city of reno | home - reno.gov
TRANSCRIPT
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION KEYSTONE CANYON
RENO, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA
Prepared For:
Mr. Kraig Knudsen TANAMERA COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
5470 Reno Corporate Drive Reno, NV 89511
November 2007
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING I N C O R P O R A T E D
Job No. 1513.01
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING Keystone Canyon Apartments i I N C O R P O R A T E D
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS .................................................................................1
EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ...................................................................2
GEOLOGIC AND GENERAL SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS...........................4
SEISMIC HAZARDS ..............................................................................................................5
Seismic Design Parameters.................................................................................................5
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................6
Site Preparation ...................................................................................................................8
Grading and Filling.............................................................................................................10
Slopes and Embankments .................................................................................................13
Trenching and Excavations..................................................................................................13
Standard Spread Foundations ...........................................................................................14
Post-Tensioned Slab on Grade Foundations .....................................................................15
Lateral Loads and Retaining Structures .............................................................................16
Slabs-on-Grade and Concrete ..........................................................................................17
Structural Pavement Sections...........................................................................................19
Site Drainage and Retention of Storm Water ...................................................................20
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING SERVICES ..........................................21
STANDARD LIMITATION CLAUSE.....................................................................................21
REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................23
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING ii I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
TABLES
Table 1 – Guideline Specification for Imported Structural Fill
Table 2 – Maximum Allowable Temporary Slopes
Table 3 – Allowable Foundation Bearing Pressures
Table 4 – Preliminary Post-Tensioned Slab Design Parameters
Table 5 – Lateral Earth Pressures
Table 6 – IBC Requirements for Concrete Exposed to Sulfates and Deicing Salts
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Vicinity & Development Map
Figure 2 – View of Property Looking Southwest
Figure 3 - Geologic Map of Development Area Figure 4 – Refusal in Test Pit 3
Figure 5 – Surface Float – Oversized Material
APPENDIX A
Plate A-1 – Site Plan and Approximate Exploration Locations
Plate A-2 – Logs of Test Pits
Plate A-3a – Unified Soil Classification and Key to Soil Descriptions
Plate A-3b – Criteria For Rock Descriptions
Plate A-4a – Summary of Test Results
Plate A-4b – Site Plan and Approximate Exploration Locations
Plate A-5 – USGS Seismic Design Parameters
Plate A-6 – Corrosive Soil Test Results
Plate A-7 – Static and Dynamic Earth Pressures (Mononobe-Okabe)
Plate A-8 – Structural Pavement Section Design – Low Volume Roads
APPENDIX B
Summary of Post-Tensioned Slab Design Parameters
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 1 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION KEYSTONE CANYON APARTMENTS
RENO, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA
INTRODUCTION
Presented herein are the results of James Edward Engineering, Inc.’s geotechnical
exploration, laboratory testing, and associated geotechnical design recommendations for
the proposed Keystone Canyon Apartments to be constructed in Reno, Washoe County,
Nevada. These recommendations are based on surface and subsurface conditions
encountered in our explorations, and on details of the proposed project as described in this
report. The objectives of this study were to:
1. Determine general soil, bedrock, and ground water conditions pertaining to design
and construction of the proposed project.
2. Provide recommendations for design and construction of the project, as related to
these geotechnical conditions.
The area covered by this report is shown on Plate
A-1 (Site Plan and Approximate Exploration
Locations) in Appendix A and in Figure 1 of this
report. The site encompasses parcels numbers 082-
631-16, 082-631-18, 082-631-24 and a portion of
082-631-20. Our study included field exploration,
laboratory testing and engineering analyses to
identify the physical and mechanical properties of
the various on-site materials. Results of our field
exploration and testing programs are included in this
report and form the basis for all conclusions and
recommendations.
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
As shown in Figure 1, the site is located within a
149 acre parcel immediately west of Victory Way
between the intersections with Leadership Parkway
and North McCarran Boulevard, in Reno, Nevada.
SNAK
E RIVE
R DR
VICTORY LN
GREEN RI VER CT
LEADERSHIP PW
GREEN RIVER DR
LEADERSHIP PW
N MCCARRAN BL
N MCCARRAN BL
Figure 1: Vicinity &
Development Map
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 2 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
The site is bordered by Victory way to the
east, Leadership Parkway to the north and
undeveloped land to the west and the Sky
Country Estates along a portion of the
southern border. The parcel is entirely
contained in Section 33, Township 20
North, and Range 19 East.
Topography across the site is irregular.
The central portion of the site is
approximately 40 feet above the adjacent Leadership Way. It is our understanding that this
hill will be cut to near existing roadway grade and the material generated will be used to fill
the lower portions of the site. Site drainage is typically by sheet flow; however, a major
drainage crosses the parcel near the western border, and drains to the south toward
McCarran Boulevard.
Minor grading has occurred on the east side of the parcel and several soil and debris piles
are present. The piles consist of soil, concrete, asphalt and construction debris. Vegetation
is light to moderate and consists of native shrubs and grasses. Underground utilities trend
along Victory Way and Leadership Parkway.
The project consists of constructing 19 buildings consisting of a 166 unit apartment complex
with an associated club house and pool. Associated parking and access drives, and
underground utilities will also be constructed as part of the project. At this time, it is
anticipated that the structures will be wood-framed with conventional or post tensioned slab-
on-grade flooring. The cut/fill differential is unknown at the time of this report
EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
The site was explored in November 2007 by excavating a series of 6 test pits utilizing a
Caterpillar 315C excavator. Approximate locations of the test pits are shown on Plate A-1a
– Site Plan and Approximate Exploration Locations in the Appendix of this report. Test pit
locations were located by approximate means. Actual test pit location may be different than
that shown on the Site Plan.
Figure 2: View of Property Looking Southwest.
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 3 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
The depth of explorations ranged from 5 to 14 feet from the existing ground surface.
Refusal was met in two test pits where the rate of advance became less than 1 foot in 10
minutes. Logs of Test Pits are presented on Plate A-2 in the Appendix of this report.
Samples for testing were collected from the trench walls at specific depths in soil horizons
and bulk samples were also obtained from the stockpiles generated during excavation of
the test pits. James Edward Engineering’s personnel examined and classified all soils in
the field in general accordance with ASTM D 2488 (Description and Identification of Soils –
Visual Manual Procedure). The test pit logs represent our interpretation of the subsurface
conditions based on our field observations and the indicated laboratory test results. The
lines designating the interface between various strata on the test boring records represent
the approximate positions of the interface. The actual transition between the strata may be
gradual or completely irregular.
Representative samples were placed in sealed containers and returned to our Reno,
Nevada, laboratory for testing. Additional soil classification, as well as verification of the field
logs, was performed in accordance with ASTM 2487 (Unified Soil Classification System
[USCS]) upon completion of laboratory testing. Excavation and material profiles are
presented as Plate A-2, Logs of Test Pits, a Unified Soil Classification System and Key to
Soil Descriptions chart has been included as Plate A-3, and the Unified Rock Classification
System has been included as Plate A-4.
All soil testing performed in the James Edward Engineering soils’ laboratory is conducted in
accordance with ASTM Standards, specifically Volume 4.08 (Soil and Rock; Dimension
Stone; Geosynthetics). Samples of significant soil types were analyzed to determine their in
situ moisture content (ASTM D 2216), grain size distribution (ASTM D 422), and plasticity
index (ASTM D 4318), with the results of these tests are shown on Plate A-3a – Summary
of Test Results Index Properties. Results of these tests were used to classify the soils
according the USCS (ASTM D 2487) and to verify the field logs, which were then updated
as appropriate. This testing protocol provides an indication of the soil’s mechanical
properties.
Soluble sulfate testing was conducted on a sample of the site soils. This testing provides a
basis for evaluating the environment to which concrete will be exposed.
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 4 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
GEOLOGIC AND GENERAL SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Figure 3, the Reno Folio – Geologic Map (Bonham & Bingler, 1973), shows that the project
is located within the Sandstone of Hunter Creek. This unit is known for the presence of
prominently bedded, interlayered siltstone, silty sandstone and sandy conglomerate. In
addition, this unit sometime includes diatomite and diatomaceous earth and sandstone.
Where the undisturbed geotechnical profile was excavated, the site generally consists of fat
sandy clays overlying claystone, silts, diatomite and sandstone of the Sandstone of Hunter
Creek Formation.
The profile essentially consisted of a surface veneer of sandy fat clay capping volcanic and
sedimentary bedrock. The volcanic bedrock encountered in the test pits generally excavated
into gravelly sand-silty sand and the sedimentary bedrock, Sandstone, excavated into fine
sand. Generally, soils were encountered in a slightly moist to dry condition. Groundwater
was not encountered in any of our explorations.
FIGURE 3 – Geologic Map of Development Area
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 5 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
SEISMIC HAZARDS
The Reno Folio – Earthquake Hazards Map (Bingler, 1974) was reviewed and shows
several mapped faults within the general vicinity of the proposed project. An east - west
trending Post Tertiary fault is located on the northwest corner of the site. No other mapped
faults trend through the project site. The remaining faults in the surrounding area are
considered to be early to late Pleistocene. These faults found within the sites vicinity are
considered inactive. A criteria for evaluating earthquake faults has been formulated by a
professional committee for the State of Nevada Seismic Safety Council, but has not yet
been adopted by the State or Counties. The guidelines present that faults with evidence of
movement within the past 10,000 years (Holocene time) are considered Holocene Active.
Faults with evidence of displacement within the last 130,000 years are considered Late
Quaternary Active and faults with movement within the last 1.6 million years are considered
Quaternary Active. The fault trending the northwest corner of the property would not be
considered active and no offsets or special considerations would be required.
Liquefaction is a loss of soil shear strength that can occur during a seismic event, as cyclic
shear stresses cause excessive pore water pressure between the soil grains. This
phenomenon is generally limited to unconsolidated, clean to silty sand (up to 35 percent
non-plastic fines) lying below the ground water table. Due to the close proximity to bedrock,
and anticipated depth to groundwater, the site units are not considered to be susceptible to
liquefaction. In addition, there is no specific policy in Nevada which requires structures to be
designed to resist liquefaction. Such designs tend to be very costly and are usually limited
to those structures with a public safety function, such as, fire and police facilities and
hospitals or buildings with high occupancy, such as, large commercial, retail, office and
manufacturing facilities, schools, municipal or major governmental buildings.
Seismic Design Parameters
Due to the presence of the near surface weathered bedrock, the site can be classified as a
Site Class C (very dense soil and soft rock) listed in Table 1613.5.2 of the 2006 International
Building Code. Based on the average latitude and longitude of the site (39.5490oN, and -
119.8490oW), the Site Coefficients Fa and Fv, as a function of site class, are 1.0 and 1.3,
respectively. A printout of the USGS assessment is presented on Plate A-5 of this report.
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 6 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is the contractor’s responsibility for the grading and construction of the designed
improvements. This responsibility includes the means, methods, materials, techniques,
sequence, and procedures of construction and safety of construction at the site. All
construction shall conform to the requirements of the most recently adopted version of the
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Washoe County, City of Sparks,
City of Reno, Carson City, and City of Yerington) as adopted and amended by the City of
Reno. Failure to inspect the work shall not relieve the contractor from his obligation to
perform sound and reliable work as described herein and as described in the Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction for either public or private improvements.
If construction staking is replaced by the use of GPS systems, the site should be surveyed
by a licensed professional surveyor to verify that the lateral and vertical separations from
clay soils have been met as required by this report.
For purposes of this project, the following definitions shall be utilized:
♦ Fine-grained soil or bedrock altered to a fine-grained consistency is defined as
excavating with more than 40 percent by weight passing the number 200 sieve and a
plasticity index lower than 15.
♦ Clay soil or bedrock altered to a clay consistency is defined as excavating with more
than 30 percent passing the number 200 sieve and a plasticity index greater than 15.
♦ Granular soil or bedrock altered to a granular consistency is defined as not meeting the
above criteria with a maximum particle size of less than 12-inches.
In general, the native soil/bedrock profile encountered can be characterized as sandy fat
clay capping weathered, moderately to closely fractured bedrock which excavates to a
poorly consolidated sand, elastic silt or a gravelly sand-silty sand mix. As previously
discussed, minor fills and debris piles were encountered on site.
The recommendations provided herein, are intended to reduce risks of structural distress
related to consolidation or expansion of native soils and/or structural fills. These
recommendations, along with proper design and construction of the planned structure and
associated improvements, work together as a system to improve overall performance. If
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 7 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
any aspect of this system is ignored or poorly implemented, the performance of the project
will suffer. Quality control should be provided during construction. However, since
verification of mass grading is based on random density testing, laboratory testing, and
observation services, it is ultimately the contractor’s responsibility to perform consistent,
sound, and reliable work as required by the Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction.
It should be noted that the site lies in a portion of Reno, Nevada known for the presence of
highly expansive clay, both as an argillic horizon and within altered zones of the underlying
bedrock. Although encountered and anticipated, the inconsistencies that exist regarding
location, extent, and intensity of alteration and clay mineralization lead to significant
variations in structural response of the overlying improvements. Clay remediation measures
that would eliminate the potential for subsequent movement, total and differential, would be
extensive and costly. The recommendations contained herein have been formulated in
accordance with local, current industry standards: however, due to the nature of the
underlying geologic units, movement within sit work and structures should still be
anticipated. The amount of movement expected will likely lead to localized
cosmetic/architectural distress and some maintenance and repairs, including
isolated removal and replacement of site work, should be anticipated. The
overexcavation limits presented herein can be increased should the owner wish to reduce
the risks associated with the project. It should be noted however, that increasing the
separation still cannot guarantee the performance of overlying improvements. Although
recommendations have been provided for both standard spread foundations and post-
tensioned slabs, it is our opinion that post-tensioned slabs will perform better under these
design constraints.
The explorations were advanced at the approximate locations shown on the site plan.
Locations were determined in the field by survey coinciding with the center of the structures.
All test holes were backfilled upon completion of the field portion of our study. The backfill
was compacted to the extent possible with the equipment on hand. However, the backfill
was not compacted to the requirements presented herein under SITE PREPARATION AND
GRADING AND FILLING. If structures, concrete flatwork, pavement, utilities or other
improvements are to be located in the vicinity of any of the test pits, the backfill
should be removed and re-compacted in accordance with the requirements contained
in the soils report. Failure to properly compact backfill could result in excessive
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 8 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
settlement of improvements located over test pits. Structural areas referred to in this
report include all areas of buildings, concrete slabs, asphalt pavements, as well as pads for
any minor structures. Slopes supported by retaining structures are also considered
structural. All compaction requirements presented in this report are relative to
ASTM D 1557 1.
Any evaluation of the site for the presence of surface or subsurface hazardous substances
is beyond the scope of this study. When suspected hazardous substances are encountered
during routine geotechnical investigations, they are noted in the exploration logs and
reported to the client. No such substances were identified during our exploration.
Site Preparation
All vegetation and topsoil should be stripped and grubbed from structural areas and
removed from the site or placed in non-structural zones. In addition, any existing fill should
be removed in its entirety prior to placing any additional fill or constructing improvements.
Nonstructural areas must be outside the zone of influence for any structures or public
improvements. In addition, the nonstructural zone should also be in an area where
settlement of the fill will not pose an issue to the development. Any organics placed in non-
structural areas must be adequately blended with soil to reduce the potential for excessive
movement. Areas which exist behind or under rockery or other retaining structures are
considered structural zones. Most of the fill soils encountered may be placed in deeper fills
as long as any organic or large construction debris is removed prior to placement and the fill
soils are moisture conditioned and recompacted required by this report.
Because of the potential for excavation difficulty associated with the mass grading, we
recommend that building pads be cut to footing grade then backfilled with structural fill to
facilitate excavation of foundations and underslab utilities. The test pits advanced in the
central portion of the property, on the hill, were only advanced to depths of 5 feet with the
Caterpillar 315C trackhoe. The depth of exploration was terminated when the rate of
advance was less than 1-foot in 10 minutes. Based on conversations with the grading
contractor responsible for the construction of Leadership Way, the excavation of the
roadway was achieved by utilizing a D-9 and scrapers with some minor difficulty. However,
1 Relative compaction refers to the ratio (percentage of the in-place density of a soil divided by the same soil’s maximum dry
density) as determined by the ASTM D 1557 laboratory test procedure. Optimum moisture content is the corresponding moisture content of the same soil at its maximum dry density.
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 9 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
that still does not negate the potential for blasting
during excavation of the hill/knob. Because the
planned depth of excavation significantly exceeds
the depths achieved during the performance of this
investigation, and the variation inherently present
in the geologic units, it is critical that the
contractor be duly diligent in his approach to the
project and formulation of his bid and must
ascertain for himself the excavatability
characteristics of the units by his personnel and
equipment.
Where present within 3-feet of structural
improvements, the exposed medium to highly plastic (Plasticity Index > 15) clay layer, or
altered bedrock, should be over-excavated and replaced with structural fill. This zone of
overexcavation will only exist in structural areas where fills are less than 3-feet or where
design cuts penetrate the clays. If the clay zone is penetrated before achieving the 3 foot
separation, overexcavation can be terminated. Overexcavation of the clay layer is not
required in post-tensioned slab areas.
Significant fill differentials are anticipated to exist beneath several of the structures. Too
much disparity in fill thickness can lead to excessive differential settlement that can result in
nuisance cracking. As a preliminary guideline, we recommend that the fill differential
beneath a single structure be limited to 7-feet where standard spread foundations are
utilized, and 12-feet where post-tensioned slabs are utilized. Once building pad grades are
established, this recommendation can be re-evaluated and modified if appropriate. If the
existing topography is such that the allowable fill differential is exceeded, the building pad
can be overexcavated on the cut side, or foundations can be deepened on the fill side.
Overexcavation and replacement to either mitigate the presence of clay soils or to maintain
the allowable fill differential should extend at least five feet beyond the limits of the structural
improvement.
Once the required overexcavation is completed, scarify any remaining clay soil or exposed
altered bedrock, moisture condition to at least 5 percent over optimum for a minimum depth
of 12 inches, and compact the exposed clay subgrade to not less than 88 percent and no
FIGURE 4: Refusal in Test Pit 3
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 10 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
more than 93 percent relative compaction. This moisture content must be maintained until
capped by a layer structural fill or improvements are constructed. If competent, unaltered,
bedrock is present at subgrade, scarification and recompaction is not required providing
excessively loose or disturbed material is removed or compacted prior to fill placement.
Grading and Filling
Structural fill is defined as any material placed below structural elements, such as;
foundations, concrete slabs-on-grade, pavements or any structure that derives support from
the underlying soils. Structural fill should be free of vegetation, organic matter, and other
deleterious material. Structural fill for the project is planned to be generated on site or in the
immediate vicinity of the project. This specifications presented herein are intended to be a
guideline and variations in the site soils are anticipated. These specifications are the basis
of our design recommendations and if significant variations are observed during mass
grading, modifications to the design recommendations may be warranted.
Clay soils generated during mass grading can be placed in fills to within 5 feet below
structural grade or in all nonstructural areas. For preliminary purposes, clay soils may be
placed to foundation grade for post-tensioned slabs. This option will be evaluated more
closely once design grades are known. Clay soils placed as fill shall be moisture conditioned
to at least 3 percent over optimum and compacted to between 88 and 93 percent of the
soil’s maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). This moisture content shall be maintained until
the lift is covered by soil. Clay fills shall be uniform in thickness and shall not exceed 5-feet
in thickness beneath any structure.
Two to three-feet boulders were observed
across the ground surface and may be
encountered during grading. Isolated
boulders may be placed in fills which are
at least 10-feet outside the structure
footprint in backyard or common areas.
This provision is to allow for the random
placement of oversized particles. Should
the quantity of oversize become
excessive, removal from the site, or
Figure 5: Surface Float – Oversized Material
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 11 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
placement in non-structural areas may be required. Nesting of boulders is not allowed.
Screening the maximum particle size to 6-inches within the surface 2 feet of pad grade will
assist in trenching foundations. The maximum allowable particle size is a function of the
contractor’s ability to adequately compact the coarse fill, there being an adequate blend of
fines to assure a competent fill, and the impact on subsequent improvements such as
trenching for foundations or utilities. The recommended maximum particle size can be
modified depending on final grading requirements.
According to ASTM Standards, where less than 70 percent of the material passes the ¾-
inch sieve, the soil is too coarse for determining the moisture-density relationship of the
material (ASTM D1557). Soils meeting this condition are classified as ‘rock-fill” and the
following construction placement verification procedures are recommended.
• A moisture-density relationship (ASTM D1557 Method C) shall be determined on the
portion of the material passing the ¾-inch sieve. This data shall be used in the
documentation of the in-place moisture content of the fill and subgrade soil as it relates
to optimum as well as determining the relative compaction of the soil matrix within rock
fill.
• Where standard density testing can not be performed, a proof rolling effort consisting of
at least five single passes with a minimum 20-ton roller (825 Caterpillar Sheepsfoot
compactor, or equivalent) in mass grading, or five complete passes with hand
compactors in footing trenches is recommended. This alternate has proven to provide
adequate performance as long as all other geotechnical recommendations are closely
followed.
• Monitoring of the proof-rolling program should be provided to establish that no
significant increase in measured density is occurring with subsequent passes prior to
terminating compaction efforts. The rolling pattern established shall be reported and
shall include: number of passes (each way), equipment used, thickness of fill lift, and
estimated fraction of the fill passing the ¾-inch sieve. Density tests and moisture
contents should be reported as part of the quality assurance program.
• Prior to densification, the moisture content of the fraction of the rock fill passing the ¾-
inch sieve should be at least 3 percent above optimum. Higher moisture contents are
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 12 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
acceptable if the soil lift is stable and required compaction can be obtained in
succeeding fill lifts.
• Particles up to 12-inches in diameter can be used within the fill material and should be
placed in such a manner that nesting of the particles does not occur. In other words,
the voids between the rock particles should be filled with a finer grained material to
create a dense, homogenous mixture. Compliance with this requirement will be based
on careful construction procedures of the grading contractor. Granular soils with
particles up to 12-inches in diameter can be placed in maximum 18-inch lifts. Granular
soils with particles up to 6-inches in diameter can be placed in maximum 12-inch lifts.
• Class A structural fill with more than 70 percent of the soil passing the ¾”-sieve, as well
as the soil matrix within rock fill shall be compacted to not less than 90 percent of the
soil’s maximum dry density per ASTM D 1557 for fills less than 5-feet in thickness, and
95 percent for fills exceeding 5-feet in thickness.
Import structural fill, or structural fill generated on site, should be pre-qualified to meet the
requirements established in Table 1. This fill is required in the 18-inch zone immediately
beneath sitework and within the three-feet immediately beneath standard spread foundations
and non-reinforced slabs-on-grade.
TABLE 1 - GUIDELINE SPECIFICATION FOR IMPORTED STRUCTURAL FILL
Sieve Size Percent by Weight Passing
12 Inch 100 ¾ Inch 70 – 100 No. 40 15 – 70 No. 200 10 – 30
Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve Maximum Liquid Limit Maximum Plastic Index
10 – 30 40 15 R-Value (Minimum) - 30
Soluble Sulfate Level < 0.10 Percent by Weight (Negligible)
Adjustments to the recommended limits presented in Table 1 can be provided to allow the
use of other granular, non-expansive material, including rock fills. Rockfill generated on site
which exhibits a plasticity index greater than 15, shall be acceptable as long as an
Expansion Index less than 30 is maintained and no more than 30 percent of the soil mass
passes the # 200 sieve. Any other adjustments must be made and approved by the
geological engineer, in writing, prior to importing fill to the site. Depending on final grades,
location, and structural loads, this requirement can be re-evaluated and modified if
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 13 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
appropriate.
Structural fill shall be compacted to not less than 90-percent of the soil’s maximum dry
density where total fill thickness is less than 5-feet. The degree of compaction should be
increased to 95-percent where fill thickness exceeds 5-feet.
Slopes and Embankments
The face of any exterior embankment or cut slopes should be constructed with an
inclination of no steeper than 2H:1V. The surface of embankment slopes should be
compacted to the same percent compaction as the body of the fill. This may be
accomplished by compacting the surface of the embankment as it is constructed or by
overbuilding the fill and cutting back to its compacted core. Clay soils or soils blended with
organics shall not be placed in areas to be retained by structures.
Temporary (during construction) and permanent (after construction) erosion control will be
required for all disturbed areas. The contractor shall prevent dust from being generated
during construction in compliance with all applicable city, county, state and federal
regulations. The project specifications should include an indemnification by the contractor
of the owner and engineer for any dust generation during the construction period. The
owner will be responsible for mitigation of dust after his acceptance of the project.
Trenching and Excavations
Unsupported excavations will require shoring or laying back of sidewalls to maintain adequate
stability. OSHA, 29 CFR, 1926, Table B-1, Subpart P - Excavations regulations require that the
temporary sidewall slopes for excavations be no greater than those presented in Table 2.
Layered soils must maintain the maximum allowable slope for the weakest layer. Definitions and
allowable slope configurations are presented in the referenced register, and should be
consulted. Soil classification is required when shoring or shielding is used and the on-site soils
should be considered Type A for the sandy fat clay and Type C for the bedrock that has been
weathered to a dense clayey sandy gravel consistency.
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 14 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
TABLE 2 - MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TEMPORARY SLOPES
Soil or Rock Type Maximum Allowable Slopes
1 For
Excavations Less Than 20 Feet Deep2
Type A Type B Type C
3H:4V 1H:1V 3H:2V
(53 degrees) (45 degrees) (34 degrees)
NOTES: 1. Numbers shown in parentheses next to maximum allowable slopes are angles expressed in degrees from the
horizontal. Angles have been rounded off. 2. Sloping or benching for excavations greater than 20 feet deep shall be designed by a registered professional
engineer.
If shoring and shielding options are considered, Appendix F of Subpart P of the referenced
register must be followed. All trenching should be performed and stabilized in accordance with
local, state, and OSHA standards. Bank stability is the responsibility of the contractor, who is
present at the site, able to observe changes in ground conditions, and has control over
personnel and equipment. Surcharge loads from stored material, equipment, traffic, etc. must be
specifically evaluated for conditions created by the contractor.
Based on our test results, the soil generated from the excavations must be screened to less than
4-inches to meet Class E (SSPWC) backfill requirements. In addition, due to the plasticity, much
of the backfill generated on site will not meet Class E requirements. Backfill shall be moisture
conditioned as necessary, placed in maximum 1 foot uniform lifts, and compacted to not less
than 90 percent of the soils’ maximum dry density per ASTM D 1557. Larger particles may be
incorporated in private improvements provided the contractor has the equipment on site and the
trench is of adequate width to facilitate backfill placement and compaction.
Standard Spread Foundations
Provided the foundation soils and embankment fills have been prepared in accordance with
the recommendations of this report, the bearing pressures presented in Table 3 can be
utilized for design. For frost protection, footings should all be set at least two feet below
adjacent outside or unheated interior finish grades. Based on the recommendations
contained within this report, and anticipated fill depths total structural settlement is
anticipated to be on the order of 1-inch, or less. Differential settlement between foundations
within a structure with members experiencing similar loads and sizes is anticipated to be ¼
to ½ of the total settlement.
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 15 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
TABLE 3 – ALLOWABLE FOUNDATION BEARING PRESSURES
Loading Conditions
Maximum Soil Net Allowable Bearing
Pressures1
(pounds per square foot)
Dead Loads plus full time live loads 3,000
Dead Loads plus live loads, plus transient wind, or seismic loads.
4,000
NOTES: 1. The net allowable bearing pressure is at the base of the footing, in excess of the adjacent overburden pressure.
2. Minimum foundation widths and depths shall be as established by code.
Post-Tensioned Slab-on-Grade Foundations
Preliminary post-tensioned slab-on-grade design values are presented below in Table 4 and
in Appendix B of this report. The design values presented are based on the test data
obtained during this investigation and the VOLFLO Win 1.5 computer program. The existing
moisture profile was assumed to remain constant until construction of the units.
TABLE 4 – PRELIMINARY POST-TENSIONED SLAB DESIGN PARAMETERS
em Center Lift (ft) – 5.5 ym Center Lift (in) – 1.2
em Edge Lift (ft) – 2.8 ym Edge Lift (in) – 2.2
NOTE: The values presented are contingent upon the contractor and the homeowners following the construction and post-construction considerations presented in our geotechnical update.
To aid in determining final design grades before the slabs have been structurally designed,
a preliminary slab thickness of 11-inches can be assumed. Post-tensioned slabs should be
underlain by a 4-inch layer of pea gravel. This layer can be increased or decreased
depending on final slab thickness to maintain the design grades.
An allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be utilized for design. This
value may be increased by a factor of 1.33 when considering wind or seismic loading.
Exterior thickened edges or stiffening beams must be designed to resist the effects of frost
heave or be extended to a minimum depth of 2 feet below finished exterior grade.
The design values presented are for surrounding landscaped areas, including lawns and
flower beds. In addition, post-construction practices must be incorporated to help limit
distress to structures. To help minimize movements in soils due to post-construction factors,
not climate related, the following maintenance procedures are required:
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 16 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
• Uniform landscaping should be provided adjacent to the perimeter of the foundation,
and excellent drainage provided and maintained away from the residence.
• Water should be applied in a uniform, systematic manner as equally as possible on
all sides of the residence to keep the soil moist. Areas without ground cover may
require more moisture due to the potential for increased evaporation.
• Trees should not be planted within 10 feet of the structure.
• The foundation perimeter should be observed during extreme hot and dry periods to
help insure that adequate watering is being provided to prevent the soil from
separating from the foundation.
It should be noted that post-tensioned slabs are designed to respond to movement within
the underlying soils and the subsequent movement within the overlying structure can induce
some architectural cracking within the finished improvements. The amount of movement
and cracking typically diminishes with time but because the post-tensioned slab/soil has a
dynamic relationship, some maintenance associated with this foundation system should be
anticipated.
Lateral Loads and Retaining Structures
Lateral loads, such as wind or seismic, may be resisted by passive soil pressure and friction
on the bottom of the footing. The recommended coefficient of base friction is 0.45 and has
been reduced by a factor of 1.5 on the ultimate soil strength. Lateral earth pressures
imposed on retaining walls are dependent on the relative rigidity and movement of the
structure, soil type, and moisture conditions behind the wall. Recommended lateral earth
pressures are presented in Table 5. The surface foot of passive resistance should be
ignored unless confined by slab or pavement. Earth pressure calculations are presented on
Plate A-7 in Appendix A of this report.
TABLE 5 – LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
Wall Type Lateral Earth Pressure (psf/f)
Rotation of wall face to allow full development of Static Active Pressure
55
Static Passive Pressure 225
Combined Static & Dynamic – Driving Wedge 75
Combined Static & Dynamic – Resisting Wedge 185
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 17 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
Wall backfill can be structural fill as outlined in Table 1. Excessive pressures can be
developed due to heavy compaction equipment during backfill placement. Therefore, all
backfill behind any retaining structures should be screened to 6” minus and shall be
compacted to not less than 90 percent if only supporting slabs-on-grade. Due care must be
exercised during compaction to avoid build-up of excessive pressures. The values
presented in Table 5 do not take into account hydrostatic pressures. French drains, a
drainage backfill geotextile such as Mirafi 140 N, or a pre-manufactured drain system such
as Tensor® DC1200 may be used if hydrostatic pressure buildup is possible.
Slabs-on-Grade and Concrete
Non-reinforced concrete slabs-on-grade shall be underlain by not less than 6 inches of
compacted Type 2, Class B aggregate base as specified in the Standard Specifications for
Public Works Construction. A minimum slab thickness of 6-inches should be considered
under, and in front of, dumpster areas. Given the nature of the native bedrock, incorporating
reinforcement in the slabs should be considered as a means to help limit the potential for
future movement, even with the overexcavation requirements being met.
A moisture vapor retarder or barrier should be considered beneath interior slabs-on-grade
supporting moisture sensitive floor coatings, treatments, or equipment. Any moisture vapor
barrier system should be installed in strict accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
Stego-Wrap 15-mil, or equivalent, is recommended should a barrier be desired.
Table 6 summarizes IBC requirements for concrete in areas subjected to sulfate and
deicing salt exposure and presents the recommended concrete mix design parameters for
the project. Sulfate testing on the native soils yielded results in the severe range. This test
data is presented on Plate A-6. Mix designs, with associated qualification tests and
certificates of compliance, shall be in accordance with the ACI 211.1 trial batch method and
shall be submitted to the owner/engineer for review at least two weeks prior to use.
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 18 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
TABLE 6 – IBC REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SULFATES AND DEICING SALTS
Use Exposure Cement3
Coarse Aggregate
Size (in)
1,3
Minimum Sacks of Cement/ Yard
3
Min 28 Day Compressive Strength (psi)
3
Maximum Water/ Cement Ratio
3
Maximum Slump (in)
3
Entrained Air (%)
3
Sulfates4 Neg.
Mod. Severe V. Sev.
5
Type II-V or Type II
with Flyash
- - - -
5.5 6.0 6.5 6.5
3000 4000 4500 4500
0.50 0.50 0.45 0.45
4 4 4 4
- - - -
Structural –Foundations,
Stemwalls, And Interior
Slabs-on-Grade
Recommended
Type V
or Type
II-V
1 ½”
(SOG) 6.5 4500 0.45 4 -
Sulfates4 Neg.
Mod. Severe V. Sev.
5
- - - -
5.5 6.0 6.5 6.5
3000 4000 4500 4500
0.55 0.50 0.45 0.45
4 4 ½ – 7 ½
De-Icing
Salts Severe
Weathering Region T
ype II-V or Type II with
Flyash
- 6.0 4500 0.45 4 6 min Exterior2 –
Curbs, Gutters, Walks and Driveways
Recommended
Type V
or Type
II-V
# 67 6.5 4500 0.45 4 6 min
1 Aggregate size may be adjusted providing the contractor can acceptably demonstrate his ability to work and finish the product, and all other requirements are met.
2 Fibers may be added to increase durability.
3 Requires the project structural engineer’s approval
4 Testing may be warranted once design grades are approached.
5 In very severe sulfate exposure areas, Type V plus Pozzolan cement is required.
Western Nevada is a region with exceptionally low relative humidity and absorptive
aggregates. As a consequence, concrete flatwork is prone to shrinking and curling which
may not be typical of other US regions. Typical joint spacing, regionally, is on 10 to 12 foot
centers. In addition, where slab-on-grade thickness allows, the industry has been gravitating
toward the use of 1 ½” aggregate in slab-on-grade mixes to reduce the quantity of paste
and associated potential for excessive shrinkage. The structural engineer should review mix
designs from local suppliers or specify shrinkage limits to evaluate that joint spacing and
reinforcing are consistent with local aggregate and environmental requirements. All
concrete placement and curing should be performed in accordance with procedures outlined
by the American Concrete Institute. Special considerations should be given to concrete
placed and cured during hot or cold weather conditions. Proper control joints and
reinforcing should be provided to minimize any damage resulting from shrinkage.
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 19 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
Structural Pavement Sections
All private asphalt pavement workmanship and materials shall conform to the requirements
of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. Type 3 Plantmix Bituminous
Pavement is recommended for light traffic and parking areas, Type 2 Plantmix Bituminous
Pavement is recommended in heavy truck areas. Due to increased longevity, AC 20-P oil
should be considered for use in the top lift of the pavement mat. In addition, incorporating a
target air-void specification of 2 to 4 percent in light traffic areas will improve the longevity in
these low volume zones.
A minimum structural section consisting of 3-inches of plantmix bituminous pavement,
capping 6-inches of Type 2 Class B aggregate base should be considered for all parking
and drive areas and utility access roads. If for some reason heavy truck traffic will be
concentrated in any portion of the development, increasing the section to 4-inches of
plantmix bituminous pavement should be considered. Structural pavement section
calculations are presented on Plate A-9 in the Appendix of this report.
Maintenance is mandatory to long-term pavement performance. Maintenance refers to any
activity performed on the pavement that is intended to preserve its original service life or
load-carrying capacity. Examples of maintenance activities include patching, crack or joint
sealing, and seal coats. If these maintenance activities are ignored or deferred, premature
failure of the pavement will occur.
The cost associated with proper maintenance is generally much less than the cost for
reconstruction due to the premature failure of the pavement. Therefore, since pavement
quality is an integral consideration in the formulation of our design recommendations, we
strongly recommend the owner/project manager implement a pavement management
program.
Premature failure of asphaltic concrete frequently occurs adjacent to poorly graded ponding
areas and/or landscape areas. Failures may occur due to excessive precipitation, irrigation
and landscaping water infiltrating into the subgrade soils causing subgrade failure. As such,
in areas where the design team suspects that saturation of the subgrade soils beneath
asphaltic pavement may occur, it is strongly recommended the owner/project manager
install a subdrain system to eliminate the potential for saturation of subgrade soils. The
subdrain system should discharge into a permanent drainage area that will not impede
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 20 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
drainage flow to cause the system to back-up and/or clog. Appropriate maintenance
procedures should be implemented to ensure the subdrain system does not plug and allow
for proper drainage of surface and subsurface water beneath paved areas. Subdrain
location and configuration should be evaluated once final grading and landscaping plans
have been prepared. The project civil engineer and landscape designer should review all
potential areas for subdrain installation.
Site Drainage and Retention of Storm Water
Adequate surface drainage must be constructed and maintained away from the
structures. Permanent finish slopes away from the structures should be sufficient to allow
water to drain away quickly from and prevent any ponding of water adjacent to the
structures. All runoff should be collected within permanent drainage paths that can
convey water off the property. A system of roof gutters and downspouts is recommended
to collect roof drainage and direct it away from the foundations.
As previously mentioned foundation, or wall backfill should be densified to at least 90
percent relative compaction in accordance with the requirements provided in the Grading
and Filling section of this report. Compacting the backfill material decreases permeability
and reduces the amount of irrigation and storm water available to migrate into the soils
supporting foundations and slabs-on-grade.
With the advent of on-site storm water retention systems special considerations are
warranted for sites with expansive soils. If possible, on-site storm water retention systems
should be constructed down gradient from any structures. Because much of the site will
be founded in fill, percolation testing can be performed once mass grading is complete to
provide a basis for assessing retention time and seepage rates. Special grading
recommendations can be provided to create a fill in a nonstructural area that would be
more susceptible to infiltration.
It should be cautioned that given the nature of the on-site materials, introducing any water
into the underlying fills, bedrock, or clays will increase the potential for subsequent
movement in overlying or adjacent improvements.
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 21 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING SERVICES
The recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that the
contractor performs his work as required by the project documents and that owner/project
manager provides sufficient field-testing and construction review during all phases of
construction. Prior to construction, the owner/project manager should schedule a pre-job
conference including, but not limited to, the owner, architect, civil engineer, the general
contractor, earthwork and materials subcontractors, building official, and geotechnical
engineer. It is the owner's/project manager responsibility to set-up this meeting and contact
all responsible parties. The conference will allow parties to review the project plans,
specifications, and recommendations presented in this report, and discuss applicable
material quality and mix design requirements. All quality control reports should be
submitted to the owner/project manger for review and distributed to the appropriate parties.
During construction, James Edward Engineering, Inc. should have the opportunity to
provide sufficient on-site observation of site preparation and grading, over-excavation, fill
placement, foundation installation, and paving. These observations would allow us to
document that the geotechnical conditions are as anticipated and that the contractor's work
meets with the criteria in the approved plans and specifications. The site should be
surveyed by a licensed professional surveyor for grade and location prior to placing
structural fill over clay soils. Without this verification, JEE cannot provide verification that the
work being completed is in accordance with the project’s plans, specifications, or
geotechnical report. If certification by a licensed surveyor is not provided, verification of
horizontal and vertical control must be provided by whoever was responsible for establishing
those boundaries.
STANDARD LIMITATION CLAUSE
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted local geotechnical
practices. The analyses and recommendations submitted are based upon field exploration
performed at the locations shown on Plate A-1 of this report. This report does not reflect
soils variations that may become evident during the construction period, at which time re-
evaluation of the recommendations may be necessary. We recommend our firm be
retained to perform construction observation in all phases of the project related to
geotechnical factors to document compliance with our recommendations. The
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 22 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
owner/project manger is responsible for distribution of this geotechnical report to all
designers and contractors whose work is related to geotechnical factors.
It is the contractor’s responsibility for the grading and construction of the designed
improvements. This responsibility includes the means, methods, materials, techniques,
sequence, and procedures of construction and safety of construction at the site. All
construction shall conform to the requirements of the most recently adopted version of the
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and the requirements of the City of
Reno. Failure to inspect the work shall not relieve the contractor from his obligation to
perform sound and reliable work as described herein and as described in the Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction.
All plans and specifications should be reviewed by the design engineer responsible for this
geotechnical report, to determine if they have been completed in accordance with the
recommendations contained in this report, prior to submitting to the building department for
review. It is the owner's/project manager responsibility to provide the plans and
specifications to the engineer. This report has been prepared to provide information
allowing the architect and engineer to design the project. The owner/project manager is
responsible for distribution of this report to all designers and contractors whose work is
affected by geotechnical aspects. In the event of changes in the design, location, or
ownership of the project after presentation of this report, our recommendations should be
reviewed and possibly modified by the geotechnical engineer. If the geotechnical engineer
is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, he can assume no
responsibility for misinterpretation or misapplication of his recommendations or their validity
in the event changes have been made in the original design concept without his prior
review. The engineer makes no other warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the
professional advice provided under the terms of this agreement and included in this report.
This report was prepared by James Edward Engineering, Inc. for the account of Tanamera
Commercial Development. The material in it reflects James Edward Engineering Inc.’s best
judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which
a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it,
are the responsibility of such third parties. James Edward Engineering Inc. accepts no
responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made
or actions based on this report.
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING 23 I N C O R P O R A T E D Keystone Canyon Apartments
REFERENCES
ADOT (1985), Materials Preliminary Engineering and Design Manual, 2
nd Edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1993, Soil and Rock; Dimension Stone;
Geosynthetics, Volume 4.08. Asphalt Institute, Asphalt Pavements for Highways and Streets, Manual Series No. 1 (MS-1) Bonham, H. F., & Bingler, E.C., 1973, Reno Folio – Geologic Map: Nevada Bureau of
Mines and Geology. Bowles, J. E., 1996, Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw Hill. Peck, Hanson, and Thornburn, 1974, Foundation Engineering, Wiley. Siddharthan, R., J. W. Bell, J. A. Anderson, and C. Depolo, 1993; Peak Bedrock
Acceleration for the State of Nevada. University of Nevada, Reno/Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology (unpublished).
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 1996 (Washoe County, Sparks-
Reno, Carson City, Yerington, Nevada). International Building Code, 2006; International Conference of Building Officials. Wesnousky, Steven G., Paleoearthquake Study of the Olinghouse Fault Zone near Reno,
Nevada. Center for Neotectonic studies, University of Nevada, Reno, 2003
APPENDIX A
JAMESEDWARDENGINEERING
1513.0112/05/07
Geotechnical Investigation
KEYSTONE CANYON TANAMERA
Project No.: PLATE A-19475 Double R Boulevard, Reno, NV 89521 Date:
Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871
SITE PLAN & APPROXIMATE EXPLORATION LOCATIONSI N C O R P O R A T E D
ASP EN D
ALE D
BILLIN
G
LENV
IEW
DR
GREEN RIVER CT
GREEN RIVER DR
IVES A
KEYSTO
N
LEADERSHIP P
WLEADERSHIP PW
REG
AL
CT
AN N
ESS
AV
VICTORY LN N MCCARR
NMCCA
RRAN B
L
Looking Southeast from Terminus of Leadership Parkway
Looking West from the Intersection of Victory Lane and Leadership Parkway
TP-1
TP-3
TP-2 TP-4
TP-5
TP-6
LEGEND
Sandstone of Hunter Creek Alta Formation Peavine Sequence Development Area
Post-Tertiary Fault (Dashed where approximated, dotted where concealed)considered inactive.
Proposed Site
A - Drill Cuttings B - Bulk Sample A- Atterberg LimitsB- Grain Size Distribution
S- 2" O.D. 1.38" I.D. Tube Sample C- ConsolidationU- 3" O.D. 2.42 " I.D. Tube Sample MD- Moisture/Density
CH
22.8 A,B
Bottom of test pit @ 12 feet.No free water encountered.
9
6
Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERINGI N C O R P O R A T E D
9475 Double R BoulevardReno, Nevada 89521
LABORATORY TESTS
A-2
T- 3" O.D. Thin-Walled Shelby Tube
C - CME Sample
Sam
ple
No.
Moi
stur
e
11/13/2007
R - Rotary Cuttings
PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT NAME:LOCATION: SURFACE ELEVATION:SEE PLAN
Plate
Depth
W - WET
M - MOIST11/13/07
NE- No Free Water EncounteredDS - Direct Shear
11
12
10
CAT 315C
4
DATE:
8
EXPLORATION EQUIPMENT:
Gra
phic
al L
og
Sam
ple
V - VERY MOIST
S - SLIGHTLY MOIST
GROUNDWATER & SOIL MOISTURE
NEDateHour D - DRY
Moi
stur
e C
onte
nt
(%
of D
ry W
eigh
t)
Pock
et
Pene
trom
eter
(tsf
)
Labo
rato
ry T
ests
1513.01SEE PLAN
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. 1
SAMPLE TYPE
Keystone Canyon
7
Dep
th in
Fee
t
3
1
2
5
S
Uni
fied
Soil Visual Description
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
0 – 11' FAT CLAY (CH) – stiff, moist, light organics, withsurface float of gravel and small cobbles, contains isolatedgypsum deposits, brown
minor gravel and small cobbles @ 7 feet soil becoming dryerwith depth
11 – 12' GRAVELLY CLAY (CH) – stiff, moist, brown
M
Sam
ple
Type
SM
S 1A
1B
A - Drill Cuttings B - Bulk Sample A- Atterberg LimitsB- Grain Size Distribution
S- 2" O.D. 1.38" I.D. Tube Sample C- ConsolidationU- 3" O.D. 2.42 " I.D. Tube Sample MD- Moisture/Density
13.1 A,B
Uni
fied
Soil Visual Description
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
2A
0 – 1½' CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC) – stiff, moist, slight organics,brown
SM
1½ – 5' VOLCANIC BEDROCK – intensely fractured, lowhardness to hard moderately strong to strong, moderatelyweathered (excavates into a gravely sand/silty sand (SP/SM)bedrock strength increases with depth
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. 2
SAMPLE TYPE
Dep
th in
Fee
t
3
1
2
5
Moi
stur
e C
onte
nt
(%
of D
ry W
eigh
t)
Pock
et
Pene
trom
eter
(tsf
)
Labo
rato
ry T
ests
* Refusal is defined as the exploration was terminated whenthe rate of advance was less than 1 foot in 10 minutes.
T- 3" O.D. Thin-Walled Shelby Tube
C - CME Sample
V - VERY MOIST
S - SLIGHTLY MOIST
GROUNDWATER & SOIL MOISTURE
NEDateHour D - DRY
CAT 315C
Plate
Depth
W - WET
M - MOIST11/13/07
NE- No Free Water Encountered
DATE:
4 BED
RO
CK
1513.01PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT NAME:LOCATION: SURFACE ELEVATION:SEE PLAN SEE PLAN
Keystone Canyon
11/13/2007
A-2
EXPLORATION EQUIPMENT:
Gra
phic
al L
og
Sam
ple
Sam
ple
Type
Sam
ple
No.
Moi
stur
e
Refusal met @ 5 feet.*No free water encountered.
Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERINGI N C O R P O R A T E D
9475 Double R BoulevardReno, Nevada 89521
R - Rotary Cuttings
DS - Direct Shear
LABORATORY TESTS
S
GC M
A - Drill Cuttings B - Bulk Sample A- Atterberg LimitsB- Grain Size Distribution
S- 2" O.D. 1.38" I.D. Tube Sample C- ConsolidationU- 3" O.D. 2.42 " I.D. Tube Sample MD- Moisture/Density
12.3 A,B
* Refusal is defined as the exploration was terminated whenthe rate of advance was less than 1 foot in 10 minutes.
Refusal met @ 5 feet.*No free water encountered.
Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERINGI N C O R P O R A T E D
9475 Double R BoulevardReno, Nevada 89521
DS - Direct Shear
LABORATORY TESTS
A-2
T- 3" O.D. Thin-Walled Shelby Tube
C - CME Sample
Sam
ple
Type
Sam
ple
No.
Moi
stur
e
11/13/2007
PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT NAME:LOCATION: SURFACE ELEVATION:SEE PLAN
Plate
Depth
W - WET
M - MOIST11/13/07
NE- No Free Water Encountered
R - Rotary Cuttings
CAT 315C
4
DATE: EXPLORATION EQUIPMENT:
Gra
phic
al L
og
Sam
ple
V - VERY MOIST
S - SLIGHTLY MOIST
GROUNDWATER & SOIL MOISTURE
NEDateHour D - DRY
Moi
stur
e C
onte
nt
(%
of D
ry W
eigh
t)
Pock
et
Pene
trom
eter
(tsf
)
Labo
rato
ry T
ests
1513.01SEE PLAN
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. 3
SAMPLE TYPE
Keystone Canyon
Uni
fied
Soil Visual Description
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
GC/GP
0 – 1½' CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC/GP) – very dense, moist, feworganics, brown
BED
RO
CK
SM
Dep
th in
Fee
t
3
1
2
5
M
1½ – 5' VOLCANIC BEDROCK – intensely fractured, hard,moderately strong to strong, moderately to deeply weathered.Excavates into a gravely clayey sand (SC), moderately plastic.Becomes hard to very strong @ 4 feet.
S 3A
S 3B
A - Drill Cuttings B - Bulk Sample A- Atterberg LimitsB- Grain Size Distribution
S- 2" O.D. 1.38" I.D. Tube Sample C- ConsolidationU- 3" O.D. 2.42 " I.D. Tube Sample MD- Moisture/Density
13.4 A,B
7
Dep
th in
Fee
t
3
1
2
5
SP
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. 4
SAMPLE TYPE
Keystone Canyon
Uni
fied
Soil Visual Description
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
CH SM
0 – 1½' SANDY CLAY (CH) – dense, slightly moist, minororganics, brown
Moi
stur
e C
onte
nt
(%
of D
ry W
eigh
t)
Pock
et
Pene
trom
eter
(tsf
)
Labo
rato
ry T
ests
11
12
10
V - VERY MOIST
S - SLIGHTLY MOIST
GROUNDWATER & SOIL MOISTURE
NEDateHour D - DRYDepth
W - WET
M - MOIST11/13/07
NE- No Free Water Encountered
8
1513.01PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT NAME:LOCATION: SURFACE ELEVATION:SEE PLAN SEE PLAN
11/13/2007 CAT 315C
9
6
EXPLORATION EQUIPMENT:
Gra
phic
al L
og
Sam
ple
Sam
ple
Type
Sam
ple
No.
Moi
stur
e
4
DATE:
R - Rotary Cuttings
DS - Direct Shear
LABORATORY TESTS
A-2
Plate
T- 3" O.D. Thin-Walled Shelby Tube
C - CME Sample
Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERINGI N C O R P O R A T E D
9475 Double R BoulevardReno, Nevada 89521
14
13
Bottom of test pit @ 14 feet.
SP SM
12 – 14' SANDSTONE – poorly consolidated, blocky, low tomoderately hard, weak to moderately strong, little weathering,excavates into a find sand (SP)
No free water encountered.
SM
1½ – 5½' SANDSTONE – slightly cemented, poorlyconsolidated, blocky, low to moderately hard, weak tomoderately strong, little weathered, excavates into a find sand(SP), tan
S 4A
SM
5½ – 12' SANDSTONE – unconsolidated, excavates into aloose fine sand (SP), grey
S 4B
S 4C
SP
A - Drill Cuttings B - Bulk Sample A- Atterberg LimitsB- Grain Size Distribution
S- 2" O.D. 1.38" I.D. Tube Sample C- ConsolidationU- 3" O.D. 2.42 " I.D. Tube Sample MD- Moisture/Density
Bottom of test pit @10 feet.No free water encountered.
10
CH
Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERINGI N C O R P O R A T E D
9475 Double R BoulevardReno, Nevada 89521
R - Rotary Cuttings
DS - Direct Shear
LABORATORY TESTS
A-2
Plate
T- 3" O.D. Thin-Walled Shelby Tube
C - CME Sample
9
6
EXPLORATION EQUIPMENT:
Gra
phic
al L
og
Sam
ple
Sam
ple
Type
Sam
ple
No.
Moi
stur
e
4
DATE:
8
1513.01PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT NAME:LOCATION: SURFACE ELEVATION:SEE PLAN SEE PLAN
11/13/2007 CAT 315C
W - WET
M - MOIST11/13/07
NE- No Free Water Encountered V - VERY MOIST
S - SLIGHTLY MOIST
GROUNDWATER & SOIL MOISTURE
NEDateHour D - DRYDepth
Moi
stur
e C
onte
nt
(%
of D
ry W
eigh
t)
Pock
et
Pene
trom
eter
(tsf
)
Labo
rato
ry T
ests
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. 5
SAMPLE TYPE
Keystone Canyon
Uni
fied
Soil Visual Description
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
FILL D 0 – ½' FILL
CH
7
Dep
th in
Fee
t
3
1
2
5
M
8 – 10' SANDY CLAY (CH) – med stiff, moist, brown
SM
½ – 8' SANDY FAT CLAY (CH) –stiff, slightly moist withoccasional gravel, brown
Increased gravel contact with depth
S 5A
A - Drill Cuttings B - Bulk Sample A- Atterberg LimitsB- Grain Size Distribution
S- 2" O.D. 1.38" I.D. Tube Sample C- ConsolidationU- 3" O.D. 2.42 " I.D. Tube Sample MD- Moisture/Density
35.6 A,B7
Dep
th in
Fee
t
3
1
2
5
3 – 10' SILTSTONE/DIATOMACEOUS EARTH – moderatelyconsolidated, slabbly, occasionally fractured, soft, friable-plastic, little weathering moist. Excavates into a elastic silt(MH)
LOG OF TEST PIT NO. 6
SAMPLE TYPE
Keystone Canyon
Uni
fied
Soil Visual Description
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
GC/GP M
0 – 3' CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC/GP) – with sand, dense, moist
M
Moi
stur
e C
onte
nt
(%
of D
ry W
eigh
t)
Pock
et
Pene
trom
eter
(tsf
)
Labo
rato
ry T
ests
S - SLIGHTLY MOIST
GROUNDWATER & SOIL MOISTURE
NEDateHour D - DRYDepth
CAT 315C
W - WET
M - MOIST11/13/07
NE- No Free Water Encountered V - VERY MOIST
1513.01PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT NAME:LOCATION: SURFACE ELEVATION:SEE PLAN SEE PLAN
EXPLORATION EQUIPMENT:
Gra
phic
al L
og
Sam
ple
Sam
ple
Type
Sam
ple
No.
Moi
stur
e
DATE: 11/13/2007
R - Rotary Cuttings
DS - Direct Shear
LABORATORY TESTS
A-2
Plate
T- 3" O.D. Thin-Walled Shelby Tube
C - CME Sample
Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERINGI N C O R P O R A T E D
9475 Double R BoulevardReno, Nevada 89521
Bottom of test pit @ 10 feet.No free water encountered.
10
MH
9
6
4
S 6A
8
JAMESEDWARDENGINEERING
Date:
Pt
CH
OH
MEDIUM DENSE
PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
0 - 4LOOSE
CL
OL
MAJOR DIVISION TYPICAL NAMES
FIN
E-G
RA
INED
SO
ILS
M
OR
E TH
AN H
ALF
IS F
INER
TH
AN N
O. 2
00 S
IEVE
WELL GRADED SANDS WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL,LITTLE OR NO FINESPOORLY GRADED SAND WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL,LITTLE OR NO FINESSILTY SANDS WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL
CLAYEY SANDS WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVELOVER 12% FINES
SW
SP
GM
SM
SC
GRAVELS WITHOVER 12% FINES
CLEAN SANDS WITHLITTLE OR NO FINES
SANDS WITH
WELL GRADED GRAVELS WITH OR WITHOUT SAND,LITTLE OR NO FINESPOORLY GRADED GRAVELS WITH OR WITHOUT SAND,LITTLE OR NO FINESSILTY GRAVELS, SILTY GRAVELS WITH SAND
CLAYEY GRAVELS, CLAYEY GRAVELS WITH SANDGC
GW
GP
ML INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCKFLOUR, SILTS WITH SANDS AND GRAVELSINORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITYCLAYS WITH SANDS AND GRAVELS, LEAN CLAYSORGANIC SILTS OR CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUSFINE SANDY OR SILTY SOLID, ELASTIC SILTSINORGANIC CLAYS OR HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS OR CLAYS MEDIUM TO HIGHPLASTICITY
MH
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
CONSISTENCY RELATIVE DENSITY
PLAS
TIC
ITY
IND
EX (P
I)
0 - 2SOFT
MEDIUM STIFF
VERY SOFT VERY LOOSE5 - 103 - 4
VERY DENSE
11 - 30
50 +16 - 30VERY STIFF
5 - 8 STIFF 9 - 15 DENSE 31 - 50
3 IN. TO 3/4 IN.
* The Standard Penetration Resistance (N) In blows per foot is obtained bythe ASTM D1585 procedure using 2” O.D., 1 3/8” I.D. samplers.
HARD 30 +
GRAVEL 3 IN. TO NO. 4 SIEVE COARSE GRAVEL
DEFINITIONS OF SOIL FRACTIONSSOIL COMPONENT PARTICLE SIZE RANGE
SANDS &GRAVELS
SPT BLOW*COUNTS (N)
SILTS &CLAYS
SPT BLOW*COUNTS (N)
COBBLES ABOVE 3 INCHES
COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND
FINE GRAVEL 3/4 IN. TO NO. 4 SIEVESAND NO. 4 TO NO. 200
NO. 4 TO NO. 10NO. 10 TO NO. 40
GRAVEL MORE THAN HALF
COARSE FRACTIONIS LARGER THAN
NO. 4 SIEVE
SAND MORE THAN HALF
COARSE FRACTION IS SMALLER THAN
NO. 4 SIEVE
TRACEFEW
Particles are present but est. < 5%5% - 10%
SILT AND CLAY
LIQUID LIMIT 50% OR LESS
SILT AND CLAY
LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50%
CLEAN SANDSWITH LITTLEOR NO FINES
CO
AR
SED
-GR
AIN
ED S
OIL
S
M
OR
E TH
AN H
ALF
IS C
OAR
SER
TH
AN
NO
. 200
SIE
VE
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
LITTLESOMEMOSTLY
DESCRIPTION OF ESTIMATED PERCENTAGES OF GRAVEL, SAND, AND FINES
15% - 20%30% - 45%
50% - 100%NOTE: Percentages are presented within soil description for soilhorizon with laboratory tested soil samples.
FINE SAND NO. 40 TO NO. 200MINUS NO. 200 SIEVEFINES (SILT OR CLAY)
12/05/07Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION
AND KEY TO SOIL DESCRIPTIONS
Geotechnical Investigation
KEYSTONE CANYON TANAMERA
I N C O R P O R A T E D Project No.: 1513.01 PLATE A-3a9475 Double R Boulevard, Reno, NV 89521
10
20
30
40
50
60
00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CL - ML
CL
CH
MH & OH
ML & OL
U = unconsolidated M = moderately consolidatedP = poorly consolidated W = well consolidated
Splitting Property Thickness Stratification Intensity Size of Pieces in FeetMassive Greater than 4.0 ft. Very thick-bedded Very little fractured Greater than 4.0Blocky 2.0 to 4.0 ft. Thick-bedded Occasionally fractured 1.0 to 4.0Slabby 0.2 to 2.0 ft. Thin-bedded Moderately fractured 0.5 to 1.0Flaggy 0.05 to 0.2 ft. Very thin bedded Closely fractured 0.1 to 0.5Shaly or platy 0.01 to 0.05 ft. Laminated Intensely fractured 0.005 to 0.1Papery Less than 0.01 ft. Thinly laminated Crushed Less than 0.005
1. Soft - Reserved for plastic material alone2. Moderately soft - can be gouged deeply or carved easily with a knife blade3. Moderately hard - can be readily scratched by a knife blade; scratch leaves a heavy trace of dust and is readily visible after the powder has been blown away 4. Hard - can be scratched with difficulty; scratch produces little powder and is often faintly visible5. Very Hard - cannont be scratched with a knife blade; leaves a metallic streak
1. Plastic - very low strength 2. Friable - crumbles easily by rubbing with fingers3. Weak - An unfractured specimen of such material will crumble under light hammer blows4. Moderately Strong - Specimen will withstand a few heavy hammer blows before breaking 5. Strong - Specimen will withstand a few heavy hammer blows, and will yeild with difficulty only dust and small flying fragments6. Very Strong - Specimen will resist heavy ringing hammer blows and will yeild with difficulty only dust and small flying fragments
D. Deep - Moderate to complete mineral decomposition; extensive disintegration; deep and thorough discoloration, many fractures, all extensively coated or filled with oxides, carbonates and/or clay silt M. Moderate - Slight change or partial decomposition of minerals; little disintegration; cementation little to unaffected; Moderate to occasionally intense discoloration; Moderately coated features S. Slightly - No megascopic decomposition of minerals; little or no effect on normal cementation; Slight and inter- mittent, or localized discoloration; Few stains on fracture surfaces F. Fresh - Unaffected by weathering agents; No disintegration or discoloration; Fractures usually less numerous than joints
JAMESEDWARDENGINEERING CRITERIA FOR ROCK
DESCRIPTIONS9475 Double R Boulevard, Reno, NV 89521
Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871
BEDDING OF SEDIMENTARY ROCKS FRACTURING
STRENGTH
HARDNESS
CONSOLIDATION OF SEDIMENTARY ROCKS Usually determined from unweathered samples. Largley dependent on cementation.
1513.0112/05/07
Geotechnical Investigation
KEYSTONE CANYON TANAMERA
Project No.: PLATE A-3bDate:
I N C O R P O R A T E D
WEATHERING The physical and chemical disintegration and decomposition of rocks and minerals by natural processes such as oxidation,
reduction, hydration, solution, carbonation, freezing, and thawing
JAMES EDWARD ENGINEERING
MH82.8 87 46 41TP-6 6 35.6
PLATE A-4a
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
9475 Double R Boulevard, Reno, NV 89521 Date: 12/05/07Project No.: 1513.01
KEYSTONE CANYON TANAMERA
Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871
Geotechnical Investigation
SP10.9 - - -TP-4 4-5 13.4
SP/SM
TP-3 3 12.3 30.9 45 23 22 SC
51 CH
TP-2 2-3 13.1 12.4 - - NP
PLASTICITY
INDEX
TP-1 1-4 22.8 76.1 77 26
LIMIT
(%)(%) (%)
LIMIT- # 200
PLA
STIC
ITY
IND
EX
80 90 10040 50 60 7010 20 3000
30
20
10
SYMBOL LOCATIONDEPTH
(FEET)
70
60
50
40
LIQUID LIMIT
110
I N C O R P O R A T E D
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA
LIQUID
CONTENT
PLASTIC
USCSWATER
NATURAL
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA
MH or OH
CH or OH
CL or OL
ML - CL ML or OL
JAMESEDWARDENGINEERING
1513.0112/05/07
Geotechnical Investigation
KEYSTONE CANYON TANAMERA
Project No.: PLATE A-4b9475 Double R Boulevard, Reno, NV 89521 Date:
Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871
SITE PLAN AND APPROXIMATE EXPLORATION LOCATIONSI N C O R P O R A T E D
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100PARTICLE SIZE - mm
PER
CEN
T FI
NER
- %
TP-1 @ 1-4'TP-2 @ 2-3'TP-3 @ 3-5'TP-4 @ 4-5'TP-6 @ 6-7'
2" 3"1"¾”½”#4#200 #10#16#40#100
JAMESEDWARDENGINEERING
9475 Double R Boulevard, Reno, NV 89521 Date: Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871
I N C O R P O R A T E D
USGS SEISMIC DESIGN
PARAMETERS 1513.0112/05/07
Geotechnical Investigation
KEYSTONE CANYON TANAMERA
Project No.: PLATE A-5
JAMESEDWARDENGINEERING
1513.0112/05/07
Geotechnical Investigation
KEYSTONE CANYON TANAMERA
Project No.: PLATE A-69475 Double R Boulevard, Reno, NV 89521 Date:
Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871
I N C O R P O R A T E D
CORROSIVE SOIL TEST RESULTS
Radiansγ -kv -h -φ -ψ -kh -θ -ξ -
β -
*kh = 0.5 Peak Ground Acceleration
PAE and PPE are the combined static and dynamic forces due to the driving and resisting wedges, respectively.
JAMESEDWARDENGINEERING
KA * γ
φ - ψ - θ
1
0.1489 8.5
φ - ψ + θ0.1489 8.5
cos2(θ)
0.97800.0000
KA KP
KP * γ
0.46360.38050.3218
2.03880.4905
0.3419
1
26.621.818.4
11.50.3489 20.0
00.9780
0.6758
0.3419
22454
1.0000 1.0000
sin(φ - ξ)sin(φ - ψ + β)
KAE 0.6758 KPE
ψ - θ + ξψ + θ + ξ 11.50.2000
β - θφ - ψ + β
cos(ψ - θ + ξ)
cos(β - θ)
0.3419 0.34190.1483 0.1483
sin(φ + ξ)sin(φ - ψ - β)
cos(β - θ)
φ - ξφ + ξφ - ψ - ββ - θ
cos2(φ - ψ + θ)cos(ψ)cos2(θ)
1.7061 1.7061
0.9801
1.0000 1.00000.1483 0.1483
0.9801 0.9801
0.9801
cos(ψ + θ + ξ)
0.9780 0.97800.9801 0.9801
1 1
cos2(φ - ψ - θ)cos(ψ)
0.0000 0
0.9801 0.9801
00
Degrees
01
0.3489 20.0
00
Degrees
K A & K AE K P & K PE
Radians DegreesRadians
2:12.5:13:1
200.1489 8.5
0.1489 8.50.2000
0.3489
unit weight of soil (pcf) 11001
110
arctan (kh/1-kv) = seismic inertia angleinternal friction angle of soil
0.20000.2000
Project No.: PLATE A-7
height of structurevertical acceleration in g's
inclination of soil surface (upwards from structure is positive)
soil-structure friction angleinclination of interface with respect to verticalhorizontal acceleration in g's
11.511.5
9475 Double R Boulevard, Reno, NV 89521 Date:
EC 1110-2-6058 Department of The Army - US ACOE
Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871
STATIC AND DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURES (MONONOBE-OKABE)I N C O R P O R A T E D 12/5/2007
12/05/07
Geotechnical Investigation
KEYSTONE CANYON TANAMERA
=½ K PE γ h 2DRIVING WEDGE P AE RESISTING WEDGE K PE=½ K AE γ h 274 KPE * γ 188KAE * γ
00.0000Backfill Slope Toe Slope
00.0000
JAMESEDWARDENGINEERING
1513.0112/05/07
Geotechnical Investigation
KEYSTONE CANYON TANAMERA
Project No.: PLATE A-89475 Double R Boulevard, Reno, NV 89521 Date:
Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871
I N C O R P O R A T E D
STRUCTURAL PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN
(Low Volume Roads)
ESAL DETERMINATION
Low
Very Good (R>35)
Traffic Level
2.4 - 2.62.2 - 2.41.6 - 2.1
SN2.7 - 2.8
SN
ESAL RANGEHigh
MediumLow (125 - 750 Residences)
700,000 - 1,000,000400,000 - 600,00050,000 - 300,000
Low
Relative Quality of
Roadbed Soil
HighMedium
Good (R>15)
HighMedium
Fair (R>10)
HighMediumLow
Poor (R>7)
HighMediumLow
2.7 - 2.9
3.2 - 3.42.9 - 3.22.2 - 2.8
2.5 - 2.71.8 - 2.42.9 - 3.12.6 - 2.81.9 - 2.5
Plantmix Surface
Thickness (in) - Sparks
4
3.4 - 3.63.1 - 3.32.3 - 3.0
3.7 - 3.8
Material Type Reference
AC
2.4 - 2.61.7 - 2.23.0 - 3.12.6 - 2.92.0 - 2.53.2 - 3.32.8 - 3.12.1 - 2.7
Structural Number for Section 2.0
3.3 - 3.62.5 - 3.1
Very Poor (R>5)
HighMediumLow
Plantmix Base060
STRUCTURAL NUMBER (CLIMATE ZONE V)
Reliability
50% 75%
3.5 - 3.63.1 - 3.42.3 - 2.9
0.10.07
0.2Type 2 Class B
Structural Fill (R-45)
CTBABSF
Cement TreatedPB
Thickness (in) - Reno
40
Structural Coefficient
0.350.32
2.2
Thickness (in)
00000
0.0
00
00
0.0
Construction Traffic (Trips per Lot)
Thickness (in)
000
80
LNTd
TAverage Daily Two Way Trips per LotNumber of LotsDesign Life (yrs)
Percent Heavy Trucks
20166102
0.52201.0
ESAL20 6.63E+04
Tf
Tc
Construction Truck Factor Tcf
Average Truck Factor
APPENDIX B
123456
JAMESEDWARDENGINEERING
TP-1 - 12' of Sandy Fat ClayTP-1 - 12' of Sandy Fat Clay - Surface 1' moisture conditioned and maintained12' Sandy Fat Clay - Upper 5 Feet Clay Fill (pF = 3.8)
3.43.11' Structural Fill capping Sandy Fat Clay 6.1 0.3
1.67.0 0.4 3.6 2.4
3.93' Structural Fill capping Sandy Fat Clay2' Structural Fill capping Sandy Fat Clay
7.8 0.5
3.75.5 1.2 2.8 2.25.5 0.5 2.9
4.53.10.36.1
CONDITIONY M (IN)E M (FT)
CENTER LIFTY M (IN)E M (FT)
3.54.1
COMMENTSWorst case scenario - 12' of insitu fat clay
pF*4.151
% FC*
20
22.8%M
568
8
EDGE LIFT
35.513.412.313.1 3.5
4.1
26PL
41-
22NP51PI
46-
76.5% -# 200
77LL
45-
23-
TP-1TEST PIT
@6'4 - 5'@ 3'2 - 3' 1 - 4'
DEPTH
TP-6TP-4TP-3TP-2
9475 Double R Boulevard, Reno, NV 89521 Date:
83.711.530.012.4
87-
Phone 775.828.1866 Fax 775.828.1871
PRELIMINARY PT-SLAB DESIGN PARAMETER STUDYI N C O R P O R A T E D 1513.01
12/07/07
Geotechnical Investigation
KEYSTONE CANYON
Project No.: PLATE B-1
Build 041405
VOLFLO 1.5Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc.
Registered To : James Edward Engineering Serial Number : 200-100-127
Project Title : Keystone CanyonProject Engineer : Mickey Smith Project Number : 1513.01
Project Date : December 7, 2007Geotechnical Report : James Edward Engineering Report Date : 12-7-7
Report Number : 1513.01
SHRINK CALCULATION
Ym Center (Shrink) = -0.37 inches ( -0.94 centimeters )Em Center = 7.00 feet ( 213.36 centimeters )
DISTANCE0.0 ft 0.7 ft 1.4 ft 2.1 ft 2.8 ft 3.5 ft 4.2 ft 4.9 ft 5.6 ft 6.3 ft 7.0 ft0 cm 21 cm 43 cm 64 cm 85 cm 107 cm 128 cm 149 cm 171 cm 192 cm 213 cm
Ym
0.0 in
1.0 in
Shrink at Slab Shrink at distance X from edge of slab Shrink atEdge Em0.0 ft 0.7 ft 1.4 ft 2.1 ft 2.8 ft 3.5 ft 4.2 ft 4.9 ft 5.6 ft 6.3 ft 7.0 ft0 cm 21 cm 43 cm 64 cm 85 cm 107 cm 128 cm 149 cm 171 cm 192 cm 213 cm
inches -0.37 -0.33 -0.30 -0.26 -0.22 -0.19 -0.15 -0.11 -0.07 -0.04 0.00cm -0.94 -0.85 -0.75 -0.66 -0.57 -0.47 -0.38 -0.28 -0.19 -0.09 0.00
Page 1 of 69:03:10 AM
Build 041405
VOLFLO 1.5Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc.
Registered To : James Edward Engineering Serial Number : 200-100-127
Project Title : Keystone CanyonProject Engineer : Mickey Smith Project Number : 1513.01
Project Date : December 7, 2007Geotechnical Report : James Edward Engineering Report Date : 12-7-7
Report Number : 1513.01
SUCTION PROFILESSuction (pF)
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.50
5
10
15
Depth(feet)
2.0
13.0
Initial suction at edge of slab
Final suction at edge of slab
Constant SuctionPage 2 of 6
9:03:10 AM
Build 041405
VOLFLO 1.5Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc.
Registered To : James Edward Engineering Serial Number : 200-100-127
Project Title : Keystone CanyonProject Engineer : Mickey Smith Project Number : 1513.01
Project Date : December 7, 2007Geotechnical Report : James Edward Engineering Report Date : 12-7-7
Report Number : 1513.01
LAYER GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES
Gamma100 % Fine GammaH GammaH GammaHLayer (Average) Clay (Average) (Shrink) (Swell)
1 0.050 66.67 0.033 0.032 0.0342 0.170 67.11 0.114 0.102 0.128
Alpha Alpha AlphaLayer (Average) (Shrink) (Swell) S P KoHo
1 0.004976 0.004990 0.004963 -15.328 0.000624 0.0002712 0.002980 0.003130 0.002812 -9.085 0.000526 0.000228
Gamma100 Determination Per PTI 3rd Edition Manual% Fine PI/ LL/ Zone Gamma100
Layer Clay PI %fc LL %fc Chart (Average)1 66.67 15 0.23 30 0.45 2 0.0502 67.11 51 0.76 77 1.15 3 0.170
Page 3 of 69:03:10 AM
Build 041405
VOLFLO 1.5Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc.
Registered To : James Edward Engineering Serial Number : 200-100-127
Project Title : Keystone CanyonProject Engineer : Mickey Smith Project Number : 1513.01
Project Date : December 7, 2007Geotechnical Report : James Edward Engineering Report Date : 12-7-7
Report Number : 1513.01
SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Soil Properties
Layer Thickness and description
Layer Layer Depth toNumber Thickness Bottom Layer Description
1 2.0 ft 2.0 ft Structural Fill2 11.0 ft 13.0 ft Sandy Fat Clay
Layer Geotechnical Properties
Layer Liquid Plastic % Pass. % Finer Density Gamma Ko Ko FabricNumber Limit Limit #200 2 mic. (lb/ft^3) 100 Drying Wetting Factor
1 30 15 30 20 120.0 CALC 0.33 0.67 1.02 77 26 76 51 100.0 CALC 0.33 0.67 1.0
Page 4 of 69:03:10 AM
Build 041405
VOLFLO 1.5Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc.
Registered To : James Edward Engineering Serial Number : 200-100-127
Project Title : Keystone CanyonProject Engineer : Mickey Smith Project Number : 1513.01
Project Date : December 7, 2007Geotechnical Report : James Edward Engineering Report Date : 12-7-7
Report Number : 1513.01
SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Suction at Edge of Slab
Initial Suction Profile ---- Measured Suction ProfileDepth Suction(feet) (pF)
Point 1 : 0.0 3.5Point 2 : 2.0 3.5Point 3 : 2.1 4.3Point 4 : 9.5 4.1
Final Suction Profile ---- Default Dry Design EnvelopeSuction Value at Surface : 4.4 pF
Constant SuctionConstant suction : 4.1 pFDepth to constant suction : 10.0 ft
Moisture BarriersVertical barrier depth : 0.0 ftApply vertical barrier to : Neither Profile
Horizontal barrier length : 0.0 ft
Page 5 of 69:03:10 AM
Build 041405
VOLFLO 1.5Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc.
Registered To : James Edward Engineering Serial Number : 200-100-127
Project Title : Keystone CanyonProject Engineer : Mickey Smith Project Number : 1513.01
Project Date : December 7, 2007Geotechnical Report : James Edward Engineering Report Date : 12-7-7
Report Number : 1513.01
SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Em
Em DistanceDetermined per Modified PTI methodThornthwaite Moisture Index -40
Suction Profile at Em ---- Constant Suction Profile
Page 6 of 69:03:10 AM
Build 041405
VOLFLO 1.5Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc.
Registered To : James Edward Engineering Serial Number : 200-100-127
Project Title : Keystone CanyonProject Engineer : Mickey Smith Project Number : 1513.01
Project Date : December 7, 2007Geotechnical Report : James Edward Engineering Report Date : 12-7-7
Report Number : 1513.01
SWELL CALCULATION
Ym Edge (Swell) = 2.43 inches ( 6.17 centimeters )Em Edge = 3.60 feet ( 109.73 centimeters )
DISTANCE0.0 ft 0.4 ft 0.7 ft 1.1 ft 1.4 ft 1.8 ft 2.2 ft 2.5 ft 2.9 ft 3.2 ft 3.6 ft0 cm 11 cm 22 cm 33 cm 44 cm 55 cm 66 cm 77 cm 88 cm 99 cm 110 cm
Ym
0.0 in
1.0 in
2.0 in
3.0 in
Swell at Slab Swell at distance X from edge of slab Swell atEdge Em0.0 ft 0.4 ft 0.7 ft 1.1 ft 1.4 ft 1.8 ft 2.2 ft 2.5 ft 2.9 ft 3.2 ft 3.6 ft0 cm 11 cm 22 cm 33 cm 44 cm 55 cm 66 cm 77 cm 88 cm 99 cm 110 cm
inches 2.43 2.02 1.64 1.29 0.96 0.68 0.43 0.24 0.10 0.03 0.00cm 6.17 5.14 4.17 3.27 2.45 1.72 1.10 0.61 0.26 0.07 0.00
Page 1 of 69:01:26 AM
Build 041405
VOLFLO 1.5Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc.
Registered To : James Edward Engineering Serial Number : 200-100-127
Project Title : Keystone CanyonProject Engineer : Mickey Smith Project Number : 1513.01
Project Date : December 7, 2007Geotechnical Report : James Edward Engineering Report Date : 12-7-7
Report Number : 1513.01
SUCTION PROFILESSuction (pF)
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.50
5
10
15
Depth(feet)
2.0
13.0
Initial suction at edge of slab
Final suction at edge of slab
Constant SuctionPage 2 of 6
9:01:26 AM
Build 041405
VOLFLO 1.5Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc.
Registered To : James Edward Engineering Serial Number : 200-100-127
Project Title : Keystone CanyonProject Engineer : Mickey Smith Project Number : 1513.01
Project Date : December 7, 2007Geotechnical Report : James Edward Engineering Report Date : 12-7-7
Report Number : 1513.01
LAYER GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES
Gamma100 % Fine GammaH GammaH GammaHLayer (Average) Clay (Average) (Shrink) (Swell)
1 0.050 66.67 0.033 0.032 0.0342 0.170 67.11 0.114 0.102 0.128
Alpha Alpha AlphaLayer (Average) (Shrink) (Swell) S P KoHo
1 0.004976 0.004990 0.004963 -15.328 0.000624 0.0002712 0.002980 0.003130 0.002812 -9.085 0.000526 0.000228
Gamma100 Determination Per PTI 3rd Edition Manual% Fine PI/ LL/ Zone Gamma100
Layer Clay PI %fc LL %fc Chart (Average)1 66.67 15 0.23 30 0.45 2 0.0502 67.11 51 0.76 77 1.15 3 0.170
Page 3 of 69:01:26 AM
Build 041405
VOLFLO 1.5Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc.
Registered To : James Edward Engineering Serial Number : 200-100-127
Project Title : Keystone CanyonProject Engineer : Mickey Smith Project Number : 1513.01
Project Date : December 7, 2007Geotechnical Report : James Edward Engineering Report Date : 12-7-7
Report Number : 1513.01
SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Soil Properties
Layer Thickness and description
Layer Layer Depth toNumber Thickness Bottom Layer Description
1 2.0 ft 2.0 ft Structural Fill2 11.0 ft 13.0 ft Sandy Fat Clay
Layer Geotechnical Properties
Layer Liquid Plastic % Pass. % Finer Density Gamma Ko Ko FabricNumber Limit Limit #200 2 mic. (lb/ft^3) 100 Drying Wetting Factor
1 30 15 30 20 120.0 CALC 0.33 0.67 1.02 77 26 76 51 100.0 CALC 0.33 0.67 1.0
Page 4 of 69:01:26 AM
Build 041405
VOLFLO 1.5Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc.
Registered To : James Edward Engineering Serial Number : 200-100-127
Project Title : Keystone CanyonProject Engineer : Mickey Smith Project Number : 1513.01
Project Date : December 7, 2007Geotechnical Report : James Edward Engineering Report Date : 12-7-7
Report Number : 1513.01
SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Suction at Edge of Slab
Initial Suction Profile ---- Measured Suction ProfileDepth Suction(feet) (pF)
Point 1 : 0.0 3.5Point 2 : 2.0 3.5Point 3 : 2.1 4.3Point 4 : 9.5 4.1
Final Suction Profile ---- Default Wet Design EnvelopeSuction value at surface 2.9 pF
Constant SuctionConstant suction : 4.1 pFDepth to constant suction : 10.0 ft
Moisture BarriersVertical barrier depth : 0.0 ftApply vertical barrier to : Neither Profile
Horizontal barrier length : 0.0 ft
Page 5 of 69:01:26 AM
Build 041405
VOLFLO 1.5Geostructural Tool Kit, Inc.
Registered To : James Edward Engineering Serial Number : 200-100-127
Project Title : Keystone CanyonProject Engineer : Mickey Smith Project Number : 1513.01
Project Date : December 7, 2007Geotechnical Report : James Edward Engineering Report Date : 12-7-7
Report Number : 1513.01
SUMMARY OF INPUT DATA - Em
Em DistanceDetermined per Modified PTI methodThornthwaite Moisture Index -40
Suction Profile at Em ---- Constant Suction Profile
Page 6 of 69:01:26 AM
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGIC DRAINAGE REPORT FOR
THE VILLAS II AT KEYSTONE CANYON TENTATIVE MAP
PREPARED FOR:
LEADERSHIP MASTER LLC C/O TANAMERA CONSTRUCTION, LLC
5560 Longley Lane #200 Reno, NV 89511
PREPARED BY:
Manhard Consulting Ltd.
241 Ridge Street, Suite 400 Reno, Nevada 89501
(775) 746 – 3500
MAY 2019
Project No: TANRENV03
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGIC DRAINAGE REPORT FOR THE VILLAS II AT KEYSTONE CANYON TENTATIVE MAP Table of Contents
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION……………………….…………….…………………..……… 1 1.1. Purpose of Study…..………………………………………………………….. 1 1.2. Project Location and Description……………………………………………. 1 1.3. Hydrologic Analysis Methods………………………………………………… 2 1.4. Assumptions……………………………………………………………………. 3
2. EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS………………………………………… 4
2.1. Existing Drainage…………………………………………………………….... 4
3. PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONDITIONS ………………………………………... 5 3.1. Proposed Drainage - Hydrologic……………………………………………….. 5 3.2. Proposed Onsite - Storm Drainage Pipe Network…………………………… 6 3.3. Detention…………………………………………………………………………. 6
4. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………….. 7
4.1. General Considerations………………………………………………………….. 7 4.2. Regulations and Master Plans…………………………………………………... 7 4.3. Impacts to Adjacent Properties…………………………………………………. 7 4.4. Standards of Practice…………………………………………………………….. 7
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT #1 VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT #2 OVERALL EXISTING DRAINAGE PLAN EXHIBIT #3 OVERALL PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN EXHIBIT #4 PROPOSED ON-SITE DRAINAGE PLAN
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE #1 EXISTING CONDITIONS HYDROLOGY (RATIONAL METHOD) TABLE #2 PROPOSED CONDITIONS HYDROLOGY (RATIONAL METHOD)
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A SUPPORTING DATA APPENDIX B MASTER HYDROLOGY REPORT FOR KEYSTONE CANYON APPENDIX C STORMCAD RATIONAL METHOD PROPOSED CALCULATIONS - 5 YEAR APPENDIX D STORMCAD RATIONAL METHOD PROPOSED CALCULATIONS - 100 YEAR
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGIC DRAINAGE REPORT VILLAS II AT KEYSTONE CANYON TENTATIVE MAP
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Study
This report presents the data, hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, and conclusions of a preliminary drainage study performed for the proposed project, to be known as Villas II at Keystone Canyon Tentative Map (Project). The information, data, and calculations presented herein are intended to provide preliminary drainage information for the Project in accordance with the City of Reno requirements.
A cross-reference with the Tentative Map Plans will aid in the understanding of this report. This report will defer to figures, tables, and the data and calculations contained in the appendices.
1.2 Project Location and Description
The two parcels that encompass the Villas II project is approximately 24.08 acres. The site is located directly north of Leadership Parkway in Reno, Nevada. The project is situated within the southern half of Section 33, Township 20 North, Range 19 East M. D. B. & M., and consists of Washoe County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 082-631-17 and 082-631-19 and a portion of the public right of Leadership Parkway.
Exhibit 3, the Overall Proposed Drainage Plan, illustrates the location and orientation of the project in relationship to the existing site conditions. The project area is currently zoned for mixed use and is bound to the north by BLM land, the south by the existing Villas at Keystone Canyon, and the east and west by areas zoned for open space. Reference Exhibit 1 for a site vicinity map. The project site is currently vacant and covered by native vegetation.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) this area is in an area of minimal flood hazard (Zone X). The map number is 32031C3036 G and is included in Appendix A.
The purpose of this report is to analyze the existing and proposed conditions of the subject property based on the 5-year and 100-year peak flow events. The report contains the following sections: (1) Introduction, (2) Existing Drainage Conditions, (3) Proposed Drainage Conditions, and (4) Conclusion.
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGIC DRAINAGE REPORT VILLAS II AT KEYSTONE CANYON TENTATIVE MAP
2
1.3 Hydrologic Analysis Methods
Parameters for peak storm flow and runoff volume estimates presented herein were determined using the data and methodologies presented in the Chapter II – Storm Drainage, of the City of Reno’s Public Works Design Manual (PWDM, Revised January, 2009) in conjunction with the Truckee Meadows Regional Drainage Manual (TMRDM, April 30, 2009). In instances where criteria in the PWDM and TMRDM differed, the more conservative criteria was used.
For the existing and proposed on-site hydrologic conditions, the Rational Method was utilized in accordance with Section 202.1.1 of the PWDM.
Rational Formula: Q=CiA
Q=Peak Discharge (cfs)
C=Runoff Coefficient (dimensionless)
i=Precipitation Intensity (in/hr.)
A=Watershed Area (Acres)
The runoff coefficients for the post-development model were taken from Table 201 of the PWDM (Reference Appendix A). For the existing condition, a 5-year of 0.40 and 100-year of 0.60 were used, respectively. In the proposed condition for Multi-Residential a 5-year of 0.60 and a 100-year of 0.70 was used, respectively.
The precipitation intensity data was taken from the NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 1, Version 5, Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates for the project site: i(5)=1.47 in/hr., i(100)=3.66 in/hr. A minimum time of concentration (tc) of 10-minutes was used for all sub-basins for a conservative analysis given the relatively small size of the sub-basins. Appendix A contains the rainfall data and runoff parameters for the on-site developed sub-basins defined herein.
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGIC DRAINAGE REPORT VILLAS II AT KEYSTONE CANYON TENTATIVE MAP
3
1.4 Assumptions
Since the Rational Method was employed for developed on-site peak storm flow estimations, reductions associated with hydrograph routing and combining have been neglected from the analyses herein. This contributes to the conservative nature of the ‘worst case’ analysis methods applied in this study.
The entire off-site drainages were not taken into consideration for this level of analysis. The reason for this is that this project area has been analyzed by previous studies. Copies of these studies can be found in Appendix B. These past studies both identify the off-site drainage areas and developed flows directed to this portion of the Villas II @ Keystone Canyon. Since these reports have already reviewed the existing flows entering the site, Manhard has simplified the existing and proposed preliminary analysis to just the on-site project area to determine the increase in developed storm flows.
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGIC DRAINAGE REPORT VILLAS II AT KEYSTONE CANYON TENTATIVE MAP
4
2 EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
2.1 Existing Drainage
The existing site is currently un-developed. The existing drainage, as it pertains to the Villas II @ Keystone Canyon project, is collected and concentrated at two locations. The first (Outfall #1) being at a drop inlet located north of Leadership Parkway and just west of the existing trailhead parking lot that discharges on the south side of Leadership Parkway. The second (Outfall #2) is a culvert located north of Leadership Parkway and east of the existing trailhead parking lot that routes water under Leadership Parkway. At the south end of Leadership parkway discharge from the culvert and drop inlet converge into an existing drainage channel that routes the discharge through existing culverts that run under McCarran Boulevard and discharge into the existing storm drain facilities and eventually the Truckee River southeast of the site. Exhibit 2 – Overall Existing Drainage Plan, illustrates the location of the outfalls as well as a depiction of the two sub-basins areas. As previously mentioned, Manhard has simplified the existing and proposed preliminary analysis to just the on-site project area to determine the increase in developed storm flows. To determine the increase in developed storm flows two Sub-Basin areas were delineated based on outfall location and the overlap between the existing condition and any proposed on-site project area. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the existing drainage basins.
Table 1 – Existing Conditions Hydrology (Rational Method)
Sub-Basin
Area
(Ac.)
Rational Method
Coefficient
(C5/C100)
Time of Concentration
(min)
Rainfall Intensity
(I5/I100)
(in/hr.)
5-Year
Peak Flows
(cfs)
100-Year Peak Flows
(cfs)
AREA E-1
1.99 0.40/0.60 10 1.47/3.66 1.17 4.37
AREA E-2
6.14 0.40/0.60 10 1.47/3.66 3.61 13.49
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGIC DRAINAGE REPORT VILLAS II AT KEYSTONE CANYON TENTATIVE MAP
5
3 PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
3.1 Proposed Drainage - Hydrologic
The proposed site was also split into two drainage basins. Exhibit 3 – Overall Proposed Drainage Plan, illustrates the location of the outfalls as well as a depiction of the two sub-basins areas. To pick up existing offsite flows there will be an interceptor swale on the north side of the property that splits the flow in two directions. Due to this some existing flow that was discharging at Outfall #2 in the existing condition will now be routed to Outfall #1 in the proposed condition. This difference in area has been accounted for in Sub-Basin Area P-1. Due to sizable contributions for both the native vegetation and proposed condition, a composite C-value was also determined for Area P-1. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of the two drainage basins.
Table 2 – Proposed Conditions Hydrology (Rational Method)
Sub-Basin
Area
(Ac.)
Rational Method Coefficient
(C5/C100)
Time of Concentration (min)
Rainfall Intensity
(I5/I100)
(in/hr)
5-Year
Peak Flows
(cfs)
100-Year Peak Flows
(cfs)
AREA P-1
2.62 0.50/0.65 10 1.47/3.66 1.93 6.23
AREA P-2
6.14 0.60/0.70 10 1.47/3.66 5.42 15.74
The increase of 1.81 cfs in the 5-year storm and 2.25 cfs in the 100-year storm at Outfall #2 will be mitigated with a proposed detention pond east of the property and west of the trailhead parking lot. The increase of 0.76 cfs in the 5-year storm and 1.86 cfs in the 100-year storm at Outfall #1 will likely be reduced with a more detailed analysis. Any increase in runoff associated with development shall be detained per regulations presented in Chapter II – Storm Drainage, of the City of Reno’s Public Works Design Manual and the Truckee Meadows Regional Drainage Manual and adhere to previous master planning efforts, and flood control and drainage documents.
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGIC DRAINAGE REPORT VILLAS II AT KEYSTONE CANYON TENTATIVE MAP
6
3.2 Proposed Onsite - Storm Drainage Pipe Network
The sub-areas took into account the proposed on-site flows that affect the site. The associated calculated 5-year and 100-year peak flows along with all preliminary storm drain sizing and flow calculations can be found in Appendix C and Appendix D. Pipe sizes and catch basins have been sized to accommodate the proposed flows. Reference Exhibit 4 - Proposed On-Site Drainage Plan in the map pocket for the associated proposed sub-areas and the proposed catch basins. For the catch basin design and analysis, the project site was divided into 10 proposed, on-site drainage basins. A 5-year intensity of 1.47 in/hr and 100-year intensity of 3.66 in/hr were used.
Within the project site, drainage for the basins will be contained in curb and gutters, discharging to catch basins. Drainage will then travel through the proposed storm drain network and outlet to the east to a proposed detention pond west of the trailhead parking lot.
The proposed storm drain network was designed to accommodate the required gravity flow without surcharge or pressure condition during the 5-year, 24-hour storm event; furthermore, the storm drain network accommodates the 100-year, 24-hour storm event with some surcharge conditions. All grading was designed to outlet all sump conditions to the low points of the project and ultimately discharge into the existing drainage to the east of the property. In the occurrence of a storm larger than 100-year, 24-hour event which overwhelms any/all inlets within the on-site storm drain network, there is overland flow routing that has been accounted for to route water to the existing drainageway prior to the flooding of any of the buildings within the project.
All off-site existing drainage will be picked up by interceptor swales before entering the disturbed development and will be routed around the project site, ultimately discharging into the existing drainageway.
The onsite storm drainage system shall be maintained by the owners of The Villas II, unless The City of Reno should choose to want to maintain the system for any reason.
3.3 Detention
Any required detention basin will be analyzed with the final design and if any improvements are needed, they will be incorporated into the improvement plans and final hydrology report. These will be located east of the development near the existing trailhead. They will be required to hold at least 1,550 cf in the 5-year event and 2,500 cf in the 100-year event.
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGIC DRAINAGE REPORT VILLAS II AT KEYSTONE CANYON TENTATIVE MAP
7
4 CONCLUSION
4.1 General Considerations
This study is intended to be a working document and may require updates and revisions to address the status of the improvement plans. As grading designs and surface water flow patterns are refined with subsequent plan editions, revisions may be required for the calculations provided herein.
4.2 Regulations and Master Plans
The proposed improvements and the analyses presented herein are in accordance with drainage regulations presented in Chapter II – Storm Drainage, of the City of Reno’s Public Works Design Manual and the Truckee Meadows Regional Drainage Manual and adhere to previous master planning efforts, and flood control and drainage documents.
4.3 Impacts to Adjacent Properties
The performance of the proposed project improvements, and storm water conveyance facilities, once constructed, will not adversely impact upstream or downstream properties adjacent to this site. The development of this site for the uses proposed will not increase upstream or downstream storm flow runoff rates, volumes, velocities, depths, and will not influence floodplain boundaries.
4.4 Standards of Practice
This study was prepared using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable professional engineers practicing in this and similar localities.
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGIC DRAINAGE REPORT VILLAS II AT KEYSTONE CANYON TENTATIVE MAP
APPENDIX A- SUPPORTING DATA
USG
S Th
e N
atio
nal M
ap: O
rthoi
mag
ery.
Dat
a re
fresh
ed O
ctob
er, 2
017.
Nat
iona
l Flo
od H
azar
d La
yer F
IRM
ette
050
01,
000
1,50
02,
000
250
Feet
Ü
119°51'18.40"W 39°3
3'15
.81"
N
119°50'40.94"W
39°3
2'48
.07"
N
SEE
FIS
REP
OR
T FO
R D
ETA
ILED
LEG
END
AN
D IN
DEX
MA
P F
OR
FIR
M P
AN
EL L
AYO
UT
SPEC
IAL
FLO
OD
HA
ZAR
D A
REA
S
Wit
hout
Bas
e Fl
ood
Elev
atio
n (B
FE)
Zone
A, V
, A99
Wit
h B
FE o
r D
epth
Zone
AE,
AO
, AH
, VE,
AR
Reg
ulat
ory
Floo
dway
0.2
% A
nnua
l Cha
nce
Floo
d H
azar
d, A
reas
of 1
% a
nnua
l cha
nce
floo
d w
ith a
vera
gede
pth
less
tha
n on
e fo
ot o
r w
ith
drai
nage
area
s of
less
than
one
squ
are
mile
Zon
e X
Futu
re C
ondi
tions
1%
Ann
ual
Chan
ce F
lood
Haz
ard
Zone
X
Are
a w
ith R
educ
ed F
lood
Ris
k du
e to
Leve
e. S
ee N
otes
.Zon
e X
Are
a w
ith F
lood
Ris
k du
e to
Lev
eeZo
ne D
NO
SC
REE
NA
rea
of M
inim
al F
lood
Haz
ard
Zone
X
Are
a of
Und
eter
min
ed F
lood
Haz
ard
Zone
D
Chan
nel,
Culv
ert,
or S
torm
Sew
er
Leve
e, D
ike,
or
Floo
dwal
l
Cros
s S
ectio
ns w
ith 1
% A
nnua
l Cha
nce
17.5
Wat
er S
urfa
ce E
leva
tion
Coas
tal T
rans
ect
Coas
tal T
rans
ect B
asel
ine
Pro
file
Bas
elin
eH
ydro
grap
hic
Feat
ure
Bas
e Fl
ood
Elev
atio
n Li
ne (B
FE)
Effe
ctiv
e LO
MR
s
Lim
it of
Stu
dyJu
risd
ictio
n B
ound
ary
Dig
ital D
ata
Ava
ilabl
e
No
Dig
ital D
ata
Ava
ilabl
e
Unm
appe
d
This
map
com
plie
s w
ith
FEM
A's
sta
ndar
ds fo
r th
e us
e of
di
gita
l flo
od m
aps
if it
is n
ot v
oid
as d
escr
ibed
bel
ow.
The
base
map
sho
wn
com
plie
s w
ith
FEM
A's
bas
emap
ac
cura
cy s
tand
ards
The
flood
haz
ard
info
rmat
ion
is d
eriv
ed d
irect
ly fr
om th
eau
thor
itat
ive
NFH
L w
eb s
ervi
ces
prov
ided
by
FEM
A. T
his
map
was
exp
orte
d on
2/1
1/2
01
9 a
t 1
2:0
8:0
0 P
M a
nd d
oes
not
refle
ct c
hang
es o
r am
endm
ents
sub
sequ
ent
to t
his
date
and
time.
The
NFH
L an
d ef
fect
ive
info
rmat
ion
may
cha
nge
orbe
com
e su
pers
eded
by
new
dat
a ov
er ti
me.
This
map
imag
e is
voi
d if
the
one
or m
ore
of t
he f
ollo
win
g m
apel
emen
ts d
o no
t ap
pear
: bas
emap
imag
ery,
floo
d zo
ne la
bels
,le
gend
, sca
le b
ar, m
ap c
reat
ion
date
, com
mun
ity id
entif
iers
,FI
RM
pan
el n
umbe
r, an
d FI
RM
eff
ectiv
e da
te. M
ap im
ages
for
unm
appe
d an
d un
mod
erni
zed
area
s ca
nnot
be
used
for
regu
lato
ry p
urpo
ses.
Legend
OTH
ER A
REA
S O
FFL
OO
D H
AZA
RD
OTH
ER A
REA
S
GEN
ERA
LST
RU
CTU
RES
OTH
ERFE
ATU
RES
MA
P P
AN
ELS
8
1:6,
000
B20
.2
The
pin
disp
laye
d on
the
map
is a
n ap
prox
imat
e po
int s
elec
ted
by th
e us
er a
nd d
oes
not
repr
esen
t an
aut
hori
tativ
e pr
oper
ty lo
cati
on.
City of Reno Public Works Design Manual
-203-Revised January 2009
A = watershed area, acres
The following Table 201 listing runoff coefficients based depending on future use, shall be used:
TABLE 201 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS "C"
Land Use Type Runoff Coefficient "C"
Rural ...............................................................................0.25-0.35
Single Family Residential ..............................................0.45-0.60
Multi-Residential............................................................0.60-0.70
Neighborhood Commercial ............................................0.85
Community Commercial ................................................0.85
Tourist Commercial........................................................0.85
Office..............................................................................0.85
Manufacturing ................................................................0.85-0.90
Distribution and Warehousing........................................0.85-0.90
Public Facility.................................................................0.50-0.85
Pavement and Concrete Surfaces ...................................0.90-0.95
Park.................................................................................0.25
Open Space (0-5% grade - vegetated)............................0.20-0.30
Open Space (0-5% grade - no vegetation)......................0.30-0.40
Open Space.....................................................................0.40-0.50 (5-15% grade - vegetated or unvegetated)
Open Space.....................................................................0.40-0.60 (Over 15% grade - sparsely vegetated, rock or clay soils)
2/8/2019 Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=39.5509&lon=-119.8502&data=intensity&units=english&series=pds 1/4
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 1, Version 5 Location name: Reno, Nevada, USA*
Latitude: 39.5509°, Longitude: -119.8502° Elevation: 4976.13 ft**
* source: ESRI Maps ** source: USGS
POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, SandraPavlovic, Ishani Roy, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Michael Yekta, Tan Zhao, Geoffrey
Bonnin, Daniel Brewer, Li-Chuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan
NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland
PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials
PF tabularPDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches/hour)1
DurationAverage recurrence interval (years)
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
5-min 1.16(0.996‑1.34)
1.45(1.24‑1.69)
1.93(1.66‑2.28)
2.40(2.04‑2.83)
3.19(2.64‑3.80)
3.94(3.14‑4.74)
4.81(3.72‑5.88)
5.89(4.37‑7.36)
7.64(5.33‑9.86)
9.28(6.17‑12.2)
10-min 0.888(0.756‑1.02)
1.10(0.936‑1.29)
1.47(1.26‑1.73)
1.83(1.55‑2.16)
2.43(2.01‑2.90)
2.99(2.39‑3.61)
3.66(2.83‑4.48)
4.48(3.32‑5.60)
5.82(4.06‑7.51)
7.06(4.69‑9.31)
15-min 0.732(0.628‑0.844)
0.908(0.776‑1.06)
1.22(1.04‑1.43)
1.51(1.28‑1.78)
2.01(1.66‑2.40)
2.47(1.98‑2.98)
3.02(2.34‑3.70)
3.70(2.74‑4.62)
4.81(3.35‑6.20)
5.84(3.88‑7.69)
30-min 0.494(0.422‑0.568)
0.612(0.522‑0.718)
0.820(0.700‑0.964)
1.02(0.864‑1.20)
1.35(1.12‑1.61)
1.66(1.33‑2.01)
2.04(1.58‑2.49)
2.49(1.85‑3.11)
3.24(2.25‑4.18)
3.93(2.61‑5.18)
60-min 0.306(0.261‑0.352)
0.379(0.323‑0.444)
0.507(0.433‑0.597)
0.630(0.535‑0.744)
0.836(0.693‑0.998)
1.03(0.824‑1.24)
1.26(0.975‑1.54)
1.54(1.14‑1.93)
2.01(1.40‑2.59)
2.43(1.62‑3.20)
2-hr 0.206(0.182‑0.235)
0.254(0.226‑0.292)
0.325(0.286‑0.374)
0.386(0.336‑0.444)
0.480(0.406‑0.558)
0.566(0.466‑0.666)
0.664(0.532‑0.792)
0.788(0.611‑0.973)
1.02(0.756‑1.31)
1.24(0.884‑1.62)
3-hr 0.165(0.149‑0.186)
0.205(0.186‑0.232)
0.256(0.230‑0.289)
0.297(0.264‑0.336)
0.355(0.310‑0.404)
0.405(0.348‑0.467)
0.467(0.392‑0.545)
0.549(0.451‑0.652)
0.697(0.555‑0.878)
0.835(0.648‑1.09)
6-hr 0.119(0.108‑0.133)
0.149(0.135‑0.167)
0.184(0.165‑0.205)
0.210(0.188‑0.235)
0.244(0.215‑0.275)
0.269(0.234‑0.306)
0.295(0.253‑0.339)
0.326(0.275‑0.380)
0.382(0.314‑0.452)
0.443(0.359‑0.551)
12-hr 0.080(0.072‑0.089)
0.100(0.090‑0.112)
0.125(0.113‑0.140)
0.145(0.130‑0.162)
0.171(0.151‑0.193)
0.191(0.166‑0.217)
0.211(0.181‑0.243)
0.231(0.195‑0.269)
0.258(0.211‑0.307)
0.280(0.224‑0.338)
24-hr 0.052(0.047‑0.058)
0.065(0.059‑0.073)
0.082(0.074‑0.092)
0.096(0.086‑0.107)
0.115(0.103‑0.129)
0.131(0.116‑0.146)
0.147(0.129‑0.165)
0.163(0.142‑0.185)
0.186(0.160‑0.213)
0.205(0.173‑0.236)
2-day 0.031(0.028‑0.036)
0.040(0.035‑0.045)
0.051(0.045‑0.057)
0.060(0.053‑0.068)
0.073(0.064‑0.082)
0.083(0.072‑0.094)
0.094(0.081‑0.107)
0.105(0.090‑0.122)
0.121(0.101‑0.142)
0.134(0.110‑0.159)
3-day 0.023(0.021‑0.026)
0.029(0.026‑0.033)
0.038(0.033‑0.043)
0.045(0.039‑0.050)
0.054(0.048‑0.062)
0.063(0.054‑0.071)
0.071(0.061‑0.082)
0.080(0.068‑0.093)
0.094(0.078‑0.110)
0.104(0.085‑0.124)
4-day 0.019(0.017‑0.021)
0.024(0.021‑0.027)
0.031(0.028‑0.035)
0.037(0.033‑0.042)
0.045(0.040‑0.052)
0.052(0.046‑0.060)
0.060(0.052‑0.069)
0.068(0.058‑0.079)
0.080(0.066‑0.093)
0.089(0.073‑0.106)
7-day 0.013(0.011‑0.015)
0.016(0.014‑0.019)
0.021(0.019‑0.025)
0.026(0.022‑0.029)
0.031(0.027‑0.036)
0.036(0.031‑0.042)
0.041(0.035‑0.048)
0.047(0.039‑0.055)
0.054(0.045‑0.065)
0.061(0.049‑0.073)
10-day 0.010(0.009‑0.011)
0.013(0.011‑0.015)
0.017(0.015‑0.020)
0.020(0.018‑0.023)
0.025(0.022‑0.029)
0.028(0.025‑0.033)
0.032(0.028‑0.038)
0.036(0.031‑0.042)
0.042(0.035‑0.050)
0.046(0.038‑0.055)
20-day 0.006(0.006‑0.007)
0.008(0.007‑0.009)
0.011(0.009‑0.012)
0.013(0.011‑0.015)
0.015(0.013‑0.018)
0.018(0.015‑0.020)
0.020(0.017‑0.023)
0.022(0.019‑0.026)
0.025(0.021‑0.030)
0.027(0.023‑0.033)
30-day 0.005(0.004‑0.006)
0.006(0.006‑0.007)
0.008(0.007‑0.010)
0.010(0.009‑0.011)
0.012(0.011‑0.014)
0.014(0.012‑0.016)
0.015(0.013‑0.018)
0.017(0.015‑0.020)
0.019(0.016‑0.023)
0.021(0.018‑0.025)
45-day 0.004(0.004‑0.005)
0.005(0.005‑0.006)
0.007(0.006‑0.008)
0.008(0.007‑0.009)
0.010(0.008‑0.011)
0.011(0.009‑0.012)
0.012(0.010‑0.014)
0.013(0.011‑0.015)
0.015(0.013‑0.017)
0.016(0.013‑0.019)
60-day 0.003(0.003‑0.004)
0.004(0.004‑0.005)
0.006(0.005‑0.007)
0.007(0.006‑0.008)
0.008(0.007‑0.009)
0.009(0.008‑0.010)
0.010(0.009‑0.011)
0.011(0.009‑0.012)
0.012(0.010‑0.014)
0.013(0.011‑0.015)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for agiven duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are notchecked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.
Back to Top
PF graphical
2/8/2019 Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=39.5509&lon=-119.8502&data=intensity&units=english&series=pds 2/4
Back to Top
Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
2/8/2019 Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=39.5509&lon=-119.8502&data=intensity&units=english&series=pds 3/4
Large scale terrain
Large scale map
Large scale aerial
+–
3km
2mi
+–
100km
60mi
+–
100km
60mi
2/8/2019 Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=39.5509&lon=-119.8502&data=intensity&units=english&series=pds 4/4
Back to Top
US Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Weather Service National Water Center
1325 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910
Questions?: [email protected]
Disclaimer
+–
100km
60mi
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGIC DRAINAGE REPORT VILLAS II AT KEYSTONE CANYON TENTATIVE MAP
APPENDIX B-MASTER HYDROLOGY REPORT FOR KEYSTONE CANYON (Summit Engineering, September 2008
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGIC DRAINAGE REPORT VILLAS II AT KEYSTONE CANYON TENTATIVE MAP
APPENDIX C- STORMCAD RATIONAL METHOD PROPOSED CALCULATIONS - 5 YEAR
FlexTable: Catch Basin TableHydraulic
Grade Line(Out)(ft)
HydraulicGrade Line
(In)(ft)
Depth(Out)(ft)
Flow (Total Out)(cfs)
CarryoverFlow(cfs)
Flow (Local Surface)(cfs)
Label
4,949.444,949.440.350.710.000.71CB-14,961.164,961.160.340.670.000.67CB-24,949.714,949.710.290.500.000.50CB-34,961.394,961.390.380.810.000.81CB-44,950.384,950.380.441.110.001.11CB-54,932.094,932.090.240.330.000.33CB-64,950.214,950.210.150.140.000.14CB-74,924.534,924.530.250.360.000.36CB-84,936.124,936.120.270.430.000.43CB-94,922.324,922.320.310.540.000.54CB-10
Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 WWatertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
2/12/2019
Bentley StormCAD CONNECT Edition[10.01.00.70]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolutionCenterVillas II at Keyston Canyon.stsw
FlexTable: Catchment TableFlow (Total Out)
(cfs)Time of Concentration
(min)Runoff Coefficient
(Rational)Area
(acres)OutflowElement
Label
0.7110.000.6000.797CB-110.6710.000.6000.758CB-220.5010.000.6000.566CB-330.8110.000.6000.914CB-441.1110.000.6001.246CB-550.3310.000.6000.369CB-660.1410.000.6000.157CB-770.3610.000.6000.409CB-880.4310.000.6000.486CB-990.5410.000.6000.611CB-1010
Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 WWatertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
2/12/2019
Bentley StormCAD CONNECT Edition[10.01.00.70]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolutionCenterVillas II at Keyston Canyon.stsw
FlexTable: Manhole TableElevation (Rim)
(ft)Hydraulic Grade
Line (Out)(ft)
Hydraulic GradeLine (In)
(ft)
Depth (Out)(ft)
Flow (Total Out)(cfs)
Label
4,964.284,958.524,958.520.340.67MH-54,952.494,946.514,946.510.631.84MH-64,953.184,944.974,944.970.611.75MH-74,953.014,944.744,944.740.712.76MH-84,937.724,932.064,932.060.753.05MH-94,928.714,925.404,925.400.793.44MH-104,926.754,921.544,921.540.894.62MH-114,924.714,919.534,919.530.925.10MH-124,951.824,948.064,948.060.350.71MH-134,952.284,946.554,946.550.370.70MH-144,962.294,957.574,957.570.380.81MH-164,952.874,948.814,948.810.410.94MH-174,950.774,946.304,946.300.410.93MH-184,948.474,943.554,943.550.400.93MH-194,943.524,938.324,938.320.400.93MH-204,938.524,933.324,933.320.400.92MH-214,935.724,929.974,929.970.400.92MH-224,928.404,922.774,922.770.471.26MH-23
Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 WWatertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
2/12/2019
Bentley StormCAD CONNECT Edition[10.01.00.70]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolutionCenterVillas II at Keyston Canyon.stsw
Flex
Tab
le: C
ondu
it T
able
Flow
/ Ca
pacit
y(%
)Ca
pacit
y(c
fs)
Flow
(cfs
)Ve
locit
y(ft
/s)
Diam
eter
(in)
Slop
e(ft
/ft)
Leng
th(ft
)In
vert
(Sto
p)(ft
)In
vert
(Sta
rt)(ft
)Up
stre
amSt
ruct
ure
Labe
l
11.3
5.94
0.67
5.02
12.0
0.02
891
.34,
958.
284,
960.
82CB
-2Pi
pe-3
6.4
10.3
80.
677.
4312
.00.
085
143.
64,
945.
984,
958.
18M
H-5
Pipe
-473
.02.
521.
843.
5012
.00.
005
284.
34,
944.
464,
945.
88M
H-6
Pipe
-569
.62.
521.
753.
4712
.00.
005
46.4
4,94
4.13
4,94
4.36
MH-
7Pi
pe-6
18.7
14.7
22.
7614
.37
12.0
0.17
173
.94,
931.
414,
944.
03M
H-8
Pipe
-726
.311
.60
3.05
12.4
512
.00.
106
62.3
4,92
4.71
4,93
1.31
MH-
9Pi
pe-8
39.6
8.67
3.44
10.4
112
.00.
059
65.2
4,92
0.75
4,92
4.61
MH-
10Pi
pe-9
74.9
6.17
4.62
8.62
12.0
0.03
064
.64,
918.
714,
920.
65M
H-11
Pipe
-10
15.6
4.55
0.71
4.21
12.0
0.01
687
.74,
946.
284,
947.
71M
H-13
Pipe
-11
8.8
9.23
0.81
7.24
12.0
0.06
755
.44,
957.
294,
961.
01CB
-4Pi
pe-1
29.
68.
450.
816.
7912
.00.
056
154.
54,
948.
504,
957.
19M
H-16
Pipe
-13
9.5
9.81
0.94
7.88
12.0
0.07
631
.94,
945.
994,
948.
40M
H-17
Pipe
-14
9.5
9.81
0.93
7.87
12.0
0.07
634
.84,
943.
254,
945.
89M
H-18
Pipe
-15
10.1
9.19
0.93
7.51
12.0
0.06
777
.14,
938.
024,
943.
15M
H-19
Pipe
-16
10.4
8.92
0.93
7.34
12.0
0.06
378
.14,
933.
024,
937.
92M
H-20
Pipe
-17
9.1
10.0
60.
927.
9812
.00.
080
40.8
4,92
9.67
4,93
2.92
MH-
21Pi
pe-1
89.
59.
610.
927.
7212
.00.
073
98.5
4,92
2.40
4,92
9.57
MH-
22Pi
pe-1
91.
49.
740.
144.
4612
.00.
075
20.9
4,94
8.50
4,95
0.06
CB-7
Pipe
-20
2.9
12.6
20.
367.
0912
.00.
125
15.0
4,92
2.40
4,92
4.28
CB-8
Pipe
-21
4.9
11.0
40.
547.
2912
.00.
096
34.4
4,91
8.71
4,92
2.01
CB-1
0Pi
pe-2
22.
319
.13
0.43
10.0
012
.00.
288
38.6
4,92
4.71
4,93
5.85
CB-9
Pipe
-23
9.2
3.56
0.33
2.83
12.0
0.01
043
.94,
931.
414,
931.
85CB
-6Pi
pe-2
49.
611
.54
1.11
9.28
12.0
0.10
555
.44,
944.
134,
949.
94CB
-5Pi
pe-2
53.
912
.87
0.50
7.94
12.0
0.13
126
.34,
945.
984,
949.
42CB
-3Pi
pe-2
65.
812
.22
0.71
8.47
12.0
0.11
810
.94,
947.
814,
949.
09CB
-1Pi
pe-2
727
.82.
520.
702.
7412
.00.
005
60.0
4,94
5.88
4,94
6.18
MH-
14Pi
pe-2
850
.710
.06
5.10
12.8
512
.00.
080
38.8
4,91
5.51
4,91
8.61
MH-
12Pi
pe-2
917
.87.
061.
266.
8012
.00.
039
39.4
4,92
0.75
4,92
2.30
MH-
23Pi
pe-3
0
Page
1 o
f 127
Sie
mon
Com
pany
Driv
e Su
ite 2
00 W
Wat
erto
wn,
CT
0679
5 U
SA+1
-203
-755
-166
62/
12/2
019
Bent
ley
Stor
mC
AD C
ON
NEC
T Ed
ition
[10.
01.0
0.70
]Be
ntle
y Sy
stem
s, In
c. H
aest
ad M
etho
ds S
olut
ion
Cen
ter
Villa
s II
at K
eyst
on C
anyo
n.st
sw
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGIC DRAINAGE REPORT VILLAS II AT KEYSTONE CANYON TENTATIVE MAP
APPENDIX D- STORMCAD RATIONAL METHOD PROPOSED CALCULATIONS - 100 YEAR
FlexTable: Catch Basin TableHydraulic
Grade Line(Out)(ft)
HydraulicGrade Line
(In)(ft)
Depth(Out)(ft)
Flow (Total Out)(cfs)
CarryoverFlow(cfs)
Flow (Local Surface)(cfs)
Label
4,952.094,952.093.002.060.002.06CB-14,961.424,961.420.601.960.001.96CB-24,952.424,952.423.001.460.001.46CB-34,961.674,961.670.662.360.002.36CB-44,950.714,950.710.773.220.003.22CB-54,934.854,934.853.000.950.000.95CB-64,950.324,950.320.260.410.000.41CB-74,929.284,929.285.001.060.001.06CB-84,938.204,938.202.351.250.001.25CB-94,923.514,923.511.501.580.001.58CB-10
Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 WWatertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
2/12/2019
Bentley StormCAD CONNECT Edition[10.01.00.70]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolutionCenterVillas II at Keyston Canyon.stsw
FlexTable: Catchment TableFlow (Total Out)
(cfs)Time of Concentration
(min)Runoff Coefficient
(Rational)Area
(acres)OutflowElement
Label
2.0610.000.7000.797CB-111.9610.000.7000.758CB-221.4610.000.7000.566CB-332.3610.000.7000.914CB-443.2210.000.7001.246CB-550.9510.000.7000.369CB-660.4110.000.7000.157CB-771.0610.000.7000.409CB-881.2510.000.7000.486CB-991.5810.000.7000.611CB-1010
Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 WWatertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
2/12/2019
Bentley StormCAD CONNECT Edition[10.01.00.70]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolutionCenterVillas II at Keyston Canyon.stsw
FlexTable: Manhole TableElevation (Rim)
(ft)Hydraulic Grade
Line (Out)(ft)
Hydraulic GradeLine (In)
(ft)
Depth (Out)(ft)
Flow (Total Out)(cfs)
Label
4,964.284,958.774,958.770.591.94MH-54,952.494,953.204,953.207.325.28MH-64,953.184,946.954,946.952.595.15MH-74,953.014,945.984,945.981.958.14MH-84,937.724,942.124,942.1210.818.99MH-94,928.714,938.164,938.1613.5510.12MH-104,926.754,932.904,932.9012.2513.63MH-114,924.714,923.454,923.454.8415.05MH-124,951.824,953.684,953.685.972.05MH-134,952.284,953.394,953.397.212.01MH-144,962.294,957.854,957.850.662.35MH-164,952.874,949.114,949.110.712.73MH-174,950.774,946.604,946.600.712.73MH-184,948.474,943.864,943.860.712.72MH-194,943.524,938.634,938.630.712.71MH-204,938.524,934.094,934.091.172.70MH-214,935.724,933.864,933.864.292.68MH-224,928.404,933.314,933.3111.013.63MH-23
Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 WWatertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
2/12/2019
Bentley StormCAD CONNECT Edition[10.01.00.70]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolutionCenterVillas II at Keyston Canyon.stsw
Flex
Tab
le: C
ondu
it T
able
Flow
/ Ca
pacit
y(%
)Ca
pacit
y(c
fs)
Flow
(cfs
)Ve
locit
y(ft
/s)
Diam
eter
(in)
Slop
e(ft
/ft)
Leng
th(ft
)In
vert
(Sto
p)(ft
)In
vert
(Sta
rt)(ft
)Up
stre
amSt
ruct
ure
Labe
l
33.0
5.94
1.96
6.78
12.0
0.02
891
.34,
958.
284,
960.
82CB
-2Pi
pe-3
18.7
10.3
81.
9410
.13
12.0
0.08
514
3.6
4,94
5.98
4,95
8.18
MH-
5Pi
pe-4
209.
72.
525.
286.
7312
.00.
005
284.
34,
944.
464,
945.
88M
H-6
Pipe
-520
4.4
2.52
5.15
6.56
12.0
0.00
546
.44,
944.
134,
944.
36M
H-7
Pipe
-655
.314
.72
8.14
10.3
612
.00.
171
73.9
4,93
1.41
4,94
4.03
MH-
8Pi
pe-7
77.5
11.6
08.
9911
.44
12.0
0.10
662
.34,
924.
714,
931.
31M
H-9
Pipe
-811
6.8
8.67
10.1
212
.89
12.0
0.05
965
.24,
920.
754,
924.
61M
H-10
Pipe
-922
0.7
6.17
13.6
317
.35
12.0
0.03
064
.64,
918.
714,
920.
65M
H-11
Pipe
-10
45.1
4.55
2.05
2.61
12.0
0.01
687
.74,
946.
284,
947.
71M
H-13
Pipe
-11
25.6
9.23
2.36
9.83
12.0
0.06
755
.44,
957.
294,
961.
01CB
-4Pi
pe-1
227
.88.
452.
359.
2112
.00.
056
154.
54,
948.
504,
957.
19M
H-16
Pipe
-13
27.8
9.81
2.73
10.6
912
.00.
076
31.9
4,94
5.99
4,94
8.40
MH-
17Pi
pe-1
427
.89.
812.
7310
.69
12.0
0.07
634
.84,
943.
254,
945.
89M
H-18
Pipe
-15
29.6
9.19
2.72
10.1
912
.00.
067
77.1
4,93
8.02
4,94
3.15
MH-
19Pi
pe-1
630
.48.
922.
719.
9612
.00.
063
78.1
4,93
3.02
4,93
7.92
MH-
20Pi
pe-1
726
.810
.06
2.70
3.43
12.0
0.08
040
.84,
929.
674,
932.
92M
H-21
Pipe
-18
27.8
9.61
2.68
3.41
12.0
0.07
398
.54,
922.
404,
929.
57M
H-22
Pipe
-19
4.2
9.74
0.41
6.11
12.0
0.07
520
.94,
948.
504,
950.
06CB
-7Pi
pe-2
08.
412
.62
1.06
1.34
12.0
0.12
515
.04,
922.
404,
924.
28CB
-8Pi
pe-2
114
.311
.04
1.58
2.01
12.0
0.09
634
.44,
918.
714,
922.
01CB
-10
Pipe
-22
6.6
19.1
31.
251.
6012
.00.
288
38.6
4,92
4.71
4,93
5.85
CB-9
Pipe
-23
26.7
3.56
0.95
1.21
12.0
0.01
043
.94,
931.
414,
931.
85CB
-6Pi
pe-2
427
.911
.54
3.22
12.5
912
.00.
105
55.4
4,94
4.13
4,94
9.94
CB-5
Pipe
-25
11.4
12.8
71.
461.
8612
.00.
131
26.3
4,94
5.98
4,94
9.42
CB-3
Pipe
-26
16.8
12.2
22.
062.
6212
.00.
118
10.9
4,94
7.81
4,94
9.09
CB-1
Pipe
-27
79.9
2.52
2.01
2.56
12.0
0.00
560
.04,
945.
884,
946.
18M
H-14
Pipe
-28
149.
610
.06
15.0
519
.16
12.0
0.08
038
.84,
915.
514,
918.
61M
H-12
Pipe
-29
51.4
7.06
3.63
4.63
12.0
0.03
939
.44,
920.
754,
922.
30M
H-23
Pipe
-30
Page
1 o
f 127
Sie
mon
Com
pany
Driv
e Su
ite 2
00 W
Wat
erto
wn,
CT
0679
5 U
SA+1
-203
-755
-166
62/
12/2
019
Bent
ley
Stor
mC
AD C
ON
NEC
T Ed
ition
[10.
01.0
0.70
]Be
ntle
y Sy
stem
s, In
c. H
aest
ad M
etho
ds S
olut
ion
Cen
ter
Villa
s II
at K
eyst
on C
anyo
n.st
sw