth and the surface soils have a loose consistency. These loose surface soils are disturbed, have low strength characteristics, and are highly compressible when saturated. Accordingly, it is recommended that these surface soils be recompacted. This compaction effort should stabilize the surface soils and locate any unsuitable or pliant areas not found during our field investigation. The exposed subgrade within the proposed building area, exterior flatwork, and pavement areas should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, worked until uniform and free from large clods, moisture-conditioned as necessary, and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM D1557 Test Method. The shrinkage on recompacted soil and fill placement is estimated at 15 to 20 percent. Subsidence within building areas should be less than 0.01 feet, due to the recommended over-excavation. Subsidence within parking areas, below the 12-inch recompaction depth, is estimated at 0.1 feet. Sandy soil conditions were encountered at the site. These cohesionless soils have a tendency to cave in trench wall excavations. Shoring or sloping back trench sidewalls may be required within these sandy soils. Liquefaction potential was evaluated at the site. Based on our findings, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction at the site is low. Therefore, no mitigation measures would be warranted. After completion of the recommended site preparation, the site should be suitable for shallow footing support. The proposed structure footings may be designed utilizing an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf for dead- plus-live loads. Wall and column footings should have a minimum embedment of 12 and 12 inches, respectively. Detailed geotechnical engineering recommendations are presented in the remaining portions of the text. The recommendations are based on the properties of the materials identified during our investigation. 9.1 Groundwater Influence on Structures/Construction Based on our findings and historical records, it is not anticipated that groundwater will rise within the zone of structural influence or affect the construction of conventional foundations and pavement for the project. However, if earthwork is performed during or soon after periods of precipitation, the subgrade soils may become saturated, “pump,” or not respond to densification techniques. Job No. 2-212-0726 - 6 - Typical remedial measures include: discing and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with dryer materials; removing and replacing the soil with an approved fill material; or mixing the soil with an approved lime or cement product. Our firm should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to observe unstable subgrade conditions and provide appropriate recommendations. Method of construction of deep foundations may be impacted by groundwater if the foundation extends below the groundwater elevation. 9.2 Soil Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Soil liquefaction is a state of soil particles suspension caused by a complete loss of strength when the effective stress drops to zero. Liquefaction normally occurs under saturated conditions in soils such as sand in which the strength is purely frictional. However, liquefaction has occurred in soils other than clean sand. Liquefaction usually occurs under vibratory conditions such as those induced by seismic events. To evaluate the liquefaction potential of the site, the following items were evaluated: 1) Soil type 2) Groundwater depth 3) Relative density 4) Initial confining pressure 5) Intensity and duration of groundshaking The liquefaction analysis indicated that the site soils had a low potential for liquefaction under seismic conditions based on the encountered subsurface soils. Post-liquefaction settlement of liquefied sands, a seismic hazard which could cause damage to the proposed development during seismic shaking, is considered low. Therefore, no mitigation measures in geotechnical design are warranted. Also during seismic shaking, a common phenomenon accompanying an earthquake is the seismic induced settlement of loose unconsolidated soils. Based on site subsurface conditions and the moderate seismicity of the region, any loose fill materials at the site could be vulnerable to this potential hazard. However, this hazard can be mitigated by over-excavation and rework of the loose soils and/or fill. Based on the moderate penetration resistance measured, the native deposits underlying the surface materials do not appear to be subject to significant seismic settlement. 9.3 Site Preparation and Grading The upper 2 to 4 inches of the soils containing asphaltic concrete, vegetation, roots and other objectionable organic matter encountered at the time of grading should be stripped and removed from the building and pavement areas and at least 5 feet outside the building perimeter. Deeper stripping may be required in localized areas. These materials will not be suitable for use as Engineered Fill. However, stripped topsoil may be stockpiled and reused in landscape or non-structural areas. Following stripping operations, the exposed subgrade within proposed building pad, exterior flatworks and pavement areas should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, worked until uniform and free from large clods, moisture-conditioned as necessary and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Limits of recompaction should extend 5 feet beyond structural elements. Job No. 2-212-0726 - 7 - The Owner may elect to omit scarifying, moisture conditioning, and recompacting, provided Owner is aware that poor subgrade conditions may exist and could cause excessive settlement in the future. At a minimum, the subgrade should be moisture conditioned to near optimum wheel-rolled with sheepsfoot, steel-wheel, or pneumatic rollers prior to placement of additional fill, or concrete slab, or asphaltic concrete pavements. Native sand, silty sand, or silty sand/sand soils are suitable for reuse as Engineered Fill. Fill material should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM D1557 Test Method. Sandy soil conditions were encountered at the site. These cohesionless soils have a tendency to cave in trench wall excavations. Shoring or sloping back trench sidewalls may be required within these sandy soils. The shrinkage on recompacted soil and fill placement is estimated at 15 to 20 percent. The upper soils, during wet winter months, become very moist due to the absorption characteristics of the soil. Earthwork operations performed during winter months may encounter very moist unstable soils, which may require removal of soil to a stable building foundation. Project site winterization consisting of placement of aggregate base and protecting exposed soils during construction should be performed. Excavations, depressions, or soft and pliant areas extending below planned finished subgrade levels should be cleaned to firm, undisturbed soil and backfilled with Engineered Fill. Any buried structures encountered during construction should be properly removed and backfilled. In general, any septic tanks, debris pits, cesspools, or similar structures should be entirely removed. Concrete footings should be removed to an equivalent depth of at least 3 feet below proposed footing elevations or as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. Any other buried structures should be removed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer. Resulting excavations should be properly backfilled. This testing and observation is an integral part of our service as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction of the material and the stability of the material. The Geotechnical Engineer may reject any material that does not meet compaction and stability requirements. Further recommendations of this report are predicated upon the assumption that earthwork construction will conform to recommendations set forth in this section and in Section 9.4. 9.4 Engineered Fill and Compaction The organic-free, on-site soils are predominantly sand silty sands, sands, silty sand/sand, and sandy silt. The sandy soils will be suitable for reuse as engineered fill, provided they are cleansed of excessive organics and debris. The preferred materials specified for engineered fill are suitable for most applications with the exception of exposure to erosion. Project site winterization and protection of exposed soils during the construction phase should be the sole responsibility of the Contractor, since he has complete control of the project site. Imported non-expansive non-corrosive fill should consist of a well-graded, slightly cohesive silty fine sand or sandy silt, with relatively impervious characteristics when compacted. This material should be approved by the Engineer prior to use and should typically possess the following characteristics: Job No. 2-212-0726 - 8 - Maximum Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve15-50 Maximum Particle Size 3" Maximum Plasticity Index 10 Maximum UBC Standard 29-2 Expansion Index 15 Fill soils should be placed in lifts approximately 6 inches thick, moisture-conditioned as necessary and compacted to achieve at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the required dry density or if soil conditions are not stable. 9.5 Surface Drainage Control The ground surface should slope away from building pad and pavement areas toward appropriate drop inlets or other surface drainage devices. It is recommended that adjacent exterior grades be sloped a minimum of 2 percent for a minimum distance of 5 feet away from structures. Subgrade soils in pavement areas should be sloped a minimum of 1 percent and drainage gradients maintained to carry all surface water to collection facilities and off site. These grades should be maintained for the life of the project. Roof drains should be installed with appropriate downspout extensions out-falling on splash blocks so as to direct water a minimum of 5 feet away from the structures or be connected to the storm drain system for the development. 9.6 Excavation Stability Temporary excavations planned for the construction of the proposed building and other associated underground structures may be excavated, according to the accepted engineering practice following Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards by a contractor experienced in such work. Open, unbraced excavations in undisturbed soils should be made according to the table below. Recommended Excavation Slopes Depth of Excavation (ft) Slope (Horizontal:Vertical) 0-5 1:1 5-10 1½:1 If, due to space limitation, excavations near existing structures are performed in a vertical position, braced shorings or shields may be used for supporting vertical excavations. Therefore, in order to comply with the local and state safety regulations, a properly designed and installed shoring system would be required to accomplish planned excavations and installation. A Specialty Shoring Contractor should be responsible for the design and installation of such a shoring system during construction. Braced shorings should be designed for a maximum pressure distribution of 29H, (where H is the depth of the excavation in feet). The foregoing does not include excess hydrostatic pressure or surcharge loading. Job No. 2-212-0726 - 9 - Fifty percent of any surcharge load, such as construction equipment weight, should be added to the lateral load given herein. Equipment traffic should concurrently be limited to an area at least 3 feet from the shoring face or edge of the slope. The excavation and shoring recommendations provided herein are based on soil characteristics derived from the test borings within the area. Variations in soil conditions will likely be encountered during the excavations. SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. should be afforded the opportunity to provide field review to evaluate the actual conditions and account for field condition variations not otherwise anticipated in the preparation of this recommendation. Slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth should in no case exceed those specified in local, state, or federal safety regulation, (e.g. OSHA) standards for excavations, 29 CFR part 1926, or Assessor’s regulations. 9.7 Foundations – Conventional Bearing wall footings considered for the office/residence should be continuous with a minimum width of 12 inches and extend to a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Isolated column footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches and extend a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Lowest adjacent grade is defined herein as sub-slab soil grade or exterior grade, whichever is lower. Footing concrete should be placed into a neat excavation. The bottom of footing excavations should be maintained free of loose and disturbed soil. Footings constructed as recommended herein may be designed for the maximum bearing capacity shown below. An increase of one-third is permitted when using the alternate load combination in Section 1605.3.2 of the 2009 IBC/2010 CBC that includes wind or earthquake loads. To control settlement to less than 1.0 inch, analysis indicates that the static design bearing shown below should be limited to 3,000 psf. Load Allowable Bearing (psf)* Dead-Plus-Live Load 600 B + 1000 D * B is footing width (feet) and D is footing embedment depth (feet). For design purposes, total settlement on the order of ½ to ¾ inch may be assumed for shallow foundations. Differential settlement, along a 30-foot exterior wall footing or between adjoining column footings, should be ¼ to ½ inch, producing an angular distortion of 0.002. Most of the settlement is expected to occur during construction as the loads are applied. However, additional post-construction settlement may occur if the foundation soils are flooded or saturated. The footing excavations should not be allowed to dry out any time prior to pouring concrete. Resistance to lateral footing displacement can be computed using an allowable friction factor of 0.35 acting between the base of foundations and the supporting subgrade. Lateral resistance for footings can alternatively be developed using an ultimate equivalent fluid passive pressure of 350 pounds per cubic foot acting against the appropriate vertical footing faces. The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. An increase of one-third is permitted when using the alternate load combination in Section 1605.3.2 of the 2009 IBC/2010 CBC that includes wind or earthquake loads. Job No. 2-212-0726 - 10 - 9.8 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade It is understood that non-structural slabs-on-grade related to the storage units will be a minimum of 3.5 inches thick. Since moisture sensitive floor coverings will not be affected by moisture vapor in the storage units, it is not necessary to provide a waterproof membrane. Slabs subject to structural loading may be designed utilizing a modulus of subgrade reaction K of 180 pounds per square inch per inch. The K value was approximated based on inter-relationship of soil classification and bearing values (Portland Cement Association, Rocky Mountain Northwest). In order to regulate cracking of the slabs, we recommend that full depth construction joints or control joints be provided at a maximum spacing of 15 feet in each direction for 5-inch thick slabs and 12 feet for 4-inch thick slabs. Control joints should have a minimum of one-quarter of the slab thickness. The Owner may elect to increase the spacing of construction/control joints, provided Owner is aware that could increase the probability of concrete cracking. The exterior floors should be poured separately in order to act independently of the walls and foundation system. Exterior finish grades should be sloped a minimum of 1 to 1½ percent away from all interior slab areas to preclude ponding of water adjacent to the structures. All fills required to bring the building pads to grade should be Engineered Fills. 9.9 Lateral Earth Pressures and Frictional Resistance Active, at-rest and passive unit lateral earth pressures against footings and walls are presented below: Lateral Pressure Conditions Equivalent Fluid Pressure, pcf Active Pressure, Drained 30 At-Rest Pressure, Drained 45 Passive Pressure 350 Active pressure applies to walls, which are free to rotate. At-rest pressure applies to walls, which are restrained against rotation. The preceding lateral earth pressures assume sufficient drainage behind retaining walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure. The top one-foot of adjacent subgrade should be deleted from the passive pressure computation. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used between soil subgrade and footings or slabs. The foregoing values of lateral earth pressures and frictional coefficients represent ultimate soil values and a safety factor consistent with the design conditions should be included in their usage. For stability against lateral sliding, which is resisted solely by the passive pressure, we recommend a minimum safety factor of 1.5. For stability against lateral sliding, which is resisted by the combined passive and frictional resistance, a minimum safety factor of 2.0 is recommended. For lateral stability against seismic loading conditions, we recommend a minimum safety factor of 1.1. Job No. 2-212-0726 - 11 - 9.10 Soil-Borne Salt Protection Excessive sulfate in either the soil or native water may result in an adverse reaction between the cement in concrete (or stucco) and the soil. HUD/FHA and UBC have developed criteria for evaluation of sulfate levels and how they relate to cement reactivity with soil and/or water. A soil sample was obtained from the project site and was tested for the evaluation of the potential for concrete deterioration or steel corrosion due to attack by soil-borne soluble salts. The water-soluble sulfate concentration in the saturation extract from the soil sample was detected to be 113 mg/kg. This concentration is indicative of negligible corrosion potential. Type I or II cement with a minimum content of 470 pounds with water-cement ratio of 0.55 has been shown to adequately resist the soil sulfate concentration. The water-soluble chloride concentration detected in saturation extract from the soil samples was 110 mg/kg. This level of chloride concentration is considered mildly corrosive. Soil resistivity values for the sample tested indicated 3,178 ohm-cm indicating a moderate corrosion risk to buried uncoated metal conduits in contact with soil. As SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering, consulting a qualified corrosion engineer is recommended for corrosion protection of buried metals. As a minimum, it is recommended that buried steel pipe or conduit be installed per manufacturer’s specifications. A concrete cover of 3 inches is considered adequate to provide protection for reinforcing steel. 9.11 Utility Pipe Bedding and Backfilling Utility trenches should be excavated according to accepted engineering practice following OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards by a contractor experienced in such work. The responsibility for the safety of open trenches should be borne by the contractor. Traffic and vibration adjacent to trench walls should be minimized; cyclic wetting and drying of excavation side slopes should be avoided. Depending upon the location and depth of some utility trenches, groundwater flow into open excavations could be experienced; especially during or following periods of precipitation. Sandy soil conditions were encountered at the site. These less cohesive soils have a tendency to cave in trench wall excavations. Shoring or sloping back trench sidewalls may be required within these sandy soils. Utility trench backfill placed in or adjacent to buildings and exterior slabs should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM D1557 Test Method. The upper 2 feet of utility trench backfill placed in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM D1557 Test Method. Pipe bedding should be in accordance with pipe manufacturer recommendations. The contractor is responsible for removing all water-sensitive soils from the trench regardless of the backfill location and compaction requirements. The contractor should use appropriate equipment and methods to avoid damage to the utilities and/or structures during fill placement and compaction. Job No. 2-212-0726 - 12 - 9.12 Pavement Design The pavement design recommendations provided herein are based on the State of California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) design manual using an assumed R-Value of 35. The asphaltic concrete (flexible pavement) is based on a 20-year pavement life utilizing 1200 passenger vehicles, 10 single unit trucks, and 2 multi-unit trucks. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (Parking Area) Traffic Index Asphaltic Concrete Class II Aggregate Base* Compacted Subgrade** 4.5 2.5" 5.0" 12.0" (Vehicle Drive Area) Traffic Index Asphaltic Concrete Class II Aggregate Base* Compacted Subgrade** 5.5 3.5" 5.5" 12.0" (Heavy Truck Area) Traffic Index Asphaltic Concrete Class II Aggregate Base* Compacted Subgrade** 6.5 4.0" 7.0" 12.0" * 95% compaction based on ASTM D1557 Test Method ** 90% compaction based on ASTM D1557 Test Method The following recommendations are for light-duty and heavy-duty Portland Cement Concrete pavement. PORTLAND CEMENT PAVEMENT LIGHT DUTY Traffic Index Portland Cement Concrete*** Class II Aggregate Base* Compacted Subgrade** 4.5 6.0" 4.0" 12.0" HEAVY DUTY Traffic Index Portland Cement Concrete*** Class II Aggregate Base* Compacted Subgrade** 6.5 7.0" 6.0" 12.0" * 95% compaction based on ASTM D1557 Test Method ** 90% compaction based on ASTM D1557 Test Method *** Minimum compressive strength of 3000 psi 9.13 Seismic Site Coefficients For seismic design of the structures, and in accordance with the seismic provisions of the 2009 IBC and 2010 CBC, our recommended parameters are shown below. These parameters are based on Probabilistic Ground Motion of 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years. The Site Class was determined based on the results of field exploration as documented in this geotechnical report. Job No. 2-212-0726 - 13 - Seismic Item Symbol Value 2009 IBC Reference Site Coordinates (Datum = NAD 83) 35.3550 Lat -119.1694 Lon Site Class -- D Table 1613.5.2 Soil Profile Name -- Stiff Soil Table 1613.5.2 Mapped Spectral Acceleration (Short period - 0.2 sec) SS 1.126 g Figure 1613.5* Mapped Spectral Acceleration (1.0 sec. period) S1 0.426 g Figure 1613.5* Site Class Modified Site Coefficient Fa 1.050 Table 1613.5.3(1) Site Class Modified Site Coefficient Fv 1.574 Table 1613.5.3(2) MCE Spectral Response Acceleration (Short period - 0.2 sec) SMS = Fa SS SMS 1.183 g Equation 16-36 MCE Spectral Response Acceleration (1.0 sec. period) SM1 = Fv S1 SM1 0.671 g Equation 16-37 Design Spectral Response Acceleration SDS= b SMS (short period - 0.2 sec) SDS 0.788 g Equation 16-38 Design Spectral Response Acceleration SD1= b SM1 (1.0 sec. period) SD1 0.448 g Equation 16-39 * Also used USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Program Java applet tool to determine site-specific accelerations (available at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/design/). 9.14 Permeability Testing Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties. The laboratory-testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation of gradation and permeability. Details of the laboratory test program and the results of laboratory test are summarized in Appendix "A." Two permeability tests were performed on undisturbed soil samples collected from depths of 25 feet below existing site grade in Borings B-1 and B-2. The permeability tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D2434. The test results are as follows: SUMMARY OF PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS Test No. Depth (feet) Coefficient of Permeability (cm/second) Soil Type B-1 25 9.6 x 10-2 Sand (SP) B-2 25 9.3 x 10-6 Silty Sand/Sandy Silt (SM/ML) The soils encountered within the site predominately consisted of medium dense sand to silty sand. A layer of silty sand/sandy silt was encountered at a depth of approximately 23 to 26 feet in Boring B-2. Job No. 2-212-0726 - 14 - As shown on the table above, the site soils had moderately high absorption characteristics with a coefficient of permeability of 9.6 x 10-2 centimeter per second (cm/sec) with the exception of a silty sand/sandy silt layer between approximately 23 to 26 feet that had coefficient of permeability of 9.3 x 10-6 cm/sec. The estimated soil absorption factors presented in this report are based on clear water and a factor of safety should be incorporated into the design of the reservoirs to compensate for soil clogging from water impurities. 10.0 PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING We recommend that a review of plans and specifications with regard to foundations, and earthwork be completed by SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. (SALEM) prior to construction bidding. SALEM should be present at the site during site preparation to observe site clearing, preparation of exposed surfaces after clearing, and placement, treatment and compaction of fill material. SALEM's observations should be supplemented with periodic compaction tests to establish substantial conformance with these recommendations. Moisture content of the building pad (footings and slab subgrade) should be tested immediately prior to concrete placement. SALEM should observe foundation excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete to assess whether the actual bearing conditions are compatible with the conditions anticipated during the preparation of this report. SALEM should also observe placement of foundation and slab concrete. 11.0 CHANGED CONDITIONS The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test boring drilled at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure A-1. The report does not reflect variations, which may occur between borings. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction is initiated. If variations then appear, a re-evaluation of the recommendations of this report will be necessary after performing on-site observations during the excavation period and noting the characteristics of such variations. The findings and recommendations presented in this report are valid as of the present and for the proposed construction. If site conditions change due to natural processes or human intervention on the property or adjacent to the site, or changes occur in the nature or design of the project, or if there is a substantial time lapse between the submission of this report and the start of the work at the site, the conclusions and recommendations contained in our report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by SALEM and the conclusions of our report are modified or verified in writing. The validity of the recommendations contained in this report is also dependent upon an adequate testing and observations program during the construction phase. Our firm assumes no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts or recommendations unless we have been retained to perform the on-site testing and review during construction. SALEM has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the owner and design consultants. Copying or reproduction of all or part of this document without the written permission of SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. is prohibited. The report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in the area. No other warranties, either express or implied, are made as to the professional advice provided under the terms of our agreement and included in this report. Job No. 2-212-0726 - 15 - If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (661) 393-9711. Respectfully submitted, SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. Adam Terronez, PE, GE Sammy Salem, MS, PE, GE, REA Senior Engineer Principal Engineer RCE 62285 / RGE 2709 RCE 52762 / RGE 2549 ©Copyright SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. AP P R O V E D B Y : SC A L E : DA T E : DR A W N B Y : Pr o j e c t N o . . 2- 2 1 2 - 0 7 2 6 FIG U R E N O . LE G E N D : So i l B o r i n g L o c a t i o n SI T E P L A N NO T T O S C A L E GW 09 / 2 8 / 1 2 AT 1 (A l l L o c a t i o n s A p p r o x i m a t e ) GE O T E C H N I C A L E N G I N E E R I N G I N V E S T I G A T I O N Pr o p o s e d D e r r e l ’ s M i n i S t o r a g e N o . 6 7 St o c k d a l e H w y ( A P N 4 0 8 - 0 2 0 - 4 8 ) Ba k e r s f i e l d , C a l i f o r n i a R V a l u e L o c a t i o n N B- 1 B- 2 B- 4 B- 5 B- 6 R- 3 R-2 B- 3 R- 1 B- 1 R- 1 R - 1 APPENDIX A APPENDIX A FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS 1.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION: The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploratory program. Soil Samples were collected from the site. The locations are shown on the attached site plan. The soils encountered were logged in the field during the exploration and with supplementary laboratory test data are described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. All samples were returned to our Fresno laboratory for evaluation. 2.0 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION: The laboratory investigation was programmed to determine the physical and mechanical properties of the foundation soil underlying the site. Test results were used as criteria for determining the engineering suitability of the surface and subsurface materials encountered. In situ moisture content,, consolidation, and permeability tests were determined for the undisturbed samples representative of the subsurface material. These tests, supplemented by visual observation, comprised the basis for our evaluation of the site material. The log of the exploratory test boring and laboratory determinations are presented in this Appendix. LetterSymbol GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. Peat, muck, and other highly organic soils. Well-graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines. Poorly-graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines. Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. Unified Soil Classification System Clayey sands, sandy-clay mixtures. Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fines sands or silts, elastic silts. Description Silts and Clays Liquid Limit greater than 50% Gravels With Fines Clean Sands Major Divisions Clean Gravels Sa n d s Mo r e t h a n ½ p a s s i n g th r o u g h t h e N o . 2 0 0 si e v e Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands. Gr a v e l s Mo r e t h a n ½ c o a r s e fr a c t i o n r e t a i n e d o n t h e No . 4 s i e v e Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. Consistency Classification Highly Organic Soils Co a r s e - g r a i n e d S o i l s Mo r e t h a n ½ r e t a i n e d o n t h e N o . 2 0 0 S i e v e Co a r s e - g r a i n e d S o i l s Mo r e t h a n ½ p a s s i n g t h r o u g h t h e No . 2 0 0 S i e v e Sands With Fines Silts and Clays Liquid Limit less than 50% Well-graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. Poorly-graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures. Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures. Cohesive SoilsGranular Soils Description - Blows Per Foot (Corrected)Description - Blows Per Foot (Corrected) MCS <5 5 ¯ 15 16 ¯ 40 41 ¯ 65 >65 SPT <4 4 ¯ 10 11 ¯ 30 31 ¯ 50 >50 Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense Very soft Soft Firm Stiff Very Stiff Hard MCS <3 3 ¯ 5 6 ¯ 10 11 ¯ 20 21 ¯ 40 >40 SPT <2 2 ¯ 4 5 ¯ 8 9 ¯ 15 16 ¯ 30 >30 MCS = Modified California Sampler SPT = Standard Penetration Test Sampler Boring No. Project No:Project: Client: Location: Figure No.: Logged By: Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: Grnd. Surf. Elev. (Ft. MSL) Drill Method: Drill Rig: Drill Date: Borehole Size: Driller: Sheet: 1 of 2 Hammer Type: Weight & Drop: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE De p t h ( f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 Sy m b o l Description Dr y D e n s i t y (p c f ) Mo i s t u r e Co n t e n t ( % ) Sa m p l e r T y p e Pe n e t r a t i o n Bl o w C o u n t Penetration Test Wa t e r L e v e l B-1 2-212-0726Proposed Derrel's Mini Storage No. 67 Derrel's Mini Storage, Inc. Stockdale Hwy (betw. Rider St. & Claudia Autumn Dr.), Bakersfield A-1 S.K. None None N/A Ground Surface Silty Sand (SM) Slightly moist; light brown; fine to medium- grained. Sand (SP) Loose; dry to slightly moist; light brown; fine to medium-grained. Grades as above. Grades as above, medium dense. Grades as above. Grades as above. Grades as above. - - - - - - 1.5 1.0 1.8 2.5 2.3 - TUBE TUBE TUBE TUBE TUBE TUBE 15 14 26 28 34 36 20 40 60 80 Hollow Stem Auger CME-45C 9/19/12 4½ inches Salem Engineering Group, Inc.Auto Trip 140 lb./30 in. Boring No. Project No:Project: Client: Location: Figure No.: Logged By: Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: Grnd. Surf. Elev. (Ft. MSL) Drill Method: Drill Rig: Drill Date: Borehole Size: Driller: Sheet: 2 of 2 Hammer Type: Weight & Drop: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE De p t h ( f t ) 30 35 40 45 50 Sy m b o l Description Dr y D e n s i t y (p c f ) Mo i s t u r e Co n t e n t ( % ) Sa m p l e r T y p e Pe n e t r a t i o n Bl o w C o u n t Penetration Test Wa t e r L e v e l B-1 2-212-0726Proposed Derrel's Mini Storage No. 67 Derrel's Mini Storage, Inc. Stockdale Hwy (betw. Rider St. & Claudia Autumn Dr.), Bakersfield A-1 S.K. None None N/A Silty Sand/Sand (SM/SP) Dense; dry to moist; brown; fine to medium- grained. Grades as above, medium dense. Grades as above. End of Borehole Grades as above. - - - - 1.7 2.5 2.1 - TUBE TUBE TUBE TUBE 31 62 34 - 20 40 60 80 Hollow Stem Auger CME-45C 9/19/12 4½ inches Salem Engineering Group, Inc.Auto Trip 140 lb./30 in. Boring No. Project No:Project: Client: Location: Figure No.: Logged By: Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: Grnd. Surf. Elev. (Ft. MSL) Drill Method: Drill Rig: Drill Date: Borehole Size: Driller: Sheet: 1 of 2 Hammer Type: Weight & Drop: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE De p t h ( f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 Sy m b o l Description Dr y D e n s i t y (p c f ) Mo i s t u r e Co n t e n t ( % ) Sa m p l e r T y p e Pe n e t r a t i o n Bl o w C o u n t Penetration Test Wa t e r L e v e l B-2 2-212-0726Proposed Derrel's Mini Storage No. 67 Derrel's Mini Storage, Inc. Stockdale Hwy (betw. Rider St. & Claudia Autumn Dr.), Bakersfield A-2 S.K. None None N/A Ground Surface Silty Sand (SM) Loose; dry to slightly moist; light brown; fine to medium-grained. Sand (SP) Loose; dry to slightly moist; light brown; fine to medium-grained. Silty Sand/Sand (SM/SP) Medium dense; dry to slightly moist; brown; fine to medium-grained. Sand (SP) Medium dense; dry to slightly moist; light brown; fine to medium-grained. Grades as above. Silty Sand/Sandy Silt (SM/ML) Medium dense; dry to moist; brown; fine- grained; with a trace of clay. - - - - - - 0.8 - 1.5 1.2 1.7 - TUBE TUBE TUBE TUBE TUBE TUBE 14 13 23 27 37 27 20 40 60 80 Hollow Stem Auger CME-45C 9/19/12 4½ inches Salem Engineering Group, Inc.Auto Trip 140 lb./30 in. Boring No. Project No:Project: Client: Location: Figure No.: Logged By: Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: Grnd. Surf. Elev. (Ft. MSL) Drill Method: Drill Rig: Drill Date: Borehole Size: Driller: Sheet: 2 of 2 Hammer Type: Weight & Drop: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE De p t h ( f t ) 30 35 40 45 50 Sy m b o l Description Dr y D e n s i t y (p c f ) Mo i s t u r e Co n t e n t ( % ) Sa m p l e r T y p e Pe n e t r a t i o n Bl o w C o u n t Penetration Test Wa t e r L e v e l B-2 2-212-0726Proposed Derrel's Mini Storage No. 67 Derrel's Mini Storage, Inc. Stockdale Hwy (betw. Rider St. & Claudia Autumn Dr.), Bakersfield A-2 S.K. None None N/A Sand (SP) Very dense; dry to slightly moist; light brown; fine to medium-grained. End of Borehole Grades as above. - - 2.7 - TUBE TUBE 78 - 20 40 60 80 Hollow Stem Auger CME-45C 9/19/12 4½ inches Salem Engineering Group, Inc.Auto Trip 140 lb./30 in. Boring No. Project No:Project: Client: Location: Figure No.: Logged By: Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: Grnd. Surf. Elev. (Ft. MSL) Drill Method: Drill Rig: Drill Date: Borehole Size: Driller: Sheet: 1 of 1 Hammer Type: Weight & Drop: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE De p t h ( f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 Sy m b o l Description Dr y D e n s i t y (p c f ) Mo i s t u r e Co n t e n t ( % ) Sa m p l e r T y p e Pe n e t r a t i o n Bl o w C o u n t Penetration Test Wa t e r L e v e l B-3 2-212-0726Proposed Derrel's Mini Storage No. 67 Derrel's Mini Storage, Inc. Stockdale Hwy (betw. Rider St. & Claudia Autumn Dr.), Bakersfield A-3 S.K. None None N/A Ground Surface Silty Sand (SM) Slightly moist; light brown; fine to medium- grained. Sand (SP) Loose; dry to slightly moist; light brown; fine to medium-grained. Grades as above, medium dense. Grades as above. Grades as above. Grades as above. End of Borehole - - - - - 1.1 1.3 - - - MCS MCS MCS SPT SPT 14 17 21 13 30 20 40 60 80 Hollow Stem Auger CME-45C 9/19/12 4½ inches Salem Engineering Group, Inc.Auto Trip 140 lb./30 in. Boring No. Project No:Project: Client: Location: Figure No.: Logged By: Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: Grnd. Surf. Elev. (Ft. MSL) Drill Method: Drill Rig: Drill Date: Borehole Size: Driller: Sheet: 1 of 1 Hammer Type: Weight & Drop: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE De p t h ( f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 Sy m b o l Description Dr y D e n s i t y (p c f ) Mo i s t u r e Co n t e n t ( % ) Sa m p l e r T y p e Pe n e t r a t i o n Bl o w C o u n t Penetration Test Wa t e r L e v e l B-4 2-212-0726Proposed Derrel's Mini Storage No. 67 Derrel's Mini Storage, Inc. Stockdale Hwy (betw. Rider St. & Claudia Autumn Dr.), Bakersfield A-4 S.K. None None N/A Ground Surface Silty Sand (SM) Slightly moist; light brown; fine to medium- grained. Sand (SP) Medium dense; dry to slightly moist; light brown; fine to medium-grained. Grades as above. Grades as above. Grades as above. End of Borehole - - - - 0.9 - - 0.9 MCS MCS MCS SPT 19 16 23 16 20 40 60 80 Hollow Stem Auger CME-45C 9/19/12 4½ inches Salem Engineering Group, Inc.Auto Trip 140 lb./30 in. Boring No. Project No:Project: Client: Location: Figure No.: Logged By: Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: Grnd. Surf. Elev. (Ft. MSL) Drill Method: Drill Rig: Drill Date: Borehole Size: Driller: Sheet: 1 of 1 Hammer Type: Weight & Drop: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE De p t h ( f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 Sy m b o l Description Dr y D e n s i t y (p c f ) Mo i s t u r e Co n t e n t ( % ) Sa m p l e r T y p e Pe n e t r a t i o n Bl o w C o u n t Penetration Test Wa t e r L e v e l B-5 2-212-0726Proposed Derrel's Mini Storage No. 67 Derrel's Mini Storage, Inc. Stockdale Hwy (betw. Rider St.. & Claudia Autumn Dr.), Bakersfield A-5 S.K. None None N/A Ground Surface Silty Sand (SM) Slightly moist; light brown; fine to medium- grained. Sand (SP) Loose; dry to slightly moist; light brown; fine to medium-grained. Grades as above. Sandy Silt (ML) Stiff; moist; brown; fine-grained. Grades as above, very moist; with a trace of clay. Silty Sand (SM) Medium dense; moist; brown; fine to medium- grained. End of Borehole - - - - - 1.2 - 7.0 19.4 6.4 MCS MCS MCS SPT SPT 15 14 15 14 24 20 40 60 80 Hollow Stem Auger CME-45C 9/19/12 4½ inches Salem Engineering Group, Inc.Auto Trip 140 lb./30 in. Boring No. Project No:Project: Client: Location: Figure No.: Logged By: Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: Grnd. Surf. Elev. (Ft. MSL) Drill Method: Drill Rig: Drill Date: Borehole Size: Driller: Sheet: 1 of 1 Hammer Type: Weight & Drop: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE De p t h ( f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 Sy m b o l Description Dr y D e n s i t y (p c f ) Mo i s t u r e Co n t e n t ( % ) Sa m p l e r T y p e Pe n e t r a t i o n Bl o w C o u n t Penetration Test Wa t e r L e v e l B-6 2-212-0726Proposed Derrel's Mini Storage No. 67 Derrel's Mini Storage, Inc. Stockdale Hwy (betw. Rider St. & Claudia Autumn Dr.), Bakersfield A-6 S.K. None None N/A Ground Surface Silty Sand (SM) Dense; dry to slightly moist; light brown; fine to medium-grained. Silty Sand/Sand (SM/SP) Medium dense; dry to slightly moist; light brown; fine to medium-grained. Silty Sand (SM) Medium dense; dry to moist; light brown; fine to medium-grained. Sandy Silt (ML) Stiff; moist; brown; fine-grained. End of Borehole - - - - 1.5 0.9 1.8 8.2 MCS MCS MCS SPT 41 33 35 20 20 40 60 80 Hollow Stem Auger CME-45C 9/19/12 4½ inches Salem Engineering Group, Inc.Auto Trip 140 lb./30 in. CO N S O L I D A T I O N - P R E S S U R E T E S T D A T A AS T M D 2 4 3 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0. 1 1 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 LO A D I N K I P S P E R S Q U A R E F O O T VOLUME CHANGE IN PERCENT SO A K E D CO N S O L I D A T I O N RE B O U N D 0. 2 0. 3 0. 4 0 . 5 0 . 6 0. 8 2 . 0 3 . 0 4 . 0 5 . 0 6 . 0 8. 0 Bo r i n g : B - 4 @ 2 ' 20 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 8 0 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t : Dr y D e n s i t y : 0.9%pcf 10 1 . 0 D e r r e l s M i n i S t o r a g e # 6 7 , S t o c k d a l e H w y b e t w e e n R i d e r S t r e e t a n d C l a u d i a A u t u m D r i v e , B a k e r s f i e l d , C A Jo b N u m b e r : 2 - 2 1 2 - 0 7 2 6 PA R T I C L E S I Z E D I S T R I B U T I O N D I A G R A M GR A D A T I O N T E S T - A S T M D 4 2 1 0. 0 10 . 0 20 . 0 30 . 0 40 . 0 50 . 0 60 . 0 70 . 0 80 . 0 90 . 0 10 0 . 0 PERCENT PASSING FI N E SA N D ME D I U M C O A R S E CL A Y ( P L A S T I C ) T O S I L T ( N O N - P L A S T I C ) GRAVEL FINECOARSECOBBLE HY D R O M E T E R A N A L Y S I S TI M E R E A D I N G S U. S . S T A N D A R D S E R I E S SI E V E A N A L Y S I S CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 25 H R 4 5 M I N 7 H R 1 5 M I N 6 0 M I N 1 9 M I N 4 M I N 1 M I N # 2 0 0 #1 0 0 #5 0 # 4 0 # 3 0 # 1 6 # 1 0 # 8 # 4 3 / 8 " 3 / 4 " 1 - 1 / 2 " 3 " 0. 0 1 9 0. 0 3 7 .06 .02 .03 .04 .05 .002 .003 .004 .005 .007 .009 .001 0.01 0.8 0. 5 9 0 0. 1 4 9 0. 2 9 7 0. 0 7 4 0.5 0.7 0.4 .08 0.2 0.3 0.1 1. 1 9 2 . 3 8 3.0 2.0 1.0 80 19.138.176.2 4. 7 6 9 . 5 2 102030405060100 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0 Jo b N u m b e r : 2 - 2 1 2 - 0 7 2 6 D e r r e l s M i n i S t o r a g e # 6 7 , S t o c k d a l e H w y b e t w e e n R i d e r S t r e e t a n d C l a u d i a A u t u m D r i v e , B a k e r s f i e l d , C A Bo r i n g : B - 1 @ 2 0 ' PA R T I C L E S I Z E D I S T R I B U T I O N D I A G R A M GR A D A T I O N T E S T - A S T M D 4 2 1 0. 0 10 . 0 20 . 0 30 . 0 40 . 0 50 . 0 60 . 0 70 . 0 80 . 0 90 . 0 10 0 . 0 PERCENT PASSING FI N E SA N D ME D I U M C O A R S E CL A Y ( P L A S T I C ) T O S I L T ( N O N - P L A S T I C ) GRAVEL FINECOARSECOBBLE HY D R O M E T E R A N A L Y S I S TI M E R E A D I N G S U. S . S T A N D A R D S E R I E S SI E V E A N A L Y S I S CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 25 H R 4 5 M I N 7 H R 1 5 M I N 6 0 M I N 1 9 M I N 4 M I N 1 M I N # 2 0 0 #1 0 0 #5 0 # 4 0 # 3 0 # 1 6 # 1 0 # 8 # 4 3 / 8 " 3 / 4 " 1 - 1 / 2 " 3 " 0. 0 1 9 0. 0 3 7 .06 .02 .03 .04 .05 .002 .003 .004 .005 .007 .009 .001 0.01 0.8 0. 5 9 0 0. 1 4 9 0. 2 9 7 0. 0 7 4 0.5 0.7 0.4 .08 0.2 0.3 0.1 1. 1 9 2 . 3 8 3.0 2.0 1.0 80 19.138.176.2 4. 7 6 9 . 5 2 102030405060100 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0 Jo b N u m b e r : 2 - 2 1 2 - 0 7 2 6 D e r r e l s M i n i S t o r a g e # 6 7 , S t o c k d a l e H w y b e t w e e n R i d e r S t r e e t a n d C l a u d i a A u t u m D r i v e , B a k e r s f i e l d , C A Bo r i n g : B - 1 @ 2 5 ' PA R T I C L E S I Z E D I S T R I B U T I O N D I A G R A M GR A D A T I O N T E S T - A S T M D 4 2 1 0. 0 10 . 0 20 . 0 30 . 0 40 . 0 50 . 0 60 . 0 70 . 0 80 . 0 90 . 0 10 0 . 0 PERCENT PASSING FI N E SA N D ME D I U M C O A R S E CL A Y ( P L A S T I C ) T O S I L T ( N O N - P L A S T I C ) GRAVEL FINECOARSECOBBLE HY D R O M E T E R A N A L Y S I S TI M E R E A D I N G S U. S . S T A N D A R D S E R I E S SI E V E A N A L Y S I S CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 25 H R 4 5 M I N 7 H R 1 5 M I N 6 0 M I N 1 9 M I N 4 M I N 1 M I N # 2 0 0 #1 0 0 #5 0 # 4 0 # 3 0 # 1 6 # 1 0 # 8 # 4 3 / 8 " 3 / 4 " 1 - 1 / 2 " 3 " 0. 0 1 9 0. 0 3 7 .06 .02 .03 .04 .05 .002 .003 .004 .005 .007 .009 .001 0.01 0.8 0. 5 9 0 0. 1 4 9 0. 2 9 7 0. 0 7 4 0.5 0.7 0.4 .08 0.2 0.3 0.1 1. 1 9 2 . 3 8 3.0 2.0 1.0 80 19.138.176.2 4. 7 6 9 . 5 2 102030405060100 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0 Jo b N u m b e r : 2 - 2 1 2 - 0 7 2 6 D e r r e l s M i n i S t o r a g e # 6 7 , S t o c k d a l e H w y b e t w e e n R i d e r S t r e e t a n d C l a u d i a A u t u m D r i v e , B a k e r s f i e l d , C A Bo r i n g : B - 1 @ 3 0 ' PA R T I C L E S I Z E D I S T R I B U T I O N D I A G R A M GR A D A T I O N T E S T - A S T M D 4 2 1 0. 0 10 . 0 20 . 0 30 . 0 40 . 0 50 . 0 60 . 0 70 . 0 80 . 0 90 . 0 10 0 . 0 PERCENT PASSING FI N E SA N D ME D I U M C O A R S E CL A Y ( P L A S T I C ) T O S I L T ( N O N - P L A S T I C ) GRAVEL FINECOARSECOBBLE HY D R O M E T E R A N A L Y S I S TI M E R E A D I N G S U. S . S T A N D A R D S E R I E S SI E V E A N A L Y S I S CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 25 H R 4 5 M I N 7 H R 1 5 M I N 6 0 M I N 1 9 M I N 4 M I N 1 M I N # 2 0 0 #1 0 0 #5 0 # 4 0 # 3 0 # 1 6 # 1 0 # 8 # 4 3 / 8 " 3 / 4 " 1 - 1 / 2 " 3 " 0. 0 1 9 0. 0 3 7 .06 .02 .03 .04 .05 .002 .003 .004 .005 .007 .009 .001 0.01 0.8 0. 5 9 0 0. 1 4 9 0. 2 9 7 0. 0 7 4 0.5 0.7 0.4 .08 0.2 0.3 0.1 1. 1 9 2 . 3 8 3.0 2.0 1.0 80 19.138.176.2 4. 7 6 9 . 5 2 102030405060100 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0 Jo b N u m b e r : 2 - 2 1 2 - 0 7 2 6 D e r r e l s M i n i S t o r a g e # 6 7 , S t o c k d a l e H w y b e t w e e n R i d e r S t r e e t a n d C l a u d i a A u t u m D r i v e , B a k e r s f i e l d , C A Bo r i n g : B - 1 @ 3 5 ' PA R T I C L E S I Z E D I S T R I B U T I O N D I A G R A M GR A D A T I O N T E S T - A S T M D 4 2 1 0. 0 10 . 0 20 . 0 30 . 0 40 . 0 50 . 0 60 . 0 70 . 0 80 . 0 90 . 0 10 0 . 0 PERCENT PASSING FI N E SA N D ME D I U M C O A R S E CL A Y ( P L A S T I C ) T O S I L T ( N O N - P L A S T I C ) GRAVEL FINECOARSECOBBLE HY D R O M E T E R A N A L Y S I S TI M E R E A D I N G S U. S . S T A N D A R D S E R I E S SI E V E A N A L Y S I S CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 25 H R 4 5 M I N 7 H R 1 5 M I N 6 0 M I N 1 9 M I N 4 M I N 1 M I N # 2 0 0 #1 0 0 #5 0 # 4 0 # 3 0 # 1 6 # 1 0 # 8 # 4 3 / 8 " 3 / 4 " 1 - 1 / 2 " 3 " 0. 0 1 9 0. 0 3 7 .06 .02 .03 .04 .05 .002 .003 .004 .005 .007 .009 .001 0.01 0.8 0. 5 9 0 0. 1 4 9 0. 2 9 7 0. 0 7 4 0.5 0.7 0.4 .08 0.2 0.3 0.1 1. 1 9 2 . 3 8 3.0 2.0 1.0 80 19.138.176.2 4. 7 6 9 . 5 2 102030405060100 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0 Jo b N u m b e r : 2 - 2 1 2 - 0 7 2 6 D e r r e l s M i n i S t o r a g e # 6 7 , S t o c k d a l e H w y b e t w e e n R i d e r S t r e e t a n d C l a u d i a A u t u m D r i v e , B a k e r s f i e l d , C A Bo r i n g : B - 2 @ 2 0 ' PA R T I C L E S I Z E D I S T R I B U T I O N D I A G R A M GR A D A T I O N T E S T - A S T M D 4 2 1 0. 0 10 . 0 20 . 0 30 . 0 40 . 0 50 . 0 60 . 0 70 . 0 80 . 0 90 . 0 10 0 . 0 PERCENT PASSING FI N E SA N D ME D I U M C O A R S E CL A Y ( P L A S T I C ) T O S I L T ( N O N - P L A S T I C ) GRAVEL FINECOARSECOBBLE HY D R O M E T E R A N A L Y S I S TI M E R E A D I N G S U. S . S T A N D A R D S E R I E S SI E V E A N A L Y S I S CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 25 H R 4 5 M I N 7 H R 1 5 M I N 6 0 M I N 1 9 M I N 4 M I N 1 M I N # 2 0 0 #1 0 0 #5 0 # 4 0 # 3 0 # 1 6 # 1 0 # 8 # 4 3 / 8 " 3 / 4 " 1 - 1 / 2 " 3 " 0. 0 1 9 0. 0 3 7 .06 .02 .03 .04 .05 .002 .003 .004 .005 .007 .009 .001 0.01 0.8 0. 5 9 0 0. 1 4 9 0. 2 9 7 0. 0 7 4 0.5 0.7 0.4 .08 0.2 0.3 0.1 1. 1 9 2 . 3 8 3.0 2.0 1.0 80 19.138.176.2 4. 7 6 9 . 5 2 102030405060100 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0 Jo b N u m b e r : 2 - 2 1 2 - 0 7 2 6 D e r r e l s M i n i S t o r a g e # 6 7 , S t o c k d a l e H w y b e t w e e n R i d e r S t r e e t a n d C l a u d i a A u t u m D r i v e , B a k e r s f i e l d , C A Bo r i n g : B - 2 @ 2 5 ' PA R T I C L E S I Z E D I S T R I B U T I O N D I A G R A M GR A D A T I O N T E S T - A S T M D 4 2 1 0. 0 10 . 0 20 . 0 30 . 0 40 . 0 50 . 0 60 . 0 70 . 0 80 . 0 90 . 0 10 0 . 0 PERCENT PASSING FI N E SA N D ME D I U M C O A R S E CL A Y ( P L A S T I C ) T O S I L T ( N O N - P L A S T I C ) GRAVEL FINECOARSECOBBLE HY D R O M E T E R A N A L Y S I S TI M E R E A D I N G S U. S . S T A N D A R D S E R I E S SI E V E A N A L Y S I S CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 25 H R 4 5 M I N 7 H R 1 5 M I N 6 0 M I N 1 9 M I N 4 M I N 1 M I N # 2 0 0 #1 0 0 #5 0 # 4 0 # 3 0 # 1 6 # 1 0 # 8 # 4 3 / 8 " 3 / 4 " 1 - 1 / 2 " 3 " 0. 0 1 9 0. 0 3 7 .06 .02 .03 .04 .05 .002 .003 .004 .005 .007 .009 .001 0.01 0.8 0. 5 9 0 0. 1 4 9 0. 2 9 7 0. 0 7 4 0.5 0.7 0.4 .08 0.2 0.3 0.1 1. 1 9 2 . 3 8 3.0 2.0 1.0 80 19.138.176.2 4. 7 6 9 . 5 2 102030405060100 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0 Jo b N u m b e r : 2 - 2 1 2 - 0 7 2 6 D e r r e l s M i n i S t o r a g e # 6 7 , S t o c k d a l e H w y b e t w e e n R i d e r S t r e e t a n d C l a u d i a A u t u m D r i v e , B a k e r s f i e l d , C A Bo r i n g : B - 2 @ 3 0 ' Soil Permeability Constant Head ASTM D-2434 / Cal 220 Project Number :2-212-0726 Project Name :Derrels Mini Storage #67, Bakersfield, CA Date :9/25/2012 Sample Number :S-1 Sample Location :B-1 @ 25' Soil Classification :SP Max Dry Density --lb/cu.ftRelative Density --Max. Particle Size -- Optimum Moisture --%%Over Optimum --% Passing 3/8"-- Sample Dry Density --lb/cu.ftVoid Ratio --% Passing # 10 -- Sample Moisture --%Sample Length, cm 13.3Sample Diameter 6.2 Sample Compaction --%Sample Area sq.cm 29.7 23.9 Comp. Procedure Type of Permeant water Start Finish HeadFlow Test Time Time(cm)Q (cm3) 19:30:009:30:1070.3177.00 29:30:309:30:4070.3150.00 39:31:009:31:1070.3155.00 4 5 6 TimeHeadFlowK k20 Test sec(cm)Q (cm3) cm/sec cm/sec 11070.3177.01.13E-011.053E-01 Permeability 2 10 70.3150.09.59E-028.927E-02 9.6E-02cm/sec 3 10 70.3155.09.91E-029.224E-02 1.4E+02in/hr. 4 2.7E+02ft/day 5 98578.57ft/year 6 0 Temperature SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. Soil Permeability Constant Head ASTM D-2434 / Cal 220 Project Number :2-212-0726 Project Name :Derrels Mini Storage #67, Bakersfield, CA Date :9/27/2012 Sample Number :S-2 Sample Location :B-2 @ 25' Soil Classification :SM/ML Max Dry Density --lb/cu.ftRelative Density --Max. Particle Size -- Optimum Moisture --%%Over Optimum --% Passing 3/8"-- Sample Dry Density --lb/cu.ftVoid Ratio --% Passing # 10 -- Sample Moisture --%Sample Length, cm 13.3Sample Diameter 6.2 Sample Compaction --%Sample Area sq.cm 29.7 23.9 Comp. Procedure Type of Permeant water Start Finish HeadFlow Test Time Time(cm)Q (cm3) 19:30:009:31:00632.71.00 29:31:009:32:00632.70.90 39:32:009:33:00632.70.80 49:33:009:34:00632.70.80 59:34:009:35:00632.70.70 6 TimeHeadFlowK k20 Test sec(cm)Q (cm3) cm/sec cm/sec 160632.71.01.18E-051.102E-05 Permeability 2 60 632.70.91.07E-059.918E-06 9.3E-06cm/sec 3 60 632.70.89.47E-068.816E-06 1.3E-02in/hr. 4 60 632.70.89.47E-068.816E-06 2.6E-02ft/day 5 60 632.70.78.29E-067.714E-06 9.54ft/year 6 0 Temperature SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. Resistance R - Value and Expansion Pressure of Compacted Soils ASTM D2844-94, Cal 301 123 640280125 8.19.911.8 124.5122.5121.5 000.0 5.56.67.0 0.00.00.0 453430R-Value by Stabilometer Controlling R-Value 35 R-Value by Expansion Pressure NA R-Value at 300 psi Exudation Pressure 35 S.K.9/20/2012Date Tested Thickness by Expansion Pressure, in Expansion Pressure, psf Specimen Material DescriptionFine/Med Silty Sand Thickness by Stabilometer, in. Project Name Project Number Sample Date Sampled By Exudation Pressure, psi Moisture at Test, % Dry Density, pcf Tested By R-1 C. Mackey Derrels Mini Storage #67 2-212-0726 Stockdale Hwy 9/19/12 Sample Location Lab ID Number 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 100200300400500600700800 Exudation Pressure, psi R- V a l u e 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 0.06.012.018.024.0Cover Thickness by Expansion Pressure, in. Co v e r T h i c k n e s s b y S t a b i l o m e t e r , i n . SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. Resistance R - Value and Expansion Pressure of Compacted Soils ASTM D2844-94, Cal 301 123 555340200 11.412.413.3 120.6118.2117.6 000.0 4.95.45.9 0.00.00.0 514641 Stockdale HwyProject NameDerrels Mini Storage #67Lab ID Number Project Number2-212-0726Sample LocationR-2 C. Mackey 9/24/2012 Material DescriptionFine/Med Silty Sand Sample Date9/19/12Tested By Thickness by Stabilometer, in. Sampled ByS.K.Date Tested Exudation Pressure, psi Moisture at Test, % Specimen Dry Density, pcf Expansion Pressure, psf Controlling R-Value 45 Thickness by Expansion Pressure, in R-Value by Stabilometer R-Value by Expansion PressureNA R-Value at 300 psi Exudation Pressure45 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 100200300400500600700800 Exudation Pressure, psi R- V a l u e 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 0.06.012.018.024.0Cover Thickness by Expansion Pressure, in. Co v e r T h i c k n e s s b y S t a b i l o m e t e r , i n . SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. Resistance R - Value and Expansion Pressure of Compacted Soils ASTM D2844-94, Cal 301 123 485300150 10.711.612.1 122.0121.7121.2 000.0 4.44.95.8 0.00.00.0 565143 Thickness by Stabilometer, in. Controlling R-Value 51 Thickness by Expansion Pressure, in R-Value by Stabilometer R-Value by Expansion PressureNA R-Value at 300 psi Exudation Pressure51 Expansion Pressure, psf Sampled ByS.K. Specimen Exudation Pressure, psi Moisture at Test, % Dry Density, pcf Date Tested9/26/2012 Material DescriptionFine/Medium Silty Sand Project Number2-212-0726Sample LocationR-3 Sample Date9/19/12Tested ByC. Mackey Project NameDerrel's Mini Storage #67Lab ID NumberStockdale Hwy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 100200300400500600700800 Exudation Pressure, psi R- V a l u e 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 0.06.012.018.024.0Cover Thickness by Expansion Pressure, in. Co v e r T h i c k n e s s b y S t a b i l o m e t e r , i n . SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. Date Tested:9/21/2012 Tested by:RH Sample Description: Soil pH:Sulfate Content:mg/KgChloride Content:mg/Kg Initial Sample Weight:700gms Test Box Constant:1.0cm Test Data: Trial #Water AddedMeter DialMultiplierResistanceResistivity (mL)ReadingSetting(ohms)(ohm cm) 11503.61,0003600.03560.0 22003.21,0003200.03164.5 32503.31,0003300.03263.4 3178 ohm cm SOIL RESISTIVITY Cal 643 Minimum Resistivity: Job Number: 2-212-0726 Sample Location: (B-1, B-5, B-6) @ 2' Derrels Mini Storage #67, Stockdale Hwy between Rider 7.5 113 110 3150.0 3200.0 3250.0 3300.0 3350.0 3400.0 3450.0 3500.0 3550.0 3600.0 3650.0 507090110130150170190210230250 Water Added (mL) Re s i s t a n c e ( o h m s ) CHEMICAL ANALYSIS SO4 - Modified Caltrans 417 & Cl - Modified Caltrans 417/422 Derrels Mini Storage #67, Stockdale Hwy between Rider Street and Claudia Autum Drive, Ba Job Number: 2-212-0726 Date: 9/21/12 SampleSampleSolubleSoluble NumberLocationSulfateChloridepH SO4-S Cl 1a.(B-1, B-5, B-6) @ 120mg/Kg111mg/Kg7.5 1b.(B-1, B-5, B-6) @ 110mg/Kg110mg/Kg7.5 1c.(B-1, B-5, B-6) @ 110mg/Kg109mg/Kg7.5 Average113mg/Kg110mg/Kg7.5 Soil Classification: APPENDIX B APPENDIX B EARTHWORK /PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS When the text of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the recommendations in the report have precedence. 1.0 SCOPE OF WORK: These specifications and applicable plans pertain to and include all earthwork associated with the site rough grading, including, but not limited to, the furnishing of all labor, tools and equipment necessary for site clearing and grubbing, stripping, preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill, excavation, processing, placement and compaction of fill and backfill materials to the lines and grades shown on the project grading plans and disposal of excess materials. 2.0 PERFORMANCE: The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthworks in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work shall be inspected and tested by a representative of SALEM Engineering Group, Incorporated, hereinafter referred to as the Soils Engineer and/or Testing Agency. Attainment of design grades, when achieved, shall be certified by the project Civil Engineer. Both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer are the Owner's representatives. If the Contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements embodied in this document and on the applicable plans, he shall make the necessary adjustments until all work is deemed satisfactory as determined by both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer. No deviation from these specifications shall be made except upon written approval of the Soils Engineer, Civil Engineer, or project Architect. No earthwork shall be performed without the physical presence or approval of the Soils Engineer. The Contractor shall notify the Soils Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the commencement of any aspect of the site earthwork. The Contractor agrees that he shall assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and that the Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability arising from the sole negligence of the Owner or the Engineers. 3.0 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS: All compacted materials shall be densified to no less that 92 percent of relative compaction based on ASTM D1557 Test Method-78, UBC or CAL-216, as specified in the technical portion of the Soil Engineer's report. The location and frequency of field density tests shall be as determined by the Soils Engineer. The results of these tests and compliance with these specifications shall be the basis upon which satisfactory completion of work will be judged by the Soils Engineer. 4.0 SOILS AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS: The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site and to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in the Geotechnical Engineering Report. The Contractor shall make his own interpretation of the data contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Report and the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability under the Contractor for any loss sustained as a result of any variance between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report and the actual conditions encountered during the progress of the work. 5.0 DUST CONTROL: The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any dust nuisance on or about the site or the borrow area, or off-site if caused by the Contractor's operation either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor leaves the site. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including court costs of codefendants, for all claims related to dust or wind-blown materials attributable to his work. Site preparation shall consist of site clearing and grubbing and preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill. 6.0 CLEARING AND GRUBBING: The Contractor shall accept the site in this present condition and shall demolish and/or remove from the area of designated project earthwork all structures, both surface and subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter and all other matter determined by the Soils Engineer to be deleterious. Such materials shall become the property of the Contractor and shall be removed from the site. Tree root systems in proposed building areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet and to such an extent which would permit removal of all roots greater than 1 inch in diameter. Tree roots removed in parking areas may be limited to the upper 1½ feet of the ground surface. Backfill or tree root excavation should not be permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the Soils Engineer is present for the proper control of backfill placement and compaction. Burning in areas which are to receive fill materials shall not be permitted. 7.0 SUBGRADE PREPARATION: Surfaces to receive Engineered Fill, building or slab loads, shall be prepared as outlined above, scarified to a minimum of 6 inches, moisture-conditioned as necessary, and recompacted to 90 percent relative compaction. Loose soil areas and/or areas of disturbed soil shall be moisture-conditioned as necessary and recompacted to 90 percent relative compaction. All ruts, hummocks, or other uneven surface features shall be removed by surface grading prior to placement of any fill materials. All areas which are to receive fill materials shall be approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of any of the fill material. 8.0 EXCAVATION: All excavation shall be accomplished to the tolerance normally defined by the Civil Engineer as shown on the project grading plans. All over-excavation below the grades specified shall be backfilled at the Contractor's expense and shall be compacted in accordance with the applicable technical requirements. 9.0 FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL: No material shall be moved or compacted without the presence of the Soils Engineer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for construction site fills, provided prior approval is given by the Soils Engineer. All materials utilized for constructing site fills shall be free from vegetation or other deleterious matter as determined by the Soils Engineer. 10.0 PLACEMENT, SPREADING AND COMPACTION: The placement and spreading of approved fill materials and the processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. However, compaction of fill materials by flooding, ponding, or jetting shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the Soils Engineer. Both cut and fill shall be surface-compacted to the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer prior to final acceptance. 11.0 SEASONAL LIMITS: No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen or thawing, or during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until the Soils Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of previously placed fill is as specified. 12.0 DEFINITIONS - The term "pavement" shall include asphaltic concrete surfacing, untreated aggregate base, and aggregate subbase. The term "subgrade" is that portion of the area on which surfacing, base, or subbase is to be placed. The term “Standard Specifications”: hereinafter referred to is the January 1991 Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation, and the "Materials Manual" is the Materials Manual of Testing and Control Procedures, State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways. The term "relative compaction" refers to the field density expressed as a percentage of the maximum laboratory density as defined in the applicable tests outlined in the Materials Manual. 13.0 SCOPE OF WORK - This portion of the work shall include all labor, materials, tools, and equipment necessary for, and reasonably incidental to the completion of the pavement shown on the plans and as herein specified, except work specifically notes as "Work Not Included." 14.0 PREPARATION OF THE SUBGRADE - The Contractor shall prepare the surface of the various subgrades receiving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and dimensions given on the plans. The upper 12 inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 92 percent. The finished subgrades shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of additional pavement courses. 15.0 UNTREATED AGGREGATE BASE - The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate base material shall conform to the requirements of Section 26 of the Standard Specifications for Class II material, 1½ inches maximum size. The aggregate base material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted in accordance with Section 26 of the Standard Specifications. The aggregate base material shall be spread in layers not exceeding 6 inches and each layer of aggregate material course shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers. 16.0 AGGREGATE SUBBASE - The aggregate subbase shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate subbase material shall conform to the requirements of Section 25 of the Standard Specifications for Class II material. The aggregate subbase material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent, and it shall be spread and compacted in accordance with Section 25 of the Standard Specifications. Each layer of aggregate subbase shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers. 17.0 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACING - Asphaltic concrete surfacing shall consist of a mixture of mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at a central mixing plant and spread and compacted on a prepared base in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The viscosity grade of the asphalt shall be AR-4000. The mineral aggregate shall be Type B, ½ inch maximum size, medium grading, and shall conform to the requirements set forth in Section 39 of the Standard Specifications. The drying, proportioning, and mixing of the materials shall conform to Section 39. The prime coat, spreading and compacting equipment, and spreading and compacting the mixture shall conform to the applicable chapters of Section 39, with the exception that no surface course shall be placed when the atmospheric temperature is below 50 degrees F. The surfacing shall be rolled with a combination steel-wheel and pneumatic rollers, as described in Section 39-6. The surface course shall be placed with an approved self-propelled mechanical spreading and finishing machine. 18.0 FOG SEAL COAT - The fog seal (mixing type asphaltic emulsion) shall conform to and be applied in accordance with the requirements of Section 37. SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. 4729 W. Jacquelyn Avenue •••• Fresno, CA 93722 •••• (559) 271-9700 •••• Fax (559) 275-0827 2809 Unicorn Road, Suite 103 •••• Bakersfield, CA 93308 •••• (661) 393-9711 •••• Fax (661) 393-9710 11650 Mission Park Dr. # 108 •••• Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 ••••(909) 980-6455 •••• Fax (909) 980-6435 3850 North Wilcox Road, Suite F •••• Stockton, CA 95215 •••• (209) 931-2226 •••• Fax (209) 931-2227 2211 Fortune Drive, Suite C •••• San Jose, CA 95131 •••• (408) 577-1090 •••• Fax (408) 577-1099 3420 C Street NE, Suite 304 •••• Auburn, WA 98002 •••• (253) 737-5992 •••• Fax (253) 929-6094 Geotechnical Environmental Geology Materials Testing & Inspection Forensic Laboratory October 19, 2012 Job No. 2-212-0726 Ms. Karen Kendall Derrel’s Mini Storage, Inc. 3265 W. Ashlan Avenue Fresno, CA 93722 Subject: Slope Evaluation of Retention Basin Proposed Derrel’s Mini-Storage #67 Stockdale Highway (between Rider Street and Claudia Autumn Drive) Bakersfield, California Dear Ms. Kendall: In accordance with your request, we have prepared this report to provide slope stability evaluation and recommendations for construction of the proposed retention Basin at the subject site. The retention basin will be cut approximately 19 feet deep with a 2:1 slope (horizontal to vertical). No fill slope is anticipated for this project. The Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the subject site was conducted in September, 2012 (SLAEM Job No. 2-212-0726 dated September 28, 2012) with six (6) exploratory borings ranging in depths from approximately 16 to 45 feet below the existing ground surface. In general, the surface and near-surface soil predominately consisted of loose silty sand to sand. The surface soils are disturbed and dry. Below the surface soils, predominately medium dense silty sands, sands, silty sand/sand, and sandy silt were encountered to the termination depth of our borings. LABORATORY TESTING Additional laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their soil strengths for slope stability analyses. The laboratory-testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation of direct shears of the materials encountered. Details of the laboratory test program and the results of laboratory test are attached. SALEM No. 2-212-0726 October 19, 2012 Page 2 SLOPE STABILITY Evaluation of Soil Strength Shear data were generated during SALEM’s concurrent geotechnical engineering investigation by the direct shear method on two relatively undisturbed samples collected in 1-inch tall brass rings from a Modified California sampler. Samples were set on and covered by porous stones and were pre-saturated overnight prior to testing. Samples were clamped to the direct shear device test box and the box was filled with water, fully inundating the sample during testing. The samples were sheared at a rate of 0.05 inch per minute and peak and residual shear stress values were recorded at loading (normal stress) values of 1, 2, and 3 kips. The direct shear test results are attached. Evaluation of Slope Stability The slope stability evaluation will include 3 scenarios for the retention basin. First scenario is when the basin is dry and the second scenario is when the basin is filled with water to approximately 2 feet below the top of the slope. The third scenario is for a rapid draw down condition which the water in the basin drops to the bottom of the basin and water inside the slope remains at the peak water elevation. The rapid draw down condition will only occur during a short-term duration. The gross stability analysis was performed using PCSTABL5M, a computer program developed at Purdue University. Slopes were analyzed for stability on the basis of a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) 20 foot high slope which represents the design conditions. Slope Stability Analysis The model includes one lithologic unit — the unit parameters (field unit weight, saturated unit weight, cohesion, and friction angle) for this unit are required for stability analysis and are presented below: Lithologic Unit Cohesion Friction Angle Total Unit Weight Native Alluvium 50 psf 33° 120 pcf The basis for the values used includes data generated from the subject geotechnical investigation. Slope stability analysis was evaluated under static and seismic conditions using the Circular-Modified Bishop method. Numerous trial surfaces were modeled. Only the 10 surfaces with the lowest factor of safety are shown on the figures for the purposes of clarity. The results of the slope stability analyses are attached and presented as follows. Water Condition Factor of Safety Dry 2.07 Full Water 1.90 Rapid Draw Down* 1.15 * Temporary short-term condition SALEM No. 2-212-0726 October 19, 2012 Page 3 Based on our analyses, the FS of the proposed slopes exceeds the minimum requirements of 1.5 for the long-term condition and 1.1 for the temporary short-term condition. Surficial Stability Analysis Surficial stability was evaluated using an infinite slope analysis with seepage parallel to the slope surface with seepage and slip surfaces 4 and 4 feet, respectively, below the slope surface. The factor of safety was calculated using the following equation: FS = c + (z - u )cos 2·tan z·sin·cos . Where c is the effective cohesive strength, is the unit weight of the mass, z is the vertical thickness of the mass, is the angle the slope makes with horizontal, u is the pore water pressure at the base of the section, and is the angle of internal friction. Using the following values for parameters representing the most conservative slope downhill of the proposed development site and the results of the FS are attached and presented as follows: Unit Cohesion (psf) c Fric. Angle (deg) Max. Slope Angle (deg) Density (pcf) Thickness (ft) z FS Alluvium 50 33 26.5 120 4 0.89 SLOPE PROTECTION AND EROSION CONTROL Based on our analyses, the proposed cut slope is considered grossly stable but is highly susceptible to erosion due to the lack of cohesion of the native sandy soils. Therefore, it’s recommended the proposed cut slope be constructed and protected as follows: • The slope should not be cut steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). • The slope surface of the retention basin should be moisture conditioned and wheel rolled to a firm and unyielding condition. • A layer of Mirafi Filterweave Woven Geotextile FW 700 should be placed on the entire slope within the retention basin. The geotextile should extend at least 10 feet beyond the bottom of the slope. The geotextile should be installed according to the manufacturer’s specifications. • The geotextile should be covered with Rip-rap rock armor or concrete revetment system. The Rip rap should be composed of a well graded mixture of large chunks of quarry rock sufficient to protect the slope from erosion. The Rip-Rap should be designed according to California Bank and Shore Rock Slope Protection Design Method. As an alternative to the above mitigation measures, hydro-seeding method may be used to minimize the erosion potential of the retention basin slope. The hydro-seeding method should meet the requirements of Caltrans Standard Specifications for Erosion Control and Highway Planting. The seeds used for hydro-seeding should be erosion, SALEM No. 2-212-0726 October 19, 2012 Page 4 drought and fire resistant plants approved for hillside. Irrigation of landscaping should be controlled to maintain a consistent moisture content sufficient to provide healthy plant growth without overwatering. All surface runoff should be directed away from top of the slope. The hydro-seeding method can only minimize the erosion potential and cannot protect the slope from erosion or surficial slope failures due to heavy or prolong rainfalls. Slope repair should be performed immediately after any failures. Periodic maintenances consisting of debris clearing, replanting and rodent control should also be performed. The recommendations and limitations in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report apply to this report. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal for your consideration and look forward to working with you on this project. Should you have questions regarding this proposal, please contact the undersigned at (909) 980-6455. Respectfully submitted, SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. Clarence Jiang, GE R. Sammy Salem, MS, PE, GE, REA Senior Geotechnical Engineer Principal Engineer RGE 2477 RCE 52762 / RGE 2549 Attachments: Laboratory Test Results Slope Stability Analysis Results ©Copyright SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. SH E A R S T R E N G T H D I A G R A M (D I R E C T S H E A R ) AS T M 3 0 8 0 SA L E M Engineering Group, Inc. 0123456 0 1 2 3 4 5 NO R M A L S T R E S S , K S F SHEAR STRESS, KSF 32 o Pr o j e c t N a m e : D e r r e l s M i n i S t o r a g e # 6 7 Pr o j e c t N u m b e r : 2 - 2 1 2 - 0 7 2 6 Bo r i n g : B - 1 @ 5 ' Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t 1. 0 % Dr y D e n s i t y 97 . 6 pcf Fr i c t i o n A n g l e : 3 2 d e g r e e s Co h e s i o n : 5 0 p s f So i l T y p e : SH E A R S T R E N G T H D I A G R A M (D I R E C T S H E A R ) AS T M 3 0 8 0 SA L E M Engineering Group, Inc. 0123456 0 1 2 3 4 5 NO R M A L S T R E S S , K S F SHEAR STRESS, KSF 34 o Pr o j e c t N a m e : D e r r e l s M i n i S t o r a g e # 6 7 Pr o j e c t N u m b e r : 2 - 2 1 2 - 0 7 2 6 Bo r i n g : B - 1 @ 1 0 ' Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t 1. 8 % Dr y D e n s i t y 10 5 . 6 pcf Fr i c t i o n A n g l e : 3 4 d e g r e e s Co h e s i o n : 7 0 p s f So i l T y p e : SH E A R S T R E N G T H D I A G R A M (D I R E C T S H E A R ) AS T M 3 0 8 0 SA L E M Engineering Group, Inc. 0123456 0 1 2 3 4 5 NO R M A L S T R E S S , K S F SHEAR STRESS, KSF 34 o Pr o j e c t N a m e : D e r r e l s M i n i S t o r a g e # 6 7 Pr o j e c t N u m b e r : 2 - 2 1 2 - 0 7 2 6 Bo r i n g : B - 1 @ 1 5 ' Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t 1. 8 % Dr y D e n s i t y 10 5 . 6 pcf Fr i c t i o n A n g l e : 3 4 d e g r e e s Co h e s i o n : 8 0 p s f So i l T y p e : SH E A R S T R E N G T H D I A G R A M (D I R E C T S H E A R ) AS T M 3 0 8 0 SA L E M Engineering Group, Inc. 0123456 0 1 2 3 4 5 NO R M A L S T R E S S , K S F SHEAR STRESS, KSF 33 ° Pr o j e c t N a m e : D e r r e l s M i n i S t o r a g e # 6 7 Pr o j e c t N u m b e r : 2 - 2 1 2 - 0 7 2 6 Bo r i n g : B - 4 @ 2 ' Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t 0. 9 % Dr y D e n s i t y 1 0 1 . 0 p c f Fr i c t i o n A n g l e : 3 3 d e g r e e s Co h e s i o n : 9 0 p s f So i l T y p e : FS = 2 . 0 7 020406080 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 AD ** PCSTABL5M ** --Slope Stability Analysis-- Run Date: 10/19/ 2012 Run By: CJ Input Data Filename: ad Output Filename: ad.out PROBLEM DESCRIPTION proposed 20' 2:1 basin seismic BOUNDARY COORDINATES 3 Top Boundaries 3 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 20.00 20.00 20.00 1 2 20.00 20.00 60.00 40.00 1 3 60.00 40.00 120.00 40.00 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 60.0 38.0 .00 .0 1 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 500 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 1 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 20.00 ft. and X = 20.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 60.00 ft. and X = 100.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 7.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Page 1 AD Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 26.93 20.98 3 33.73 22.63 4 40.34 24.93 5 46.70 27.87 6 52.73 31.42 7 58.39 35.54 8 63.40 40.00 Circle Center At X = 13.5 ; Y = 91.2 and Radius, 71.5 *** 2.073 *** Individual data on the 8 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) 1 6.9 1034.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2 6.8 2746.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3 6.6 3758.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4 6.4 4082.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5 6.0 3771.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6 5.7 2918.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7 1.6 645.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 3.4 617.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 26.99 20.28 3 33.89 21.46 4 40.58 23.52 5 46.95 26.44 6 52.88 30.15 7 58.28 34.61 8 63.06 39.72 9 63.26 40.00 Circle Center At X = 21.4 ; Y = 73.9 and Radius, 53.9 *** 2.084 *** 1 Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 27.00 20.19 3 33.90 21.33 4 40.59 23.40 5 46.93 26.37 Page 2 AD 6 52.80 30.18 7 58.10 34.75 8 62.73 40.00 Circle Center At X = 22.1 ; Y = 71.1 and Radius, 51.1 *** 2.088 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 26.95 20.88 3 33.78 22.39 4 40.44 24.53 5 46.88 27.28 6 53.04 30.60 7 58.87 34.48 8 64.32 38.88 9 65.47 40.00 Circle Center At X = 13.9 ; Y = 95.7 and Radius, 75.9 *** 2.098 *** 1 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 27.00 19.96 3 33.93 20.95 4 40.64 22.95 5 46.99 25.90 6 52.83 29.76 7 58.05 34.42 8 62.52 39.81 9 62.64 40.00 Circle Center At X = 23.7 ; Y = 67.5 and Radius, 47.7 *** 2.106 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 26.85 21.46 3 33.56 23.43 4 40.12 25.89 5 46.46 28.84 6 52.58 32.26 7 58.41 36.12 8 63.42 40.00 Circle Center At X = 4.0 ; Y = 111.9 and Radius, 93.3 Page 3 AD *** 2.110 *** 1 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 27.00 19.83 3 33.94 20.71 4 40.68 22.61 5 47.06 25.49 6 52.94 29.30 7 58.18 33.93 8 62.68 39.30 9 63.10 40.00 Circle Center At X = 24.6 ; Y = 66.6 and Radius, 46.8 *** 2.121 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 26.85 21.46 3 33.54 23.51 4 40.03 26.13 5 46.27 29.30 6 52.22 33.00 7 57.82 37.20 8 60.96 40.00 Circle Center At X = 6.7 ; Y = 99.1 and Radius, 80.2 *** 2.127 *** 1 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 27.00 20.14 3 33.93 21.10 4 40.70 22.88 5 47.21 25.45 6 53.38 28.77 7 59.10 32.80 8 64.31 37.47 9 66.53 40.00 Circle Center At X = 22.3 ; Y = 79.0 and Radius, 59.0 *** 2.144 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf Page 4 AD No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 26.90 21.16 3 33.70 22.83 4 40.36 24.98 5 46.85 27.62 6 53.13 30.71 7 59.16 34.26 8 64.92 38.24 9 67.11 40.00 Circle Center At X = 7.5 ; Y = 115.3 and Radius, 96.1 *** 2.144 *** 1 Y A X I S F T .00 15.00 30.00 45.00 60.00 75.00 X .00 +---------+--*------+---------+---------+---------+ - - - - - 15.00 + - - * - - .. - ..31. A 30.00 + .. - ..... 16. - ..24 - ... - ........521.. - . X 45.00 + ....... .. - ..........5218 - ... - ...............9216. - ........... - .......... .........218. I 60.00 + .................94...* - ..............21 - ......................944 - ....................9 - ....................... - ....................... S 75.00 + ................. - ...................... - .................. - ................... - .................. - ................ 90.00 + .............. - ............ - ......... - ........ Page 5 AD - .... - F 105.00 + - - - - - T 120.00 + * Page 6 FS = 1 . 9 0 020406080 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 full water ** PCSTABL5M ** --Slope Stability Analysis-- Run Date: 10/18/ 2012 Run By: CJ Input Data Filename: a1 Output Filename: a1.out PROBLEM DESCRIPTION proposed 20' 2:1 basin BOUNDARY COORDINATES 3 Top Boundaries 3 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 20.00 20.00 20.00 1 2 20.00 20.00 60.00 40.00 1 3 60.00 40.00 120.00 40.00 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 50.0 33.0 .00 .0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 2 Coordinate Points Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 .00 38.00 2 120.00 38.00 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 500 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 1 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 20.00 ft. and X = 20.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 60.00 ft. and X = 100.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. Page 1 full water 7.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 27.00 20.14 3 33.93 21.10 4 40.70 22.88 5 47.21 25.45 6 53.38 28.77 7 59.10 32.80 8 64.31 37.47 9 66.53 40.00 Circle Center At X = 22.3 ; Y = 79.0 and Radius, 59.0 *** 1.901 *** Individual data on the 10 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) 1 7.0 1411.5 7934.3 7832.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2 6.9 3837.2 6175.4 7591.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3 6.8 5415.5 4412.1 6992.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4 6.5 6105.6 2735.3 6042.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5 6.2 5944.0 1226.2 4756.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6 5.7 5041.5 .0 3152.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7 .9 707.8 .0 361.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 4.3 2310.0 .0 890.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9 .5 126.0 .0 11.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10 1.8 210.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 27.00 20.23 3 33.92 21.24 4 40.69 23.02 5 47.22 25.54 6 53.43 28.78 7 59.23 32.70 8 64.56 37.24 9 67.14 40.00 Page 2 full water Circle Center At X = 21.5 ; Y = 82.4 and Radius, 62.4 *** 1.905 *** 1 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 27.00 19.83 3 33.96 20.59 4 40.75 22.28 5 47.26 24.87 6 53.36 28.30 7 58.94 32.51 8 63.92 37.44 9 65.89 40.00 Circle Center At X = 24.8 ; Y = 72.0 and Radius, 52.2 *** 1.907 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 26.99 20.28 3 33.89 21.46 4 40.58 23.52 5 46.95 26.44 6 52.88 30.15 7 58.28 34.61 8 63.06 39.72 9 63.26 40.00 Circle Center At X = 21.4 ; Y = 73.9 and Radius, 53.9 *** 1.910 *** 1 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 26.95 20.88 3 33.78 22.39 4 40.44 24.53 5 46.88 27.28 6 53.04 30.60 7 58.87 34.48 8 64.32 38.88 9 65.47 40.00 Circle Center At X = 13.9 ; Y = 95.7 and Radius, 75.9 *** 1.918 *** Page 3 full water Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 27.00 20.19 3 33.90 21.33 4 40.59 23.40 5 46.93 26.37 6 52.80 30.18 7 58.10 34.75 8 62.73 40.00 Circle Center At X = 22.1 ; Y = 71.1 and Radius, 51.1 *** 1.921 *** 1 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 27.00 19.83 3 33.94 20.71 4 40.68 22.61 5 47.06 25.49 6 52.94 29.30 7 58.18 33.93 8 62.68 39.30 9 63.10 40.00 Circle Center At X = 24.6 ; Y = 66.6 and Radius, 46.8 *** 1.922 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 26.98 19.53 3 33.96 20.10 4 40.77 21.71 5 47.27 24.31 6 53.31 27.85 7 58.76 32.25 8 63.48 37.41 9 65.22 40.00 Circle Center At X = 26.6 ; Y = 66.4 and Radius, 46.9 *** 1.926 *** 1 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) Page 4 full water 1 20.00 20.00 2 27.00 19.96 3 33.93 20.95 4 40.64 22.95 5 46.99 25.90 6 52.83 29.76 7 58.05 34.42 8 62.52 39.81 9 62.64 40.00 Circle Center At X = 23.7 ; Y = 67.5 and Radius, 47.7 *** 1.926 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 26.96 20.78 3 33.82 22.16 4 40.54 24.14 5 47.06 26.68 6 53.33 29.79 7 59.31 33.42 8 64.96 37.56 9 67.74 40.00 Circle Center At X = 14.5 ; Y = 100.5 and Radius, 80.6 *** 1.927 *** 1 Y A X I S F T .00 15.00 30.00 45.00 60.00 75.00 X .00 +---------+--*------+----W----+---------+---------+ - - - - - 15.00 + - - * - - .. - ..14. A 30.00 + .. - ..... ... - .815 - ... - .......814... - . X 45.00 + ....... .. - .........814.. - ... - ...............14... - ........... Page 5 full water - .......... .........4... I 60.00 + ................815...* - .............844 - ......................153 - ....................1 - ....................... - ....................... S 75.00 + ................. - ...................... - .................. - ................... - .................. - ................ 90.00 + .............. - ............ - ......... - ........ - .... - F 105.00 + - - - - - T 120.00 + W * Page 6 FS = 1 . 1 5 020406080 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 water draw down ** PCSTABL5M ** --Slope Stability Analysis-- Run Date: 10/18/ 2012 Run By: CJ Input Data Filename: a Output Filename: a.out PROBLEM DESCRIPTION proposed 20' 2:1 basin BOUNDARY COORDINATES 3 Top Boundaries 3 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 20.00 20.00 20.00 1 2 20.00 20.00 60.00 40.00 1 3 60.00 40.00 120.00 40.00 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 50.0 33.0 .00 .0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 5 Coordinate Points Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 .00 20.00 2 20.00 20.00 3 45.00 30.00 4 65.00 38.00 5 120.00 38.00 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 500 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 1 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 20.00 ft. and X = 20.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 60.00 ft. and X = 100.00 ft. Page 1 water draw down Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 7.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 26.97 19.36 3 33.95 19.86 4 40.76 21.48 5 47.22 24.19 6 53.15 27.91 7 58.40 32.54 8 62.83 37.96 9 64.01 40.00 Circle Center At X = 27.4 ; Y = 62.4 and Radius, 43.0 *** 1.147 *** Individual data on the 11 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) 1 7.0 1725.0 .0 748.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2 7.0 4709.0 .0 1997.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3 6.8 6541.7 .0 2738.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4 4.2 4611.0 .0 1943.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5 2.2 2482.9 .0 1008.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6 5.9 6436.5 .0 2631.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7 5.3 4830.0 .0 1785.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 1.6 1167.8 .0 341.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9 1.8 964.6 .0 136.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10 1.0 318.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 11 1.2 144.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 26.97 19.40 3 33.96 19.86 4 40.80 21.37 5 47.33 23.89 6 53.40 27.36 Page 2 water draw down 7 58.88 31.72 8 63.65 36.85 9 65.79 40.00 Circle Center At X = 27.4 ; Y = 65.7 and Radius, 46.3 *** 1.149 *** 1 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 26.98 19.53 3 33.96 20.10 4 40.77 21.71 5 47.27 24.31 6 53.31 27.85 7 58.76 32.25 8 63.48 37.41 9 65.22 40.00 Circle Center At X = 26.6 ; Y = 66.4 and Radius, 46.9 *** 1.150 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 26.99 19.62 3 33.95 20.34 4 40.71 22.16 5 47.10 25.03 6 52.95 28.86 7 58.12 33.58 8 62.48 39.06 9 63.01 40.00 Circle Center At X = 25.9 ; Y = 63.7 and Radius, 44.1 *** 1.151 *** 1 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 26.96 19.24 3 33.94 19.75 4 40.71 21.52 5 47.06 24.48 6 52.76 28.54 7 57.63 33.56 8 61.52 39.39 9 61.78 40.00 Page 3 water draw down Circle Center At X = 27.6 ; Y = 57.8 and Radius, 38.5 *** 1.152 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 26.92 18.96 3 33.92 19.16 4 40.77 20.61 5 47.25 23.26 6 53.15 27.01 7 58.30 31.76 8 62.51 37.35 9 63.85 40.00 Circle Center At X = 29.3 ; Y = 58.0 and Radius, 39.1 *** 1.152 *** 1 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 26.91 18.88 3 33.91 18.92 4 40.80 20.14 5 47.39 22.50 6 53.49 25.93 7 58.94 30.34 8 63.56 35.59 9 66.29 40.00 Circle Center At X = 30.1 ; Y = 60.4 and Radius, 41.6 *** 1.158 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 27.00 19.83 3 33.94 20.71 4 40.68 22.61 5 47.06 25.49 6 52.94 29.30 7 58.18 33.93 8 62.68 39.30 9 63.10 40.00 Circle Center At X = 24.6 ; Y = 66.6 and Radius, 46.8 *** 1.158 *** 1 Page 4 water draw down Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 26.98 19.49 3 33.94 20.23 4 40.66 22.19 5 46.93 25.31 6 52.54 29.49 7 57.32 34.60 8 60.81 40.00 Circle Center At X = 26.4 ; Y = 58.7 and Radius, 39.2 *** 1.159 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 20.00 2 27.00 19.83 3 33.96 20.59 4 40.75 22.28 5 47.26 24.87 6 53.36 28.30 7 58.94 32.51 8 63.92 37.44 9 65.89 40.00 Circle Center At X = 24.8 ; Y = 72.0 and Radius, 52.2 *** 1.159 *** 1 Y A X I S F T .00 15.00 30.00 45.00 60.00 75.00 X .00 +---------+--*------+---------+---------+---------+ - - - - - 15.00 + - - * - - .. - ..1.. A 30.00 + .. - ..... ... - .14. - ... - ......714.... - . X 45.00 + ....... W. Page 5 water draw down - ........714... - ... - .............7218... - ........... - .......... .......618... I 60.00 + ...............720....* - ............7144 - ......................W.1 - ....................7 - ....................... - ....................... S 75.00 + ................. - ...................... - .................. - ................... - .................. - ................ 90.00 + .............. - ............ - ......... - ........ - .... - F 105.00 + - - - - - T 120.00 + W * Page 6 INFINITE SLOPE STABILTY CALCULATION Job No. : Job Name: Date:10/19/2012 INPUT PARAMETERS: Sample Name c=Cohesion (psf)50 FS =c + (z - u) cos 2 tan =Slope Angle (deg)26.5 =Soil Density (pcf)120 z=Vert thickness of slide mass (ft)4.0 FS =169.8 sat =height of z that is saturated (ft)4.0 191.7 u=Pore Water Press (sat * 62.4)249.6 =Fric angle (deg)33 FS =0.89 2-212-0726 Proposed Retention Basin z sin cos . Native soil