.. •. Mr. Joel E. Randall building Official City 0£ Signal Hill 2175 Cherry Avenue Signal Hill, California 90806 Dear Mr. Randall: The u..:.iLeri<..!ls submitted v.·itf: you1: letter of February :'.:'.2, 1984 !::.·,·::: been rec.ei·.:r::·J with ·l.iie exce.pt..ion cf the reYie:v.- lc.Lters for Reports .... i8-3l-02 and 03 a11J for the reports identified as 76-05 and rn). Copi£·8 ('i tLes2 lett£:rs should be r,) cor.:?lfre our file!=>. The enelosed C!eutecbnicul report by Aclion Engineering, taLE.-::.! :o, is returned as it is not a geological report and is :1.0l directE•C at the of fa.ult rupture. .. ( ,. This lc:ttcr also acknoh·1cd_§:.8f: the reci::ipc. of the Novi::rnbc-:· 7. and 19, 1983 reports by Ray A. Eastman for the Q\1cen City Motel 1ncsc received your letter of :::-eCrunry 21, .:::;,lsr. ·:]::. ::ileC. EWE: ryt:. 0) v • Si11cerely yoursi , EARL \I. HART of the CEG 935 • • •
28
Embed
gmw.consrv.ca.govgmw.consrv.ca.gov/SHP/APSI_SiteInvestigationReports_OCR/APSI_0… · 16/11/1976 · determine the general engineering characteristics of the soil under-lying the
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
..
•.
Mr. Joel E. Randall Chie~~ building Official City 0£ Signal Hill 2175 Cherry Avenue Signal Hill, California 90806
Dear Mr. Randall:
The u..:.iLeri<..!ls submitted v.·itf: you1: letter of February :'.:'.2, 1984 !::.·,·::: been rec.ei·.:r::·J with ·l.iie exce.pt..ion cf the reYie:v.- lc.Lters for Reports r~ .... i8-3l-02 and 03 a11J for the ne~ly sub~itted reports identified as 76-05 (~.t.c,f,f,
h,ec~i,j,k,l, and rn). Copi£·8 ('i tLes2 lett£:rs should be f.£n~ r,) cor.:?lfre our file!=>.
The enelosed C!eutecbnicul report by Aclion Engineering, taLE.-::.! ~1.:.i.1.1u.:::-..._- :o, 19BL~ is returned her··~ith as it is not a geological report and is :1.0l
directE•C at the prob.i~:-.i of fa.ult rupture. ..
(,. This lc:ttcr also acknoh·1cd_§:.8f: the reci::ipc. of the Novi::rnbc-:· 7. and De::cn:'t:.H·~r
19, 1983 reports by Ray A. Eastman for the Q\1cen City Motel ~itc. 1ncsc report.~, received wi~h your letter of :::-eCrunry 21, 1924~ .:::;,lsr. wil~ ·:]::. ::ileC.
EWE: ryt:.
0) v
•
Si11cerely yoursi
,
EARL \I. HART Of~ice of the St2t~ C~olc~is~ CEG 935
•
•
•
J·
I I I I
• • I
•·
SITE INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1856, 1864 & 1870
TEMPLE AVENUE SIGNAL HILL, CALIF.
CONDUCTED FOR:
HAMMOND AND SEEDS 5142 WARNER AVE.
SUITE 108 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92649
'"~.· !r~ '-:::::'.'::
• • I_
ACTION
ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS
SOii..$ ENGINESRING AND GEOLOGY
(2131 591·1579
(714) 121-3150
• 10621 Bloomfield Avenue · Suite 23 · Los Alomit•• · Colifornio · 90720
I
• • • • • • .. • • • • •• • -I
November 18, 1976
Hammond and Seeds 5142 Warner Ave. Suite 108 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649
w.o. 66001
Re: Site Investigation - Proposed Development 1856, 1864 and 1870 Temple Avenue -In the City of Signal Hill, California
Dear Sir:
Pursuant to your request, a site investigation was performed
on the above reference. The purpose of this investigation was to
determine the general engineering characteristics of the soil under-
lying the site; and to provide specific recommendations for the
des1gn of the foundation, site preparation and grading.
The proposed development will be two story wood frame construe-
tion. The maximum column loads are expected to be on the order of
40 kips dead plus live load. Perimeter wall loads are expected to
be in the range of 2.0 kips per lineal foot .
The site consists of three (3) lots on the East side of Temple
Avenue 120 + feet deep with 150 ~feet street frontage. The site
contains two (2) older residential structures at this time .
~ I
• • I
• I I
• • • I
• • I
• I I I
w.o. 66001
Two (2) exploratory borings were placed0
at the location shown
on the, attached plan. The borings together with the trench excava
ed by the Geologist, were logged and examined by our Field Engineer
and the log is attached on Table I •
Natural ground as encountered in the borings, classified as
SAND, fine silty.
No ground water was encountered and no caving occurred.
A small trash pit was located as indicated on the plot plan
Undisturbed samples for detailed testing in our laboratory were
obtained by pushing or driving a sampling spoon into the material .
A solid barrel-type spoon was used having an inside diameter of 2.50
inches with a tapered cutting tip at the lower end and a ball valve
at the upper end. The barrel is lined with thin brass rings, each
one inch in length. The spoon penetrated into the soil below the
depth of boring approximately 12 inches. The central portion of this
sample was retained for testing. All samples in their natural field
condition were sealed in air-tight containers and transported to the
laboratory .
LABORATORY TESTING
Shear tests were made with a direct shear machine of the strain
control type in which the rate of strain is Q. l inch per minute.
The machine is so designed that tests may be performed with a minimum
of disturbance from the field condition. Specimens were subjected to
shear under various normal loads equivalent to the overburden
Page 2
.. Ill II .. II II
-I
..
1:1 ii 11
• • •
w.o. 66001
surcharge on the specimens being tested. The results are as
' follows:
Boring Depth Angle of Internal Cohesion No. in Ft. Friction (degrees) Lbs./59.Ft.
2.0 34 100 3 4.0 306 80
Consolidation tests were performed on in-situ moisture and
saturated specimens of typical soils. The consolidometer, like the
direct shear machine, is designed to receive the specimens in the
field condition. Porous stones, placed at the top and bottom of
the specimens permit the free flow of water into and from the spec
imens during the test. Successive load increments were applied to
the top of the specimens and progressive and final settlements under
each increment were recorded to an accoracy of 0.0001 inch. The
final settlements so obtained are plotted to determine th~ curves
shown on Plate A.
Expansion tests were ~erformed on typical specimens of natural
soils in accordance with the U.B.C. Test 29-2. Results of these
tests are presented on Table II.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Soil conditions on the site are relatively uniform as disclosed
by our test borings. Conventional spread footings may be used to
Page 3
t 1 I
• J I I I I I I I
' J J I J
J J
w.o. 66001
support the proposed structure if the recommendations contained
in this report are followed.
After the existing structures have been removed, site grading
should be accomplished under the directions of the Soils Engineer
in accordance with the attached "Specifications for Grading."
Upon completion of grading, the proposed structures may be
supported by spread footings placed in the natural soils or on com
pacted fill.
A recommended bearing value of 2000 lbs./sq.ft. may be used for
footings a minimum width of one (1) foot placed a minimum depth of
12 and 18 inches below lowest adjacent final grade, for single and
two story buildings respectively. This value is for combined dead
and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by 1/3 for
the total of all loads including seismic and wind loads.
Results of expansoin tests indicate that the soils have a very
low expansive potential and therefore the usual precautions for
build1ng on expansive soils are not necessary.
SETTLEMENTS
The maximum anticipated total settlement is on the order of 1/2
inch. Differential settlements are expected to be less than 1/4 of
an inch.
Page 4
~ ... JI· ll I I
JI
-' • f
• • • • • • • • • I I I
Vi.O. 66001
LATERAL DESIGN
Lateral restraint at the base of footings or slabs may be
assumed to be the product of the dead load and a coefficient of
friction of 0.45. Passive pressure on the surface of footings and
grade beams may also be used to resist lateral forces. A passive
pressure of zero at the surface of finished grade, increasing at
the rate of 250 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth, may be
used for natural soil and compacted fill at this site. If passive
pressure and friction are combined when evaluating the lateral re
sistance, the value of the passive pressure should be limited to
two-thirds of the values given above.
This report has been prepared in conjunction with the Report
of Seismic Analysis for this property submitted by John D. Merrill,
Engineering Geologist, dated November 18, 1976.
The recommendations of this report are based upon the assump
tion that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed
in the borings .
If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered dur-
ing construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from
that planned at the present time, ACTION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the re-
sponsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that
Page 5
,/ .. · ........ ' !~""
Ii
••
' • • • • • • I
• • I
• • • •
w.o. 66001
the information and recommendations contained herein are called to
the attention of the Architects and Engineers for the project and
incorporated into the plans and that the nece5sary steps are taken
to see that the Contractors and Subcontractors carry out such re-
commendations in the field .
This report is subject to review by the controlling authori
ties for the project.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you .