HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 9833-3 Lot 17 Geotechnical Feasibility
CorRoration
1J? 9%33-3
.~iIE"9i","li"9,"dCO~i[~9i~i"gG~~O~~T:~
-Inspections- ConstruclionMalerialsTesting- LaboratoryTeslinge Percolation Tesling
_Geology.WalerResourceSludies . Phasel& II Environmenla\SileAssessmenls
I: ,\'1 _/~
~
1 ,'.>: JW;',c~_GEN
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
1
1
1
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Pulsipher Residence
Assessor's Parcel Number: 945-160-005
Lot 17, Calle de Velardo
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2762-GFS
February 27, 2003
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
Prepared for:
I
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
43551 Elinda Road
Temecula, California 92592
//-\
~ I
"'.~ j
I
~-- \ r\
/..;1 .e ~.._,.' "j ,
~I~/ '"_"'~~_ '
I:
,
I
/
,/
/'
/
~
,-
\ "/ .... ~ ~ I _' "/..... , / " / / J _.... _ L / / .... /, I _' ~ /", ,I " _
!/\-_.. I__~---\ ....~I,..\-_-\,'.-,~\- \...-"~ -',---\/'/
.'- ,,- ,- /,-- '- -',-" "-,, /,,-
/ \ ~ / \ / ~ '. - /, \ -,:: '_ \ ';~"-''::--:----lr~''':''~
" / __ i -' __ I " -- I ~"/ -- I " - .. - >../
, / 1 I ~,I, I I 1 I ~ I _.....4", .-'--::'---~-~If';::""--'--)' 11
----'""....---r' ' J ..........--If . , . r~ n_ . .. !1 . ,II . I!
~__ Co;~ ~!Te gf.8~Jt;07 E ~erprls~E*i;'~ rt ~Suite_l,_Temecula;cC'k92590"'Phone;'LWlL~223tLd~:j9!l9)296'2231-=., -----
---?R~NGE COUNTY 0 I:~~~:O~;~ :F;p~;: ~~~~~~[~~~~e,:;:,~;e~~~~~~:::-::~1~f~X~_I~~~,546-:052~,_, __
. ~~". ......
/ .... -- ~ '
-, ,
I / \ _. _ _ \ /'
; ,
/ \- -- \
- ,"-
........
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title
Pa~e
1,0
SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....... ,.,.....,..,..',
1,1 Site Description ..... ........,.... .........,......
1,2 Project Description, ..,...................
""""",." "..' 1
"""""",.".,...,1
,..,...2
2,0 FINDINGS........ ....,..,............,...... .... ..2
2,1 Site Review.., ...2
2,2 Laboratory Testing...,. ,..,......... ....,..,.., ..,..,.... .... 2
2.2,1 GeneraL....,... ...............,................. .........,.. ""....,.. ,.. ..,....2
2.2,2 Classification ....,....,.........,.. ,.."......... ..,..,..,....,....,.. ..,..,...."..,.3
2,2.3 In-Situ Moisture Content and Density Test. ...."..,....,....3
2.2.4 Expansion PotentiaL..,.,.....,........,...,..,............ ,..,........,.....,..... ..3
2.2,5 Remolded Direct Shear TesL,.....,.., .........,..,.. ,..,..,..... ...."..,....,3
2.2,6 Soluble Sulfates....,..., ............ ,..,......,.....,... ..,4
2,3 Excavation Characteristics ..,........,... ....,,4
30 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY .................... ..,,4
31 Geologic Setting ..,..,.., .... ,.....,....., ,..,..,.. ,....,....,..,........ ..,4
3,2 Seismic Hazards,..........,.....,........,.....,.... ..,...........', ....,............... ....,4
3,2.1 Surface Fault Rupture ...........,..........".... .....,............,..... ...........,.5
3,2.2 Liquefaction ...........,.............,........... ..,......,.., ..,..".....,.....,.... ,..,.......,..5
3,2,3 Seismically-Induced Landsliding....,..,..... ,......,......,.... "..........,..,..,........5
3,2.4 Seismically-Induced Flooding, Seiches and Tsunamis,........................., 6
3,3 Earth Materials ....,..,.., ,.. ,....,.................." ,.....,......, ......, ......,.....".....,................,..,6
3.31 Undocumented Fill (Afu),.........,.............,.. ............,....... ...........,......6
3,3.2 Road Fill by Others (Afo) ........,.....,.......,......,.............,........,.................,6
3,3.3 Alluvium (Qal). .,..,....,...., ........... ...,.... ,.......... ,.. ,.........,....', ,.... ......,..... .....' 6
3,3.4 Pauba Formation (Qps)............,....... ........,........ .......,..,..,..........,..,.......6
4.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS..............,...... ............. ....,.............,........7
4,1 All Areas ...........,........,....,........,...........,....,....,.. ................,. ,...............,......,........ 7
4.2 Oversize MateriaL....,..,... ,.. ,.., .......,......, ........,...." ...' ,.., ,.................,.....,....., .........,8
4,3 Structural Fill....."..,..,...."............"....,..,...".."....,... ....,.....,.. ,..,..,.......,..,...,.......8
50
SLOPE STABILITY - GENERAL..,........................... ...........
51 Fill Slopes ......,............................,....,.........,....,......
5.2 Cut Slopes...., ,.......... .....,....,......,.., ...............'
,.,..........,.....,..,....,....9
............' .....,.......,9
..,.................9
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....,............ ............... ".....9
6,1 Foundation Design Recommendations .................. ",..,..,........,. ,.,.... 9
6,1,1 Foundation Size,.................,..,........,..,..,.......................,..,.....,.....,.....10
6,1,2 Depth of Embedment ,............. ..,............,..', ,..,.....,..10
6,1,3 Bearing Capacity..,......................,.., ..,...,..,..,....,..,.. ......,....,.. 1 0
6,1.4 Settlement ..............,.... ..,.......,.....,.. ....,.....' ........ ........10
6,2 Lateral Capacity,....,......,......,.......,....,........, .........,......, ",..,..,..,.. ........,.....,....10
6,3 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations..,.................... ........, 11
6.4 Exterior Slabs ................................,................,.....,..., "........,..', ,..,..,....,.. .."..11
EnGEN Corporation \
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
Allen Pulsipher, ODS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Number and Title
Paqe
7.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS ,..,....,....,.... ",....,..12
7,1 Earth Pressures..,.........,..,..,...,..,. ..,..,........, ,...."....,...,....,.. 12
7,2 Retaining Wall Design .."..,.."..........,. ........, ,..."..,..,.,..,..12
7,3 Subdrain ....... ...............,.."......,....,....,..12
7.4 Backfill..,..,.. .,..,..,............ ..,.....,..,.. ..,...., ,....".."..13
8.0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS ,.... ......,....,..,13
8,1 Utility Trench Recommendations ......,..,..,...... ..,..,.........."..,....."..,..,. .13
8.2 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations .."..,.....,.. .."""""" ....,. ..,......14
8.3 Planter Recommendations.. ,..,........... ,..,....,......,'.,..,,'...., 14
8.4 Supplemental Construction Observations and Testing ......,'.. ,..".....14
85 Plan Review..,........,..,..,..,.....,.........., ,..,....""..,.....,..,15
8,6 Pre-Bid Conference, .."....,...,..,... ..........,.....,....".......15
87 Pre-Grading Conference ....,........,.... ..".. ..,......... ....., ' ,....,......... ,..,15
90
CLOSURE ,........................, ,..........,. ..........,.,
,..""..,15
APPENDIX:
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
z.
I ~. " '1"" _/
~GEN
I' ", - .. ,..'" ....CillJW., ,Ii!
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1;;:__\ /'-\
rv.-=.~",.;:- \
rl)'\'"
~- "
~\.
:;1
J~I
---...
CorRoration
. Soil Engineering and Consulting Services- EngineeringGeology. Compaction Tesling
_lnspeclions.ConslruclionMaterialsTeslinll.LaboratoryTesling.PercolalionTesling
. Geology. Waler Resource Sludies . Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessmenls
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
February 27, 2003
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
43551 Elinda Road
Temecula, California 92592
(909) 600-7457 I FAX (909) 600-2931
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Pulsipher Residence
Assessor's Parcel Number: 945-160-005
Lot 17, Calle de Velardo
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2762-GFS
Reference:
1,
Bogh Construction, Site Plan, 1" = 40', plan undated.
Dear Dr, Pulsipher:
In accordance with your request and signed authorization, a representative of this firm has visited
the subject site on February 17, 2003, to visually observe the surficial conditions of the subject lot
and to collect samples of representative surficial site materials. Laboratory testing was performed
on these samples, Test results and preliminary foundation recommendations for the construction
and grading of the proposed development are provided, It is our understanding that cut and fill
type grading will take place for the proposed structural development Footings are planned to be
excavated into bedrock or compacted fill. Grading for hardscape improvements will accompany
the structural development and have included appropriate recommendations. Based on this firm's
experience with this type of project, our understanding of the regional geologic conditions
surrounding the site, and our review of in-house maps, published and unpublished reports, deeper
subsurface exploration was not considered necessary, However, in lieu of subl'urface
exploration, additional grading beyond that anticipated in this report may be necessary depending
on exposed conditions encountered during grading,
1.0
SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1
Site Description: The subject site is comprised of approximately 3,5-acres with vertical
relief of approximately 50-feet. Drainage is to the south through two drainages
separated by one of two ridges on-site at gradients of approximately 5 to 25 percent.
Access to the site,is/from'Calle de Velardo, No structures are located on the site,
" 1
'-~-'., ~l
-
/
//
"
/ '- ",. / _.... '/.... ~ ~ I ._' '/" I' ~ / " ~ '" _ " / F I _' _ ' "/ '- ,.,. I _..... _ /..... I -.. _ '/
"\___\~ I/\___\./ ',,____\ I~\_~_\ \___\.--"'F\___\/"~I~\___\/"i,
"- ',-" .-" - /,,- " """ ~
\ \ \ '\ -/1- \ \ / \ ~\ - - \ /\ -/1-/ -" - ~...:..~-_..::.-=--.;.....::~~::...:::--:-.
" __ I / __ I / --- I ~ -- I ,,' ~ .r ~____),. .::-~ :J J{ .
I I I ", I / ,I -I : \ I ~_.I < ~ ~..... ~';="-""'-]I II II
_ . ..J, '..--l.~- .If H Jl' U . ll,;
-~_E~ _,,~l!- O-W<os&,607 E ~rpris~~I;'oN rt "~Wte~1..Temeculll;-Cil"92590'!PhQne;,(~~ft23lb1f,,,,;.J~991,296'2231=0~='~:
ORANGE CO~NTY 0 I E_2'615,Or~nge A e u~,_Sanla ~na, CA~2707_,,,~hQne'-'!.~~_~46-,j051 . fax: (714) 546-4052 .3
B SITE.. ~.en e corp.come E,..MA1.L.engencorp@engencorp-:com7: ~.. 1. " - (,.' ,
--,-
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
Allen Pulsipher, DOS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
February 2003
Page 2
1,2 Proiect Description: No grading plans were completed at the time of this report
When they become available, they should be reviewed by this firm so that additional
recommendations can be made, if necessary, Based on our conversations with you and
reviews of the conceptual development plans, the proposed development will consist of
a one to two-story, single family wood-framed home with garage and a secondary
detached garage with slab-on-grade foundations, It is assumed that the site will have a
cut/fill transition, The remainder of the developed area will consist of a pool and
hardscape and landscape improvements, The developed area will be in the eastern
portion of the site. We are providing general grading and minimum footing
recommendations for the proposed structures. Any changes to the planned
development should be reviewed by this office so that additional recommendations can
be made, if necessary,
2.0 FINDINGS
2,1 Site Review: Based on our site visit, it appears that undocumented fill, road fills,
alluvium, and Pauba Formation bedrock underlie the site, Alluvium occupies the low-
lying portions in the eastern and western drainages, Pauba Formation bedrock is
exposed on the ridges in the eastern and western portions, Undocumented fills are
located at the northeast corner of the site and on the eastern ridge, Road fills are
located along the existing Calle de Velardo, Since no deeper subsurface exploration
was performed for this investigation, the thickness and condition of the existing fills and
the alluvium is unknown, The western portion of the site is located within a State
desi9nated Alquist-Priolo (AP) Zone, No faulting was observed during our site
reconnaissance,
2,2 Laboratorv Testin~
2,2,1 General: The results of laboratory tests performed on samples of earth material obtained
during the site visit are presented in the Appendix, Following is a listing and brief
explanation of the laboratory tests performed. The samples obtained during the field study
will be discarded 30 days after the date of this report, This office should be notified
immediately if retention of samples will be needed beyond 30 days,
EnGEN Corporation
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
February 2003
Page 3
2,2,2 Classification: The field classification of soil materials encountered during our site visit
were verified in the laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soils Classification
System, ASTM D 2488-93, Standard Practice for Determination and Identification of Soils
(Visual-Manual Procedures), The final classification is shown in the Moisture Density Test
Report presented in the Appendix.
2,2,3 In-Situ Moisture Content and Density Test: The in-situ moisture content and dry
density were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2216-98 and ASTM D
2937-94 procedures, respectively, for each selected undisturbed sample obtained, The
dry density is determined in pounds per cubic foot and the moisture content is determined
as a percentage of the oven dry weight of the soil. Test results are shown in the
Exploratory Boring Log Summaries presented in the Appendix.
2.2.4 Expansion Potential: Preliminary Expansion Index testing was performed, yielding an
Expansion Index (EI) of 62. This is classified as a medium expansion potential. Import
soils or soils used near finish grade may have a different EI. At the conclusion of grading,
our firm should perform sampling and Expansion Index testing of the soils at final pad
grade as well as at footing grade. Those results should be forwarded and incorporated
into the final foundation design by the Project Structural Engineer. The Project Structural
Engineer should determine the actual footing width and depth to resist design, vertical,
horizontal, and uplift forces based on the final Expansion Index test results. The
recommendations for concrete slab-on-grade reinforcement and thickness, both interior
and exterior, excluding PCC pavement, should be provided by the Project Structural
Engineer based upon the information provided at the conclusion of grading, and
considering the expansion potential for the supporting material as determined by Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code,
2,2,5 Remolded Direct Shear Test: Direct shear tests were performed on selected samples of
near-surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 3080-98 procedures, The
shear machine is of the constant strain type, The shear machine is designed to receive a
1 ,Q-inch high, 2.416-inch diameter ring sample, Specimens from the sample were sheared
at various pressures normal to the face of the specimens, The specimens were tested in
a submerged condition. The maximum shear ,stresses were plotted versus the normal
confining stresses to determine the shear strength (cohesion and angle of internal friction),
EnGEN Corporation s-
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
I
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
February 2003
Page 4
2,2,6 Soluble Sulfates: Based on our visual inspection of the site and of the samples collected
during our site visit, the proximity of bedrock to the surface, our experience with this type
of project, and test results from similar sites in the immediate vicinity, testing for the
presence of soluble sulfates was not performed, In our opinion, the near-surface soils do
not contain excessive amounts of soluble sulfates As a result, normal Type II cement
may be used for all concrete in contact with native soils at the site,
2,3 Excavation Characteristics: Excavation and trenching within the alluvium is anticipated
to be relatively easy, Excavation and trenching in the bedrock will be more difficult due to
the higher bedrock densities typically encountered in the area, A rippability survey was not
within the scope of our investigation, Based on our experience on similar projects near the
subject site, the bedrock is expected to be rippable with conventional grading equipment.
30 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY
3,1 GeoloClic Settin!!: The site is located in the Northern Peninsular Range on the southern
sector of the structural unit known as the Perris Block, The Perris Block is bounded on the
northeast by the San Jacinto Fault Zone, on the southwest by the Elsinore Fault Zone, and
on the north by the Cucamonga Fault Zone. The southern boundary of the Perris Block is
not as distinct, but is believed to coincide with a complex group of faults trending southeast
from the Murrieta, California area (Kennedy, 1977 and Mann, 1955), The Peninsular
Range is characterized by large Mesozoic age intrusive rock masses flanked by volcanic,
metasedimentary, and sedimentary rocks. Various thicknesses of colluvial/alluvial
sediments derived from the erosion of the elevated portions of the region fill the low-lying
areas, The earth materials encountered on the subject site are described in more detail in
subsequent section of this report,
32 Seismic Hazards: Because the proposed development is located in tectonically active
southern California, it will likely experience some effects from earthquakes, The type or
severity of seismic hazards affecting the site is mainly dependent upon the distance to the
causative fault, the intensity of the seismic event, and the soil characteristics, The seismic
hazard may be primary, such as surface rupture and/or ground shaking, or secondary,
such as liquefaction or dynamic settlement. The following is a site-specific discussion
about ground motion parameters, earthquake induced settlement hazards, and
EnGEN Corporation "
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
February 2003
Page 5
liquefaction, The purpose of this analysis is to identify potential seismic hazards and
proposed mitigations, if necessary, to an acceptable level of risk,
The following seismic hazards discussion is guided by UBe (1997), CBC (1998), CDMG
(1997) and Petersen and others (1996),
3,2,1 Surface Fault Rupture: The nearest State designated active fault is the Elsinore Fault
(Temecula Segment), located approximately 350-feet (0,11 kilometers) southwest of the
southwest corner of the subject site, This conclusion is based on literature review
(references) and EnGEN Corporation's site visit and prior subsurface investigation in the
vicinity of the site,
The western approximately 200-feet to 350-feet (see Plate 1) of the site lies within a State
Designated Alquist-Priolo (AP) Special Studies Zone. No subsurface investigations inside
the AP Zone have been performed as a part of this study, No structures for human
occupancy should be constructed in this zone without a subsurface study of the area in
order to determine the presence of active faulting, If active faulting is encountered, then a
structural setback should be established from the fault
The eastern approximately 250-feet to 425-feet (see Plate 1) of the site lies outside of the
AP Zone, No special studies are considered necessary for this area, as the potential for
fault rupture is considered low, All of the conceptual plans for development of the site to
date have involved development in the eastern 250-feet to 450-feet of the site only, The
findings, conclusions and recommendations herein are based in development. in the
eastern portion of the site, outside of the AP Zone.
The following seismic parameters apply:
Type of Fault: Type B Fault
Closest Distance to Known Fault: Less than 2 Km
Soil Profile Type: So
3.2.2 Liauefaction: Based on the densities typically encountered in the underlying material
(bedrock), the potential for hazards associated with liquefaction is considered low,
3,2.3 Seismicallv-Induced Landslidina: Due to the overall favorable geologic conditions of
the site, the probability of seismically induced landsliding is considered low,
EnGEN Corporation 4- 1
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
February 2003
Page 6
3,2.4 Seismically-Induced FloodinQ, Seiches and Tsunamis: Due to the absence of a
confined body of water in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the possibility of
seismically induced flooding or seiches is considered nil. Due to the large distance of the
project site to the Pacific Ocean, the possibility for seismically induced tsunamis to impact
the site is considered nil.
33 Earth Materials
3,3,1 Undocumented Fill (Atu): A minor amount (approximately 1 to 2-feet thick) of
undocumented fill is located on the eastern ridge, as well as at the southeast corner of the
site. More extensive undocumented fill is located at the northeast corner of the site,
During previous work in the vicinity of the site, a 1 to 3-foot deep erosion gully had been
observed along Calle de Velardo in the vicinity of the northeast corner of the site as well as
in the adjoining property to the north, The adjoining property has since been graded, with
the gully having been filled, The gully in the area of the northeast corner of the site was
filled and the grades raised to meet existing street grade, The approximately thickness of
undocumented fill in this area may be approximately 3 to 6-feet, however, the exact
thickness is unknown, The undocumented fills consist of brown to gray silty fine-grained
sand to sandy silt, and were found to be moist and loose in-place,
3.3.2 Road Fill by Others (Ato): Existing fill is located along Calle de Velardo. The thickness
and condition of this fill is unknown
3.3,3 Alluvium (Qal\: Alluvium exists in the drainages on the eastern and western sides of the
site, The alluvium consists of tan to brown sand to silty fine-grained sand and was found
to be moist and loose to medium dense in-place. Since no deeper subsurface exploration
was performed for this investigation, the condition of the alluvium is unknown. The
alluvium is interpreted to be approximately 3 to 4-feet thick in the eastern portion of the
site, and approximately 5 to 6-feet thick in the western portion of the site,
3,3.4 Pauba Formation (Qps): Pauba Formation bedrock is exposed on the ridges in the
eastern and western portions of the site, A thin mantle of slope wash, not shown on the
site plan, approximately 1-foot thick or less, overlies the bedrock on the sides of the
slopes, The Pauba Formation is generally massive with near horizontal bedding, On-site
the Pauba Formation consists of olive gray sandy silt and was found to be moist and
medium dense to dense in-place,
EnGEN Corporation g
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
4,0
4.1
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
February 2003
Page 7
EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
All Areas:
1, All vegetation should be removed from areas to be graded and not used in fills,
2. All man-made materials and oversize rocks should be removed from the site and
not used in fills,
3, All undocumented fill must be removed from proposed cut or fill areas, The depth
of undocumented fill is unknown, but is thought to be up to 1 to 2-feet on the
eastern ridge and southeastern corner of the site, and 3 to 6-feet at the
northeastern corner of the site. After the undocumented fill has been removed,
alluvial and weathered bedrock removals should proceed as in NO.4 below
4. All unsuitable alluvium and weathered bedrock should be removed to competent
bedrock in the proposed fill, structural and hardscape areas, cleared of any debris,
and may then be placed as engineered fill. Based on our experience in this area of
southwest Riverside County, depths of removals are anticipated to be
approximately 3 to 4-feet in the eastern alluvial areas, and 1 to 2-feet in the
weathered bedrock areas, Deeper removals may be required depending upon
exposed conditions encountered,
5. All exposed removal and overexcavation bottoms should be inspected by the
Geotechnical Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist's representative prior to
placement of any fill. Bedrock bottoms should be probed to verify competency,
6. The approved exposed bottoms of all removal areas should be scarified 12-inches,
brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90
percent relative compaction before placement of fill, Maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content for compacted materials should be determined
according to ASTM D 1557-91 (1998) procedures,
7, It is assumed that a cut/fill transition will exist on the site, Structures must not
straddle the cut/fill transition without the following remedial earthwork, The cut and
shallow fill portions of the structure areas should be overexcavated, The depth of
overexcavation should be one-half of the depth of the deepest fill below proposed
grade with a minimum of 3-feet. The horizontal extent of the overexcavation
EnGEN Corporation
q
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
4.2
4,3
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
February 2003
Page 8
should extend outside of the perimeter footings to a distance equal to the
overexcavation depth with a minimum of 5-feet However, deeper removals may
be necessary depending on the exposed conditions encountered during grading,
8, A keyway excavated into competent bedrock should be constructed at the toe of all
fill slopes that are proposed on natural grades of 5: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or
steeper. Keyways should be a minimum of 15-feet wide (equipment width) and
tilted a minimum of 2 percent into the hillside, A series of level benches should be
constructed into competent bedrock on natural grades of 5: 1 (horizontal to vertical)
or steeper prior to placing fill.
9, All fill slopes should be constructed at slope ratios no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal
to vertical).
10, All cut slopes should be inspected by the Project Geologist to verify stability, Cut
slopes exposing significant amounts of alluvium or slope wash may be unstable.
Unstable cut slopes may require flattening or buttressing,
Oversize Material: Oversize material is defined as rock, or other irreducible material with
a maximum dimension greater than 12-inches, Oversize material shall not be buried or
placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted
by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of
oversize material does not occur, and such that oversize material is completely
surrounded by compacted fill (windrow). Alternative methods, such as water jetting or
wheel rolling with a backhoe may be required to achieve compaction in the fill materials
immediately adjacent to the windrow, Oversize material shall not be placed within ten (10)
vertical feet of finish grade, within fifteen (15) lateral feet of a finished slope face, or within
two (2) feet of future utilities
Structural Fill: All fill material, whether on-site material or import, should be accepted by
the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative before placement All fill
should be free from vegetation, organic material, and other debris. Import fill should be no
more expansive than the existing on-site material, unless approved by the Project
Geotechnical Engineer. Approved fill material should be placed in horizontal lifts not
exceeding 6.0 to 8.0-inches in thickness, and watered or aerated to obtain near-optimum
moisture content (within 20 percent of optimum), Each lift should be spread evenly and
EnGEN Corporation
10
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
50
51
5,2
60
6,1
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
February 2003
Page 9
should be thoroughly mixed to ensure uniformity of soil moisture, Structural fill should
meet a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of maximum dry density based upon
ASTM D 1557-91 (1998) procedures, Moisture content of fill materials should not vary
more than 2,0 percent of optimum, unless approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer
SLOPE STABILITY - GENERAL
Fill Slopes: It is our opinion that properly constructed fill slopes less than 30-feet tall and
flatter than 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical), will possess gross and surficial stability in excess of
generally accepted minimum engineering criteria (Factor of Safety at least 1,5) and are
suitable for their intended purpose, provided that proper slope maintenance procedures
are maintained. These procedures include but are not limited to installation and
maintenance of drainage devices and planting of slope faces to protect from erosion in
accordance with County of Riverside Grading Codes.
Cut Slopes: All cut slopes should be constructed at a slope ratio of approximately 2: 1
(horizontal to vertical) or flatter The cut slopes should be surficially inspected by the
Project Geologist No adversely oriented joirtts or planes of weakness should be observed
during our inspection, It is our opinion that properly constructed and inspected cut slopes,
less than 3D-feet tall and flatter than 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical), will possess gross and
surficial stability in excess of generally accepted minimum engineering criteria (Factor of
Safety at least 1.5) and are suitable for their intended purpose,
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundation Desion Recommendations: Foundations for the proposed structures may
consist of conventional column footings and continuous wall footings founded in properly
compacted fill. The recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for
foundation design and construction are based on geotechnical characteristics and upon
an assumed medium expansion potential for the supporting soils and should not
preclude more restrictive structural requirements. The Structural Engineer for the
project should determine the actual footing width and depth in accordance with the latest
edition of the Uniform Building Code to resist design vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces
and should either verify or amend the design based on final expansion testing at the
completion of grading,
EnGEN Corporation \l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
Alien Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
February 2003
Page 10
6.1,1 Foundation Size: Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches
Continuous footings should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of two (2) No. 4
steel reinforcing bars located near the top and two (2) No, 4 steel reinforcing bars located
near the bottom of the footings to minimize the effects of slight differential movements
which may occur due to minor variations in the engineering characteristics or seasonal
moisture change in the supporting soils. Column footings should have a minimum width of
18-inches by 18-inches and be suitably reinforced, based on structural requirements, A
grade beam, founded at the same depths and reinforced the same as the adjacent
footings, should be provided across doorway and garage entrances,
6,1,2 Depth of Embedment: Exterior and interior footings founded in bedrock or properly
compacted fill should extend to a minimum depth of 18-inches below lowest adjacent
finish grade,
61,3 Bearinq Capacity: Provided the recommendations for site earth work, minimum footing
width, and minimum depth of embedment for footings are incorporated into the project
design and construction, the allowable bearing value for design of continuous and
column footings for the total dead plus frequently-applied live loads is 1,500 psf for
footings in properly compacted fill. The allowable bearing value has a Factor of Safety
of at least 3,0 and may be increased by 33,3 percent for short durations of live and/or
dynamic loading such as wind or seismic forces,
6.1.4 Settlement: Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values and the
maximum assumed wall and column loads are not expected to exceed a maximum
settlement of 0.75-inch or a differential settlement of O,50-inch in bedrock or properly
compacted fill under static load conditions.
6,2 Lateral Capacity: Additional foundation design parameters based on bedrock or
compacted fill for resistance to static lateral forces, are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Compacted Fill - 250 pet
Bedrock - 400 pet
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
Compacted Fill or Bedrock - 0.35
EnGEN Corporation
~z..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
6,3
6.4
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
February 2003
Page 11
Lateral load resistance may be developed by a combination of friction acting on the
base of foundations and slabs and passive earth pressure developed on the sides of the
footings and stem walls below grade when in contact with undisturbed bedrock or
properly compacted fill material. The above values are allowable design values and
may be used in combination without reduction in evaluating the resistance to lateral
loads. The allowable values may be increased by 33,3 percent for short durations of
live and/or dynamic loading, such as wind or seismic forces, For the calculation of
passive earth resistance, the upper 1.0-foot of material should be neglected unless
confined by a concrete slab or pavement The maximum recommended allowable
passive pressure is 5,0 times the recommended design value,
Slab-on-Grade Recommendations: The recommendations for concrete slabs, both
interior and exterior, excluding PCC pavement, are based upon the anticipated building
usage and upon a medium expansion potential for the supporting material as
determined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, Concrete slabs should be
designed to minimize cracking as a result of shrinkage, Joints (isolation, contraction,
and construction) should be placed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute
(ACI) guidelines, Special precautions should be taken during placement and curing of
all concrete slabs. Excessive slump (high water/cement ratio) of the concrete and/or
improper curing procedures used during either hot or cold weather conditions could
result in excessive shrinkage, cracking, or curling in the slabs, It is recommended that
all concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be performed in accordance with ACI
recommendations and procedures. Slab-on-grade reinforcement and thickness should
be provided by the structural engineer based on structural considerations, but as a
minimum, it is recommended that concrete floor slabs be at least 4-inches in actual
thickness and reinforced with at least No, 3 reinforcing bars placed 18-inches on center,
both ways, placed at mid-height of the slab cross-section. The slab areas should be
pre-saturated to a minimum of 4 percent over optimum moisture to a depth equal to the
footing depth.
Exterior Slabs: All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks,
etc., with the exception of PCC pavement) should be a minimum of 4-inches in actual
thickness. Reinforcing in the slabs and the use of a compacted sand or gravel base
beneath the slabs should be according to the current local standards. Subgrade soils
EnGEN Corporation 13
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
7,0
7,1
7.2
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
February 2003
Page 12
should be moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content to a depth of
12-inches immediately before placing the concrete
RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
Earth Pressures: Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive granular soil (EI=O) or
very low expansive potential materials (Expansion Index of 20 or less) within a zone
extending upward and away from the heel of the footing at a slope of 05:1 (horizontal to
vertical) or flatter can be designed to resist the following static lateral soil pressures:
Condition Level Backfill 2:1 Slope
Active 30 pcf 45 pcf
At Rest 60 pet --
Further expansion testing of potential backfill material should be performed at the time of
retaining wall construction to determine suitability, Walls that are free to deflect 0.01
radian at the top may be designed for the above-recommended active condition. Walls
that are not capable of this movement should be assumed rigid and designed for the at-
rest condition, The above values assume well-drained backfill and no buildup of
hydrostatic pressure, Surcharge loads, dead and/or live, acting on the backfill within a
horizontal distance behind the wall should also be considered in the design,
Retainino Wall Desion: Retaining wall footings should be founded to the same depths
into properly compacted fill, or firm, competent, undisturbed, natural soil as standard
foundations and may be designed for an allowable bearing value of 1500 psf (as long as
the resultant force is located in the middle one-third of the footing), and with an allowable
static lateral bearing pressure of 250 psf/ft and allowable sliding resistance coefficient of
friction of 0,35, However, retaining wall footings determined to be fully embedded in
unweathered bedrock may be designed for an allowable bearing value of 3,000 pounds
per square foot and lateral bearing of 400 pounds per square foot/foot of depth, When
using the allowable lateral pressure and allowable sliding resistance, a Factor of Safety of
1,5 should be achieved.
7.3
Subdrain: A subdrain system should be constructed behind and at the base of retaining
walls equal to or in excess of 5-feet in height to allow drainage and to prevent the buildup
of excessive hydrostatic pressures. Gravel galleries and/or filter rock, if not properly
designed and graded for the on-site and/or import materials, should be enclosed in a
EnGEN Corporation \4
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
74
8,0
8,1
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
February 2003
Page 13
geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute in order to
prevent infiltration of fines and clogging of the system. The perforated pipes should be at
least 4.0-inches in diameter. Pipe perforations should be placed downward, Gravel filters
should have volume of at least 1,0 cubic foot per lineal foot of pipe, For retaining walls
with an overall height of less than 4-feet, subdrains may include weep holes with a
continuous gravel gallery, perforated pipe surrounded by filter rock, or some other
approved system, Subdrains should maintain a positive flow gradient and have outlets
that drain in a non-erosive manner.
Backfill: Backfill directly behind retaining walls (if backfill width is less than 3 feet) may
consist of 0,5 to O,75-inch diameter, rounded to subrounded gravel enclosed in a
geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute or a clean sand
(Sand Equivalent Value greater than 50) water jetted into place to obtain proper
compaction, If water jetting is used, the subdrain system should be in place, Even if water
jetting is used, the sand should be densified to a minimum of 90 percent relative
compaction. If the specified density is not obtained by water jetting, mechanical methods
will be required. If other types of soil or gravel are used for backfill, mechanical
compaction methods will be required to obtain a relative compaction of at least 90 percent
of maximum dry density, Backfill directly behind retaining walls should not be compacted
by wheel, track or other rolling by heavy construction equipment unless the wall is
designed for the surcharge loading. If gravel, clean sand or other imported backfill is,'used
behind retaining walls, the upper 18-inches of backfill in unpaved areas should cOl'lsist of
typical on-site material compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in order
to prevent the influx of surface runoff into the granular backfill and into the subdrain
system, Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill materials should
be determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557-91 (1998) procedures,
MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS
Utility Trench Recommendations: Utility trenches within the zone of influence of
foundations or under building floor slabs, hardscape, and/or pavement areas should be
backfilled with properly compacted soil. It is recommended that all utility trenches
excavated to depths of 5.0-feet or deeper be cut back to an inclination not steeper than
1: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or be adequately shored during construction. Where interior or
exterior utility trenches are proposed parallel and/or perpendicular to any building footing,
EnGEN Corporation ~::)
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
I
82
83
8.4
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
February 2003
Page 14
the bottom of the trench should not be located below a 1: 1 plane projected downward from
the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing unless the utility lines are designed for the
footing surcharge loads, Backfill material should be placed in a lift thickness appropriate
for the type of backfill material and compaction equipment used Backfill material should
be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction by mechanical means,
Jetting of the backfill material will not be considered a satisfactory method for compaction,
Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill material should be
determined according to ASTM D 1557-91 (1998) procedures.
Finish Lot Drainaqe Recommendations: Finish lot surface gradients in unpaved areas
should be provided next to tops of slopes and buildings to direct surface water away from
foundations and slabs and from flowing over the tops of slopes, The surface water should
be directed toward suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of surface water should not be
allowed next to structures or on pavements, In unpaved areas, a minimum positive
gradient of 2,0 percent away from the structures and tops of slopes for a minimum
distance of 5,0-feet and a minimum of 1,0 percent pad drainage off the property in a non-
erosive manner should be provided,
Planter Recommendations: Planters around the perimeter of the structure should be
designed with proper surface slope to ensure that adequate drainage is maintained and
minimal irrigation water is allowed to percolate into the soils underlying the building,
Supplemental Construction Observations and Testinq: Any subsequent grading for
development of the subject property should be performed under engineering observation
and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Subsequent grading includes, but is not
limited to, any additional overexcavation of cut and/or cuUfil1 transitions, fill placement, and
excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes, In addition, EnGEN
Corporation, should observe all foundation excavations, Observations should be made
prior to installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel to verify and/or modify, if
necessary, the conclusions and recommendations in this report, Observations of
overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement
subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other earthwork
completed for the development of subject property should be performed by EnGEN
Corporation. If any of the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions
are not performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the safety and performance of the
EnGEN Corporation \(;
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
85
8,6
8,7
9,0
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
February 2003
Page 15
development is limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by
EnGEN Corporation,
Plan Review: Subsequent to formulation of final plans and specifications for the project
but before bids for construction are requested, grading and foundation plans for the
proposed development should be reviewed by EnGEN Corporation to verify compatibility
with site geotechnical conditions and conformance with the recommendations contained in
this report. If EnGEN Corporation is not accorded the opportunity to make the
recommended review, we will assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of the
recommendations presented in this report,
Pre-Bid Conference: It is recommended that a pre-bid conference be held with the
owner or an authorized representative, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, the
Project Geotechnical Engineer and the proposed contractors present This conference will
provide continuity in the bidding process and clarify questions relative to the supplemental
grading and construction requirements of the project
Pre-GradinQ Conference: Before the start of any grading, a conference should be held
with the owner or an authorized representative, the contractor, the Project Architect, the
Project Civil Engineer, and the Project Geotechnical Engineer present The purpose ,of
this meeting should be to clarify questions relating to the intent of the supplemental
gradin9 recommendations and to verify that the project specifications comply with the
recommendations of this geotechnical engineering report, Any special grading procedures
and/or difficulties proposed by the contractor can also be discussed at that time.
CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described in this
document It mayor may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes,
In the event that changes in the assumed nature, design, or location of the proposed
structure and/or project as described in this report, are planned, the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes
are reviewed and the conclusions and recommendations of this report are modified or
verified in writing, This study was conducted in general accordance with the applicable
standards of our profession and the accepted soil and foundation engineering principles
and practices at the time this report was prepared, No other warranty, implied or
EnGEN Corporation \1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
February 2003
Page 16
expressed beyond the representations of this report, is made, Although every effort has
been made to obtain information regarding the geotechnical and subsurface conditions of
the site, limitations exist with respect to the knowledge of unknown regional or localized
off-site conditions that may have an impact at the site, The recommendations presented
in this report are valid as of the date of the report. However, changes in the conditions of a
property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or
to the works of man on this and/or adjacent properties, If conditions are observed or
information becomes available during the design and construction process that are not
reflected in this report, EnGEN Corporation should be notified so that supplemental
evaluations can be performed and the conclusions and recommendations presented in
this report can be modified or verified in writing. Changes in applicable or appropriate
standards of care or practice occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening
of knowledge and experience, Accordingly, the conclusions and recommendations
presented in this report may be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes outside of the
control of EnGEN Corporation which occur in the future,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our services, Often, because of design and construction
details which occur on a project, questions arise concerning the geotechnical conditions on the
site. If we can be of further service or should you have questions regarding this report, please do
not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience, Because of our involvement in the project
to date, we would be pleased to discuss engineering testing and observation services that may be
applicable on the project.
Respectfully submitted,
EnGEN Corporation
(D 14 ~ Ovi/7
Colby Matthews
Staff Geologist
CM/OB:hh
Distribution: (4) Addressee
FILE: EnGEN\Reporting\GFS\T2762-GFS Allen Pulsipher DDS, Geotechnical Feasibility
EnGEN Corporation ~Q
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
Appendix Page 1
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
1, Allen, CR" and others, 1965, Relationship Between Seismicity and Geologic Structure in
the Southern California Region: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 55,
No, 4, pg, 753-797.
2, Bartlett and Youd, 1995, Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No, 4, April 1995,
3, Blake, TF, 1998, Liquefy2, Interim Version 1.50, A Computer Program for the Empirical
Prediction of Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction Potential.
4, Blake, T,F., 2000a, EQ Fault for Windows, Version 3,00b, A Computer Program for
Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults,
5, Blake, T.F" 2000b, EQ Search for Windows, Version 3,00b, A Computer Program for
the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from California Historical Earthquake
Catalogs, '
6, Blake, T.F" 2000c, FRISKSP for Windows, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic
Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra using 3-D Faults as
Earthquake Sources,
7, Boore, 0, M" Joyner, W. B., and Fumal, T. E" 1997, Equations for Estimating
Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American
Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68,
No, 1, pp. 128-153,
8, Bowles, Joseph E" 1996, Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th Edition, pages 277-280,
9, Bray, J. 0" 1990, The Effects of Tectonic Movements on Stresses and Deformations in
Earth Embankments, Ph.D, Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, California,'
10, Bray, J. 0" Seed, R B" Cluff, L S" Seed, H, B" 1994, Earthquake Fault Rupture
Propagation Through Soil, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, No, 3,
pp, 543-561.
11, Bray, J. D" Seed, R B" Seed, H, B" 1994, Analysis of Earthquake Fault Rupture
Propagation Through Cohesive Soil, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 120, No.3, pp, 562-580.
12. California Building Code, 1998, State of California, California Code of Regulations,
Title 24, 1998, California Building Code: International Conference of Building Officials
and California Building Standards Commission, 3 Volumes.
13, California Department of Conservation, 1991, Geology Map of the Santa Ana 1 :100,000
Quadrangle, California, Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 91-17,
14, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Earl W, Hart and William Bryant, Fault-
Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Revised 1997, Supplements 1 and 2 added 1999,
Special Publication 42,
15, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1954, Geology of Southern California,
Bulletin 170.
16. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1966, Geologic Map of California, Olaf P.
Jenkins Edition, Santa Ana Sheet.
\~
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
17.
18.
19,
20.
21,
22,
23.
24
25
26.
27.
28
29,
30,
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continuedl
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
Appendix Page 2
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117,
County of Riverside, 1978, Seismic Safety/Safety Element Policy Report, June 1978, by
Envicom,
County of Riverside, 2000, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Technical
Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical and Geologic Reports, 2000 Edition,
Dibblee, T W" Jr., 1970, Regional Geologic Map of San Andreas and Related Faults in
Eastern San Gabriel Mountains and Vicinity: U,S, Geologic Society, Open File Map, Scale:
1 :25,000.
Engel, R" 1959, Geology of the Lake Elsinore Quadrangle, California: California Division
of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 146,
Gastil, R. G" and Miller, R. H, 1983, Pre-Batholithic Terranes of Southern and Peninsular
California, U.S.A. and Mexico: Status Report, Pre-Jurassic Rocks in Western North
American Suspect Terranes, Society of Economic Paleontologist & Mineralogist, p, 49-61,
Hart, E, W., Bryant, W, 1999, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Revised 1997,
Supplements 1 and 2 added 1999, California Division of Mines and Geology, Department
of Conservation, Special Publication 42, 38 pp.
Hileman, J.A., Allen, CR and Nordquist, J,M" 1973, Seismicity of the Southern California
Region, 1 January 1932 to 31 December 1972: Seismological Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology,
Hull, A G., 1990, Seismotectonics of the Elsinore-Temecula Trough, Elsinore Fault
Zone, Southern California, Ph,D, Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara,
Ishihara & Yoshimine, 1992, Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following
Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Soil and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 32, No, 1, pp, 173-188
Jennings, C,W" 1975, Fault Map of California with locations of volcanoes, thermal
springs and thermal wells, 1 :750,000: California Division of Mines and Geology,
Geologic Data Map No, 1,
Jennings, C,W" 1985, An explanatory text to accompany the 1:750,000 scale fault and
geologic maps of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 201,
197p" 2 plates.
Kennedy, M.P" 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting along the Elsinore Fault Zone
in southern Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology,
Special Report 131,12 p" 1 plate, scale 1:24,000,
Lamar, D, L, and Swanson, S. C" 1981, Study of Seismic Activity by Selective
Trenching Along the Elsinore Fault Zone, Southern California, United States Geological
Survey Open File Report 81-882.
EnGEN Corporation
~
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
35.
36.
37,
38.
39,
40,
41.
42.
43
44,
45.
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
Appendix Page 3
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued)
31
Magistrale, H, and Rockwell, T., 1996, The Central and Southern Elsinore Fault Zone,
Southern California, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Volume 86, No.6,
pp, 1793-1803, December 1996,
Mann, JF, Jr., October 1955, Geology of a portion of the Elsinore fault zone, California:
State of California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, Special Report
43,
Morton, D.M, 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' x 60'
Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1,0,
Petersen, MD., Bryant, WA, Cramer, C.H., Coa, T. Reichle, MS, Frankel, AD.,
Lienkaemper, J.J" McCrory, PA and Schwartz, D.P" 1996, Probabilistic Seismic
Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Division of Mines and Geology,
Open File Report 96-706,
Pradel, 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy
Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No.4, April
1998.
Riverside County Planning Department, June 1982 (Revised December 1983),
Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan - Dam Inundation Areas - 100 Year
Flood Plains - Area Drainage Plan, Scale: 1-lnch = 2 Miles,
Riverside County Planning Department, January 1983, Riverside County Comprehensive
General Plan - County Seismic Hazards Map, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
Rogers, T, H" 1966, Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, Santa Ana
Sheet, California Division of Mines and Geology, .
S,C,E.D.C" 2002, Southern California Earthquake Data Center Website,
http://www.scecdc,scec,org.
Schnabel, p, B, and Seed, H. B" 1972, Accelerations In Rock for Earthquakes in the
Western United States: College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No, EERC 72-2.
Seed, H, S., and Idriss, L M., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During
Earthquakes: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Volume 5 of a series tilled
Engineering Monographs on Earthquake Criteria, Structural Design, and Strong Motion
Records,
South Coast Geological Society, 1982, Geology and Mineral Wealth of the California
Transverse Ranges,
Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Recommended Procedures for
Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating
Liquefaction Hazards in California, March 1999,
State of California, January 1, 1980, 'Special Studies Zones, Elsinore Quadrangle, Revised
Official Map, Scale: 1 Inch = 2 Miles,
Tokimatsu and Seed, 1984, Simplified Procedures for the Evaluation of Settlements in
Clean Sands, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, October 1984,
32.
33,
34,
EnGEN Corporation
2.\
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
46,
47,
48
49,
50.
51,
52,
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
Appendix Page 4
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued)
Tschebotarioff, G, p" 1973, Foundations, Retaining and Earth Structures, The Art of
Design and Construction and Its Scientific Basis in Soil Mechanics, 2nd Edition, McGraw-
Hill Book Company, 642 p,
Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Edition, by International Conference of Building
Officials, 3 Volumes.
Vaughan, Thorup and Rockwell, 1999, Paleoseismology of the Elsinore Fault at Agua
Tibia Mountain, Southern California, Bulletin of the Seismology Society of America,
Volume 89, No, 6, pg, 1447-1457, December 1999,
Waring, GA, 1919, Groundwater in the San Jacinto and Temecula Basins, California,
United States Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 429
Weber, F. H., Jr., 1977, Seismic Hazards Related to Geologic Factors, Elsinore and
Chino Fault Zones, Northwestern Riverside County, California, California Division of
Mines and Geology Open File Report 77-4.
Wells, D, L, Coppersmith, K, J" 1994, New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude,
Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement, Bulletin of
the Seismology Society of America, Volume 84, No, 4, pp, 974-1002, August 1994.
Yeats, R. S., Sieh, K., and Allen, C, R., 1997, The Geology of Earthquakes, Oxford
University Press, 568p,
EnGEN Corporation
2Z.
I
1
1
1
1
I
'I
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
Appendix Page 5
EnGEN Corporation 2,,'0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3000
o
~
/fJ
Q. 2000
(f)
(f)
w
Ii::
f-
(f)
w
Ii:: 1000
:J
..J
H
<{
LL
3000
2500
~
/fJ
Q. 2000
/fJ
/fJ
"
L 1500
~
(f)
L
0 1000
"
.<:
(f)
500
RESULTS :m .
C, pst 313 I, . m; ;
<1>, deg 30.2 ,
,
TAN <l> 0,58 :; ,.,.. 'm ,
J",
m. ;, .
,
,
. ;m "'" 'T m,
",.".",,;
'C. ;m .
. '" r " ,
o
o
1000
2000
o
o
0,1
0,2 0,3
Horiz. Displ., in
SAMPLE TYPE:
DESCRIPTION: SANDY SILT,OLIVE
SPECIFIC GRAVITY= 2,51
REMARKS: SAMPLE A
CUT AREA
COLL BY CM
COLL ON 2-17-03
Fig, No,:
3000 4000
Normal Stress, psf
SAMPLE NO, :
WATER CONTENT, %
~ DRY DENSITY, pet
~ SATURATION, %
S! VOID RATIO
H
DIAMETER, in
HEIGHT In
WATER CONTENT, %
f- DRY DENSITY, pet
(f)
W SATURATION, %
f-
VOID RATIO
0.4
f-
<{ DIAMETER, in
HEIGHT in
NORMAL STRESS, pst
FAILURE STRESS, pst
DISPLACEMENT, in
ULTIMATE STRESS, pst
DISPLACEMENT, in
Strain rote. in/min
CLIENT: ALAN PULSIPHER
5000
6000
2 3
13.5 13,5 13,5
103,8 103,8 103,8
66,5 66.5 66,5
0,509 0,509 0,509
2.42 2.42 2.42
1,00 1,00 1,00
0,0 0,0 0,0
103,8 103,8 103,8
0,0 0,0 0,0
0,509 0.509 0,509
2.42 2.42 2.42
1,00 1,00 1,00
1000 2000 3000
890 1487 2054
0,11 0,12 0,13
0.2000 0.2000
0.2000
PROJECT: PULSIPHER RESIDENCE
SAMPLE LOCATION: CALLE DE VELARDO
PROJ, NO,: T2762-GFS
DATE: 2-20-03
DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT
2A
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
use Laboratory Expansion Test Results
Job Number: T2762-GFS
Job Name: PULSIPHER
Location: CALLE DE VELLARDO
Sample Source: A
Sampled by: CM (2-18-03)
Lab Technician: EM
Sample Descr: SANDY SILT,OLlVE
2/19/03
Wet Compacted WI.: 587,3
Ring WL: 199,3
Net Wet Wt: 388,0
Wet Density: 117,2
WelSoil: 222,8
DIY Soil: 195.4
Initial Moisture (%): 14,0%
I nitial Dry Density: 102,8
% Saturation: 59.2%
Final WI. & Ring WL: 627.7
Net Final 1M,: 428.4
Dry 1M,: 340,3
Loss: 88,1
Net Dry 1M,: 333,6
Final Density: 100,7
Saturated Moisture: 26,4%
Reading 1: 0,100 N1A 11:30
Reading 2: 0.130 0,030 11:45
Reading 3: 0,142 0,042 12:00
Reading 4: 0,155 0,055 19-Feb
Dial
Change Time
Expansion Index:
55
Adjusted Index:
(ASTM 04832-95)
61,9,
,
;
..
EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92690
(909) 296-2230
Fax: (909) 296-2237
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
't;
Q.
.i-
'ill
<::
Q)
"0
~
o
\
\
1\
\
\
,
1\
\
\
\
.-- 1'0.. 1\
." ... l' \
.
r--.
\
1\
\
\
\
\
120
118
116
114
112
110
7
ZAVfor
Sp,G,=
2,51
19
9
11
13
Water content, %
15
17
Test specification: ASlM D 1557-98 Procedure A Modified
Elevl
Depth
Classification
uses AASHTO
ML
Nat,
Moist.
%>
No.4
%<
No.200
Sp,G,
LL
PI
185
TEST RESULTS
Maximum dry density = 115.5 pef
Optimum moisture = 12.4 %
Project No, T2762-GFS Client: DAVID PULSIPHER
Project: PULSIPHER RESIDENCE
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SANDY SILT,OLNE
Remarks:
SAMPLE A
CUT AREA
CaLL BY CM
CaLL ON 2-17-03
. Location: CALLE DE VELARDO
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Plate
2S
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Allen Pulsipher, DDS
Project Number: T2762-GFS
Appendix Page 6
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation 2<;'
I
1
I
N
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
EnGEN Co
oration""""""... Eng;neeri..
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
DATE: FEBRUARY 2003 SCALE: 1"=2400'
CLIENT NAME: ALLEN PULSIPHER, DDS
Speci~
........
Environmental
1
APN 946-160-00&
1
FIGURE:
1
BASE MAP: Thomas Guide, 2000, Riverside Co" pg, 979
I
21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
1100
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
"
"
"
"
"
LEGEND
"
o
~
a.
(I)
.<
~
~
o
o
LI
"
"
N
1 "=40'
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
Afu UNDOCUMENTED FILL
APPROX. 350 FT.
TO MAPPED FAULT
Afo ROAD FILL BY OTHERS
Qal ALLUVUIM
Qps PAUBA FORMATION BEDROCK '
II
I
EnGEN Co oration ~ ......-... SpociaJ _01
.. GeoI Ins Ten
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY SITE PLAN
PROJECT NUMBER: T2782-GFS LEPAL DESCRIPTION: APN 846-180-00&
DATE: FEBRUARY 2003 'SCALE: 1"=40'
CLIENT NAME: ALLEN PULSIPHkR, DDS PLATE:
Environmental
Asseuments
1
ZIt