Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation (SUSMP)

Transcription

Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation (SUSMP) &
Low Impact Development (LID) BMP Plan
CSULB Retail Development
NWC Pacific Coast Highway & Cota Avenue
Long Beach, CA
GreenbergFarrow Job # 201102900
Prepared by:
GreenbergFarrow
19000 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
Project Manager: Farman Shir, PE
(949) 296-0450
June 7, 2013
CSULB Retail Development
Long Beach, California
GreenbergFarrow Job # 201102900
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Narrative – Existing Conditions ............................................................................. 3
Project Narrative – Proposed conditions ............................................................................. 5
Best Management Practices (BMPs) ................................................................................... 6
Figure 1 – Site Vicinity Map ............................................................................................... 4
Hydrology & Hydraulics Report for Tentative Tract No. 52467 (Excerpts).....Appendix A
Soil Type Map ................................................................................................... Appendix B
Geotechnical Report (Excerpts) ........................................................................ Appendix C
Source-Control BMPs ....................................................................................... Appendix D
Treatment-Control BMPs…….….................................................................... Appendix E
Operation & Maintenance Plans for Treatment-Control BMPs ........................ Appendix F
BMP Exhibit .....................................................................................................Appendix G
! "
Project Narrative – Existing Condition
"
!
*
!
)
' (
&
!
"#
%
&
"
"!
#
$ %
"
! "
*
%
&
*
+
!
"
%
,
&"
!
&
&
"
"
*# &
!
!
&
%
,
*
,
*
,
%
&
%
&
%
*
!
&
"
*+*/* * * #
,
* 0,
&
"
&
&&
! !
"
,
- #
...
1
*
!
+
( &
3
2
!
&
*
*
+
'
, *
4
,
&!
'
&
5 ' )6
!
*
! #
FIGURE 1
! $
Project Narrative – Proposed Condition
,&
!
%
"
*
7
"
&
*
%
,
%
8
&
&
&!
&" !
&
&
&
"
9
&"
*
!
&"
*
7 5;<
6
% &
!
%
' "
:
! !
!
!
,
&
*
&
&
&
*
!
%
"
"
!
'
&
!
"
+
&
...*
;<
- #)
!
"
;*=
"
!
- #
0,
1
,
%
?
&
- #
"
"
#
*
, *
;@" ;
;
%
" !
!
5 ' 6
' !
>
&"
&
*
&
&
-
"
"
'
"
"
*
- #
- #
"
!
!
"
"
2
&
%
,
* +
%
%
& & &<
!
% * 0,
*
!
&
! %
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
8
&
'
!
!
&
&
)
'
&
#%&'$ "
5 ' 6
%
* +
&
1'
%
'
'
'
%
"&
* +
A
"
+
&
B B 0 4:* &
5+( C6D
&
+( C !
" !
+
94B (/' 84$ E (- 84+
&
&
*
*
!
&
+( C; !
A
'
, (
8
*
& %
'
&
& 5
&
' ,,
6D
&
&"
&
%
, 0
&!
%
'
&
!
!D
+
&!
&
&
!
"
* /
%
&
*
%
%
7
!
&
&!
& &
%
"
* &
&!
*
*
&
&* +
,(
5+( C;6D
!
&!
%
&
&
&
*
"&
&
'
&(
"
!
"
+
;*
!
%
%
&
'
B
, #*
&
&
!
# "$ %
%
'
, (
*
, 0
5B1'6
+
!
!
&!
&
&
%
*
*
&
"
&
!
'
A
!
"
&
9
&
* 8
!
%
A
: %
&
& "
&
*
" !
% & *
!
& %
! &
F
&
'
&!
2
!
!
A
A
5
% & "
& %
6
*
;*
&"
(
(+
+
5 (+6D /
"!
!
%
!
A
&
&
9
&*
!
,
&
& &2
&
:
"
A
!
&
&*
C* + &
'
&
&!
(+ 8
%
,
+
# !
%
"!
&" !
&
D/
&
!
%
!
&5
6
!
* '
+
&
!
*
&
, 0
(+"
!
7
'
A
%
&
, #*
'
,
"!
, $*
!
' "
! '
Appendix A
!"#$
%&'
(
! (
PROJECT SITE
Appendix B
! )
85694*?)92****-+4-!A
00.* &/*0"//
'()*+*%
+--$.*- /*""//
% '
'()*+*%
'
!#
%%%
%!&
$
#
!$
&%
$
!%
#
#
%!"
$
#
% #
'()*+*,
&
!(
$
!$
!(
$
!"
$
% !
$
$
$
'()*+*%
!(
PROJECT SITE
X
!(
%
#
#
#
%
!(
#!$
%
% '
$
'
% !( % $
!(
!&
!&
$
$
!"
$
!"
#!$
$
% $
!"
$
%%%
%
!"
+--$.*",/*0"//
#!%
00.*#0/*0"//
!#
)
+
*
,
,!&
'()*+*%
7;:428*5<
3)7;<)>>
'2@378
(592;97)>
)32)
!
" #$%&'
& +12)3*&#+4563*7854129*32'6:975;*<):953=*"!$,$
-"+12)3*&#+4563*7854129*32'6:975;*<):953=*"!,-#
>5;?*@2):4
"+12)3*&#+4563*7854129
-+4-!
!"
!"
%
!"
$
857>
:>)887<7:)975;
)32)
#
!$
$
!#
%
!$
!&
!$
%%%%
%
#
$
>58*)>)B7958****-+4-!%
!
!"
!"
9*5*3*3*)*;*:*2****-+4-!#
%
!%
!#
#
$
$
%!"
#
$
!$
#%
% !
%
%
!"
Appendix C
)
*
%&'
(
! *+
INITIAL (DRAFT)
GEOTECHNICAL STUDY
PROPOSED WALMART STORE NO. 70270
NWC OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
AND COTA AVENUE
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Project No. 125157
Prepared for:
GreenbergFarrow
Irvine, California 92612
February 28, 2012
Copyright 2012 Kleinfelder
All Rights Reserved
Only the client or its designated representatives may use this document and
only for the specific project for which this report was prepared.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page i of iv
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
February 28, 2012
Project No. 125127
GreenbergFarrow
Irvine, California 92612
Attention:
Mr. Howard Hardin,Senior Project Manager
Subject:
Initial (Draft) Geotechnical Study
Proposed Walmart Store No. 70270
NWC of Pacific Coast Highway and Cota Avenue
Long Beach, California
Dear Mr. Hardin:
Kleinfelder is pleased to present this report summarizing our geotechnical study for the
subject project. The purpose of our geotechnical study was to evaluate subsurface soil
conditions at the site and provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed
Walmart Store and associated improvements. The conclusions and recommendations
presented in this report are subject to the limitations presented in Section 6.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services to you on
this project. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (949) 7274466, or Mark Klaver, Kleinfelder’s Senior Client Account Manager for Walmart at
(916) 366-1701.
Respectfully submitted,
KLEINFELDER WEST, INC.
Adam S. Williams, P.E.
Staff Engineer II
cc:
Brian E. Crystal, P.E., G.E.
Project Manager
Mark Klaver – Kleinfelder, Sacramento
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page ii of iv
February 28, 2012
2 Ada, Suite 250, Irvine, CA 92618
DRAFT
p | 949.727.4466
f | 949.727.9242
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
ASFE INSERT
1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................... 1
1.2
SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................. 2
2
SITE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 6
2.1
SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................. 6
2.2
SURFACE WATER CONDITIONS ............................................................ 6
2.3
CLIMATE INFORMATION ......................................................................... 6
3
GEOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 7
3.1
GEOLOGIC SETTING ............................................................................... 7
3.2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS................................................................... 7
3.2.1 Artificial Fill...................................................................................... 7
3.2.2 Alluvium .......................................................................................... 8
3.3
GROUNDWATER...................................................................................... 8
3.4
FAULTING ................................................................................................. 9
3.5
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ......................... 9
3.5.1 Fault-Rupture Hazard...................................................................... 9
3.5.2 Flood Hazard................................................................................... 9
3.5.3 Landsliding.................................................................................... 10
3.5.4 Liquefaction................................................................................... 10
3.5.5 Expansive Soils............................................................................. 11
3.5.6 Subsidence ................................................................................... 11
3.5.7 Oil Fields ....................................................................................... 11
4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 12
4.1
GENERAL................................................................................................ 12
4.2
SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .................................................. 12
4.2.1 CBC Seismic Design Parameters ................................................. 12
4.2.2 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement ............................................ 13
4.3
FOUNDATIONS....................................................................................... 15
4.3.1 General ......................................................................................... 15
4.3.2 Ground Improvement .................................................................... 15
4.3.3 Shallow Foundation Design .......................................................... 17
4.4
EARTHWORK ......................................................................................... 18
4.4.1 General ......................................................................................... 18
4.4.2 Site Preparation ............................................................................ 18
4.4.3 Fill Material.................................................................................... 19
4.4.4 Excavation Characteristics and Wet Soils..................................... 20
4.4.5 Temporary Excavations ................................................................ 21
4.4.6 Trench Backfill............................................................................... 22
4.5
SITE DRAINAGE ..................................................................................... 22
4.6
SLABS-ON-GRADE AND PAVEMENTS ................................................. 23
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page iii of iv
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section
4.7
4.8
Page
4.6.1 General ......................................................................................... 23
RETAINING WALLS ................................................................................ 29
SOIL CORROSION.................................................................................. 31
5
ADDITIONAL SERVICES .................................................................................. 32
5.1
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW............................................... 32
6
LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................... 33
7
REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 35
TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
2010 CBC Seismic Design Parameters
Summary of Slab-On-Grade and Pavement Sections Recommendations
Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Sections
Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Structures
PLATES
Plate 1
Plate 2
Site Vicinity Map
Field Exploration Location Map
APPENDICES
Appendix A Field Explorations
Appendix B Laboratory Testing
Appendix C Calculations
Appendix D Walmart Specification Report Inserts
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page iv of iv
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
Important Information About Your
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes
The following information is provided to help you manage your risks.
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of
their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer
may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil
engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one
except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first
conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one - not
even you - should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one
originally contemplated.
Read the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical
engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.
Do not read selected elements only.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on
A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific factors
when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client’s
goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the
structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure
on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access
roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on
a geotechnical engineering report that was:
• not prepared for you,
• not prepared for your project,
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical
engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a
parking garage to an office building, or from alight industrial plant
to a refrigerated warehouse,
• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
proposed structure,
• composition of the design team, or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes - even minor ones - and request an assessment of their impact.
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems
that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they
were not informed.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the
time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering
report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by
man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always
contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it
is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent
major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers
review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment
to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual
subsurface conditions may differ-sometimes significantly from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your
report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of
managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.
A Report’s Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers
develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers
can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual
subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for
the report’s recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction
observation.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to
Misinterpretation
Other design team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your
geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team
after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review
pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Contractors
can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction
conferences, and by providing construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon
their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or
omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should
never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Contractors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what
they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a
clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report’s
accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer
who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer.
A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient
time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give
contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at
least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines.
This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led
to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such
outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory
provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations” many of these
provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin
and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read
these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should
respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical
study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g.,
about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated
contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous
project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance.
Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised
for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive
plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention
consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to
the development of severe mold infestations, a number of mold prevention
strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the
geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in-this report,
the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention
consultant; none of the services performed in connection with
the geotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted
for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of
the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself
be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved.
Rely on Your ASFE-Member Geotechnical
Engineer For Additional Assistance
Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine
benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your
ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
The Best People on Earth
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone:’ 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail: info@asfe.org
www.asfe.org
Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE’s specific
written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes
of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm,
individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being anASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
IIGER06045.0M
1
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical study for the proposed Walmart
Store No. 70270 located at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Cota
Avenue in Long Beach, California. The location of the project site is presented on Plate
1, Site Vicinity Map. The purpose of our geotechnical study was to evaluate subsurface
soil conditions beneath the site and provide geotechnical recommendations for design
and construction. The scope of our services was presented in our proposal titled,
“Proposal for Geotechnical Study, Proposed Walmart Store No. 70270, NWC of Pacific
Coast Highway and Cota Avenue, Long Beach, California,” dated December 23, 2011.
This report includes a description of the work performed, a discussion of the
geotechnical conditions observed at the site, and recommendations developed from our
engineering analyses based on field and laboratory data. An information sheet
prepared by ASFE (the Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences)
is also included. We recommend all individuals utilizing this report read the limitations
(Section 6.0) along with the attached ASFE document.
1.1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Kleinfelder understands that Walmart plans to construct a new Walmart Store on an
approximately 9.9-acre site at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Cota
Avenue in Long Beach, California. The proposed Walmart Store will be approximately
116,800 square feet in plan area with the main parking lot located to the south of the
building. Based on the conceptual site plan, infiltration/detention basins are currently
not proposed.
Architectural and structural details were not provided; however, we anticipate that the
proposed store will be constructed of reinforced masonry block. Based on Walmart’s
Geotechnical Investigation Specifications and Report Requirements (GISRR), dated
September 22, 2011, the typical bay spacing between columns is approximately 48 feet
by 50 feet. The typical gravity load to an interior column is 77 kips. The estimated
maximum gravity load that may occasionally occur due to severe live loading is 125
kips. The estimated typical exterior column gravity load is 40 kips. The concrete
masonry wall gravity loads range from 1.5 to 2.0 kips per lineal foot. Estimated
maximum uniform floor slab live load is 125 pounds per square foot. Estimated
maximum floor slab concentrated load is 5.0 kips.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 1 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
Grading plans were not available at the time this report was prepared; however, we
understand the finished floor elevation will be established at about the existing grade.
Permanent cuts and fills to establish a level building pad and achieve site drainage are
not anticipated to exceed approximately 2 feet from existing grade.
1.2
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of our geotechnical study consisted of a literature review, subsurface
explorations, geotechnical laboratory testing, engineering evaluation and analysis, and
preparation of this report. A description of our scope of services performed for the
geotechnical portion of the project follows.
Task 1 – Background Data Review. We reviewed readily-available published and
unpublished geologic literature in our files and the files of public agencies, including
selected publications prepared by the California Geological Survey (formerly known as
the California Division of Mines and Geology) and the U.S. Geological Survey. We also
reviewed readily available seismic and faulting information, including data for
designated earthquake fault zones as well as our in-house database of faulting in the
general site vicinity. In addition, subsurface data obtained from a prior geotechnical
study at the site (Kleinfelder, 2007) was reviewed as part of our geotechnical study.
This data was used as the basis for our geotechnical design and construction
recommendations.
Task 2 – Field Exploration. Kleinfelder performed a geotechnical study for a proposed
Home Depot store at the site in 2007 (Kleinfelder, 2007). In 2007, subsurface
conditions at the site were explored by drilling 33 borings and advancing 7 cone
penetration tests (CPTs). Fifteen borings were drilled in the Walmart building pad area
to depths of approximately 26½ to 51½ feet below the existing ground surface (bgs).
Eighteen borings were drilled in the parking and driveways to depths of approximately
11½ to 16½ bgs. The 7 CPTs were advanced within the Walmart building pad area to a
depth of approximately 60 feet bgs.
As part of this study, we excavated 5 hand-auger borings to depths up to 4 feet bgs to
obtain shallow soil samples for additional laboratory testing. In our opinion, the 2007
and 2012 explorations are adequate to meet Walmart’s GISRR requirements. The
approximate location of the prior and current borings and CPTs are presented on Plate
2, Boring Location Map. A description of the field exploration and the logs of the
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 2 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
borings, including a Legend to the Logs of Borings and CPTs, are presented in
Appendix A.
Task 3 – Laboratory Testing. Laboratory testing was performed on representative
bulk and drive samples in 2007 to substantiate field classifications and to provide
engineering parameters for geotechnical design. Laboratory testing consisted of in-situ
moisture content and dry unit weights, grain size distribution, wash sieve (% passing
#200 sieve), maximum density/optimum moisture, Atterberg limits, expansion index,
consolidation, and R-Value tests. Soil samples were also sent to Schiff Associates for
corrosivity tests. A summary of the testing performed and the results are presented in
Appendix B.
In addition, to supplement the existing data from our July 2007 geotechnical study to
meet Walmart’s GISRR requirements, additional laboratory tests was performed on
selected samples for the shallow borings to evaluate the physical and engineering
characteristics of the subsurface soils. The laboratory tests included in-situ moisture,
maximum density/optimum moisture content, organic content, and top soil analysis
tests. Topsoil analytical and organic testing was performed by Soil & Plant Laboratory,
Inc. These test results, along with the topsoil and organic content testing, are also
presented in Appendix B.
Task 4 – Geotechnical Analyses. We analyzed field and laboratory data in
conjunction with the finished grades, structures layout, and structural loads to provide
geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction for the proposed
Walmart store and associated improvements. We evaluated feasible foundation
systems including constructability constraints, lateral earth pressures for retaining
structures, floor slab support, pavement design, and earthwork. We also evaluated the
potential for liquefaction at the site and its adverse effects (seismic settlement).
Potential for other geologic hazards, such as ground shaking, fault rupture hazard, and
flooding were also evaluated. In addition, seismic parameters based on the 2010
California Building Code (CBC) are presented.
Task 5 – Report Preparation. This report summarizes the work performed, data
acquired, and our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations for the
design and construction of the proposed Walmart store and associated improvements.
Our report includes the following items:
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 3 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Site location map and field exploration location plan showing the approximate
boring and CPT locations;
Logs of borings and CPTs, including approximate elevations (Appendix A);
Results of laboratory tests (Appendix B);
Discussion of general site conditions;
Discussion of general subsurface conditions as encountered in our field
exploration;
Discussion of regional and local geology and site seismicity;
Discussion of geologic and seismic hazards
Evaluation of the liquefaction potential and dynamic settlement;
Recommendations for seismic design parameters in accordance with Chapter 16
of the 2010 CBC;
Recommendations
specifications;
for
site
preparation,
earthwork,
fill
and
compaction
Recommendations for shallow foundation design, including allowable bearing
pressures, embedment depths, etc., under various loading conditions, and
discussion of alternatives, if necessary;
Recommendations for ground improvement to mitigate the potential for
liquefaction;
Anticipated total and differential settlements (static and seismic);
Recommendations for support of floor slab and slab-on-grade support;
Recommendations for design of retaining structures active and restrained lateral
earth pressures, passive and frictional resistance, and applicable surcharge
loads
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 4 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
x
x
x
Recommendations for flexible and rigid pavement structural sections for
standard- and heavy-duty pavement Equivalent Single Axle loading, as stated in
the Walmart’s GISRR;
Preliminary evaluation of the corrosion potential of the on-site soils; and
Walmart’s Geotechnical Investigation Fact Sheet, Foundation Design Criteria,
and Foundation Subgrade Preparation sheet.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 5 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
2
2.1
SITE CONDITIONS
SITE DESCRIPTION
Our understanding of site grades and features is based on site visits and an ALTA
survey performed by Corner Stone Engineering, Inc. dated February 15, 2012. The site
is currently relatively flat with existing grades ranging from approximately 8 to 10 feet
above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29), with the exception of a
5- to 6-foot-high soil stockpile located in southwestern portion of the proposed parking
lot. A few one-story buildings and associated parking areas, occupy the central portion
of the site. The site is bisected by a local street (Technology Place) in a southwest to
northeast direction. We understand this street will be vacated as part of the site
improvements. A 15-foot-wide sanitary sewer easement runs north-south through the
central portion of the site.
2.2
SURFACE WATER CONDITIONS
Site drainage is currently by sheet flow from the currently developed facility into on-site
catch basins and storm drains, or onto the adjacent bordering streets and into the local
storm-drain system.
2.3
CLIMATE INFORMATION
Local climate data for monthly days measurable precipitation and annual days
measurable precipitation was obtained from the National Climate Data Center’s Climate
Atlas of the Contiguous US (2000). Statistically, the months of December, January,
February, and March have the highest number of days of measurable precipitation with
approximately 5.5 days expected per month. Total average rainfall is about 12.94
inches per year. Average annual temperature is about 65.3°, with average low of 52.9°
in December and average high of 80.1° in August.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 6 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
3
3.1
GEOLOGY
GEOLOGIC SETTING
The site is located on the Coastal Plain of the greater Los Angeles Basin. Locally, the
Los Angeles Basin represents the transition between the Transverse Ranges
geomorphic province on the north and the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province on
the south. The Transverse Ranges province is characterized by roughly east-west
trending, convergent (compressional) deformational structural features in contrast to the
predominant northwest-southeast structural trend of the Peninsular Ranges and other
geomorphic provinces in California, hence the name “Transverse”. Structurally, the site
rests between the active fault traces of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone to the north
and the Palos Verdes fault to the south.
According to a review of existing geologic literature (CDMG, 1998 and CGS 2003), the
site is underlain by young alluvial fan deposits associated with the Los Angeles River.
Soils encountered during our field explorations consisted of artificial fill associated with
the prior development of the site and alluvial sands, silts and clays.
3.2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface conditions at the site generally consist of artificial fill underlain by alluvial
deposits. A discussion of the subsurface materials encountered is presented in the
following sections. Descriptions of the deposits are provided in our boring logs and
CPTs presented in Appendix A.
3.2.1 Artificial Fill
Fill associated with previous development of the site was encountered in all of our
borings drilled at the site. The fill consists primarily of sandy silt, silty sand, and poorly
graded sand. As observed in our borings, the fill depth typically ranged between
approximately 2 to 3 feet, except for the borings that were drilled through the soil
stockpile. The in-situ moisture contents in the upper fill ranged from about 2.5 to 13.5
percent (average of about 7 percent). Deeper fill may be present between borings and
at existing underground utility locations (i.e. at the sanitary sewer easement). The fill is
considered to be undocumented and not suitable for structural support.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 7 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
3.2.2 Alluvium
Alluvial soils were observed to underlie the fill, and were encountered to the total depth
of our exploratory borings and CPTs. The alluvium consisted primarily of loose to
medium dense silty sand and sandy silt to a depth of about 7 to 9 feet bgs. The in-situ
dry unit weight of this material ranged from approximately 73 to 104 pcf (average 90
pcf) with moisture contents ranging from about 3 to 46 percent (average 19 percent).
Below the upper sandy soils, the alluvium consisted primarily of interlayered deposits of
soft to stiff clay and silt and very loose to medium dense silty sand and sand to a depth
of about 40 feet bgs. The in-situ dry unit weight of the fined-grained materials (clay and
silt) ranged from approximately 76 to 100 pcf (average 89 pcf) with moisture contents of
about 19 to 47 percent (average 31 percent). SPT and equivalent SPT blow counts of
the fined-grained materials ranged from about 4 blows per foot (bpf) to 8 bpf. The insitu dry unit weight of the coarse-grained materials (silty sand and sand) ranged from
approximately 73 to 105 pcf (average 90 pcf) with moisture contents of about 3 to 46
percent (average 20 percent). SPT and equivalent SPT blow counts of the coarsegrained materials ranged from about 15 to 26 bpf.
Below a depth of approximately 40 feet bgs, the alluvium consisted primarily of dense to
very dense silty sand and sand. SPT blow counts ranged from about 39 to 76 bpf.
3.3
GROUNDWATER
According to the State of California (CDMG, 1998), the historic high groundwater level
at the site has been mapped at a depth of about 10 feet below grade. During our
subsurface explorations in 2007, groundwater was encountered in the borings at depths
ranging between 8 and 15 feet bgs, corresponding to elevations between approximately
+2 to -3 feet. The water level readings in the borings were taken at completion of
drilling after bailing the drilling mud from the boreholes. The groundwater levels
coincide with historic highs.
Fluctuations of the groundwater level, localized zones of perched water, and increased
soil moisture content should be anticipated during and following the rainy season.
Irrigation of landscaped areas on or adjacent to the site can also cause a fluctuation of
local groundwater levels.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 8 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
3.4
FAULTING
There is a high potential for moderate to strong seismic shaking to occur during the
design life of the project. The site is located in the highly seismic Southern California
region within the influence of several fault systems that are considered to be active or
potentially active. An active fault is defined by the State of California as being a
“sufficiently active and well defined fault” that has exhibited surface displacement within
Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault is defined by the
State as a fault with a history of movement within Pleistocene time (between 11,000 and
1.6 million years ago). These active and potentially active faults are capable of
producing potentially damaging seismic shaking at the site. It is anticipated that the
project site will periodically experience ground acceleration as the result of earthquakes.
Active faults without surface expression (blind faults) and other potentially active
seismic sources, which are capable of generating earthquakes, are not currently zoned
and are known to be locally present under the region. Such is the case for the
causative fault for the M5.9 Whittier Narrows earthquake (1987). The closest mapped
active faults (Cao, et al., 2003) to the site are the Newport-Inglewood and Palos Verdes
fault zones located approximately 2.3 and 4.4 miles from the site, respectively (USGS
and CGS, 2006 and CDMG, 1986).
3.5
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
3.5.1 Fault-Rupture Hazard
Faults identified by the State as being active are not known to be present at the surface
at the site. The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Rupture
Hazard Zone, formerly Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007).
Based on our geologic literature review, no mapped active or potentially active fault
traces are known to transect the project site.
3.5.2 Flood Hazard
The project site is located within a FEMA-designated flood zone, designated as Flood
“Zone X” (FEMA, 2006). Zone X is an “Area of 500-year flood: areas of 100-year flood
with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile;
and areas protected by levees from 100-year flood”.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 9 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
The site is not situated near any impounded bodies of water; therefore, seiches are not
considered a potential hazard to the project. Based on our review of Tsunami
Inundation Map for the Long Beach Quadrangle, the site is not located in an area where
the potential for tsunami inundation has been mapped (CalEMA et. al, 2009). The site is
also located within the Hansen Dam (HSD) Basin Flood Inundations zone located in the
Los Angeles area (Los Angeles County, 1990).
3.5.3 Landsliding
Landslides and other forms of mass wasting, including mud flows, debris flows, and soil
slips occur as soil moves downslope under the influence of gravity. Landslides are
frequently triggered by intense rainfall or seismic shaking. Because the site is located in
a relatively flat area, we do not consider landslides or other forms of natural slope
instability to represent a significant hazard to the project. The site is not within a Statedesignated hazard zone for Earthquake-Induced Landsliding (CDMG, 1999).
3.5.4 Liquefaction
The term liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless soils
temporarily lose shear strength (liquefy) due to increased pore water pressures induced
by strong, cyclic ground motions during an earthquake. Structures founded on or above
potentially liquefiable soils may experience bearing capacity failures due to the
temporary loss of foundation support, vertical settlements (both total and differential),
and/or undergo lateral spreading. The factors known to influence liquefaction potential
include soil type, relative density, grain size, confining pressure, depth to groundwater,
and the intensity and duration of the seismic ground shaking. Liquefaction is most
prevalent in loose to medium dense, silty, sandy, and gravelly soils below the
groundwater table.
The site is within a State of California Hazard Zone for Liquefaction (CDMG, 1999). A
liquefaction evaluation was performed as part of our geotechnical study. Because of
the depth to groundwater and the soil types encountered during our investigation, the
potential for liquefaction at the site exists in loose to medium dense sandy silt, silty
sand, and sand. A description of our liquefaction analyses is provided in Section 4.2.2.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 10 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
3.5.5 Expansive Soils
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes
(shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content
can result from precipitation, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched
groundwater, drought, or other factors and may result in unacceptable settlement or
heave of structures or concrete slabs supported on grade.
The upper fill and alluvial soils (upper 5 feet) are generally granular and non-cohesive in
nature (sandy silt and silty sand) and can be considered non expansive. Therefore, the
potential for expansive soils impacting the project is low.
3.5.6 Subsidence
Subsidence, the sinking of the land surface, due to oil, gas and water production causes
loss of pore pressure as the weight of the overburden compacts the underlying
sediments.
The City of Long Beach, which is over the Wilmington Oil Field, began to encounter
subsidence in the 1940’s with the pumping of groundwater at the Terminal Island Naval
Shipyard. By 1958, the affected area was 20 square miles and extended beyond the
Harbor District. Total subsidence reached 29 feet in the center of the “Subsidence
Bowl”. Since 1966, subsidence has stabilized and in some areas, rebounded by up to 2
feet (Rutledge et al, 2007).
GPS data taken from The City of Long Beach Gas and Oil Department Subsidence
Survey conducted from May 2009 to November 2009 of the Wilmington Oil Field shows
that the area surrounding the proposed project site was not subsiding during that time
(LBGO, 2010).
3.5.7 Oil Fields
No oil wells are known to exist on the site. According to Department of Oil, Gas and
Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), the project site is located within the northeast portion
of the Wilmington Oil Field. Therefore, there is potential for the existence of naturally
occurring methane and other oil field gases within subsurface soils at the subject
property. The closest uncompleted and abandoned well is located 2.3 miles westnorthwest of the site.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 11 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
4
4.1
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
Based on the results of our field exploration, laboratory testing and engineering
analyses conducted during this study, it is our professional opinion that the proposed
project is geotechnically feasible, provided the recommendations presented in this
report are incorporated into the project design and construction. The primary
geotechnical constraints for site development are seismically-induced settlement of
loose and medium dense sand, silty sand, and sandy silt layers below the groundwater
and compressibility of the upper silt and clay soils. Due to the magnitude of the
estimated seismic settlement and compressibility of the upper soils, we recommend
ground improvement to support the proposed Walmart store on a conventional shallow
foundation system. Based on past experience, a shallow foundation system on
improved ground is more economical than other foundation systems, such as driven or
drilled piles with a structurally supported slab (suspended slab).
The following opinions, conclusions, and recommendations are based on the properties
of the materials encountered in the borings/CPT, the results of the laboratory-testing
program, and our engineering analyses performed. Our recommendations regarding
the geotechnical aspects of the design and construction of the project are presented in
the following sections. If the finished grade is substantially different than what was
assumed in our analyses or the Walmart development configuration changes, our
recommendations may have to be modified accordingly.
4.2
SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
4.2.1 CBC Seismic Design Parameters
According to the 2010 California Building Code (CBC), every structure, and portion
thereof, including non-structural components that are permanently attached to
structures and their supports and attachments, shall be designed and constructed to
resist the effects of earthquake motions in accordance with ASCE 7-05 (ASCE, 2006),
excluding Chapter 14 and Appendix 11A. The Seismic Design Category for a structure
may be determined in accordance with Section 1613.5.6 of the 2010 CBC. According to
the 2010 CBC, sites subject to liquefaction should be classified as Site Class F, which
requires a site response analysis. However, ACSE7-05, which is the basis for the 2010
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 12 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
CBC, suggests that for a short period (less than ½ second) structure on liquefiable soils,
Site Class D or E may be used instead of Site Class F to estimate design seismic
loading on the structure. The selection of Site Class D or E is based on the assessment
of the site soil profile assuming no liquefaction. Since the proposed structure will be
one story, the period of the structure should be less than ½ second. Therefore, we
classify the site as Site Class D. The assumption that the structure has a period of less
than ½ second should be verified by the project structural engineer. The 2010 CBC
Seismic Design Parameters are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
2010 CBC Seismic Design Parameters
Design Parameter
Recommended Value
Site Class (Table 1613.5.2)
D
Ss (Figure 1613.5(3)) (g)
1.710
S1 (Figure 1613.5(4)) (g)
0.658
Fa (Table 1613.5.3(1))
1.00
Fv (Table 1613.5.3(2))
1.50
SMS (Equation 16-36) (g)
1.710
SM1 (Equation 16-37) (g)
0.987
SDS (Equation 16-38) (g)
1.140
SD1 (Equation 16-39) (g)
0.658
4.2.2 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement
To assess the potential for liquefaction of subsurface soils at the site, we used the
liquefaction analysis procedures outlined in Youd et.al. (2001), Seed et.al (2003), and
Idriss and Boulanger (2004 and 2008). For estimating the resulting ground settlements,
we used the methods proposed by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987), Cetin et.al (2009), and
Idriss and Boulanger (2008), respectively. These methods utilize corrected standard
penetration test (SPT) blow counts to estimate the amount of volumetric compaction or
settlement during an earthquake.
According to the State of California (CDMG, 1998), the historical high depth to
groundwater beneath the site has been mapped at about 10 feet below grade. During
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 13 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
our subsurface explorations, groundwater was encountered in the borings at depths
ranging between 8 and 15 feet bgs, corresponding to elevations between approximately
+2 to -3 feet. A groundwater depth of 8 feet, which corresponds to average elevation of
+2 feet, was used in our analyses.
According to Section 1803.5 of the 2010 CBC, the PGA used in the liquefaction analysis
may be estimated by dividing the SDS by 2.5. A PGA of 0.46 g with an earthquake
magnitude of 7.3 was used as the design-level seismic event for our liquefaction
analyses.
We evaluated the liquefaction potential at the site using the CPT and SPT data. CPTs
were used primarily because they provide a continuous measurement of the site
stratigraphy. In addition, strong correlations between measured SPT blow counts and
CPT-derived blow counts have been established for the site from a number of soil
borings performed adjacent to CPT sounding locations.
Based on the boring and CPT data and our engineering analyses, it is our opinion that
the loose to medium dense sandy silt, silty sand, and sand below the groundwater to
approximately 40 to 45 feet bgs are subject to liquefaction in the event of a major
earthquake occurring on a nearby fault. The Idriss and Boulanger procedure tends to
predict significantly thicker liquefiable layers and larger associated settlements than the
other two procedures. However, the predicted liquefiable layers at depth (below
40 to 45 feet) are not consistent with SPT blow count data (greater than 40 to 50 bpf),
which indicate that the potential for liquefaction in these layers is low. If the liquefaction
were to occur in these layers, it would be limited to isolated thin lenses.
Based on our analyses, we estimate that seismically-induced settlement of saturated
sandy soils due to strong ground shaking during a design-level seismic event could be
on the order of 4 to 8 inches. Because of variations in distribution, density, and
confining conditions of the soils, seismic settlement is generally non-uniform and
serious structural damage can occur due to differential settlement. The amount of
differential settlement will depend on the uniformity of the subsurface profile. For
uniform subsurface conditions, differential settlement on the order of 50 percent of the
total seismic settlement could be expected. For highly heterogeneous sites, differential
settlements on the order of 75 to 100 percent of the total seismic settlement could be
expected. Differential settlement at this site may be as much as 3 to 5 inches over a
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 14 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
horizontal distance 50 feet. The results of our liquefaction analyses are presented in
Appendix C.
4.3
FOUNDATIONS
4.3.1 General
Ground improvement is recommended to support the proposed Walmart store on a
conventional shallow foundation system. The ground improvement program will need to
consider the magnitude of the estimated vertical seismic settlement (4 to 8 inches) and
the compressibility of the upper soils (unmitigated static settlement on the order of ½ to
1 inch).
4.3.2
Ground Improvement
Ground improvement may be performed to allow the use of a shallow foundation
system. Based on past experience with similar soil conditions, some cost effective
ground improvement options include deep soil mixing or stone columns (vibroreplacement). Due to the fine-grained soils (silts and clays) interbedded with the
coarse-grained (sandy) soils, wick drains or similar methods may need to be installed
prior to installing stone columns in order to improve drainage so that they are effective.
The actual design of a deep soil-mixing or stone column program should be performed
by a design-build contractor specializing and experienced with these ground
improvement methods.
The contractor should provide material requirements,
preliminary spacing and replacement ratios, and other design information.
The ground improvement program should be designed to limit static and seismic
settlement (total and differential) to within Walmart’s design criteria of ¾ inch total and
½ inch differential over 40 feet. At a minimum, the soils should be improved a
horizontal distance of at least 10 feet beyond the edge of the building pad. Additionally,
the ground improvement program should consider the impact to the surrounding roads
and underground utilities.
The proposed ground improvement program should be reviewed by the geotechnical
engineer and installed under their observation. The ground improvement design will
likely be an iterative process between the ground improvement contractor and
geotechnical engineer. It should be noted that ground improvement programs are
typically design-build projects, and the specialty contractors are ultimately responsible
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 15 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
for the performance of their designs. A more detailed discussion of two potential ground
improvement options is provided below.
Proof of the effectiveness of the ground improvement program is the responsibility of
the specialty contractor, subject to the review and approval of Kleinfelder. A verification
program should consist of pre-improvement CPTs that will serve as the baseline against
which post-improvement CPTs will be compared. The post-improvement CPTs will be
utilized to check the effectiveness of the ground improvement program. Additional
treatment will need to be performed in areas where the post-improvement CPTs show
inadequate improvement.
Deep Soil Mixing
Deep Soil Mixing (DSM) could also be performed to facilitate the use of shallow
foundations at the site. DSM is the mechanical blending of the in-situ soil with
cementious materials using a hollow auger and paddle arrangement. Soil-mixing rigs
may have a single auger (about 2 to 12 feet in diameter) or several smaller-diameter
augers (usually 2 to 8 augers). As the augers are advanced into the soil, grout is
pumped through the stems and injected into the soil at the tips. After the design depth
has been reached, the augers are withdrawn while mixing process continues. The soilmixing process results in a fairly uniform soil-cement column. The intent of a DSM
program is to achieve increased shear strength and reduced compressibility of the soil.
The DSM solidifies “columns” of soil in the treated area and the resulting soil-cement
matrix helps to redistribute the shear stresses in the soil, thus, reducing the settlement
of the ground surface due to liquefaction of the untreated soil. In addition, the soilcement columns can be used as a load-bearing element to reduce static settlement.
Stone Columns
With vibro-replacement, a probe is advanced into the ground by means of vibration to
the design treatment depth. The probe is then lifted several feet, and gravel is fed into
the resulting void under pressure through a delivery tube attached to the probe. The
vibrating probe is then advanced back into the deposited gravel, displacing and
compacting it. The probe is lifted and lowered repeatedly until a dense “stone column”
is constructed and extends to the ground surface. Ground improvement is achieved by
the formation of these “stone columns” within the ground and by densifying soil adjacent
to the stone columns. The densified soils are less susceptible to liquefaction and the
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 16 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
stone column is not susceptible to liquefaction. The stone column matrix also stiffens
site soils and redistributes shear stresses in the soil thereby reducing settlement.
Past experience and research indicate that stone columns can provide an additional
benefit of drainage for soils subject to strong ground shaking, which can relieve excess
pore pressures and reduce the extent of liquefaction. Based on our experience and
discussions with stone column installation contractors, stone columns are very effective
in sands and can be quite effective in silty sands and silts.
4.3.3 Shallow Foundation Design
Based on the proposed loading conditions, unmitigated total static settlement is
estimated to be on the order of ½ to 1 inch. As discussed in the previous section,
seismic settlement could be on the order of 4 to 8 inches in the event of a large
earthquake on a nearby fault. Kleinfelder recommends that ground improvement be
utilized in conjunction with a shallow foundation system to limit static and seismic
settlement (total and differential) to within Walmart’s design criteria of ¾ inch total and
½ inch differential over 40 feet.
Shallow foundations, such as isolated spread and continuous footings, may be placed
on properly improved ground. The recommendations that follow assume implementation
of one of the ground improvement methods presented in Section 4.3.2, or another
method acceptable to Kleinfelder. The ground improvement design should assume the
following parameters. Shallow footings will be designed for a net allowable bearing
pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot for dead plus sustained live loads. A onethird increase in the bearing value will be used for wind or seismic loads. Concrete slabon-grade will be designed to support a maximum concentrated load of 5 kips, and will
have a maximum uniform slab load of 125 pounds psf. All footings will be established at
a depth of at least 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade or finished slab grade,
whichever is deeper. The footing dimensions and reinforcement should be designed by
the structural engineer; however, continuous and isolated spread footings should have
minimum widths of 18 and 24 inches, respectively.
Lateral load resistance may be derived from passive resistance along the vertical sides
of the footings, friction acting at the base of the footing, or a combination of the two. An
allowable passive earth pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth may be used for design.
Allowable passive earth pressure values should not exceed 1,500 psf. A coefficient of
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 17 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
friction value of 0.3 between the base of the footings and the engineered fill soils can be
used for sliding resistance using the dead load forces. Friction and passive resistance
may be combined without reduction. We recommend that the first foot of soil cover be
neglected in the passive resistance calculations if the ground surface is not protected
from erosion or disturbance by a slab, pavement or in some similar manner.
4.4
EARTHWORK
4.4.1 General
Recommendations for site preparation of structural (building pad) and non-structural
areas (parking lot) are presented below. Site preparation and earthwork operations
should be performed in accordance with applicable codes, safety regulations and other
local, state or federal specifications, and the recommendations included in this report.
References to maximum unit weights are established in accordance with the latest
version of ASTM Standard Test Method D1557.
4.4.2 Site Preparation
Abandoned utilities, foundations, and other existing improvements within the proposed
improvement areas should be removed and the excavation(s) backfilled with engineered
fill. Debris produced by demolition operations, including wood, steel, piping, plastics,
etc., should be separated and disposed of off-site. Existing utility pipelines or conduits
that extend beyond the limits of the proposed construction and are to be abandoned in
place, should be plugged with non-shrinking cement grout to prevent migration of soil
and/or water. Demolition, disposal and grading operations should be observed and
tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Areas to receive fill should be
stripped of all dry, loose or soft earth materials and undocumented fill materials to the
satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer.
x
Structural Areas (Building Pad): After ground improvement is performed, the
upper few feet of the existing soils will be disturbed and some remedial grading
will be required. In addition, there may be bulking of the upper soils from the
ground improvement process. We recommend that the improvement area be
overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet below the pre-improved grade or to at
least 1 foot below the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper. Depending on
the amount of disturbance, the overexcavation may have to be deepened. This
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 18 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
overexcavation should extend the full width of the improved area or at least of 5
feet outside the building pad, whichever is greater.
Based on past experience, the ground improvement process may result in
“wicking” of moisture up into the near-surface soils, thereby increasing the
moisture content, especially in clayey and silty soils. Furthermore, the soil mixing
process will also saturate the surface soils. Subgrade stabilization may be
necessary. If necessary, the material should be processed and stabilized an
additional 12 to 18 inches using lime/cement treatment. Alternatively, an
additional 12 inches of material may be removed and an 18-inch-thick crushed
rock blanket underlain by Mirafi 500X fabric, or equivalent, be placed to stabilize
the subgrade. To limit disturbance, track-mounted equipment should be used for
the excavation and the subgrade compacted with a non-vibratory rollers.
x
Sidewalks, Pavements, and Other Flatwork Areas:
For non-structural areas
outside of the building pad, such as pavements, sidewalks and other flatwork,
etc., we recommend that the existing soils be overexcavated a minimum of 24
inches below existing grade or finished subgrade, whichever is greater, and be
replaced as engineered fill. Depending on the observed condition of the existing
soils, deeper overexcavation may be required in some areas.
The
overexcavation should extend beyond the proposed improvements a horizontal
distance of at least two feet.
After site preparation and prior to placement of compacted fills, the excavation bottom
should be proof-rolled to disclose soft areas and approved by the geotechnical
engineer. After approval, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches,
moisture conditioned, and compacted, as recommended in Section 4.4.3.
4.4.3 Fill Material
The on-site soils, minus debris, organic matter, or other deleterious materials, may be
used in the site fills. Rock or other soil fragments greater than 4 inches in size should
not be used in the fills.
We recommend that non-plastic granular fill soils be compacted in accordance with the
Walmart’s GISRR requirements to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight
(ASTM D1557). However, due to the potential for expansion, we do not recommend
compacting fine-grained soils (clays and silts) to 95 percent relative compaction. Fine125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 19 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
grained fill soils should be compacted to at least 92 percent of the soils maximum dry
unit weight.
Fill should be placed in loose horizontal lifts not more than 8 inches thick (loose
measurement). The moisture content of the fill should be maintained within 3 percent of
optimum moisture content for non-plastic granular soils and 2 to 4 percent above
optimum for fine-grained soils during compaction. Processing of these materials will
likely be required prior to placement as engineered fill. Processing may require ripping
the material, disking to break up clumps, and blending to attain uniform moisture
contents necessary for compaction. Utility trench backfill should be mechanically
compacted. Flooding should not be permitted.
The moisture content of the fine-grained fill soils is considered very important, and
therefore, both relative compaction and moisture content should be used to evaluate
compaction acceptance. If both criteria are not within the specified tolerances, finegrained fill should not be accepted, and the contractor should rework the material until
the fill is placed within the specified tolerances.
Import materials, if required, should have an expansion index of less than 20 with no
more than 30 percent of the particles passing the No. 200 sieve and no particles greater
than 4 inches in maximum dimension. The maximum expansion index for imported
soils may be modified by the project geotechnical engineer depending on its proposed
use. Imported fill should be documented to be free of hazardous materials, including
petroleum or petroleum byproducts, chemicals and harmful minerals. Kleinfelder should
evaluate the proposed imported materials prior to their transportation and use on site.
4.4.4 Excavation Characteristics and Wet Soils
The borings drilled as part of our exploration were advanced using a truck-mounted drill
rig. Drilling effort was easy to moderate within the upper soils. Groundwater was
encountered at depths as shallow as about 8 feet bgs, and elevated moisture contents
(in excess of 30 percent) were observed in near-surface soils (upper 10 feet). The
contractor should be aware that excavations may be subject to pumping (especially at
the loading dock location), and excavations may have unstable bottoms depending on
their location across the site. In addition, some of the near-surface soil moisture
contents are about 10 to 20 percent above optimum. The contractor should also be
aware that significant processing (moisture reduction) of these materials would likely be
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 20 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
required prior to placement as engineered fill. Additionally, based on past experience,
the ground improvement process may result in “wicking” of moisture up into the nearsurface soils, thereby increasing the moisture content, especially in clayey and silty
soils. Furthermore, the soil mixing process will also saturate the surface soils. The
upper soils may be difficult to compact using conventional methods of fill placement and
compaction due to pumping subgrade. The contractor should consider these moisture
conditions when selecting equipment for earthwork and compaction.
4.4.5 Temporary Excavations
Temporary cuts may be sloped back at an inclination of no steeper than 1.5:1
(horizontal to vertical) in existing site soils. Minor sloughing and/or raveling should be
anticipated as they dry out. If signs of slope instability are observed, the inclination
recommended above should be decreased until stability of the slope is obtained. In
addition, at the first signs of slope instability, the geotechnical engineer should be
contacted. Where space for sloped embankments is not available, shoring will be
necessary. Shoring and/or underpinning of existing improvements that are to remain
may be required to perform the demolition and overexcavation. Excavations within a
1.5:1 plane extending downward from a horizontal distance of 2 feet beyond the bottom
outer edge of existing improvements should not be attempted without bracing and/or
underpinning the improvements. Personnel from the geotechnical engineer should
observe the excavations so that modifications can be made to the excavations, as
necessary, based on variations in the encountered soil conditions. All applicable
excavation safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA requirements, should
be met.
Where sloped excavations are used, tops of the slopes should be barricaded so that
vehicles and storage loads do not encroach within a distance equal to the depth of the
excavation. Greater setback may be necessary when considering heavy vehicles, such
as concrete trucks and cranes. Kleinfelder should be advised of such heavy vehicle
loadings so that specific setback requirements can be established. If temporary
construction slopes are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are
recommended along the tops of the slopes to reduce runoff that may enter the
excavation and erode the slope faces.
Due to the granular and cohesionless nature of some of the on-site soils, vertical or
steeply sided trench excavations should not be attempted without proper shoring or
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 21 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
bracings. All trench excavations should be braced and shored in accordance with good
construction practice and all applicable safety ordinances and codes. The contractor
should be responsible for the structural design and safety of the temporary shoring
system, and we recommend that this design be submitted to Kleinfelder for review to
check that our recommendations have been incorporated. For planning purposes, the
on-site soils may be considered as a Type C soil, as defined using the current OSHA
soil classification.
Stockpiled (excavated) materials should be placed no closer to the edge of an
excavation than a distance equal to the depth of the excavation, but no closer than
4 feet. All trench excavations should be made in accordance with OSHA requirements.
4.4.6 Trench Backfill
Pipe bedding and pipe zone material should consist of sand or similar granular material
having a minimum sand equivalent value of 30. The sand should be placed in a zone
that extends a minimum of 4 inches below and 10 inches above the pipe for the full
trench width. The bedding material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the
maximum dry density or to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer's representative
observing the compaction of the bedding material. Bedding material should consist of
sand, gravel, crushed aggregate, or select native free-draining granular material with a
maximum particle size of ¾ inch and a sand equivalent of at least 30. Bedding
materials should also conform to the pipe manufacturer's specifications, if available.
Trench backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with recommendations
provided for engineered fill in Section 4.4.3. Mechanical compaction is recommended;
ponding or jetting should be avoided, especially in areas supporting structural loads or
beneath concrete slabs supported on grade, pavements, or other improvements.
4.5
SITE DRAINAGE
Foundation and slab performance depends greatly on proper irrigation and how well
runoff water drains from the site. This drainage should be maintained both during
construction and over the entire life of the project. The ground surface around
structures should be graded such that water drains rapidly away from structures without
ponding. The surface gradient needed to do this depends on the landscaping type. In
general, landscape area within 10 feet of buildings should slope away at gradients of at
least 5 percent, per Section 1804.3 of 2010 CBC.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 22 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
We recommend that landscape planters either not be located adjacent to buildings and
pavement areas or be properly drained to area drains. Drought resistant plants and
minimum watering are recommended for planters immediately adjacent to structures.
No raised planters should be installed immediately adjacent to structures unless they
are damp-proofed and have a drainpipe connected to an area drain outlet. Planters
should be built such that water exiting from them will not seep into the foundation areas
or beneath slabs and pavement. Otherwise, waterproofing the slab and walls should be
considered. Roof water should be directed to fall on hardscape areas sloping to an
area drain, or roof gutters and downspouts should be installed and routed to area
drains. In any event, maintenance personnel should be instructed to limit irrigation to
the minimum actually necessary to properly sustain landscaping plants. Should
excessive irrigation, waterline breaks or unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones
and “perched” groundwater may develop. Consequently, the site should be graded so
that water drains away readily without saturating the foundation or landscaped areas.
Potential sources of water such as water pipes, drains, and the like should be frequently
examined for signs of leakage or damage. Any such leakage or damage should be
promptly repaired. Wet utilities should also be designed to be watertight.
4.6
SLABS-ON-GRADE AND PAVEMENTS
4.6.1 General
The following sections provide recommendations for the design and construction of
slabs-on-grade and pavements. A summary of our recommendations is presented in
Table 2. Please refer to the appropriate section for detailed recommendations.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 23 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
Table 2
Summary of Slab-On-Grade and Pavement Sections Recommendations
Pavement Type and Use
Minimum
Thickness
(inches)
Minimum
Aggregate Base
Thickness
(inches)
Interior Slab-On-Grade - Building Pad
6.0
4.0
Exterior Slabs-On-Grade outside the Building Pad (sidewalk, etc.)
4.0
--
Asphalt Concrete Pavement Standard-Duty Pavement
4.0
5.0
Asphalt Concrete Pavement Heavy-Duty Pavement
4.0
7.0
Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Standard-Duty Pavement
6.5
4.0
Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Heavy-Duty Pavement
7.0
4.0
4.6.2 Slab-On-Grade
In our opinion concrete slab-on-grade floors may be used for the proposed building.
Concrete floor slabs should be designed in accordance with Walmart’s design criteria
and any specific loading conditions, as determined by the structural engineer. However,
at a minimum, we recommend that concrete floor slabs have nominal thickness of at
least 6 inches. We recommend that the floor slab be underlain by a minimum of 4
inches of aggregate base. The aggregate base course should meet the specifications
for untreated base materials (crushed aggregate base) as defined in Section 200-2 of
the current edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction
(Greenbook). The aggregate base materials should be compacted to at least 95
percent relative compaction. Assuming that the subgrade will be prepared in
accordance in Section 4.4.2 of this report and the aggregate base material will be
compacted as recommended above, the subgrade will be capable of achieving a
modulus of subgrade reaction of at least 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for design of
floor slabs, as required in Walmart’s design criteria.
Based on the soil conditions observed during our field explorations and the depth to
groundwater, a moisture vapor retarder is recommended to avoid damp floors below
storage areas. The moisture vapor retarder product should meet the performance
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 24 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
standards of an ASTM E1745, Class A material, and be properly installed in accordance
with ACI publication 302. The vapor retarder should be at least 10 mils thick and be
properly lapped and sealed. The joints between the sheets and the openings for utility
piping should be lapped and taped. The sheeting should also be lapped into the sides
of the footing trenches a minimum of 6 inches. Any puncture of the vapor retarder
should be repaired prior to casting concrete.
Various factors, such as surface grades, adjacent planters, and the quality of slab
concrete, can affect slab moisture and future performance. Special precautions must
be taken during the placement and curing of all concrete slabs. Excessive slump (high
water-cement ratio) of the concrete and/or improper curing procedures used during
either hot or cold weather conditions could lead to excessive shrinkage, cracking or
curling of the slabs. High water-cement ratio and/or improper curing also greatly
increase the water vapor permeability of concrete. We recommend that all concrete
placement and curing operations be performed in accordance with the American
Concrete Institute (ACI) Manual.
4.6.3 Exterior Flatwork
Prior to casting exterior flatwork, the subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned and
recompacted, as recommended ion Section 4.4.2.
Exterior concrete slabs for
pedestrian traffic or landscape should be at least four inches thick. Weakened plane
joints should be located at intervals of about 6 feet. Careful control of the water/cement
ratio should be performed to avoid shrinkage cracking due to excess water or poor
concrete finishing or curing. It is recommended that the subgrade soils be kept moist
and not allowed to dry out prior to casting exterior flatwork.
4.6.4 Pavement Sections
Asphalt-Concrete Pavement Sections
The required pavement structural sections will depend on the expected wheel loads,
volume of traffic, and subgrade soils. The Traffic Indices were calculated based on the
Equivalent Single Axle Loading (ESAL) design values provided in Walmart’s GISRR.
The pavement subgrade should be prepared just prior to placement of the base course,
or the previously placed fill should be scarified, moisture conditioned to a minimum
depth of 6 inches, and recompacted. Positive drainage of the paved areas should be
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 25 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
provided since moisture infiltration into the subgrade may decrease the life of
pavements. Curbing located adjacent to paved areas should be founded in the
subgrade, not the aggregate base, in order to provide a cutoff, which reduces water
infiltration into the base course. Asphalt pavement calculations are presented in
Appendix C. Table 3 presents our recommendations for Asphalt Concrete Pavement
Sections for the Walmart retail store design.
Table 3
Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
(Design R-value = 50)
Traffic
Index
(TI)
Asphalt
Concrete
(inches)
Aggregate
Base
(inches)
Standard-Duty
Pavement
7.0
4.0
5.0
Heavy-Duty
Pavement
8.0
4.0
7.0
Traffic Use
Pavement Section
Detail
The pavement sections presented above were established using the design criteria of
the State of California, Department of Transportation, a design R-value of 50 based on
laboratory testing, and the noted Traffic Indices for standard-duty and heavy-duty
pavement. The pavement sections provided above are contingent on the following
recommendations being implemented during construction:
•
The pavement sections above should be placed on a minimum of 30 inches of
engineered fill (24 inches of overexcavation and 6 inches of scarification). Prior to fill
placement, the exposed subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches,
uniformly moisture conditioned, and compacted, as recommended in Section 4.4.3.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 26 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
•
Subgrade soils should be checked for adequate moisture content and be in a stable,
non-pumping condition at the time the aggregate base materials are placed and
compacted. Correction of moisture content deviances should occur prior to base
placement.
•
Aggregate base materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative
compaction.
•
Adequate drainage (both surface and subsurface) should be provided such that the
subgrade soils and aggregate base materials are not allowed to become wet.
•
The aggregate base course could meet the specifications for untreated base
materials (crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base) as defined in
Section 200-2 of the current edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction (Greenbook). A copy of this specification is included in Appendix C.
•
Asphalt paving materials and placement methods should meet current specifications
in Section 400 of the current edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction (Greenbook). A copy of this specification is included in Appendix C.
Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
Areas subject to heavy duty traffic (i.e., fire lanes, driveways, trash dumpster
approaches, etc.) can be paved with Portland Cement Concrete (PCC). Table 4
presents our recommendations for PCC Pavement Sections for the Walmart Retail
Store design.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 27 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
Table 4
Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Sections
(Design R-value = 50)
Minimum
Daily
ESALs
PCC
(inches)
Aggregate
Base
(inches)
Standard-Duty
Pavement
15
6.5
4.0
Heavy-Duty
Pavement
46
7.0
4.0
Traffic Use
Pavement Section
Detail
The pavement sections recommended above should be placed on a minimum of
30 inches of compacted engineered fill (24 inches of overexcavation and 6 inches of
scarification). Prior to fill placement, the exposed subgrade should be scarified to a
depth of 6 to 8 inches, uniformly moisture conditioned, and compacted, as
recommended in Section 4.3.3.
The pavement section was based on the design procedures from the Portland Cement
Association and the recommended subgrade conditions. The design assumes that the
pavements will be subjected to 15 and 46 daily equivalent single axle loads for standard
duty and heavy duty in accordance with Walmart’s GISRR for retail store pavement
design. PCC should have a 28-day flexural strength (modulus of rupture determined by
the third-point method) of at least 550 psi (compression strength of 4,000 psi).
Reinforcement should consist of No. 3 bars spaced at 24 inches on center, both
directions. A design modulus of subgrade reaction (k value) of 200 pci was assumed
for the top of the compacted subgrade. It was also assumed that aggregate interlock
would be developed at the control joints.
theoretical 20-year design life.
125157/IRV12RXXX
The pavement sections are based on a
Page 28 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
4.7
RETAINING WALLS
Design earth pressures for retaining walls depend primarily on the allowable wall
movement, wall inclination, type of backfill materials, backfill slopes, surcharges, and
drainage. The earth pressures provided assume that a non-expansive backfill will be
used. The non-expansive backfill zone should extend behind the wall a horizontal
distance of at least one-half the height of the wall. The on-site clay soils should not be
used as backfill. If a drainage system is not installed, the wall should be designed to
resist hydrostatic pressure in addition to the earth pressure. Determination of whether
the active or at-rest condition is appropriate for design will depend on the flexibility of
the walls. Walls that are free to rotate at least 0.002 radians (deflection at the top of the
wall of at least 0.002 x H, where H is the unbalanced wall height) may be designed for
the active condition. Walls that are not capable of this movement should be assumed
rigid and designed for the at-rest condition. The recommended active, at-rest, and
seismic earth pressures are provided in Table 5.
Table 5
Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Structures
(Non-Expansive Backfill)
Wall movement
Free to Deflect
(active condition)
Restrained
(at-rest condition)
Backfill Condition
Equivalent Fluid
Pressure
(pcf)
Seismic Increment
(psf)
40
15H *
60
23H *
Level
Notes: * An inverted triangular pressure distribution with a maximum pressure at
the top of the wall and H is the height of the wall.
In addition to the above lateral pressure, undrained walls will have to be designed for
full hydrostatic pressure. The above lateral earth pressures do not include the effects of
surcharges (e.g., traffic, footings), compaction, or truck-induced wall pressures. Any
surcharge (live, including traffic, or dead load) located within a 1:1 plane projected
upward from the base of the excavation should be added to the lateral earth pressures.
The lateral contribution of a uniform surcharge load located immediately behind walls
may be calculated by multiplying the surcharge by 0.33 for cantilevered walls and 0.50
for restrained walls. Walls adjacent to areas subject to vehicular traffic should be
designed for a 2-foot equivalent soil surcharge (250 psf). Lateral load contributions
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 29 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
from other surcharges located behind walls may be provided once the load
configurations and layouts are known.
Care must be taken during the compaction operation not to overstress the wall. Heavy
construction equipment should be maintained a distance of at least 3 feet away from the
walls while the backfill soils are being placed. Kleinfelder should be contacted when
development plans are finalized for review of wall and backfill conditions on a case-bycase basis.
Walls should be properly drained or designed to resist hydrostatic pressures. Adequate
drainage is essential to provide a free-drained backfill condition and to limit hydrostatic
buildup behind the wall. Walls should also be appropriately waterproofed. Drainage
behind loading dock walls can consist of weepholes placed along the base of the wall.
Weepholes should be spaced at 10 to 15 feet apart and connected with a gravel drain
consisting of approximately 3 cubic feet of clean gravel per foot of wall length wrapped
with filter fabric. Other types of retaining walls should have a continuous back drain as
described below.
Except for the upper 2 feet, the backfill immediately behind retaining walls (minimum
horizontal distance of 2 feet measured perpendicular to the wall) should consist of freedraining ¾-inch crushed rock wrapped with filter fabric. The upper 2 feet of cover
backfill should consist of relatively impervious material, such as clayey soils or
pavement. A 4-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe, placed perforations down at the
bottom of the rock layer leading to a suitable gravity outlet, should be installed at the
base of the walls.
As an alternative to the gravel drain noted above, a manufactured drain panel may be
utilized behind retaining walls in addition to normal waterproofing. This system
generally consists of a prefabricated drain panel lined with filter fabric. At the wall base,
we recommend that a gravel drain be installed to collect and discharge drainage to a
suitable outlet. The drain should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe,
placed perforations down at the bottom of approximately 3 cubic feet of clean gravel per
foot of wall length. The gravel drain should be wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or
equivalent). The pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet and cleanouts
should be provided at appropriate intervals. If drainage behind the wall is omitted, the
wall should be designed for full hydrostatic pressure.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 30 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
4.8
SOIL CORROSION
A soil corrosivity study was performed by Schiff Associates (Schiff) in 2007. In
summary, the near-surface site soils are considered corrosive towards buried ferrous
metals and aggressive to copper. In addition, the concentrations of soluble sulfates
indicate that the potential of sulfate attack on concrete in contact with the on-site soils is
“negligible” based on ACI 318 Table 4.3.1 (ACI, 2002).
Recommendations for mitigating the corrosion potential of the site soils are provided in
Schiff’s 2007 report, a copy of which is presented in Appendix B. We recommend
contacting Schiff if additional recommendations are required.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 31 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
5
5.1
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW
We recommend that Kleinfelder perform a general review of the project plans and
specifications before they are finalized to verify that our geotechnical recommendations
have been properly interpreted and implemented during design. This review will
alleviate misrepresentation of our recommendations, and help reduce costly design
changes and construction delays. If we are not accorded the privilege of performing this
review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 32 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
6
LIMITATIONS
This geotechnical study has been prepared for the exclusive use of the
GreenbergFarrow and Walmart Stores, Inc. for specific application to proposed Walmart
Store No. 70270 located at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Cota
Avenue in Long Beach, California. This work was performed in a manner consistent
with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of Kleinfelder’s
profession practicing in the same locality, under similar conditions and at the date the
services are provided. Our conclusions, opinions and recommendations are based on a
limited number of observations and data. It is possible that conditions could vary
between or beyond the data evaluated. Kleinfelder makes no other representation,
guarantee or warranty, express or implied, regarding the services, communication (oral
or written), report, opinion, or instrument of service provided.
This report may be used only by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., GreenbergFarrow, and their
respective successors and assigns (herein referred to as "Client"), and only for the
purposes stated for this specific engagement within a reasonable time from its issuance.
The work performed was based on project information provided by Client. We request
the opportunity to review plans and specifications, including any revisions or
modifications to the plans and specifications.
The scope of services was limited to the scope of work outlined in this report. It should
be recognized that definition and evaluation of subsurface conditions are difficult.
Judgments leading to conclusions and recommendations are generally made with
incomplete knowledge of the subsurface conditions present due to the limitations of
data from field studies. The conclusions of this assessment are based on sources of
data described herein.
Kleinfelder offers various levels of investigative and engineering services to suit the
varying needs of different clients. Although risk can never be eliminated, more detailed
and extensive studies yield more information, which may help understand and manage
the level of risk. Since detailed study and analysis involves greater expense, our clients
participate in determining levels of service, which provide information for their purposes
at acceptable levels of risk. The client and key members of the design team should
discuss the issues covered in this report with Kleinfelder, so that the issues are
understood and applied in a manner consistent with the owner’s budget, tolerance of
risk and expectations for future performance and maintenance.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 33 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and
subsurface explorations, limited laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the
proposed construction. It is possible that soil or groundwater conditions could vary
between or beyond the points explored. If soil or groundwater conditions are
encountered during construction that differ from those described herein, the client is
responsible for ensuring that Kleinfelder is notified immediately so that we may
reevaluate the recommendations of this report. If the scope of the proposed
construction, including the estimated building loads, and the design depths or locations
of the foundations, changes from that described in this report, the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report are not considered valid unless the changes
are reviewed, and the conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing, by
Kleinfelder.
We recommend Kleinfelder be retained so that all geotechnical aspects of construction
will be monitored on a full-time basis by a representative from Kleinfelder, including site
preparation, preparation of foundations, and placement of engineered fill and trench
backfill. These services provide Kleinfelder the opportunity to observe the actual soil,
rock and groundwater conditions encountered during construction and to evaluate the
applicability of the recommendations presented in this report to the site conditions.
This report, and any future addenda or reports regarding this site, may be made
available to bidders to supply them with only the data contained in the report regarding
subsurface conditions and laboratory test results at the point and time noted. Because
of the limited nature of any subsurface study, the contractor may encounter conditions
during construction which differ from those presented in this report. In such event, the
contractor should promptly notify the owner so that Kleinfelder’s geotechnical engineer
can be contacted to confirm those conditions. We recommend the contractor describe
the nature and extent of the differing conditions in writing and that the construction
contract include provisions for dealing with differing conditions.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 34 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
7
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2002, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (ACI 318R-02).
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Minimum Design Load for Buildings and
Other Structures (ASCE7-05), January 2006.
Bryant, W.A. and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps:
California Geological Survey Special Publication 42, 42p.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2003, Corrosion Guidelines, Version
1.0, available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/ttsb/corrosion/Index.htm.
California
Department
of
Water
Resources,
http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/
Water
Data
Library:
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1986, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone Map for the Long Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County,
California.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, Seismic Hazard Zone Report
for the Long Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California; SHZR
028, updated January 13, 2006.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1999, State of California Seismic
Hazard Zones, Long Beach Quadrangle, Official Map, Released March 25, 1999.
California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), 2007; Maps W1-6,
138 and 139; www.consrv.ca.gov/DOG/maps/d1_index_map1.htm.
California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA), the University of Southern
California (USC), and the California Geological Survey (CGS), 2009, Tsunami
Inundation Map for Emergency Planning State of California – County of Los
Angeles, Long Beach Quadrangle, Scale 1:24,000.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2003, Geologic Map of the Long Beach 30’ x 60’
Quadrangle, California; Version 1.0, from: www.consevation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/
preliminary_geologic_maps.htm.
Cetin, K.O., Bilge, H. T., Wu, J., Kammerer, A. M., and Seed, R. B., 2009, Probabilistic
Models for Cyclic Straining of Saturated Clean Sand, ASCE J.Geotech.Eng, 135
(3), p. 371–386.
Cao, T., Bryant, W.A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Wills, C.J., 2003, The Revised
2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, California Geological Survey,
available at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 35 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
FEMA, 2006, Map Service Center, panel 06037C1962F, dated July 6, 1998.
(http://store.msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores).
Idriss, I.M., and Boulanger, R.W., 2004, “Semi–empirical Procedures for Evaluating
Liquefaction Potential During Earthquakes”, Proceedings of the 11th SDEE and 3rd
ICEGE, University of California, Berkeley, January 2004, plenary session, p. 32–
56.
Idriss, I. M. and Boulanger, R.W., 2008, Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, MNO - 12, Oakland, California.
International Code Council, Inc., 2010 California Building Code.
Jennings, C.W., 1978, Geologic Map of California, Long Beach Sheet; Scale 1:250,000;
Third Edition.
Jennings, Charles W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with
Locations of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, California Division of Mines and Geology
Map.
Kleinfelder, 2007, Draft Geotechnical Study, Proposed Home Depot Store, NWC of
Pacific Coast Highway and Cota Avenue, Long Beach, California,” dated July 24,
2007.
Long Beach Gas and Oil (LBGO), 2010, Elevation Changes in the City of Long Beach,
May 2009 to October 2009 (Citywide), prepared for the Long Beach City Council,
dated March 23, 2010.
Los Angeles County, Department of Regional Planning, 1990, Technical Appendix to the
Safety Element of the Los Angeles County General Plan, December 1990, 8
plates.
Moss, R. E. S., Seed, R.B., Kayen, R.E., Steward, J.P., and Kiureghian, A.D., 2006,
CPT-Based Probabilistic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Initiation, PEER
2005/15, Richmond, California.
Munger Oil Information Service, Inc., 2001, Munger Oil Map Book: California Oil and
Gas Fields.
National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 1984, “Corrosion Basics, An Introduction,”
National Association of Corrosion Engineers.
National Climate Data Center (NCDC), Regional Climate Centers (RCC’s), and State
Climate Offices, accessed February 2012, Western Regional Climate Center,
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/
Historic Climate Information:
Poland, J.F. and Poland, A.M. 1956, Ground-water Geology of the Coastal Zone Long
Beach-Santa Ana Area, California; U.S.G.S. Water Supply Paper 1109.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 36 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
Portland Cement Association, 1988, Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois.
Rutledge, D., Remondi, B., Koerner, R., and Henderson, C., 2007, GPS Monitors
Oilfield
Subsidence,
GPS
World,
article
located
at
www.gpsworld.com/gpsworld/content/printContentPopup.jsp?id=34931
Seed, R. B., Cetin, K. O., Moss, R. E. S., Kammerer, A., Wu, J., Pestana, J., Riemer, M.,
Sancio, R. B., Bray, J. D., Kayen, R. E., and Faris, A. (2003). Recent Advances in
Soil Liquefaction Engineering: a Unified and Consistent Framework, Keynote
Presentation, 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Long
Beach, CA.
Teng Li & Associates, 1982, Structural Plans, Long Beach Airport Parking Structure,
dated August 3, 1982.
Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H. B., 1987, Evaluation of settlements in sands due to
earthquake shaking, J. Geotechnical Eng., ASCE 113(GT8), 861–78.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Prado Dam Emergency Plan Inundation
Map, Plate No. 4, dated August 1985.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), Photographic Library, Long Beach California,
Earthquake March 10, 1933. http://libraryphoto.cr.usgs.gov/.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) and California Geological Survey (CGS),
2006, Updated November 3, 2010, Quaternary fault and fold database for the
United States, accessed December 12, 2011, from USGS web site:
http//earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/.
Youd, T. Leslie and Idriss, Izzat M., 1997, Proceeding of the NCEER Workshop on
Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022.
Youd, et.al, 2001, “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary report of NCEER 1996
and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of
Soils,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, October 2001,
pp.817-833.
125157/IRV12RXXX
Page 37 of 37
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
PLATES
'
(
! " # $%&
)()
)*
*
,
+
)(
)
$**+,-'.$ & 8$(4 $37&+ 6,+'(7 %,#$ ',(
$**+,-'.$ & "3+)$#& "$.*%'(7 %,#$ ',(
$**+,-'.$ & ",'% 6,+'(7 %,#$ ',(
/
0 12
$**+,-'.$ & .34 +, $+5 6,+'(7 %,#$ ',(
/
0 12
$**+,-'.$ & #,(& *&(& +$ ',( &" %,#$ ',(
/
0 12
!
"#$%& '( )&&
*+,9&# (,
0: :1
4+$;( 65<
$";
4$ & 4+$;(< 0=0>= 0
#8&# &4 65<
6&#
#
4$ & #8&# &4< 0=0>=
*%$ &
*+,*,"&4 ;$%.$+
(;# ,) *$#')'# #,$" 8'78;$5 $(4 #, $ $?&
%,(7 6&$#8 #$%'),+('$
APPENDIX A
Field Explorations
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATIONS
GENERAL
Kleinfelder performed a geotechnical study for a proposed Home Depot store at the site
in 2007 (Kleinfelder, 2007). In 2007, subsurface conditions at the site were explored by
drilling 33 borings and advancing 7 cone penetration tests (CPTs). Fifteen borings were
drilled in the Walmart building pad area to depths of approximately 26½ to 51½ feet
below the existing ground surface (bgs). Eighteen borings were drilled in the parking
and driveways to depths of approximately 11½ to 16½ bgs. The 7 CPTs were
advanced within the Walmart building pad area to a depth of approximately 60 feet bgs.
In addition, to supplement the existing data from our July 2007 geotechnical study, and
to meet Walmart’s GISRR requirements, 5 borings were recently excavated to depths
up to 4 feet bgs to obtain shallow soil samples for additional laboratory testing. The
approximate locations of the borings and CPTs are presented on Plate 2.
The logs for the recent borings are presented as Plates A-3 through A-7. An
explanation to the log is presented as Plates A-1 and A-2. The July 2007 boring and
CPT logs are attached to this appendix.
The boring logs describe the earth materials encountered, samples obtained and show
field and laboratory tests performed. The logs also present the location, boring number,
drilling date and the name of the drilling subcontractor. The borings were logged by a
Kleinfelder engineer using the Unified Soil Classification System. The boundaries
between soil types shown on the log are approximate because the transition between
different soil layers may be gradual. Bulk and drive samples of selected earth materials
were obtained from the borings.
A California sampler was used to obtain drive samples of the soil encountered. This
sampler consists of a 3-inch O.D., 2.4-inch I.D. split barrel shaft that is pushed or driven
a total of 18-inches into the soil at the bottom of the boring. The soil was retained in six
1-inch brass rings for laboratory testing. An additional 2 inches of soil from each drive
remained in the cutting shoe and was usually discarded after visually classifying the
soil. The sampler was driven using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches and
controlled with a rope and cathead mechanism. The total number of blows required to
drive the sampler the final 12 inches is termed blow count and is recorded on the logs.
125157/IRV12RXXX
A-1
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
Blow counts recorded for the modified-California sampler do not correspond to a
Standard Penetration Test (SPT).
Samples were also obtained using a SPT Sampler. This sampler consists of a 2-inch
O.D., 1-3/8 -inch I.D. split barrel tube advanced into the soils at the bottom of the drill
hole a total of 18 inches. The sampler is driven using a 140-pound hammer free-falling
30 inches. The total number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final 12
inches is termed the N-value. The procedures we employed in the field are generally
consistent with those described in ASTM Standard Test Method D1586. Bulk samples
of the near-surface soils were directly retrieved from the cuttings.
125157/IRV12RXXX
A-2
February 28, 2012
DRAFT
!"#$%&'((&&#)'"&*&)$+,&)+-./
9
:
3-
9
9
8
8
($"045$(& )<8;
8
3-=
#"$&
:
:
045$(&
,+
6-7/
045$(&
)<;
#"$&
9
:
3-
9
9
8
8
8
3-=
:
:
045$(&
)<:;
#"$&
'4&$
04"$%
&'(&
($"&"%&
)<8;
#"$&
,+
67/
!&&,%-./'41'4)$&)%
0%)'41'4)$&)%#$B4!4*4
0(B
01C==
0
$((04%$%045$(&045$(&"%
+?)!4$&)<())($'4"'#"$&
01
1''4(*04%$%045$(&045$(&"%
+?)!4$&)<())($'4"'#"$&
00+
$((04%$%045$(&045$(&"%
+?)!4$&)<())($#"$&
00
$((04%$%045$(&045$(&"%
+?)!4$&)<())($(*#"$&
010+
1''4(*04%$%045$(&045$(&"%
+?)!4$&)<())($#"$&
010
1''4(*04%$%045$(&045$(&"%
+?)!4$&)<())($(*#"$&
0+
&()*045$(&045$(&()&"%+?)!4$&
0
(*$*045$(&045$(&"%(*+?)!4$&
00+
9
:
3@
9
9
8
8
8
3@=
:
:
9
:
3@
9
9
8
8
&"%&
,+
6-7/
&"%&)<
;#"$&
8
3@=
:
:
&"%&)<
:;#"$&
&
$((04%$%&"%&&"%045$(+?)!4$&)<
())($'4"'#"$&
&1
1''4(*04%$%&"%&&"%045$(+?)!4$&
)<())($'4"'#"$&
&&+
$((04%$%&"%&&"%045$(+?)!4$&)<
())($#"$&
&&
$((04%$%&"%&&"%045$(+?)!4$&)<
())($(*#"$&
&1&+
1''4(*04%$%&"%&&"%045$(+?)!4$&
)<())($#"$&
&1&
1''4(*04%$%&"%&&"%045$(+?)!4$&
)<())($(*#"$&
&+
&()*&"%&&"%045$(&()+?)!4$&
&
(*$*&"%&&"%045$((*+?)!4$&
&&+
,+
67/
'(
+<
"'40"&()&+$'!&'4%)'+$'!&#"$
&"%'4&()
<
"'40"(*&'#<0<1(&))*#)(*&
'<
'40"(*&>'40"&()&'#+$%!+)'<0<
1(&))*
&()&"%(*&
(
,(23/
(+(
&()&"%(*&
,(23/
$ &A
(*$*&"%&&"%&()(*+?)!4$&
"'40"&()&"%5$4*#"$&"%&&()*'4
(*$*#"$&"%&&()&)<&(0<)1(&))*
"'40"(*&'#(')'+$%!+1(&))*
045$((*(*&&"%*(*&&()*(*&($"
(*&
"'40"(*&&()&'#('1(&))*
045$((*(*&&"%*(*&&()*(*&($"
(*&
'40"&()&>'40"&()*(*&'#('
1(&))*
+(
#"$
04"$%
&'(&
(*$*045$(&045$(&"%(*&()
+?)!4$&
!"#
.
&#(6(
7(7("
.%
%//+-#1!
&#(6(
7(7("
%
%//+-#!
#6"(%/&
+,--!
4)0/
%//+-0.5!
%(00&("(
%&%&""(%/&
+,--!
&
&%#8(09
%//+-0.5!
2)$32'%/&
/"060#6"(%/&
3 +,--!
9))
#"(()")%#"
%728)2
"#$#"
$"'$8$#"&"%0
'0$#"&"%062)8
'2
'&>33
*+ , -!
9&(%"((09
)2#%(005!
#"
#"&%&"(
)#
)(#"(6(0#"/&%%"(
%//+-011!
/#
/"%)#"((
%//+-01!
!
%&'
#"(%"00)(0(0
9#"/&%%"(
/:1!3%/%
/7"005
!"#
"
$
$ $
%* #;<+$ -=
!"#
Prior Field Explorations
(Kleinfelder, 2007)
Appendix D
+
! **
Appendix E
+
! *"
For design assistance, drawings,
and pricing send completed worksheet to:
dyods@contech-cpi.com
Project Summary
Date:
Project Name:
City / County:
State:
Designed By:
Company:
Telephone:
6/5/2013
10 Acre Retail Site
Long Beach
CA
baker for
Greenberg Farrow
Enter Information in
Blue Cells
Corrugated Metal Pipe Calculator
Storage Volume Required (cf):
Limiting Width (ft):
Invert Depth Below Asphalt (ft):
Solid or Perforated Pipe:
Shape Or Diameter (in):
Number Of Headers:
Spacing between Barrels (ft):
Stone Width Around Perimeter of System (ft):
Depth A: Porous Stone Above Pipe (in):
Depth C: Porous Stone Below Pipe (in):
Stone Porosity (0 to 40%):
22,550
30.00
7.00
Perforated
60
1
2.00
2
6
6
40
2
19.63 ft Pipe Area
System Sizing
Pipe Storage:
Porous Stone Storage:
Total Storage Provided:
Number of Barrels:
Length per Barrel:
Length Per Header:
Rectangular Footprint (W x L):
14,883
7,871
22,754
4
183.0
26.0
30. ft x 192. ft
cf
cf
cf
barrels
ft
ft
CONTECH Materials
Total CMP Footage:
Approximate Total Pieces:
Approximate Coupling Bands:
Approximate Truckloads:
Construction Quantities**
758
34
33
9
ft
pcs
bands
trucks
System Layout
100.9% Of Required Storage Barrel 12
Barrel 11
Barrel 10
Barrel 9
Barrel 8
Barrel 7
Barrel 6
Barrel 5
Barrel 4
Barrel 3
Barrel 2
Total Excavation:
1494 cy
Porous Stone Backfill For Storage:
729 cy stone
Backfill to Grade Excluding Stone:
214 cy fill
**Construction quantities are approximate and should be verified upon final design
© 2007 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions
Barrel 1
0
0
0Number
0
0
0
0
0
Of Barrels Exceed Graph Limitations
183
183
183
183
Barrel Footage (w/o headers)
For design assistance, drawings,
and pricing send completed worksheet to:
dyods@contech-cpi.com
Project Summary
Date:
Project Name:
City, State:
County:
Designed By:
Company:
Telephone:
6/5/2013
10 Acre Retail Site
Long Beach, CA
baker for
Greenberg Farrow
Enter Information in
Blue Cells
ChamberMaxx Calculator
Storage Volume Required (cf):
Chamber Invert Depth Below Asphalt (ft):
Limiting Width (ft):
Porous Stone Backfill Included For Storage:
Depth A: Porous Stone Above Chamber (in):
Depth C: Porous Stone Below Chamber (in):
Stone Porosity (0 to 40%):
22,550
5.00
60
Yes
6
6
40
Waterway Area (ft2)
10.78
System Sizing
Use Custom Layout (at right) for layout adjustment
Required Chambers:
291 Chambers
Chamber Storage:
14,374 cf
Porous Stone Storage:
8,673 cf
Total Storage Provided:
23,047 cf
102.2% of Req'd Storage
Rectangular Footprint (W x L):
58 ft x 185.4 ft
To adjust layout, select the appropriate number of chambers in the light blue boxes below.
30 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29
256
224
CONTECH Materials
192
267
12
12
11
58
2
Chambers @ 7'1" installed length
Chambers @ 8' installed length
Chambers @ 7'5" installed length
ea Tees and 1ea Elbow
ft long x 7.5' wide
Trucks
128
96
64
Construction Quantities
Total Excavation:
Stone Backfill:
Remaining Backfill To Grade:
Non-Woven Geotextile:
Number Of Cells Exceed Graph Limitations
160
Length (ft)
ChamberMaxx Middle Units:
ChamberMaxx Start Units:
ChamberMaxx End Units:
Manifold Fittings (1 manifold):
Scour Protection Netting:
Approximate Truckloads:
Custom Layout
Additional Units Required = 0
2190
803
855
1524
cy
cy stone
cy backfill per specifications
sy for top and sides of excavation
**Construction
Quantities are approximate and should be verified upon final design
© 2007 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions
32
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
Cells
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
!
!
+
1"(
" # "
! "#"$%& ' (#%(
! "#&
*
%
4 ! 5%
4!
&
*7
+ ,
', !
(.
4 ! !' 0*7
'!
-!
.
/
8!' '!
; .3
+
7
.
8!' '!
&
!
7
>
0 1
34
0,
4!
" #$ %
!#&
'
' ',
!!
-, ./+
( 2 3 (" # " 3 3 !
)&
! %%*&&" # #
(, 0/
0
!'
9:% 7 !
!< <
( 0 .3 (
+ .
; !' 7
!
!,
( !,0 .
(
0
!
'
(
!
(
!
0!
0
( 0
()
.
0 0; 4!
0
.
+
8!' '!
>
!
!
0 .
:
+/= 0 + .
! (*""" 2#
!)
+/=
!7
(
!
!
>
6 ?3 @
>
!
!
' !
!
! ' ,
'>
!
'
! 3
0
#06
!"
#
$
"
%
"
&' !(
)$
/
* +
%
* +
!#
!#
1
1
1#
"
* )$ +
,
* $ +
' &"
-
* +
0
&1
! ''
& '!
!(
# 2
" !&
( 13
1#
12
# 2!
& 2!
' 3#
"
&' !(
( ('
' '
2 &1
!
!
* .+
"
/
0#!1
!
2 2
# %
"+
"$ %
#
3 4 5 6 7
# &'! ( )*)"+
7
7
#!
/
* +
, - '
9
.
8
Appendix F
,
+
! *#
Maintenance
Underground storm water detention and retention systems should be inspected at regular intervals and
maintained when necessary to ensure optimum performance. The rate at which the system collects
pollutants will depend more heavily on site activities than the size or configuration of the system.
In!!ecti!n
Inspection is the key to effective maintenance and is easily performed. CONTECH recommends
ongoing quarterly inspections of the accumulated sediment. Sediment deposition and transport may
vary from year to year and quarterly inspections will help insure that systems are cleaned out at the
appropriate time. Inspections should be performed more often in the winter months in climates where
sanding operations may lead to rapid accumulations, or in equipment washdown areas. It is very useful
to keep a record of each inspection. A sample inspection log is included for your use.
Systems should be cleaned when inspection reveals that accumulated sediment or trash is clogging the
discharge orifice. CONTECH suggests that all systems be designed with an access/inspection
manhole situated at or near the inlet and the outlet orifice. Should it be necessary to get inside the
system to perform maintenance activities, all appropriate precautions regarding confined space entry
and OSHA regulations should be followed.
Cleanin!
Maintaining an underground detention or retention system is easiest when there is no flow entering the
system. For this reason, it is a good idea to schedule the cleanout during dry weather.
Accumulated sediment and trash can typically be evacuated through the manhole over the outlet
orifice. If maintenance is not performed as recommended, sediment and trash may accumulate in front
of the outlet orifice. Manhole covers should be securely seated following cleaning activities.
Inspection & Maintenance Log
__” Diameter System
Location: Anywhere, USA
Depth of
Sediment
Accumulated
Trash
Maintenance
Personnel
Comments
12/01/99
2”
None
Removed
Sediment
B. Johnson
Installed
03/01/00
1”
Some
Removed
Sediment and
Trash
B. Johnson
Swept
parking lot
06/01/00
0”
None
None
09/01/00
0”
Heavy
Removed Trash
S. Riley
12/01/00
1”
None
Removed
Sediment
S. Riley
4/01/01
0”
None
None
S. Riley
04/15/01
2”
Some
Removed
Sediment and
Trash
ACE
Environmental
Services
Date
Maintenance
Performed
SAMPLE
ChamberMaxx™ Inspection and
Maintenance Guide
ChamberMaxx™
Safety
Before entering into any storm sewer or underground retention/
detention system check to make sure all OSHA and local safety
regulations and guidelines are observed during the maintenance
process. Hard hats, safety glasses, steel-toed boots and any other
appropriate personal protective equipment shall be worn at all
times.
Inspection Frequency
Inspections are recommended at a minimum annually. The
first year of operation may require more frequent inspections.
Frequency of inspections will vary significantly on the local
site conditions. An individual inspection schedule should be
established for each site.
visually inspecting the Containment Row through the inlet pipe.
Inspection ports throughout the system can be used for visual
observation and measurement of sediment accumulation using a
stadia rod. When the depth of sediment accumulates over 4-inch
(102 mm), cleanout is recommended.
Manifold System Inspection
The main manifold pipe can be inspected from the diversion
manhole upstream. When a quarter of the pipe volume has been
filled with sediment the header system should be maintained.
Visual Inspection
Maintenance or further investigation may be required if any of
the following conditions exist:
• Evidence of an unusual amount of silt and soil build-up on
the surface.
• Clogged outlet drainpipe.
Inspections
Inspection is the key to effective maintenance and is easily
performed. Inspections may need to be performed more often
in the winter months in climates where sanding operations
may lead to rapid sediment accumulations, or in equipment
washdown areas. It is very useful to keep a record of each
inspection. A sample inspection log is included for your use.
The entire treatment train should be inspected and maintained.
The treatment train may consist of an upstream sump manhole,
manifold system or pre-treatment HDS device. Inspections should
start at the upstream device and continue downstream to the
discharge orifice if incorporated into the chamber system.
Pre-Treatment Device Inspection
Inspection and maintenance procedures provided by the
manufacturer should be followed for pre-treatment systems such
as a CDS®, Vortechs®, VortSentry® or VortSentry® HS. Expected
pollutants will be floatable trash, sediment and oil and grease.
Pre-treatement devices are recommended for all detention/
retention devices regardless of type.
Containment Row™ Inspection
The optional Containment Row consists of a diversion concrete
manhole with a weir and a drain down orifice, and a row of
chambers wrapped in a impermeable 20-mil HDPE liner. The
diversion weir directs the first flush flows into the Containment
Row of chambers. The majority of sediment will be captured in
the Containment Row due to the extended detention time which
allows the particles to settle out. Containment Row drains down
via an orifice located in the diversion manhole weir allowing
the remaining pollutants to be contained. Higher flows overtop
(bypass) the weir into the manifold system.
The Containment Row will typically be located in the first row
of chambers connected to the diversion manhole. Inspection
can be done through accessing the diversion manhole and
2
• System does not drain to the elevation of the lowest pipe in
dry conditions.
• Evidence of potholes or sinkholes
Maintenance
Underground stormwater retention/detention systems should
be inspected at regular intervals and maintained when
necessary to ensure optimum performance. The rate at which
the system collects pollutants will depend more heavily on site
activities rather than the size or configuration of the system. If
accumulated silt is interfering with the operation of the detention
system (i.e.: blocking outlet pipes or deposits significantly reduce
the storage capacity of the system) it should be removed.
It is easiest to maintain a system when there is no flow entering.
For this reason, cleanout should be scheduled during dry
weather.
It is important to block the orifice in the Containment Row
diversion manhole weir prior to maintenance to limit the
potential for pollutants to be flushed downstream.
A vacuum truck or other similar devices can be used to remove
sediment from the treatment train. Starting upstream, maintain
manholes with sumps and any pre-treatment devices (following
manufacturer recommended procedures). Once maintenance
is complete, replace all caps, lids and covers. It is important
to document maintenance events on the Inspection and
Maintenance Log.
Header System Maintenance:
If maintenance is required, use a high pressure nozzle with rear
facing jets to wash the sediments and debris into the diversion
manhole. Use the vacuum hose stinger nozzle to remove the
washed sediments from the sump of the diversion manhole. It is
important to not flush sediments into the chamber system during
the maintenance process.
Containment Row™ Maintenance
If maintenance is required, a JetVac truck utilizing a high pressure
nozzle (sledge dredging tool) with rear facing jets will be
required. Insert the nozzle from the diversion manhole into the
Containment Row through the inlet pipe. Turn the water feed
hose on and feed the supply hose until the nozzle has reached
the end of the Containment Row. Withdraw the nozzle slowly.
The tool will backflush the Containment Row forcing debris into
the diversion manhole sump. Use the stringer vacuum hose to
remove the sediments and debris from the sump of the diversion
manhole. Multiple passes may be required to fully cleanout
the Containment Row. Vacuum out the diversion manhole and
remove all debris that may be clogging the drain down orifice.
See Figure 1.
Figure 1— Containment Row shown with high pressure cleaning nozzle
Inspection & Maintenance Log Sample Template
ChamberMaxx
Date
Depth of
Sediment
Location:
Accumulated
Trash
Name of
Inspector
Maintenance Performed/Notes
3
Support
•
•
Drawings and specifications are available at www.contechstormwater.com.
Site-specific support is available from our engineers.
800.338.1122
www.contech-cpi.com
©2008 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions
CONTECH Construction Products Inc. provides site solutions for the civil engineering industry. CONTECH’s portfolio includes bridges, drainage,
sanitary sewer
sewer, stormwater and earth stabilization products. For information on other CONTECH division offerings, visit contech-cpi.com or call
800.338.1122
Nothing in this catalog should be construed as an expressed warranty or an implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for any particular
purpose. See the CONTECH standard quotation or acknowledgement for applicable warranties and other terms and conditions of sale.
The product(s) described may be protected by one or more of the following US patents: 5,322,629; 5,624,576; 5,707,527; 5,759,415; 5,788,848; 5,985,157; 6,027,639; 6,350,374; 6,406,218;
6,641,720; 6,511,595; 6,649,048; 6,991,114; 6,998,038; 7,186,058; 7,296,692; 7,297,266; related foreign patents or other patents pending.
CDS Guide
Operation,
Oper
ation, Design, Performance and Maintenance
CDS®
Design Basics
Using patented continuous deflective separation technology, the
CDS system screens, separates and traps debris, sediment, and
oil and grease from stormwater runoff. The indirect screening
capability of the system allows for 100% removal of floatables
and neutrally buoyant material without blinding. Flow and
screening controls physically separate captured solids, and
minimize the re-suspension and release of previously trapped
pollutants. Inline units can treat up to 6 cfs, and internally bypass
flows in excess of 50 cfs. Available precast or cast-in-place, offline
units can treat flows from 1 to 300 cfs. The pollutant removal
capacity of the CDS system has been proven in lab and field
testing.
There are three primary methods of sizing a CDS system. The
Water Quality Flow Rate Method determines which model size
provides the desired removal efficiency at a given flow rate for
a defined particle size. The Rational Rainfall MethodTM and
Probabalistic Method are used when a specific removal efficiency
of the net annual sediment load is required.
Operation Overview
Stormwater enters the diversion chamber where the diversion
weir guides the flow into the unit’s separation chamber and
pollutants are removed from the flow. All flows up to the
system’s treatment design capacity enter the separation chamber
and are treated.
Swirl concentration and screen deflection force floatables and
solids to the center of the separation chamber where 100% of
floatables and neutrally buoyant debris larger than the screen
apertures are trapped.
Stormwater then moves through the separation screen, under
the oil baffle and exits the system. The separation screen remains
clog free due to continuous deflection.
During the flow events exceeding the design capacity, the
diversion weir bypasses excessive flows around the separation
chamber, so captured pollutants are retained in the separation
cylinder.
Typically in the Unites States, CDS systems are designed to
achieve an 80% annual solids load reduction based on lab
generated performance curves for a gradation with an average
particle size (d50) of 125-microns (µm). For some regulatory
environments, CDS systems can also be designed to achieve an
80% annual solids load reduction based on an average particle
size (d50) of 75-microns (µm).
Water Quality Flow Rate Method
In many cases, regulations require that a specific flow rate, often
referred to as the water quality design flow (WQQ), be treated.
This WQQ represents the peak flow rate from either an event
with a specific recurrence interval (i.e. the six-month storm) or a
water quality depth (i.e. 1/2-inch of rainfall).
The CDS is designed to treat all flows up to the WQQ. At influent
rates higher than the WQQ, the diversion weir will direct most
flow exceeding the treatment flow rate around the separation
chamber. This allows removal efficiency to remain relatively
constant in the separation chamber and reduces the risk of
washout during bypass flows regardless of influent flow rates.
Treatment flow rates are defined as the rate at which the CDS
will remove a specific gradation of sediment at a specific removal
efficiency. Therefore they are variable based on the gradation and
removal efficiency specified by the design engineer.
Rational Rainfall Method™
Differences in local climate, topography and scale make every
site hydraulically unique. It is important to take these factors into
consideration when estimating the long-term performance of
any stormwater treatment system. The Rational Rainfall Method
combines site-specific information with laboratory generated
performance data, and local historical precipitation records to
estimate removal efficiencies as accurately as possible.
Short duration rain gauge records from across the United States
and Canada were analyzed to determine the percent of the total
annual rainfall that fell at a range of intensities. US stations’
depths were totaled every 15 minutes, or hourly, and recorded in
0.01-inch increments. Depths were recorded hourly with 1-mm
resolution at Canadian stations. One trend was consistent at
all sites; the vast majority of precipitation fell at low intensities
and high intensity storms contributed relatively little to the total
annual depth.
These intensities, along with the total drainage area and runoff
coefficient for each specific site, are translated into flow rates
using the Rational Rainfall Method. Since most sites are relatively
small and highly impervious, the Rational Rainfall Method is
appropriate. Based on the runoff flow rates calculated for each
intensity, operating rates within a proposed CDS system are
determined. Performance efficiency curve determined from full
scale laboratory tests on defined sediment PSDs is applied to
2
calculate solids removal efficiency. The relative removal efficiency
at each operating rate is added to produce a net annual pollutant
removal efficiency estimate.
Probabalistic Rational Method
The Probabalistic Rational Method is a sizing program CONTECH
developed to estimate a net annual sediment load reduction for
a particular CDS model based on site size, site runoff coefficient,
regional rainfall intensity distribution, and anticipated pollutant
characteristics.
The Probabilistic rational method is an extension of the rational
method used to estimate peak discharge rates generated by
storm events of varying statistical return frequencies (i.e.: 2-year
storm event). Under this method, an adjustment factor is used
to adjust the runoff coefficient estimated for the 10-year event,
correlating a known hydrologic parameter with the target storm
event. The rainfall intensities vary depending on the return
frequency of the storm event under consideration. In general,
these two frequency dependent parameters increase as the return
frequency increases while the drainage area remains constant.
analyzed using standard method “Gradation ASTM D-422
with Hydrometer” by a certified laboratory. UF Sediment is a
mixture of three different U.S. Silica Sand products referred
as: “Sil-Co-Sil 106”, “#1 DRY” and “20/40 Oil Frac”. Particle
size distribution analysis shows that the UF Sediment has a very
fine gradation (d50 = 20 to 30 µm) covering a wide size range
(uniform coefficient Cu averaged at 10.6). In comparison with
the hypothetical TSS gradation specified in the NJDEP (New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection) and NJCAT (New Jersey
Corporation for Advanced Technology) protocol for lab testing,
the UF Sediment covers a similar range of particle size but with a
finer d50 (d50 for NJDEP is approximately 50 µm) (NJDEP, 2003).
The OK-110 silica sand is a commercial product of U.S. Silica
Sand. The particle size distribution analysis of this material, also
included in Figure 1, shows that 99.9% of the OK-110 sand is
finer than 250 microns, with a mean particle size (d50) of 106
microns. The PSDs for the test material are shown in Figure 1.
These intensities, along with the total drainage area and runoff
coefficient for each specific site, are translated into flow rates
using the Rational Method. Since most sites are relatively small
and highly impervious, the Rational Method is appropriate. Based
on the runoff flow rates calculated for each intensity, operating
rates within a proposed CDS are determined. Performance
efficiency curve on defined sediment PSDs is applied to calculate
solids removal efficiency. The relative removal efficiency at each
operating rate is added to produce a net annual pollutant
removal efficiency estimate.
Treatment Flow Rate
The inlet throat area is sized to ensure that the WQQ passes
through the separation chamber at a water surface elevation
equal to the crest of the diversion weir. The diversion weir
bypasses excessive flows around the separation chamber, thus
helping to prevent re-suspension or re-entrainment of previously
captured particles.
Hydraulic Capacity
CDS hydraulic capacity is determined by the length and height
of the diversion weir and by the maximum allowable head in
the system. Typical configurations allow hydraulic capacities of
up to ten times the treatment flow rate. As needed, the crest of
the diversion weir may be lowered and the inlet throat may be
widened to increase the capacity of the system at a given water
surface elevation. The unit is designed to meet project specific
hydraulics.
Performance
Full-Scale Laboratory Test Results
A full-scale CDS unit (Model CDS2020-5B) was tested at the
facility of University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. This full-scale CDS
unit was evaluated under controlled laboratory conditions of
pumped influent and the controlled addition of sediment.
Two different gradations of silica sand material (UF Sediment
& OK-110) were used in the CDS performance evaluation.
The particle size distributions (PSD) of the test materials were
Figure 1. Particle size distributions for the test materials, as
compared to the NJCAT/NJDEP theoretical distribution.
Tests were conducted to quantify the CDS unit (1.1 cfs (31.3-L/s)
design capacity) performance at various flow rates, ranging from
1% up to 125% of the design capacity of the unit, using the
2400 micron screen. All tests were conducted with controlled
influent concentrations approximately 200 mg/L. Effluent
samples were taken at equal time intervals across the entire
duration of each test run. These samples were then processed
with a Dekaport Cone sample splitter to obtain representative
sub-samples for Suspended Sediment Concentration (SSC – ASTM
Standard Method D3977-97) and particle size distribution
analysis.
Results and Modeling
Based on the testing data from the University of Florida, a
performance model was developed for the CDS system. A
regression analysis was used to develop a fitting curve for the
scattered data points at various design flow rates. This model,
which demonstrated good agreement with the laboratory data,
can then be used to predict CDS system performance with
respect to SSC removal for any particle size gradation assuming
sandy-silt type of inorganic components of SSC. Figure 2
shows CDS predictive performance for two typical particle size
gradations (NJCAT gradation and OK-110 sand).
3
Maintenance
The CDS system should be inspected at regular intervals and
maintained when necessary to ensure optimum performance.
The rate at which the system collects pollutants will depend more
heavily on site activities than the size of the unit, e.g., unstable
soils or heavy winter sanding will cause the grit chamber to fill
more quickly but regular sweeping of paved surfaces will slow
accumulation.
Inspection
Figure 2. CDS stormwater treatment predictive performance for
various particle gradations as a function of operating rate.
Many regulatory jurisdictions set a performance standard for
hydrodynamic devices by stating that the devices shall be capable
of achieving an 80% removal efficiency for particles having a
mean particle size (d50) of 125 microns (WADOE, 2008). The
model can be used to calculate the expected performance of such
a PSD (shown in Figure 3). Supported by the laboratory data, the
model indicates (Figure 4) that the CDS system with 2400 micron
screen achieves approximately 80% removal at 100% of design
flow rate, for this particle size distribution (d50 = 125 µm).
Figure 3. PSD with d50 = 125 microns, used to model
performance for Ecology submittal.
Figure 4. Modeled performance for CDS unit with 2400 microns
screen, using Ecology PSD.
4
Inspection is the key to effective maintenance and is easily
performed. Pollutant deposition and transport may vary from
year to year and regular inspections will help insure that the
system is cleaned out at the appropriate time. At a minimum,
inspections should be performed twice per year (i.e. spring and
fall) however more frequent inspections may be necessary in
climates where winter sanding operations may lead to rapid
accumulations, or in equipment washdown areas. Additionally,
installations should be inspected more frequently where excessive
amounts of trash are expected.
The visual inspection should ascertain that the system
components are in working order and that there are no
blockages or obstructions to inlet and/or separation screen. The
inspection should also identify evidence of vector infestation
and accumulations of hydrocarbons, trash, and sediment in the
system. Measuring pollutant accumulation can be done with a
calibrated dipstick, tape measure or other measuring instrument.
If sorbent material is used for enhanced removal of hydrocarbons
then the level of discoloration of the sorbent material should also
be identified during inspection. It is useful and often required as
part of a permit to keep a record of each inspection. A simple
form for doing so is provided.
Access to the CDS unit is typically achieved through two manhole
access covers. One opening allows for inspection and cleanout
of the separation chamber (screen/cylinder) and isolated sump.
The other allows for inspection and cleanout of sediment
captured and retained behind the screen. For units possessing
a sizable depth below grade (depth to pipe), a single manhole
access point would allow both sump cleanout and access behind
the screen.
The CDS system should be cleaned when the level of sediment
has reached 75% of capacity in the isolated sump and/or when
an appreciable level of hydrocarbons and trash has accumulated.
If sorbent material is used, it should be replaced when significant
discoloration has occurred. Performance will not be impacted
until 100% of the sump capacity is exceeded however it is
recommended that the system be cleaned prior to that for easier
removal of sediment. The level of sediment is easily determined
by measuring from finished grade down to the top of the
sediment pile. To avoid underestimating the level of sediment
in the chamber, the measuring device must be lowered to the
top of the sediment pile carefully. Finer, silty particles at the top
of the pile typically offer less resistance to the end of the rod
than larger particles toward the bottom of the pile. Once this
measurement is recorded, it should be compared to the as-built
drawing for the unit to determine if the height of the sediment
pile off the bottom of the sump floor exceeds 75% of the total
height of isolated sump.
Cleaning
Cleaning of the CDS systems should be done during dry weather
conditions when no flow is entering the system. Cleanout of
the CDS with a vacuum truck is generally the most effective and
convenient method of excavating pollutants from the system.
Simply remove the manhole covers and insert the vacuum hose
into the sump. The system should be completely drained down
and the sump fully evacuated of sediment. The area outside the
screen should be pumped out also if pollutant build-up exists in
this area.
In installations where the risk of petroleum spills is small, liquid
contaminants may not accumulate as quickly as sediment.
However, an oil or gasoline spill should be cleaned out
immediately. Motor oil and other hydrocarbons that accumulate
on a more routine basis should be removed when an appreciable
layer has been captured. To remove these pollutants, it may
be preferable to use adsorbent pads since they are usually less
expensive to dispose than the oil/water emulsion that may be
created by vacuuming the oily layer. Trash can be netted out if
you wish to separate it from the other pollutants. The screen
should be power washed to ensure it is free of trash and debris.
Manhole covers should be securely seated following cleaning
activities to prevent leakage of runoff into the system from above
and also to ensure proper safety precautions. Confined Space
Entry procedures need to be followed. Disposal of all material
removed from the CDS system should be done is accordance
with local regulations. In many locations, disposal of evacuated
sediments may be handled in the same manner as disposal of
sediments removed from catch basins or deep sump manholes.
Check your local regulations for specific requirements on
disposal.
5
CDS
Model
Diameter
Distance from Water Surface
Sediment
to Top of Sediment Pile Storage Capacity
ft
m
ft
m
yd3
m3
CDS2015-4
4
1.2
3.0
0.9
0.5
0.4
CDS2015
5
1.5
3.0
0.9
1.3
1.0
CDS2020
5
1.5
3.5
1.1
1.3
1.0
CDS2025
5
1.5
4.0
1.2
1.3
1.0
CDS3020
6
1.8
4.0
1.2
2.1
1.6
CDS3030
6
1.8
4.6
1.4
2.1
1.6
CDS3035
6
1.8
5.0
1.5
2.1
1.6
CDS4030
8
2.4
4.6
1.4
5.6
4.3
CDS4040
8
2.4
5.7
1.7
5.6
4.3
CDS4045
8
2.4
6.2
1.9
5.6
4.3
Table 1: CDS Maintenance Indicators and Sediment Storage Capacities
Note: To avoid underestimating the volume of sediment in the chamber, carefully lower the
measuring device to the top of the sediment pile. Finer silty particles at the top of the pile
may be more difficult to feel with a measuring stick. These finer particles typically offer less
resistance to the end of the rod than larger particles toward the bottom of the pile.
6
6
CDS Inspection & Maintenance Log
CDS Model:
Date
Location:
Water
Floatable
Describe
depth to
Layer
Maintenance
ssediment
1
2
Thickness
Performed
Maintenance
Personnel
Comments
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
1.
The water depth to sediment is determined by taking two measurements with a stadia rod: one measurement from the manhole opening to
the top of the sediment pile and the other from the manhole opening to the water surface. If the difference between these measurements is
less than eighteen inches the system should be cleaned out. Note: To avoid underestimating the volume of sediment in the chamber, the
measuring device must be carefully lowered to the top of the sediment pile.
2.
For optimum performance, the system should be cleaned out when the floating hydrocarbon layer accumulates to an appreciable thickness. In
the event of an oil spill, the system should be cleaned immediately.
7
7
Support
Drawings and specifications are available at www.contechstormwater.com.
• Site-specific design support is available from our engineers.
•
800.925.5240
contechstormwater.com
©2008 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions
CONTECH Construction Products Inc. provides site solutions for the civil engineering industry. CONTECH’s portfolio includes bridges, drainage,
sanitary sewer
sewer, stormwater and earth stabilization products. For information on other CONTECH division offerings, visit contech-cpi.com or call
800.338.1122
Nothing in this catalog should be construed as an expressed warranty or an implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for any particular
purpose. See the CONTECH standard quotation or acknowledgement for applicable warranties and other terms and conditions of sale.
The product(s) described may be protected by one or more of the following US patents: 5,322,629; 5,624,576; 5,707,527; 5,759,415; 5,788,848; 5,985,157; 6,027,639; 6,350,374; 6,406,218;
6,641,720; 6,511,595; 6,649,048; 6,991,114; 6,998,038; 7,186,058; 7,296,692; 7,297,266; related foreign patents or other patents pending.
cds_manual 10/08 3M
Appendix G
&'* -
! *$
APN: 7204-023-903
OWNER(S): UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
ZONING: LBPD13
APN: 7204-023-905
ZONING: LBPD31
APN: 7204-024-904
ZONING: LBR1N



X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X



X









APN: 7204-025-902 THRU 907
OWNER(S): CITY OF LONG BEACH
MAILING ADDRESS: 333 W. OCEAN BLVD #3RD
LONG BEACH, CA 90802
ZONING: LBCH


PROPOSED UNDERGROUND
INFILTRATION BASIN
BMP LOCATION
CSULB RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS
SITE PLAN
APN: 7204-025-932
OWNER(S): MCDONALDS CORP
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1735 W. PACIFIC COAST HWY
LONG BEACH, CA 90810
MAILING ADDRESS: 5554 MARKET PLACE
CYPRESS, CA 90630
ZONING: LBCHW
TECHNOLOGY
PLACE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SITE ANALYSIS TABLE














ALERT TO CONTRACTOR:
 






BMP
SITE PLAN





BMP
19000 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
t: 949 296 0450 f: 949 296 0479

Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation (SUSMP)

Transcription

Similar documents

S-05

“Mark Ricciuto”

Case study - The real life benefits of Geotechnical

NEW SOLUTION

anatomical considerations on spanish gypsophytes. where is their

Weeping Blue Atlas Cedar

2008 Central States Forest Soils Conference

Purple Diamond® Semi

a survey of ancient geotechnical engineering techniques in

Centre East - Super Walmart

EROSION CONTROL is for planting

advantages and disadvantages of using swedish