HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 32346 Geotechnical Study
I
/'"'
~ ~c ..GEN
b"d ,~,,"..... .".-...
~2iJ ;'::_~;,i;:.~. _ _~ "'" t"
IIWlllllUirilifm:..,,,;.,..
COf!~oration
. So~1 Engineering and Consulting Services. Er,gil1eering Geology. Compaction Testing
-lnsoections. Construction MaterialsTesling-laboratoryTesling . PercolalionTesling
"Geology. Water Resource Studies . PhtseJ& II Environmental Site Assessmenls
I
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
I
1
1
1
GEOTECHNICAUGEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Carino Homes - Temecula
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 957-080-014 and 957-080-019
Nicolas Road and Joseph Road
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, Califomia
Project Number: T2995-GS
December 17, 2003
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Prepared for:
I:
Carino Homes
'\ 2010 65th Avenue West
, Fircrest, Washington 98466
.......-.~-............,..;.""~-,~ ..,..,._,.._~.........,..
,
"
~"I ~ / " / F I _~ I / F I .... __ ~ I _ / ... 'f _ "" / _" _ /" /" _ /,." /" I _" _
- - \ -' I __ \ ~ ~ \.... _ _ \ " __ ,_ _ _ \ _ \ -' " ' I " '. _ _ _ \...'" I / \ _ _ _ \...." ~ I ..-
~~,~ --: ',~ ~ ~-~:, I~ ~ \~ --; '/ ~_-I ,'__~. _~__ ,,;__.,~,~ '. '"~~-rl,',--=~-~~~;;~,t~". ~-~~":-.~,'
I r......__ ___._.,-;__.1._ ~ _ ,
~ ~ ~.I...~_,; ~ I ::J...!-- '. Jl;' ..:: ' '.. j~ - ;IJl ',_ ';J
Co~._ -I\T~.Q,FfICE.'t160 E terpri~e CjrdeN rt ..S.wte .1.Temecula, Ck9259(}'~hone~(9a~}i96~223a.3a"]9D9j02!l6'223f:"':",,",",".-- _"
. ORANGE COUNTY 0 FI E-2615-0range e ue. Santa Ana, CA 9270.7 . phone: (7141546-4051. fa" (7141 546-40.52 '\
--,,--- B SITE: wwW:eri e corp.com-E-MAIL;-engencorp@engencor-p-.colTf'"- - . -". _,_."
"
....~.
...
;.., ':1
I
I
1
1
'1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Carino Homes
Project Numbor: T2995-88
Section Number and Title
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARy..,...........................................................,.......,............,...............,..........1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ...,.....................................,............., ..................,............,............,.......... ,.,.........2
2.1 Authorization ............,................. .......,............................. ............. ,....................., ...,..........2
2.2 Scope of Work ....................,............................,............. ".................................., ............ ..2
2.3 Previous Site Studies ...........,..,...........................................,.,..........,...............................2
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT I PROJECT DESCRIPTION .....................................................3
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ...................,....,.........,.............,................,... ,..................,.".......,..,.............,3
4.1 Location.,......................................................................... ,...............................................3
4.2 Legal Description ......,.........................,....................... ".... ..........,.............."........,............3
4.3 Topography ............................,..............."............,..............,............,.,......, ,.,....................3
4.4 Vegetation..........,...........,..,.,..........................,............"".,......,."...........,............,.,........... 3
4.5 Structures..........,...............................................::.....................................,..........,............. 3
5.0 FIELD STUDY ......,............,...... ...................,............................ ... ........... ...............................,....3
6.0 LABORATORY TESTING ........,..............,............................,.. ,..............,......................."............4
6.1 General .................... ....,............................................. ... ... ...............................................4
6.2 Classification..............................,............................,..., ..,. .........,.......................................4
6,3 In-Situ Moisture Content and Density Test................,.....................................................4
6.4 Maximum Dry Density I Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test.........................4
6.5 Consolidation Test.,......:............"...........................,.... ........,..............,................ ..........,..5
6.6 Direct Shear Test........,...........,.............,.............................,................................ .............5
6.7 Expansion Test .........................,.........................,..........................................,...., ....,.,......5
6.8 Plasticity Index.....,................,..,..........................................".........,..............,................... 6
6.9 Soluble Sulfate Test ...........................................,............, ................................... .............6
7.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGy................ ........................................., ,...........,....... ...........................6
7.1 Geologic Setting ............................................,... ..........,..... .........,........................ .............6
7.2 Faulting ...............,...........,.. ,.............,.... ........................... ,..............................................6
7.2.1 Elsinore Fault Zone ............................................ '...... ........................................6
7.2.2 San Jacinto Fault Zone ......................................,..............................................6
7.3 Seismicity .......,.........................,.............................,...,. ...... ,.............................,................7
7.4 Earth Materials..........................................,.................. ........................... ,.........................8
7.4.1 Undocumented Fill (Afu) ...................................................................................8
7.4.2 Alluvium (Qal) ....,.......................................... ....... ................................. .............8
7.4.3 Pauba Formation Sandstone (Qps)...................,..............................................9
7,5 Groundwater ,...............................,............................,...... .., ..,..............,.,............. ........,....9
7.6 Liquefaction Evaluation.......................,..............,..............,........................,..................... 9
7.7 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity .......................................................................... 10
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 11
8.1 General .......,..,.......................................,.................... .... .......,.............................. ....... 11
8.2 Earthwork Recommendations.............................................................................,......... 11
8.2.1 General...................,.......................................................................................11
8.2.2 Clearing...........,.....................................................................,......................... 11
8.2.3 Excavation Characteristics ..,.,............................,........................................... 12
8.2.4 Suitability of On-Site Materials as Fill ................................................... ......... 12
EnGEN Corporation
-z..,
I
I -
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Numb"r: T2995-GS
Section Number and Title
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continueq)
~
8,2.5 Removal and Recompaction ..............................................................,........... 12
8.2.6 Fill Placement Requirements ......................................................................... 13
8.2.7 Oversize Material................................................................................,...........13
8.2.8 Compaction Equipment .................................... .....................,............. ,.......... 14
8.2.9 Shrinkage and Subsidence ............................................................................ 14
8.2.10 Fill Slopes ..................................,.,..................................................,.,............,. 14
8,2.11 Cut Slopes....................................................................................................... 15
8.2.12 Keyways ........................................",...........,...". ...........................,................. 15
8.2.13 Subdrains ........................................................... .................... .............. ........... 15
8.2.14 Observation and Testing ................................,..,............................................ 15
8.2.15 Soil Expansion Potential....................................,............................................ 16
8.2.16 Plasticity Index ................................................... ............................................. 16
8.3 Foundation Design Recommendations...........................,............................................ 16
8.3.1 General......... ...................................,...................................... .,.........,............ 16
8.3.2 Foundation Size ............................................................................................. 16
8.3.3 Depth of Embedment..................................................................................... 17
8.3.4 Bearing Capacity ................................................................................,........... 17
8.3.5 Settlement........,..,................,...............................................,....,.......... ........... 17
8.3.6 Lateral Capacity................................................., ........,................................... 18
8.3.7 Seismic Design Parameters ..........................................................................18
8.4 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations............................................................................... 18
8.4.1 Interior Slabs......................................................,. ........................................... 19
8.4.2 Exterior Slabs ..,.,...............................,.,........ ... ... ,.".................,..............,....... 19
8.5 Pavement Desi9n Recommendations.......................................................................... 19
8.6 Utility Trench Recommendations................................ .................................................. 21
8.7 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations ....................................................................... 21
8.8 Planter Recommendations.,..,..................,..............,... .............,...............,.,.......,...,..,... 22
8.9 Temporary Construction Excavation Recommendations............................................ 22
8.10 Retaining Wall Recommendations ..................................................................... .......... 23
8.10.1 . Earth Pressures .............................................................................................. 23
8.10.2 Foundation Design...........,....,...........,...................,..........................,..,. .......... 23
8.10.3 Subdrain ..........................,.................................. ................................... .......... 24
8.10.4 Backfill........................................... ................... ..................................... .......... 24
9.0 PLAN REVIEW ..............................,...............,..................,.................,.,..... ...................... ....... 25
10.0 PRE-BID CONFERENCE ..................................................,....,...... ,..,...............,...,.............,...... 25
11.0 PRE-GRADING CONFERENCE......, ,...........................,....,.......... ,......".........................,.. ....... 25
12,0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING ............................................................ 25
13.0 CLOSURE .............................,.............,..,................................................................................. 26
APPENDIX: TECHNICAL REFERENCES
TABLE A - DISTANCE TO STATE DESIGNATED ACTIVE FAULTS
SETTLEMENT DUE TO LIQUEFACTION CALCULATIONS
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG SUMMARIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
;.
I ~,.f'] ---./
I ~GEN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
//
/1/
~~,
J:I
COfl~oration
: !SOilEnginee~ingand Co.nsultingSel'lices. En\lineeringGeology. Compaction Testing
nspeclions ConSlruCllonMatertalsTesllng.laboralmyTesling-PercolationTesting
. Geology. WalerResQurceStudles -Pha:;el&IIEnvironrnentaISileAssessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
December 17, 2003
Carino Homes
2010 65th Avenue West
Fircrest, Washington 98466
(253) 565-6090 I FAX (253) 565-4610
Attention:
Mr. Gordon Hulst
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAUGEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Carino Homes - Temecula
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 957-080-014 and 957-080-019
Nicholas Road and Joseph Road
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2995-GS
Reference:
1.
Apex Engineering, Seraphina Development, Conceptual Grading and
Utility Plan, Scale: 1" = 80', plan dated November 12, 2003.
Dear Mr. Hulst:
According to your request and signed authorization, we have performed a Geotechnicall
Geological Engineering Study for the subject project. The purpose of this study was to evaluate
the existing geologic. and geotechnical conditions within the subject property with respect to
recommendations for rough grading of the site and design recommendations for foundations,
slabs on-grade, etc., for the proposed development. Submitted, herewith, are the results of this
firm's findings and recommendations, along with the supporting data.
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A geotechnical study of the subsurface conditions of the subject site has been performed
for the proposed development. Exploratory excavation~' have been completed and earth
material samples subjected to laboratory testing. The data has been analyzed with
respect to the project information furnished to us for the, proposed development. It is the
opinion of this firm that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechniC'.al/geologic
standpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in this report are followed in the
design and constr~ctio~ 'Of, the project.
,
""__~.==w_~',,,c;.'".,<=_-, '''_"'=7~~~.. _ "''" ~n'_''''''''''''''''_
/-.,,/' //.... I" '-I",,-~~/_ --
',---I..r ''",_ J~ _ /,~~ F/" I" '/ (' , I~ I
. /' \ __ \ / , " ,_ __ \ "~I - ,/ - I" ,.
\ ~ \~ _ " _ \ / \' _ \ \ ,. \' _ / ,,_ ," _ ,. \ - " ... : ~ : \ - - - \..r"" I .- \ - _' _' \ -" .::- ' J .-' I
~~~~.,l,,, \':: ~~<, '-,~=-:~ ~'~ \,-,~~~_..~',,~.c~'~'~l~c----~-li' ~_~__c_~
.~.. Eq~"ATE;QffICE4J60. E terprise_WCle.N rt,SuiteJ;T.mecula,-c)\,92590.'i,hone;(~~)2~9:22~O'Jaxj909J_2960~7k =.;,;...:~ .. Ji
ORANGE COUNTY 0 FI E 2615.0rangeA e ue,Santa Ana. CA 92707 . phone: 1714;-5464051. fax: 17141546-4052 4t-
B SITE._www.enecorp.com . ~-MAI[: engencorp@engencorp.ccfrrF'----.....,-.-- ....,,, '..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.2.1
2.3
3.0
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
December 2003
Page 2
The flat lower elevations of the site consist of alluvium. The upper portions of the alluvium
may be subject to hydroconsolidation. These materials need to be removed and
recompacted in order to maintain tolerable settlement predictions. Based on our
experience in the general vicinity, the Pauba Formation bedrock can contain significant
amounts of expansive clays which may become exposed during grading.
2.0
INTRODUCTION
Authorization: This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study
performed on the subject site for the proposed development Authorization to perform this
study was in the form of a signed proposal.
2.2
ScoDe of Work: The scope of work performed for this study was designed to determine
and evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions within the subject site with respect to
geotechnical characteristics, and to provide recommendations and criteria for use by the
design engineers and archi~ct for the development of the site and for design and
construction of the proposed development The scope of work included the following: site
reconnaissance and surface geologic mapping; subsurface exploration; sampling of on-
site earth materials; laboratory testing; engineering analysis of field and laboratory data;
and the preparation of this report.
Previous Site Studies: No previous geotechnical studies are known by this firm to have
been performed for this site.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT / PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Final grading plans were unavailable at the time of this report. When these plans become
available, they should be reviewed by this office in order to make additional
recommendations, if necessary. It is assumed that residenti.lllots are planned with one or
two story, slab-on-grade type structures with associated landscape and hardscape
improvements. It is assumed that relatively light loads will be imposed on the foundation
soils. The foundation loads are not anticipated to exceed 2,000 pounds per lineal foot (plf)
for continuous footings. The above project description and assumptions were used as the
basis for the field and laboratory exploration and testing programs and the engineering
analysis for the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report. This office
should be notified if structures, foundation loads, grading, and/or details other than those
?
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.3
4.4
4.5
5.0
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
De.;ember 2003
Page 3
represented herein are proposed for final development of the site so a review can be
performed, supplemental evaluation made, and revised recommendations submitted, if
required.
4.0
SITE DESCRIPTION
4.1
Location: The site encompasses approximately 31-acres and is located north of Nicholas
Road, south of Rita Way and Jons Place, east of Joseph Road and Seraphina Road, in
the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California.
4.2
Leaal DescriDtion: Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 957-080-014 and 957-080-019.
TODoaraDhv: The majority of the site is relatively flat. Low rolling hills are located in the
center and northern portions of the site. Drainage on site is to the south by sl1eet flow.
The Santa Gertrudis Creek is located on the south side of the site; the creek flows to the
west.
Veaetation: At the time of the field study, the site had a moderate cover of grasses and
weeds. Brush was located along the Santa Gertrudis Creek.
Structures: A mobile home and several garages and sheds were located in the central-
northem portion of the site. Several cars, trucks and pieces of equipment were stored in
this area. It is assumed that the mobile home may be serviced by a septic system.
FIELD STUDY
Field reconnaissance and geologic mapping were conducted on November 6, 2003, by
our Geologist. A study of the properly's subsurface condition was performed to evaluate
underlying earth strata and the presence of groundwater. Six (6) exploratory borings were
excavated on the study site. The borings were performed by Martini Drilling using a
CME 75 truck-mounted drill rig equipped with 7.0-incl1 outside diameter hollow-stem
augers, The maximum depth explored was approximately 51.5-feet below the existing
ground surface at the boring locations. Bulk and relatively undisturbed ring samples of the
earth materials encountered were obtained at various depths in the exploratory borings
and returned to our soils laboratory for verification of field classifications and testing. Bulk
samples were obtained from cuttings developed during the excavation process and
represent a mixture of the soils within the depth indicated on the logs. Relatively
~
EnGEN Corporation
I I
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.3
6.4
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
December 2003
Page 4
undisturbed samples of the earth materials encountered were obtained by driving a thin-
walled steel sampler lined with 1.0-inch high, 2.42-inch inside diameter brass rings. The
sampler was driven with successive drops of a 140-pound weight having a free fall of
approximately 30-inches. The blow counts for each successive 6.0-inches of penetration,
or fraction thereof, are shown in the Geotechnical Boring Logs presented in the Appendix.
The ring samples were retained in close-fitting moisture-prclof containers and returned to
our laboratory for testing. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings and pits
are denoted on the Geotechnical Site Plan (Plate 1), The exploratory borings were
backfilled with native soil cuttings.
6.0
LABORATORY TESTING
6.1
General: The results of laboratory tests performed on samples of earth material obtained
during the field investigation are presented in the Appendix. Following is a listing and brief
explanation of the laboratory tests which were performed. The samples obtained during
the field investigation will be discarded 30 days after the date of this report. This office
should be notified immediately if retention of samples will be needed beyond 30 days.
6.2
Classification: The field classification of soil materials encountered in the exploratory
borings were verified in the laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soils
Classification System, ASTM D 2488-93, Standard Practice for Determination and
Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures). The final classification is shown in the
Geotechnical Boring Logs presented in the Appendix.
In-5itu Moisture Content and Density Test: The in-situ moisture content and dry
density were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2216-98 and ASTM D
2937-94 procedures, respectively, for each selected undisturbed sample obtained. The
dry density is determined in pounds per cubic foot and the moisture content is determined
as a percentage of the oven dry weight of the soil. Test results are shown in the
Geotechnical Boring Logs presented in the Appendix.
Maximum Dry Density ( ODtimum Moisture Content RelationshiD Test: Maximum dry
density/optimum moisture content relationship determinations were performed on samples
of near-surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 1557-00 procedures
using a 4.0-inch diameter mold. Samples were prepared at various moisture contents and
compacted in five (5) layers using a 10-pound weight dropping 18-inches and with 25
EnGEN Corporation
"\
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.6
6.7
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
December 2003
Page 5
blows per layer. A plot of the compacted dry density versus the moisture content of the
specimens is constructed and the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content
determined from the plot.
6.5
Consolidation Test: Settlement predictions of the on-site soil and compacted fill behavior
under load were made, based on consolidation tests that were performed in general
accordance with ASTM D 2435-96 procedures. The consolidation apparatus is designed
to receive a 1.0-inch high, 2.416-inch diameter ring sample. Porous stones are placed in
contact with the top and bottom of each specimen to permit addition and release of pore
water and pore pressure. Loads normal to the face of the specimen are applied in several
increments in a geometric progression under both field moisture and submerged
conditions. The resulting changes in sample thickness are recorded at selected time
intervals. Water was added to the test apparatus at various loads to create a submerged
condition and to measure the collapse potential (hydroconsolidation) of the sample. The
resulting change in sample thickness was recorded.
Direct Shear Test: Direct shear tests were performed on selected samples of near-
surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM [) 3080-98 procedures. The
shear machine is of the constant strain type. The shear machine is designed to receive a
1.0-inch high, 2.416-inch diameter ring sample. Specimens from the sample were
sheared at various pressures normal to the face of the specimens. The specimens were
tested in a submerged condition. The maximum shear stresses were plotted versus the
normal confining stresses to determine the shear strength (COhesion and angle of internal
friction).
Exoansion Test: Laboratory expansion tests were performed on samples of near-surface
earth material in general accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard. In
this testing procedure, a remolded sample is compacted in two (2) layers in CI 4.0-inch
diameter mold to a total compacted thickness of approximately 1.0-inch by using a 5.5-
pound weight dropping 12-inches and with 15 blows per layel". The sample is compacted
at a saturation between 49 and 51 percent. After remolding, the sample is confined under
a pressure of 144 pounds per square foot (psf) and allowed to soak for 24 hours. The
resulting volume change due to the increase in moisture content within the sample is
recorded and the Expansion Index (EI) calculated.
EnGEN Corporation
tt>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
DeGember 2003
Page 6
6.8 Plasticity Index: Liquid limit and plastic limit testing was performed on samples of near-
surface earth material. The tests were performed in general conformance with ASTM D
4318-98 procedures. The material tested has a Plasticity Index of 9.
6.9 Soluble Sulfate Test: Samples of near-surface earth material were obtained for soluble
sulfate testing for the site. The concentration of soluble sulfates was determined in
general conformance with California Test Method 41"f pl"Ocedures. The test results
indicate a low percentage of water-soluble sulfates (less than 0.001% by weight). As a
result, no sulfate resistance concretes are considered necessary.
7.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
7.1 Geoloaic Settina: The site is located in the Northern Peninsular Range on the southern
sector of the structural unit known as the Perris Block. The Perris Block is bounded on the
northeast by jbp--San Jacinto Fault Zone, on the southwest by the Elsinore Fault Zone, and
on the north by the Cucamonga Fault Zone. The southern boundary of the Perris Block is
not as distinct, but is believed to coincide with a complex group of faults trending
southeast from the Murrieta, Califomia area. The Peninsular Range is characterized by
large Mesozoic age intrusive rock masses flanked by volcanic, metasedimentary, and
sedimentary rocks. Various thicknesses of colluvial/alluvial sediments derived from the
erosion of the elevated portions of the region fill the low-lying areas. Undocumented fill,
alluvium and Pauba Formation sandstone underlie the subject property. The earth
materials encountered on the subject site are described in more detail in subsequent
sections of this report.
7.2 Faultina: The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart and
Bryant, 1997, updated 1999). No known active faults traverse the property. The nearest
active faults to the site are described below.
7.2.1 Elsinore Fault Zone: The Elsinore Fault Zone - Ternecula Segment is located
approximately 6,3 kilometers (3.9 miles) southwest of the site. The Elsinore Fault Zone -
Julian segment is located 20.9 kilometers (13 miles) southeast of the site. The. Elsinore
Fault Zone - Glen Ivy Segment is located 23.8 kilometers (14.8 miles) northwest of the
site. The Elsinore Fault Zone is a prominent and youthful structural boundary between the
Perris Block to the northeast and the Santa Ana mountains block to the southwest. The
Elsinore Fault system is a major right lateral strike-slip fault system that has experienced
EnGEN Corporation
<\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Numbor: T2995-GS
December 2003
Page 7
strong earthquakes in historical times, (1856, 1894, and 1910), and exhibits Holocene
movement.
7.2.2 San Jacinto Fault Zone: The San Jacinto Fault is located approximately 29.1 kilometers
(18.1 miles) northeast of the site. The San Jacinto Fault Zone trends northwesl-southeast
and is a major right lateral strike-slip fault, which has displayed surface rupture and
associated seismic ground shaking in 1899, 1918, 1923, 1934, 1937, 1942, and 1954.
7.3 Seismicity: The project lies within an active area of faulting and seismicity in the
Southern California region. This predominance of seismic activity has been associated
with the San Jacinto Fault Zone along its southeast section in the vicinity of the Salton
Sea, and within the northwest portion near its junction with the San Andreas Fault Zone,
The predominance of the remaining recorded activity has been associated with the San
Andreas Fault Zone. A list of faults within 62 miles (100 kilometers) of the site are
shown on Table A in the Appendix. Based on computer software by Thomas F. Blake
(EQSEARCH, Blake 2000b), the maximum peak ground acceleration experienced at the
site since 1800 was approximately 0.28g from a magnitude 6.8 earthquake in 1918.
Although no known active faults exist within the project limits, the site will experience
ground motion and effects from earthquakes generated along active faults located off-site.
To estimate the potential ground shaking, EnGEN Corporation has analyzed the seismic
parameters using the probabilistic ground motion analysis. The probabilistic ground
motion analysis requires information regarding fault geometry, the magnitude of the
maximum credible earthquake on each fault, and the regional attenuation equation, which
relates the considered seismic parameters to the magnitude and the source-site distance.
To perform this analysis EnGEN Corporation utilized the computer software FRISKSP
developed by Thomas F. Blake (Blake, 2000c).
The attenuation relationships by Boore et al. (1997) for soil type So (stiff soil -
shear wave velocity 250 m/s) was utilized. For a complete discussion of the
software and probabilistic methods the reader is referred to Blake (2000c).
The intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon the
earthquake magnitude, distance from the source (epicenter), and the site response
characteristics. The Elsinore Fault - Temecula Segment is potentially capable of
EnGEN Corporation
\()
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
December 2003
Page 8
producing the most intense horizontal ground acceleration at the site, due to its
proximity and associated maximum credible earthquake magnitude of 6.8. Such an
earthquake near the site could produce seismic shaking with an estimated maximum
credible peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.50g. This horizontal acceleration has
a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years. The maximum credible earthquake
is the maximum earthquake that appears capable of occurring under the presently
known tectonic framework.
In sum, these results are based on many unavoidable geological and statistical
uncertainties, but are consistent with current standard-of-practice. As engineering
seismology evolves, and as more fault-specific geological data are gathered, more
certainty and different methodologies may also evolve.
7.4 Earth Materials: A brief description of the earth materials encountered in the
exploratory excavations is presented in the following sections. A more detailed
description of the earth materials encountered is presented on the Geotechnical Boring
Logs presented in the Appendix. The earth material strata as shown on the logs
represent the conditions in the actual exploratory locations and other variations may
occur between the excavations. Lines of demarcation between the earth materials on
the logs represent the approximate boundary between the material types; however, the
transition may be gradual.
7.4.1 Undocumented Fill (Afu): Undocumented fill was encountered in the central and
western portions of the site, and is approximately 2 to 4-feet thick in these areas. It is
assumed that minor fills on the order of 1 to 2-feet thick may be associated with the
existing structures. An unknown thickness of fill exists in the Metropolitan Water District
easement in the eastern portion of the site. The undocumented fill consists of silty fine-
grained sand and was found to be dry to moist and loose, to dense in-place.
7.4.2 Alluvium (Call: Alluvial materials were encountered to a depth of approximately 7-feet
bgs in Boring B-5, to depths of 23 to 35-feet in Borin9s 8-1, B-2 and B-3 and to the
maximum depth explored in Borings B-4 and B-6 (31.5-feet and 11.5-feet, respectively),
Alluvial materials consist of poorly graded fine- to coarse-grained sands, silty fine- to
medium-grained sands and clayey sands that were found to be dry to wet and loose to
dense in-place.
EnGEN Corporation
\\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T299S-GS
December 2003
Page 9
7.4.3 Pauba Formation Sandstone (CDsl: The Pauba Formation underlies the site and is
exposed on the north-central portion of the site. On-site the Pauba Formation consists
of medium-grained sandstone, silty fine-grained sandstone, sandy siltstone, clayey
siltstone and silty claystone. The Pauba Formation was found to be moist and was stiff
to hard and medium dense to very dense in place.
7.5 Groundwater: Groundwater was encountered directly above bedrock at a depth of
28-feet in Borings B-1, B-2 and B-4. Borings B-3, B-5 and B-6 were shallow, and
therefore they did not encounter groundwater. The regional groundwater in lhe vicinity
has been reported to occur much deeper. The cooperative well measurinll program
reports that State Well No, 7S3W25E01 (Rancho California Water District No. 108),
which lies approximately one mile west of the site, has a surface elevation of 1073.9-
feet and the depth to water was 305.98-feet on April 28, 2002.
7.6 Liauefaction Evaluation: Liquefaction is a phenomenon where a sudden large decrease
of shearing resistance takes place in fine-grained cohesion less and/or low plasticity
cohesive soils due to the cyclic stresses produced by earthquakes causing a sudden, but
temporary, increase of porewater pressure. The increased porewater pressure occurs
below the water table, but can cause propagation of groundwater upward into overlying
soil and possibly to the ground surface and cause sand to boil as excess porewater
escapes. Potential hazards due to liquefaction include significant total and/or differential
settlements of the ground surface and structures as well as possible collapse of structures
due to loss of support of foundations. It has been shown by laboratory testing and from
the analysis of soil conditions at sites where liquefaction has occurred that the soil types
most susceptible to liquefaction are saturated, fine sand to sandy silt with a mean grain
size ranging from approximately 0.075 mm to 0.5 mm. These soils derive their shear
strength from intergranular friction and do not drain quickly during earthquakes. Published
studies and field and laboratory test data indicate that c:oarse sands and silty or clayey
sands beyond the above-mentioned grain size range are, r'onsiderably less vulnerable to
liquefaction. To a large extent, the relative density of the soil also controls the
susceptibility to liquefaction for a given number of cycles and acceleration levels during a
seismic event. Other characteristics such as confining pressure and the stresses created
within the soil during a seismic event also affect the liquefaction potential of a site.
Liquefaction of soil does not generally occur at depths of 40 to 50-feet below ground
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.7
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
December 2003
Page 10
surface due to the confining pressure at that depth. The potential for liquefaction of the
site is considered to be moderate to high due to the following conditions:
· The existence of nearby major active faults may cause exceptionally high ground
accelerations at the site.
· The fine-grained nature (fine- to medium-grained silty sands, medium-grained poorly
graded sands, sandy silts) of the earth materials encountered makes them susceptible
to liquefaction.
· Low to medium relative densities of some of the in-situ soils above and below the
groundwater table.
. Relatively shallow (up to 28-feet bgs) presence of groundwater.
The total potential settlement in the event of liquefaction has been calculated at
4.0-inches.
The proposed 7 -foot minimum blanket of engineered fill in the alluvial areas (See Section
8.2.5) is expected to aid in mitigating the potential effects of liquefaction to within tolerable
limits.
SecondarY Effects of Seismic Activitv: The secondary effects of seismic activity
normally considered as possible hazards to a site include various types of ground failure
and seismically induced flooding. Since there are no nearby confined large bodies of
water, seismically-induced flooding and earthquake-induced surface flooding due to
seiches is considered low. Due to its distance form the Pacific Ocean, the probability of
tsunamis is considered low. The probability of occurrence of each type of ground failure
depends on the severity of the earthquake, the distance of the site from the zone of
maximum energy release of the quake, the topography of the site, the subsurface
materials at the site, and groundwater conditions beneath the site, besides other factors.
Since there are no active faults on the site, the probability of hazards due to fault ground
rupture is considered low. Due to the overall favorable, geologic structure of the area,
the potential for earthquake-induced landslides is considered low.
EnGEN Corporation
\t.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
Dec'~mber 2003
Page 11
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 General: The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on
the results of field and laboratory data obtained from the exploratory excavations located
across the property, experience gained from work conducted by this firm on projects
within the general vicinity, and the project description and assumptions presented in the
Proposed Development/Project Description section of this report. Based on a review of
the field and laboratory data and the engineering analysis, the proposed development is
feasible from a geotechnical/geologic standpoint. The actual conditions of the near-
surface supporting material across the site may vary. The nature and extent of
variations of the surface and subsurface conditions between the exploratory excavations
may not become evident until construction. If variations of the material become evident
during construction of the proposed development, this office should be notified so that
EnGEN Corporation can evaluate the characteristics of the material and, it' needed,
make revisions to the recommendations presented herein. Recommendations for
general site grading, foundations, slab support, pavement design, slope maintenance,
etc., are presented in the subsequent paragraphs,
8.2 Earthwork Recommendations
8.2.1 General: The grading recommendations presented in this report are intended for: 1) the
use of a conventional shallow foundation system and concrete slabs cast on-grade; and
2) the rework of unsuitable near-surface earth materials to create an engineered building
pad and suitable support for exterior hardscape (sidewalks, patios, etc.) and pavement. If
pavement subgrade soils are prepared at the time of rough grading of the building site and
the areas are not paved immediately, additional observations and testing of the subgrade
soil will have to be performed before placing aggregate base material or asphaltic concrete
or PCC pavement to locate areas which may have been damaged by construction traffic,
construction activities, and/or seasonal wetting and drying. The following
recommendations may need to be modified and/or supplemented during rough grading as
field conditions require.
8.2.2 Clearina: All debris, roots, grasses, weeds, brush and other deleterious materials should
be removed from the proposed structure, exterior hardscape and pavement areas and
areas to receive structural fill before grading is performed. No discing or mixing of organic
EnGEN Corporation
v:'
II
I
I
! I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
December 2003
Page 12
material into the soils should be performed. Man-made objects encountered should be
overexcavated and exported from the site.
8.2.3 Excavation Characteristics: Excavation and trenching within the alluvium is anticipated
to be relatively easy. Excavation within the bedrock will be more difficult, due to higher
densities. However, the bedrock in the immediate vicinity has been excavated by
conventional grading equipment.
8.2.4 Suitability of On-5ite Materials as Fill: In general, the on-site earth materials present
are considered suitable for reuse as fill. Fill materials should be free of significant
amounts of organic materials and/or debris. Fill materials should not contain rocks greater
than 6-inches in maximum diameter in the upper 5.0-feet of fill.
8.2.5 Removal and Recomoaction: All existing undocumented fills and/or unsuitable, loose, or
disturbed near-surface soil, man-made objects and vegetation in areas which will support
structural fills, structures, exterior hardscape (sidewalks, patios, etc.), and pavement
should be removed. As stated above, final grading plans were not available at the time of
this report. When these plans become available, they should be reviewed by this office in
order to make additional recommendations, if necessary. The following recommendations
are based on field and laboratory results:
1. All undocumented fills should be removed.
2. After undocumented fills have been removed, the removals in alluvial (Qal) areas
should be made to a minimum depth of 7-feet below existing grades in fill areas and
7 -feet below proposed grades in cut areas, or to competent bedrock if alluvial areas
are less than 7 -feet deep.
3. Weathered bedrock (Qps) should be removed to competent bedrock. The
anticipated depth of removal is 1 to 2-feet.
4. All exposed removal and overexcavation bottoms should be inspected by the
Geotechnical Engineer's Representative prior to placement of any fill. An approved
bottom should be relatively free of porous material that could potentially
hydrocollapse. Undisturbed alluvial bottoms should meet a minimum of 85 percent
relative compaction.
EnGEN Corporation
\~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
DeGember 2003
Page 13
5. The approved exposed bottoms of all removal areas should be scarified 12-inches,
brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90
percent relative compaction before placement of fill. Maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content for compacted materials should be determined according
to ASTM D 1557-00 procedures.
6. Where cut/fill transitions exist beneath a structure, the cut and shallow fill portions
should be overexcavated. The depth of overexcavation should be half the maximum
fill thickness beneath the structure with a minimum of 3-feet. The overexcavation
should extent beyond the structure a distance equal to the depth of overexcavation,
with a minimum of 5-feet.
7. If expansive materials are exposed during grading, selective grading may be
considered an option. If selective grading is desired, expansive materials should be
placed deeper than 3-feet below finish grade.
8. Geologic contacts as shown on the attached site plan are approximate. Final
determination of removal and overexcavation depths should be made during
grading.
8.2,6 Fill Placement Reauirements: All fill material, whether on-site material or import, should
be approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative before
placement. All fill should be free of vegetation, organic material, and debris. Oversized
material should be disposed of in accordance with Section 8.2.7. Import fill should be no
more expansive than the existing on-site material. Approved fill material should be placed
in horizontal lifts not exceeding 10-inches in compacted thickness and watered or aerated
to obtain near optimum moisture content (:1:2.0 percent of optimum). Each lift should be
spread evenly and should be thoroughly mixed to ensure uniformity of soil moisture.
Structural fill should meet a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content for compacted materials should be determined in
accordance with ASTM D 1557-00 procedures. Moisture content of fill materials should
not vary more than 2.0 percent from optimum, unless approved the Project Geotechnical
Engineer.
8.2.7 Oversize Material: Oversize material is defined as rock, or other irreducible material with
a maximum dimension greater than 12-inches shall not be buried or placed in fill unless
EnGEN Corporation
,,-5
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
Dec:ember 2003
Page 14
location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Project
Geotechnical Engineer. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversize
material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by
compacted fill (windrow). Alternative methods, such as water jetting or wheel rolling with a
backhoe may be required to achieve compaction in the fill materials immediately adjacent
to the windrow. Oversize material shall not be placed within ten (10) vertical feet of finish
grade, within fifteen (15) lateral feet of a finished slope face. or within two (2) feet of future
utilities.
8.2.8 ComDaction EauiDment: It is anticipated that fill compaction for the project will be
achieved by the use of a combination of rubber-tired and track-mounted heavy equipment
Compaction by rubber-tired or track-mounted equipment, by itself, may not be sufficient.
Adequate water trucks, water pulls, and/or other suitable equipment should be available to
provide sufficient moisture and dust control. The actual selection of equipment is the
responsibility of the contractor performing the work and should be such that uniform and
proper compaction of the fill is achieved.
8.2.9 Shrinkaae and Subsidence: There will be a material loss due to the clearing and
grubbing operations. Shrinkage of alluvium that is excavated and replaced as compacted
fill should be anticipated. It is estimated that the average shrinkage of these soils will be
on the order of 15 percent, based on fill volumes when compacted to a minimum of 90
percent relative compaction. A higher relative compaction would mean a larger shrinkage
value.
8.2.10 Fill SloDes: Finish fill slopes should not be inclined steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to
vertical). Fill slope surfaces should be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction
based on a maximum dry density for the soil as determined by ASTM D 1557-00
procedures to the face of the finished slope. Fill slopes should be constructed in a skillful
manner so that they are positioned at the design orientations and slope ratio. Achieving a
uniform slope surface by subsequent thin wedge filling should be avoided. Any add-on
correction to a fill slope should be conducted under the observation and recommendations
of the Project Geotechnical Engineer. The proposed add non correction procedures should
be submitted in writing by the contractor prior to commencement of corrective grading and
reviewed by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. Compacted fill slopes should be
backrolled with suitable equipment for the type of soil being used during fill placement at
EnGEN Corporation
\~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995.GS
December 2003
Page 15
intervals not exceeding 4.0 feet in vertical height. As an altemative to the backrolling of
the fill slopes, over-filling of the slopes will be considered acceptable and preferred. The
fill slope should be constructed by over-filling with compacted fill a minimum of 3.0 feet
horizontally, and then trimmed back to exposed the dense inner core of the slope surface.
8.2.11 Cut Slooes: All cut slopes should not be inclined steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical).
Steeper cut slopes of 1.5:1 will probably be acceptable but will require slope stability
analysis to verify stability once grading plans become available. All cut slopes should be
inspected by the engineering geologist to check for any adverse conditions. Cut slopes
with adverse conditions may require flattening or buttressing to maintain stability.
8.2.12 Kevwavs: A keyway excavated into competent bedrock should be constructed at the toe
of all fill slopes that are proposed on natural grades of 5: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or
steeper. Keyways should be a minimum of 15-feet wide (equipment width) and tilted a
minimum of 2 percent into the hillside. A series of level benches should be C<lnstructed
into competent bedrock on natural grades of 5: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or steeper prior to
placing fill.
8.2.13 Subdrains: Although the need for subdrains is not anticipated at this time, final
recommendations should be made during grading by the Project Geologist.
8.2.14 Observation and Testina: During grading, observation and testing should be conducted
by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative to verify that the grading is being
performed according to the recommendations presenb~d in this report. The Project
Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative should observe the scarification and the
placement of fill and should take tests to verify the moisture content, density, uniformity
and degree of compaction obtained. Where testing demonstrates insufficient density,
additional compaction effort, with the adjustment of the moisture content where necessary,
should be applied until retesting shows that satisfactory relative compaction has been
obtained. The results of observations and testing services should be presented in a formal
Finish Grading Report following completion of the grading operations. Grading operations
undertaken at the site without the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative present
may result in exclusions of the affected areas from the finish !lrading report for the project.
The presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative will be for the
purpose of providing observations and field testing and will not include any supervision or
EnGEN Corporation
\"'\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
December 2003
Page 16
directing of the actual work of the contractor or the contractor's employees or agents.
Neither the presence and/or the non-presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his
field representative nor the field observations and testing shall excuse the contractor in
any way for defects discovered in the contractor's work.
8.2.15 Soil EXDansion Potential: Upon completion of fine grading of the building pad, near-
surface samples should be obtained for expansion potential testing to identify the
expansion potential for each lot and assign appropriate foundation and slab-on-grade
recommendations for construction. The results of recent testing indicate a very low to
low expansion potential (Expansion Index (EI) = 18 to 31). Based on our experience in
the general vicinity, the Pauba Formation can contain significant amounts of expansive
clays. Mixing of these clays during grading could affect the overall EI of the fill. Final
foundation design parameters should be based on EI testing of near-surface soils and
be performed at the conclusion of rough grading,
8.2.16 Plasticity Index: The following parameters may be lIsed for preliminary design
purposes. Upon completion of grading near-surface samples should be obtained in
order to make appropriate foundation and slab-on-grade recommendations.
, LImO .''''olly '"d~ I
'7 9
Expansion Index Liquid Limit Plasti
31 36 2
8.3 Foundation Desian Recommendations:
8,3.1 General: Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional column
footings and continuous wall footings founded upon either a minimum of 18-inches of
properly compacted fill or competent bedrock (but nol a combination of both). The
recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and
construction are based on geotechnical characteristics and a low expansion potential for
the supporting soils and are not intended to preclude more restrictive structural
requirements. The Structural Engineer for the project should determine the actual footing
width and depth to resist design vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces.
8.3.2 Foundation Size: Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches.
Continuous footings should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of one (1) No.4
steel reinforcing bar located near the top and one (1) NO.4 steel reinforcing bar located
EnGEN Corporation
V8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
DeGember 2003
Page 17
near the bottom of the footings to minimize the effects of slight differential movements
which may occur due to minor variations in the engineering characteristics or seasonal
moisture change in the supporting soils. Final foundation size and reinforcing should be
determined based on the expansive potential of the supporting soils. Column footings
should have a minimum width of 18-inches by 18-inches and be suitably reinforced, based
on structural requirements. A grade beam, founded at the same depths and reinforced
the same as the adjacent footings, should be provided across doorways, garage or any
other types of perimeter openings.
8.3.3 DeDth of Embedment: Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill or
competent bedrock should extend to a minimum depth of 12..inches below lowest adjacent
finish grade for single story structures and 18-inches for two story structures. Deeper
footings may be necessary for expansive soils purposes, depending on the final
determination of lot specific expansive potential.
8.3.4 Bearina CaDacitv: Provided the recommendations for site earthwork, minimum footing
width, and minimum depth of embedment for footings are incorporated into the project
design and construction, the allowable bearing value for design of continuous and column
footings for the total dead plus frequently-applied live loads is 2,000 psf for continuous
footings and 2,000 psf for column footings in properly compacted fill. Footings founded
entirely in competent bedrock may be designed for an allowable bearing value of 3,000
psf. The allowable bearing value has a factor of safety of at least 3.0 and may be
increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading such as wind
or seismic forces.
8.3.5 Settlement: Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values and the
maximum assumed wall and column loads are not expected to exceed a maximum
settlement of 0.75-inch or a differential settlement of 0.50-inch in properly compacted fill
under static load conditions.
Total settlement due to possible liquefaction, however, has been calculated at 4.0-inches.
Due to the minimum 7-feet of engineered fill proposed beneath the structures in alluvial
areas, it is our opinion that differential settlement due to possible Iiquefacticln will be
minimized and may be considered, for design purposes, to be 50 percent of the total
settlement, that is 2.0-inches, across the maximum dimension of a typical residence,
EnGEN Corporation
\l\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
December 2003
Page 18
which falls well within the normally acceptable limits of 2-inches in 40-feet. In addition, the
Project Structural Engineer should consider whether or not an additional safety factor
would be prudent in the design of roof ties in an effort to reduce the potential for collapse
and promote the intent of "acceptable level of risk" perfomlance as described in CDMG
Special Publication 117 and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
8.3.6 Lateral Caoacitv: Additional foundation design parameters for resistance to static lateral
forces, are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Compacted Fill or Bedrock - 250 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
Compacted Fill or Bedrock - 0.35
Lateral load resistance may be developed by a combination of friction acting on the base
of foundations and slabs and passive earth pressure developed on the sides of the
footings and stem walls below grade when in contact with properly compacted fill or
competent native earth materials. The above values are allowable design values and
have safety factors of at least 2.0 incorporated into them and may be used in combination
without reduction in evaluating the resistance to lateral loads. The allowable values may
be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading, such as
wind or seismic forces. For the calculation of passive earth resistance, the upper 1.0-foot
of material should be neglected unless confined by a concrete slab or pavement. The
maximum recommended allowable passive pressure is e,.o times the recommended
design value.
8.3.7 Seismic Desia" Parameters: The following seismic design factors apply:
Desian Fault: Elsinore Fault - Temecllla Seoment
Fault Type: Type B Fault
Closest Distance to Fault: 6.3 Km
Soil Profile Type: SD
8.4 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations: The recommendations for concrete slabs, both
interior and exterior, excluding PCC pavement, are based upon the expansion potential for
the supporting material. Concrete slabs should be designed to minimize cracking as a
result of shrinkage. Joints (isolation, contraction, and construction) should be placed in
accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. Special precautions
EnGEN Corporation
1--0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Numbm: T2995-GS
December 2003
Page 19
should be taken during placement and curing of all concrete slabs. Excessive slump (high
water / cement ratio) of the concrete and/or improper curing procedures used during either
hot or cold weather conditions could result in excessive shrinkage, cracking, or curling in
the slabs. It is recommended that all concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be
performed in accordance with ACI recommendations and procedures.
8.4.1 Interior Slabs: Interior concrete slabs-an-grade should be a minimum of 4.0-inches
nominal in thickness and be underlain by a 1.0 to 2.0-inches of clean coarse sand or other
approved granular material placed on properly prepared subgrade per the Earthwork
Recommendations Section of this report. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of
NO.3 reinforcing bars placed 24-inches on center, or a suitable equivalent, as determined
by the Project Structural Engineer. Final lot identification and slab construction
requirements will be presented in the compaction report upon completion of grading. It is
essential that the reinforcing be placed at mid-depth in the slab. The concrete section
and/or reinforcing steel should be increased appropriately for anticipated excessive or
concentrated floor loads. In areas where moisture sensitive tloor coverings are anticipated
over the slab, we recommend that a polyethylene vapor banier with a minimum of 6.0 mil
in thickness be placed beneath the slab. The moisture barrier should be overlapped or
sealed at splices and covered top and bottom by a 1.0 to 2.0 inch minimum layer of clean,
moist (not saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures.
8.4.2 Exterior Slabs: All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks,
etc., with the exception of PCC pavement) should be a minimum of 4.0-inches nominal in
thickness and should be underlain by a minimum of 12.0-inches of soil that has been
prepared in accordance with the Earthwork Recommendation section of this report.
Reinforcing in the slabs and the use of a compacted sand or gravel base beneath the
slabs should be according to the current local standards. Subgrade soils should be
moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content to a depth of 12.0-inches and
proof compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D
1557-00 procedures immediately before placing the concrete,
8.5 Pavement Desian Recommendations: The following recommendations for the
structural pavement section for the proposed parking and driveway areas for the subject
development are presented for preliminary design purposes only. The pavement section
has been determined in general accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public
EnGEN Corporation
'Z--\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
December 2003
Page 20
Works Construction (Green Book) and is based on an assumed Traffic Index (TI) and an
assumed R-Value of 5. The R-Value of any imported fill material may vary from the
assumed value thereby changing the proposed pavement section design. The sections
listed below for reference purposes are calculated minimum based on varying Traffic
Indexes:
Traffic Index Calculated
5.0 3-inches Asphaltic Concrete ove
placed on properly prepared subgr
5.5 3-inches Asphaltic Concrete ove
placed on properly prepared subg
6.0 3-inches Asphaltic Concrete ove
placed on properly prepared subg
6.5 3-inches Asphaltic Concrete ove
placed on properly prepared subgl
7.0 3-inches Asphaltic Concrete ovel
placed on properly prepared subgr
Section
r 10.0-inches Aggregate Base,
'ade.
r 12.0-inches Aggregate Base,
rade.
r 14.0-inches Aggregate Base,
rade.
r 16.0-inches Aggregate Base,
ade.
. 17.5-inches Aggregate Base,
ade.
Asphalt concrete pavement materials should be as specified in Sections 20:i-6 of the
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book) or a suitable
equivalent. Aggregate base should conform to 3/4-inch crushed aggregate base as
specified in Section 200-2.2 of Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction
(Green Book) or a suitable equivalent. The subgrade soil, including utility trench backfill,
should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The aggregate base
material should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content for subgrade and aggregate base materials should
be determined according to ASTM D 1557-00 procedures. If pavement subgrade soils are
prepared at the time of rough grading of the building site and the areas are not paved
immediately, additional observations and testing will have to be performed before placing
aggregate base material, asphaltic concrete, or PCC pavement to locate areas that may
have been damaged by construction traffic, construction activities, and/or seasonal wetting
and drying. In the proposed pavement areas, soil samples should be obtained at the time
the subgrade is graded for R-Value testing according to Califomia Test Method 301
procedures to verify the pavement design recommendations.
EnGEN Corporation
?,;z"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.7
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
December 2003
Page 21
8.6
Utility Trench Recommendations: Utility trenches within the zone of influence of
foundations or under building floor slabs, exterior hardscape, and/or pavement areas
should be backfilled with properly compacted soil. All utility trenches within the building
pad and extending to a distance of 5.0-feet beyond the building exterior footings should be
backfilled with on-site or similar soil. Where interior or exterior utility trenches are
proposed to pass beneath or parallel to building, retaining wall, and/or decorative concrete
block perimeter wall footings, the bottom of the trench should not be located below a 1: 1
plane projected downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing unless the
utility lines are designed for the footing surcharge loads. It is recommended that all utility
trenches excavated to depths of 5.0-feet or deeper be cut back according to the
Temporary Construction Excavation Recommendations section of this report or be
properly shored during construction. Backfill material should be placed in a lift thickness
appropriate for the type of backfill material and compaction equipment used. Backfill
material should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction by
mechanical means. Jetting or flooding of the backfill material will not be considered a
satisfactory method for compaction unless the procedures are reviewed and approved in
writing by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. Maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content for backfill material should be determined according to ASTM D 1557-00
procedures.
Finish Lot Drainaae Recommendations: Positive drainage should be established away
from the tops of slopes, the exterior walls of structures, the back of retaining walls, and the
decorative concrete block perimeter walls. Finish lot surface gradients in unpaved areas
should be provided next to tops of slopes and buildings to guide surface water away from
foundations and slabs and from flowing over the tops of slopes, The surface water should
be directed toward suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of surface water should not be
allowed next to structures or on pavements. In unpaved areas, a minimum positive
gradient of 4.0 percent away from the structures and tops of slopes for a minimum
distance of 3.0-feet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the property in a
nonerosive manner should be provided. Landscape trees and plants with high water
needs should be planted at least 5.0-feet away from the walls of the structures.
Downspouts from roof drains should discharge to a surface which slopes away from the
structure a minimum of 5.0-feet from the exterior building walls. In no case should
EnGEN Corporation
~'b
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.8
8.9
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995.GS
December 2003
Page 22
downspouts from roof drains discharge into planter areas immediately adjacent to the
building unless there is positive drainage away from the structure at a minimum gradient of
2.0 percent, directed onto a permanent all-weather surface or subdrain system.
Planter Recommendations: Planters around the perimeter of the structures should be
designed to ensure that adequate drainage is maintained and minimal irrigation water is
allowed to percolate into the soils underlying the buildings,
TemDorarv Construction Excavation Recommendations: Temporary construction
excavations for rough grading, foundations, retaining walls, utility trenches, etc., more than
5.0-feet in depth and to a maximum depth of 15-feet should be properly shored or cut
back to the following inclinations:
~
Earth Material
Alluvium
ComDacted Fill or Bedrock
Inclination
1.5:1
1:1
No surcharge loads (spoil piles, earthmoving equipment, trucks, etc.) should be allowed
within a horizontal distance measured from the top of the excavation slope equal to 1.5
times the depth of the excavation. Excavations should be initially observed by the project
Geotechnical Engineer, Geologist and/or their representative to verify the
recommendations presented or to make additional recommendations to maintain stability
and safety. Moisture variations, differences in the cohesive or cementation characteristics,
or changes in the coarseness of the deposits may require slope flattening or, conversely,
permit steepening upon review by the project Geotechnical Engineer, Geologist, or their
representative. Deep utility trenches may experience Gaving which will require special
considerations to stabilize the walls and expedite trenching operations. Surface drainage
should be controlled along the top of the slope to preclude erosion of the slope face. If
excavations are to be left open for long periods, the slopes should be sprayed with a
protective compound and/or covered to minimize drying out, raveling, and/or erosion of the
slopes. For excavations more than 5.0-feet in depth which will not be cut back to the
recommended slope inclination, the contractor should submit to the owner and/or the
owner's designated representative detailed drawings showing the design of shoring,
bracing, sloping, or other provisions to be made for worker protection. If the drawings do
not vary from the requirements of the OSHA Construction Safety Orders (CAL OSHA or
FED OSHA, whichever is applicable for the project at the time of construction), a
EnGEN Corporation
ZA.
II
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
December 2003
Page 23
statement signed .by a registered Civil or Structural Engineer in the State of California,
engaged by the contractor at his expense, should be submitted certifying that the
contractor's excavation safety drawings comply with OSHA Construction Orders. If the
drawings vary from the applicable OSHA Construction Safety Orders, the drawings should
be prepared, signed, and sealed by a Registered Civil or Structural Engineer in the State
of California. The contractor should not proceed with any excavations until the project
owner or his designated representative has received and acknowledged the properly
prepared excavation safety drawings.
8.10 Retainina Wall Recommendations:
8.10.1 Earth Pressures: Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive granular soil (EI=O) or
very low expansive potential materials (Expansion Index of 20 or less) within a zone
extending upward and away from the heel of the footing at a slope of 0.5:1 (horizontal to
vertical) or flatter can be designed to resist the following static lateral soil pressures:
Condition
Active
At Rest
Level Backfill
30 pcf
60 pcf
2:1 SloDe
45 pcf
Walls that are free to deflect 0.01 radian at the top may be designed for the above-
recommended' active condition. Walls that need to be restricted from such movement
should be assumed rigid and designed for the at-rest condition. The above values
assume well-drained backfill and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure. Surcharge loads,
dead and/or live, acting on the backfill within a horizontal distance behind the wall should
also be considered in the design.
8.10.2 Foundation Desion: Retaining wall footings should be founded to the same depths into
properly compacted fill, or firm, competent, undisturbed, natural soil as standard
foundations and may be designed for the same average allowable bearing value across
the footing (as long as the resultant force is located in the middle one-third of the
footing),and with the same allowable static lateral bearing pressure and allowable sliding
resistance as previously recommended. When using the allowable lateral pressure and
allowable sliding resistance, a factor of safety of 1.5 should be achieved.
EnGEN Corporation
2:5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995.GS
December 2003
Page 24
8.10.3 Subdrain: A subdrain system should be constructed behind and at the base of all
retaining walls to allow drainage and to prevent the buildup of excessive hydrostatic
pressures. Typical subdrains may include weep holes with a continuous gravel gallery,
perforated pipe surrounded by filter rock, or some other appl"Oved system. Gravel galleries
and/or filter rock, if not properly designed and graded for the on-site and/or import
materials, should be enclosed in a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a
suitable substitute in order to prevent infiltration of fines and clogging of the system. The
perforated pipes should be at least 4.0-inches in diameter. Pipe perforations should be
placed downward. Gravel filters should have volume of at least 1.0 cubic foot per lineal
foot of pipe. Subdrains should maintain a positive flow gradient and have outlets that drain
in a non-erosive manner. In the case of subdrains for basement walls, they need to empty
into a sump provided with a submersible pump activated by CI change in the water level.
8.10.4 Backfill: Backfill directly behind retaining walls (if backfill width is less than 3-feet) may
consist of 0.5 to 0.75-inch diameter, rounded to subrounded gravel enclosed in a
geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute or a clean sand
(Sand Equivalent Value greater than 50) water jetted into place to obtain proper
compaction. If water jetting is used, the subdrain system should be in place. Even if water
jetting is used, the sand should be densified to a minimum of 90 percent relative
compaction. If the specified density is not obtained by water jetting, mechanical methods
will be required. If other types of soil or gravel are used for backfill, mechanical
compaction methods will be required to obtain a relative compaction of at least 90 percent
of maximum dry density. Backfill directly behind retaining walls should not be c:ompacted
by wheel, track or other rolling by heavy construction equipment unless the wall is
designed for the surcharge loading. If gravel, clean sand or other imported backfill is used
behind retaining walls, the upper 18-inches of backfill in unpaved areas should consist of
typical on-site material compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in order
to prevent the influx of surface runoff into the granular backfill and into the, subdrain
system. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill materials should
be determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557-00 procedures.
EnGEN Corporation
7Jo
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995.GS
December 2003
Page 25
9.0 PLAN REVIEW
Subsequent to formulation of final plans and specifications for the project, but before
bids for construction are requested, grading plans for the proposed development should
be reviewed by EnGEN Corporation to verify compatibility with site geotechnical
conditions and conformance with the recommendations contained in this report. If
EnGEN Corporation is not accorded the opportunity to make the recommended review,
we will assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of the recommendations presented
in this report.
10.0 PRE-BID CONFERENCE
It may be desirable to hold a pre-bid conference with the owner or an authorized
representative, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, the Project Geotechnical
Engineer, and the proposed contractors present. This conference will provide continuity in
the bidding process and clarify questions relative to the grading and construction
requirements of the project.
11.0 PRE-GRADING CONFERENCE
Before the start of grading, a conference should be held with the owner or an authorized
representative, the contractor, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, and the
Project Geotechnical Engineer present. The purpose of this meeting should be to clarify
questions relating to the intent of the grading recommendations and to verify that the
project specifications comply with the recommendations of this geotechnical engineering
report. Any special grading procedures and/or difficulties proposed by the contractor can
also be discussed at that time.
12.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
Rough grading of the property should be performed under engineering observation and
testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Rough grading includes, but is not limited to,
overexcavation cuts, fill placement, and excavation of temporary and permanent cut and
fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN Corporation should observe all foundation excavations.
Observations should be made before installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel
to verify and/or modify the conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations
EnGEN Corporation
oz.1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homos
Project Number: T2995-GS
December 2003
Page 26
of overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill,
pavement subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other
earthwork completed for the subject development should be performed by EnGEN
Corporation. If the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions are not
performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the performance of the development is
limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by EnGEN Corporation.
If parties other than EnGEN Corporation are engaged to perform soils and materials
observations and testing, they must be notified that they will be required to assume
complete responsibility for the geotechnical aspects of the project by concurring with the
recommendations in this report or providing altemative recommendations. Neither the
presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his field representative, nor the field
observations and testing, shall excuse the contractor in any way for defects dismvered in
the contractor's work. The Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative shall not be
responsible for job or project safety. Job or project safety shall be the sole responsibility of
the contractor.
13.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described in this
document. It mayor may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes.
In the event that changes in the assumed nature, design, or location of the proposed
development as described in this report are planned, the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes
are reviewed and the conclusions and recommendations of this report modified or verified
in writing. This study was conducted in general accordance with the applicable standards
of our profession and the accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices at
the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, implied or expressed beyond the
representations of this report, is made. Although every effort has been made to obtain
information regarding the geotechnical and subsurface c:onditions of the site, limitations
exist with respect to the knowledge of unknown regional or localized off-site r.onditions
which may have an impact at the site. The recommendations presented in this report are
valid as of the date of the report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can
occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or to the works
EnGEN Corporation
-z,fb
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
DeGember 2003
Page 27
of man on this and/or adjacent properties. If conditions are observed or information
becomes available during the design and construction process which are not reflected in
this report, EnGEN Corporation should be notified so that supplemental evaluations can
be performed and the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report can be
modified or verified in writing. This report is not intended for use as a bid document. Any
person or company using this report for bidding or construction purposes should perform
such independent studies and explorations as he deems nec.essary to satisfy himself as to
the surface and subsurface conditions to be encountered and the procedures to be used
in the performance of the work on this project. Changes in applicable or appropriate
standards of care or practice occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening
of knowledge and experience. Accordingly, the conclusions and recommendations
presented in this report may be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes outside the
control of EnGEN Corporation which occur in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our services. If we can be of further service or you
should have questions regarding this report, please contact this office at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
EnGEN Corporation
G/~Ma/ff7
FILE: EnGEN\Reporting\GS\T2995-GS Carino Homes, Geotechnical Study
EnGEN Corporation
7..-\
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
Appendix Page 1
APPENDIX
EnGEN Corporation
~
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.
11.
12.
13.
14,
15.
16.
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
Appondix Page 2
TECHNICAL REFERENCE$
1.
Allen, CR., and others, 1965, Relationship between seismicity and geologic structure in
the southern California region: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 55,
No.4, pg. 753-797.
Bartlett and Youd, 1995, Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread,
Joumal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No.4, April 1 H95,
Blake, T.F., 1998, Liquefy2, Interim Version 1.50, A Computer Program for the Empirical
Prediction of Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction Potential.
Blake, T. F., 2000a, EQ Fault for Windows, Version :~.OOb, A Computer Program for
Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized Califomia Faults.
Blake, T. F" 2000b, EQ Search for Windows, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program for the
Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from California Historical Earthquake Catalogs.
Blake, T.F., 2000c, FRISKSP for Windows, Version 4.00, A Computer Program for the
Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D
Faults as Earthquake Sources.
Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.G., and Fumal, T.E., 1997, Equations for Estimating Horizontal
Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A
Summary of Recent Work, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No.1, pp. 128-153.
Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1954, Geology of southern Califomia, Bulletin
170.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1969, Geologic map of California, San
Bernardino Sheet, Scale 1 :250,000.
Department of Conservation, Geology map of the Santa Ana 1:100,000 Quadrangle,
California, Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 91-17.
Dibblee, TW., Jr., 1970, Regional geologic map of San Andreas and related faults in
eastern San Gabriel Mountains and vicinity: U.S. Geologic Society, Open-File Map, Scale
1 :125,000.
Engel, R., 1959, Geology of the Lake Elsinore Quadrangle, California: California Division
of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 146.
Hart, Earl W., and Bryant, William A., 1997, Revised 199~', Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in
California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone
Maps: State of Califomia, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 38
pages.
Hileman, J,A., Allen, C.R. and Nordquist, J,M., 1973, Seismicity of the southern Califomia
region, 1 January 1932 to 31 December 1972: Seismological Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology.
Ishihara & Yoshimine, 1992, Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits following
liquefaction during earthquakes, Soil and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 32, No.1, pg. '173-188.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
EnGEN Corporation
"?\
I
I
I
'I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
Appendix Page 3
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued}
17. Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault map of California with locations of volcanoes, themlal springs
and thermal wells, 1 :750,000: California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data
Map No.1.
18. Jennings, CW., 1985, An explanatory text to accompany t.he 1:750,000 scale fault and
geologic maps of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 201, 197p"
2 plates.
19. Kennedy, M.P" 1977, Recency and character of faulting along the Elsinore fault zone in
southern Riverside County, Califomia: Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Special
Report 131,12 p.,1 plate, scale 1:24,000.
20. Mann, J.F., Jr., October 1955, Geology of a portion of the Elsinore fault zone, California:
State of California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, Spec:ial Report
43.
21. Petersen, M.D., Bryant, WA, Cramer, C.H., Coa, T. Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D.,
Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, PA and Schwartz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment for the State of California, Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Open
File Report 96.706.
22. Pradel, 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No.4, April 1998.
23. Riverside County Planning Department, June 1982 (Revised December 1983), Riverside
County Comprehensive General Plan - Dam Inundation Areas - 100 Year Flood Plains -
Area Drainage Plan, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
24. Riverside County Planning Department, January 1983, Riverside County Comprehensive
General Plan - County Seismic Hazards Map, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
25. Riverside County Planning Department, February 1983, Seismic - Geologic Maps,
Murrieta - Rancho Califomia Area, Sheet 146, Sheet 147 (Revised 11-87), Sheet 854B
(Revised 11-87), and Sheet 854A (revised 11-87), Scale 1" = 800'.
26. Rogers, T.H., 1966, Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, Santa Ana Sheet,
CDMG.
27. Schnabel, P.B. and Seed, H.B., 1972, Accelerations in rOGk for earthquakes in the westem
United States: College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 72-2.
28. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground motions and soil liquefaction during
earthquakes: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Volume 5 of a Series Titled
Engineering Monographs on Earthquake Criteria, Structural Design, and Strong Motion
Records.
29. South Coast Geological Society, Geology and Mineral Wealth of the California Transverse
Ranges, 1982.
30. State of California, January 1, 1980, Special Studies Zones, Elsinore Quadrangle, Revised
Official Map, Scale 1" = 2 Mi.
31. State of California Department of Water Resources, Water Wells and Springs in the
Westem Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Bulletin No. 91-21.
EnGEN Corporation
;;V
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
32,
33.
34.
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995.GS
Appendix Page 4
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued)
Tokimatsu and Seed, 1984, Simplified Procedures for the Evaluation of Settlements in
Clean Sands, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, October 1984.
Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Edition.
Vaughan, Thorup and Rockwell, 1999, Paleoseismology of the Elsinore Fault at Agua
Tibia Mountain, Southern California, Bulletin of the Seismology Society of America,
Volume 89, No.6, pg. 1447-1457, December 1.999.
EnGEN Corporation
,?:?
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
Appendix Page 5
TABLE A. DISTANCE TO STATE DESIGNATED ACTIVE FAULTS
ABBREVIATED APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM
FAULT NAME DISTANCE EARTHQUAKE
Mi -1Km) MAG (Mw\
Elsinore - Temecula 3.9 6.3 6.8
Elsinore - Julian 13.0 20.9 7,1
Elsinore - Glen Ivy 14.8 23.8 6.8
San Jacinto - San Jacinto Valley 18.1 29.1 6.9
San Jacinto - Anza 18.1 29.1 7.2
Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) 30.8 49.5 6,9
Chino - Central Avenue (Elsinore) 32.4 52.2 6.7
Rose Canyon 33.4 53.7 6,9
San Jacinto - San Bernardino 33.5 53.9 6,7
San Andreas - Southern 35.4 56.9 7,4
San Andreas - San Bemardino 35.4 56.9 7.3
San Jacinto - Coyote Creek 35.9 57.7 6.8
Whittier 36.7 59.1 6.8
Earthquake Valley 39.8 64.1 6.5
Pinto Mountain 42.4 68.3 7.0
San Andreas - Coachella 45.9 73.9 7,1
Newport - Inglewood (L.A. Basin) 46.4 74.7 6.9
Coronado Bank 47.7 76.8 7.4
Cucamonga 47.9 77.1 7.0
North Frontal Fault Zone (West) 48.2 77.5 7.0
Elysian Park Thrust 49.9 80.3 6.7
Palos Verdes 49.9 81.0 7.1
North Frontal Fault Zone (West) 50.4 81.1 6.7
Burnt Mountain 51.2 82.4 6.4
Cleghorn 51.3 82.5 6,5
San Jose 51.3 82,6 6.5
Compton Thrust 52.1 8:3.9 6.8
Sierra Madre 53.7 86.4 7.0
Eureka Peak 54.1 8'7.0 6.4
San Andreas - Mojave 58.1 93.5 7.1
San Andreas - 1857 Rupture 58.1 93.5 7.8
San Jacinto - Borrego 58.4 94.0 6.6
Landers 59.1 95.1 7.3
Helendale - S. Lockhardt 59.1 95.1 7.1
Elsinore - Coyote Mountain 59.2 95.2 6.8
EnGEN Cotporation
Yt.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
Appendix Page 6
POTENTIAL SETTLEMENT DUE TO LIQUEFACTION CALCULATIONS
BORING NO.1
Layer Depth SPT (Nl)60 FS Ev%
No. Range (ft)
1 0-4.5 16 28 >1.5 Non-Iiquefi
(H2O)
2 4.5-7 11 20 >1.5 Non-Iiquefi
(H2O)
3 7-13 8 10 >1.5 Non-Iiquefi
(H2O)
4 13-18 10 15 0.40 2.5
5 18-23 14 23 >1.5 Non-Iiquefi
(Fines)
6 23-28 18 22 0.55 1.9
7 28-33 16 17 0.45 2.4
able
Layer .dH
Thickness (inches)
(ft)
4.5 0
2.5 0
6 0
5 1.5-inches
5 0
5 1.1-inches
5 1.4-inches
able
able
able
Total .dH = 4.0-inches
Differential .dH = 2.0-inches
. Water is set at 13-feet (Groundwater actually encountered aI28-feet)
. Non-liquefiable (H20) = non-liquefiable due to lack of groundwater.
. Non-liquefiable (Fines) = non-liquefiable due to clay content in excess of 15 percent.
/
~:::>
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. EXPLORATORY BORING LOG SUMMARIES
(B-1 through B-6)
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
Appendix Page 7
*
EnGEN Corporation
I
I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
I Project Number: T2995-GS Project: Carino Homes
Boring Number: B-1 Surface Elevation: 1139
Date: 11-6-03 Logged By: C.M.
I 0 ~ Sample Optimum
'- .S! Soil Diy In-Situ Maximum
~ Description uses Blow Count Moisture Moisture
w Graphic ~ Depth Density Content Density Content
ill <J1
I 1\
~
I %
1099 Sandy siltstone, olive gray, moist, very hard, some ,""40 ML 5-8-11 33.5
caliche.
I
I 1094 Clayey siltstone, olive gray, wet, very hard, with 45 ML 4-~!()'11 39.1
caliche.
I
I
1089 ,.: : : Silty fine sandstone, olive brown, moist, medium
: : : dense.
50
SM
4.10-17
16.1
1087.5
I
Total Depth 51.5 feet
GROUNDWATER encountered al28 to 33 feet.
1-55
I
I
-60
I
I
1-65
I
I
-70
I
Notes:
~
I
EnGEN Corporation
I I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
I Project Number: T2995-GS Project: Carino Homes
Boring Number: B-2 Surface Elevation: 1143
Date: 11-6-03 Logged By: C.M.
I 0 -" In-Situ Optimum
.Q Soil Sample Dry Maximum
i Graphic Description E Depth USCS Blow Count Density Moisture Density Moisture
~ Content Content
W '"
I 1143 ALLUVIUM 0
I .....
1140.5 Silty fine sand, brown, dry, dense, slightly porous. SM 22.'15-22 108.7 7.1 129.0 9.7
..... 5
I 1138 Silty fine sand, brown, moist, medium dense. SM 8.11.11 108.9 3.:~
.....
I 1135.5 : ',: " :: Fine to medium sand, yellowish brown, moist, SP 7-10-14 115.3 3.!!
:.:: ::.' medium dense.
......
1133 : :: :: : Medium sand, yellowish brown, moist, medium 10 SP 7-9-11 111.1 3.0
I '.::: : '.:: dense.
. .....
. .....
......
.... ..
. .....
I . .....
.......
......
1128 . .... : Medium to coarse sand, yellowish brown, moist, 15 SP 7-9.11 105.1 5.T
. ....
I ',:.::' ': ',": medium dense.
.... ..
. .....
.......
......
.... ,.
. .....
. .....
.......
I ',::::: 20
1123 : :: :: : Medium sand, yellowish brown, moist, medium SP 10-14-19 117.8 9.7
'.::: : ':': dense.
.... ,.
I . .... .
. .....
.......
......
. .....
. ....
........
......
I 1118 '.. '.. ',.' Clayey medium sand, few pieces of 9ravel, dark 25 SC 5-ti-6 103.2 15.1
:..:.. :..: yeilowish brown, moist, loose.
I 1115 .......... GROUNDWATER at 28 to 33 feet. -
.. 30
I 1113 : : .: Medium sand, yellowish brown, wet, medium SP 10-13.9 103.2 8.4
: :dense.
. .
:
I 1110 :": BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATION
:
1105 Silty fine sandstone, olive gray, moist. very dense. 35 SM 18-5 tor 6' 118.2 14.ti
I
Notes:. '?C\
I EnGEN Corporation
II
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Project Number: T2995-GS Project: Carino Homes
Boring Number: B-2 Surface Elevation: 1143
Date: 11-6-03 Logged By: C.M.
c ]; In-Situ Optimum
.2 Soil Ory Maximum
~ Description 0. Sample uses Blow Count Moisture Moisture
Gr. phic ~ Depth Density Coolant Density Content
ill en
...
... ~ Medium sandstone, yellowish brown, moist, very 40 SP 16.36.60 for 5" 116.2 8.2
1103 ....
....
. ... : dense.
. ,',
1101.5 "'1
T olal Deplh 41.5 feet.
GROUNDWATER al28 10 33 feet.
45
1-50
~55
~60
1-65
~70
Notes: 4.p
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
I Project Number: T2995-GS Project: Carino Homes
Boring Number: B-3 Surface Elevation: 1146
Date: 11-6-03 Logged By: C.M.
I 0 "
0 . In-Situ Optimum
~ Soil Description a. Sample USCS Blow Count Ory Moisture Maximum Moisture
Graphic ~ Depth Density Density
iii CJ) Content Content
I 1146 ~ ~ ~ ALLUVIUM 0
I 1143.5 . : : : : Silty fine sand. brown, moist, medium dense, SM '13.13.9 102.8 8.1 123.1 11.0
~ ~ ~ slightly porous.
I 1141 5 SM 6-10-13 101.0 7.6 123.1 11.0
...
I 1138.5 . : : :: Yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, slightly 8M 5--3.10 112.9 9.7
~ ~ ~ porous.
1136 Loose, slightly porous. 10 8M 4.4.6 101.9 5.9
I
I .. 15
1131 t ~ :': ': Fine to medium sand, overlying silty fine sand, 8p.SM 6.7.9 107.6 12.3
1:, '.I" J. yellowish brown, moist, medium dense.
I P. .:'.:1:.
I.r. ;1:1'
,'r :,.1:
It :1:"1:
I I:, :U.
:f :1:': 20
1126 ' . :: : Medium sand, trace clay, light yeilowish brown. SP 10..19.29 117.9 5.5
' .
': '.:; moist. dense.
I ' . .. .
.' .
1123 . . ~:::: BEDROCK. PAUBA FORMATION
, .
. ...
;
I . . 25
1121 Silty fine sandstone, olive gray, moist, dense. 8M 13.23-30 120.2 13.8
I
.. 30
I 1116 Very dense. SM 6.21-48 117.4 14.8
..
1114.5 T alai Depth 31.5 feet.
No groundwater encountered.
I
35
I
Notes: 4\
I EnGEN Corporation
I
I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
I Project Number: T2995-GS Project: Carino Homes
Boring Number: 6-4 Surface Elevation: 1147
Date: 11-6-03 Logged By: C.M.
I c ~ In-Situ Optimum
.9
~ Soil Description a.. Sample USCS Blow Count Dry Moisture Maximum Moisture
Graphic ~ Depth Density Content Density Content
W <IJ
I 1147 ~ ~ ALLUVIUM 0
I ..
1144.5 ~ ~ Silty fine sand, brown, dry, medium dense. SM 16..14.16 104.9 8.9 123.1 11.0
I .. 5
1142 II Yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, porous. SM 7-8.8 103.8 4.8 123.1 11.0
,.
I 1139.5 . . .. : Medium to coarse sand, yellowish brown, dry, SP 7.11.11 109.3 2.4
: .' medium dense.
1137 10 SP 5-7-9 102.4 2:1
I . .
..
. . . .
. .
..
I . . . .
. .
:
1132 Silty fine to medium sand, dark yellowish brown, 15 SM 6.11-11 106.8 6.ll
I moist, medium dense.
I 1127 Silty fine sand, li9ht grayish brown, moist, medium 20 SM 5-14.12 111.1 12.1
dense.
I
I 1122 25 SM 5-11-11 103.7 12.4
I 1119 GROUNDWATER at 28 feet bgs.
I 1117 Wet, loose. 30 SM 3-1.9 96.9 25.8
..
1115.5 Total Depth 31.5 feet.
GROUNDWATER encountered at 28 feet.
I
35
I
Notes: 1:1,1--
I EnGEN Corporation
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Project Number: T2995-GS Project: Carino Homes
Boring Number: B-5 Surface Elevation: 1154
Date: 11-6-03 Logged By: C.M.
e '" In-Situ
0 Sample Maximum Optimum
~ Soil Description uses 810'01./ Count Dry Moisture Moisture
Gra phic E Depth Density Density
. . Content Content
W en
1154 ALLUVIUM r-O
1151.5 Silty fine sand. dark yellowish brown, moist, 8M ',HO-7 120.3 5.0
medium dense.
1149 Loose. 5 8M 2..3-2 90.5 18,7
1147 BEDROCK. PAUBA FORMATION
1146.5 Clayey siltstone, tan to light gray, moist, very hard, ML 8.25.28 96.4 26.4
with caliche.
1144 10 ML 19-:22-30 87.7 31.7
1142.5 Total Depth 11.5 feet.
No groundwater encountered.
-15
20
25
30
1-35
Notes: A,?1
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Project Number: T2995-GS Project: Carino Homes
Boring Number: 8-6 Surface Elevation: 1138
Date: 11-6-03 Logged By: C,M.
c " In-Situ Optimum
.2 Soil " Sample Dry Maximum
0; Description E USCS Blow Count Mois.ture Moisture
~ Gra phic ~ Depth Density Content Density Content
W '"
1138 FILL f-O
1135.5 . Silty fine sand, brown, moist, dense. SM 14.18.22 126.6 7.9
1133 ALLUVIUM 5 SM 7-18.19 118.4 5.7 9.7
Silty fine sand, brown, dry, medium dense, porous, 129.0
rootiets.
1130.5 . Dense, sli9htly porous. 8M 10.18.22 125.8 9.1 129.0 9.7
1128 Yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, slightly 10 SM 7.'7.10 113.3 7.9
porous.
1126.5
Borin9 terminated at a total depth of 11.5 feet.
No groundwater.
-15
20
25
1-30
1-35
Notes: bA
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Symbol Description
KEY TO SYMBOLS
Strata symbols
~
~
-
Silty sand
Poorly graded sand
Poorly graded sand
with silt
Clayey sand
Low plasticity
clay
Silt
Misc. Symbols
Bottom of boring
Boring continues
Water table during
drilling
Samplers
Standard penetration test
California sampler
Exploratory borings were drilled on 11-6-03 using a 7-inch diameter
continuous flight power auger.
Water was encountered at the time of drilling at the depths shclwn.
Boring locations were measured from existing features and
elevations extrapolated from the final design plan.
These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and
recommendations in this report.
Results of tests conducted on samples recovered are reported
on the logs.
~-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995.G5
Appendix Page 8
N."
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MOISTURE. DENSITY TEST REPORT
\
\
I
\
,
1\ I
I
\
/ ....
1\ \
1/ .\
J \ I
/ .\ I
J \'
, ,
\
,
l\
\
\
\
\
\
1\
\
132
130
128
t;
c.
~
'00
c:
(I)
'0
~
0
126
124
122
4
ZA V for
Sp.G. =
2.63
16
6
8
10
Water content, %
1"
..
14
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-00 Method A Modified
Elevl Classification Nat. ".oj %> %<
LL PI
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. No.4 No.200
SM 5.2
TEST RESULTS
Maximum dry density = 129.0 pcf
Optimum moisture = 9.7 %
Project No. 1'2995-0S Client: CARINO HOMES
Project: CARINO HOMES-TEMECULA
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SILTY SAND,BROWN
Remarks:
SAMPlEBl @O.5
Call BY CM
CallaN 11.5.03
. Location: NICOLAS ROAD
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Plate
A,\,-
I-
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MOISTURE. DENSITY TEST REPORT
'0
Co
;i.
'(ij
c:
Q)
"0
~
o
\
\
\ I
I
I
\
\
\
\
L.. I
I
,
/ '\ 1\ '
j \ \
II' 1\ :\
7 '{\
j '.
\
, 1\
i
I \
I \
I \
'\
\
\
127
125
123
121
119
117
5
ZAVfor
Sp.G.=
2.60
7
9
11
Water content, %
1:3
15
17
Test specification: ASTM D 1557.00 Method A Modified
Elevl Classification
Depth USCS AASHTO
Nat. ".oj LL PI %> %<
Moist. No.4 No.200
7.1
SM
TEST RESULTS
Maximum dry density = 123.1 pcf
Optimum moisture = 11.0 %
Project No. T2995-GS Client: CARINO HOMES
Project: CARINO HOMES.TEMECULA
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SILTY SAND,BROWN
Remarks:
SAMPLE B4 @ 0.5
COLL BY CM
COLLON ll.6.03
. Location: NICOLAS ROAD
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Plate
A.frO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LABORATORY DATA SHEET - PLASTICITY INDEX
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE NUMBER B1 tal 0-5
CONTAINER NUMBER 8
NUMBER OF BLOWS 26
(A) WET WEIGHT + TARE 25.65
{B) DRY WEIGHT + TARE 22.98
(C) TARE 15.66
(D) DRY WEIGHT (B - C = D) 7.32
(E) WEIGHT OF WATER (A - B = E) 2.67
(F) UNCORRECTED LIQUID LIMIT (E I D = F) 36.0
(G) CORRECTION FACTOR 1.005
(H) CORRECTION LIQUID LIMIT (F x G = H) 36
PLASTIC LIMIT
SAMPLE NUMBER B1 tal 0-5
CONTAINER NUMBER 7
(I) WET WEIGHT + TARE 29.59
(J) DRY WEIGHT + TARE 26.58
(K) TARE 15.62
(L) DRY WEIGHT (J - K = L) 10.96
(M) WEIGHT OF WATER (1- J = M) 3.01
(N) PLASTIC LIMIT (M I L = N) 27
PLASTICI1Y INDEX
(H) LIQUID LIMIT 36 I
(N) PLASTIC LIMIT 27
(0) PLASTICITY INDEX (H - N = 0) 9
j
EnGEN Corporation Project Name/Location:
CORINOHOMES I NICOLAS ROAD
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT Project No: T2995-GS Sample No: B1 @ 0-5
DETERMINATIONS Sampled By:CM Date: 11-12-03
Js..Ov
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
USC Laboratory Expansion Test Results
Job Number: T2995.GS
Job Name: CORINO HOMES
Location: NICOLAS ROAD
Sample Source: B4 @ 0-5
Sampled by: CM (11-6-03)
Lab Technician: JT
Sample Oeser: SIL TV SAND,BROWN
!,1!:i.J!!::!J'!fJ:
Wet Compacted WI.: 621.5
Ring WI.: 197.0
Net Wet WI.: 424.5
Wet Density: 128.2
Wet Soil: 220.0
Dry Soil: 203.5
Initial Moisture (%): 8.1%
Initial Dry Density: 118.6
% Saturation: 52.0%
Final WI. & Ring WI.: 636.7
Net Final WI.: 439.7
Dry WI.: 392.7
Loss: 47.0
Net Dry WI.: 390.1
Final Density: 117.8
Saturated Moisture: 12.1%
Dial Chan e Time
Reading 1: 0.100 NIA 11:45
Reading 2: 0.099 -0.001 12:00
Reading 3: 0.100 0.000 12:15
Readin 4: 0.117 0.017 7-Nov
Expansion Index:
17
Adjusted Index:
(ASTM D 4832-95)
18.0
EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 296-2230
Fax: (909) 296-2237
'So
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
use Laboratory Expansion Test Results
Job Number: T2995-GS
Job Name: CORINO HOMES
Location: NICOLAS ROAD
Sample Source: 81 @ 0-5
Sampled by: CM (11-6-03)
Lab Technician: JT
Sample Descr: SILTY SAND,8ROWN
'-....
i.t!Jf!i.'::j::::
Wet Compacted Wl: 600
RingWt.: 185.9
Net Wet WI.: 414.1
Wet Density: 125.1
Wet Soil: 222.3
Dry Soil: 203.6
Initial Moisture (%): 9.2%
Initial Dry Density: 114.5
% Saturation: 52.7%
Final Wt. & Ring Wt.: 631.1
Net Final Wt.: 445.2
Dry WI.: 379.3
Loss: 65.9
Net Dry WI.: 376.1
Final Density: 113.6
Saturated Moisture: 17.5%
Dial Chan e Time
Reading 1: 0.100 N/A 11:45
Reading 2: 0.120 0.020 12:00
Reading 3: 0.125 0.025 12:15
Reading 4: 0.130 0.030 7 -Nov
Expansion Index:
30
Adjusted Index:
(ASTM D 4832.95) .
31.5
EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 296-2230
Fax: (909) 296-2237
?'-
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1800
RESULTS
0 C, psf 238
4>, deg 25.8
... TAN 4> 0.48
IJJ
Q, 1200
U1
U1
w
a::
f-
U1
w
a:: 600
::J
--'
~
LL
1800
1500
...
IJJ
"-
1200
IJJ
IJJ
<1l
~
~
U1
~
o
<1l
'"
U1
o
o
600
1200
900
600
300
o
o
0.1
0.2 0.3
Horiz. Displ., in
SAMPLE TYPE:
DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND,BROWN
SPECIFIC GRAVITY= 2.6
REMARKS: SAMPLE B4 @ 0-5
CalL BY CM
COLL ON 11-6-03
Fig. No.:
1800
2400
Normal Stress, f)sf
0.4
SAMPLE NO. :
WATER CONTENT, %
:i DRY DENSITY, pef
t::i SATURATION, %
!z! VOID RATIO
H DIAMETER. in
HEIGHT in
WATER CONTENT, %
f- DRY DENSITY, pef
U1
W SATURATION, %
f-
f- VOID RATIO
<( DIAMETER, in
HEIGHT in
NORMAL STRESS, psf
FAILURE STRESS, psf
DISPLACEMENT, in
ULTIMATE STRESS, psf
DISPLACEMENT, in
Strain rote, il1/min
0.2000
12.1
110.6
67.5
0.467
2.42
1.00
0.0
110.6
0.0
0.467
2.42
1.00
1000
694
0.15
CLIENT: CARINO HOMES
PROJECT: CARINO HOMES-TEMECULA
SAMPLE LOCATION: NICOLAS ROAD,
TEMECULA
PROJ. NO.: TZ995..GS
3000
1:2.1
110.6
67.5
0.4-67
2.42
1.00
0.0
110.6
0.0
0.467
2.42
1,00
2000
1262
0.17
0.2000
3600
2
3
12.1
110.6
67.5
0.467
2_42
1.00
0.0
110.6
0.0
0.467
2.42
1.00
3000
1663
0.15
0.2000
DATE: 1'; -1 0-03
DIRc:CT SHEAR TEST REF'ORT
EnGEN Corporation
5'z"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
R-VALUE TEST REPORT
100
~
:
:
~
:
.
~
1'1 'II' II" 'I" 1"1 I'" "" " "
--
80
60
Q)
::J
~
,
a::
40
20
o
800
500
Ul.J
400 300
100
Sample Exud. R R
Height Pressure Value Value
in. psi Corr.
2.64 557 10 11
2.66 41] 7 7
2.68 234 3 3
--
Material Description
CLAYEY SAND(W/SIL1),BROWN
--
700
600
Exudation Pressure - psi
Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure - Cal Test 301
Compact Density Moist Expansion
No. Pressure Pressure
si pcf o/q
] 100 116.2 ]5.9 2.43
2 50 108.9 18.9 1.52
3 25 107.6 19.6 0.30
Test Results
R-value at 300 Psi exudation pressure = 5
Project No.: T2995-GS
Project: CARINO HOMES- TEMECULA
Location: NICOLAS ROAD
Sample Number: B4 @ 0-5
Date: 11/12/2003
R-VALUE TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
200
Tested by: DB
Checked by: R W
Remarks:
COLL BY CM
COLL ON 11-6-03
-50
Plate I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Eslablished1906
Client Name: Engen, Inc.
Contact: Engen, Inc.
Address: 41607 Enterprise Circle N.
Temecula, CA 92590-5614
Sample Description
84 @ 0-5 . T2995-GS . Carino Homes
Analyte(s)
Water Extract
Sulfate
NELAP #02101CA ELAP#1156
6100 Quail Valley Court Riverside, CA 92507-0704
P.O. Box 432 Riverside, CA 92502-0432
PH (909) 653-3351 FAX (909) 653-1662
www.babcocklabs.com
Analytical Report: Page 2 of 3
Project Name: Engen-Sulfate
Pmject Number: Purchase Order #1982
Work Order Number: A3K0728
Report Date: 19-Nov-2003
Laboratory Reference Number
A3K072S-01
Matrix
Soil
Result
RDL Units
ND
10 ppm
~<,) \~ ACCORo..
," 4-~
,,'0 '"
'" ~
" -
" ~
- ~
Sampled DatelTime
11/10/0300:00
Received DatelTime
11/11/03 8:05
Method Analysis Date Analyst
Flag
Ion Chroma!. 11/15/03 04:03 KOS
N-SAG,
N-WEX
?itr.
I
I CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
0
.....
--""'>-
I f'-........
1 .....
'....... WATER ADDED]
I r--
2
I
3 I
I !
,
4 ,
I ,
c
.~
I 1i5
c 5
~
~
Q)
c..
I ,
6 I
I 7
I
I
8 \
I
i\
9
I \
I~
I 10 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20
Applied Pressure - ~f
Natural Dry Dens. LL PI Sp. Overbu rden Pc \ Cc Cr Swell Press. Swell eo
I Sat. Moist. {pc!} Gr. (ks!) (ksf) (ks!) %
32.7 % 7.6% 101.0 2.6 3.53 ., 0.20 0.607
I MATERIAL DESCRIPTION \ USCS AASHTO
SILTY SAND,BROWN \ SM
I Project No. T2995-GS Client: CARINO HOMES Remarks:
Project: CARINO HOMES-TEMECULA SAMPLE B3 @ 5
CaLL BY CM
I Location: NICOLAS ROAD CaLL ON 11.7.03
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT ~6
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
I ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
.....
-
1"00;.. r.. r-....
.....
............
t>. "
WATER ADDED .....
1'\
~\.
1\
\.
~
!\
1\
b
2
3
4
c:
'(ij
~
iii
c 5
Q)
1::
Q)
Cl.
6
7
8
9
10 .1
.2
.5
2 5
Applied Pressure - ksf
10
20
Natural
Sat. Moist.
57.7 % 9.7 %
Dry Dens.
(pcf)
112.8
Overburden
(ksf)
Sp.
Gr.
2.6
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Pc
(ksf)
4.26
Swell Press.
(ksf)
Swell
%
LL
Cc
Cr
PI
eo
(1.11
0.439
AASHTO
USCS
SM
SILTY SAND,BROWN
Project No. T2995.GS Client: CARINO HOMES
Project: CARINO HOMES.TEMECULA
Remarks:
SAMPLE B3 @ 7.5
COLL BY CM
COLL ON 11-7-03+
Location: NlCOLAS ROAD
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
~
Plate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
o
8
--....
r-.:)",I-or--.
.... "'"
WATER ADDED I ...... ':'-
-- i"-o
1\
1\
\
~
"
"
\
\
1\
\
1\ I
1\ I
I
~
2
3
4
"
.~
-
(J)
C 5
~
Gl
c..
8
7
9
10.1
.2
.5
1 2 5
Applied Pressure - ksf
10
20
Natural
Sat. Moist.
25.8 % 5.9 %
Dry Dens. LL
(pc!)
102.0
Sp.
Gr.
2.6
Overburden
(ksf)
Pc
(ksf)
3.84
Cc Cr Swell Press. Swell eo
(ksf) %
0.13 0.592
USCS AASHTO
SM
Remarks:
SAMPLE B3 @ 10
COLL BY CM
COLLON 11-7-03
,
"..'
~1
Plate
PI
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SILTY FINE SAND,BROWN
Project No. T2995-GS Client: CARINO HOMES
Project: CARINO HOMES.TEMECULA
Location: NICOLAS ROAD
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
...... I
i---.
r-. ....
...... I
r.., ..... ~ r--. J
~ WATER ADDED]
....
........ ......
't\.
I'..
I\~
~
"
f\
"
,
b
I
.
2
3
4
c:
.~
Ci5
C 5
Q)
u
~
Q)
[l.
6
7
8
9
10 .1
.2
.5
2
Applied Pressure - ksf
(:s% T Ce
4.30 i).08
5
10 20
Natural
Sat. Moist.
63.0 % 12.3 %
Dry Dens.
(pel)
107.5
Sp.
Gr.
2.6
Overburden
(ksl)
Swell Press.
(ksl)
Swell
%
Cr
LL PI
eo
0.509
AASHTO
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
CLAYEY FINE SAND,BROWN
Project No. T2995.0S Client: CARINO HOMES
Project: CARINO HOMES-TEMECULA
USCS
SC
Remarks:
SAMPLE B3@ 15
CaLL BY CM
CaLLaN 11.7.03
Location: NICOLAS ROAD
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
~~
Plate
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
0
:-.. .....
....
1
,
2
3 ,
4
, ,
c: WATER ADDED
.~
<i5
- 5
c: \
Q)
~
Q)
a.
\
6 "
~
7 1\
\
8 I~
9
I ~ I
\ I
10 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 \ 10 20
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr' Swell Press. Swell
LL PI eo
Sat. Moist. (pcf) Gr. (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) %
21.3 % 4.8% 103.8 2.65 0.71 0.14 1\ 0.593
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
b
SILTY SAND,LIGHT BROWN SM
Project No. T2995-GS Client: CARlNO HOMES Remarks:
Project: CARINO HOMES. TEMECULA SAMPLE B4 @ 5
CaLL BY eM
Location: NICOLAS ROAD CaLLaN 11-7-03
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT ~
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
r-.. ~
WATER ADDED ........ .......
'0.
" r-.i'.
~
]\
1\
I
,
I
,
i
2
3
4
c::
.~
ii5
'E 5
<1l
"
~
<1l
0..
6
7
B
9
10 .1
.2
.5
2 5
Applied Pressure - ksf
10
20
Natural
Sat. Moist.
32.8 % 6.6 %
Dry Dens.
(pcf)
106.8
Sp.
Gr.
2.6
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Overburden
(ksf)
Pc
(ksf)
6.26
Swell Press.
(ksf)
Swell
%
Cc
Cr
LL
PI
eo
0.06
0.519
AASHTO
USCS
SAND,TAN
SP
Project No. T2995.GS Client: CARINO HOMES
Project: CARINO HOMES.TEMECULA
Remarks:
SAMPLE B4@ 15
COLL BY CM
CaLLaN 11-7.03
Location: NICOLAS ROAD
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Plate
VP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
i"".... ~r--. I
i""- "';'"
WATER ADDED ......
~
:0... r-.....
'" I
...,.... ,
"
~ I
1\
\
b
2
3
4
c:
'(ij
~
en
"E 5
2J
~
Q)
Q.
6
7
8
9
10 .1 .2
.5
2
Applied Pressure - ksf
(rsl) T Ce
6.28 tl.10
5
10
20
Natural Dry Dens.
Sat. Moist. (pet)
68.4 % 12.1 % 111.l
Sp.
Gr.
2.6
Overburden
(kst)
Cr Swell Press. Swell eo
(kst) %
0.461
USCS AASHTO
SM
Remarks:
SAMPLE B4 @ 20
CaLL BY CM
CaLLaN 1l.7.03
C)
Plate
LL PI
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SILTY SAND,LlGHT BROWN
Project No. T2995-GS Client: CARINO HOMES
Project: CARINO HOMES- TEMECULA
Location: NICOLAS ROAD
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
I T I I I
I I -""...
.1 WATER ADDED .......
- .....
"-
........ .......
r-.
" ~
r\
\
I\.
~
,
o
2
3
4
c::
.~
U5
- 5
c::
Q)
~
Q)
0-
6
7
8
9
10 .1
i>
10
20
.2 .5
2
Applied Pressure - ksf
(:s1) 1 Cc
2.33 j 0.07
Cr Swell Press. Swell eo
(kst) %
0.565
USCS AASHTO
SM
Remarks:
SAMPLE B4 @ 25
COLL BY CM
COLL ON 11.7.03
Co'V
Plate
Natural
Sat. Moist.
57.2 % 12.4 %
Dry Dens. LL PI
(pc!)
103.7
Sp.
Gr.
2.6
Overburden
(ks!)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SILTY SAND,TAN
Project No. 1'2995.0S Client: CARINO HOMES
Project: CARINO HOMES. TEMECULA
Location: NICOLAS ROAD
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. ~
100
90
80
70
c::
UJ 60
Z
u::
!z 50
UJ
<..l
c::
UJ 40
a.
30
20
10
o
500
% COBBLES
SIEVE
SIZE
#4
#8
#16
#30
#50
#100
#200
.E
.
! ~I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
i
!
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
100
PERCENT
FINER
99.0
90.6
75.0
51.4
31.0
21.0
16.7
Particle Size Distribution Report
c
~~~~~~~
Iii I II
I! I,! ! i
I II ! I
'i I
I
i
% GRAVEL
CRS. FINE
;t
I
I
II
II
!
I
10
SPEC: PASS?
PERCENT (X=NO)
o
..
g * 8
i .... ~
000
~ ~ :;
I
I
I...."\-
I
I
I I
I I
I i I
.J
II I
I i I
i IJ!
I i
iJ
I I I
r'\1 II
I \ II I! II
I ~ Ii
I [t~
i I:
I I'II
I I, i
\ I
~
CRS.
11.2
1 0.1
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% SAND
MEDIUM FINE
47.7 23.4
Soil DescriDtlon
SILTY SAND,BROWN
PL=
Atterbera Limits
LL=
085= 1.74
030= 0.286
cu=
Coefficients
060= 0.762
015=
cc=
% FINES
SILT
USCS= SM
Classification
AASHTO=
Remarks
SAMPLEBI@5
COLLBYCM
CaLL ON 11.7.03
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: BI @ 5 Source of Sample: SIEVE
Location: NICOLAS ROAD
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Client: CARINO HOMES
Project: CARINO HOMES.TEMECULA
Pro ect No: T2995-GS
0.01
0.001
CLAY
16.7
PI=
050= 0.576
010=
Date: 11-14-03
Elev.lDepth:
Plate
C&>?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
Particle Size Distribution Report
.5 , s .s
. ~ g ~ 8
.5 E .5 "j ~ ~ ~ . 0 000 0
. " N _ . " ; . ~ ~ ; i ; ; ~
100 I ~ III I I i I I I
I I I I
I i I
i I
90 I II I I I !
I I \ I I
! I
80 I I II , I I I I I
i I ~ I I I
, Ii! I i
70 I III I I I I I ,
I I I \ I , I I
a:: , I I I
I
W 60 I I III II I \1 I . I
z
u:: ,
I- 50 I I~m-
z III I I I I I I I , , I I
w i
I IIJ
t) i , I
,
a:: I I
W 40 I
0- I I I I I 111 I
, I I I I~
I , I
30 , I
I i I I I II\! I I I
, I ! i
i
I I I I '1
20 I I I I I II I' I I
I
I I I
, ' I\.L I
10 I
I I II I I"~ ,
I I I i
0 I I !
500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND %FINE~
CRS. FINE CRS. MEDIUM FINE SILT CLAY
23.5 39.1 23.0 . 6.7
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC: PASS? Soli DescriDtion
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) SAND,BROWN
#4 92.3
#8 73.7
#16 53.3
#30 37.9 Atterbera Limits
#50 21.5 PL= LL= PI=
#100 10.4
#200 6.7 Coefficients
085= 3.57 060= 1.50 050= 1.03
030= 0.432 015= 0.213 010= 0.144
Cu= 10.42 Cc= 0.86
Classification
USCS= SP AASHTO=
Remarks
SAMPLE B 1 @ ] 0
COLL BY CM
COLLON 11-7.03
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: B1 @ 10 Source of Sample: SIEVE
Location: NICOLAS ROAD
Date: 11-]3.03
Elev .IDepth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
Cllen~: CARINO HOMES
Project: CARINO HOMES-TEMECULA
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
vA
Pro'ect No: T2995-GS
Plate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Particle Size Distribution Report
.5
.
c .5.s;
~ ~ ~ ~
z
.s .s
M ~
o
"
i
g :1 8
.. ;; ~
000
~ G Z
! I i , I ,
i I i
I II I, I
I , ,
i
, I \ i
I , I
II
I I I ! . I ' I
I II I , .
I I I
I i \ i I ill~
! Ii
I I II II \
I I I
, i
I
i I i
I !~
,
I i
I I I I
I I
I I
I I i
, I I I I I,
I i I I~ i Ii
I I 1 I I I
I I r ~
I I
I i I I I, ,I
i I I ,1\ L ;,
I I I I I ...." I
! I I
I I II I I I
I I i III I i I I I I I
I II I , I I
II
I ,
100
90
80
70
a::
w 80
Z
u:
!z 50
w
tJ
a::
w 40
a.
30
20
10
o
500
100
10
0.1
0.01
0,001
15.4
% COBBLES
% GRAVEL
CRS. FINE
CLAY
% FINES
SILT
CRS.
19.7.
FINE
22.3
SIEVE
SIZE
#4
#8
#16
#30
#50
#100
#200
SPEC:
PERCENT
PERCENT
FINER
97.1
82.1
61.4
44.7
31.2
20.3
15.4
PASS?
(X=NO)
Soil DescriDtlon
SILTY SAND,BROWN
Atterbera Limits
LI.=
PL=
PI=
Coefficients
060= 1.12
D15=
C!::=
050= 0.761
010=
085= 2.65
030= 0.281
cu=
USCS= SM
Classification
AASHTO=
Remarks
SAMPLE BI @ IS
COLL BY CM
COLL ON 11-7-03
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: BI @ 15 Source of Sample: SIEVE
Location: NICOLAS ROAD
Date: 11.13-03
Elev.lDepth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
Client: CARINO HOMES
Project: CARINO HOMES-TEMECULA
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
(;
Pro'ect No: T2995-GS
Plate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Particle Size Distribution Report
"
.5 ...
s.5~.~i~~
;
"
Ii
g " 0
. 0
- - ~
~ ; ~
C M N _ _ M _ M . . .
I I I I ~ I , I
i I I I
, I' i
I I
, I
I 1\ , I
i I ' III
, I I i
, I I I
, I !
I ,
I I III ' I ~
I I I i 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
III I I I
I I
I I I I I I
I III I I I 1111 ! , I
,
I I I !
! I , i i i i
I I , I I i I I i
I I I
i i , I t\.1 IJ
I I
,
I I ~ I 1 I
I , N.., "V
I i
I I T I I I I
I I
i I
I I I I I I I I I
I ,
I i I I
I i i I II i I i I
100
90
80
70
0::
W 80
Z
IT:
l- SO
Z
W
()
0::
W 40
a.
30
20
10
o
500 100
10
1 0.1
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% SAND j
MEDIUM FINE ==
45.3 16.2 __ .
0.01 0.001
%FINE~
SILT CLAY
26.1
% COBBLES
% GRAVEL
CRS. FINE
CRS.
18.0
SIEVE
SIZE
#4
#8
#16
#30
#50
#100
#200
SPEC:
PERCENT
Soli DescriDtion
SILTY SAND,BROWN
PERCENT
FINER
98.4
85.2
62.7
42.9
29.2
22.1
18.9
PASS?
(X=NO)
Atterbera Limits
LL=
PL=
PI=
Coefficients
060= 1.09
015=
Cc=
050= 0.783
010=
085= 2.34 .
D30= 0.0291
Cu=
USCS= SM
Classification
AASHTO=
Remarks
SAMPLE BI @ 20
COLL BY CM
COLL ON 11.6-03
(00 specificatioo provided)
Sample No.: B 1 @ 20 Source of Sample: SIEVE
Location: NICOLAS ROAD
Date: 11-12-03
Elev./Depth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
Client: CARINO HOMES
Project: CARINO HOMES-TEMECULA
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
~~
Pro ect No: TI995-GS
Plate
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
100
90
80
70
c::
W 60
Z
ii:
I- 50
Z
W
()
c::
W 40
a.
30
20
10
Particle Size Distribution Report
.5
.
.s .
.5 . ~ ..s
.... ~ ";' ..E ~
;
.s .s
~ ~
o
;;
Ii
'" Cl co
o . 0
.. . ~
~ ~ ;I
- - -
, I I II I I I I I
I I I
I I \ I I JI
I II I II I~ I I I I I
i I I I i
i 1\ I i
i II I I I 1\ I I I I II
I , I I
I I I I
I I I I I '\, I I
I . I i I ,
I I I I i
'I I I I I II I II I
I I ' I I
I I I I I I II
I I I
I II I I h I III
I
I I ! ! --l
I I I I ! I I ~ III
I I
, II
I i I
I II ~I
I I '
I I I II I II
! , ,
o
500
1QO
10
1
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% SAND
CRS. MEDIUM FINE
15.2 41.6 31.0
0.1
0.01
0.001
%FINE~
SILT CLAY
10.5
% COBBLES
% GRAVEL
CRS. FINE
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC: PASS? fu?1I DescriDtlon
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) SAND,BROWN
#4 98.3
#8 87.1
#16 68.5
#30 51.8 Atterbera Limits
#50 30.5 PL= LL= PI=
#100 14.5
#200 10.5 Coefficients
085= 2.16 060= 0.832 050= 0.563
030= 0.295 D1S= 0.155 010=
eu= Cc=
Classification
uses= SP AASHTO=
Remarks
SAMPLE BI @ 25
COLI. BY CM
COLI. ON 11-7-03
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: B I @ 25 Source of Sample: SIEVE
Location: NICOLAS ROAD
Date: 11-14-03
Elev.lDepth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
Client: CARINO HOMES
Project: CARINO HOMES-TEMECULA
Pro. ect No: T2995-GS
c'e1
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Plate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
100
90
80
70
c::
W 60
Z
u:
!z 50
W
()
c::
W 40
a.
30
20
10
o
500
% COBBLES
SIEVE
SIZE
#4
#8
#16
#30
#50
#100
#200
"
.
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
!
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
100
PERCENT
FINER
96.7
78.1
53.4
32.6
17.7
11.0
8.8
Particle Size Distribution Report
.5
. t:::! C.S.s
~~:~~~~
III III
I i Ii
I I
I II
,
I ! II
I Iii
I i 1,1111
II II
1,1,
I I
I
I
I
I
! II
III I
% GRAVEL
CRS. FINE
SPEC:
PERCENT
10
;
c
;0
c c c
~ ~ it
c
II
8 ~ g
. ;; ~
I
I
I"
\
,
\ I
\,
I
I
I
I II I
i
i 11!
I I I I
I 11: I
I ! 11: II
i I I"
i 11111
II
I~ 1]11
I i'J 1III
I I II
, I ]1,11
I !],
1 0.1
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% SAND
CRS. MEDIUM FINE
24.2 48.3 15.4
PASS?
(X=NO)
0.01 0.001
%FINE~
SILT CLAY
8.8
Soil DescriDtion
SAND(W/SIL T),BROWN
PL=
Atterbera Limits
LL=
Coefficients
060= 1.42
015= 0.246
Cc= 1.75
Classification
AASHTO=
085= 2.98
030= 0.543
Cu= 11.91
USCS= SW
Remarks
SAMPLE Bl @30
COLL BY CM
COLLON 11-7-03
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: Bl @ 30 Source of Sample: SIEVE
Locatlon: NICOLAS ROAD
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
Client: CARINO HOMES
Project: CARINO HOMES.TIlMECULA
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Pro'ect No: T2995.GS
PI=
050= 1.07
D10= 0.119
Date: 11-14.03
Elev.lDepth:
Plate
lQ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carino Homes
Project Number: T2995-GS
Appendix Page 9
DRAWINGS
(r;o..
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
i' N
I
I
ee.."",
8
,.
<"
cT
FlWOJISE
eT
.
.
c
I
I
I
I
I
--~
i
VIST40
ORll
-.-C.
o:~
-~i
\ l
I I
i
I
I I
. i I
" ~I~ !
lA'~
'''"'28 i - i
I
i9~
: I
, ~
I
I
I
I
I
EnG EN Co oration Geo!echn!caJ Engineering Upeclal Material Environmental
Englneenng G&Ology _~'ipectlon Testing Assessments
VICINITY MAP
-[b.PN 957-oaO-014,
PROJECT NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION:.... !157-oaO-019
SCALE: 1"=24110'
CLIENT NAME: CARINO HOMES =J FIGURE: 11
Base map: Thomas Guide, Riverside Co., 2002, pg 929, 959
I
I
..0
I