HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinalSoilCompaction&GeotechDesignRecommendation(Jul.31,1998)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
@
O Plinlell on
Recycled
Paper
Converse Consultants
Over 50 Years of Dedication in Geotechnical Engineering and Environmental Sciences
FINAL SOIL COMPACTION AND
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION
RECOMMENDATION REPORT
Tracts 24182-1 .and -2
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Community
T emecula, California
Prepared for:
Newland Associates
27393 Ynez Road, Suite 253
Temecula, CA 92591
Converse Project No. 96-81-420-30
July 31, 1998
10391 Corporate Drive, Redlands, California 92374
Telephone: (909) 796-0544 . Facsimile: (909) 796-7675 . e-mail: ccieconv@aoLcom
\
I
I
@
Converse Consultants
Over 50 Years of Dedication in Geotechnical Engineering and Environmental Sciences
I
I
I
July 31, 1998
Mr. Dean Meyer, R.C.E.
Director of Engineering & Development
Newland Associates
27393 Ynez Road, Suite 253
Temecula, CA 92591
I
Subject:
FINAL SOIL COMPACTION AND GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN/
CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATION REPORT
Tracts 24182-1 and-2
Pas eo Del Sol Master Planned Community
Temecula, California
Converse Project No. 96-81-420-30
I
I
I
Dear Mr. Meyer:
Converse Consultants (Converse) has prepared this report to present results of our field
observation and density testing during rough grading of the above-referenced residential
tracts in the city of Temecula, California. Our services were rendered in accordance with
our proposal dated May 15,1997.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.-
I'
This report also contains our recommended geotechnical design and construction
recommendations for various facilities generally associated with residential developments
including foundations for one- and two-story wood-frame buildings, slabs-on-grade,
retaining walls, and concrete walkways driveways and curb and gutter. Recommendations
regarding pavement design and construction for various streets will be presented in a
separate report.
Results of the field density tests are presented in Appendix A, Field Density Testing.
Results of the relevant laboratory tests performed on representative samples of subgrade
soils retrieved from the building pads and street areas are presented in Appendix B,
Laboratory Testing.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to Newland Associates. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
CONVERSE CONSUlTAN S
Hashmi S. E. Quazi, Ph. D., P. E.
Senior Vice President/Principal Engineer
Dist.: 5/Addressee
MSI/QSH/bac
OPrinledOl'l
Recycled
Paper
10391 Corporate Drive, Redlands, California 92374
Telephone: (909) 796-0544 . Facsimile: (909) 796-7675 . e-mail: ccieconv@aol.com
'Z--
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
This report has been prepared by the staff of Converse Consultants Inland Empire
(Converse) under the supervision of the professional engineers whose seals and signatures
appear hereon.
The findings, conclusions, recommendations, or professional opinions presented in this
report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering
principles and practice in effect in Southern California at this time. There is no other
warranty, either express or implied.
r/l--& - ~ '- 'F~ VI( -
/J1~2 IJIiL
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
II
I
Mohammed S. Islam, Ph.D., P. E.
Senior Project Engineer
Michael O. Cook, C. E. G. 1716
Project Geologist
_._~
"~--;:--ESS:;-;::" ~
/./0\'\'- . O,;..~
// "\'~.. 1"4....'.\...
,'/0' _ \~ t. 0 S. ;: 0-'-~
. c"l-.: 'h>.' / .-1....\"
l t4 "'?-V llt) (-::>\~,
t;... -J:: <' >1\
I ::? 0 ^ Y' ;;:":;
'-" ::;; NO: C50338 $: ,,,:;:
LW ~j~
\\0:: EXP. 6.30-99 *)f
\"* ~ 'l'
~O, CIVIl.. -&';;j.
l..dn-. R--\.-/
"i:: Oc C '..' LI,C;., "
~J.!..._.-,:~/
"'-'."'::;...-'"'"
."~......~,"-
~
I
I
I
Hashmi S. E. Quazi, Ph. D., P. E.
Senior Vice President/Principal Engineer
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCIENTIOFFICEIJOBFILEI1996196-420-30
2
:;
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..........................................................................................................................1
3.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................................................2
I
4.0 SCOPE OF WORK ..............................................................................................................................................2
4.1 FIELD SERVICES ................................................... ...................................................................... ......................... 2
4 .2 LABORATORY TESTING..................................................................................... .................................................. 3
4.3 DA TA EVALUATION AND REPORT PREPARA TION ................................................................................................ 3
5.0 SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO GRADlNG.................................................................................................... 3
I
I
I
6.0 SITE GRADINGIEARTHWORK REQUIREMENTS..................................................................................... 4
7.0 FIELD OBSERVATION AND DENSITY TESTING ...................................................................................... 5
8.0 LABORATORY TESTS ...................................................................................................................................... 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.0 SITE CONDITIONS AFTER GRADING..........................................................................................................7
9 .1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........................................................................ .......................................................... 7
9.2 GROUNDWATER .................................................................................................................................................. 8
9.3 SEISMIC HAZARDS...................................................................................................................................... ......... 8
9.3.1 General.......... .............................................. ........................ ................... ................ 8
9.3.2 Faulting and Seismicity.................... ......................... ............... ............. ..................... .......... 9
9.3.3 Liquefaction Potentia!.................. .................... ........ . ........ ............... ..........9
9.3.4 Seismically-Induced Graund Settlement.............. ....................... .............. ............... ........... 9
10.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRET A TION ............................................................................................... 10
11.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................................. 12
12.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATION .......................................................................... 12
12.1 BUILDING FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS .............................................................................................12
12.2 SLABS-ON-GRAOE .............. .............................................................................................................................. 13
12.3 FOUNDA TION SETTLEM ENT ............................................................................................................................... 15
12.4 CONCRETE WALKS, DRlVEWA YS, ACCESS RAMPS, CURB AND GUTTER........................................................... 17
12.5 CORROS ION PROTECTION........................................... .............................................. ......................................... 17
12.6 SITE DRAINAGE, SLOPE PROTECTION AND LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS .............................. 18
13.0 ON-SITE TRENCH BACKFILL COMPACTION .........................................................................................19
13.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................ ..................................... . ..................... 19
13.2 RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLACEMENT OF TRENCH BACKFILL ............................. ......................... 19
14.0 CLOSURE........................................................................................................................................................... 20
REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................................................21
I
I
I
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCIENTIOFFICEIJOBFllEI1996196-420-30
t\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDICES
Appendix A, Field Density Testing
Appendix B, Laboratory Testing
Appendix C, Soil Corrosivity Study
Appendix 0, Liquefaction Potential and Seismically Induced Ground Settlement Analysis
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure No.1, Site Location Map...............................................................following page no. 1
Figure No.2, Lot Identification Map........................................................ following page no. 10
Drawing No.1, Field Density Test Location Map.................................................in map pocket
Drawing No.2, Alluvial Removal Contour Map.................................................... in map pocket
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCIENTIOFFICEIJOBFILEI1996196-420-30
ii
~
I
I
I
I
I
1 .0 INTRODUCTION
This report contains results of our field observation and density testing during rough
grading of the proposed residential Tracts 24182-1 and -2 situated within the Paseo Del
Sol Master Planned Community in the city of Temecula, California. This report also contains
our site-specific geotechnical design and construction recommendations for various
facilities generally associated with residential tract development.
I
I
The location of the subject tracts is shown in Figure No.1, Site Location Map. These
tracts were rough graded by the earthwork contractor Kemmis Equipment, Inc. of Murrieta,
California during the period from May 26, 1998 through July 6, 1998. Earthwork
associated with the rough grading was performed in accordance with the requirements and
the recommendations set forth in the following project plans and specifications:
. Rough Grading Plans, Tract 24182-1, -2, -3 and -4, Sheets No.1 through 8, prepared
by Keith International, Inc., Inland Empire Division, Moreno Valley, California, dated
March 6, 1998.
i I
I
. Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Tracts 24182-1 and -2, Paseo Del Sol Master
Planned Community, Temecula, California, prepared by Converse Consultants,
Redlands, California, dated May 19, 1998, Project No. 96-81-420-06.
. The grading requirements of the city of Temecula, California and Appendix Chapter 33
of the Uniform Building Code (1994).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Sheets No. 6 and 7 of the above-referenced rough grading plans are included as
Drawing No.1, Field Density Test Location Map ISheets 1 and 2).
This report was prepared for the tracts described herein and are proposed to be developed
as single family residences comprising one- and two-story structures. This report is
intended for use solely by Newland Associates and its authorized agent(s). It may not
contain sufficient information for use by others andlor for any other purposes.
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The subject Tracts, as shown in Figure 1, Site Location Map, are located within the Paseo
Del Sol Master Planned Community in the city of Temecula, California. These tracts
encompass approximately 44.5-acres of graded area. These tracts are bounded on the
north by Campanula Way and De Portola Road, east by Tract 24182-5, south by Highway
79 and west by Tract 24182-3 and Campanula Way. The Tracts 24182-3 and -5 were
mass graded concurrently with the subject tracts.
The subject tracts are proposed to be developed as single-family residential housing
complexes. The project will include construction of 95 and 61 one- andlor two-story
single-family residences, in Tract 24182-1 and -2, respectively. The project also includes
driveways, streets with curb and gutters, sidewalks, above- and below ground utilities and
a park site. The residences are likely to be wood-frame structures founded on continuous
andlor isolated spread-type concrete footings with slabs-on-grade. The vertical loads on
continuous and isolated footings are anticipated to be less than 2,000 pounds per linear
foot and 50,000 pounds, respectively. The project does not include construction of any
96.81-420-30
Converse Consultants
\CCIENT\OFFICEIJOBFILE\ 1996\96-420-30
1
c,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I>
.0
I
Ig
.
~
11
u
.
>
o
I~
I
I
TO RIVERSIDE
TO CORONA
OJ
c
=:t
""
:;t)
-"
r;;
r
o
~
::\
Sri
'!:\
~ ~ ~~RGARlr
'" z " :1
C'1
Ul
1'0 0
:1, ?-t'" C
~
?,,-UBA
City of Ie
~
'-"
PORIOLA
aE.
70
HIG\'WIAY "\-
:,IAIt- )
TO SAN DIEGO
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
SITE LOCATION MAP
FINAL SOIL COMPACTION AND GEOTECHNICAL
DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATION REPORT ._
TRACT - 24182 -1 & 2 Temecula, California For: Newland Associates
@converse Consultants
PrOject No
96-81-420-30
Figure No
1 1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
retaining walls of significant height. The perimeter retaining walls for such residential
developments are usually on the order of six (6) feet in height, constructed of masonry
blocks a[ld founded on concrete footings.
3.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The subject tracts are located within the Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Community in the
city of Temecula, California. Prior to the current rough grading, these tracts, except Lots
No. 17 through 42 of Tract 24182-1, had been mass graded with Tracts 24183 through
24186, and Tract 24188-1 of the Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Community. The mass
grading was performed by the earthwork contractor ACI, Corona, California, during the
period from October 1996 through June 1997. Earthwork associated with the mass
grading was completed in accordance with the following project plans and reports:
I
I
I
I
. Mass Grading Plan Tract No. 24182 and 24183, Sheets 1 through 3, dated August
13, 1997, prepared by Keith International, Inc., Inland Empire Division, Moreno Valley,
California.
. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Eastern and Southern Portion of the
"Meadows", Approximately 800-acre site, City of Temecula, California, dated April 26,
1996, prepared by Converse Consultants Inland Empire for Newland Associates,
Converse Project No. 96-8-420-01.
Converse performed full-time field observation and density testing during mass grading.
Results of field observation and field density testing were presented in the following report:
I
I
I
I
I
I
. As-Built Geology and Compaction Report of Rough Grading, Tract 24182 through
24186 and 24188-1, Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Community, T emecula, California,
dated August 20, 1997, prepared by Converse Consultants Inland Empire for Newland
Associates, Converse Project No. 96-81-420-01.
The current project included rough grading the mass graded Tracts 24182-1 and -2 In
accordance with the project plans and specifications referenced in Section No.1,
Introduction.
4.0 SCOPE OF WORK
Our scope of work for the current project included the following:
4. 1 Field Services
I
I
I
Converse soil technicians performed full-time field observation of grading and fill
compaction testing to verify compliance of earthwork with the project plans and
specifications. The project geologist and the engineer performed periodic field observation
during grading. Field Observations are summarized in Section 6.0, Field Observation and
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCIENTIOFFICEIJOBFILEI1996196-420-30
2
'I
II
,I
I
I
I
Density Testing. The fill compaction test results are summarized in Appendix A, Field
Density Testing.
Our services included retrieval of representative samples of subgrade soils from the building
pads and street areas for relevant laboratory testing. All samples were retrieved from the
upper 12 inches of the subgrade soils. These samples were collected in plastic bags and
immediately transported to the laboratory for testing.
4.2 Laboratory Testing
Our scope of work also included laboratory testing to determine relevant engineering
parameters for the purpose of fill compaction/quality evaluation and providing final
geotechnical design and construction recommendations.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.3 Data Evaluation and Report Preparation
The project engineer continuously reviewed the data obtained during field density testing
for the purpose of quality assurancelcontrol. The results of the laboratory tests were
analyzed and 'evaluated for the relevant engineering parameters. This report prepared to
present summary of site conditions, field observation, results of field and laboratory
testing, and final geotechnical design and construction recommendations for the proposed
facilities.
5.0 SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO GRADING
This section contains a brief discussion on the site conditions prior to grading. The above-
referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation report dated April 26, 1996, and the
"Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation" report, dated May 19, 1998 contain detailed
description on site conditions prior to grading.
Prior to grading, the southern portion of Tract 24182-1 and Tract 24182-2 consisted of
undeveloped land within the Pauba Valley. The topography within this portion of the site
was characterized by ground surface sloping gently to the west and covered with light to
dense vegetation. The northern portion of the Tract 24182-1 was comprised of highland
with a steeply slopin9 hill in the north-central area and a deep canyon to the west. The
hillside and the canyon were covered with moderate to heavy growth of vegetation. An
approximately 40-foot by 180-foot wide abandoned concrete slab was buried at the south
side of the hill.
The ground surface elevation within the subject tracts ranged from approximately 1,090
feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the southwest corner of Tract 24182-2 to about
1,190 feet above MSL at the top of the hill at the north-central area.
The hill area was underlain by Pauba Formation bedrock mantled with a veneer of
colluvium. The Pauba Formation bedrock comprised of soil-like sandstone, siltstone and
silty claystone. Recent alluviallcolluvial deposits and older sandy alluvial deposits were
96-81-420.30
Converse Consultants
ICCIENTIOFFICEIJOBFILEI1996196-420-30
3
C'b
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
present at the bottom of the canyon with gentle to moderately sloped sidewalls. Some
artificial fills were present along De Portola Road.
The Pauba Valley portion of the site was underlain by alluvial soils to depths in excess of
50 feet from the existing ground surface. The alluvial soils in this area comprised of mainly
loose to medium-dense silty sand and sand and with some interbedded layers of sandy silt.
Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 17 to 20 feet in the exploratory borings drilled
in 1996 within the Pauba Valley portion of the subject tracts.
The above-referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation report, dated April 26, 1996
and the "Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation" report, dated May 19, 1998, contain
detailed description of the site conditions prior to grading.
6.0 SITE GRADING/EARTHWORK REQUIREMENTS
The detailed earthwork requirements for mass grading are included in the above-referenced
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation report, dated April 26, 1996. The above-referenced
As-Built Geology and Compaction Report of Rough Grading, dated August 20, 1997
contains a summary of these requirements.
The above-referenced "Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation" report, dated May 19,
1998, contains detailed gradinglearthwork requirements for the current rough grading. The
major earthwork requirements for rough grading are summarized below:
. All vegetation and trash including the abandoned concrete foundation at the location of
Lots No. 28 through 31 of Tract 24182-1 are to be removed from the grading areas.
. All fills placed over existing slopes should be keyed into firm materials at the toe. Fills
should be benched into the firm native and/or existing engineered fill materials.
. The final bottom surfaces of all excavated areas should be observed and approved by
the project geotechnical consultant prior to placing any fill and/structure.
. Once approved, at least the upper six (6) inches of the excavated surfaces should be
scarified, moisture conditioned, if necessary, and compacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction as per ASTM Standard 01557-91 prior to placing any fill andlor
structures.
. The cut Lots No. 18, and 29 through 31 of Tract 24182-1 should be overexcavated to
at least five (5) feet below existing ground surface.
. The cutlfill transition Lots No. 17, 19 through 23, 26 through 28 and 32 through 41 of
Tract 24182-1 should be overexcavated to a depth of at least five (5) feet below
proposed final grade.
I
I
I
. For the remaining lots in Tract 24182-1 and the entire Tract 24182-2, site grading
should include removal and recompaction of the upper 18 inches of the existing fills
placed during mass grading.
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCIENTIOFFICEIJOBFILEI1996196-420-30
4
~.
il
II
I
. Where existing fills placed during mass grading will be cut to reach the final grade, the
subgrade should be overexcavated andlor scarified, and compacted to a depth of at
least 24 inches below existing grade or 12 inches below proposed final grade.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. The cut slopes should be constructed at slope of 2: 1 (H:V) or flatter. A stabilization fill
with a backdrain should be constructed at the backyards of Lots No. 23 through 35 of
Tract 24181-1 as shown in Drawing No.1, Geologic and Test Pit Location Map,
included in the above-referenced Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation report dated
May 19, 1998. The purpose of the fill slope was to stabilize a steep natural slope.
. All fills, unless otherwise noted in the project geotechnical reports, shall be compacted
to at least 90 percent relative compaction as defined in the ASTM Standard 01557-91.
. The in-place density of the compacted soils shall be measured in accordance with the
ASTM Standard 01556-91 (Sand Cone) andlor 02922-96 (Nuclear Gauge) methods.
7.0 FIELD OBSERVATION AND DENSITY TESTING
Converse performed full-time field observation and density testing during rough grading.
This section contains a summary of the field observations.
In general, earthwork was completed in accordance with the recommendations included in
the above-referenced Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation report, dated May 19, 1998.
Earthwork equipment included 623- and 637-scrapers, D6-dozer, 824-dozer, blades and
water trucks. Prior to the start of any earthwork, the subject tracts were cleared of
vegetation and debris including the abandoned concrete foundation at the south of the hill.
The existing hill slopes were also stripped of vegetation prior to the start of grading.
Colluvial soils and Pauba Formation bedrock were exposed at the face of the slopes around
the hill. The Pauba Formation bedrock comprises the majority of the slopes. The bedrock
comprised of mainly medium- to coarse-grained, massive clayey sandstone with six (6) to
12 inches thick interbedded siltstone layers. The overlying colluvial soils comprised of
mainly sandy silt and silty sand with clay, gravel and some cobbles.
The back-cut for the recommended stabilization fill at the backyards of Lots No. 23 through
35 of Tract 24182-1 also exposed Pauba Formation bedrock comprising mainly massive
clayey sandstone with six (6) to 12 inch-thick interbedded siltstone layers. The stabilization
fill with a backdrain was constructed as recommended in the above-referenced
Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation report, dated May 19, 1998.
The cut lots around the hill were overexcavated to a depth of about five (5) feet below
original ground surface.
The cutlfill transition lots adjacent to the hill were overexcavated to a depth of about five
(5) feet below finish grade.
The upper 12 inches of the existing fill from the mass graded lots that needed additional fill
to reach the finish grade were removed. The upper eight (8) to 12 inches of the excavated
areas were then scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted prior to placing any
additional backfill/fills.
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
\CCIENT\OFFICEIJOBFILE\ 1996\96-420-30
5
'P
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The upper 12 inches of the final subgrade of the previously mass graded lots that were cut
during rough grading to reach the finish grade were scarified, moisture conditioned and
recompacted.
Approximately 24 inches of compacted fills were placed over the greenbelt area within
Tract 24182-2 during the current rough grading
On-site soils removed from the cut areas around the hills, the previously mass-graded lots
that were cut during rough grading and the overexcavated areas were placed as fill/backfill,
where necessary. The fill soils were mixed and moisture conditioned and compacted
mechanically to at least 90 percent relative compaction.
At the end of each working day, the field soil technicians prepared a Daily Field Report of
Grading, documenting the relevant geotechnical observations made during the day. A copy
of the daily field report was submitted to the client's representative.
Sand Cone (ASTM Standard 01556-9) and Nuclear Gauge (ASTM Standard 02922-96) test
method were utilized to evaluate the in-place density of the compacted filllbackfill. These
tests were conducted at randomly selected locations. The results of the field density tests
are summarized in Table No. A-l, Summary of Field Density Test Results, in Appendix A,
Field Density Testing. Tests performed in accordance with the Sand Cove (SC) method are
designated SC in Table No. A-1. The remaining tests were performed per the Nuclear
Gauge test method. The approximate locations of the field density tests are plotted in
Drawing No.1, Field Density Test Location Map (Sheet 1 through 3).
The relative compaction for each field density test reported in Table No. A-l, Summary of
Field Density Tests, is obtained by dividing the measured in-place dry density by the
maximum laboratory dry density of the same "Soil Type" presented in Table No. 8-1,
Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Tests, in
Appendix B, Laboratory Testing.
If the results of a field density test indicated less than 90 percent relative compaction the
representative fill volume was reworked and retested until a subsequent test showed at
least 90 percent relative compaction.
8.0 LABORATORY TESTS
Representative soil samples were retrieved during grading and at the completion of grading
for laboratory testing. Laboratory testing included the followings:
. Sieve Analysis (ASTM Standard 0422-63)
. Laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content relationship tests
(ASTM Standard 01557-91).
. Expansion index tests (UBC Standard 18-2)
. Direct shear tests (ASTM Standard 03080-90)
. Consolidation tests (ASTM 02435-90)
. Soil corrosivity tests (ASTM Standards 0512, 0513, G516, 01125, 01126, 02791,
G51 and G57)
. R-value tests (California Test Method 301-G).
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
\CCIENT\OFFICE\JOBFILE\ 1996\96-420-30
6
\\
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The procedure and - results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Appendix B,
Laboratory Testing.
9.0 SITE CONDITIONS AFTER GRADING
9. 1 Subsurface Conditions
The subject tracts are rough graded in accordance with the requirements and
recommendations contained in the project plans and specification referenced in Section
1.0, Introduction, and Section 3.0, Project Background.
The topography of the graded tracts is characterized by terraced residential building pads,
gently sloped streets, a park site and a small hill at the north-central area. The ground
surface elevation of the rough graded lots ranged from approximately 1,101 feet near
Highway 79 to 1,138 feet near De Portola Road.
The eastern and western hillsides are comprised of cut slopes on the order of 30 feet in
height. The south side of the hill along the backyards of Lots No. 23 through 35 of Tract
24182-1 comprised of a fill slope on the order of 40 feet in height. A backdrain comprising
of a six (6)-inch diameter perforated pipe encased in about nine (9) cubic-feet per feet of
% -inch crushed rock wrapped by a geotextile was installed.
The subsurface profile within the graded tracts, except the hill, area is comprised of
engineered backfill/fill, recent alluvium older alluvium and Pauba Formation bedrock. The
fill soils are comprised of on site-excavated soils and import from the concurrently graded
tracts within the Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Community. The imported soils comprised
of mainly Silty Sand (SM), Clayey Sand (SC), Sandy Silt (ML) and Sandy/Silty Clay (CU.
These soils are derived mainly from the soil-like Pauba Formation bedrock.
The cutlfill transition lots included Lots No. 17, 19 through 23, 26 through 28 and 32
through 41 of Tract 24182-1. These lots were overexcavated to depth of at least five (5)
feet below finish grade. The combined thickness of the engineered fill including backfill
(compacted soil placed to backfill overexcavation to original ground surface level) and fill
(compacted soils placed over original ground surface level) within this portion of the site is
on the order of five (5) to 25 feet. The fill thickness ranges from about 0.0 to 20 feet.
Grading for Lots No. 18 and 29 through 31 of Tract 24182-1 was on the order of five (5)
to 25 feet below existing ground surface.
The remaining lots within Tract 24182-1 and the entire Tract 24182-2 are fill lots.
Prior to placing any artificial fill during grading, the upper five (5) to 10 feet of eXisting
recent alluvium, older alluvium, colluvium and bedrock were overexc3vated either to
remove unsuitable loose near surface materials andlor to place at least 10 feet of
compacted fills underneath the footing foundations within the Pauba Valley portion of the
site.
The Drawing No.2, Alluvial Removal Contour Map, depicts the contours of the elevation of
the final bottom of the areas overexcavated during mass grading.
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
\CCIENT\OFFICE\JOBFILE\ 1996\96-420-30
7
\~
I
I
I
'I
I
I
Tract 24182-2 and the portion of Tract 24182-1 south of the "Recent Alluvium and Pauba
Formation Bedrock or Older Alluvium Contact Line" shown in Sheet 2 of Drawing No.1,
Field Density Test Location and Geologic Map, are underlain by engineered fill over recent
alluvium. The subsurface profile within the Pauba Valley Portion of the site is comprised of
engineered backfill and fill over recent alluvium. The combined thickness of the engineered
fill including backfill and fill within this portion of the site is on the order of 15 to 25 feet.
The thickness of the fill ranges from about seven (7) to 20 feet.
As shown in Sheet 2 of Drawing No.1, Field Density Test Location and Geologic Map, the
remainder of Tract 24182-1 to the north of the "Recent Alluvium and Pauba Formation
Bedrock or Older Alluvium Contact Line" (referred to as the highland area) is underlain by
engineered backfilllfill over either older alluvium or Pauba Formation Bedrock. The combined
thickness of engineered backfill and fill over this portion of Tract 24182-1, excluding the
above-referenced cut and cutlfill transition lots, ranges from about 15 to 30 feet. The fill
thickness ranges from about 10 to 25 feet.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in the exploratory borings drilled within the Pauba Valley
portion of the site during field exploration performed for the above-referenced "Preliminary
Geotechnical investigation" report, dated April 26, 1996. The depth to groundwater ranged
from about 17 to 20 feet below existing ground surface. Groundwater was encountered at
a depth of about seven (7) feet below existing ground surface in the exploratory boring
drilled in 1988 within the Pauba Valley area adjacent to Highway 79.
Based on the existing ground surface, which is raised by about seven (7) to 20 feet above
the original ground surface, the depth to ground should be at least 25 feet from the finish
grade.
As discussed in the above-referenced As-Built Geology and Compaction Report of Rough
Grading dated August 20, 1997, groundwater seepage was encountered at a location near
the intersection of Ceserta Drive and Pavia Way. A subdrain was installed to drain perched
groundwater to a nearby coarse alluvium layer.
No perched groundwater was encountered during current rough grading.
9.3 Seismic Hazards
9.3.1 General
Results of a detailed site-specific faulting and seismicity study performed for the Paseo Del
Sol Master Planned Community are presented in the above-referenced As-Built Geology and
Compaction Report of Rough Grading, dated August 20, 1997. The following is summary
of the findings of this study.
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCIENTIOFFICEIJOBFILEI1996196-420-30
8
\"?-
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.3.2 Faulting and Seismicity
The subject tracts are located in Seismic Zone 4 in according with Figure 16-2, Seismic
Zone Map of the United States, of the UBC (1994). These tracts, however, are not located
within a currently designated State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. No active fault
projects toward or through these tracts. The nearest known active fault is the Wildomar
segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone, which is capable of generating an earthquake of
Moment Magnitude (MM) 7.5. This fault may be classified as the "A" type seismic source
as defined in Table 16-U, Seismic Source Type, of the UBC (1997). This fault is located
approximately 1.5 miles (2.5 km) south-southwest from the subject tracts.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Based on a deterministic seismic hazard analysis, the subject tracts may experience a peak
ground acceleration of about 0.60g, where g is the acceleration due to gravity, during an
MM7.5 seismic event generated by the movement of the Wildomar Fault. Based on a site-
specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, a maximum peak ground acceleration on the
order of 0.36g has a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years.
9.3.3 Liquefaction Potential
Converse performed a detailed liquefaction study in 1998 for the Pauba Valley area.
Results of this study were summarized in the above-referenced Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation report dated April 26, 1996. This analysis indicated that the Pauba Valley
portion of the site was susceptible to soil liquefaction.
Site conditions are improved due to removal of the upper five (5) to 10 feet of alluvial soils
and the placement of compacted fill over the original ground surface level. The depth to
groundwater from the ground surface as well as the effective confining stress is increased
as a result of the backfill/fill placement. Results of a liquefaction analysis for the current
site conditions are presented in Appendix 0, Liquefaction Potential and Seismically-Induced
Ground Settlement Analysis. Based on these studies, the potential for soil liquefaction still
exists, although to a lesser extent, within Tract 24182-2 and the Pauba Valley portion of
Tract 24182-1 during a significant seismic event generated by the movement of the nearby
Wildomar segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone.
Due to the absence of shallow groundwater and dense soil conditions, the highland area of
Tract 24182-1 north of the Recent Alluvium and Pauba Formation Bedrock or Older
Alluvium Contact Line is not considered prone to soil liquefaction.
9.3.4 Seismically-Induced Ground Settlement
Results of a seismically induced ground settlement analysis for the current ground
conditions are presented in Appendix C, Liquefaction Evaluation. This analysis is based on
estimated maximum credible ground acceleration of 0.60g. Based on this analysis, under
the present conditions, the southern portion of Tract 24182-2 near Highway 79 is prone to
about 3.0 inches of ground settlement during a maximum credible earthquake event
associated with the nearby Wildomar Branch of the Elsinore fault. The estimated ground
settlement near the highland area is estimate to be minimal, if any.
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCIENTIOFFICEIJOBFILEI1996196-420-30
9
Y\.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The seismically induced differential ground settlement over the footprint of a single family
residence is estimated to be on the order of 0.50 inches near the northern boundary of
Tract 24182-2 to about 1.50 inches near Highway 79.
10.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
This section contains results of our analysis and interpretation of data obtained during
laboratory testing.
Typical gradation of the subgrade soils within the various lots are presented in Figures No.
B-1, Grain-Size Distribution in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing.
Results of laboratory compaction tests performed on samples of fill soils retrieved during
rough grading are presented in Table B-1, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density
and Optimum Moisture Content Tests, in Appendix 8, Laboratory Testing. Results of
additional laboratory compaction tests performed at the completion of rough grading are
presented in Figure No. 8-2, Compaction Test, in Appendix 8, Laboratory Testing. Based
on these results, the laboratory maximum dry density and the optimum moisture content of
the compacted fill soils tested ranged from 112.0 pounds-per-cubic-foot (pcf) to 131.5 pet
and eight (8.0) percent to 16.0 percent, respectively.
Results of expansion index tests performed on representative bulk samples of subgrade
soils retrieved from the building pad areas are presented in Table B-2, Summary of
Expansion Index Test Results. The lot classifications based on expansion index of the
subgrade soils are presented below in Table No.1, Lot Classification Based on Expansion
Index. The lot numbers in this table refers to the numbers shown in Figure No.2, Lot
Identification Map.
TABLE NO.1, LOT CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX
Exoansion Potential Very Low Low Medium High
Expansion Index fEll 0-20 21-50 51-90 91.130
TRACT 24182-1
10-36,49-74, and 84-90 8, 9, 37-48 and 75-83 1-7 None
lOTS NO.
TRACT 24182-2
1-18, 28-37 and 54-61 19-27 and 38-53 None None
Results of direct shear tests performed on remolded samples of the representative subgrade
soils are presented in Figures No. B-3 through B-6, Direct Shear Test. Based on these
results, the effective cohesion and internal friction angle of the subgrade soil samples
tested ranged from 20 to 192 pounds-per-square-foot (psfl and 23.6 to 31.9 degrees,
respectively.
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
\CCIENT\OFFICEIJOBFILE\ 1996\96-420-30
10
^
\~
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
.a
I
I~
~
Il
.
>
o
I~
I
I
.-----/
~-
.~
--c ANUlA
49
50
28 51
29 52
~ CENON WAY
24 59 2
!j! J2 23 "< 49 58 ~
"' ~ 3
33 22 50 57 "'-
'" ~ ~ 4
~ 34 21 35 51 56
.... 5
~ 35 20 36 52 55 ~
6
'" 36 19 37 53 54
'" 7
ST. HWY. 79
(
lOT IDENTIFICATION MAP
FINAL SOIL COMPACTION AND GEOTECHNICAL
DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATION REPORT
TRACT - 24182 - 1 AND 2
Temecula, California For: Newland Associates
@ Converse Consultants
Prcl'~~: No
96-81-420-30
Fu;ul":' ,\10
2
\f.p
! I
I
I
I
Consolidation tests were performed on two (2) remolded samples of the representative
subgrade soils. Results are presented in Figures No. B-7 and 8-8, Consolidation Test.
These results indicate that the compression index of the subgrade soils tested is on the
order of 0.06 to 0.10. This range of the compression index corresponds to low- to
moderately compressible soils.
I
Two (2) representative samples of the subgrade soils from the building pad areas were
tested to determine soil corrosivity with respect to common construction materials such as
concrete and ferrous metal. These tests were performed by M. J. Schiff and Associates,
Claremont, California. Test results are included in Appendix 8, Laboratory Testing. These
results are similar to the soil corrosivity test results presented in a report prepared by M. J.
Schiff and Associates, Claremont, California, for the nearby Tract 24186-1,-2, Tract
24184-1 and 24188-1. This is to be expected, as the subgrade soils for the subject tracts
are comprised of imports from the tracts studied by M.J. Schiff and Associates. This
report was included in the above-referenced As-Built Geology and Compaction Report,
dated August 20, 1997. Conclusions and recommendation regarding soils corrosivity
contained in the referenced M.J. Schiff report are applicable for the subject tracts. A copy
of the report is also included in Appendix C, Soil Corrosivity Study, of this report.
I
I
I
I
Representative samples of street subgrade soils were tested in accordance with the State
of California Test Method 301-G to determine Resistance (R-value). Results of the R-value
tests and recommendations regarding pavement structural sections will be presented in a
separate report.
I
I
I
As stated in Section 9.0, Site Conditions After Grading, the thickness of engineered fill
placed over the Pauba Valley portion of the subject tracts range from about seven (7) to 20
feet. The majority of these fills were placed during mass grading between October 1996
and June 1997. As discussed in the above-referenced Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation report dated April 26, 1996, this fill placement had surcharged the underlying
compressible alluvium soil layers resulting in consolidation settlement. Fill soils also
experience compression under self,-:weight. During mass grading, a number of settlement
monuments were installed within the Pauba Valley portions of Tract 24182. Based on the
results of the settlement monitoring, fill thickness, subsurface soil conditions and the time
elapsed since the completion of mass grading, it is our opinion that the majority of static
ground settlement due to fill placement during mass grading has occurred.
I
I
I
During current rough grading, engineered fills on the order of 25 feet were placed within
the fill lots adjacent to the hill Tract 24182-1. These fill soils are underlain by dense older
alluvium andlor Pauba Formation bedrock. Some compression settlement is likely to occur
over this portipn of Tract 24182-1 due to the compression of the underlying older
alluviumlbedrock and the compression of the fill under it's self-weight. The majority of the
settlement should have occurred immediate after the completion of fill. placement. We
recommended that three (3) to four (4) months time be allowed to elapse between the
completion of fill placement and the start of building construction within the fill Lots No.
24, 25 and 42 and cut/fill transition Lots No. 17, 19-23, 26 through 28, and 32 through 42
of Tract 24182-1.
I
I
I
I
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCIENTIOFFICEIJOBFILEI1996196-420-30
11
\"\
, I
I
I
I
I
I
Structures will also experience settlement due to compression of the foundation soil
subjected to bearing stress from external dead and live loads. The magnitude of this
component of building settlement depend on many factor including soil compressibility,
embedment depth and dimensions of footing and the actual foundation pressure applied.
As stated in Section 9.3, Seismic Hazards, the Pauba Valley portion of the tracts is prone
to seismically-induced ground settlement on the order of 0.0 at the north side near the
northern boundary of Tract 24182-2 to about 3.0 inches to the south side near Highway
79. The building foundation at the site are not susceptible to bearing failure during
earthquakes since the liquefiable area is underlain by an engineered fill mat of at least 1 5
feet in thickness. This fill mat should act as a relatively rigid mat resulting in a more
uniform settlement.
I
I
I
Due to relative deep groundwater and the compacted fill mat, disruption at the ground
surface, if any, is expected to be minimal at the subject tracts.
11.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on our', field observation and fill density testing, it is our opinion that earthwork
associated with the grading of the subject tracts for the purpose of residential development
has been completed in accordance with the project plans and specifications.
I
I
I
I
The subject tracts, from a geotechnical point of view, are suitable for the construction of
the proposed residential structures provided the recommendations provided in this report
are considered in the design and construction.
12.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATION
This section contains our recommendations regarding design and construction of various
facilities including building foundations, slabs-on-grade, retaining walls, pavements,
driveways, walkways, curb and gutter.
12. 1 Building Foundation and Retaining Walls
I
I
One- or -two-story buildings and retaining walls may be supported by continuous andlor
isolated spread footings. Continuous footings should be at least 12 inches and 18 inches
wide for one-story and two-story buildings, respectively. The recommended minimum
width for an isolated spread footing for an individual column is 18 inches and 24 inches for
one-story and two-story buildings, respectively.
I
I
I
I
The expansion potential of the subgrade soils for various lots within the subject tracts
range from very low to medium as define in Chapter 18 (Table No. 18-I-B) of the UBC
(1994). For lot classifications for the subject tracts based on expansion potential, see
Table No.1, Lot Classifications Based Expansion Index Test Results, of this report. The
recommended minimum depth of footing embedment and reinforcement for various ranges
of expansion potential of the subgrade soils are included in Table No.2, Suggested
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCIENTIOFFICEIJOBFILEI1996196-420-30
12
\'b
I I
I
I
I
I
Guidelines For Design and Construction of Foundations and Slabs-on-Grade for One- and
Two-story Residential Buildings.
Footings should be designed based on an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. This
bearing stress may be increased by one-third for short duration loading such as wind or
seismic forces.
Structural designs may require wider footings andlor more reinforcement than
recommended in this report.
I
I
I
I
Building clearance from ascending slopes, footing setback from descending slopes and
foundation elevations should meet the requirements of Section 1806.4, Footings on or
Adjacent to Slopes, of the UBC (1994).
Active lateral earth pressures from soils at the site may be taken as equal to that developed
by a fluid of density of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). At-rest earth pressure may be
taken as equal to that developed by a fluid of density of 65 pcf.
I
I
Resistance to lateral loads can be assumed to be provided by friction acting at the base of
foundations and by passive earth pressures against the sides of the foundations andlor
walls. An ultimate value of the coefficient of friction of 0.30 between concrete and soil
may be used with the dead load forces. An ultimate value of the passive earth pressure
resistance of '250 psf per foot of depth may be used for the sides of footingslretaining
walls. The maximum value of the passive pressure should be limited to 1,500 psf. The
lateral resistances provided by the friction and the passive resistances may be combined
directly without any reduction. These lateral resistances may be increased by one-third for
short duration seismiclwind forces.
For earthquake-resistant design of structures, the soil profile type at the site may be
classified as "53" with a "s Factor" value of 1.5 in accordance with Table 16-J, Site
Coefficients, of the UBC (1994).
I
Footings should be founded on firm and uniform compacted fills. Footing excavations
should be observed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant- after the rebar is
in place and prior to placing any concrete.
I
I
I
The total footing settlement from bearing load will depend, among other factors, on the
subgrade soil type, depth and width of footing, thickness of compacted fills underneath the
footings and changes in the moisture conditions of the subsurface soils. Anticipated total
static settlements of footings, designed and constructed in accordance with the
recommendations provided herein, should be less than one inch. The expected differential
settlement between footings for individual residences may be taken as equal to half of the
total settlement.
I
I
I
I
12.2 Slabs-On-Grade
Based on the expansion index tests, the pad subgrades are classified as in Table 1, Lot
Classification Based on Expansion Index Test Results. Recommendations regarding
conventional slab-thickness, reinforcement and presoaking subgrade soils at the time of
construction are provided in Table No.2, Suggested Guidelines For Design and
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
\CCIENT\OFFICE\JOBFILE\ 1996\96-420.30
13
,<\.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Construction of Foundations and Slabs-an-Grade for One- and Two-story Residential
Buildings.
TABLE NO.2 SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF FOUNDATIONS AND SLABS.ON.
GRADE FOR ONE- AND TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
Foundation System Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V
Exoansion Potential Very low Low Medium Hioh Very Hiah
Expansion Index IE.I) 0-20 21 - 50 51 - 90 91.130 Above 130
Footing Depth One Two One Two One Two One Two One Two
Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story
Perimeter 12" 18" 12" 18" 18" 18" 18" .l!L 30" 30"
Interior 12" 18" 12" 18" 12" 18" 18" 18" 18" 18"
Footing 1- # 4 Bar 1 - # 4 Bar 1. # 4 Bar 2.4Bars 2- # 4 Bars
Reinforcement Top and Bottom Top and Bottom Top and Bottom Top and Bottom Top and Bottom
Garage Grade Beam 12" x 12" wi 12" x 12" wi 12" x 12" wi 12" x 12" wi 18" x 18" wi
1- # 4 Bar 1- # 4 Bar 1- # 4 Bar 1- # 4 Bar 1. # 4 Bar
At Door Opening Top and Bottom Top and Bottom Top and Bottom Top and Bottom Top and Bottom
Floor Slab Thickness 4" Nominal 4" Nominal 4" Nominal 4" Nominal 6" Nominal
Floor Slab #4 at 18" o.c.
Reinforcement 6" x 6"- #101#10 6"x6"-#1 0/#1 0 6"x6"-#1 0/#1 0
Dwellinas Not Mandatory Not Mandatory 6"x6"-#101#10 Each Wav
6"x6"-#1 01#1 0 6"x6"-#6/#6
Garages
Subgrade Moisture 120 % of 120% of 120% of 120% of
Optimum Optimum Optimum Optimum Optimum
Requirement at Time or Higher Moisture to 12" Moisture to 12" Moisture to 18" Moisture to 18"
of Construction Below Slab Below Slab Below Slab- Below Slab
Structural designs may require slab thickness andlor reinforcement greater than
recommended in herein.
Slabs-on-grade should be underlain by 6-mil Visqueen (or equivalent) moisture barrier. To
help break capillary rise of soils moisture, to aid concrete curing and to prevent puncture,
we recommend that at least two (2) inches of clean sand be placed above and below the
moisture barrier. Joints in the moisture barrier should be lapped a minimum of six (6)
inches and properly sealed.
Slab-on-grade subgrade soils must be firm and uniform. All loose or disturbed soils
including under slab utility trench backfills should be recompacted prior to the placement of
clean sand base underneath the moisture barrier.
Joints for concrete slab-on-grade must be carefully designed. Joint spacing IS dependent
upon slab thickness and concrete properties and should be selected by the structural
engineer. Joints should be properly sealed. Unless local conditions and concrete properties
indicate otherwise, the joint spacing (in feet) should not exceed approximately twice the
slab thickness (in inches). Joint spacing may be increased if slabs are heavily reinforced.
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
\CCIENT\OFFICE\JOBFILE\ 1996\96-420-30
14
1P
I
I
I
I
I
I
During hot weather, the contractor should take appropriate curing precautions after
placement of concrete to minimize cracking of the slabs. The potential for slab cracking
may be lessened by the addition of fiber mesh to the concrete, andlor control of
waterlcement ratio. Concrete should be cured by protecting it against loss of moisture and
rapid temperature change for at least seven days after placement. Moist curing,
waterproof paper, white polyethylene sheeting, white liquid membrane compound, or a
combination thereof may be used after finishing operations have been completed. The
edges of concrete slabs exposed after removal of forms should be immediately protected to
provide continuous curing.
Recommendations regarding garage grade beam at door opening for various expansion
potential conditions are also included in Table No.2, Suggested Guidelines For Design and
Construction of Foundations and Slabs-on-Grade for One- and Two-story Residential
Buildings.
I
In lieu of the recommendations presented on Table No.2, building foundations on lots with
EI > 20 may be constructed with post-tensioned slab as recommended in Chapter 18 of the
UBC (1994). Recommendations for post-tensioned slab design, based on Section 1816 of
the UBC, are provided below:
I
I
. Edge Moisture Variation (Em, Center Lift): 6.0 feet
. Edge Moisture Variation Distance (Em, Edge Lift) : 3.0 feet
. Estimated Differential Swell (Ym, Center Lift): 0.90 to 1.4 inches
. Estimated Differential Swell (Ym, Edge Lift): 0.20 to 0.34 inches
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
We recommend that the subgrade soils for lots with post-tensioned slab, if used , be
soaked as recommended in Table No.2.
12.3 Foundation Settlement
Total static settlement of foundations at site will comprise of the followings:
. Compression of the foundation soils due to bearing pressure
. Compression of fill soils due to self weight and
. Compression of the underlying native soils due to fill weight
The total settlement due to compression of foundation soils under bearing load only should
be less than 1.0 inch. The differential settlement may be taken as half of the total
settlement. A discussion of the other two components of the static total settlement is
presented in Section 10.0 of this report.
As discussed in Section 9.3, Seismic Hazards, the portion of the site within the Pauba
Valley is prone to seismically induced total settlement on the order of 3.0 inches. The
anticipated seismically induced differential settlement over the footprint 'of the structures
may be taken as half of the total settlement. Due to this range of differential settlement,
based on published information as shown in Table No.3, Severity of Cracking Damages,
residential buildings supported on conventional footing and slab-on-grade as recommended
in Section 9.1 and 9.2, may experience negligible to slight damages.
I
I
I
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
\CCIENT\OFFICE\JOBFILE\ 1996\96-420-30
15
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table No.3, Severity of Cracking Damage (After Day, 1998)
Damage Category Description of Typical Damage Approximate Crack Width a S/L
(11 (2) (3) (4) (5)
Negligible Hairline cracks <O.lmm <3cm (1.2 in.) < 1/300
Includes fine cracks that can be
easily treated during normal
Very Slight decoration, perhaps isolated slight 1mm 3-4 em (1.2-1.5 in) 1/300-1/240
fracture in building, and cracks in
external brickwork visible on close
inspection
Includes cracks that can be easily
filled and redecoration would
probably be required, several slight
Slight fractures may appear showing on the 3mm 4-5cm (1.5-2.0 in) 1/240-11175
inside of the building, cracks that afe
visible externally and some repainting
may be required, and doors and
windows may stick
Includes cracks that require some
opening up and can be patched by a
mason, re.current cracks that can be
.masked by suitable linings; repainting 5-15mm or a number of
Moderate of external brickwork and a small 5-8cm 12.0-3.0 in) 1/175-1/120
cracks> 3mm
amount of brickwork replacement
may be required, doors and windows
stick, service pipes may fracture,
weather tightness is often impaired
Includes large cracks requiring
extensive repair work involving
breaking-out and replacing sections
of walls (especially over doors and 15-25mm, but also depends
Severe windows) distorted windows and 8-13cm 13.0-5.0 in) 1/120-1/70
on number of cracks
door frames, noticeably sloping
floors, leaning or bulging walls, some
Joss of bearing in beams, and
disrupted service pipes
Often requires a major repair job
involving partial or complete
Very Severe rebuilding, beams lose bearing, walls Usually> 25mm but also. > 13cm (> 5 in) >1/70
lean and require shoring, windows depends on number of cracks
are broken with distortion, and there
is a danger of structural instability
To further reduce the potential of damage due to differential settlement, the structures may
be strengthened andlor supported on post-tensioned foundation systems. The
recommended differential settlement for the design of buildings at various lots are
presented in Table No.4, Recommended Differential Settlement.
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
\CCIENT\OFFICEIJOBFILE\ 1996\96-420-30
16
-JJ--
I
I
I
I
I
Table No.4, Recommended Differential Settlement
Tract No. Lots No. Estimated Differential
Settlement
1-16,18,24-25,29-31 and 41-95 0.5
24182-1
17, 19-23, 26-28 and 32-41 (cut/fill transition lots) 1.0
24182-2 1-4,22-34,41-50 and 57-61 1.0
5-21, 35-40 and 51-56 1.5
12.4 Concrete Walks, Driveways, Access Ramps, Curb and Gutter
I
Except as modified in this report, concrete walks, driveways, curb and gutters may be
constructed in accordance with Section 303-5, Concrete Curbs, Walks, Gutters, Cross-
Gutters, Alley Intersections, Access Ramps, and Driveways, of the Standard Specifications
for Public Works (SSPWC, 1994).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Prior to pouring concrete, at least the upper 12 inches of the subgrade soils under these
structures should be scarified, moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum and
compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.
The subgrade soils under the driveways of various lots should be pre-soaked prior to
pouring concrete in accordance with the recommendations provided for concrete slab-on-
grade in Section 12.2, Slab-on-Grade. The thickness of driveways for passenger cars
should be at least four (4) inches. Transverse control joints for driveways should be
spaced not more than 10 feet apart. Driveways wider than 12 feet should be provided
with a longitudinal control joints.
Concrete walks subjected to pedestrian and bicycle loading should be at least four (4)
inches thick. Transverse joints should be spaced 15 feet or less and should be cut to a
depth of Y. the slab thickness. The composition of subgrade soils along the concrete
walkways is likely to vary significantly from sand to sandy clay. Subgrades containing
clayey soils should be presoaked to 1 20 percent of the optimum to a depth of at least 12
inches prior to pouring concrete.
In areas where the subgrade soils are mainly clayey, the concrete driveway andlor walkway
slabs should be underlain by about two (2) inches of moist clean sand and/or aggregate
base to aid in concrete curing and to facilitate subsurface drainage.
Positive drainage should be provided away from all driveways and sidewalks to prevent
seepage of surface andlor subsurface water into the concrete base andlor subgrade.
12.5 Corrosion Protection
Based on the corrosion study report presented in Appendix C, Soil Corrosivity Study and
additional soil corrosivity tests presented in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing, subgrade soils
within the subject tracts are not significantly deleterious to concrete. Type I or II Portland
Cement may be used in concrete construction. Standard concrete covers, that is, 2.0 inch
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCIENTIOFFICEIJOBFILEI1996196-420-30
17
~~
II
I
if placed against form and 3.0 inches if placed directly against earth, may be used to
protect reinforcing rebar.
I
I
I
Site soils are classified as severely corrosive to ferrous metal. For corrosion protection
recommendations of steel, iron pipes, copper tubes, plastic and vitrified clay and other
types of pipes, see the attached soil corrosivity study report in Appendix C, Soil Corrosivity
Study. If additional corrosion recommendations are desired, we recommend that a qualified
corrosion specialist be contacted.
12.6 Site Drainage, Slope Protection and Landscape Irrigation Recommendations
I
Adequate positive drainage away from structures should be provided to prevent ponding
and to reduce percolation of water into subgrade andlor other structural fills. Building pad
drainage should satisfy the requirements of Section 3315, Drainage and Terracing, of the
Appendix Chapter 33 of UBC (1994). Planters and landscaped areas adjacent to the
building perimeter should be designed to minimize water infiltration into the subgrade soils.
Gutters and downspouts should be installed on the roofs, and runoff should be directed to
storm drains through non-erosive devices.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Slopes should'. be provided with adequate erosion control measures as soon as possible.
Erosion control may include planting the slopes with appropriate drought-resistant vegetation
as recommended by a landscape architect. Landscaping should disturb the slope soils as little
as possible. Care should be exercised to prevent loose fills from being placed on slopes
during landscaping. Slopes should not be over-irrigated, as this can soften the near surface
soil resulting in surficial slope failures. The V-ditch should be maintained at all times to
prevent overflow of surface water during storms.
Rodents burrowing, small concentrations of uncontrolled water, or localized depression of
utility trench backfill on slopes should be controlled andlor repaired as soon as possible.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Most hillside residential lot problems are associated with water. Homeowners should be
aware that altering drainage patterns, landscaping and the addition of patios, planters and
other improvements, broken pipe, as well as irrigation and variations in seasonal rainfall all
affects moisture conditions of the subgrade soils. Excessive landscape irrigation may
significantly increase the subgrade soil moisture conditions resulting in localized ponding and
saturation of the subsurface soils. Percolating groundwater water may even flow from upper-
grade lot areas to adjacent lower-grade lot areas. Excessive soil moisture affects
performance of buildings, slopes, pavements and other structures as well as landscaping.
Local drainage collection and transporting devices such as subdrains may be required if
waterlogging conditions develop in the future.
Modifications to the graded pad areas should not be attempted without the approval of a
qualified soils engineer andlor geologist.
Additional site drainage recommendations are provided in the above-referenced As-BUilt
Geology and Soil Compaction Report of Rough Grading report dated, August 20, 1997.
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
\CCIENT\OFFICEIJOBFILE\ 1996\96-420-30
18
7A.
I
I
I
I
I
I
13.0 ON-SITE TRENCH BACKFILL COMPACTION
13. 1 General
Except as modified herein, the trenches for underground utilities, including water, sewer
and gas pipelines; and conduits for electrical, fiber optics etc., should be backfilled in
accordance with the recommendations contained in Section 306 of the Standard
Specifications for Public Works (SSPWC, 1994). The pipes should be bedded as
recommended by the pipe designer. The gradation of the bedding material, if used, should
be selected to prevent migration of fines from the surrounding native soils. Bedding
materials should be tested and approved by the project soils consultant prior to importing
them to the site.
I
I
I
I
The excavated soils should be suitable for use as trench backfill. These materials may
need to be processed and may require mixing and moisture conditioning prior to
compaction.
Bedding material, if used, should be vibrated in-place, and care should be taken to densify
the bedding material below the springline of the pipe. Flooding or jetting of the bedding
material should not be attempted because the water from the trench is not expected to
drain freely. Long-term accumulation of water in the pipe trench from any sources should
be avoided, and trenches should be pumped dry if water collects inside.
13.2 Recommended Specifications for Placement of Trench Backfill
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trench backfill shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent as per
ASTM Standard 01557-91. At least the upper 12 inches of trench underlying pavements
should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction as per ASTM Standard
01557-91 . Additional trench backfill placement and compaction recommendations are
provided below:
. Bedding material for the pipe should be selected by the pipe design engineer. Bedding
material should have a Sand Equivalent (SE) greater than or equal to 30, as determined
by the California Test Method 217.
. Trench backfill shall be compacted by mechanical methods, such as sheepsfoot,
vibrating or pneumatic rollers, or mechanical tampers, to achieve the density specified
herein. The backfill materials shall be brought to two (2) to three (3) percent within
optimum moisture content, then placed in horizontal layers. The thickness of
uncompacted layers should not exceed eight inches. Each layer shall be evenly spread,
moistened or dried as necessary, and then tamped or rolled until the specified density
has been achikved.
. The contractor shall select the equipment and processes to be used to achieve the
specified density without damage to adjacent ground and completed work.
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCIENTIOFFICEIJOBFILEI1996196-420-30
19
p
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· The field density of the compacted soil shall be measured by the ASTM Standard
01556-90 (Sand Cone) or ASTM Standard 02922-91 (Nuclear Method) test method or
equivalent.
. Observation and field tests should be performed by the project soils consultant during
construction to confirm that the required degree of compaction has been obtained.
Where compaction is less than that specified, additional compactive efforts shall be
made with adjustment of the moisture content as necessary until the specified
compaction is obtained.
. It should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe conditions during
excavation, backfilling and compaction operations.
. Trench backfill shall not be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather
conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rain, fill operations shall not be
resumed until field tests by the project's geotechnical consultant indicate that the
moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified.
14.0 CLOSURE
The findings a'nd recommendations of this report are provided in accordance with generally
accepted professional engineering and engineering geologic principles and practice in effect
at this time in Southern California. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on
field observation, field and laboratory testing performed in accordance with applicable
industry standards, data analysis/interpretation and our experience. We. make no other
warranty, either express or implied.
Although the grading for lots was considered suitable at the time of completion, natural
weathering and degradation of the near-surface soils may occur with time. It has been our
experience that significant deterioration of surficial soils, in particular, growth of vegetation
and erosion, may occur if a significant period of time elapses before construction. We
recommend that the conditions of impacted lots, if any, be reevaluated by a qualified
geotechnical engineer prior to construction.
This report has been prepared for the sole benefit and exclusive use of the Newland
Associates and no one else may utilize or rely on this report, or any portion thereof, in
connection with any pending or contemplated transaction or for any other purpose without
the express written consent of Converse. In the event that there is any legal action or
proceeding arising out of or related to this report or any part thereof, between Converse
and anyone who may utilize this report, with or without Converse's consent, the prevailing
part shall be entitled to recover all of its expenses, including all reasonable attorneys fees
and costs, incurred in connection with any such action or proceeding.
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
\CCIENT\OFFICE\JOBFILE\ 1996\96-420-30
20
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES
ANNUAL BOOK OF ASTM STANDARDS (1995), Vol. 04.08, Soil and Rock; Dimension
Stone; Geosynthetics.
BOWLES, J. E., 1982, Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hili, Inc.
CARTER, M. and BENTLEY, S. P. (1991), Correlations of Soil Properties, Pentech Press,
London.
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE (1996), Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation, Eastern and Southern Portion of "The Meadows", Approximately 800-
Acre Site, City of Temecula, California, dated April 26, 1996, prepared for Newland
Associates, Converse Project No. 96-81-420-01.
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE (1997), As-Built Geology and Compaction
Report of Rough Grading, Tract 24182 through 24186 and 24188-1, Paseo Del Sol
Master Planned Community, Temecula, California, dated August 20,1997, prepared
for Newland Associates, Converse Project No. 96-81-420-01.
CONVERSE C.ONSUL TANTS INLAND EMPIRE (1988), Liquefaction Investigation , The
Meadows at Rancho California, APN Nos. 926-13-9, -10, -12, -13, and -14, Rancho
California", Dated December 9, prepared for Rancho California Development
Company, Converse Project No. 88-81-148-02.
DAY, R. W. (1998), Discussion on "Ground-Movement-Related Building Damage', Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No.5, pp.
462-463.
INTERNA TIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS (1994), Uniform Building Code
(UBC).
KENNEDY, M. P. (1997), "Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone
in Southern Riverside County, California", CDMG Special Report 131.
LAMBE, T. W., and WHITMAN, R. V., 1979, Soil Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons.
SEED, . S., TOKIMATSU, K., HARDER. L.F., and CHUNG, R. M. (1985), Influence of SPT
Procedures in Soil liquefaction Resistance Evaluation. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111, No.1 2. pp. 1425-1445.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (1994), Building
News, Inc., Los Angeles, California.
TOKIMATSU, K. and SEED, H. B. (1987), Evaluation of Settlement in Sands Due to
Earthquake Shaking, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No.8,
pp. 861-878.
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (UBC), 1994, International Conference of Building Officials.
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCIENTIOFFICEIJOBFILEI1996196-420-30
21
z-1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (UBC), 1997, International Conference of Building Officials.
YOUD. T. L. and GARRIS, C. T. (1995), Liquefaction-Induced Ground Surface Disruption,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol 121, No. 11, pp. 805-809.
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
\CCIENT\OFFICEIJOBFILE\ 1996\96-420-30
22
1!i>
I
I
!I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
, I
I
I
APPENDIX A
FIELD DENSITY TESTING
q.,. 0.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE NO.1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TE,ST RESUl.TS
APPROX APPROX DRY %REl
TEST TEST TEST LOCATION TEST FILL DENS. % SOIL REMARKS
NO. DATE ELEV. DEPTH MOIST TYPE CQMP 90%RC Req'd
1ft) Iftl (pef) IRC)
Tract 24182-'
1 OS/27/98 Pad #37 1125.0 0.0 117.9 9.2 1 94
2 OS/27/98 Pad #39 1130.0 0.0 115.3 9.5 1 92
3 OS/27/98 Pad #44 1127.0 0.0 117.4 9.0 1 93
4 OS/28/98 Pad #41 1130.0 0.0 116.4 9.1 1 92
5 OS/28/98 Pad #45 1125.0 2.0 113.9 9.0 1 90
6 OS/28/98 Pad #66 1105.0 0.0 115.6 8.8 1 92
7 OS/28/98 Pad #74 1105.5 5.0 114.7 9.0 1 91
8 OS/28/98 Pad #65 1105.0 3.0 113.6 9.5 1 90
9 OS/29/98 lot #65, W. Central Area 1106.0 2.0 117.2 10.6 2 93
10 OS/29/98 Lot #67, W. Central Area 1107.0 2.0 117.5 11.0 2 94
11 OS/29/98 Lot #69, W. Central Area 1110.0 2.0 118.1 11.5 2 94
12 OS/29/98 Lot #71, W. Central Area 1110.0 2.0 119.0 12.5 2 95
13 OS/29/98 Lot #73, W. Central Area 1108.0 2.0 117.6 13.5 2 94
14 OS/29/98 Lot #66, Slope Area 1107.0 2.0 120.6 11.3 2 96
15 OS/29/98 Lot #70, Slope Area 1110.0 2.0 117.9 12.0 2 94
16 OS/29/98 Lot #74, Slope Area 1109.0 2.0 117.4 11.5 2 91
17 OS/29/98 Lot #65, Slope Area 1108.0 4.0 126.3 10.3 4 96
18 OS/29/98 Lot #69, Slope Area 1112.0 4.0 117.7 13.0 2 94
19 OS/29/98 Lot #73, Slope Area 1110.0 4.0 117.2 12.4 2 93
20 OS/29/98 Lot #66, Central Area 1110.0 4.0 118.8 12.0 2 95
21 OS/29/98 Lot #68, Central Area 1109.0 4.0 118.0 12.5 2 94
22 OS/29/98 Lot #72, Central Area 1113.0 4.0 117.5 12.2 2 94
23 OS/29/98 Lot #69, West Area 1113.0 5.0 119.9 12.8 4 91
24 OS/29/98 Lot #71, West Area 1113.0 5.0 117.5 12.5 2 94
25 06/01/98 lot #20, Central Area 1099.0 0.0 119.9 12.0 4 91
Tract 24182-2
26 06/01/98 lot #23, Central Area 1100.0 0.0 119.0 11.5 2 95
27 06/01198 lot #26, Central Area 1100.0 0.0 119.2 11.1 2 95
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCI ENTlOFFI CE\JOBFILE\ 1996\96-81 \96-420-30. FDT
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE NO.1 -
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESU1.TS
APPROX APPROX DRY % REL
TEST TEST TEST LOCATION TEST FILL DENS. % SOIL COMP REMARKS
NO. OATE ELEV. DEPTH (pet} MOIST TYPE {RC} 90%RC Req'd
(ft} (ft}
Tract 24182-2
28 06/01/98 Lot #19, Central Area 1100.0 1.0 120.3 10.6 2 96
29 06/01/98 lot #27. Central Area 1102.0 1.0 121.1 11.9 4 92
30 06/01 /98 lot #21, Central Area 1102.0 2.0 119.5 11.4 4 91
31 06/01/98 lot #24, Central Area 1102.0 2.0 123.5 11.5 4 94
32 06/01/98 Lot #27, Central Area 1103.0 2.0 122.8 11.3 4 93
33 06/01/98 lot #22, Central Area 1102.0 3.0 123.3 8.9 2 99
Tract 24182-1
34 06/01/98 Lot #68, Slope Area 1114.0 6.0 99.0 11.6 3 88 Fail. see Retest
IRTI # 34A
35 06/01/98 lot #70, Slope Area 1114.0 6.0 106.7 13.3 3 95
36 06/01/98 Lot #74, Slope Area 1111.0 4.0 109.6 15.5 3 98
37 06/01/98 lot #72, Slope Area 1115.0 6.0 106.6 16.7 3 95
38 06/01/98 Lot #66, Slope Area 1111.0 6.0 107.2 15.0 3 96
39 06/01/98 lot #69, Slope Area 1117.0 8.0 109.9 15.6 1 89 Fail, see RT
#39A
40 06/01/98 lot #67, Slope Area 1113.0 8.0 103.0 16.6 3 92
34A 06/01/98 Lot #68, Slope Area 1114.0 6.0 103.1 16.1 3 92 RT of #34
39A 06/01/98 Lot #S9, Slope Area 1118.0 8.0 114.4 10.2 1 92 RT of #39
Tract 24182-2
41 06/02/98 Lot #20. Central Area 1101.0 2.0 116.6 8.7 2 93
42 06/02/98 Lot #23, Central Area 1102.0 2.0 117.1 9.3 2 93
43 06/02/98 Lot #24, Central Area 1102.0 2.0 117.3 9.9 2 94
44 06/02/98 lot #26, Central Area 1103.0 2.0 116.9 10.6 2 93
45 06/02/98 Lot #38 , Central Area 1101.5 1.5 118.4 9.5 2 94
46 06/02/98 Lot #48, Central Area 1102.0 1.5 115.9 10.1 2 92
47 06/02/98 Lot #42, Central Area 1103.5 1.5 117.5 11.0 2 94
48 06/02/98 Lot #44, Central Area 1105.0 1.5 117.4 10.4 2 94
49 06/02/98 Lot #19, Central Area 1101.0 2.0 115.9 10.4 2 92
50 06/02/98 Lot #21, Central Area 1101.5 2.0 115.5 8.9 2 92
51 06/02/98 Lot #25, Central Area 1103.0 2.0 117.2 10.8 2 93
52 06/02/98 Lot #27, Central Area 1103.0 2.0 115.6 10.1 2 92
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCI ENT\O FFI CE\JOBFI LE\ 1996\96-81 \96-420-30. FDT
2
,,?'-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TAELE NO.1
SUMMARY OF FIELD OENSITY TEST RESUl.TS
APPROX APPROX DRY % REL
TEST TEST TEST FILL % SOIL REMARKS
NO. DATE TEST LOCATION ELEV. DEPTH DENS. MOIST TYPE COMP 90% RC Req'd
(It I Iftl (pet) (Rei
Tract 24182-2
53 06/02/98 lot #39, Central Area 1101.5 1.5 116.4 11.0 2 93
54 06/02/98 Lot #41, Central Area 1103.0 1.5 118.9 lOA 2 95
SS 06/02/98 Lot #43, Central Area 1104.5 1.5 118.2 10.5 2 94
56 06/02/98 Lot #45, Central Area 1106.0 1.5 116.0 8.8 2 92
Tract 24182-1
S7 06/02/98 Lot #55, Central Area 1109.0 0.0 117.8 8.8 4 90
58 06/02/98 Lot #58, Central Area 1112.0 0.0 118.8 10.7 4 90
59 06/02/98 Lot /154, Central Area 1109.0 1.5 119.8 9.9 4 91
60 06/02/98 Lot #55 1111.0 2.0 123.3 11.3 4 94 Sandcone (SC)
61 06/02/98 lot #56. South West Area 1113.0 3.0 121.3 11.0 4 92 SC
62 06/02/98 lot #57, South Area 1117.0 3.0 121.9 10.6 4 93 SC
63 06/02/98 Lot #58 1115.0 3.0 118.1 10.1 4 90 SC
64 06/02198 Lot #59 1112.0 3.0 119.2 10.5 4 91 SC
65 06/03/98 Lot #49, Central Area 1101.5 0.0 120.8 10.9 4 92
66 06/03/98 Lot #65, North West Area 1111.0 7.0 118.7 12.3 4 90
67 06/03/98 Lot #67, South West Area 1115.0 10.0 115.1 12.0 4 88 Fail, see RT
#67A
67A 06/03/98 Lot #67, South West Area 1115.0 10.0 119.1 11.8 4 91 AT of #67
68 06/03/98 Lot #68, West Area 1116.0 10.0 114.8 10.0 2 91
69 06/03/98 Lot #70, Central Area 1118.0 10.0 115.5 10.2 2 92
70 06/03/98 Lot #72, South West Area 1117.0 8.0 121.0 11.3 4 92 SC
71 06/03/98 Lot #74, North West Area 1113.0 6.0 122.9 10.5 4 93
72 06/03/98 Lot #89, Central Area 1107.0 0.0 121.1 10.1 4 92
73 06/03/98 lot #87, Central Area 1106.0 0.0 114.5 11.0 2 91
74 06/03/98 lot #85, Central Area 1105.0 0.0 116.3 10.7 2 93
75 06/03/98 lot #76, Central Area 1106.0 0.0 122.0 11.3 4 93
76 06/03/98 lot #78, Central Area 1105.0 0.0 120.5 10.5 4 92
77 06/03/98 Lot #56, North Area 1114.0 2.0 120.8 10.9 4 92 SC
78 06/03/98 Lot #78, South East Area 1118.0 5.0 121.4 11.0 4 92 SC
79 06f03f98 Lot #59, South West Area 1114.0 3.0 119.0 11.1 2 95
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCIENT\OFFICE\JOBFI LE\ 1996\96-81 \96-420-30. FDT
3
~;z",
II
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE NO.1
SUMMA RY OF FIELD DENSITY TE:ST RESUL.TS
APPRoX APPRoX DRY % REL
TEST TEST TEST FILL % SOIL REMARKS
NO. DATE TEST LOCATION ELEV. DEPTH DENS. MOIST TYPE COMP 90%RC Req'd
lit! IItl (pefl IRe)
Tract 24182-2
80 06/04/98 Lot #30, Central Area 1101.0 0.0 117.9 11.5 5 90
81 06/04/98 Lot #35, Central Area 1100.0 0.0 117.3 11.7 5 90
82 06/04/98 Lot #28. Central Area 11 03.0 1.5 118.3 11.1 5 91
83 06/04/98 Lot #29, Central Area 1102.0 1.5 117.7 12.0 5 90
84 06/04/98 Lot #31, Central Area 1102.0 1.5 118.0 11.0 5 90
85 06/04/98 Lot #32, Central Area 11 02.0 1.5 117.8 10.4 5 90
86 06/04/96 Lot #33, Central Area 1101.0 1.5 118.4 11.3 5 91
87 06/04/98 Lot #34, Central Area 1101.0 1.5 118.5 11.0 5 91
88 06/04/98 Lot #36, Central Area 1101.0 1.5 119.4 10.9 5 91
89 06/04/98 lot #37, Central Area 1100.0 1.5 120.2 10.6 5 92
Tract 24182-1
90 06/04/98 Lot #9, Central Area 1118.0 0.0 116.4 11.3 2 93
91 06/04/98 lot #11, Central Area 1125.0 0.0 117.7 11.5 5 90
92 06/04/98 lot #13, Central Area 1131.0 0.0 118.8 10.7 5 91
93 06/04/98 Lot 1110, Central Area 1123.0 2.0 116.9 11.1 5 90
94 06/04/98 Lot #15. Central Area 1135.0 2.0 118.0 11.4 5 90
95 06/03/98 Lot #38, Central Area 1132.0 3.0 119.1 11.0 5 91
96 06/04/98 lot #40 Central Area 1134.0 2.0 118.5 10.8 5 91
97 06/04/98 lot #61, Central Area 1108.0 0.0 117.9 11.3 5 90
Tract 24182-2
98 06/04/98 Lot #47, Central Area 1104.0 0.0 117.7 10.9 5 90
99 06/04/98 Lot #50, Central Area 1102.0 0.0 117.8 10.6 5 90
100 06/04/98 Lot #53, Central Area 1099.0 0.0 118.6 11.4 5 91 SC
101 06/05/98 Lot #37 Central Area 1129.0 4.0 117.8 8.9 5 90
Tract 24182-1
102 06/05/98 Lot #40, Central Area 1136.0 4.0 112.1 6.9 5 86 Fail. see RT
t/1Q2A
102A 06/05/98 Lot #40. Central Area 1136.0 4.0 116.8 7.1 5 90 RT of #102
103 06/05/98 Lot #43, Central Area 1131.0 3.0 118.3 8.8 5 91
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCI ENT\OFF ICEIJOBFI LEI 1996196-81 196-420-30. FDT
4
<?'?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TAE,LE NO.1
SUMMA RY OF FIELD DENSITY TI:ST RESUL.TS
-
APPROX APPROX DRY % REL
TEST TEST TEST LOCATION TEST FILL DENS. % SOIL COMP REMARKS
NO. DATE ELEV. DEPTH (pct) MOIST TYPE (RC) 90%RC Req'd
1ft) lit)
Tract 24182-1
104 06/05/98 Lot #13, Central Area 1129.0 1.5 118.4 10.4 5 91
105 06/05/98 lot #14, Central Area 1134.5 1.5 117.1 8.3 5 90
106 06/05/98 Lot 1147, Central Area 1120.0 2.0 119.5 8.1 5 92
107 06/05/98 lot #48, Central Area 1119.0 2.0 117.0 9.0 5 90
108 06/08/98 Opposite lot #29 Slope Area 1120.0 3.0 122.4 10.9 5 94
109 06/08/98 Opposite lot #30 Slope Area 1123.0 6.0 121.8 11.2 5 93
110 06/08/98 Opposite Lot #27 Slope Area 1124.0 8.0 122.2 11.5 5 94
111 06/08/98 Opposite Lot #29 Slope Area 1130.0 12.0 122.9 11.0 5 94
112 06/08/98 .Opposite lot #28 Slope Area 1127.0 10.0 121.6 11.4 5 93
113 06/08/98 Opposite Lot #31 Slope Area 1125.0 9.0 105.9 19.0 3 95
114 06/08/98 Opposite Lot #26 Slope Area 1123.0 9.0 108.4 18.4 3 97
115 06/08/98 Opposite Lot #31 Slope Area 1127.0 11.0 113.0 13.0 1 91
116 06/08/98 Opposite lot #34 Slope Area 1133.0 13.0 113.5 12.6 1 92
117 06/08/98 Opposite lot 1128 Slope Area 1131.0 15.0 112.0 12.9 1 90
118 06/08/98 lot #60, Central Area 1111.0 2.0 114.9 7.9 2 92
119 06/08/98 Lot #62, Central Area 1108.0 1.5 114.4 7.9 2 91
Tract 24182-2
120 06/08/98 lot #46, Central Area 1106.0 1.5 115.3 6.8 2 92
121 06/08/98 Lot #48, Central Area 1104.5 1.5 116.8 6.5 5 90
122 06/08/98 Lot #49, Centfal Area 1104.0 1.5 117.2 6.0 5 90
123 06/08/98 Lot #51, Central Area 1102.0 1.5 120.9 6.2 5 93
124 06/09/98 Opposite Lot #26, Slope Area 1131.0 17.0 110.7 14.5 6 92 ,
125 06/09/98 Opposite Lot #34, Slope Area 1137.0 17.0 112.1 15.0 6 93
126 06/09/98 Opposite Lot #28, Slope Area 1136.0 19.0 114.7 12.9 6 96
127 06/09/98 Opposite Lot #29, Slope Area 1139.0 21.0 111.1 15.5 6 93
128 06/09/98 Opposite Lot #27, Slope Area 1137.0 21.0 107.7 14.0 6 90
129 06/09/98 Opposite Lot #30, Slope Area 1135.0 18.0 108.8 12.0 6 91
130 06/09/98 Opposite Lot #29, Slope Area 1141.0 23.0 111.0 11.0 1 90
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCI ENT\OFFI CEIJOBFI LEI 1996196-81 196-420-30. FDT
5
11'--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE NO.1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY T1'ST RESUl.TS
APPROX APPROX DRY % REL
TEST TEST TEST FILL % SOIL REMARKS
NO. DATE TEST LOCATION ELEV. DEPTH DENS. MOIST TYPE COMP 90%RC Req'd
(It) Iftl (pcfl IRC)
Tract. 24182-1
131 06/09/98 Opposite lot #27, Slope Area 1138.0 20.0 116.2 11.3 1 94
132 06/10/98 Opposite Lot #28, Slope Area 1141.0 24.0 112.8 11.0 1 91
133 06/1 0/98 Opposite lot #31, Slope Area 1143.0 25.0 111.0 109 1 90
134 06/10/98 Lot #84, Central Area 1105.0 1.5 112.4 6.7 2 90
135 06/10/98 lot #86, Central Area 1106.0 1.5 113.0 6.8 2 90
136 06/10/98 l?t #88, Central Area 1107.0 1.5 106.3 7.5 2 85 Fail, see RT
#136A
136A 06/10/98 lot #88, Central Area 1107.0 1.5 t 12.9 7.0 2 90 Set RT of #136
137 06/1 0/98 Lot #90, Central Area 1107.0 1.5 114.4 6.9 2 91
138 06/1 0/98 Lot #53, Central Area 1107.0 2.0 115.4 8.9 2 92
139 06/10/98 Lot #75, Central Area 1107.0 2.0 123.3 8.4 2 95
140 06/1 0/98 lot #77, Central Area 1107.0 2.0 115.0 7.0 2 92
141 06/1 0/98 Lot #79, Central Area 1106.0 2.0 122.9 7.9 5 94
Tract, 24182-1
142 06/11/98 Lot 1/23, Central Area 1117.0 0.0 116.8 6.3 5 90
143 06/11/98 Lot #25, Central Area 1112.0 0.0 113.9 6.9 2 91
144 06/11/98 lot #24, Central Area 1112.5 2.0 114.5 10.0 2 91
145 06/11/98 lot #26, Central Area 1115.0 2.0 117.0 8.2 5 90
146 06/11/98 Lot #23, West Area 1120.0 3.0 122.7 11.3 5 94
147 06/11/98 Lot #25, South Central Area 1115.0 3.0 116.1 9.9 2 93
148 06/11/98 Lot #24, Central Area 1114.5 4.0 115.3 10.5 2 92
149 06/11/98 Lot #26, Central Area 1117.0 4.0 118.7 12.0 5 91
150 06/11/98 Lot #27, Central Area 1114.0 0.0 112.4 7.3 1 90
151 06/11/98 Lot #29, Central Area 1116.0 0.0 113.1 7.1 1 91
152 06/11/98 Lot #31, Central Area 1116.0 0.0 115.5 7.0 1 93
153 06/11/98 Lot #33, Central Area 1117.0 0.0 114.0 7.0 1 92
154 06/11/98 Lot 1135, Central Area 1120.0 0.0 113.3 11.0 1 91
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCI ENTiO FFICEIJOBFI LE\ 1996\96-81 \96-420-30.FDT
6
"fi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TAe-LE NO.1
SUMMARY OF FIELD OENSITY Tl'ST RESUl.TS
APPROX APPROX DRY % REl
TEST TEST TEST FILL % SOIL REMARKS
NO. OATE TEST LOCATION ELEV. OEPTH DENS. MOIST TYPE COMP 90%RC Req'd
lftl lftl (pef) {RCI
Tract, 24182-2
Finish Cut into
155 06/12198 Lot #2, Central Area Grade mass 120.7 8.9 5 92
(FGI grading fill
Cut into
156 06/12198 Lot #4, Central Area FG mass 122.1 7.3 5 94
grading fill
Cut into
157 06/12/98 lot #6, Central Area FG mass 118.2 6.5 5 91
nradinn fill
Cut into
158 06/12/98 Lot #8, Central Area FG mass 120.8 6.0 4 92
nradinn fill
Cut into
159 06/12198 Lot #10, Central Area FG mass 124.4 7.3 4 95
nradinnfill
Cut into
16D 06/12198 Lot #12, Central Area FG mass 121.1 7.0 4 92
nradinn fill
Cut into
161 06/12/98 lot 1/ 14, Central Area FG mass 122.3 6.6 4 93
orad inn fill
Cut into
162 06/12198 Lot.1I16, Central Area FG mass 121.5 6.0 4 92
nradinnfill
Cut into
163 06/12/98 Lot #18. Central Area FG mass 121.3 6.3 4 92
"radin'" fill
164 06/12198 lot #20, Central Area FG 4.0 128.8 9.1 4 98
165 06/12/98 lot #22, Central Area FG 4.0 120.9 9.9 4 92
166 06/12/98 lot #24, Central Area FG 4.0 121.9 9.5 4 93
167 06/12198 Lot #26, Central Area FG 4.0 123.6 10.2 4 94
168 06/12/98 Lot #30. Central Area FG 3.0 126.3 9.2 5 97
169 06112/98 Lot #32. Central Area FG 3.0 123.3 9.5 5 95
170 06/12/98 lot #34, Central Area FG 3.0 123.6 9.0 5 95
171 06/12/98 lot #36, Central Area FG 3.0 120.4 9.9 5 92
172 06/12198 lot #38, Central Area FG 3.0 127.3 6.1 5 98
173 06112198 lot #40, Central Area FG 3.0 123.2 7.9 5 94
Tract, 24182-2
174 06/12/98 lot #42, Central Area FG 3.0 120.5 7.5 5 92
175 06/12/98 lot #44, Central Area FG 3.0 121.7 8.9 5 93
176 06/12/98 lot #46, Central Area FG 3.0 117.7 9.6 5 90
177 06/12/98 lot #48, Central Area FG 3.0 118.8 9.1 5 91
178 06112198 lot #50, Central Area FG 3.0 119.7 9.5 5 92
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCI ENT\OFFICEIJOBFI LEI 1996196-81196-420-30. FDT
7
+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
TA8.LE NO.1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TI:ST RESUl.TS
APPROX APPROX ORY % REL
TEST TEST TEST FILL % SOIL REMARKS
NO. DATE TEST LOCATION ELEV. DEPTH DENS. MOIST TYPE COMP 90%RC Req'd
Iftl Iftl (pell IRCI
Tract. 24182-2
179 06/12/98 Lot #52, Central Area FG 3.0 124.5 9.2 5 95
Cut into
180 06/12/98 Lot #60. Central Area FG mass 116.9 6.6 5 90
nradino fill
Cut into
181 06/12/98 Lot #58, Central Area FG mass 116.8 6.9 5 90
nradinn fill
Cut into
182 06/12/98 Lot #56, Central Area FG mass 122.4 11.7 5 94
gradlngfill
Cut into
183 06/12/98 Lot 1154, Central Area FG mass 121.2 12.0 5 93
nradina fill
Tract 24182-1
184 06/12/98 Lot #20, Central Area. 1127.0 0 114.0 10.2 2 91
185 06/12/98 Lot #22, Central Area 1120.5 0 115.1 8.6 2 92
186 06/12/98 lot #23, Central Area 1119.0 2 112.3 7.1 2 90
187 06/12/98 lot #21, Central Area 1126.0 2 112.5 11.0 2 90
188 06/12/98 Lot #20, Central Area 1129.0 2.5 112.7 10.6 2 90
189 06/12/98 Lot #22, Central Area 1123.0 2.5 115.4 9.9 2 92
190 06/12/98 Lot #23, Central Area 1120.0 3 113.8 9.6 2 91
Tract 24182.2
Cut into Fail, see RT
191 06/15/98 lot #3, Central Area FG mass 108.8 5.0 5 83
grading fill #191A SC
Cut into
192 06/15/98 lot #5, Central Area FG mass 124.7 7.3 5 96 SC
grading fill
Tract 24182-2
Cut into
191A 06/15/98 lot #3, Central Area FG mass 116.8 6.0 5 90 AT of 11191
"rading fill
Cut into
193 06/15/98 Lot #7, Central Area FG mass 121.5 9.1 5 93 SC
gradinglill
Cut into
194 06/15/98 Lot 119, Central Area FG mass 117.9 6.5 4 90
nradinnfill
Cut into
195 06/15/98 Lot It 11, Central Area FG mass 120.3 6.3 4 92
gradinglill
Cut into
196 06/15/98 Lot #13, Central Area FG mass 119.4 6.0 4 91
nradinn fill
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCI ENT\OFFICEIJOBFI LE\ 1996\96-81 \96-420-30. FDT
8
"v '\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
TABLE NO.1
SUMMA RY OF FiElD DENSITY TE:ST RESUL.TS
APPROX APPROX DRY % REL
TEST TEST TEST FILL % SOIL REMARKS
NO. DATE TEST LOCATION ELEV. DEPTH DENS. MOIST TYPE COMP 90%RC Req'd
lit} lIt} Ipell IRC}
Tract, 24182-2
Cut into
197 06/15/98 Lot II 15, Central Area FG mass 119.6 6.1 4 91
aradina fill
198 06/15/98 Lot #32, Central Area 1119.0 2.5 116.6 10.7 2 93
199 06/15/98 Lot #34, Central Area 1122.0 2.5 112.6 11.0 2 90 SC
200 06/15/98 Lot #36, Central Area 1124.0 2.5 114.5 10.5 2 91
201 06/15/98 lot #42 , Central Area 1134.0 3.0 113.8 10.9 2 91
202 06/16/98 Lot #46, West Area 1124.0 3.0 112.7 7.1 2 90
Tract, 24182-1
203 06/16/98 Lot #74, Central Area FG 8.0 118.2 10.4 2 94
204 06/16/98 Lot #72, Central Area FG 9.0 116.2 7.8 2 93
205 06/16/98 Lot #70, Central Area FG 12.0 t 14.4 7.9 2 91
206 06/16/98 Lot #68, Central Area FG 13.0 112.5 9.7 2 90
207 06/16/98 lot #66, Central Area FG 10.0 114.5 9.9 2 91
208 06/1 6/98 lot #64, Central Area FG 2.0 124.4 6.7 5 95
209 06/16/98 lot #76, Central Area FG 2.5 123.3 10.9 5 94
210 06/16/98 Lot #78, Central Area FG 2.5 125.1 10.6 5 96
Cut into
211 06/16/98 Lot #80, Central Area FG mass 119.1 10.5 5 91
oradina fill
Cut into
212 06/16/98 Lot #82, Central Area FG mass 116.9 10.0 5 90
gradino fill
Cut into
213 06/16/98 Lot #52, Central Area FG mass 123.1 10.7 5 94
grading fill
Cut into
214 06/16/98 Lot #50, Central Area FG mass 124.2 6.0 5 95
qradinqfiU
215 06/16/98 Lot #54, Central Area FG 4.0 118.8 6.3 5 91
216 06/16/98 Lot #56, Central Area FG 6.0 119.7 6.0 5 92
217 06/16/98 Lot #58, Central Area FG 8.0 125.1 6.9 5 96
218 06/16/98 Lot #28, Central Area 1118.0 2.5 111.3 9.7 1 90
219 06/16/98 Lot 1118, Central Area 1132.0 2.5 112.0 10.9 1 90
220 06/16/98 Lot #19, Central Area 1132.0 2.5 115.9 12.4 1 93
221 06/16/98 Lot 1146, South West Area 1125.0 6.0 117.1 7.3 5 90
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCI ENTiOFFICEIJOBFILE\ 1996\96-81 \96-420-30. FDT
9
4}>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TAELE NO.1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TI:ST RESUL.TS
APPROX APPROX ORY % REL
TEST TEST TEST FILL % SOIL REMARKS
NO. OATE TEST LOCATION ELEV. DEPTH DENS. MOIST TYPE COMP 90%RC Req'd
Iftl (It I Ipet) IRCI
Tract, 24182-1
222 06/16/98 lot #46, West Area 1127.0 8.0 118.2 6.9 5 91
Tract, 24182-2
Cut into
223 06/1 6/98 Lot #17, Central Area FG mass 119.9 6.2 4 91
nradino fill
224 06/16/98 Lot #19, Central Area FG 4.0 118.4 8.0 4 90 SC
225 06/16/98 Lot #21, Central Area FG 4.0 112.3 6.8 2 90
226 06/16/98 Lot #23, Central Area FG 4.0 118.7 7.0 4 90
227 06/16/98 Lot #27, Central Area FG 4.0 118.9 9.9 4 90
228 06/16/98 Lot #25, Central Area FG 4.0 115.8 7.5 2 92
Tract. 24182-1
229 06/17/98 Lot #16, Central Area 1135.0 1.0 118.6 6.6 5 91
230 06/17/98 lot # 17. Central Area 1135.0 1.0 116.8 7.0 5 90
231 06/17/98 Lot #34, Central Area 1121.0 2.5 117.3 6.9 5 90
232 06/17/98 Lot #41, Central Area 1136.0 6.0 122.0 7.1 5 93
233 06/17/98 lot #44, Central Area 1131.0 5.0 117.1 8.5 5 90
234 06/17/98 Lot #45, South East Area 1127.0 6.0 116.9 8.8 5 90
235 06/17/98 Lot #45. South West Area 1129.0 8.0 117.5 7.8 90
236 06/18/98 Lot #73, Central Area FG 8.0 115.7 10.0 2 92 SC
237 06/18/98 Lot #71, Central Area FG to.O 122.2 9.7 5 93
238 06/18/98 Lot #69, Central Area FG 13.0 125.5 10.1 5 95
239 06/18/98 lot #67, Central Area FG 11.0 116.3 10.0 2 92
240 06/18/98 lot #65, Central Area FG 9.0 122.4 8.9 5 93
241 06/18/98 Lot #63, Central Area FG 3.0 121.3 8.9 2 96
242 06/18/98 lot InS, Central Area FG 3.0 131.4 8.5 4 99
243 06/18/98 lot #77, Central Area FG 3.0 114.5 7.6 2 93
244 06/18/98 lot #79, Central Area FG 3.0 131.5 8.0 4 100
CUI into
245 06/18/98 Lot #81, Central Area FG mass 127.0 9.3 5 97
grading fill
Cut into
246 06/18/98 Lot #83, Central Area FG mass 122.2 10.4 5 93
oradina fill
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCI ENTiOFFICE\JOBFI LE\ 1996\96-81 \96-420-30. FDT
10
+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE NO.1
SUMMARY OF FIELO OENSITY HST RESUl.TS
APPROX APPROX ORY % REL
TEST TEST TEST FILL % SOIL REMARKS
NO. OATE TEST LOCATION ELEV. DEPTH DENS. MOIST TYPE COMP 90%RC Req'd
Iftl Iftl (pefl . (RCI
Tract, 24182-2
Cut into
247 06/19/98 lot #1, Central Area FG mass 122.2 6.9 5 94
nradinnfi!l
248 06/19/98 Lot #37, Central Area FG 3.0 120.7 7.0 5 92
249 06/19/98 lot #35, Central Area FG 3.0 123.4 6.3 5 95
250 06/19/98 Lot #33, Central Area FG 3.0 128.5 7.1 5 98 SC
251 06/19/98 Lot #31, Central Area FG 3.0 119.1 6.6 5 91
252 06/19/98 Lot #29, Central Area FG 3.0 122.8 6.9 5 94
253 06/19/98 Lot #39, Central Area FG 3.0 123.9 6.5 5 95
254 06/19/98 Lot #41, Central Area FG 3.0 126.6 7.0 5 97 SC
255 06/19/98 Lot #43, Central Area FG 3.0 119.9 8.4 5 92
256. 06/19/98 lot #45, Central Area FG 3.0 116,9 8.0 5 90
257 06/19/98 Lot #47, Central Area FG 3.0 117.4 7.4 5 90
258 06/19/98 lot #49, Central Area FG 3.0 120.2 6.0 5 92 SC
259 06/19/98 Lot #51, Central Area FG 3.0 117.5 6.6 5 90
260 06/19/98 Lot #53, Central Area FG 3.0 118.4 6.5 5 91
Cut into
261 06/19/98 Lot #55, Central Area FG mass 117.4 6.3 5 90
nradinnfill
Cut into
262 06/19/98 lot #57, Central Area FG mass 127.9 8.9 5 98 se
gradingfilt
Tract, 24182-'
263 06/19/98 lot #37, Central Area FG 5.0 120.3 9.6 5 92
264 06/19/98 Lot #38, Central Area FG 5.0 120.8 7.4 5 93
265 06/19/98 Lot #39, Central Area FG 5.0 120.5 7.3 5 92
266 06/19/98 lot #40, Central Area FG 5.0 130.3 7.9 5 99
267 06/19/98 lot #41, Central Area FG 8.0 126.4 6.9 5 97 SC
268 06/19/98 Lot #42, Central Area FG 6.0 126.0 9.7 5 97
269 06/19/98 Lot 1143, Central Area FG 6.0 124.6 7.4 5 96
270 06/19/98 Lot 1144, Central Area FG 6.0 120.6 11.1 5 92
271 06/19/98 Lot #45, Central Area FG 10.0 122.4 7.6 4 94
272 06/1 9/98 Lot 1/46, Central Area FG 10.0 117.4 9.3 4 90
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCI ENT\OFFI CE\JOBFI LE\ 1996\96-81 \96-420-30. FDT
11
bfJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TAE.LE NO.1
SUMMA RY OF fiELD DENSITY TEST RESUl.TS
APPROX APPROX DRY % REL
TEST TEST TEST FILL % SOIL REMARKS
NO. DATE TEST LOCATION ELEV. DEPTH DENS. MOIST TYPE COMP 90%RC Req'd
Iftl Iftl (pefl IRCI
Tract, 24182-1
Cut into
273 06/19/98 lot #49. Central Area FG mass 116.8 6.5 5 90
grading fill
Cut into
274 06/19/98 Lot #50. Central Area FG mass 119.8 8.6 5 92
oradinafill
Cutlnto
275 06/19/98 Lot #51, Central Area FG mass 122.4 6.0 5 94
oradingfill
Cut into
276 06/19/98 lot #52, Central Area FG mass 122.8 6.2 5 94
grading fill
Tract, 24182.2
Cut into
277 06/19/98 Lot #61, Central Area FG mass 116.0 6.1 5 92
oradina fill
Cut into
278 06/19/98 lot #59, Central Area FG mass 116.5 6.0 5 93
oradinl1fill
Tract, 24182-1
279 06/22/98 lot #36, Central Area FG 5.0 121.0 7.2 5 93 SC
280 06/22/98 lot #35, Central Area FG 5.0 116.8 6.4 5 90
281 06/22/98 Lot #34, Central Area FG 5.0 117.0 7.5 5 90
282 06/22/98 Lot #33, Central Area FG 5.0 118.6 6.4 5 91
283 06/22/98 Lot #32, Central Area FG 5.0 122.7 8.1 5 94
284 06/22/98 lot #31. Central Area FG 5.0 116.9 6.0 5 90
285 06/22/98 Lot #30, Central Area FG 5.0 116.8 7.0 5 90
286 06/22/98 lot #29, Central Area FG 5.0 118.4 6.9 5 91
287 06/22/98 lot #11, Central Area FG 3.0 114.2 7.6 2 91
288 06/22/98 Lot # 12, Central Area FG 3.0 116.1 8.2 2 93
289 06/22/98 lot # 13. Central Area FG 3.0 114.5 7.8 2 91
290 06/22/98 lot #14, Central Area FG 3.0 121.9 7.3 2 97 SC
291 06/22/98 lot #15, Central Area FG 2.0 123.1 6.8 5 94
292 06/22/98 lot #16, Central Area FG 2.0 121.1 7.9 2 96
293 06/22/98 lot #17, Central Area FG 2.0 115.7 6.0 2 92
294 06/22/98 Lot #18, Central Area FG 5.0 123.9 6.2 5 95
295 06/22/98 lot # 19, Central Area FG 5.0 122.0 6.8 5 93 se
296 06/22/98 Lot #20, Central Area FG 5.0 124.9 9.1 5 96
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCI ENTlOFFICEIJOBFI LEI 1996196-81 \96-420-30.FDT
12
~\.
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TAELE NO.1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESUL.TS
APPROX APPRO X DRY % REL
TEST TEST TEST FILL % SOIL REMARKS
NO. DATE TEST LOCATION ELEV. DEPTH DENS. MOIST TYPE COMP 90%RC Req'd
Iftl Iftl Ipctl {RCI
Tract, 24182-'
297 06/22/98 Lot #21, Central Area FG 5.0 128.9 9.2 5 93
298 06/23/98 Lot #84, Central Area FG 3.0 117.5 6.5 5 90 SC
299 06/23/98 Lot #85, Central Area FG 3.0 125.5 6.5 5 96
300 06/23/98 lot #86, Central Area FG 3.0 123.8 7.7 5 95
301 06/23/98 Lot #87. Central Area FG 3.0 129.1 6.0 5 99
302 06/23/98 Lot #88, Central Area FG 3.0 122.2 6.5 5 94
303 06/23/98 Lot #89, Central Area FG 3.0 125.6 6.1 5 96
304 06/23/98 lot #90, Central Area FG 3.0 123.8 8.1 5 95
Tract. 24182.2
305 06/23/98 Lot #28, Central Area FG 3.0 121.9 6.3 5 93
Tract, 24182-'
306 06/23/98 Lot #22, Central Area FG 5.0 125.5 8.2 5 96
307 06/23/98 Lot #23, Central Area FG 5.0 120.2 6.9 5 92
308 06/23/98 Lot 1/28, Central Area FG 5.0 125.4 8.1 5 96
309 06/23/98 Lot #27, Central Area FG 5.0 122.5 7.1 5 94
310 06/23/98 lot #26, Central Area FG 5.0 124.9 8.9 5 96
311 06/23/98 lot #25, Central Area FG 5.0 123.7 8.3 5 97
312 06/23/98 lot #24, Central Area FG 5.0 127.4 6.8 5 98
Cut into
313 06/24/98 lot 1110, Central Area FG mass 118.0 6.3 2 94
oradinafill
Cut into
314 06/24/98 Lot 119. Central Area FG mass 112.7 7.3 1 91
nradinnfill
315 Cut into
06/24/98 Lot #8, Central Area FG mass 113.2 6.7 2 90
nradinn fill
316 Cut into
06/24/98 Lot #7, Central Area FG mass 120.5 9.2 5 92
grading fill
Cut into
317 06/24/98 Lot #6, Central Area FG mass t 19.7 8.1 5 92
nradinnfill
Cut into
318 06/24/98 lot 115. Central Area FG mass 120.8 9.2 5 93
nradinnfill
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCI ENTiOFFICEIJOBFILEI 1996196-81 196-420-30. FDT
13
1>IJ1/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TAeLE NO.1
SUMMARY OF FiElD DENSITY TE:ST RESUl.TS
APPROX APPROX DRY % REL
TEST TEST TEST LOCATION TEST FILL DENS. % SOIL COMP REMARKS
NO. DATE ELEV. DEPTH (pcfl MOIST TYPE IRe) 90%RC Req'd
Iftl 1ft)
Tract, 24182-1
Cut Into
319 06124198 lot #4, Central Area FG mass 114.1 10.1 1 92
oradino fill
Cut into
320 06124198 Lot #3, Central Area FG mass 111.2 4.5 7 93
aradino fill
Cut into
321 06/24/98 Lot #2, Central Area FG mass 111.0 15.5 7 93
oradino fill
Cut into
322 06/24/98 lot #1, Central Area FG mass 113.5 6.3 2 90
aradino fill
Cut into
323 06/24198 lot 1/95, Central Area FG mass 121.8 7.3 5 93
oradinn fill
Cut into
324 06/24198 Lot #94, Central Area FG mass 119.2 9.3 5 91
Qradinofill
Cut into
325 06/24/98 lot #93, Central Area FG mass 119.2 11.1 5 91
aradino filJ
Cut into
326 06/24/98 Lot #92, Central Area FG mass 128.5 9.2 5 99
nradion fill
Cut into
327 06124198 lot #91, Central Area FG mass 116.9 8.1 5 90
oradinQfill
328 06126/98 Lot #48, Central Area FG 4.0 121.6 6.3 5 93
329 06126198 Lot #47, Central Area FG 4.0 119.9 6.0 5 92
330 06130/98 Park, North East Area 1011.0 0.0 112.5 7.4 1 91
331 06/30198 Park, South East Area 1100.0 0.0 114.9 8.3 1 93
332 06130198 Park. Central Area 1101.0 0.0 116.9 6.7 5 90
333 06130/98 Park, Central Area 1102.0 0.0 117.2 6.6 5 90
334 06130198 Park, West Area 1102.0 0.0 112.3 7.6 1 91
335 06/31/98 Park, North Area 1104.0 2.0 114.0 6.9 2 91
336 06131198 Park, East Area 1102.0 2.0 118.6 8.4 5 91
337 06131/98 Park. West Area 1103.0 2.0 117.2 7.9 5 90
338 06/31/98 Park, South Area 1100.0 2.0 120.2 7.7 5 92
339 06/31/98 Park, Central Area 1103.0 2.0 114.5 9.9 2 91
340 07/06/98 Park, North Area 1105.0 2.0 114.3 7.3 2 91
341 07/06/98 Park, East Area 1102.0 2.0 114.1 7.1 2 91
342 07/06/98 Park, North West Area 1105.0 2.0 113.7 6.8 2 91
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCI ENT\OFFICEIJOBFILEI 1996196-81 196-420-30.FDT
14
A.?:>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
II
I
I
I
I
I
TAB.LE NO.1
SUMMA RY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESUI.TS
APPROX APPROX DRY %REL
TEST TEST TEST FILL % SOIL REMARKS
NO. DATE TEST LOCATION ELEV. OEPTH DENS. MOIST TYPE COMP 90%RC Req'd
Iftl 1ft} (pef) IRC}
Tract. 24182-1
343 07106/98 Park, South Central Area 1103.0 2.0 116.8 6.9 5 90
344 07/06/98 Park, South Area 1102.0 2.0 118.6 6.6 5 91
345 07/16/98 Charmes Ct. FG 3.0 112.3 7.3 2 90
Opposite Lot #44
346 07/16/98 Volterra St., Opp. Lot #2 FG 1.0 116.8 7.1 5 90
347 07/16/98 Rovato St., Opp. lot #18 FG 1.0 119.4 11.1 5 92
348 07/16/98 Matera St., Opp. Lot #22 FG 1.0 117.0 6.6 5 90
349 07/16/98 Teramo St., Opp. lot #68 FG 1.0 116.8 6.0 5 90
350 07/16/98 . Caserta Dr., Opp. Lot #12 FG 1.0 120.2 8.7 5 92
351 07/16/98 Avala Ct., Opp. lot #78 FG 1.0 114.2 7.5 2 91
352 06/18/98 Pad #73 FG NA 115.7 10. 2 92 SC
353 06/18/98 Pad #71 FG NA 122.2 9.7 5 93 SC
354 06/18/98 Pad #69 FG NA 125.5 10.1 5 95 SC
355 06/18/98 Pad #67 FG NA 116.3 10.0 2 92 se
356 06/18/98 Pad #65 FG NA 122.4 8.9 5 92 SC
357 06/18/98 Pad #63 FG NA 121.3 8.9 2 96 se
358 06/18/98 Pad #75 FG NA 131.8 8.5 4 95 SC
359 06/18/98 Pad #77 FG NA 117.5 7.6 2 93 SC
360 06/18/98 Pad #79 FG NA 133. 8. 4 95 se
361 06/18/98 Pad 1/81 FG NA 127.0 9.3 5 93 SC
362 06/18/98 Lot #83 FG NA 122.2 10.4 5 97 SC
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants
ICCI ENTlOFFI CE\JOBFI LEI 1996\96-81196-420-30. FDT
15
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
/>..6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were conducted on representative samples of the subgrade soils for the
purpose of evaluating physical properties and engineering characteristics. A total of 19
samples, numbered 1 through 1 9, representing the subgrade soils of the various lots of the
subject tracts were retrieved at the completion of grading.
Grain-Size Analvsis
The grain-size distribution covers the quantitative distribution of particle sizes in soils. The
particle distribution is used to aid in the classification of the soils. The results of the
gradation tests performed on representative samples of bulk samples are presented in
Figure No. 8-1, Grain-Size Distribution.
Laboratorv Maximum Densitv and Optimum Moisture Tests
Laboratory maximum density and optimum moisture tests were performed on
representative bulk samples of fill soils retrieved during grading. These tests were
performed in accordance with the ASTM Standard 01557-91 Method. The results are
presented in Table No. B-2, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum
Moisture Content Tests.
Four (4) representative samples of the subgrade soils retrieved at the completion of grading
were also tested to determine their laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content. These test results were utilized in the preparation of ring samples for the direct
and consolidation tests.
Direct Shear Tests
Four (4) direct shear tests were performed on reconstituted rings samples prepared from
bulk samples retrieved at the completion of grading. The bulk samples were reconstituted
at 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density and at optimum moisture content.
Individual ring samples were prepared, soaked and a vertical surcharge was applied. Each
ring was then sheared at a constant rate of strain. A range of normal loads was applied
and the shear strength envelope was determined. Results of the tests are presented in
Figure Nos. B-3 through 8-6, Direct Shear Test.
Table No. B-1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM PRY PENSITY ANO OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TESTS
Soil Soil Description Max Dry Density Optimum Moisture
Type (pctl Content (%)
1 Silty Sand ISM), fine to medium-grained, some clay, brown 1Z4.0 10.0
2 Silty Sand (SM), fine. to coarse-grained, with some clay, light brown. 125.5 8.0
3 Sandy Silt (ML). with some clay, light brown 112.0 16.0
4 Silty Sand (SM), fine. to coarse-grained, trace clay, light brown 131.5 9.0
5 Silty Sand ISMl. fine- to medium-grained, trace clay. light brown 130.5 9.0
6 Sandy Silt IMLl. with clay, brown 120.0 12.5
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Consolidation Tests
Consolidation tests were performed on ring samples reconstituted from bulk samples of the
representative subgrade soils. The reconstituted samples were prepared at 90 percent of
the laboratory maximum dry densities and at optimum moisture contents. This test
involved loading a ring sample into the test apparatus, which contained a porous stone to
accommodate vertical drainage during testing. Vertical load in then applied and resulting
deflection recorded at various time interval. The load was increased after the sample
reached a reasonable state of equilibrium. The load was increased after the sample reached
a reasonable state of equilibrium. The specimen was submerged after the sample reached
equilibrium at 2.0 kips per square-foot (ksf) vertical stress. The samples were loaded to a
maximum of 16.0 ksf street before unloading. Test results are presented in Figure Nos. 8-7
through 8-8, Consolidation Test.
Expansion Index (Ell Test
Representative samples of the pad soils were tested in accordance with UBC Standard 18-
2 to evaluate their expansion potential. Test results are presented in Table No. B-2,
Results of Expansion Index Test.
TABLE NO. B-2 SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
Sample Lot No. , Representative Lots Soil Classification Expansion
No. Index (El)
Tract 24182-2
1 1 1-9 Silty Sand ISM), fine- to medium-grained, trace clay mica, brown 14
2 18 10-18 Silty Sand ISM), fine--grained, reddish brown 15
3 25 19-27 Clayey/Silty Sand ISC/SM). fine- grained, brown 36
4 32 28-37 Silty Sand ISM), fine- to medium-grained, trace clay, brown 12
5 41 38-45 Siltv Sand ISM), fine- grained. some clay, brown 21
6 60 54-61 Sandy Silt IMll, brown 11
7 52 46-53 Sandy Clav ICl), brown 48
Tract 24182-1
8 94 91-95 Silty Sand ISM), fine- to medium-grained, brown 9
9 2 1-7 Silty Clay ICl), brown 76
10 8 8 and 9 Clayey Sand ISCI, fine- to medium-grained. brown 46
11 10 10-23 Silty Sand (SM). fine- to medium-grained, trace, brown 10
12 25 24-36 Silty Sand (SM), fine- to medium-grained, trace clay, brown 12
13 40 37-48 Clayey Sand (Sel, fine- to medium-grained, brown 31
14 49 49-52 Silty Sand ISM), fine-grained, trace clay, brown 12
15 56 53-62 Silty Sand (SM), fine-grained, some clay, brown 16
16 68 63-74 Silty Sand (SM}, fjne- to medium-grained, trace clay, brown 13
17 78 75-79 Silty Sand ISM), fine-grained, some clay, brown 22
18 81 80-83 Clayey Sand ISC), fine- to medium-grained, brown 36
19 87 84-90 Silty Sand ISMI. fine- to medium-grained, trace clay, brown 15
f>...'\
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Soil Corrosivitv Tests
Two bulk samples of representative pad subgrade soils were tested for soil corrosivity.
These tests were performed by M. J. Schiff and Associates, Claremont, California. Test
results are included at the end of this appendix.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION
GRA VEL SAND
COARSE FINE FINE
COBBLES
SILT OR CLAY
U.S. SIEVE SIZE IN INCHES
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE No.
HYDROMETER
3/4 3/B 4
3
10 20 40 60 140 200
100
n~~
" "-
'\ "\
~ \
~' \J\ I'\.
\ \
\X: ~
1\
"
"-
'1' T
80
E-'
~
1.:)
~
r.:I
~
>-<
CO 60
1.:)
z
~
lfj
lfj
'"
P..
E-' 40
Z
r.:I
U
n::
r.:I
P..
20
o
103
10 1 lut
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETER
100
Hf2 1 US
102
Sample No.1 DEPTH
SYMBOL Tract No. (ft) DESCRIPTION
0 #6/82-2 0-1 Sandy Silt (ML)
0 #7/82-2 0-1 Sandy Clay (CL)
f\, #9/82-1 0-1 Silty Clay (CL)
0 #16/82-1 0-1 Silty Sand (SM)
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
o
20 E-'
~
1.:)
~
r.:I
~
>-<
CO
40 Q
r.:I
Z
:;:
E-'
r.:I
n::
60 E-'
Z
r.:I
U
n::
I'Ll
P..
80
Tract 14182-1 and -2
For: Newland Associates
Project No.
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
Figure No. B-1
t>t,o...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r-
140
90
130
~ 120
u
0..
Z
~
E-<
::r::
0
~
I'iI 110
""
E-<
~
Z.
~
>-<
Cr:
Q 100
80
0 5 10 15 20
MOISTURE CONTENT IN PERCENT
Sample No.!
Lot No.! DEPTH TEST OPTIMUM MAXIMUM DRY
SYMBOL Tract No. (ft) DESCRIPTION METHOD MOISTURE (%) DENSITY (pcf)
0 6/60/82-2 0-1 Sandy Silt (ML), Brown DI557(A)-91 13.0 116.3
0 7/52/82-2 0-1 Sandy Clay (CL), Brown o I 557(A)-91 9.1 128.5
[0 9/8/82-1 0-1 Silty Clay (CL), Brawn o 1557(A)-91 13.3 1214
0 16/78/82-10-1 Silty Sand (SM). Brown DI557(A)-91 9.1 128.0
COMPACTION TEST
Tract 24182-1 and -2
For: Newland Associates
Project No.
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
Figure No. B-2
")0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
,
II
2.0
~
Ul
~
Z
~
Ul
Ul 1.0
IOiI
P::
b
Ul
P::
~
::c:
Ul .0
.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
NORMAL STRESS IN KSF
4.0
--
~
0
~
Ul
~
Z
~
Ul
Ul
IOiI 2.0
P::
b
Ul
P::
<<:
IOiI
::c:
Ul
.0
.0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
Sample No.1
Lot No.lTract No. : 6/60/82-2
DESCRIPTION : Sandy Silt (ML),
STRENGTH INTERCEPT (ksf)
FRICTION ANGLE (degree)
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION IN INCH
DEPTH (It)
Brown
0-1
.020
(PEAK STRENGTH)
(PEAK STRENGTH)
25.5
MOISTURE DRY DENSITY VOID NORMAL PEAK RESIDUAL
SYMBOL CONTENT (%) (pef) RATIO STRESS (ksf) SHEAR (ksf) SHEAR (ksf)
0 14.8 115.7 .456 .50 .25 .24
0 14.7 116.6 .445 1.50 .75 .73
" 14.3 115.8 .455 300 1.44 1.44
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Tract 24182-1 and -2
For: Newland Associates
Project No.
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
Figure No. B-3
'5\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0
.,,/ /'
/' ,/
I'<<
Ul
::<:
Z
~
Ul
&5 2.0
~
~
Ul
~
~
""
:r::
Ul
.0
.0
2.0
4.0 6.0
NORMAL STRESS IN KSF
B.O
10.0
4.0
t: p
y:r
'P-
I'<<
Ul
~
Z
~
Ul
Ul
"" 2.0
~
E--<
Ul
~
~
""
~
Ul
.0
.0
.1
2
.3
.4
5
Sample No.1
Lot No.lTract No. : 7/52/82-2 DEPTH (It)
DESCRIPTION : Sandy Clay (eL), Brawn
STRENGTH INTERCEPT (ksf) .145
FRICTION ANGLE (degree) 31.7
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION IN INCH
0-1
(PEAK STRENGTH)
(PEAK STRENGTH)
MOISTURE DRY DENSITY VOID NORMAL PEAK RESIDUAL
SYMBOL CONTENT (%) (pel) RATIO STRESS (ksf) SHEAR (ksf) SHEAR (ksf)
0 16.1 115.4 .460 .50 .48 .43
0 15.8 116.0 .452 1.50 1.03 1.00
'" 15.9 115.7 .456 3.00 2.02 1.94
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Tract 24182-1 and -2
For: Newland Associates
Project No.
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
Figure No. 8-4
?'I/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0
V /
V y
-"
~ V
~
I'll
~
Z
-
I'll
gJ LO
~
E-<
I'll
~
~
""
::r::
I'll
.0
.0
5.0
1.0
2.0 3.0
NORMAL STRESS IN KSF
4.0
4.0
~
I'll
~
Z
~
I'll
I'll
;:iI 2.0
~
E-<
Ul
~
~
;:iI
::r::
Ul
.og
.0
.5
.1
.2
.3
.4
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION IN INCH
Sample No.1
.'-Lot No.lTract No. : 9/8/82-1 DEPTH (It)
iDESCRIPTION : Silty Clay (eL), Brown
STRENGTH INTERCEPT (ksf) .166
FRICTION ANGLE (degree) 23.6
'0-1
(PEAK STRENGTH)
(PEAK STRENGTH)
MOISTURE DRY DENSITY VOID NORMAL PEAK RESIDUAL
SYMBOL CONTENT (%) (pet) RATIO STRESS (ksf) SHEAR (ksf) SHEAR (ksf)
0 25.0 105.8 .593 .50 .31 .31
0 24.0 107.1 .573 1.50 .94 .92
to 26.4 106.8 .578 3.00 1.43 1.43
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Tract 24182-1 and -2
For: Newland Associates
Project No.
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
Figure No. 8-5
~'?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0
I'c,
Ul
:>::
z
~
Ul
Ul
W
D::
E-<
Ul
~
<<:
w
:r::
rn
2.0
/v
V/
.0
.0 2.0
10.0
4_0 6.0
NORMAL STRESS IN KSF
8.0
4.0
;:.,
rn
:>::
~
rn
rn
W 2.0
~
b
rn
D::
<<:
ro'I
:r::
rn
~ ~
:.--t:r
per
.0
.0
2
.1
.3
.4
5
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION IN INCH
Sample No.1
Lot No.lTract No. : 16/78/82-1 DEPTH (It)
DESCRIPTION : Silty Sand (SM), Brown
STRENGTH INTERCEPT (ksf) .192
FRICTION ANGLE (degree) 31.9
0-1
(PEAK STRENGTH)
(PEAK STRENGTH)
MOISTURE DRY DENSITY VOID NORMAL PEAK RESIDUAL
SYMBOL CONTENT (%) (pcf) RATIO STRESS (ksf) SHEAR (ksf) SHEAR (ksf)
0 17.1 115.1 .463 .50 .50 .37
0 16.5 113.1 .490 1.50 1.14 1.08
{:, 16.3 114.7 .469 3.00 2.06 206
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Tract 24182-1 and -2
For: Newland Associates
Project No
96-81-420-30
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
Figure No. 8-6
fA.
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Z
E-<
~
C'J
-
i:iI
~
Z
- 4
Ii1
C'J
Z
<<:
~
u
E-<
Z 6
Ii1
U
n::
Ii1
p,
8
10-1
o
LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
1 10
102
.515
10
C'"
tl
\
\
I ~
'-
'"
, ~
It. ~
, ,
~- - \.
-- ~- ... -
.364
.485
.454
0
-
E-<
<<:
n::
Q
-
0
.424 :>
.394
Sample No.1
Lot No.lTract No.:
DEPTH (ft)
7/52/82-2
0-1
DESCRIPTION
Sandy Clay (CL), Brawn
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
DRY DENSITY
(pet)
INITIAL
FINAL
9.2
14.3
115.2
124.5
Note: Solid circles indicate readings after addition of water
CONSOLIDATION TEST
Tract 24182-1 and -2
For: Newland Associates
Project No.
96-81-420-30
Figure No. B-7
-9
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
b
:r::
'-"
-
;:iI
:r::
z
- 4
;:iI
'-"
Z
<t
~
U
b
Z 6
;:iI
U
~
;:iI
P,
8
10-1
o
LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
1 10
102
.673
10
;....-
~
~ --- '-..
, ""
"'-
, ,
, ,
,
, ,
, ,
, , '\.
, , ,\
.506
.640
.606
o
-
b
<t
~
~
-
o
.573 >
.539
Sample No.!
Lot No.!Tract No.:
DEPTH (ft)
9/8/82-1
0-1
DESCRIPTION
Silty Clay (CL), Brown
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
DRY DENSITY
(pet)
IN1TIAL
F1NAL
12.5
22.1
108.3
110.3
Note: Solid circles indicate readings after addition of water
CONSOLIDATION TEST
Tract 24182-1 and -2
For: Newland Associates
Project No.
96-81-420-30
Figure No. B~8 '5~
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
I
M. J. Schiff & Associates, Inc.
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
I
I
I
I
Sam pie ID
I
Soil Type
I
Resistivity
as-received
saturated
I
pH
Electrical
Conductivity
I
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium
magnesium
sodium
Anions
carbonate
bicarbonate
chloride
sulfate
I
I
I
I
Other Tests
sulfide
Redox
ammonium
nitrate
I
I
I
1291 N. Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont, CA 91711-3897
Phone 909.626.0967
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Newland
Your #96-81-420-30, MJS&A #98002-17
13-Jul-98
Tr. 24182-1
Sample #9
0-1'
Units
ohm-cm
ohm-cm
silt silt
790,000 2,350
2,500 660
6.9 7.2
0.03 0.28
"---'~--'-- '..~.~
-' -', ~:.;:..__ ;"'._' :.:.:1
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil-ta-water extract.
mg/kg ~ milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
NO ~ not detected
oa = not analyzed
I
I
I
mS/em
Ca2+ mglkg NO 32
Mg2+ mglkg NO 7
Nal+ mg/kg 11 218
CO.2- mglkg NO NO
, HCO/- mglkg NO 134
C;'- mg/kg 18 337
SO./- mg/kg NO NO
S2- qual na
mv na
NH41+ mglkg na
NO," mg/kg na
na
na
na
na
~~~...,.c-.____~...,..__~.'C- -.-.,
- - .- ...........--
Page] of 1
,.~
?
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
SOil CORROSIVITY STUDY
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont, California 91711.3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-1419
E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOLCOM
June 9, 1997
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE
10391 Corporate Drive
Redlands, California 92374
Attention:
Mr. Mohammed Islam
Re: Soil Corrosivity Study
Paseo Del Sol
Temecula, California
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
INTRODUCTION
Laboratory tests have been completed on 46 soil samples you provided for the referenced single
family residences project. The purpose of these tests was to determine if the soils may have
deleterious effects on underground utilities and concrete foundations.
The soil samples were provided from three of six tracts that compose the 830 acre site. The site is
half hilly terrain and half a flat, alluvial plain. The hilly portion of the site is classified,
geologically, as the Pauba Formation. The Pauba Formation is in a cut area and will be used as fill
over the alluvial plain. We assume that the samples provided are representative of the most
corrosive soils at the site.
The scope of this study is limited to a determination of soil corroslVlty and general corrosion
control recommendations for materials likely to be used for construction. If the architects and/or
engineers desire more specific information, designs, specifications, or review of design, we will be
happy to work with them as a separate phase of this project.
TEST PROCEDURES
The electrical resistivity of each sample was measured in a soil box per ASTM 057 in its as-
received condition and again after saturation with distilled water. Resistivities are at about their
lowest value when the soil is saturated. The pH of the saturated samples was measured. A 5: 1
water:soil extract from each sample was chemically analyzed for the major anions and cations.
Test results are shown on Table 1.
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. FAILURE ANAL YSIS . EXPERT WITNESS. CORRQSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE
MJS&A #97002-14
June 9, 1997
Page 2
SOIL CORROSIVITY
A major factor in determining soil corrosivity is electrical resistivity. The electrical resistivity of a
soil is a measure of its resistance to the flow of electrical current. Corrosion of buried metal is an
electrochemical process in which the amount of metal loss due to corrosion is directly proportional
to the flow of electrical current (DC) from the metal into the soil. Corrosion currents, following
Ohm's Law, are inversely proportional to soil resistivity. Lower electrical resistivities result from
higher moisture and chemical contents and indicate corrosive soil.
A correlation between electrical resistivity and corrosivity toward ferrous metals is:
Soil Resistivity
in ohm-centimeters
Corrosivity Category
mildly corrosive
moderately corrosive
corrOSlve
severely corrosive
over
2,000 to
],000 to
below
10,000
10,000
2,000
1,000
Other soil characteristics that may influence corrosivity towards metals are pH, chemical content,
soil types, aeration, anaerobic conditions, and site drainage.
Electrical resistivities were in mild]y and moderately corrosive and corrosive categories with as-
received moisture. When saturated, the resistivities dropped into mildly through severely corrosive
categories. The resistivities dropped considerably with added moisture because the samples were
dry as-received. The wide variations in soil resistivity can create concentration type corrosion cells
that increase corrosion rates above what would be expected from the chemical characteristics alone.
The corrosive and severely corrosive resistivities measured on saturated soil samples are
summarized in the following table.
Tract Lot Saturated Resistivitv (ohm-cm) Soil Tvpe
24186-1 9 1,350 sil ty sand
24186-1 49 1,300 silty sand
24186-2 47 1,550 silty sand
24] 86-2 53 850 silty sand
24186-2 59 1,300 silty sand
24186-2 117 1,600 silty sand
24] 88-F ]0 980 silty sand
24188-F 13 1,350 silty sand
24l88-F 26 1,000 silty sand
24188-F 53 l,200 silty sand
24l88-F 61 850 clayey silty sand
CP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE
MJS&A #97002-14
June 9,1997
Page 3
Soil pH values varied from 5.7 to 7.5. This range is moderately acidic to mildly alkaline and does
not particularly increase soil corrosivity.
The chemical content of the samples was low. No concentration was high enough to be of
particular concem.
Tests were not made for sulfide or negative oxidation-reduction (redox) potentials because they
would not exist in these dry, aerated samples.
This soil is classified as corrosive and severely to ferrous metals.
CORROSION CONTROL
The life of buried materials depends on thickness, strength, loads, construction details, soil
moisture, etc., in addition to soil corrosivity, and is, therefore, difficult to predict. Of more practical
value are corrosion control methods that will increase the life of materials that would be subject to
significant corrosion. \
Steel Pipe l
Abrasive blast underground steel utilities and apply a high quality dielectric coating such
extruded polyethylene, a tape coating system, hot applied coal tar enamel, or fusion bonded epoxyl.
Bond underground steel pipe with rubber gasketed, mechanical, grooved end, or othL
nonconductive type joints for electrical continuity. Electrical continuity is necessary for corrosidn
monitoring and cathodic protection.
Electrically insulate each buried steel pipeline from dissimilar metals, cement-mortar coated and
concrete encased steel, and above ground steel pipe to prevent dissimilar metal corrosion cells arid
to facilitate the application of cathodic protection.
Apply cathodic protection to steel piping as per NACE Intemational RP-O 169-96.
As an alternative to dielectric coating and cathodic protection, apply a 3/4 inch cement mortar
coating or encase in cement-slurry or concrete 3 inches thick, using any type of cement.
Iron Pipe
Encase ductile iron water piping in 8 mil thick low-density polyethylene or 4 mil thick higfu-
density, cross-laminated polyethylene plastic tubes or "TaPS per A WW A Standard C I 05 or c01t
with a high quality dielectric coating such as polyurethane or hot applied coal tar enamel. As k
alternative, encase iron piping with cement slurry or concrete at least 3 inches thick surrounding tHe
pipe. USIng any type of cement. Bond all nonconductive type joints for electrical continuityl
0;\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONvERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE
MJS&A #97002-14
June 9, 1997
Page 4
Elecuically insulate underground iron pipe from dissimilar metals and above grOlmd iron pipe with
insulated joints.
Encase cast iron drain lines in 8 mil thick low-density polyethylene or 4 mil thick high-densirv
- .,
cross-laminated polyethylene plastic tubes or wraps per A WWA Standard CI05. As an alternative,
encase iron piping with cement slurry or concrete at least 3 inches thick surrounding the pipe, using
any type of cement. Electrically insulate underground iron pipe from dissimilar metals and above
ground iron pipe with insulated joints.
Copper Tube
Copper tubing for cold water should be bedded and backfilled in sand with a saturated resistivity
above 5,000 ohm-em. Hot water tubing may be subject to a higher corrosion rate. The best
corrosion control measure would be to place the hot copper tubing above ground. If buried, encase
in plastic pipe to prevent soil contact or apply cathodic protection.
Plastic and Vitrified Clay Pipe
No special precautions are required for plastic and vitrified clay piping placed underground from a
corrosion viewpoint. Protect any iron valves and fittings with a double polyethylene wrap per
A WW A C I 05 or as described below for bare steel appurtenances. Where concrete thrust blocks are
to be placed against iron, use a single polyethylene wrap to prevent concreteliron contact and to
eliminate the slipperiness of a double wrap.
All Pipe
On all pipe, coat bare steel appurtenances such as bolts, joint hamesses, or flexible couplings with a
coal tar or elastomer based mastic, coal tar epoxy, moldable sealant, wax tape, or equivalent after
assembly.
\\!here metallic pipelines penetrate concrete structures such as building floors or walls, use plastic
sleeves, rubber seals, or other dielecuic material to prevent pipe contact with the concrete and
reinforcing steel.
Concrete
Any type of cement and standard concrete cover over reinforcing steel may be used for concrete
structures and pipe in contact with these soils.
~'V
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE
MJS&A #97002-14
Please call if you have any questions.
Respectfully Submitted,
M.J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INe.
M-f- It, ~
Robert A. Pannell
jsd
Enc: Table I
DOCS-97\97002-14.DOC
June 9, ] 997
Page 5
Reviewed by:
~~kf ;f4~{~.1l-
Paul R. Smith, P.E.
~<7
I M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont, California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-1419
E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOL.COM
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Page 1 of I
Paseo del Sol, Tracl24l84
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
May 5,1997
Tract 24184-1 Tract 24184-1 Tract 24184-1 Tract 24184-1 Tract 24184-1
Sample ID Sample #3 Sample #4 Sample #7 Sample #8 Sample #9
Lot 10 Lot 13 Lot 72 Lot 67 Lot 61
. ,. ,~". .
Soil Type silty silty silty silty silty
sand sand sand sand sand
Resistivity Units
as. received ohm-em 49,000 24,500 14,000 25,000 3,800
saturated ohm-em 3,900 21,000 4,300 3,600 2.200
pH 7.0 6.4 6.9 6.9 7.1
Electrical
Conductivity mS/cm 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.05
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium Ca2~ mglkg 16 NO NO NO NO
magnesium Mo2- mg/kg NO NO NO NO NO
~
sodium Nal~ rng/kg 57 14 28 46 64
Anions
carbonate CO,'" mglkg NO NO NO NO NO
bicarbonate HCO-'- mglko 122 37 73 98 98
, ~
chloride CI'- mglkg 46 NO ND 14 43
sulfate SO!' mglkg NO NO NO ND ND
Other Tests
sulfide S2- qual na na na na na
Redox mv na na na na na
ammonium NH-\I-<- mg/kg na no na na na
nitrate NO-" mg/kg na na na na na
,
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis are ofa 1:5 soil-ta-water extract.
mg/kg =: milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
NO = not detected
na = nor analyzed
d()csl)7\970()~. J -+.\ls
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PLANS AND SPECiFICATIONS. FAILURE ANALYSIS. EXPERT WITNESS. CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ,';SSESSMENTS
(}\
I M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
. Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont, California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-1419
I E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOL.COM
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples Page I of 4
I Paseo del So/
Your #96-81-420-03, MJSM #97002-14
I May 5, 1997
Tract 24186-1 Tract 24186-1 Tract 24186-1 Tract 24186-1 Tract 24186-1
I Sample ID Sample #2 Sample #4 Sample #6 Sample #10 Sample # I 3
lot 8 Lot 18 Lot 27 Lot 59 Lot 49
.-.."...
. ~ J.
I Soil Type silty silty silty silty silty
sand sand sand sand sand
Resistivity Units
I as-received ohm-em 520,000 335,000 200,000 600,000 8,400
saturated ohm-em 6,700 8,200 4,500 5,350 1,300
I pH 6.8 6.2 6.7 6.8 6.4
Electrical
I Conductivity mS/cm 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.08
Chemical Analyses
I Cations
calcium Ca~'" mglkg NO NO NO NO 16
magnesium Mo2-+ mglkg NO NO NO NO NO
~
I sodium Na" mgfkg 18 18 28 37 76
Anions
carbonate CO/ mg/kg NO NO NO NO NO
I bicarbonate HC031. rnglkg 49 49 49 73 49
chloride ci" mg/kg NO ND 14 14 99
I sulfate SO,'- mglkg NO NO NO NO 25
Other Tests
I sulfide S2- qual na na na na na
Redox mv na na na na na
ammonium NH/,' mglkg na na na na na
I nitrate NO)" mg/kg na na na na na
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil-to-warer extract.
I mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potentia] in millivolts
NO = not detected
I na =: not analyzed
docs97\97002.14.xls <P
I
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. FAILURE ANAL YSIS . EXPERT WITNESS. CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS
I M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC_
I
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont, California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-1419
E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOL.COM
I
I
Table I - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Page 2 of 4
I
Paseo del Sol
Your #96-8/-420-03, MJS&A #97002-/4
May 5, /997
I
Tract 24186-1 Tract 24186-1 Tract 24186-1 Tract 24186-1 Tract 24186-1
Sample ID Sample # 15 Sample # 18 Sample # 19 Sample #21 Sample #23
Lot46 Lot 73 Lot 76 Lot 114 Lot 99
Soil Type silty silty silty silty silty
sand sand sand sand sand
Resistivity Units
as-received ohm-em 240,000 14,000 36,000 420,000 230,000
saturated ohm-em 3,700 2.900 2,500 5,200 4,400
pH 6_7 5.7 6.3 6.4 6.8
Electrical
Conductivity mS/cm 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.03 0_01
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium Ca2- mg/kg NO NO NO NO NO
magnesium Mg:!* mglkg NO NO NO NO NO
sodium Na1- mglkg 0' 0' 41 28 18
_0 _0
Anions
carbonate CO-'- mglkg NO NO NO NO NO
,
bicarbonate HCO-" mglka 61 37 49 49 49
, ~
chloride ci" mglkg NO 14 35 14 NO
sulfate SO./- mg/kg NO ND ND ND ND
Other Tests
sulfide S::'o qual na na na na na
Redox mv na na na na na
ammonium NH~I+ mglkg na na na na na
nitrate NO/ mglkg no no na na na
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil-ta-water extract.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction porentin! in millivolts
ND = not detected
nn = nor analyzed
Jocs97\9700~-1 ~.x1s
~
I
I
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PLA.NS AND SPECIFICATIONS. FAILURE ANALYSIS . EXP~RT WITNESS. CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS
~
I M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont, California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-1419
E-ma'; SCHIFFCORR@AOL.COM
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Page 3 of 4
Paseo del Sol
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
May 5,1997
Tract 24186-1 Tract 24186-1 Tract 24186-1 Tract 24186-1 Tract 24186-1
Sample ID Sample #24 Sample #28 Sample #29 Sample #30 Sample #31
Lot 107 Lot 90 Lot 87 Lot 84 Lot 80
"'..--.-..._. . . .-.... .~,- . .. _.---
Soil Type silty silty silty silty silty
sand sand sand sand sand
Resistivity Units
as-received ohm-em 590,000 9,400 250,000 70,000 16,000
saturated ohm-em 3,800 4,700 3,000 3,300 9,800
pH 6.8 6.9 6.5 6.9 6.9
Electrical
Conductivity mS/cm 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium C ,. mglkg NO NO NO NO NO
a-
magnesium Mo2+ mg/kg NO NO NO NO NO
~
sodium Na" mglkg 28 28 ?' 28 18
-"
Anions
carbonate CO,'" mglkg NO NO NO NO NO
bicarbonate HCO,'. mglkg 73 73 37 73 49
chloride ci'" rn glkg ND NO 14 NO ND
sulfate S042- mglkg NO NO NO NO NO
Other Tests
sulfide S', qual no na na na na
Redox mv na na na no na
ammonium NH41+ mglkg na no na na no
nitrate NO,'" mglkg na no na na na
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil-ta-water extract.
mg/kg 0:: milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox 0:: oxidation-reduction potenrial in millivolts
N 0 ~ not detected
na 0:: not analyzed
docs<'}7\9700:!-14.xls
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. FAILURE ANALYSIS. EXPERT WITNESS' CORROSIVITY AND DAM,o.GE ASSESSMENTS
eo"-
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont, California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-'4'9
E"mail SCHIFFCORR@AOLCOM
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Page 4 of 4
Paseo del Sol
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
May 5, 1997
Sample ID
Tract 24186-1
Sample #39
Lot 9
Soil Type
silty
sand
Resistivity
as-received
saturated
Units
ohm-em
ohm-em
39,000
1,350
7.1
pH
Electrical
Conductivity
mS/cm
0.01
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium C ,- NO
a- mglkg
magnesium Mo~'" mgfkg NO
~
sodium Nato- mglkg 18
Anions
carbonate CO," mglkg NO
bicarbonate HCO/ rnglkg 49
chloride ci'" mglkg NO
sulfate SO,'" mglkg NO
Other Tests
sulfide S~- qual na
Redox mv na
ammonium NH~I" mglkg na
nitrate NO,'- mglkg na
Electrical conductivity in millisiemenslcm and chemical analysis are of a ]:5 soil-ta-water extract.
mg/kg == milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
ND = not detected
na = nor analyzed
tlncs97\97002-I-lxls
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PLANS A,~D SPECIFICATIONS' FAILURE ANAL YSIS . EXP"RT WITNESS' CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS
cJ:>
I M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont, California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621 -14 1 9
E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOLCOM
I
I
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Page I of 4
I
Paseo del Sol
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
May 5, 1997
I
Tract 24186-2 Tract 24186-2 Tract 24186-2 Tract 24186-2 Tract 24186-2
Sample ID Sample # 1 Sample #3 Sample #4 Sample #6 Sample #8
Lot2 Lot9 Lot 14 Lot 24 Lot 32
co'
~."
Soil Type silty silty silty clayey silty
sand sand sand sand sand
Resistivity Units
as-received ohm-em 28,000 830,000 15,000 14,000 54,000
saturated ohm-em 5,900 2,300 3,500 2,000 3,200
pH 7.5 7.3 7.3 7.1 7.3
Electrical
Conductivity mS/cm 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.04
Chemical Analyses
Cations
I
I
I
I
I
calcium Ca> mglkg
magnesium Mv2+ mglkg
"
sodium Na1+ mglkg
Anions
carbonate CO/" mglkg
bicarbonate HCO." mglkcr
, ~
chloride CI" m g/kg
sulfate SO./- rng/kg
Other Tests
sulfide S~- qual
Redox mv
ammonium NH," mglkg
nitrate NO," mglkg
ND 16 ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND
28 71 32 76 46
ND ND ND ND ND
73 98 85 98 85
ND 82 NO 60 21
ND ND ND ND ND
I
I
I
I
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
I
no
na
no
no
na
I
Electrical conducrivity in millisiemenslcm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil-ta-water extract.
mg.lkg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
ND ~ not detected
na = nO( analyzed
I
dllcs97\97002-14.xls
I
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. FAILURE ANALYSIS. EXPERT WITNESS. CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS
<1\
I M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont, California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-1419
E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOl.COM
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Page 2 of 4
Paseo del Sol
Yaur #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
May 5,1997
Tract 24186-2 Tract 24186-2 Tract 24186-2 Tract 24186-2 Tract 24186-2
Sample ID Sample #9 Sample # II Sample #12 Sample # 13 Sample # 16
Lot 37 Lot 63 Lot 47 Lot 59 Lot 53
Soil Type silty silty silty silty silty
sand sand sand sand sand
Resistivity Units
as-received ohm-em 13,000 28,000 13,000 10,200 81,000
saturated ohm-em 2,500 2,100 1,550 1,300 850
pH 7.3 7.1 7.3 7.4 6.8
Electrical
Conductivity mS/cm 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.14 0.18
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium Ca> mglkg ND 16 ND 16 12
magnesium Moz- mglkg ND ND ND ND ND
~
sodium Nal'" mg/kg 48 74 116 146 192
Anions
carbonate CO/, mglkg ND ND ND ND ND
bicarbonate HCO," mglkg 98 49 49 134 61
ch loride C( mglkg 18 71 II3 113 245
su I fate 50/- mglkg ND 59 50 84 50
Other Tests
sulfide S1- qual na na na na na
Redox mv na na na na na
ammonium NH"t+ mglkg na na na na na
nitrate NO,'- mglkg na na na na na
Electrical conductivity in millisiemensfcm and chemical analysis are ofa 1:5 soil-to-water extract.
mglkg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
N D ~ not detected
nJ = not analyzed
docs97\97002-1-l.xls
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. FAILURE ANAL YSIS . EXPERT WITNESS. CORHOSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS
"P_
,
I I
M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES INC.
,
I Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont, California 91711.3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-1419
I E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOLCOM
I Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples Page 3 of 4
Paseo del Sol
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
.1 May 5, 1997
Tract 24186-2 Tract 24 I 86-2 Tract 24 I 86-2 Tract 24186-2 Tract 24186-2
I Sample ID Sample # 17 Sample # 19 Sample #20 Sample #21 Sample #25
Lot 67 Lot 78 Lot 81 Lot 84 Lot 113
I Soil Type silty silty silty _ silty silty
sand sand sand sand sand
Resistivity Units
I as-received ohm-em 500,000 330,000 750,000 400,000 97,000
saturated ohm-em 3,100 2,600 3,900 3,600 2,600
I pH 7.0 7.4 7.1 6.8 7.3
Electrical
I Conductivity mS/cm 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.08
Chemical Analyses
I Cations
calcium C ,- mglkg ND ND ND ND ND
a-
magnesium Mo2. mglkg ND ND ND ND ND
~
I sodium Na1<- mg/kg 37 80 28 46 92
Anions
carbonate COo,. mg/kg ND ND ND ND ND
I ,
bicarbonate HCOJ'. mglkg 49 49 49 49 61
chloride cl" mg/kg 28 74 14 43 85
I sulfate So..t mg/kg ND 28 ND ND 28
Other Tests
I sulfide S2- qual na na na na na
Redox mv na na na na na
ammonium NH," mglkg na na na na na
I nitrate NO]l- mg/kg na na na na na
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chern ical analysis are of a 1:5 soil-ta-water extract.
I mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
NO = not detected
I nn = not analyzed
docs97\97002-14xls
I "'\\
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. FAILURE ANAL YSIS . EXPERT WITNESS. CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
! I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES INC.
,
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont, California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-1419
E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOlCOM
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Page 4 of 4
Paseo del Sol
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
May 5, 1997
Somple ID
Tract 24 I 86-2
Sample #26
lot 117
Soil Type
silty
sand
Resistivity
as-received
saturated
Units
ohm-em
ohm-em
390,000
1.600
6.8
pH
Electrical
Conductivity
mS/cm
0.14
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium Ca> mglkg
magnesium Mo2. mglkg
~
sodium No ,- mg/kg
Anions
carbonate CO/. mglkg
bicarbonate HC031- mglkg
chloride C( mglkg
sulfate so,t mg/kg
Other Tests
sulfide S2- qual
Redox mv
ammonium NH.t' mglkg
nitrate NO]'- mg/kg
ND
ND
162
ND
61
191
31
na
na
na
no
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil-to-\vater extract.
mglkg == milligrams per kilogram (pans per million) of dry soil.
Redox == oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
ND ~ not detected
na = not analyzed
docs97\97002-14.\ls
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. FAILURE ANALYSIS. EXPERT WITNESS. CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS
",\1--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont, California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-1419
E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOl.COM
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Page I of 2
Paseo del Sol
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
May 5,1997
Tract 24] 88-F Tract 24188-F Tract 24188-F Tract 24188-F Tract 24188-F
Sample ID Sample # I Sample #5 Sample #8 Sample #9 Sample # I 0
Lot 13 Lot 10 Lot31 Lot26 Lot61
~.;.;\":;:: 1..:. .
Soil Type silty silty silty - sandy clayey
sand sand sand silt silty sand
Resistivity Units
as-received ohm-em 600,000 14,000 42,000 5,300 46,000
saturated ohm-em 1,350 980 10,000 1,000 850
pH 7.1 7.1 7.1 6.9 6.6
Electrical
Conductivity mS/cm 0.12 0.18 0.01 0.10 0.10
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium C " mglkg NO 16 NO NO NO
a-
magnesium Mo2+ mglkg NO NO NO NO NO
0
sodium Nal+ mglkg 143 184 18 117 108
Anions
carbonate CO," mglkg NO NO NO NO NO
bicarbonate HCO) 1- mglkg 49 49 49 49 49
chloride c1" mglkg 191 284 NO 152 138
sulfate 50..\2- mglkg NO NO NO NO NO
Other Tests
sulfide S2- qual na na na na na
Redox mv na na na oa na
ammonium NH," mglkg na na na na na
nitrate NO,'. mglkg na no na na na
Electrical conductiviry in millisiernens/cm and chemical analysis are ora 1:5 soil-ta-water extract.
mg/kg::: milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
NO = not detected
na = not analyzed
docs97\9700~.I-I_xJs
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PLANS AND S?ECIFICATIONS . FAILURE ANAL YSIS . EXPERT WITNESS. CORROSIV1TY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS
"\'?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
M. J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES INC_
,
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1291 North Indian Hill Boulevard
Claremont, California 91711-3897
Phone 909-626-0967
FAX 909-621-1419
E-mail SCHIFFCORR@AOL COM
Table I - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Page:1 of 2
Poseo del Sol
Your #96-81-420-03, MJS&A #97002-14
May 5, 1997
Sample lD
Tract 24] 88-F Tract 24] 88-F Tract 24l88-F Tract 24188-F
Sample #13 Sample#14 Sample #15 Sample #16
Lot 46 Lot 48 Lot 53 Lot 43
Soil Type silty silty silty- silty
sand sand sand sand
Resistivity Units
as-received ohm-em 10,800 6,000 25,000 75,000
saturated ohm-em 2,350 3,050 1,200 3,] 00
pH 7.1 6.9 6.6 6.8
Electrical
Conductivity mS/cm 007 0.05 0.08 0.04
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium C '. mglkg ND ND ND ND
a-
M '. m g1kg ND ND ND ND
magneslum 0-
e
sodium Na 1- mg./kg 78 60 87 46
Anions
carbonate CO," mglkg ND ND ND ND
bicarbonate HCO)~- mglkg 49 49 49 49
ch loride CI'- mg/kg 92 64 ]06 43
su I fate SO/, mglkg ND ND ND NO
Other Tests
sulfide 52- qual na na na na
Redox mv na na na no
ammonium NH," mg!kg na na na na
nitrate NO]I- mglkg na na na no
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis are of a 1:5 soil-ta-water extract.
mglkg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potentia! in millivolts
N D ~ not detected
na = not analyzed
dncs97\97002-14_xls
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PLANS AND S?ECIFICATIONS . FAILURE ANAL YS1S . EXPERT WITNESS. CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE ASS~SSMENTS
1~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
!
I
APPENDIX D
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND SEISMICALLY INDUCED
GROUND SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
""oj
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX D
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND SEISMICALLY-INDUCED GROUND SETTLEMENT
ANAL YSIS
An analysis was performed to evaluate the soil liquefaction potential and seismically-
induced ground settlement for the graded site. This analysis was performed for the
subsurface conditions at the locations of the BH-5 and BH-6 drilled during field exploration
for the preparation of the "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation' report, dated April 26,
1996. These borings were drilled within the Pauba Valley area near Highway 79 and
adjacent to the subject tracts (see Drawing No.1 of the April 26, 1996 report). The logs of
these borings are included at the end of this appendix.
At least the upper 10 feet of the existing soils from the area adjacent to Highway 79
were over excavated during mass grading. The overexcavation was backfilled with
compacted soils. At last seven (7) feet of additional compacted fills were placed within this
area to raise the ground surface elevation to the finish grade level. The present liquefaction
analysis was performed incorporating these backfill and fill into the subsurface conditions.
Liquefaction analysis was performed in accordance with the method suggested by Seed et. al
(1985). Resu'lts of this analysis are presented in Table No. 0-2, Results of Liquefaction
Analysis at BH-5 and Table No. 0-3, Results of Liquefaction Analysis at BH-6. Various soil
and ground motion parameters selected for this analysis are also included in these tables.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Based on these results, soil layers at the BH-5 between the depths of 29 feet and 39 feet
from the original ground surface (i.e. 36 feet and 46 feet below current ground surface) are
prone to liquefaction during earthquakes. The sandy soils layers at BH-6 between the depths
of 20 feet and 34 feet below original ground surface (i.e. 27 and 42 feet below existing
ground surface) are prone to liquefaction. The dense sandy soils layers below 50 feet from
the current ground surface at both locations are not considered susceptible to liquefaction.
Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) present a simplified method for the evaluation of settlement in
sands due to earthquake loading. Analysis for seismically induced settlement incorporating
current site conditions at BH-5 and BH-6 are presented in Table No. 0-3, Results of
Seismically-Induced Ground Settlement at BH-5 and Table No. 0-4, Results of Seismically
Induced Ground Settlement at BH-6. Based on these results, the estimated seismically
induced ground settlement near Highway 79 ranges from about 1.0 to 3.0 inches.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Checked by: MSI
]40 Ib I 30 inch
20.0
,
AMPlES "" '#. ""
, 0 5
0 w ""
'"- cr:
- ;:) Z
.(fJ
W 5 "" ;:) 0:
~ ~ (fJ W
--l 0 0 >--=- I
cr: ;:) --l 0:<.J ""
0 co co ~ 0.9- 0
36 12 117
Log of Boring No. BH-5
Dates Drilled:
Logged by:
!BC
4/2/96
Equipment:
5 SAND (SP): fine-grJined, grayish brown 13 2
'~<;
<:1';::
*'~'
;,;,<;:
'^.
:~;:: 14 2
10 l ',y
- fine- to coarse-grained
I I I I
I - fin~-gr:lind IXl " 7 14
15 1 ,
I I .'^
<Y'/
~*
~'
0
~<~:
:::>~:
:P%
- finc::- to mdium-grained, with clav '?<,' 45 6 113
20 ~ ' :::;;::
15
30
Driving Weight and Drop:
8" H.S.A.
Ground Surface EIevation(ft):
1084.0
Depth to Water(ft):
14
20 108 c
~
-
SU1,IMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and should be
re.:ld together with the report. This summary applies only at: the location of the
boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at ocher
loc:ltions and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data
presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered.
15
19
I
""
!l.
W
o
U
I
!l.
<(l9
0:0
19--l
o r;l\vi ng N (J.
A-Sa
'\~
Al T T lVTI 1M (QaIJ
CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine- to medium-grained. brown
I
25
SAND (SP): lint:- to cn;lrsc-gnind, light brown
..------..--------------
S-ANDY CLA Y (CL):- ~ith- ~~-ry- fwe-gr:linc;:d sand, gray
30
I
I
:
r.::/>/>~. j - - CL-P. YE"Y "SAND (SC)~ fint.:- tn mt.:Jium-gr:lint.:J, gr:l"/."..".." - - - -"..""""""""" i7
~ Converse Consultants
~ Inland Empire
Project Nome.
EASTEREN AND SOUTl-f\-VESTER,'J
PORTION OF THE MEADO\VS
T.:rnccul:l. California
Project No.
%-31-.,0-01
I
Dates Drilled:
I
Equipment:
Log of Boring No. BH-5
4/2/96
Logged by: lBC
8" H.S.A.
Driving Weight and Drop:
Ground Surface Elevation(ft):
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
-
U
T
1L
<Cl
a:o
Cl...J
1084.0
Depth to Water(ftl:
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and should be
read together with the report. This summary applies only at the location ofche
boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other
locations and may change at chis location with the passage of time. The data
presented is a simplification of actuill conditions encountered.
CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine- to medium-grained, gray
SAi'lD (SP): fine. to medium-grained, grayish brown
- interbedded 6" thick Sandy Cl::Ly (CL) layer
- line- to coarse-gr:l.ined
End or" boring :l.t 50 feet.
GroundwJter encountered at 20 feet.
Borehole backfillc=d with native soil cuttings on 4/2/96.
I
~ Converse Consultants
~ Inland Empire
Project Name.
EASTEREN AND SOUTHWESTER:--J
PORTIQN OF THE MEADO\VS
T~m.:cuJo, Californio
I
l-
e..
w
o
40
45
50
Checked by:
140 Ib I 30 inch
20.0
,
AMPLES
w
> 0.:
a: :5
o m
Project N().
96-31-4:20-0 I
MSI
I- ~ ~
0
0 s
0 w
u.. a: I-
- ::J Z
(j) I- a:
S (j) ::J w
0 0 >-~ I
...J a: " ?-
m :2 0.3- 0
36
13
26
18 114
21
14 114
DrJwing No.
A-5b
"8>
I
I Log of Boring No. BH-6
Dates Drilled: 4/2/96 Logged by: IEC Checked by: MSI
I Equipment: 8" H.S.A. Driving Weight and Drop: 140 Ib I 30 inch
Ground Surface Elevation(ft): 1094.0 Depth to Water(ft): 20.0
I SUlvlMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS , ~
AMPlES f- >'?
0
This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project a.nd should be 0 S
I .::: re3d together with the report. This summary applies only at the location oftht: 0 LU f-
U u.. a:
I boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other - :J Z
I (f)
f- 0.. locations and may change at this location with the pasS.'lge of time. The data S f- :J a:
<(9 presented is a simplification of actual conditions enCQuncered. (f) LU
0.. 0 >-~ I
LU a:O ..J 0 a:u f-
I 0 (9..J en 2 0.3- 0
All TTVTlfM (<PI)
CLAYEY SAND (SC): very flne- to fme-grained, dark brown
I 29 12 113
SAND (SP): fine- to medium-grained, grayish brown
5 16 2 97
I
I 33
SANDY CLA Y (CL): dark brown 43
10
I
I SAND (SP): fine-grained, gnyish brown 32 6 104 c
15
I
I . fme- to medium.gfJint:d 6 21 ma
20 ~
I
I 20
7-
-)
I
I 8 19
I 30 \
I I Ie
11111I11i, SANDY SILT (ML): gr:1;t 15 40 83
I ~ Converse Consultants Project N3me. Project No. Drawing No.
~ Inland Empire EASTERE:-J AND SOUTH\VESTER,'J 96-8l--l.20-Q 1 A-6J ,1\
PORTION OF THE j\.IEADOWS
T<.:m;:~u!J. ClIlifornill
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Log of Boring No. BH-6
Dates Drilled:
Logged by: IBC
4/2/96
Equipment:
8" H.S.A.
Driving Weight and Drop:
Checked by:
140 Ib / 30 inch
MSI
Ground Surface Elevation(ft):
Depth to Water(ft):
1094.0
20.0
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS , ,.:
AMPLES l- t!-
This log is pan of the report prepared by Converse for this project and should be a - ~
.::: read together with the report. This summary applies only at the location of the a UJ I-
U u.. I!:
boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other - ~ Z
:r: :r: locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data (/J l- I!:
"- UJ ~ ~
I- <1:(9 presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. ~ '" (/J UJ
"- ...J a >-~ T
UJ I!: a I!: ~ ...J a I!:U j::
0 (9...J 0 ill ill ::;;; oc. a
SANDY SlL T (ML): gray
. . SAND (SP): fine- to medium-grained, gray ~ 18 25
l- 40 -I' ...... ..'
..
.
.......
. :'.
- 45 22 16 117
- . - fine- to coarse-grJ.ined, brown
'.
.....
. I
I' . I ~ 45 13 I
50 I
End of boring at 50 feet. I I
Groundwater encountered at 20 feet. ! I I
Borehole backfilled with native soil cuttings on 4/2/96. I
I I
I I
,
I
I
I i
I
I
I
I
I 1
I I
I
,
I i ,
I I I
I I I I
I ,
I i I ,
,
~ Converse Consultants
~ Inland Empire
Project Name.
EASTEREN AND SOUTfNIESTERN
PORTION OF THE l\.IEADO\i/S
T..::m..::cul:J., C.1!ifornill
Project Nil.
96-3 l--CO-Q I
Dr:nving 0io.
A-6b tbO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OJ co OJ to ro ;I]~;;?~0g>
I I I I -;
o,o,a,rn z 0 - ;::;. Cll (tl 0 =.:
~ ;! ::l'" '" rD 5 C Ol
0 Z
~ C> n".g 0 -< a. ~. 0-
^ OJ 0 :I:l :E ...... CD
m~;3~.~~
g ~ sa..': ~ c6" Z
WNI'VN " :;: <~~~*~~ 0
..p. CD.p. 0 ~
0000 ; ~ ~ffi~.g~~- 0
I
~7:B.~ ::~ ,
('\l OJ - ~ ~
- ro
p O' ~ :0
"' ~
(f)(j)()(f) ~ 0 CD
n-Ur-o "' r iD"
'" rn
.~ C
;::;
~ rn
~ ~
f:>f"WW g m 0 0
"'
-...)--'0)--> "' ~ " ~ ....,
01 (.0 N-...J C ~ -....J~rn~--'
~ r C
m -..,J ()l 0) 0 0 W
~ m .0
~ ~ C
NNNW m ~
"' m CD
Wo,<o-> "' ()
"" "' ....,
O...../'V-...J c ~ Ol
;:; i; 0
.-+
() OJ 0 Z ""'0 ,. 0
5' "' =r -< !l) C ......
~ ~ W ~ ~ .. (b 3 ~. :J
tn(Drno ~ ~
" " C' n
ro ro _ m
0. ~ . <
~ cr:r: 0 <D Z Ol
9~oO ~ 0 -;<; tn-..,JO)ro C
() m CNOO:E
<.Dl))OO-...J n ~ Ol
~ ~ mco.....Oj
WCOWtO 0 0 I I -... , :J .-+
~ <(O+:-a. 0
IOON-...
"' p~ 9::,-l :J
~
~ ~ cnZ w" Ol
............... ..... () ~ I- 0..,.
............... ..... "' ~ !' ;;: .-+
0
~ m o' m OJ
~ r;>
3 I
~ - ,
................ ...... ~ ~ 0 '" (J1
0000 () () 0 I "
~
0000 N 0 0 C
~
~ ~
--'........... ...... m ~
0000 ~ () m
0; ~ ~
0000 0 0 C>
~ ~
~ ~
~ - '" z ~ 0
rn?'wo> 0
.p.-...J~i-v m m ~
~
0 ~ in
0
~
~ ~ ~ m
~
"'" " ~ Z n
00 6 0 m m
0 "' Z
~
() ~
,p..p.W.p. 0 0
. . 0 ~ z
0000 = ~ m
m "'
()
,...... ........p. W Z ;:; ~
m
CONWO 0; "' Z
~~:....;;.." Oi m
" ~
~ ~
0 ~
WNNN ()
+-(O+:>.o ;;; m ~
~
0000 ; ~ C
I ~
r
~ 0
0000 ~ m
~
00 ro coco ~ () 0
~ ~ ~
-....JCO.....W 0
~ ~
0000 ~ "' ()
:"'o,~W ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ()
OU'l.p.O) m r
is "'
+:-000..... "' n
~
>-
................ ..... () ~
0000 ~ .
0
0000 ~
"' ~
00.......... >- >-
m~~o ~ 0 ()
~ ~ ~
U'lNCf).... 0
~ ~
OJ OJ OJ OJ ~m-UmQ(f) ~
IIII to =Olro:J-.O Q.l
. , " - 0 ;:;. Ol (ll 0 =:
0>0>0)0) t~ ;!=r^~Cc rr
2 _..0 Q -< 5. :J CD
Cl R- ~ 0 :n :E ;::+"
:J ^ C Ol OJ <:: Z
m en m :J ...... ...... <
o VJ Sa. o' C1l (tl 0
to,) N N tv 0 S; In :t> _ ..., cO'
.j::>.(D.p.O ro~<~~n~~~ 0
0000 ~~~g2.g-~ I
~~2ib :;'-0- N
-l a....... _ n
Cll Q) ......:=
() 0 ~ :n
r rl CD
Cf) Cf) Cf) Cf) i;; ~ ::l ~ (J)
"'tI "'tI "'tI "'tI Ul ;= fD C
:n ~ .-+
rn
~ ~ 0
~~WW ~~o ~
-....J..... 0)..... '" Ul --1 J\J
~WJ\J-....J =~~ ~oO)o~ C
m -....J U1 Q) 0 0 W ..c
~ m C
~ ~ CD
J\J~J\JW ~rn~ ~
WO)w..... "'Ul() Q)
0"'" ~ -....J c:::! (")
~ < .-+
m m
o IJJ 0 Z "lJ 0
- (/) ::r '< Q) C" ::::J
~oo~m ~~ ~'o;3~' m
:::-2 ~ "g-~ <
D.. ;; Q)
"T1 c:r I 0 CD Z C
0000 >0 ~Cf)~~Cll Q)
WOOOO-....J ()~~ ~J\JOO~ ~
WOOWCD ~o~ I~~~ 0
:0 , (0 ~ a. ::J
~OO~~
"TI (/) P - ,., Q)
.................... ~~ ~~ ~J\J .-+
.................... Q6~ ~ ~ CD
:0 ~ ~ ~ f
3 ' OJ
..... ..... ..... ..... -:; :0 n 12"
0000 ()~O I J\J
0000 ....00 c
~
~ m
..... ..... .......... m:J> Z
o :xl (l m
gggg ~6~
~ ~
- ~ ~
O;--JO:;~ z~g
W '"-.I N I\.) a; ~ .:!!
o :IJ 3'
~
..... ..... .......... "'O:!! g;
~ I\.) !'V !'V 1:5 ~ ()
0000 OUlg::
~
()
.J:>. ~ .J:>. ~ DO:!!
. 0 z :IJ Z
0000 ~~m
()
..... ..... J\J Z ~ ri:
.J:>. ..... J\J ~ _ (/) z
w~rvJ\J gUl~
. ~ ~
WNJ\Jf\.) Of;
~W~o ~qJ~
0000 :::-~;: .
r !
i
-n 0 {
9909 fi~ .;
~fg~~ ~6~ .1
':IJ 5: "
0000 ~"l() /-
~u,:::"w ~~ri
o rn ~ 0> - (/) ,....
~ooo..... o(/)n .
:-':-':-':-' 51:' /
0000 0 !J
0000 :0 :f
"' ~ I
0000 :t>- :t>-
o . . 0 -n 0 () "
~w"w m"TI~
OOCD~"'" -l 0
~ ~,
i
\10
, I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
Table No. D-3, Results of Seismically-Induced Ground Settlement at BH-5
Soil Unit Weight (pc!): 113.00 Project: Newland/Tr 24182-1 &2
Groundwater Depth (feet): 20.00 Number: 96-81-420-30
Energy Ratio (%): 60.00 Date: 07/28/98
Peak Ground Acceleration (g): 0.60 By: HSUEH-HSIN(William) CHU
Earthquake Magnitude: 7.50 Checked by: QSH
Fill Thickness (feet): 7.00
ACTURAL SOIL THICKNESS PENETR CYCLIC VOLUMETRIC TOTAL
BORING OEPTH CLASSIF. RESIST STRESS STRAIN SETTLEMENT SETTLEMENT
(No.1 (feet) (inches) (N1160' RATIO (%) (inches) (inchesl
BH-5 20.00 SP 48.00 37.0 0.400 0.00 0.00
BH-5 24.00 Cl
BH-5 29.00 SP 60.00 16.0 0.630 1.90 1.14
BH-5 .34.00 SC
1.14
Table No. D-4, Results of Seismically-Induced Ground Settlement at BH-6
Soil Unit Weight (pcf): 113.00 Project: Newland/Tr 24182-1 &2
Groundwater Depth (feet): 20.00 Number: 96-81-420-30
Energy Ratio (%): 60.00 Date: 07/28/98
Peak Ground Acceleration (g): 0.60 By: HSUEH-HSIN(William) CHU
Earthquake Magnitude: 7.50 Checked by: QSH
Fill Thickness (feet): 7.00
ACTURAL SOIL THICKNESS PENETR CYCLIC VOLUMETRIC TOTAL
BORING DEPTH CLASSIF. RESIST STRESS STRAIN SETTLEMENT SETTLEMENT
(No.1 (feet) (inches) INl160' RATIO (%) {inches} (inches)
BH-6 20.00 SP 48.00 16.0 0.400 1.80 0.86
BH-6 24.00 SP 60.00 17.0 0.500 1.70 1.02
BH-6 29.00 SP 60.00 13.0 0.631 2.00 1.20
BH-6 34.00 SP
3.08
01/