HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 4059 Lot 7 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ear h .
echnlcs
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Single - Lot, Residential Development
Lot 7, Tract 4059, SWC Calle Fiesla & Via Norte
A.P.N. 919-21l).()()1
Temecula, California
September 24, 2001
PROJECT NO. 21290-01
PREPARED FOR:
Robert & Dorothy Bloodgood
5620 paseo Del Norte, #127-308
Carlsbad, California 92008
,if)t/d-05~ &~
RECEIVED
DEe 9 2002
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
-
Earth Technics P.O. Box 891989, Temecula, California 92589 (909) 699-5451 FAX (909) 767-1193
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
September 24, 2001
Project No. 21290-01
1. 0 INTRODUCTION
At your request, we have performed a Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation for the above referenced site. The purpose of our
investigation was to evaluate the underlying soil conditions and
existing graded pad with respect to the proposed development and
to assess the geologic and engineering constraints that might
exist considering this development.
The 40-Scale As-Built Grading Plan was used to direct our field
work. Plate 1 presents our Geotechnical data obtained during our
field investigation. At the time of our investigation, the
property corners had been surveyed and staked.
ACCOMPANYING MAPS. ILLUSTRATIONS AND APPENDICES
Index Map - (2000-scale) - Page 2
Geotechnical Map - (20-scale) - Plate 1
Regional Fault Map - (1" = 20 miles) - Plate 2
Appendix A - Geotechnical Trench Logs
Appendix B - Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Appendix C - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
Appendix 0 - Slope stability
Appendix E - References
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
INDEX MAP
N
o
2000 4000
SCALE
INDEX MAP
feet 0 F
LOT 7, T~ACT_4059, SWC CALLE FIESTA & VIA NORTE
A.P. r:r. 919-'-210-001
T)::MECULA, CALI,FORNIA
-2-
--------
SOURCE:
U.S.G.S. 7~ MIN. QUAD. BACHELOR MTN. 1953 (PR 1973)
1--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21290-01
Page 3
2.0 SITE LOCATION/CONDITIONS
The roughly triangular-shaped 0.33+/- acre property is located at
the southwest corner of Calle Fiesta and via Norte, improved
paved roads in the City of Temecula. Calle Vista bounds the the
property to the east, Via Norte to the north, an existing house
to the south, and vacant land in all remaining directions. The
Index Map (Page 2) presents the topographic and geographic
relationships of the property to surrounding areas.
Topographically, the site is extremely variable from the flat pad
area in the northeast corner adjacent to Calle vista and Via
Norte, to 26.5 degrees to the west-central portions of the lot
where an existing 26 foot high fill over cut slope descends to
the adjoining property to the south.
The pad was previously graded approximately 8-10 years earlier
utilizing cut and fill. The pad is covered by light grasses with
heavier brush and weeds on the fill slope.
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The current concept is to build a 1 & 2-story single-family
residence on the existing graded and engineered pad. Driveway
access will be provided from Calle Fiesta.
No significant grading except to provide positive drainage for
the development is planned.
On-site sewage disposal will be utilized on the graded pad in the
cut areas at the northeast corner of the property.
4.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of our investigation included the following:
1. A review of available data pertinent to the site.
2. Subsurface exploration of the site utilizing 3 exploratory
backhoe trenches to depths as great as 7.4 feet. The
trenches were logged, and these logs appear in Appendix A of
this report. The trenches were tested for in-place density
utilizing the Sand Cone Method (ASTM 01556-64).
Representative bulk samples were obtained for testing.
3. Laboratory testing of representative earth materials to
develop soil engineering parameters for the proposed
development.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21290-01
Page 4
4. Preparation of this report presenting our findings,
conclusions and recommendations concerning site development
based upon an engineering analysis of the geotechnical
properties of the subsoils as determined by field and
laboratory evaluation.
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING
The following tests were performed for this project in our
laboratory in accordance with the American Society for Testing
and Materials, the State of California Standard Specifications or
contemporary practices of the soil engineering profession.
5.1 Maximum Densitv - optimum Moisture Oeterminations
This test determines the density that a soil can be compacted to
at various contents. For each soil moisture, there is a maximum
dry density obtained and the associated optimum moisture content.
The results are used to evaluate the natural compaction, control
of the grading process and as an aid in developing the soil
bearing capacity. This is based on ASTM Standard 01557-78 (five
layer method).
5.2 In-Situ Moisture and Oensitv
These tests consisted of performing Sand Cone Oensity tests (ASTM
D1556-64) in the trenches to determine in-place moisture and
density. The results are used to analyze the consistency of the
subsoils and aid in determining the necessary grading to prepare
the pad area.
5.3 Sieve Analvsis
This test determines the material grading of the individual
particle sizes and is used in generating an engineering
classification.
5.4 Sand Eauivalent Testina
This is a test for the rapid determination of the relative
portions of fine silt and clay materials within the soil samples,
and is used for a relative comparison of soils in the
determination of the adequate paving sections for driveways, etc.
5.5 Expansion Testina
The expansion index of the soils are determined by the U.B.C.
Method 29-2 and is used to design foundations for anticipated
expansion forces.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21290-01
Page 5
5.6 Direct Shear
A direct shear strength test was performed on a representative
sample of the on-site soils remolded to 90% relative compaction.
To simulate possible adverse field conditions, the sample was
saturated prior to shearing. A saturating device was used which
permitted the samples to absorb moisture while preventing volume
change. This test is used to determine soil strengths for slope
stability evaluations and for foundation bearing capacity.
5.7 Soluble Sulfate
A representative surface sample was tested to determine soluble
sulfate content. The test results are used to recommended the
type and strength of concrete to be used in construction.
6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The area of the existing graded pad is underlain by dense
engineered and compacted fill. Based on our subsurface
examination and testing, the pad was overexcavated 48 inches to
eliminate the original transition. The fill was benched and keyed
to the cut slope by excavation and removal of colluvial soils to
dense sedimentary bedrock. The maximum depth of fill is 9-10 feet
on the west side of the pad. In-place densities for the
artificial fill were high with in-place densities from 120.7 pcf
(92.0% relative compaction) in T-2 (3.1-3.6 feet) to 125.6 pcf
(95.7% relative compaction) in T-1 (1.7-2.2 feet) and moistures
of 6-7 percent.
The underlying pauba Formation bedrock was dense to very dense
with in-place densities of 127.5 pcf (97.2% relative compaction)
to 128.3 pcf (97.B% relative compaction) at depths of 4 - 7 feet.
7.0 GROUND WATER
No ground water seepage was encountered on the site to a depth of
7.4 feet. Historic high ground water is expected to be 75-80 feet
at the lowest elevations of the lot based on historic ground
water in nearby wells (OWR, 1978).
No evidence of seepage was seen in the natural slope faces
surrounding the property.
8.0 FLOODING
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the
County of Riverside, the pad site is not located within the
boundaries of a 100-year flood plain. No streams or swales cross
the property.
~
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21290-01
Page 6
9.0 GEOLOGY
The entire proposed building pad area is underlain at depths
below 4 -7 feet by sedimentary bedrock identified as the Pauba
Formation (Mann, 1955; Kennedy, 1977). The poorly-developed
bedding was oriented N80-85E and dipping 5-7 degrees NE. No
evidence of slope instability exists at the site or in the
adjoining cut slopes along via Norte.
The site is not included in any state or County fault hazard zone
for active faulting.
10.0 SEISMIC SETTING/GROUND MOTION PARAMETERS
The regional seismic setting is shown on Plate 2. The nearest
active faults to the site include the Wildomar Fault of the
Elsinore Fault Zone which is located approximately 5.1 miles to
the southwest. The Casa Loma branch of the San Jacinto Fault is
located 22 miles to the northeast.
The Elsinore Fault zone because of its proximity and seismic
potential to the site is the design fault when evaluating the
site seismic parameters.
11.0 HISTORIC SEISMICITY
Ouring the last 100 years in the San Bernardino/Riverside area,
the greatest number of moderate to large earthquakes (greater
than 6.0 M) have occurred along the San Jacinto Fault (Hileman,
Allen and Nordquist, 1974; Peterson, et all, 1996). The most
significant earthquake epicenter of magnitude 6.0M on the
Elsinore Fault occured 12+ miles to the northwest in 1910 in Lake
Elsinore. Several earthquakes of magnitude 6.8M and 7.0M have
occurred on the Cas a Loma and San Jacinto faults approximately
20-22 miles northeast.
12.0 SEISMIC EXPOSURE
Although no precise method has been developed to evaluate the
seismic potential of a specific fault, the available information
on historic activity may be projected to estimate the future
activity of the fault. This is usually done by plotting the
historic activity in terms on number of events in a given time
interval versus magnitude of the event. Based on such plots,
recurrence intervals for earthquakes of given magnitudes may be
estimated. A probabilistic evaluation of potential seismicity
for the site utilizing FRISKSP (Blake 1998) indicates a 10%
probability of exceedance of 0.62g in 50 years assuming all
seismic sources.
~
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21290-01
Page 7
We have utilized strain rates of 5.0 mm/year for the Elsinore
Fault suggested by Peterson, et al (1996) to estimate the maximum
moment earthquake. We estimate the maximum moment magnitude or
"design earthquake" to be 7.5 magnitude with a 10% possibility of
exceedance in 50 years. This is in agreement with the
probabilistic model by Blake, (1998).
12.1 1997 U.B.C. Seismic Parameters:
The following UBC seismic parameters should be incorporated into
seismic design:
Nearest Active Seismic Source (Type B Fault) - 8.2 km
Soil Type* - SD
Near Source Factor N. - 1.0
Near Source Factor Ny - 1.1
* Soil type may be Sc but requires additional field work to
verify.
13.0 GROUND MOTION CHARACTERISTICS
The ground motion characteristics which could affect the site
during the postulated maximum moment magnitude of 7.5 were
estimated. Available information in the literature about maximum
peak bedrock acceleration and its attenuation with distance
(Joyner and Borzognia, 1994), the effects of site-soil conditions
on surface ground motion parameters (Seed & Idress, 1982), and
site response criteria (Hays, 1980) were utilized.
The predominant period of bedrock acceleration is expected to be
0.30 seconds with 24 seconds of strong ground shaking (Bolt,
1973).
14.0 SECONDARY SEISMIC RAZAROS
The dense well-cemented nature of the underlying sedimentary
bedrock in the area of the existing pad at depths as shallow as
7.0 feet, and the historic depth to ground water over 70 feet
precludes such secondary seismic hazards as liquefaction, lateral
spreading or settlement of the ground the house is being placed
upon. No rockfall hazard exists at the building site. The
potential for seismically-triggered landslides is discussed in
detail under the slope stability section.
"'\
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21290-01
Page 8
15.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
15.1 Foundation Desian
A strip and spread footing foundation system should provide an
adequate foundation for one and two-story buildings in this site.
All exterior footings should be founded a minimum of 18 inches
below adjacent finished grade for two-story buildings, and 12
inches for one-story buildings. Interior footings may be founded
a minimum of 12 inches below finished grade.
When the footings are founded in properly compacted fill or dense
bedrock, an allowable bearing capacity of 1800 psf for 12 inch
wide footings is acceptable for dead plus live load. This value
may be increased by one-third for short term wind and seismic
loading conditions.
When foundations are placed in natural soils, no cobbles over 6
inches should be left within the base of the foundation. A
typical foundation design is included in Appendix C. Two No. 4
bars, 1 top and 1 bottom is recommended as a minimum design.
15.2 Settlement
Our subsurface investigation revealed that the existing fill and
underlying sedimentary bedrock are dense and moisture
conditioned. Footings should experience less than 1-inch
settlement with less than 1/2 inch differential settlements
between adjacent footings of similar sizes and loads. This
settlement is based upon grading of up to 30 feet of fill over a
distance of 50 feet horizontally. If thicker fills are proposed,
settlement could be greater and should be evaluated prior to
placement.
15.3 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade
Sufficient fine-grained materials exists within near surface
earth materials to possible create moisture problems. Therefore,
we recommend that a moisture barrier be placed under any concrete
slabs that might receive a moisture-sensitive floor covering.
This moisture barrier should consist of a 10-mil polyethylene
vapor barrier sandwiched between a 2-inch layer of sand, top and
bottom, to prevent puncture of the barrier and enhance curing of
the concrete. Reinforcement of the slabs with 6x6-6/6 welded
wire mesh centered in the 4 inch slab is recommended. The
subgrade below the slab should be moisture conditioned and
properly compacted prior to placement of concrete.
21
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21290-01
Page 9
15.4 Expansive Soils - Soluble Sulfate
Expansion testing of near-surface silty sand soils (T-1 ; 0-3
feet) possible at finished grades indicate that the soils in the
pad area are very low expansion. No special design provisions are
necessary for the foundation or concrete flatwork to resist
expansion forces. This is in accordance with the U.B.C. Table 18-
B-1.
The soluble sulfate content was 77 ppm allowing normal Type II
concrete with 2500 psi strength.
15.5 Earthwork Shrinkaae and Subsidence
Shrinkage of the colluvium will occur during grading, estimated
as 8-10 percent when recompacted to compacted fill standards. The
sedimentary bedrock is expected to bulk 3-5% when placed as
compacted fill.
15.6 Retainina Wall Oesian
Retaining walls should be designed using the following
parameters:
o
o
o
Active pressure
Active pressure
Active pressure
(level backfill)
(2:1 backfill)
(1 1/2:1 backfill)
42 lb/ft /ft
52 lb/ft /ft
58 lb/ft/ft
For purpose of lateral resistance, a value of 0.35 may be used
for frictional resistance. A value of 275 lb/ft /ft may be used
for passive resistance for footings placed into properly
compacted fill. Frictional and passive resistance may be
combined, provided the later is reduced by one-third.
Special loads for dead plus actual loads should be considered in
the driveway/parking area that is retained.
15.7 Lateral Loads
Lateral loads in the near-surface soils are:
Active
At Rest
Passive
- 42 pounds per square foot of soil depth (psf/ft)
- 58 psf/ft
- 275 psf/ft (for wood shoring)
350 psf/ft (for concrete footings)
Active means movement of the structure away from the soil; at
rest means the structure does not move relative to the soil (Such
as a loading dock); and Passive means the structure moves into
the soil. The coefficient of friction between the bottom of the
footings and the native soil may be taken as 0.35.
~
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21290-01
Page 10
15.8 Trench Stabilitv
The near-surface soil to a depth of 5 feet should stand
vertically when excavated, however, trenches in excess of 5 feet
in depth should have the sides laid back at 1:1 in accordance
with OSHA requirements.
15.9 Slope Stability
The existing graded slope is 26 feet at finished face
inclinations of 2:1 or flatter. The high strength values allow
2:1 (horizontal to vertical) cut and fill slopes up to 60 feet
without gross or surficial instability.
Selection of Shear Strenath Parameters
The following shear strength parameter utilized for our slope
stability analysis was determined by our laboratory test results
as presented below:
Material
(Cut or FilII
Friction Angle
(Dearee I
Cohesion
Ib/ft2
Anticipated On-site Fill
24.5
610
We have utilized values of 24.5 degrees and 610 Ib/ft2 for
bedrock cut slopes although it represents a conservative number,
determined from a remolded saturated sample. Bedrock is expected
to be 20% + stronger (Coduto, 1989).
Even more critical to overall cut slope performance is the
orientation of joints and fractures and bedding. All measured
vague poorly-defined bedding was at a low angle into the slope.
No evidence of slope instability exists on the site and adjoining
areas. The bedrock and low angle into slope bedding orientation
make all the natural slopes stable.
Orainage and terracing should be in accordance with Uniform
Building Code Appendix Chapter 33 requirements. At no time
should water be diverted onto the slope face in an uncontrolled
and erosive fashion. Rapid erosion and rutting of the fill
slopes could occur, and they should be planted with drought
resistant landscaping as soon as possible.
\0
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21290-01
Page 11
16.0 GENERAL SITE GRADING
16.1 Clearinq and Grubbina
Any heavy brush and grasses or remaining trees that exist at the
time of grading should be stripped from any areas to receive fill
and removed off-site or stockpiled in landscape areas.
16.2 Preparation of Buildina Pad Areas
The existing pad has been graded and prepared with properly
placed, adequately compacted engineered fill. No preparation of
the pad or additional grading is necessary. The entire existing
pad area has been previously overexcavated.
16.3 Preparation of Surface to Receive Compacted Fill
All sufficiently dense (85 percent relative compaction) surfaces
which are to receive compacted fill should be scarified to a
depth of 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content and
compacted to 90 percent relative compaction. other softer areas
must be overexcavated to sUfficiently dense material and
recompacted.
16.4 Placement of Compacted Fill
Compacted fill is defined as that material which will be replaced
in the areas of removal due to root removal, the placement of
footings and paving, and also wherever their grade is to be
raised. All fill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent
based upon the maximum density obtained in accordance with ASTM
D l557-78 procedure. The area to be filled will be prepared in
accordance with the preceding section.
Fills placed on natural slopes of 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or
steeper will require a key and benching as shown in Appendix c.
16.5 Pre-Job Conference
Prior to the commencement of grading, a pre-job conference should
be held with representatives of the owner, developer, contractor,
architect and/or engineer in attendance. The purpose of this
meeting shall be to clarify any questions relating to the intent
of the grading recommendations and to verify that the project
specifications comply with recommendations of this report.
16.6 Testinq and Inspection
During grading, density testing should be performed by a
representative of the soil engineer in order to determine the
~
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21290-01
Page 12
degree of compaction being obtained. Where testing indicates
insufficient density, additional compactive effort shall be
applied with the adjustment of moisture content where necessary,
until 90 percent relative compaction is obtained.
Inspection of critical grading control procedures such as keys,
installation or need for subdrains, should be made by a qualified
soils engineer.
16.7 Deve10Dment ImDact
Provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into
the design and construction of the residential project, both the
proposed development and off-site areas will be safe from
geotechnical hazards.
17.0 GENERAL
All grading should, at a minimum, follow the "Standard Grading
and Earthwork Specifications" as outlined in Appendix c, unless
otherwise modified in the text of this report. The
recommendations of this report are based on the assumptions that
all footings will be founded in dense, native, undisturbed soil
or properly compacted fill soil. All footing excavations should
be inspected prior to the placement of concrete in order to
verify that footings are founded on satisfactory soils and are
free of loose and disturbed materials and fill. All grading and
fill placement should be performed under the testing and
inspection of a representative of the soil engineer.
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in
accordance with contemporary engineering principles and practice.
Our recommendations are based on an interpolation of soil
conditions between trench locations. Should conditions be
encountered during grading, that appear to be different that
those indicated by this report, this office should be notified.
&0/.
Warren L. She ~ng
oirector of Geotechnical Services
FJ/WLS:ss
Distribution:
(3) Addressee
\oz,.
----.....--------------
<
-
f
/
,
\--
\)
}J
-!
m
\'(:)
I~
~
~
'\
fI\
I
i
i
I
It
\
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
i
I
I
\
-
'"'i
I
Ul
~
tl
~
~
'::l
~....
~ --I
"" ,
:'" -
li'1
~
~
~
~
~
......
-l
,
l\)
z
..... .;
.~{)b,'
.,
..'.t:,'..
':
',\,
#,#}
--
J>
.
f\
,
N
~
r-)
~
D
,
D
'tI
~
~ <),
I
"\ 19~2
:LD "\ M 6.1
---- ,
R I N
-- ---.....
I
"':~_c
~.
cI;; I I
i -; I /
);' ....::::>;, I /
... ~. ,It ,
/ / /. I ""-.?'~ ~
--....,~<," ..,
'l)v \ "'-. -9 <=c
,~ ~.. \ '"
~ ,"(OC ,,~\, ....
~" .....'^' .,
4-9)0 "', """
..1<;., '-
~:>-
......... "Iv'. .
....~,. ....~ARSTOW
"
I
-.~
-I
I
,-
a"
~., ~.
\ ~.
}7
4-~952
::;Z:=M6..4oc.'f..
~(,II-~\...:
~
I
""~~
000
~tLO\I SPflINGS F
J _ ............ .
>.~ '\
"
----~ '... \.
I ",
I
,
I
1947
6M6.2
","'NIX FA.UL:T
I
\
~ FAuq.'
.'s
- ---- ---
I
~
I
I
.T FAULT
~.
.....\..
I
..'
.......
I
I
.o~"
O-?~'.
~.
.....v...
'?;:.
1899
M7+
I
.. ~anla
". ColeJlillo
'. Islond
..'
I
I
MILES
'ir-. Cl 10
JULIAN
o I' E G
~
I
.~<'" t\~~l~Ull.
'.?-~ 1941 f~QI _
.'!"Kl' M5.9-6.0 HISr~RIC M6.0+ EPICE
. I .. .<
. .
TERS 18 0-1998 1856
I
I
p
to
AEG - 1973)
VIA N012.TE I IEMiOC\J\..A
I
w.o. NO:
212<)0-01
DATE:
9/01
FIGUR)jLATE 2
.
\A..
I
GEOTECHNICAL TRENCH LOG
{rolect Neme BLOODGOOD
rolect Number 21290-01
~ c
i i .ll
. ~ !~ ;;
i - g ;:
;; ~ = . .
~ Q ;; 0.,. . "! i
.0
c ! . .
'0 . . - .
ii. Q ~ o . f
~
E . :0
. ~ ;I - - ~
~ . J .
'" Q ..
MD B 125. 7.2 SM
DS U (95.7
GS L
EI K
S04
B 123. 6.8
MD U (97. )
L
K
Elevation 1284 +/- T-l
CASE 580 SUPER L BACKHOE Trench No.
Equipment
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
H.L. SHERLING
O 3/25/01
ete
Logged by
Sempled by H.L. SHERLING
o
ARTIFICIAL FILL - Light yellowish brown 10 YR 6/4 to 6/3
silty fine sand w/trace of gravel. Minor sandy silt sl.
damp, dense to very dense. Sharp lower contact - horizont 1.
BEDROCK - Pauba Fm - Very pale brown 10 YR 7/4 to yellow
7/6 interbedded sequence of silty sands, sandy silts and
sl. clayey sands. All have minor 1-2% fine gravel to
y.~ Dense to very dense, sl. damp.
T.D. 7.4'
No Water / Mottling
GRAPHIC LOG
trend -
scale: 1"c
· Test Symbols
B - Bulk Simp II
R - Ring Sample
se - Sind eon.
MD - Maximum Donllt,
GS" 0'110 SI..
SE - Sand Equl.llonl
E I - E_nllon Indl'
(90) - R.IIU.I Cornpectlon
Ear h
echnics
\-5
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MAXIMUM DENSITY - OPTIMUM MOISTURE DETERMINATION
The maximum density was determined in accordance with ASTM
standard D1557-78. The result by full laboratory curve is :
Sample Oepth Maximum Optimum
Location (Feet) Soil Description Drv Oensitv Moisture
T-1 0-3 (Soil Type A) Soil 131. 2 11.1
light brown silty sand
with 5% gravel
T-1 5-7 (Soil Type B) Pauba 128.5 10.7
silty sand with minor
gravel trace of clay
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION TESTING
U.B.C. METHOD 29-2
Sample Location
Depth
Expansion Index Expansion Potential
T-1
0-3'
16 Very Low
SAND EOUIVALENT TESTING
Sample Location
Depth
Sand Eauivalent
T-1
0-3'
27
\<tJ
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Direct Shear Test Data
Project:
Bloodgood
Job Number:
21290-01
Date:
.. Ear~c.hnll
~c.
9/20/01
.
5
.;"" -""
------ V
V .....-
~
u-
d
le
III
Q,
S2
,
,
III
III
l!!
-
II)
Cl
c::
";:
ClI
GI
.::
II)
o
o
Normal Pressure-Kips/SQ. FT. 5
Excavation Number:
T-1
Depth: 0-3
Saturated Test
t) = 24.50 Degrees
C = 610 P.S.F.
. Actual
Values
- Best-Fit
Line
{\
I a
+
I
~
.J
I u
I C/)C/)
C/)C/)
q el:el:
I .J.J
uu
cq
~ W:I:
I in ii:lri
-<i.
Z ,
(f) =>el:
a:
I w
I-
W
0 ~
a: -I
I <l:
0 -I
Z :!:
~ 0 I
I (f) a: wC
zZ
W -el:
(f) I- li.C/)
:) w
I I :!:
<l:
(f) 0 .J .
w ...in:
I N W
(f) -I
U
I- W
l1J C/)C
> a: lrZ
I l1J q ~ el:el: '"'
OC/) Ii.
.In u
I cO
~
I I
I I- 0
.J
W 0
I ~ Z
lr
C)
I ; :I:
q l-
I 2 a.
: W
C
:il g 2 0
,;-~ PER C NT FINER BY WEIGHT
I
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
BYPt/LS D~e: ~/Ol EXHIBIT
I VIP. NO;2.'"fE \" \!.""~\)l.A NUMBER
~ \~ 8-3
JoN. '2.1'Z':Jo-ol ,
- ~-~ ----.--.
- .' ,EarthTfu:hnfc:s" Con.lll1iIlDEnDIn..n find GHlDai.'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
These specifications present Earth Technics Ine., standard recommendations for grading
and earthwork.
No deviation from these specifications should be permitted unless specifically superseded
in the geotechnical report of the project or by written communication signed by the
geotechnical consultant. Evaluations performed by the geotechnical consultant during the
course of grading may result in subsequent recommendations which could supersede
these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report.
1.0 General
1.1 The geotechnical consultant is the owner's or developer's representative on
the project. For the pwpose of these specifications, observations by the
geotechnical consultant include observations by the soils engineer,
geotechnical engineer, engineering geologist, and those performed by
persons employed by and responsible to the geotechnical consultant.
1.2 All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall
be conducted and directed by the contractor under the supervision of the
geotechnical consultant.
1.3 The contractor should be responsible for the safety of the project and
satisfactory completion of all grading. During grading, the contractor shall
remain accessible.
1.4 Prior to the commencement of grading, the geotechnical consultant shall be
employed for the purpose of providing field, laboratory, and office services
for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and
these specifications. It will be necessary that the geotechnical consultant
provide adequate testing and observations so that he may determine that the
work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the
contractor to assist the geotechnical consultant and keep him apprized of
work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his personnel
accordingly.
1.5 It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate
equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with
applicable grading codes, agency ordinances, these specifications, and the
\0,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 2
approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant,
unsatisfactory conditions, such as questionable soil, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a
quality of work less than required in these specifications, the geotechnical
consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that
construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.
1.6 It is the contractor's responsibility to provide access to the geotechnical
consultant for testing and/or grading observation purposes. This may
require the excavation of test pits and/or the relocation of grading
equipment.
1.7 A final report shall be issued by the geotechnical consultant attesting to the
contractor's confonnance with these specifications.
2.0 SITE PREPARATION
2.1 All vegetation and deleterious material shall be disposed of off-site. This
removal shall be observed by the geotechnical consultant and concluded
prior to fill placement.
2.2 Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the geotechnical
consultant as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be
removed from the site or used in open areas as detennined by the
geotechnical consultant. Any material incorporated as a part of a
compacted fill must be approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill
placement.
2.3 After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, tit shall be
scarified, disced, or bladed by the contractor until it is unifonn and free
from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may prevent
unifonn compaction.
"')"D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 3
The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture,
mixed as required, and compacted as specified. If the scarified zone is
greater than twelve inches ill depth, the excess shall be removed and placed
in lifts not to exceed six inches or less.
Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be observed,
tested, and approved by the geotechnical consultant.
2.4 Any underground structures or cavities such as cesspools, cisterns, mining
shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines, or others are to be removed or
treated in a manner prescribed by the geotechnical consultant.
2.5 In cut-fill transition lots and where cut lots are partially in soil, colluvium
or unweathered bedrock materials, in order to provide unifonn bearing
conditions, the bedrock portion of the lot extending a minimum of 5 feet
outside of building lines shall be overexcavation a minimum of 3 feet and
replaced with compacted fill. Greater overexcavation could be required as
determined by geotechnical consultant where deep fill of20+ feet
transitions to bedrock over a short distance. Typical details are given on
Figure D- I.
3.0 COMPACTED FILLS
3.1 Material to be placed as fill shall be free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances, and shall be approved by the geotechnical
consultant. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics
shall be placed in areas designated by geotechnical consultant or shall be
mixed with other soils to serve as satisfactory fill material, as directed by
the geotechnical consultant.
7,..\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 4
3.2 Rock fragments less than twelve inches in diameter may be utilized in the
fill, provided:
1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets.
2. There is a minimum of75% overall offme grained material to
surround the rocks.
3. The distribution ofrocks is supervised by the geotechnical
consultant.
3.3 Rocks greater than twelve inches in diameter shall be taken off-site, or
placed in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical
consultant in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. (A typical
detail for Rock Disposal is given in Figure D-2.
3.4 Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered
unsuitable shall not be used in the compacted fill.
3.5 Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be
analyzed by the laboratory of the geotechnical consultant to determine their
physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is
encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of the is material shall
be conducted by the geotechnical consultant as soon as possible.
3.6 Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered,
processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness
to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and compacted
on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise approved by the geotechnical
consultant.
3.7 If the moisture content or relative compaction varies from that required by
the geotechnical consultant, the contractor shall rework the fill until it is
approved by the geotechnical consultant.
3.8 Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density in
compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling
governmental agency or ASTM 1557-70, whichever applies.
~1.."
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGES
If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling
governmental agency because of a specific land use of expansive soil
condition, the area to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall
either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate reference made to
the area in the geotechnical report.
3.9 All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium alluvium,
or creep material, into sound bedrock or finn material where the slope
receiving fill exceeds a ratio of five horizontal to one vertical, in
accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant.
3.10 The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum width of 15 feet within
bedrock or finn materials, unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical
report. ( See detail on Figure D-3. )
3.11 Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances
of the controlling governmental agency, or with the recommendations of the
geotechnical consultant. (Typical Canyon Subdrain details are given in
Figure D-4. )
3.12 The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of
90 percent out to the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and
stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either over building the slope
and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the
slope face with suitable equipment, or by any other procedure which
produces the required compaction approved by the geotechnical consultant.
3.13 All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by other methods
specified n the geotechnical report.
3.14 FiII-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or
creep material into rock or finn materials, and the transition shall be
stripped of all soil prior to placing fill. (See detail on Figure D-3. )
-z..,'b
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 6
4.0 CUT SLOPES
4. I The geotechnical consultant shall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals
not exceeding ten feet.
4.2 If any conditions not anticipated in the geotechnical report such as perched
water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of potentially adverse nature,
unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes encountered during
grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the geotechnical consultant,
and recommendations shall be made to mitigate these problems. (Typical
details for stabilization of a cut slope are given in Figures D-3a and D-5. )
4.3 Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be
protected from slope wash by a non-erodible interceptor swale placed at the
top of the slope.
4.4 Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be
excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of
controlling governmental agencies.
4.5 Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of
controlling governmental agencies, or with the recommendations of the
geotechnical consultant.
5.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS
5.1 Trench excavations for utility pipes shall be backfilled under the
supervision of the geotechnical consultant.
5.2 After the utility pipe has been laid, the space under and around the pipe
shall be backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at
least one foot over the top of the pipe. The sand backfill shall be uniformly
jetted into place before the controlled backfill is placed over the sand.
5.3 The on-site materials, or other soils approved by the geotechnical
consultant shall be watered and mixed as necessary prior to placement in
lifts over the sand backfill.
7--~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 7
5.4 The controlled backfill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
maximum laborato!)' density as determined by the ASTI 01557-70 or the
controlling governmental agencies.
5.5 Field density tests and inspection of the backfill procedures shall be made
by the geotechnical consultant during backfilling to see that proper moisture
content and unifonn compaction is being maintained. The contractor shall
provide test holes and explorato!)' pits as required by the geotechnical
consultant to enable sampling and testing.
6.0 GRADING CONTROL
6.1 Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the geotechnical
consultant during the progress of grading.
6.2 In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding two feet
of fill height or eve!)' 500 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary
depending on soil conditions and the size of the job. In any everit, an
adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verifY that the
required compaction is being achieved.
6.3 Density tests should also be made on the surface material to receive fill as
required by the geotechnical consultant.
6.4 All cleanout, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains.
and rock disposals should be inspected and approved by the geotechnical
consultant prior to placing any fill. It shall be the contractor's
responsibility to notifY the geotechnical consultant when such areas are
ready for inspection.
-z..-5 .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 8
7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Erosion control measures, when necessary, shaIl be provided by the
contractor during grading and prior to the completion and construction of
permanent drainage controls.
7.2 Upon completion of grading and termination of inspections by the
geotechnical consultant, no further filling or excavation, including that
necessary for footings, foundations, large'tree weIls, retaining walls, or
other features shall be preformed without the approval of the geotechnical
consultant.
7.3 Care shall be taken by the contractor during final grading to preserve any
berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent
nature on or adjacent to the property.
'],,~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TRANSITION LOT DETAILS
CUT-FILL LOT
NATURAL GROUND
~ .
--
-
--
....
-
-- .-
--
.- ....-
-- - ....-
- --
- ....
--
....
5' L
MIN., ~
- -- --- \.: --,.-. - .
: COMPACTED ::FILi.~:-:::::-::::--=-:---0'-~~--::;';~-?---:I?-- -:::---_-: 30" MIN.
---_______________.."-i ---J:.: ~\" ~'-""'-r
..------------"""----...-\'C.r:__....-_ ,....
--::-==-::-:-z::-::~~-;--\~p:S~.5-:-~:-:-: OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
'-=-~----~'S~ - ..-. -
- -- ---c:, ...'\"'''!---- - ,~"""
. ~ - ...-~ ., ~
.:-.:-= ..O\l ._-_-..;:..--:::'"..:-_
--=.t'- 12:\:::: -..=:.:-- - - ..:-..:-
--- ~I \\
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR . 1
r- MATERIAL APPROVED BY . ~
, THE GEOTECHNICAL CD.NSULTANT
CUT LOT
- .._. -
NATURAL GROUND
~-
--
NOTE:
,?eeper ov.erexcovalion and recomooction sholl be p~rformed
If de!ermmed '0 be necesscry by the geotechnicCl consultonl.
1-1-
iii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
BENCH I NG DET AI LS
FILL SLOPE
.,..
--------------~
---------------
-------":. COMP - CTED .-.:----.:.
------:....-_-:..:..=~ - ....;...-----_-:...-.:-
----------F1LL -------
---------------------
-------------------------------:-..:-...;:::--~..:-:-.-;
- - _:- :=:- ~ ';:-:--:_-:5::-~~~
-------=--=-------------:;-~ -=-- ~-- - ---"
----------~-----~ ~~~
NE --------------~~-
PROJECTED PLA _-_-_-___-_-___-;...~-_-_-_-~_~-_-_
I to I maxI'mum from toe -------....-----....I \k'~
-------~-----~- ,
of slope 10 approved ground _-:::~-:::7.:~-_~:-:;.:::_=:::::- . . E
-----------..~ 1 -;,::. REMOV
-------------- UN<:UITAB' c:
--..;?',~-----.,..--- -~-
. . ---..:""----=-----..-.::-:---- ~ MATERIAL
_ -=:.---~:Z~:~.; MIN. ~ "-
". --"";:..------;.:-.:.::--=------=- BENCH BENCH
'^ l -""_=_...:.:--=--=-----.:----: I HEIGHT
-I- _::::2% MII-J.:::::- (typical) VARIES
------.:::~-----
T ~^' '^V
2' MIN.l IS' MIN. I
KEY !'"1.0WEST BENCH""
DEPTH (KEY)
NATURAL
GROUND\
FILL OVER' CUT SLOPE
_-: COMP ACTED :-:-:~-:
-------=--; FILL .;---;-~------
----:..--~------ -.,.,-.:=;-------? ~
--------~------J~
---------------"..-.-
-------~~---~---
_~--:-~ --:-__::.,:;- It::~;'''
-------------~ I
--..::-==----------........---~ ..
REMOVE. NATURAL :;.?:-:.?::::;::-:-_-_-.?_'"'S. .~" \
UNSUITABLE GROUND,- ----=------------f;> . 1-
MATERIAL,\ __ ~ - ----.::;;?:..c:; 'N"'" L 4' MI~ BENCH
-- -- ---.;;..-C-------J roENC:, I HEIGHT
. - -- ___=:::-_-:2%M.IN~~-.i (typic~l~ V~?IES
--,
- - \ __ __ ~;.......v ^.... .,,:.
__~-- -- ~15' MIN.--1
__ -- -- . I LOW"ST BENCH I
--
CUT
FACE
To be constructed prior
to fill plccement
--
--
No';::
NOTES:
LOWEST BENCH: Deplh and width subject to field change
based C-"l consultant's inspection.
S;':~DRA(~JAGE:. E:,,~k c~.:';". mey be required at the
jiscrehon oi the geotecnnical con:;ultont.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR EXPANSIVE SOILS
(ONE AND TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS)
EXPANSION INDEX
0-20
VERY lOW EXPANSION
EXPANSION INDEX
21 - &0
LOW ExPANSION
EXPANSION INDEX
51 - 80
MEDIUM ,EXPANSION
EXPANSION INDEX
" - 130
HIGH EXPANSION
l-nORY 'OOTfNOI
ALl,. 'OOTINO. 12 IMCHtI
DEEP. '00''''0'
COMTINUOU'. NO lUlL
R!OUI"ED FDIIl UfO"M.1OM
,,,,,CEI.
ALL f'oonIilO' n IMCMEa
DrIP. 'OOTINOI
COIfTIMUOUI. t-filO. <4 IAIIl
'Of' ...ND lonOM.
EXTERIO" 'OOTINOI "
tNCHES DEEI'. ..1ERI0"
'OOTJNOS t2 "'CHE' DEEP.
"'''0. ~ e,," TOI' AND
lOTTO".
(XU"1OfI: FOOT_OS 14 INCHlI
DEE'. INTERt()lIl ,OOTINoa 12
IMeHU DIE". '-NO. . I"'ill TO,"
ANO IOTTOw.
,-I'OIIty 'OOT..OS
ALL FOOTtMOS " ",eMU
DEEP. 'OOTINO,
CONTrMUOUS. NO ,nIL
IlIt:OUlRro FOIll n,."NSION
'C"CEll.
AU. ,00'BlOI ,. ,"eMU
DEEP. .oo,..os
COM'INUOUll. ,-NO. . IAIIl
TOfl AND IOTTOM.
ALL FOOTINOS 11 tHCHES
DIEP. FOOTlNOe.
CONTUtUOUI. t-NO. .. SA.'"
TO" AND .OTTO".
EXTE"IO" 'OOTINos 14 PlC""
DEE'. INTE"IOA 'OOTIMOS "
INCHE. DEE'. 1-NO. I IA" lOf'
AND lono...
GA"AGE 000" G"ADE
alA..
NOT REOUIMD.
11 tNCMla DEE". 1-NO. 4 aA"
TO' AWO SOTTO".
" tNCMES DEE". t-NO. 4 SA"
TO" A..o aono...
'" u.CHES DEE". I_NO. I II."
TO' AND lOTTO".
L."'''O AIlEA F..OOJl. ILUS :s t/' INCHU THICK. NO tfUt4 . tlz IHCHUi THICK. . 1/2 INCHES THICK. .. INCHE. THICK. . X '-11'
IIlEOUI"ED 'OR U""NStON . . .-tOltO WI"E "('H AT . . '-10110 WIRE WESH AT WIRE MESH AT ""IO-oHEIOHT.
'ORCIES. NO aUE "EOUlJl.EO. WtO-MlEtOHT.2 IINCHES "ID-HEIOHT. .. tNCMES NO. S DOWELLS .1l0U fOOtlNO
. WIL VllQUEEN WOISTUIlE GRAVEL 011 lAND eASE. . OIlAnL 0" lAND IAaE. . TO SLA. AT 3f! tNCHES 0"
IAIlAIE" "LU' IINC" lAND. "II. VISOUlIN WOISTUIIIIE WIL VISOUEEN MOISTu"r CENTI". .. INCHES OIllAVEL 0"
.AIiI"IE" "'LUS I INCH lAND. IAllIRIER PLUS 1 INCH BAND. lAND lASE. . "IL VISOUEE..
MOISTURE IA"AIIIIII "LUS 1
INCN lAND.
aA""'oE flOOR S\.AIS 3112 INCHES TH'CK. NO MUM . 112 INCHES THICK. S 1/2 IHCHU THICK. .. INCHU 'HICK.' X,.,"
REOUIAED 'OR EX"ANS'ON . X a-l0110 "'''E MESM 0" . x l-t0l10 WlAE ..taM OR wmE WESH 011II OUAJlUR
FORCES. NO lASE AEOUIREtl. OUARTER aLAIS. ISOLATE OU"'''TE'' al.Als. ISOLATE aL"'IS. ISOLATE FAOW sn..
NO WotSTURE 'ARRIEJl FRO" snw WALL 'OOTINOS. 'RO" STEW WALL 'OOTlHO$. WALL '00TI"08. 4 IWCHE!
REQUIRfO. 2 IHCHES AOCK. ORAVEL OR .. IweHEs ROCK. GRAVEL OR ROCIC. O",,"VEL OJl SAND lASE.
UNO I...U. HO WOtSTUAf SAND eASE. 1010 MOISTURE NO ..OI~TUAE ....ARIEA
'ARRIER REOUIRED. IAAAIER RtOUIREO. REOUIRED.
PIIIIE-SOAKIHQ OF lIVINQ HOT REOUlREO. I.IOIS1[1oI SOAK TO 12 INCHES OEPTM aOAk TO '8 INCHES oe"TH SOAl': TO 2" INCHES DEPTH TO
AREA AHP GARAGE SV.. ,"AIOR TO 'OU"""O TO "'... A.OVE OPTllolUW TO .... AIOVE OPTl..u.... ..... ..OVE OPTlloIUloI ....OI$TURE
lOlL' CONCAUE. WOISTURE CONTENT. MOISTURE CONTENT. CONTENT.
NOTU: ,) "'l.l OE"lH~ AAE RELATlVE'TO SlAI SUIGIUOE.
21 'PECIAl. OESION IS REOUIREO '01"1 VERT HIGHLY EXPANSIVE $011.5.
FOUNDATION AND SLAB DETAIL
(NOT TO SC^LE)
DOwEL
~LAB SUBOJlAOE\ WIllE I.oI~S"_
,wo'o .'OU'.'D'\ \. "..-\ \ /
.:........:......'-'\~...., --
ISA"'~1..AYEiI
I r"'OUHO
/ I rOA"'VEL
OR 5"'''0 ....SE (",...~.. ""tCovU"tOl
I
-' .' '.' -: ~
,~. ~;J'U'",-
(,:0.....'1'>.0\>0...... .. ;::. . -a' ':"1,,0. ,,'. . "':\'~.-_'
'~
,
v .'
" a'
....
.. ;.\.
~ c.
~....'~.;) -:~.;o.n."'::'.\;)
.\. '.
-.
OE"TN 01'"
UTERIOA
I
oErT", OF
INTERIOR
fOOTlNO
AEINFoAClIolO ....R
(WHEN "EQUIREO)
FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
z.~
JOB NO.:
'DATE:
FIGURE NO.:
EARTH TECHNICS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~-
~
I
I
SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY
S','""" > 0.441.
~ > o.aq<;
la,,~ ~ O.tls/,
.,;
l-\ (09.1>) (O.80I')CO.4Sb)-\'".Jl1IJ
~ (\31.4)(O.A4<,)(D.~~)
rS ~
S.F. = H (1l'B) cos2o<tan ~ + C
?fs H Sine><. coso<.
1-1 (,zt;.z) -\'" 610_
It ( 52.5)
FS,
zone of
saturation
== 'Zb.':>'
H = Depth of saturation zone
I ~B = Bouyant weight ~f soil
b~.C>
=
\~\.4
l4.S
1;,10
I ~s = Total wet weight of soil =
~ = Angle of internal friction =
I C = Cohesion =
I.F. =
I
I
I
I
=
2,12<:)0 _D I
Project No.:
Calc. py:
Chk. by:
Date:
H' S.F.
Z b,2.?
-
A 3.~e
----- ----
wW
L.~,f
0/2p/ 'D\
?O
-
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
l
I
I
** PCSTABL5M **
by
Purdue University
--Slope Stability Analysis--
Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop
or Spencer's Method of :Slices
Run Date:
Time of Run:
Run By:
Input Data Filename:
Output Filename:
Plotted Output Filename:
21290-1
21290-0
21290-P
PROBLEM OESCRIPTION
BLOODGOOD - 26 FOOT HIGH 2:1 FILL OVER C
UT SLOPE . I
;
BOUNOARY COOROINATES
3 Top Boundaries
3 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type
No. (ft) (ft) I: (ft) (ft) Below Bnd
1 .00 12.00 16.00 12.00 1
2 16.00 12.00 34.00 27.00 1
3 34.00 27.00 70.00 27.00 1
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
1 Type(s) of Soil
1
125.0
610.0
Friction
Angle
(deg)
24.0
Pore
Pressure
Paramo
Pressure
Constant
(psf)
Piez.
Surface
No.
Soil
Type
No.
Total Saturated
unit wt. unit wt.
(pcf) (pcf)
Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
132.0
.00
.0
o
A critical Failure Surface S~arching Method, Using A Random
Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified.
3\
.
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
11
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
25 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
5 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of;
Along The Ground Surface Between X =
and X =
5 Points
12.00
16.00
Equally
ft.
ft.
Spaced
Each Surface Terminates Between
and
X - 40.00 ft.
X = 60.00 ft.
:!: 1.-
Unless Further Limitations Were Impqsed, The Minimum Elevation
At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft.
4.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Restrictions Have Been Imposed Upon.The Angle Of Initiation.
The Angle Has Been Restricted Between The Angles Of -45.0
And -15.0 deg.
Following Are Oisplayed The
Failure Surfaces Examined.
First.
Ten Most critical Of The Trial
They A~e Ordered - Most critical
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * *
I
1
I slice
No.
1 ~
4
I ~
7
I J
11
112
13
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
t
1
1
1
I
.
Individual data on the 13 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force surcharge
width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load
Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg)
3.8 301.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
.2 33.5 .0 .0 ' .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
3.7 1482.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
4.0 3352.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
3.9 4784.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
3.8 5672.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
2.5 4186.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
1.0 1709.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
3.2 4764.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
2.8 3207.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
2.3 1749.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
1.7 579.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
.3 15.0 .0 .0 .,0 .0 .0 .0 .0
Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
< ," ;
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 15.00 12.00
2 18.82 10.83
3 22.78 10.26
4 26.78 10.30
5 30.73 10.97
6 34.52 12.24
7 38.07 14.08
8 41. 30 16.44
9 44.12 19.28
10 46.47 22.52
11 4B.29 26.0B
12 4B.59 27.00
*** 3.122 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
X-Surf Y-Surf
(ft) (ft)
13.00 12.00
16.65 10.37
20.52 9.33
24.49 8.91
28.49 9.13
32.40 9.97 ??
36.13 11.41
, ;,
1
,,2
3
4
5
___~ 6
7
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
8 39.59 13.42
9 42.69 15.95
10 45.35 18.93
11 47.51 22.30
12 49.11 25.97
13 49.38 27.00
*** 3.163 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 16.00 12.00
2 19.74 10.57
3 23.66 9.79
4 27.66 9.67
5 31.62 10.23
6 35.43 11. 45
7 38.98 13.29
8 42.17 15.70
9 44.91 18.62
10 47.12 21.95
11 48.74 25.61
12 49.09 27.00
*** 3.228 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf '{-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 14.00 12.00
2 17.66 10.39
3 21. 58 9.59
4 25.58 9.63
5 29.48 10.51
6 33.12 12.18
7 36.31 14.59
B 3B.93 17.61
9 40.86 21.11
10' 42.01 24.94
11 42.18 27.00
-------- *** 3.256 ***
;/\
.
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
x
.00 8.75 17.50 26.25 35.00 43.75
.00 +---------+--- -----+---------+---------+---------+
8.75 +
.91
A 17.50 + .05
.9 .2 \
.0 31 ,
\
. 65 \.
.9 . 41
. .0 3
X 26.25 + .... . 652 ,
..9 41 \
\
.. . .0 375 \,
..9 .86 2 \
\.
\
0 34 1 \
67 5
I 35.00 + ..9 . 8 42 1 \
.0 3 5 \
\
8 6 2 1 \
. .9 3 5 \
.
.... 0 76 2 1 5
.. .9. 8 3 5
S 43.75 + 0 76 2 1
8 43 1
.. . 9 7 6 42
. . .0 8 3 6 42
. . 9 7 3
. . .0 8.
52.50 + 9. . .7
. O. 9..8
O. 9..8
o.
F 61. 25 + .1
,
T
70.00 +
*
?>5
.
,.
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
PUBLISHED REFERENCES
Blake, T.F., 1998, Computer Services Software, A Computer Program
for the Probabilistic Evaluation Horizontal Acceleration from
California Faults, FRISKSP, July 1998
Blake, T.F., 1998, Comnputer Services Software, A Computer
Program to Oetermine Historical seismicity from Oigitized
California Faults, EQSEARCH, July 1995
Bolt, B.A., 1973, Ouration of Strong Ground Motion: Proc. Fifth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 2927
Clark, M.W., Harms, K., et al., 19B4, Preliminary Slip-Rate and
Map of Late-Quaternary Faults of California, U.S.G.S. Open-File
Report 84-106, 12 p.
coduto, O.P., 1987, Oown to Earth Soils Engineering, Volume 4,
Slope Stability, Cal. Poly University, Pomona
OWR, 1971 water Wells and Springs in the Western Part of the
Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Riverside and San Oiego
Counties, California", Bull. No. 91-20, 377
Hart, E.W., 1998, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California,
C.D.M.G. Special Report No. 42, 25p
Hays, W.W., 1980, Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground
Motions, U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 11l4, 77p
Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the
Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California,
C.O.M.G. Spec. Report 131, 12 pages
Peterson,M.P., Bryant, W. A., Cramer, C.H., Reichle, M.S., 1996,
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of
California, C.D.M.G. Open-File Rept. 96-0B
Ploessel, R.J., and Sloson, J.E., 1974, "Repeatable High Ground
Accelerations from Earthquake", in California Geology, Sept. 1974
Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motion and Soil
Liquefaction Ouring Earthquakes, E.E.R.I. Nomograph, 134p,
Berkley Press
Weber, F.H. Jr., 1977, Seismic Hazards Related to Geologic
Factors, Elsinore an d Chino Fault Zones, Northwestern Riverside
County, California, CDMG Open-File Report 77-5 LA, 96 pages
~
...