HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 33584 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
<:'-,-:','
~I'\~'J~'" :,
~ " r;:::@e u ~, ,:=:> '\: I.
~,\- ~ . ~
\'J'~ ,f;
\\f\\ ~\}L 2 '7 1~nli I;:j
.. t _
8\} _,. DeP;~;;;;nt
Ph}.~:n;, .n
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
MIRA LOMA DRIVE
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
A.P.N.944-060-006
PREPARED FOR:
PACIFIC GROUP
P.O. Box 9890
Rancho Santa Fe, California 92067
PREPARED BY:
INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING,INC.
1310 South Santa Fe Avenue
San Jacinto, California 92583
April 19, 2005
Project No. P283-003
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC.
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
1310 South Santa Fe Avenue
San Jacinto, California 92583
(951) 654-1555
FAX (951) 654-0551
April 19, 2005
Project No. P283-003
Attention: Reza Shera
PACIFIC GROUP
P.O. Box 9890
Rancho Santa Fe, California 92067
Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Residential Development
Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California
A.P.N.944-060-006
Dear Mr. Shera:
We are pleased to submit the results of our Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
conducted for the referenced project. The site is located northeast of the intersection of
Rancho Vista Road and Mira Loma Drive in the City of Temecula, California.
Our investigation indicates that the proposed development is feasible from a Geotechnical
Engineering standpoint. Our report includes design recommendations along with the field
and laboratory data. We have also included recommendations for site grading.
We appreciate the opportunity of being of service to you on this project. If there are any
questions, please contact our office.
Respectfully,
INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING,INC.
Daniel R. Lind, Project Geologist
P.G.7681
Lawrence E. Strahm, President
R.C.E. 26409/G.E. 959
DRL:LES:al
Distribution: Addressee (3)
-z,.
I
:.
!
I
.
.
I.
.
.
.
I
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
SCOPE OF SERViCES.......................... ......................................................................... 1
PROJECT DESCRiPTION.............................................................................................. 3
GEOLOGIC SETTING............ ......................................................................................... 5
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 9
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................10
Foundation Design ................................................................................................... 11
Lateral Design .................................................................... ...................................... 11
Seismically-Induced Settlement............................................................................... 12
Liquefaction Mitigation.............................................................................................. 12
Slope Stability.......................................................................................................... 14
Trench Wall Stability................................................................................................. 15
Retaining Wall .......................................................................................................... 15
Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ........................................................................................ 16
Expansive Soils.................................................................................................... .... 18
Tentative Pavement Design ..................................................................................... 19
Shrinkage and Subsidence ..................................................................................... 19
General Site Grading...................................................................... ....... .... ....... ........ 20
GENERAL .............................................................................................. ....................... 23
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Field Exploration .........................................................................A-2 - A-8
Exploratory Trenches........... ............................................................................ A-2-A-7
Plot Plan...................................... ........................................................................ ....A-8
APPENDIX B - Laboratory & Soil Mechanic's Testing....................................... B-1 - B-11
Maximum Density-Optimum Moisture Determinations ............................................8-4
Classification Testing ..................................................................................... B-5 - B-6
Direct Shear Testing ...................................................................................... B-7 - B-8
Consolidation Testing .................................................................................. B-9 - B-10
Expansion Testing ............... .... ................. ............................................................ B-11
ANALYTICAL TESTING............................................................................................... B-2
GENERAL .... ... ... ... ... ... .... ... .... ... .... ... .... ... ... ... ... .... .... ... ... ... ...... ... .... ... .... ....... .... ... ... ...... B-3
APPENDIX C - International Conference of Building Officials Maps of Known Active
Fault Near Source Zones ................................................................... C-1
APPENDIX D - Liquefaction Analysis
'?;>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
il
I
I
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation conducted at
the site of a proposed residential development. The subject property consists of 7.28:t
acres and is located northeast of the intersection of Rancho Vista Road and Mira Loma
Drive in the City of T emecula, California. A copy of a preliminary grading plan prepared by
Hunsaker & Associates and assessor's parcel maps were used as references during our
investigation. This report will provide preliminary design parameters that may be applied to
the proposed development on the site.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose ofthe Geotechnical Investigation was to provide geotechnical parameters for
design and construction of the proposed project. The scope of the Geotechnical
Investigation included:
. A review of the general geologic conditions and specific subsurface conditions of the
project site.
. An evaluation of the engineering and geologic data collected for the project.
. Preparation of a formal report providing geotechnical conclusions and recommendations
for design and construction.
The tasks performed in order to achieve these objectives included:
. The collection and review of data in order to develop an exploration program.
. Subsurface exploration to determine the nature and stratigraphy of the subsurface soils
and to obtain representative samples for laboratory testing.
. A visual reconnaissance of the site and surrounding area to ascertain the existence of
any unstable or adverse geologic conditions.
. Laboratory testing of representative samples in order to establish the classification and
engineering properties of the soils.
. Analysis of the data collected and the preparation of this report presenting our
geotechnical conclusions and recommendations.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
1
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
~
I
I
I
! I
I
II
I
'.
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
Evaluation of hazardous wastes was not within the scope of services provided. The
evaluation of seismic hazards was based upon field mapping, literature review and limited
subsurface investigation. 8ecause the site is not located in a defined active fault zone, a
detailed investigation in this regard was not warranted. The information in this report
represents professional opinions that have been developed using that degree of care and
skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical
consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, either expressed or
implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
2
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
~
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECTDESCRwnON
The Legal Assessor's Parcel No. for the site is 944-060-006. The site rests in the easterly
portion of Section 1, Township 8 South, Range 3 West, S.B.B.&M. The subject site rests
northeast of the intersection of Rancho Vista Road and Mira Lorna Drive in the City of
Temecula, California. The site is located in a mixed usage area of Temecula, California.
The site consists of approximately 7.28 acres and is bounded on the east by a flood control
channel and existing school, west and north by Mira Lorna Drive, and south by Rancho
Vista Road.
At the present time, the site is used as a charter school. The topography may be described
as variable and sloping. The northwesterly portion of the site is occupied by the school
facilities. The southeasterly portion of the site is vacant. A flood control channel bounds
the easterly portion of the property.
The proposed construction is to consist of 64 residential lots. It is our understanding that
the proposed structures are to be supported by a combination of isolated square and
continuous wall type foundations. We have not been provided with specific foundation
loads. We anticipate however, that continuous wall loads will not exceed 2500 pounds per
linear foot. Isolated column loads of up to 25 kips have been considered in the generation
of our geotechnical design parameters.
Geot~chnical Investigation - Mira Loma Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
3
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
G>
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Grading for the project will involve fills and cuts of 15 to 20 feet. Cut slopes will be inclined
at gradients of 2: 1 (H:V) and will have overall heights of up to 35 feet. Some cut slopes of
up to 30 feet will be retained at the toes with double retaining walls, each having heights of
up to five feet. Only minor fill slopes are proposed. The deeper fills will be retained by
either Geogrid reinforced or crib-type retaining walls.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
4
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
1.
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
GEOLOGIC SETTING
Regional Geology: The proposed pipeline is situated within a natural geomorphic
province in southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges, which is
characterized by steep, elongated ranges and valleys that trend northwesterly. This
province is believed to have begun as a thick accumulation of predominantly marine
sedimentary and volcanic rocks during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic. Following
this accumulation, in mid-Cretaceous time, the province underwent a pronounced episode
of mountain building. The accumulated rocks were then complexly metamorphosed and
intruded by igneous rocks, known locally as the Southern California Batholith. A period of
erosion followed the mountain building, and during the late Cretaceous and Cenozoic time,
sedimentary and subordinate volcanic rocks were deposited upon the eroded surfaces of
the batholithic and pre-batholithic rocks. Most of these post-batholithic rocks occur along
the western and northern portion of the province.
In particular, the proposed residential development is situated along the Perris Block, an
eroded mass of Cretaceous and older crystalline rock, which is a sub-structural unit of the
Peninsular Ranges. Thin sedimentary and volcanic units mantle the bedrock in a few
places, with alluvial deposits filling in the lower valley areas. The Perris Block has had a
complex history, apparently undergoing relative vertical land movements of several
thousand feet in response to movement on the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones.
These movements of the geologic past, in conjunction with the semi-arid climate and the
weathering resistance of the rock, are responsible for the formation and preservation of
ancient, generally flat-lying erosion surfaces now present at various elevations that give this
region its unique geologic character. The Perris Block, approximately 20 miles by 50 miles
in extent, is bounded by the San Jacinto Fault Zone to the northeast, the Elsinore Fault
Zone to the southwest, the Wildomar Fault Zone to the northwest, and to the southeast by
the fringes of the Temecula basin, where the boundary is ill-defined.
Local Geology: The subject site is underlain by late Pleistocene and Holocene
sedimentary units. A review of the State of California Earthquake Fault Zone map of this
area (CDMG, 2000) indicates that the subject property does not lie within CI mapped
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
Young alluvial channel deposits are present on the easterly portion of the site, associated
with the existing drainage on the lower portion ofthe property. The remainder ofthe site is
underlain by the sandstone member of the Pleistocene Pauba Formation. Following is a
portion of the Preliminary Geol.ogic Map of the Murrieta 7.5' Quadrangle (USGS, 2003)
depicting the mapped geologic units in the vicinity of the subject site.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
5
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Young alluvial channel deposits (Holocene and latest Pleistocene)-
Fluvial deposits along canyon floors. Consists of unconsolidated sand,
silt, and clay-bearing alluvium
r""J
.... . - ..."........
:;::::qy':.':'..:.:'::"
.. a..
':". ~ :;' .: . ".' ':.:. "
. ..... .. - . . - ~. '.
Opts
..
Pauba Formation (Pleistocene)-Siltstone, sandstone, and conglomerate.
Named by Mann (1955) for exposures of in Rancho Pauba area about
3.2 km southeast ofTemecula. Vertebrate fauna from Pauba Formation
are of late Irvingtonian and early Rancholabrean ages (Reynolds and
Reynolds, 1990a; 1990b). Includes two informal members:
Sandstone member-Brown, moderately well-indurated, cross-bedded
sandstone containing sparse cobble- to boulder-conglomerate beds
Groundwater: Groundwater was located within our Boring No. B-03 at a depth of
approximately 25 feet beneath the existing ground surface. Groundwater data compiled by
the Western Municipal Water District/San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
indicate two recently monitored wells in the vicinity of the site. State Well No. 8S3W01Q01,
located approximately one-quarter mile west of the site was monitored on April 25, 2004.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
6
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.
-
At that time, the depth to groundwater was 303.36 feet. State Well No. 8S3W01 P02,
located approximately one-half mile west of the site was also monitored in April 2004. The
depth to groundwater was 301.96 feet. It is important to note that neither of these wells
reflects conditions associated with the alluvial drainage on the easterly portion of the site.
Seismicity: The site is located in a seismically active area, typical for Southern California.
According to maps compiled by the California Department of Conservation, Division of
Mines and Geology (DMG) the major faults influencing the site, distances and maximum
earthquake magnitudes are as follows:
'[ - ~ ---~~--~-- ~T'-- - -- -' ,
I ' [=-'tTi]nXj]Yfilkol- :1- :~).~~~
l~mm7/{o)nX') J ~!ffi,~t-~ '~h~I,:inm@~ffij))_ r::-.-.@J~.'I6;ML~
Elsinore- Temecula 0.6
Elsinore-Julian 18.2
Elsinore-Glen Ivy 25.0
San Jacinto-San Jacinto Valley 33.2
San Jacinto-Anza 37.7
6.8 (;..00
7.1 (;;.00
6.8 (;..00
6.9 1:2.00
7.2 12.00
The primary geologic hazard affecting the project is that of ground shaking. Probabilistic
site parameters developed using FRISKSP (Blake, 2000) indicate that there is a 10%
probability that a site acceleration of 0.71g will be exceeded in a 50-year period.
Our exploratory borings were advanced to depths of up to 50 feet. On the' basis of
Standard Penetration Testing (SPT), it is our opinion that the Soil Profile Type may be
assumed to be So for the purpose of developing seismic design criteria in accordance with
the California BuildinQ Code.
On the bases of the subsurface conditions and local fault characteristics, the California
BuildinQ Code provides the following seismic design parameters:
.- @:@.@:JiB 'i:@ .-.. -"'~-- ~cl --- '---~ --"""["' '-'-~--~---"---_..,=='"
~ }:C . -, - ~_o ! - - - - _ - _, -'- - .~:: -::~:;'--'-i~;f::-~~
l.-,,- 1;~lml, i ~i;}.1(f-,~7 _--"~ 1;;~WWAm.miL~-F
_. =__ _ _ _, _ ___CJ~__ ________~ ~
~~~ - ---- - ~
16-1 Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.40
16-J Soil Profile Type So
16-Q Seismic Coefficient Ca 0.57
16-R Seismic Coefficient Cv 1.02
16-S Near Source Factor Na 1.3
16-T Near Source Factor Nv 1.6
16-U Seismic Source Type B
It should be noted that these provisions are intended to be the minimum design condition
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
7
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
\0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and are often used as the maximum level to which structures are designed. The minimum
code criteria are designed to allow occupants to safely evacuate a structure after an
earthquake. The structure may no longer be safe for inhabitants and may ultimately have
to be demolished.
A copy of the International BuildinQ Conference Active Fault Near-Source Zones MaD for
this vicinity is appended. This map is intended to be used in conjunction with the 2000
California BuildinQ Code, Tables 16-S and 16-T.
Groundwater was encountered on the easterly portion of the site at a depth of 25v feet. A
liquefaction analysis was performed for this project and is presented in this report. A slope
stability evaluation was also conducted for this project and is presented in later sections of
the report. Other secondary effects and geologic hazards include lurching, seismic
settlement, seiches, tsunamis and surface rupture. These are not considered to be of
significance to the project.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
8
Inland Foundation Engineerfng, Inc.
\\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The results of our investigation indicate that the site may be characterized as being
underlain by both alluvial soils and materials of the Pauba Formation. In addition,
manmade fills were encountered in the lower portions of the property.
Manmade fill was encountered in Borings B-03 through B-O!). These fill materials extended
to depth of approximately 3 to 5 feet. The Relative Compaction of the fill ranged from
approximately 87 to over 90 percent. These soils are similar to those encountered
elsewhere on the site and probably originated from the site during previous grading
operations.
In general, alluvial soils consist of silty and clayey sands. These materials are in a medium
dense to very dense condition. Relative Compactions typically exceed 85 percent.
Consolidation testing of alluvial soils encountered in Boring B-03 indicates slight
compressibilities. The soils are also slightly overconsolidated. The depth of alluvium varies
across the site. At the site of Boring B-03, it is estimated that the depth of alluvium is on
the order of 30 to 35 feet. On the west portion of the site, alluvial soils were not
encountered.
The formational materials appear to be consistent with those of the Pauba formation,
consisting of alternating layers of sand, silty sand and clayey sand. These materials are
typically in a dense to very dense condition. Penetration testing indicates blow counts of
more than 50 blows per foot throughout most of the formational materials.
Laboratory testing indicates that some native soils slightly-plastic and should be assumed
to be expansive. Expansion testing indicates an Expansion Index of 13 which is considered
to be very low.
Analytical testing indicates the concentration of sulfates in the soil is on the order of 0.001
to 0.007 percent which is considered to be negligible with respect to sulfate attack on
concrete. Chloride concentrations are less than 500 parts per million. The soil is neutral to
slightly alkaline with pH values of 7.2 to 7.3. Saturated Resistivities ranged from 1,500 to
11,4000hm-cm.
Groundwater was encountered at the site of Boring B-03 at a depth of approximately 25
feet. Groundwater is expected to be present at similar depths throughout the easterly
portion of the site.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
9
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
\'2-
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA TIONS
On the basis of our field and laboratory investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed
construction will be feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. Soils are typically
in a medium dense to dense condition and should be suitable for providing foundation
support with minor recompaction.
The primary issues requiring some mitigation are related to alluvial soils that will
consolidate under fill surcharge pressure, man made fill, expansive soils, corrosive soils and
slope erosion. Other potential issues subjected to our review and analyses were soil
liquefaction and slope stability. These do not appear to be major concerns to the feasibility
of the project.
On the east portion of the site, fills of up to 15 feet in depth will be placed. The soils in the
area are potentially compressible and should be removed and replaced as controlled
compacted fill prior to fill placement. We estimate removal depths of eight to ten feet will be
required in the existing alluvial soils. This will also provide mitigation for mal1made fill
encountered in this area.
Although some on-site soils are observed to be predominately granular and non-plastic, we
anticipate that some expansive soils will be encountered during grading. Our preliminary
testing indicates that these soils may be'assumed to exhibit a Very Low Expansion Index.
However, we have provided tentative recommendations conforming to a Low Expansion
Index in anticipation of expansive soils being placed within zones of influence to the
proposed construction. These recommendations generally consist of nominal
reinforcement of foundations and concrete slabs-on-grade.
Analytical testing indicates sulfates concentrations are very low. In accordance with Table
19-A-4 of the California Buildinq Code, the sulfate exposure is considered to be negligible.
Chloride concentrations are also very low. Resistivities do indicate a slight to moderate
corrosion hazard that should be addressed by a Corrosion Engineer for the design of
certain elements of the construction that may be sensitive to corrosion. These typically
consist of buried pipelines, valves and other ferrous materials that are in contact with the
soil.
Groundwater was encountered at the site of Boring B-03 at a depth of approximately 25
feet. Groundwater is expected to be present at similar depths throughout thl3 easterly
portion of the site.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
10
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
\'?
I
I
il
I
The following paragraphs present more detailed design criteria which have been developed
on the basis of our field and laboratory investigation.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Foundation Design: The results of our investigation indicate that either continuous
wall or isolated square footings, which are supported upon properly recompacted
native materials, may be expected to provide satisfactory support for the proposed
structures. All footings should be underlain by a minimum compacted fill thickness
equal to one times the width of the footing. This may be performed as described in
the Site Grading Section of this report.
Footings should have a minimum width of twelve inches and should be founded a
minimum of twelve inches beneath the lowest adjacent final grade. Foundations
supporting two floors should have a minimum width of fifteen inches and should be
supported a minimum of eighteen inches beneath the lowest adjacent final grade.
For design, we recommend an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2000 pounds per
square foot.
The recommendations made in the preceding paragraph are based on the
assumption that all footings will be supported upon properly compacted soil. All
grading shall be performed under the testing and inspection of the Soil Engineer or
his representative. Prior to the placement of concrete, we recommend that the
footing excavations be inspected in order to verify that they extend into satisfactory
soil and are free of loose and disturbed materials. If concrete is to be placed on dry
absorptive soil in hot and dry weather, the soil should be dampened but not to a
point that there is freestanding water prior to placement. The formwork and
reinforcement should also be dampened.
Settlements of properly designed and constructed footings are expected to be within
tolerable limits for the proposed structure. Both continuous wall and isolated square
footings carrying the design loads within the limits of the allowable bearin!l capacity
are expected to experience a maximum settlement of one inch. Differential
settlements of the proposed structures are expected to be less than one-half inch
vertical over 20 feet horizontal.
Lateral Design: The allowable bearing capacity provided in the preceding section
is for the total, of dead and frequently applied live loads. These may be increased by
33 percent to provide for lateral loads of short duration such as those caused by
wind or seismic forces.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
11
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
V\..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by a combination of friction acting at the
base of the slab or foundation and passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of
0.4 between soil and concrete may be used with dead load forces only. A passive
earth pressure of280 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth, may be used for the
sides of footings poured against recompacted or dense native material. Passive
earth pressure should be ignored within the upper one foot except WherE! confined
as beneath a floor slab, for example.
Seismically-Induced Settlement: The analysis for seismically induced settlement
was based upon Tokamatsu and Seed (1984). The corrections for Fines Content
(FC) were based upon Seed et al (1985) for the "triggering" analysis. The seismic
parameters included a horizontal acceleration of 0.71g and a modal Magnitude of
6.75 based upon a hazard deaggregation analysis. The results indicate a total
estimated settlement of less than 2 inches inch due to seismic shaking.
Conservatively, the differential settlement due to a seismic event is expected to be
less than 1.25 inches vertical over twenty feet horizontal.
Liquefaction Mitigation: Liquefaction is a phenomenon where soil temporarily
loses strength due to cyclic stresses such as those caused by an earthquake. The
primary effects of liquefaction are loss of support of the foundation, sand boils,
lateral spreading and seismically induced settlement. Liquefaction is generally
considered a hazard in relatively loose sandy soils with the groundwater table within
fifty feet of the surface. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately
25 feet during our investigation. Considering the record precipitation immediately
prior to our field investigation, it is assumed that the observed water level is at or
near the seasonal high groundwater level. Assuming a projected high groundwater
level of 22 feet, a liquefaction analysis was conducted for Boring B-03.
The liquefaction analysis was based upon simplified procedures developed by Seed
& Idriss that were more recently modified by Idriss (1998). The computations were
made using a computer program, L1QUEFY2, and cross-checked usin!J another
program EQLlQUE & SETTLE"2". The seismic parameters were based upon the
soil profile and an attenuation relationship developed by Idriss et al (1997) Deep
Soil. This revealed a site acceleration of 0.71g based upon a modal earthquake
magnitude of 6.75. Soil classification testing conducted during our investigation was
used in characterizing the soils for the analyses.
Computer output generated during the analyses are appended. The following charts
present a summary of the analysis for Boring B-02, which presents the more critical
case:
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
12
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
\~
I
II
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
(Nl )6 0 Q)
Fa:tor 0 f Safety
o
-_.
:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--.
:
-
---
-
: I
,
::
:
-
:
-
---
:
-
--.
~
l-
t-, III I I I I I I I I I I I
-5
---- ----
"'" >
r /'
-
-
-
-
:
: "---
- ~
: "
"-
-
: /
- /'
- "-
-
- "-
: /
- 1/
" " 1(,,,
-5
-10
-10
-15
-15
-20
-20
-
-
~ -25
.J::
15.
IS -30
-25
-30
-35
-35
-40
-40
-45
-45
-50
-50
05101520253035404550
N100 (bpf)
O. 0 O. 5 1. 0
F.S
1.!; 2.0
The analysis indicates a potential for liquefaction may be present between depths of
22 and 26 feet. Within this zone, the Chinese Criteria were used to screen the
material; types for liquefaction susceptibility. This is summarized in the following
table:
The Chinese criteria suggest that the subject zone is non-liquefiable because the
saturated moisture content is less than 90% ofthe Liquid Limit. On the bases of our
analysis, it does not appear that the site is subject to a significant liquefaction
hazard.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
13
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
\fQ
il
I
I
,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Slope Stability: The slope stability analyses were conducted for both static and
pseudo-static conditions. Two profiles were assumed in the analyses. The first
profile considered a 30 foot cut slope over twin retaining walls, each having a
retained height of 5 feet. The second considered a 35 foot cut slope. Strength
values were based upon direct shear testing of remolded specimens. The
specimens were saturated. Ultimate strength values were assumed based upon the
lower bound of the combined strength envelope. The analyses were conducted on
the basis of Bishop's Modified Method of Slices using a computer program
PCSTABL5M.
Output is presented in Appendix D. The retained case provided the lower safety
factors. A summary for the retained case is presented below:
Retaining Wall
_n;/rT__~~ . .
/ /
/ ,/
/ I .I'
I /
/ /
I
40 ft.
../' /'
./' ,/'
/
/
/
/'.
/'
-,
Surface No.
Symbol
------/
----+- -
/
1 Safet~ Fa_ctor
1.73
2
3
4
5
,
/
1.74
1.86
./
./
1.87
1.91
SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY - STATIC CASE
--
Surface No. _ Syrrlb~ '
--~
1 ~
2 - /
3 ,
-- /
4 ,
~
5 /
3~f~~ Fa~~
1.38
1.29
1.43
1.41
SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY - PSEUDOSTATIC CASE
In general, the analyses indicate satisfactory Factors of Safety for gross static
stability assuming circular failure surfaces.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
14
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
\1.
II
I
:.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
A second analysis was conducted for surface stability. This analysis assumes
saturated soils within the upper four feet of the slope face and a failure surface
parallel to the slope. Our analysis indicates a Factor of Safety of 1.5 for the
proposed 2:1 (H:V) cut slope. Considering the conservative assumptions made in
the analyses, this should be suitable.
The success of natural, cut and fill slopes will be dependent upon proper design,
construction and maintenance. Grading should be designed in such a manner that
all surface water is directed away from the slope face and into satisfactory drainage
devices. The finished slopes should be assumed to be highly susceptible to erosion
and should be planted as soon as possible after construction. The moisture content
of the soil exposed on the slopes should be maintained at a relatively constant level
to avoid the problems related to cyclic shrinkage and swelling. Slopes must also be
protected against rodent activity and other means of deterioration.
Trench Wall Stability: Significant caving did not occur within our exploratory
borings. All excavations should be configured in aCGordance with the requirements
of CaIOSHA. We would classify the soils as Type B. The classification of the soil
and the shoring andlor slope configuration should be the responsibility of the
contractor on the basis ofthe trench depth and the soil encountered. The contractor
should have a "competent person" on-site for the purpose of assuring safety within
and about all construction excavations.
Retaining Walls: Retaining walls of up to 15 feet high are proposed. Cantilever
retaining walls may be designed for an active earth pressure equivalent to that
exerted by a fluid weighing not less than that shown in the following table:
[.
_&lIIl_'~7~
~-~.-
Level 30 37
2 to 1 43 55
Where walls are restrained to prevent movement at the top, an at-res1 pressure
should be assumed. We recommend a minimum value of 58 pounds per cubic foot
with the resultant applied at mid-depth.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
15
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
\ro
il
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
These values are based upon a Unit Weight of 132 pounds per cubic foot for the
retained soil and an Angle of Internal Friction of 34 degrees.
Any applicable construction and seismic surcharges should be added to the above
pressures. At least 12 inches of granular material should be used in the backfill
behind the walls and water pressure should not be permitted to build up behind
retaining walls. The upper 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of soil
having a low permeability (less than 10-6 cm/sec). All backfill shall be non-
expansive. Subdrains should be constructed along the base of the backfill.
RETAINING WALL - TYPICAL PROFILE
C.M.V. Retaining Wall
(per Structural Design)
Pervious Backfill (18" wide to IS" below surface)
C.M.V. Retaining Wall
(per Structural Design)"-
___ 4"-dia. Schedule 40 P.V.c. perfontted Pipe - ~
Filter Fabric (Mirafi 140N or equa1)~
Open-graded Gravel (4" above & beside pipe)-........ ..........
weephole -...
I
Native Backfill
Imported Granular Backfill
Concrete Slabs-on-Grade: Concrete slabs-on..grade shall have a minimum
thickness of four inches and shall be underlain by a minimum compacted fill
thickness of 12 inches, placed as described in the Site Grading Section of this
report. Regardless of the extent of compaction, all concrete will crack due to
shrinkage.
It should be assumed that the soils under the slab will likely become saturated
during the life of the structure. Moisture will also be emitted from the concrete
mixture as it cures. Flooring manufacturers may have specific requirements related
to emission rates from concrete that should be achieved prior to the placement of
flooring. Typically, these range from 0.3 to 0.5 pounds of water per 1000 square
feet per 24-hour period. The emission rates are measured using an approximate
72-hour test procedure that we are able to conduct upon request. The drying time of
the concrete may be reduced using a lower water-cement ratio such as 0.5 or 0.45.
The use of fly ash may enhance workability of the mix and reduce the alkali content
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
16
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
\'\
II
I
,I
I
! I
,
I
I
I
il
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
within the slab. The use of a chemical membrane or Guring compound may increase
the drying time. Other suitable curing methods are available. The curing method is
important in reducing plastic shrinkage cracking and should not be eliminated to
reduce dry times.
Where slabs are to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings, we recommend the
use of a vapor retarder. There are various products manufactured for this. purpose.
ASTM currently provides a standard water vapor permeance of 0.3 perms. Such
materials would allow up to 18 gallons of water per week in a 50,000 square foot
area. Therefore, it should be understood that these materials are not vapor
"barriers". Some flooring applications may require more effective barriers.
Therefore, the selection of the vapor barrier should be based upon the type of
flooring material and is not considered to be a Geotechnical Engineering design
parameter.
Vapor retarders should have a minimum thickness of 10-mil unless otherwise
specified. It is possible that the retarders will be exposed to equipment loads such
as ready-mix trucks, buggies, laser screeds, etc. In slIch cases, the thickness shall
be increased to at least 15-mil. The concrete may be placed directly upon the vapor
retarder but should be designed with reinforcement to offset additional curling
stresses. Seams and holes made for underground utilities should be properly
sealed per the recommendations of the manufacturer.
The vapor retarder recommended in the preceding paragraphs is a common method
of reducing the migration of moisture through the slab. It will not prevent all
moisture migration through the slab nor will it prohibit the formation of mold or other
moisture related problems. For moisture sensitive floor coverings, an expert in that
field should be consulted to properly design a moisture barrier suitable for the
specific application.
If concrete is to be placed on a dry absorptive subgrade in hot and dry weather, the
subgrade should be dampened but not to a point that there is freestanding water
prior to placement. The formwork and reinforcement should also be dampened.
Shrinkage of concrete should be anticipated. This will result in cracks in all concrete
slabs-on-grade. Shrinkage cracks may be directed to saw-cut "control joints"
spaced on the basis of slab thickness and reinforcement. A level subgrade is also
an important element in achieving some "control" in the locations of shrinkage
cracks. Control joints should be cut immediately following the finishing process and
prior to the placement of the curing cover or membrane. Control joints that are cut
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
17
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
1JD
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
on the day following the concrete placement are generally ineffective. The
placement of reinforcing steel will help in reducing crack width and propagation as-
well-as providing for an increase in the control joint spacing. The use of welded wire
mesh has typically been observed to be of limited value due to difficulties and lack of
care in maintaining the level of the steel in the concrete during placement. The
addition of water to the mix to enhance placement and workability frequently results
in an excessive water-cement ratio that weakens the concrete, increases drying
times and results more cracking due to concrete shrinkage during the initial cure.
Expansive Soils: Due to the presence of expansive soils, special expansive design
criteria should be considered during preliminary planning for the design of
foundations and concrete slabs-on-grade. The following table summarizes the
2000 CBC Section 1815 criteria.
L___ ~~ " ____ __ - __n _ _ _ _ _~
(9J~~I;i'~JH{:) ~[O).,__: ;==-'C,,~;,~-{-__;;}~ih@ ~.:_,~~
~~ _,--
Co 18-111-2 1.0
Cs 18-111-3 1.0
Cw 18-111-4 15
Effective PI NIA <15
qu NIA j 500 Psf
1-C 18-111-8 0.0
The recommendations for expansive soils presented above are based upon the
Section 1815 of the 2000 CBC. As a minimum, we recommend the following for
conventional foundations and concrete slabs-on-grade unless otherwise indicated by
structural design:
Foundations: Interior and exterior footings should be founded at minimum
depths of 12 inches beneath the lowest adjacent final grade. All footings
should be reinforced with one No. 4 reinforeing steel bar placed top and
bottom.
Concrete Slabs-on-Grade: All concrete slabs-on-grade should have a
minimum thickness of 4 inches and should be reinforced with No.3 reinforcing
steel bars 18-inches on center placed at mid-depth in the slab.
Moisture Conditioning: All areas receiving concrete slabs-on-grade should
have the soil moisture content brought to at least 110 percent of thEl optimum
moisture content for a depth of at least 15 inches. This should be maintained
until immediately prior to the placement of the vapor retarder.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
18
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
2-\.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Weighted Expansion Index after grading will be used for the development of
final design parameters. This will reflect the effects of blending that occur during
grading.
Tentative Pavement Design: All surfaces to receive asphalt concrete paving
should be underlain by a minimum compacted fill thickness of 12 inches (excluding
aggregate base). This may be performed as described in the Site Grading Section
of this report. On the basis of an estimated R-Value of 40 determined on the basis
of classification testing, we make the following tentative recommendations for
structural street section design:
r-~--~---- ~ - ~1rt J;m @:o]1X:cjj{~ ,. l~}:J,,':n @:oJJ1l~
:
I ~*;) }'Jl;l@((rW-"f,;)([ft't] _: J~[C~(r~
---~- ~ -- - ---- - - . ~--~-
Interior Streets (Assumed TI=5.5) 0.25 0.5
Exterior Streets (Assume TI=7.5) 0.38 0.67
These recommendations are provided for estimating purposes only. At the
completion of rough grading, when the actual soils are more accurately defined,
samples will be obtained for additional R-Value testing which will serve as a basis
for the actual structural street section design. All work within the roadway area will
be performed under the inspection of the City of Temecula.
Shrinkage and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinkage of the material which is
excavated and replaced as controlled compacted fill should be anticipated. Nearthe
surface, we anticipate shrinkage values of 15 to 20 percent with 15 percent being
estimated on the basis of average values and 20 pen~ent being based upon average
values with the addition of one degree of uncertainty. We estimate that this may be
applicable for the upper two feet. Below that depth, these values will be much
smaller, ranging from 5 to 10 percent. Subsidence of the surfaces which are
scarified and compacted will be on the order of 0.05 to 0.1 feet per foot of
recompaction. The effects of the recompaction of the soil "in-place" may extend up
to two feet beneath the surface which is compacted. Therefore, subsidence due to
such recompaction may be up to 0.2 feet. This will vary depending upon the type of
equipment used and the moisture content of the soil at the time of grading. These
values for shrinkage and subsidence are exclusive of losses which will occur due to
the stripping of the organic material from the site and the removal of trees, utility or
irrigation lines, and other subsurface obstructions.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Loma Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
19
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
'J/b
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
General Site Grading: All grading should be performed in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the California BuildinQ Code. The following specifications
have been developed on the basis of our field and laboratory testing:
1. Clearing and Grubbing: All building, slab and pavement areas and all
surfaces to receive compacted fill should be cleared of existing loose soil,
vegetation, debris, and other unsuitable materials. We recommend a minimum
overexcavation of at least 36 inches to provide assurance of exposing
potentially unsuitable materials. If unsuitable conditions are exposed, they
should be traced out and removed. All abandoned underground utility lines
should be traced out and completely removed from the site. Each end of the
abandoned utility line should be securely capped at the entrance and exit to
the site to prevent any water from entering the site. Concrete irrigation lines
may be capped at their entrance and exit to the site, crushed in place and
distributed throughout the fill as directed by the Soil Engineer. Soils which are
loosened due to the removal of trees should be removed and replaced as
controlled compacted fill under the direction of the Soil Engineer. A search
should be made in the vicinity of the existing structures for possible septic tank
andlor seepage pits. These should be excavated and removed from the site or
processed under the direction of the Soil Engineer.
2. Preparation of Surfaces to Receive Compacted Fill: We recommend a
minimum removal depth of eight feet within the proposed fill areas that are
underlain by alluvium. All surfaces to receive compacted fill shall be subjected
to compaction testing prior to processing. Testing should indicate a Relative
Compaction of at least 85 percent within the unprocessed native soils. If roots
or other deleterious materials are encountered or if the Relative Compaction
fails to meet the acceptance criterion, additional overexcavation will be
required until satisfactory conditions are encountered. Upon approval,
surfaces to receive fill shall be scarified, brought to near optimum moisture
content, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent Relative Compaction.
3. Placement of Compacted Fill: Fill materials consisting of on-site soils or
approved imported granular soils, shall be spread in shallow lifts, and
compacted at near optimum moisture content to a minimum of 90 percent
Relative Compaction. Our observations of the material encountered during our
investigation indicate that compaction will be most readily obtained by means
of rubber-wheeled or sheepsfoot compactors. If grading is performed during a
dry period, pre-watering of the soil may provide a means of obtaining a more
uniform moisture content through the soils which were encountered. This
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
20
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
J,.?>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
should be investigated by the grading contractor prior to the commencement of
site grading.
4. Preparation of Building Areas: All building areas should be underlain by
a minimum compacted fill thickness of one times the footing width beneath the
footing base elevation. This zone of recompaction should extend a minimum
of five feet outside the building lines, and a minimum of 36 inches below the
existing or final ground surface, whichever is deeper. The surface of the
overexcavation should then be reviewed for compliance with the criteria of
Item 2 under this section. Upon approval the surface shall be scarified,
brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90
percent Relative Compaction. An inspection should then be made by the Soil
Engineer or his representative, in order to verify the depth of the
overexcavation and the Relative Compaction obtained. The excavated
material may then be replaced as controlled compacted fill.
5. Preparation of Slab and Paving Areas: All surfaces to receive asphalt
concrete paving or concrete slabs-on-grade should be underlain by a minimum
compacted fill thickness of 12 inches. This Illay be accomplished by a
combination of overexcavation, scarification and recompaction of the surface,
and replacement of the excavated material as controlled compacted fill.
Compaction of the slab areas shall be to a minimum of 90 percent Relative
Compaction. Compaction within the proposed pavement areas shall be to a
minimum of 95 percent Relative Compaction.
6. Utility Trench Backfill: It is our opinion that utility trench backfill consisting
of the on-site soil types should be placed by mechanical compaction to a
minimum of 90 percent Relative Compaction. .Jetting of the native soils is not
recommended.
7. Testing and Inspection: During grading tests and observations shall be
performed by the Soil Engineer or his representative in order to verify that the
grading is being performed in accordance with the project specifications.
Field density testing shall be performed in accordance with the ASTM
D1556-00 test method. The minimum acceptable degree of compaction shall
be 90 percent of the maximum dry density as obtained by the ASTM D1557 -00
test method. Where testing indicates insufficient density, additional compac-
tive effort shall be applied until retesting indicates satisfactory compaction.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
21
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Testing will also be conducted to verify that the soils will not subject concrete
to sulfate attack and are not corrosive. Testing of any proposed import will be
necessary prior to placement on the site. Testing of on-site soils may be done
on either a selective or random basis as site conditions indicate.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
22
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
TJ6'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
!I
I
il
I
I
I
I
GENERAL
The findings and recommendations presented in this report are based upon an interpolation
of the soil conditions between boring locations. Should conditions be encountered during
grading that appear to be different than those indicated by this report, this office should be
notified.
Our investigation was performed prior to the preparation of a grading plan for the project.
We recommend that a pre-job conference be held on the site prior to the initiation of site
grading. The purpose of this meeting will be to assure a complete understanding of the
recommendations presented in this report as they apply to the actual grading performed.
Our investigation was conducted for Pacific Group for their use in the design of the
proposed residential development. This report may only be used by Pacific Group for this
purpose. The use of this report by parties other than Pacific Group or for other purposes is
not authorized without written permission by Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. Inland
Foundation Engineering, Inc. will not be liable for any projects connected with the
unauthorized use of this report.
The recommendations of this report are considered to be preliminary. The final design
parameters may only be determined or confirmed at the completion of site grading on the
basis of observations made during the site grading operation. To this extent, this
investigation is not considered to be complete until the completion of both the design
process and the site preparation.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
23
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
-z>>
I
II
I
I
!I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
!I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
For our field investigation, seven exploratory borings were excavated by means of a truck
mounted rotary auger rig at the approximate locations shown on Figure No. A-8.
Continuous logs of the materials encountered were made on the site by a Soil Engineer.
These are presented on Figure Nos. A-2 through A-7.
Representative undisturbed samples were obtained within our borings by driving a
thin-walled steel penetration sampler with successive 30-inch drops of a 140-pound
hammer. The number of blows required to achieve each six inches of penetration were
recorded on our boring logs and used for estimating the relative consistencies of the
subsoils. Two different samplers were used. The first sampler used was a Standard
Penetration Sampler for which published correlations relating the number of hammer blows
to the strength of the soil are available. The second sampler type was larger in diameter,
carrying brass sample rings having inner diameters of 2.5 inches. Undisturbed samples
were removed from the sampler and placed in moisture sealed containers in order to
preserve the natural soil moisture content. They were then transported to our laboratory
for further observations and testing.
Representative bulk samples were obtained and returned to our laboratory for further
testing and observations. The results of this testing are discussed and presented in
Appendix B.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Loma Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
A-I
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
-z.,1.
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Representative bulk.soil samples were obtained in the field and returned to our laboratory
for additional observations and testing. Laboratory testing was generally performed in two
phases. The first phase consisted of testing in order to determine the compaction of the
existing natural soil and the general engineering classifications of the soils across the site.
This testing was performed in order to estimate the engineering characteristics of the soil
and to serve as a basis for selecting samples for the second phase of testing. The second
phase consisted of soil mechanics and analytical testing. This testing included direct shear
testing, expansion testing, consolidation testing and testing to estimate the concentration of
water-soluble sulfate, pH, resistivity and chlorides. These tests were performed in order to
provide a means of developing specific design recommendations based on the strength
and corrosive characteristics of the soil.
CLASSIFICATION AND COMPACTION TESTING
Unit Weight and Moisture Content Determinations: Each undisturbed sample was
weighed and measured in order to determine its unit weight. A small portion of each
sample was then subjected to testing in order to determine its moisture content. This was
used in order to determine the dry density of the soil in its natural condition. The results of
this testing are shown on the Boring Logs (Figure Nos. A-2 through A-7).
Maximum Density-Optimum Moisture Determinations: Representative soil types were
selected for maximum density determinations. This testing was performed in accordance
with the ASTM Standard D1557 -00 test method A. The results of this testing are presented
graphically on Figure No. B-4. The maximum densities are compared to the field densities
of the soil in order to determine the existing relative compaction to the soil. This is shown
on the Boring Logs, and is useful in estimating the strength and compressibility of the soil.
Classification Testing: Nine soil samples were selected for classification testing. This
testing consists of mechanical grain size analyses and Atterberg Limits determinations.
These provide information for developing classifications for the soil in accordance with the
Unified Classification System. This classification system categorizes the soil into groups
having similar engineering characteristics. The results of this testing are very useful in
detecting variations in the soils and in selecting samples for further testing. The results of
this testing are presented on Figure No. B-5 and B-6.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
8-1
Inland Foundation Engineel'ing, Inc.
~
I
55 37 4 I 1081
i 50/5" I I I
I I
40 -it: SILTY SAND. fine grained, olive brown, slightly moist to
II.... .....l.:... moist, medium dense. 38
- thin layers sandy silt throughout - 50 I
45 I 'i.' SP, SAND. fine to medium grained, gray brown, slightly moist. I 10611,:
'.j i medium dense to dense. SS I 20
50 ~: tIISM! \ - hard drilling from 49 feet to 55 feet- ~ i ! 50 I I I
I,' III I SILTY SAND. fine grained. gray brown, slightly moist to 18' 1511 1131!
moist, dense. 50 ,
, I I ,
i. . f ! - thin layers sandy silt throughout - I !
1. -\:
~. , 1 Geotechnical Investigation
INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING INC. I Mira Lorna Dr.
, I Temecula, CA
I Project No. P283-003 A-2a - ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Elevation:
Drilling Method:
Drilling Rig:
Boring Diameter.
€ 0
J: J:
Ii: a. '"
<( 0
w '" '"
0 (!) :>
SC
5 :SM
.' .:SM
.SM
10 .'
......
15
20
25
30
35
LOG OF BORING B-01
Date(s) Drilled:
Rotary Auger
CME-75
10-inches
3nJ05
Logged by:
Hammer Type:
Hammer Weight:
Hammer Drop:
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SAMPLES
I
ILU wi
..J..J
a. a.
~~
~~
_ ..J
'" :>
Oa>
This summary applies only at the location of the boring and at the time of drilling.
Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this
location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of
actual conditions encountered and is representative of interpretations made,
during drilling. Contrasting data derived from laboratory analysis may not be
reflected in these representations.
ARTIFICIAL FILL. SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained,
brown, moist, loose to medium dense.
SILTY. CLAYEY SAND. fine to medium grained with clay,
brown, moist, loose to medium dense.
SILTY SAND. fine grained, brown. moist. medium dense.
ML
SP
SILTY SAND. fine to medium grained, brown, moist, medium
dense.
- thin layers sandy silt throughout -
SILTY CLAY, fine rained, ra brown, moist hard.
SAND. fine to coarse grained with trace gravel. brown, slightly
moist, dense.
- more gravel at depth -
5014"
WELL GRADED SAND with SILTY CLAY. medium to very
coarse grained with gravel, gray brown. slightly moist. medium
dense to dense.
FWC
Auto-Trip
140 lb.
30-inches
!e
~
..J
a>
l
l ~ z
0
w w>=
'" ,...
:;) Z >0
-<(
,... :;) S~
'" >-<::"
is "''' wO
::; os, "'0
14 91
151 114
I
14 117
24 114
20 106
3 105
3
6
8
8
27
50
22
30
21
30
3
89
35
47
4
110
20
50
4
116
124
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
€
:x:
>-
"-
UJ
Cl
~Ioo
,<(10
"a::IU)
Jell:;)
LOG OF BORING B-01
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
This summary applies only at the location of the boring and at the time of drilling.
Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this
location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of
actual conditions encountered and is representative of interpretations made
during drilling. Contrasting data derived from laboratory analysis may not be
reflected In these representations.
SIL TV SAND. fine grained, brown, slightly moist, dense.
SAND. fine to coarse grained, brown, slightly moist, dense.
- very thin layers silty sand or sandy silt throughout -
- sand with silt layers -
70
: :: .: 5M SIL TV SAND. fine to medium grained, brown, moist, dense.
. .' . hard drilling from 71 feet to 100 feet -
SAMPLES
~ w w
"- -' "-
::;; "- >
~! :;;
UJ ~ ~
~ -' ~
"":;) <(
Cl lD 00
Ie
~
-'
lD
~
w
""
:;)
t-
oo
i5 ~
::;; I
121
1
I
~
z
o
w>=
>0
~~
S::;;
wO
",,0
60
::: .:SM
""15P
.... I
. 1
I
I
I
I
SAND. fine to coarse grained, gray, slightly moist, dense.
- very thin layers silty sand or sandy silt throughout -
SANDY SILT. fine grained, gray brown, slightly moist, very
hard.
CL SANDY SIL TV CLAY, very fine to fine grained, olive, slightly
ML moist, very hard.
SAND. fine to coarse grained with trace gravel, orange
brown, slightly moist. medium dense. slightll to moderatelt
cemented.
End of boring at 101 feet. No groundwater or mottling
encountered.
55
23 I
50/4"
J
SS 27 I
50/5" I
~
t-
~ul
15.s
1211
I
4
105
65
SS 50
5S 20
60
SS 43
150/4"
I
55 25
50/5"
25
50
16
50/5" ;
I
9
I
1141
..'
75
'-'..SP
. .1
I
141
120
80
'. ML
3
104
85
I
16
114
90
21
109
95
.i5P
i
I
"1
'1
.1
':.::'1
.-....1
'. .
26
1051
100
7
112
I
i
i
i
I
I
1
1
I I I
Jh 1 Geotechnical Investigation I Figure No
INLAND FOUNDA liON ENGINEERING INC. I Mira Lorna Dr.
. ' i Temecula, CA
. J Prol'ect No. P283 n03 AL28i~
. "'U "'C"i,,",;!?f't
~
LOG OF BORING B-02
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
i.
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
Date(s) Drilled:
Rotary Auger
CME-75
10-inches
318/05
Logged by:
Hammer Type:
Hammer Weight:
Hammer Drop:
Elevation:
Drilling Method:
Drilling Rig:
Boring Diameter:
FWC
Auto-Trip
140 lb.
3D-inches
!
I ~
i
~ ~ , z
; 0
UJ I UJ>=
0; t: ~~
::J Z
t- ~~I ~~
lJJ
0 UJO
::! 0_ o;u
14 93
11 114
8 113
11 107
6 114
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
This summary applies only al the location of Ihe boring and at the time of drilling.
Subsurface conditkms may differ at other locations and may change at this
location with the passage of lime. The data presented is a simplification of
actual conditions encountered and is representative of interpretations mado
during drilling. Contrasting data derived from laboratory analysis may not be
reflected in these representations.
W
0..
~ ~
-'
'"
16
21
23
33
21
30
29
35
25
35
g
I
t-
o..
W
o
u
:;:
0.. lJJ I
~ U
lJJ
" ::J
SM
T
. .
.'
SP
"
ARTIFICIAL FILL. SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained with
trace cia ,brown moist, loose.
SILTY SAND. fine to medium grained, brown, moist. medium
dense to dense.
5
10
SAND. fine to coarse grained with trace silt, brown. moist,
medium dense to dense.
15
8 115
SANDY SILT. fine grained, olive brown, moist. hard.
1
4 1201
20
32
50/4"
SAND. fine to very coarse grained with trace gravel. gray
brown, slightly moist, medium dense to dense.
25
3 108
I
30 +<
JI
35 II
!<<I
JI
40 1>1
1<1
45 ~>I
i....1
('::->1
, 'j 1
, 50 ji.~-----;-SiLTY SAND. fine to medium grained, gray brown, slightly
::::-:isp moist dense.
/"0:-:::1 SAND. fine to very coarse grained. brown, slightly moisl.
.... '., dense.
~INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC.
22
o N.R
96 !
I
;
I
1121
!
i
,
1191
I
991
i
i
Geotechnicallnvestigation Figure No.
Mira Loma Dr.
Temecula, CA
i Project No. P283-003 A-3a
SS 35 Ii
. 50/4"
!
55 i 18
! 50
5
i
I
6
;
101
I
i
i
10/
24
50
50
j
?>\.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LOG OF BORING B-02
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES
This summary applies only at the location of the boring and at the time of drilling. I l
lw w
Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this -'-, w ~ g z
n.n. n. 0
location with the passage of time, The dala presented is a simplifICation of ~ ::; ~ w ~G
is u !e 0:: ....
r actual conditions encountered and is representative of interpretations madEl lIJ~ w ~ Z
J: during drilling. Contrasting data derived from laboratory analysis may not be -' lIJ -<(
.... n. lIJ w", n. s: lIJ :> 5~
n. 10l u' reflected in these representations. 2: -' ~ g 6 >-1)
W lIJ' 0:::> 0::0. wO
0 ,eJ :> Olll III ::; 0_ o::u
. . - hard drillin from 51 feet to 71 feet - SSI 50
:SM SIL TV SAND. fine grained, brown, moist, dense.
:-"
. . - thin interbedded layers sandy silt or silty sand with clay I I
60 :.::.J: throughout - SSI
.\ 30 61 10B
I 60
..:+ 221 I
I
65 SS 50 1011
.. .
I I
70 SS 40 131 95
SOlS"
. . !
'.' SP SAND. fine to very coarse grained, orange brown, slightly I
75 moist, dense, slightly cemented. SS 2B 161 11BI
50/3" I
BO SIL TV SAND. fine to medium grained, medium gray, moist,
dense. ...J
End of boring at BO.5 feet. No groundwater or mottling
encountered.
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
-
~INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. I
Geotechnical Investigation I Figure No.
Mira Lorna Dr. I
Temecula, CA
Project No. P283-003 A~~~l ?JZ--
. .: SM SIL TV SAND. fine to medium grained, gray brown, moist,
medium dense.
25 ". ll-thin interbedded layers of clayey sand or sandy silt throughout-
r ~ ~
t........ SC POORLY GRADED SAND with SIL TV CLAY and GRAVEL.
I..... . fine to medium grained, light brown, wet, medium dense.
30 -j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Elevation:
Drilling Method:
Drilling Rig:
Boring Diameter:
g
I' >2
\6: (/)
,<C ()
.", (/l
Ie> ::>
I.....;.S
....:-..
,.:~ :"~':
I
I-
0.
W
o
5
SC
iSM
10
:::':SM
S
SM
.
.
15
:SM
20
35
40
LOG OF BORING B-03
Date( s) Drilled:
Rotary Auger
CME-75
10-inches
3/8/05
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
This summary applies only at the location of the boring and at the time of drilling.
Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this
location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of
actual conditions encountered and is representative of interpretations mado
during drilling. Contrasting data derived from laboratory analysis may not be
reflected in these representations.
SAND WITH SILT. fine to coarse grained, brown, moist,
loose. (Fill)
SIL TV. CLAYEY SAND, fine to coarse grained, gray-brown,
moist, medium dense
SANDY CLAY, fine grained, dark moist. stiff.
SIL TV SAND, fine grained with trace coarse, gray-brown.
moist medium dense
SAND with SILT. fine to coarse grained, brown, moist,
medium dense.
-thin layers of silty sand, clayey sand or sandy silt throughout-
-fine to medium grained-
SIL TV SAND. very fine to fine grained, brown, moist, medium
dense.
SANDY SIL TV CLAY, fine grained, olive brown, moist, very
hard.
I
45 I
II ["SMI ~~~~SAND. fine to coarse grained. red brown, moist, very
50 Jl[/ !
~/?M CLAYEY SAND. fine to meduim grained, gray brown, moist,
I : I ,dense.
II I I End of boring at 51.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at 25
I ! feet.
--Li I
~ INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC.
Logged by:
Hammer Type:
Hammer Weight:
Hammer Drop:
../
SAMPLES
~Iw w
lJ 0.
::;;0. ~
;;;:1f w fe
wl(l) oJ ~
>1" 0.
_ oJ ::;; 9
"'::> ;;;
0,", "'
12
19
7
8
11
27
12
16
10
14
10
11
3
8
14
19
SS 38
PT 50/5"
11
I 16
ISPT 14 1
, 17!
I. 1
I ,
:SS 18 I
!SPT 50/4"
I ,
'I~ I 50 i
I I
: '
-j
J
i
j
FWC
Auto-Trip
140 lb.
30-inches
~
~ ~ z
0
w w>=
0: I-
::> Z >()
-<C
.... ::> 1-0.
(I) >-13 :')::;
6 O:c, wO
::; 0_ O:()
12 96
9 132
9 116
14 122
151 118
6 104
7 105
6 109
27
17
18 1141
25
281 I
1 I
,
131 1221
131
i
I
I
.J
21
i
I
! 1
>1 I
Geotechnical Investigation
Mira Lorna Dr.
Temecula, CA
Project No. P283..o03
I Figure No.
1 A-4
?~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Elevation:
Drilling Method:
Drilling Rig:
Boring Diameter:
is
:I:
....
a.
w
o
'->
I
a. Vi
..: '->
" Vi
(!) "
SM
SM
5 1
I,
I
10 1:
15
LOG OF BORING B-04
Date(s) Drilled:
Rotary Auger
CME-75
10-inches
318105
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
This summalY applies only at the location of the boring and at the time of drilling.
Subsurface conditions may differ at ather locations and may change at this
location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of
actual conditions encountered and is representative of interpretations madE!
during drilling, Contrasting data derived from laboratory analysis may not be
reflected in these representations.
SIL TV SAND. fine to medium grained, black, moist, loose.
Fill
SIL TV SAND. fine to medium grained with trace clay, gay
brown, moist to very moist, medium dense.
End of boring at 16.5 feet. No groundwater or mottling
encountered.
i
!
I
,
~INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING. INC.
l.ogged by:
Hammer Type:
Hammer Weight:
Hammer Drop:
FWC
Auto-Trip
140 lb.
30-inches
SAMPLES
! l
w l ~ z
a. 0
~ w wi='
1e " ....
z >'->
~ i:' -<(
" ....a.
Vi >-'il :5:;;
.J 5 ",,- wO
co :;; 0_ ,,'->
8- 117
5 12 1241
12 1241
4 10
13
5 13 118
7
8 11 122'
11 I
17
I I
I .
i !
i I !
I, I
i I i
II I
~ I I
I ,
" , .
, ' , ,
I I j .
Geotechnical Investigation I Figure No.
Mira Loma Dr.
Temecula, CA
Project No. P283..o03 A-5
?\
I
'I
'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Elevation:
Drilling Method:
Drilling Rig:
Boring Diameter:
g I 0 I
r I I
.... a. '" I
a. ~ 0
w '"
0 <:l ::>
:-SM
"
5 "
::ISM
10
15
LOG OF BORING B-05
Date(s) Drilled:
Rotary Auger
CME-75
10-inches
l.ogged by:
Hammer Type:
Hammer Weight:
Hammer Drop:
318/05
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
This summary applies only at the location of the boring and at the time of drilling,
Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this
location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of
actual conditions encountered and is representative of interpretations madEl
during drilling. Contrasting data derived from laboratory analysis may not be
reflected in these representations.
SIL TV SAND. fine to medium grained, dark gray, moist,
loose, rootlets throughout. (Fill)
SILTY SAND. fine to medium grained with trace clay, gray
brown, moist to very moist, loose to medium dense.
20
, ., SM SIL TV SAND. fine to coarse grained, gray brown, slightly
moist, medium dense to dense.
25
End of boring at 28 feet. No groundwater or mottling
encountered.
I
I
I
I
i
!
i
I
I
i
I '
, I
,
-ilh-INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. I
SAMPLES
~IW w
a. ..J a.
~a. ~ 'e
"'~ w
w'" ..J '"
> '" a. ~
_..J :;
cr::> <( ..J
OlD '" lD
SS 3
3
SS 3
3
I
SSj 7
I 9
SS' 6
I 9
SS 6
9
SSI 11
13
FWC
Auto-Trip
140 lb.
30-inches
~
~ ~ z
0
w wi"
cr ....
::> Z ~~
.... ::> ~~
'" >-13
is ere. wO
:; 0_ cru
8 114
9 114
12 120
13 123
13 122
8 125
I
I
I
I i
I !
I
I '
, ,
j i
, ,
i
i I i
I , ,
1 i i
I I I
I ' i
i I I
128
7
Figure No.
I
I
I
Geotechnical Investigation
Mira Loma Dr.
Temecula, CA
Project No. P283-003
A-6
~
I
I
I I
! I
~l !
~ i Geotechnical Investigation ! Figure No.
INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING INC. I Mira Lorna Dr. '
, J Ternecula, CA
Project No. P283-003 A-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Elevation:
Drilling Method:
Drilling Rig:
Boring Diameter:
is
J:
....
0.
W
o
5
10
15
20
*-....
"..,,:
i
I
i
I
I
i
,
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I
I i
lOG OF BORING B-06
Date(s) Drilled:
Rotary Auger
CME-75
10-inches
3/8/05
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
This summary applies only at the location of the boring and at the time of drilling,
Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this
location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of
actual conditions encountered and is representative of interpretations madEl
during drilling. Contrasting data derived from laboratory analysis may not be
reflected in these representations.
ASPHALT CONCRETE 2 inches
WELL GRADED SAND with SILT. fine to coarse grained with
trace silt, brown, moist to very moist. dense.
8M
WELL GRADED SAND with SILT. fine to coarse grained,
olive brown, moist to very moist, dense.
-thin layer of sand fine to very coarse throughout-
WELL GRADED SAND. fine to coarse grained, brown, very
moist, dense.
End of boring at 21 .5 feel. No groundwater or mottling
encountered.
l.ogged by:
Hammer Type:
Hammer Weight:
Hammer Drop:
FWC
Auto-Trip
140 lb.
30-lnches
SAMPLES
~lw ~
w ~ ~ Z
0.-' 0. 0
::;0. 1:: w w;:::
;:j::; " ....
Z >u
~~ ::J i=~
.... ::J
rJl >-c :5::;
--' B
"::J "U wO
OlD ::; oe a:u
20 11 122
23
26 11 118
35
30 12 124
50/5"
30 13 117
36
20 17
50
,
21
?Ie
I
II
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Elevation:
Drilling Method:
Drilling Rig:
Boring Diameter:
g
u
:t
0. U)
C2 &l
e> :>
..,:'.;,SW
....:...
.'
~<>
. }:SM
~ 5 -:t
i!'
0.
W
o
~ 10 -::
E:
I- 15 -:;
LOG OF BORING B-07
Date(s) Drilled:
Rotary Auger
CME-75
10-inches
318105
!
I
I
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Logged by:
Hammer Type:
Hammer Weight:
Hammer Drop:
FWC
Auto-Trip
140 lb.
30-inches
SAMPLES
This summary applies only at the location of the boring and at the time of drilling. ~w l
Subsurface conditions may differ at ather locations and may change at this w ~ ~ Z
0.-' 0. 0
location with the passage of time, The data presented is a simplification of ::;0. ~ W ~B
<(::; ~ 0: ....
actual conditions encountered and is representative of interpretations madn U)<( w ::J Z
wU) -' -<(
during drilling, Contrasting data derived from laboratory analysis may not be >'" 0. ~ ::J 50.
reflected in these representations. I"' :5 ~ -' 6 &,& w~
0'" '" ::; 0_ o:u
WELL GRADED SAND. fine to coarse grained with trace silt, ~ 1311
red brown, moist, dense. 55 12 9
SIL TV SAND. fine to coarse grained. red brown to olive I I 24
brown, moist, dense. -S 5S 40 111 127
-interbedded layer of sand with silt throughout- I 27 I
-interbedded layer of dark olive material, high odor- S SS 20 I 7 128
WELL GRADED SAND with SILT. fine to medium grained, -- 34
-"-
red brown, dense. S SS 24 7 128
18
-
cc, 1') ~ 111;
End of boring at 16 feet. No groundwater or mottling 12 I
encountered. i
SW
SM
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I I I
I I j
~INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC.
, 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
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 Geotechnical Investigation \ Figure No,
Mira Loma Dr.
Temecula, CA
Project No. P283-003 A-a ~L
L2
~~.....- /.)
. -
~ l.
"-...,
'~~~\\~
,,,,,
~
e
-
o
o
o
~
"'U
...,
CD
-
-.
3
-.
::J
m
-I ~
CDS:r'\
3 _ \JJ
CDmCD
o
erO
Ol 0 r-+
- 3-CD
OOl(")
Ol. 0 ::J"'
0' ~. ::J
.., < -.
~CD(")
Di" m
-
-
::J
<
CD
en
r-+
-.
c.c
m
r-+
-.
o
::J
,..,
- \
- - (
-
--..
~
;:J
~
~
\
\ \ \'\\
?Y
~
""
~
~
~
--
GJ ~-
AJ \ ~) 'v.-
~ o )>
Z o \J ~
('") ::r: L
:r: -
II 0
~ ..-/
-
~ (f)
0 "-'0
0 o )>
...., o r )
-l fTl ~
&
--- ~
~);~
,
I
I
~/-
k
~
....
>-.'
~
8
~
I
/
J
~:
1-
...,
~1
,
--
~
rlJ"D,
I '\
t::l
~
~
I
I
J
~\~
--.,
)
....
-0
o
r
m
II G)
)>m
:g z
a 0
x
3'
Ql
-
(1)
r-
o
g
-
o'
:J
o
-
III
o
.,
:i'
co
Z
>
Z
co 0
I~ ~"T1
fo...- "'0
<>>oooc
~O>(J)z
'::;]00
~'-
c.n OJ S. )>
01(')::T-I
U1S" U'J-
-0>0
,,9 ::J
)>oorz
x!!!. "TIm
-:;;ocoz
~0)>G)
~3<_
-Dj" CD Z
en ~m
~ .. m
6 ;:0
01 _
01 Z
~ G)
z
()
"
~
z
OJ
;<:
I
~
r
~
o
OJ
z
P
."
'"
OJ
'"
6
o
'"
"
~
IT'
~
le
o
'"
>
,;,
~
en
(')
>
r
IT'
~
1
o
q
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOIL MECHANIC'S TESTING
Direct Shear Testing: Five samples were selected for Direct Shear Testing. This testing
measures the shear strength of the soil under various normal pressures and is used in
developing parameters for foundation design and lateral design. Testing was performed
using recompacted test specimens which were saturated prior to testing. Testing was
performed using a strain controlled test apparatus with normal pressures ranging from 934
to 2230 pounds per square foot. The results of this testing are shown on Figure No. B-7
and B-8.
Consolidation Testing: Two samples were selected for consolidation testing. For this
test, relatively undisturbed samples were selected and carefully trimmed into a one inch
thick by 2.5-inch diameter consolidometer. The consolidometer was moisture sealed in
order to preserve the natural moisture content during the initial stages of testing. Loads
ranging from 325 to 20,800 pounds per square foot were applied progressively with the rate
of settlement declining to a value of 0.0002 inches per hour prior to the application of each
subsequent load. At a preselected load, water was introduced into the consolidometer in
order to observe the potential for saturation collapse. The results of this testing are
presented graphically on Figure Nos. B-9 and B-10.
Expansion Testing: One sample was selected for Expansion testing. Expansion testing
was performed in accordance with the UBC Standard 18-2. This testing consists of
remolding 4-inch diameter by 1-inch thick test specimens to a moisture content and dry
density corresponding to approximately 50 percent saturation. The samples are subjected
to a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and allowed to reach equilibrium. At that
point the specimens are inundated with distilled water. The linear expansion is then
measured until complete. The results of this testing are shown on Figure No. 8-11.
ANALYTICAL TESTING
Three samples were selected to determine the concentration of soluble sulfates, chlorides,
pH level, and resistivity of and within the on-site soils. The following table presents the
results of this testing:
~i~@11 ~fiWl)j(:) -1r\YIMt:Irt~~~ :: @:n:J:t;)J(ol'f-"J :IWf;~fliill:iwr~~I.
~~'1l t0lJl_ ~~ ~)_.;:._ cr~:_.d~j;-~~@}>>t:;.~:= dlg
B-01
B-03
B-05
2.5-5.0
3.0-6.25
0.0-5.0
<0.001
0.005
0.007
<500
<500
<500
1500
10,100
11 ,400
7.2
7.2
7.3
Geotechnical Investigation ~ Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283.003- April 2005
8-2
Inland Foulldation Engineering, Inc.
~
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL
All laboratory testing has been conducted in conformance with the applicable ASTM test
methods by personnel trained and supervised in conformance with our QNQC policy. Our
test data only relates to the specific soils tested. Soil conditions typically vary and any
significant variations should be reported to our laboratory for review and possible testing.
The data presented in this report are for the use of Pacific Group only and may not be
reproduced or used by others without written approval of Inland Foundation Engineering,
Inc.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
B-3
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
e.p
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
160
155
150
145
140
135
130
...
U
"- 125
~
1ii
z
w
0 120
>-
a:
0
115
110
105
100
0
~
~
25
30
5
10
15 20
MOISTURE CONTENT, %
Specimen Identification Classification Max.Density MC%
. ~1 2.5 SILTY, CLAYEY SAND SC-SM 127.5 9.0
III ~1 8.0 SILTY SAND SM 126.5 9.5
A 8-01 27.0 LL-GRADED SAND with SILTY CLAY SW-S 127.5 11.5
-
* 8-03 3.0 SILTY, CLAYEY SAND SC-SM 132.0 7.5
X ~5 ,0.0 SILTY SAND SM 131.0 7.5
0 8-G6 0.2 WELL-GRADED SAND with SILT SW-SM 118.5 12.0
PROJECT Geotechnical Investigation PROJECT NO_ P283-003
Ira r. DATE April 20, 2005
MAXIMUM DENSITY -OPTIMUM MOISTURE CURVES
Inland Foundation EngIneering, Inc. -\\
San Jacinto, California 92583 ~~_FIGUREt.lQ.I3-4
_ _.uu___._.._~_.__....._ --_.._-----~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
.1
I
I
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES
4 2 1 1~
I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
3 6 10 16 30 50 100
I
200
HYDROMETER
10
6 3 1.5 3/4 11 8 14 20 40 70 140
I I : I ,K ~ . PI I
f\. ff1
\ ~'" It!\
.~
\ \
\ Iii-
\ . \ '.
\ \ \
\
\
\ \
\
\
IN
"-
, 1
100
10
1 0.1
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SAND
coarse medium fine
0.01
0.00
100
90
80
P
~70
C
E
N
T60
F
I
N
E50
R
B
Y 40
W
E
I
G30
H
T
20
o
COBBLES
GRAVEL
coarse fine
SILT OR CLAY
Specimen Identification Classification S.G. LL PL PI Cc Cu
8-41 2.5 SIL TV, CLAYEY SAND SC-SM 27 20 ,-
8-41 8.0 SIL TV SAND SM 20 18 2
8-41 27.0 LL-GRADED SAND with SIL TV CLAY SW-S 22 16 6; 1.80 14.1
8-43 3.0 SIL TV, CLAYEY SAND SC-SM 21 16 50
8-43 20.5 SIL TV SAND SM 28 25 3-
Specimen Identification D100 060 030 010 %Gravel %Sand %Silt O/OClay
8-41 2.5 9.50 0.12 1.0 51.0 48.0
8-41 8.0 4.75 0.31 0.114 0.0 76.0 24.0
--
8-41 27.0 9.50 1.06 0.379 0.0750 2.0 88.0 10.0
B-03 3.0 9.50 0.22 1.0 60.0 39.0
8-43 20.5 4.75 0.22 0.116 0.0 85.0 15.0
PROJECT Geotechnical Investigation PROJECT NO. P283-003
Mi DATE April 20, 2005
GRADATION CURVES
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
San Jacinto, Califomia 92583
FIGURE NO. 80S
A,'/;-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES 1 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I
4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200
HYDROMETER
10
6 3 1.5 3/4 4 8 14 20 40 70 140
I I , I ::lll I I. I
.'" "- 1\
: \
\ 1\
\ \
\ ~
\ "\
1\
'\
\
1M
: \
\ \
Ii{ \.
,1\
: \
\
\ '-~
"-
100
90
80
P
~70
C
E
N
T 60
F
I
N
E50
R
B
Y 40
E
I
G30
H
T
20
o
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.00
GRAIN SIZE IN MilliMETERS
COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine coarse medium fine
Specimen Identification Classification S.G. LL PL PI Cc Cu
8-03 25.5 SILTY SAND SM 34 25 51
8-03 PIIlRL GRADED SAND with SILTY CLAY and GRA C24 20 4 0.74 11.8
8-05 0.0 SILTY SAND SM 20 18 2:
8-06 0.2 WELL-GRADED SAND with SILT SW-SM 21 18 3; 1.39 7.9
Specimen Identification 0100 060 030 010 %Gravel %Sand %SIII %Clay
8-03 25.5 4.75 0.11 0.0 56.0 44.0
8-03 30.5 9.50 1.11 0;278 0.0945 15.0 77.0 8.0
8-05 0.0 9.50 0.58 0.170 4.0 78.0 18.0
8-06 0.2 9.50 1.21 0.507 0.1531 3.2 90.5 6.3
PROJECT Geotechnical Investigation PROJECT NO. P283-003
Mi DATE April 20,2005
GRADATION CURVES
Inland Foundation Engineering, inc.
San Jacinto, California 92583
FIGURE NO. B-6
ht,??
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0
S
H
E 1.5
A
R
S
T
R
E
N
G
T
H 1.0
k
5
f
0.0
0.0
1.5
2.0
0.5
1.0
NORMAl PRESSURE. ksf
Specimen Identification Classification Phi Cohesion DO MC%
. 8..01 11.5 SIL TV SAND SM 36 0.383 110 20
III 8..01 35.0 SIL TV SAND SM 40 0.280 102 4
. 8..01 50.0 SIL TV SAND SM 34 0.005 110 15
PROJECT Geotechnicallnvestigation
Mi r
PROJECT NO.
DATE
P283..o03
April 20, 2005
SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM
Inland Foundation EngIneering, Inc.
San Jacinto. California 92583
FIGURE NO. B-7
*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0
5
H
E 1.5
A
R
S
T
R
E
N
G
T
H 1.0
k
s
f
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
NORMAL PRESSURE, ksf
Specimen Identification
. 8-03 3.0
III 8-03 8.5
Classification
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND SC-8M
SILTY SAND SM
DD MC%
116 9
116 15
Phi
36
34
Cohesion
0.050
0.288
PROJECT Geotechnicallnvestigation
i r.
PROJECT NO. P283-003
DATE April 20, 2005
SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
San Jacinto, California 92583
FIGURE NO. 8-8
t\-S'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S
T
R
A
I
N
%
o
1-- I I I I I
"- ,
I I I I I
I "- I i I I
! t I i I
I
I I ! I 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
II
I II 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 ii I I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
100
1,000
10,000
105
STRESS. psI
Specimen Identification
. B"()3 5.5
Classification
SilTY, CLAYEY SAND SC-SM
DO i MC%
I 117' 14
I I.
I
I
i
I
I
1-
!
PROJECT Geotechnicallnvestigation
Mira Loma Dr,
PROJECT NO,
DATE
P283-003
April 20, 2005
CONSOLIDATION TEST'
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
San Jacinto, California 92583
FIGURE NO. B-9
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S
T
R
A
I
N
.. r--.. r I
r-- r-...
I
, I I
I I '" , I I ! I
I ~ !
I I I , it 1
I '" , , I
.
I" ,
I 't II
, I Il-
I I I
I
i
II .. I
I T-- :-- \
I r- -- -
! lit
I ,
,
I
I
, 1
I I
, ,
I L __ ! 1
i --'--,-- i
! - . --. ! - - --
I
I
I I
i
i
o
1
2
3
4
5
%
6
7
8
9
10
100
1.000
10,000
10'
STRESS. pst
Specimen Identification
. B-03 11.5
DD i MC%
1=31 6
f-
Classification
SAND with SILT SP
PROJECT NO_
DATE
P283-003
April 20. 2005
PROJECT Geotechnicallnvestigation
Mira Lorna Dr,
CONSOLIDATION TEST
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
San Jacinto, California 92583
FIGURE NO. B-10
i\"'\,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXPANSION TEST SUMMARY
~
8-03 6.25-8.0 118.6 ---'7.6 '""20:4 -_ =::
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
B-ll
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS MAPS OF KNOWN
ACTIVE FAULT NEAR-SOURCE ZONES
Section 1629.4 ofthe 2001 California BuildinQ Code ™ (CBC) requires that in Seismic Zone
4, each site shall be assigned seismic hazard characteristics including the seismic zone,
near source factors, and seismic response coefficients. To determine if the near-source
factor is greater than 1.0, the designer must assess whether the site is located within 10 to
15 km of a known active fault. ICBO has published a volume of Maps of Known Active
Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adiacent Portions of Nevada. This map is
intended to be used in conjunction with the 1997 Uniform BuildinQ Code, Tables 16-S and
16-T. The map of the project vicinity is appended.
It is important to note that ICBO has placed stated limitations on the interpretation of the
maps. These limitations, in part stem from previous limitations made by the California
Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) indicating that the DMG database was compiled for
regional analysis and was not compiled at a scale appropriate for site-specific studies. The
information presented may be useful for determining near-source parameter values, but is
not of sufficient detail to accurately determine the distance of a site from a fault. The
map(s) presented herein are not regulatory, but only provide guidance for the designer or
code official in implementing the requirements of 1997 UBC.
We make no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the ICBO maps. All of the
published ICBO limitations related to the referenced maps are applicable.
Geotechnical Investigation - Mira Lorna Drive
Project No. P283-003- April 2005
C-l
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
A.o...
o
.
(0)
~
)>
!l
5' _.
'";1<
u; ii'" CD
'"
~~ ""
~iiim
05" C
3 CD_
l!'il.-
e;8.Z
tSOCD
oi"m
8.0: ~
'"!e .
:..~ (I)
i!l-"O
=~ C
-... 1: ...
~i2
0.", N
q;!fO
.... :s
CD
en
Q&,
:S.-
U)~
~J 3
aiD
~o
_CD
:::J'C
m~
!!lCD
a.:::J
G>-
8a
.2~O
l:i!.. .
CD (0)
<~
~
:::J
---;r-K-~
-,--
/ a
~-
,
~ '~
...-t..,./"
--.
\
-0
~J ----,::;r-
"
;,"
"
,/"
..
o~
u)'
r
m
Ci>
m
z
o
fi
I
i
!
i
i
Ii
~i
i-
. s
i
~
.
ll.
I
DII
m 3>
- iD'
CD c:
~ ::+
"~
If
r
Ii
i
f
: ! I
. I
^ 'I'
-. '! I
--- 'I
o : I
3 ~(11 . I 'I
CD 'I
-+- :: I
CD . i
-, . I I
UJ .
tn 0 UI
-- ~~~
o
~
..
; I
i
"
1i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX D
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
The potential for liquefaction was analyzed using the L1QUEFY2 program. This program
conducts a simplified analysis based on the in-situ conditions and the seismic parameters
developed for the site. Layers which were determined to be liquefiable using this analysis
were further analyzed with respect to criteria that limit the liquefaction potential. These
include having a Liquid Limit equal to or greater than 3E., having greater than 20% of
particles smaller than five micron, having an in-situ moisture content less than 90% of the
Liquid Limit, and a relation between the thicknesses of the overlying non-liquefiable layer
and the liquefiable layer developed by Ishihara (1985).
Geotechnical Investigation ~ Mira Lorna Drive
Project No, P283-003- April 2005
0-1
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc.
('\
?
I
I
I
***************************.r*
*
*
*
LIQUEFY2
*
I
*
*
Version 1.50
*
*
*
*
***************************.r*
I
EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF
EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
I
JOB NUMBER: P283-003
DATE: 04-15-2005
:1
JOB NAME: Mira Lorna
SOIL-PROFILE NAME: LIQTEST.LDW
I
BORING GROUNDWATER DEPTH: 25.00 ft
CALCULATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH: 22.00 ft
I
DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.75 Mw
SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.710 g
I
BOREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.15
I
SAMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00
N60 HAMMER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.30
I
MAGNITUDE SCALING FACTOR METHOD: Idriss (1998, in pJ:ess)
Magnitude Scaling Factor: 1.196
I
rd-CORRECTION METHOD: Idriss (1998, in press)
FIELD SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS.
I
Rod Stick-Up Above Ground: 3.0 ft
CN NORMALIZATION FACTOR: 1.044 tsf
I
MINIMUM CN VALUE: 0.6
I
I
I
~'V
I
--
I
II ------------------- --------------------------.---
NCEER [1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PI,GE 1
I ------------------- ------------------------------
File Name: LIQTEST.OUT
I ----------------------------------------------------..--.----------------.-------
I CALC. I TOTAL I EFF. I FIELD I FC I I CORR.ILIQUE. I I INDUC. I LIQUE.
SOIL I DEPTH I STRESS I STRESS I N I DELTA I C I (N1) 60 I RESIST 1 r I STRESS I SAFETY
I NO. I (ft) I (tsf) I (tsf) I (B/ft) IN1 601 N I (B/ft) I RATIO I d I RATIO I FACTOR
- ----+------+------+------+------+-----+-----+------+-.-----+-----+------.+------
1 0.251 0.0181 0.0181 15 * * I , * * **
1 0.751 0.0541 0.0541 15 * * I " * * **
I 1 1. 251 0.0891 0.0891 15 * * I " * * **
1 1. 751 0_1251 0.1251 15 * * I , * * **
1 2.251 0.1611 0.1611 15 * * I " * * **
I 1 2.751 0.1971 0.1971 15 * * I " * * **
1 3.251 0.2321 0.2321 15 * * I " * * **
1 3.751 0.2681 0.2681 15 * * I " * * **
2 4.251 0.3031 0.3031 8 * * 1 " * * **
I 2 4.751 0.3371 0.3371 8 * * 1 " * * **
2 5.251 0.3701 0.3701 8 * * I " * * **
2 5.751 0.4041 0.4041 8 * * I * * * **
I 3 6.251 0.4381 0.4381 18 * * I * * * **
3 6.751 0.4721 0.4721 18 * * I " * * **
3 7.251 0.5051 0.5051 18 * * I * * * **
3 7.751 0_5391 0.5391 18 * * I * * * **
I 3 8.251 0.5731 0.5731 18 * * I * * * **
3 8.751 0.6071 0.6071 18 * * 1 * * * **
3 9.25 0.6401 0.6401 18 * * 1 * * * **
3 9.75 0.674 0.6741 18 * * * * * **
I 4 10.25 0.705 0.7051 14 * * * * * **
4 10.75 0.732 0.7321 14 * * * * **
4 11. 25 0.760 0.760 14 * * * * **
I 4 11.75 0.787 0.787 14 * * * * * **
4 12.25 0.815 0.815 14 * * . * * **
4 12.75 0.842 0.842 14 * * * * * **
5 13 .25 0.870 0.870 12 * * * * **
I 5 13.75 0.898 0.898 12 * * * * **
5 14.25 0.927 0.927 12 * * * * **
5 14.75 0.955 0.955 12 * * . * * **
I 5 15.251 0.983 0.983 12 * * . * * **
5 15.751 1.011 1.011 12 * * . * * **
5 16.251 1. 040 1.040 12 * * * * * **
5 16.751 1.0681 1.068 12 * * 1 * * * **
I 5 17 .251 1.0961 1.096 12 * * I * * * **
5 17.751 1.1241 1.124 12 * * I * * * **
6 18.251 1.1531 1.153 11 * * I * * * **
I 6 18.751 1. 182 I 1.1821 11 * * I . * * **
6 19.251 1.2111 1.2111 11 * * I . * * **
6 19.751 1.2401 1.2401 11 *. * I * * * **
6 20.251 1.2691 1.2691 11 * * I * * * **
I 6 20.751 1.2981 1.2981 11 * * I . * * **
6 21. 251 1.3271 1.3271 11 * * I * * * **
I
I ~'?
----- --------
I
I
I ------------------- ---------------------------_.-
NCEER [1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY P)\GE 2
------------------- -----------------------------
I File Name: LIQTEST.OUT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I 1 CALC. I TOTAL I EFF. I FIELD I FC I I CORR. I:L]QUE. I I INDUC. I LIQUE.
SOIL I DEPTHI STRESS I STRESS I N I DELTA I C I (N1) 60lRESISTI r 1 STRES~; I SAFETY
NO.1 (ft) 1 (tsf) I (tsf) I (B/ft) IN1 601 N I (B/ft) I RATIO I d I RATIO I FACTOR
-
I ----+------+------+------+------+-----+-----+------+------+-----+------.+------
6 21. 751 1.3561 1.3561 11 I * 1 * I * I * I * I **
7 22.251 1. 3851 1.3771 11 7.6010.822 20.9 I 0.21610.9101 0.4221 0.61
7 22.751 1.4141 1.3911 11 7.6010.822 20.9 I 0.21610.9071 0.4261 0.61
I 7 23.251 1.4431 1. 404 I 11 7.6010.822 20.9 I 0.21610.9041 0.4291 0.60
7 23.751 1.4721 1.4171 11 7.6010.822 20.9 1 0.21610.9011 0.43;: 1 0.60
7 24.251 1. 5011 1.4311 11 7.60 0.822 20.9 0.21610.8981 0.4Y,1 0.59
7 24.751 1. 530 I 1.4441 11 7.60 0.822 20.9 0.21610.8961 O. 43E: I 0.59
I 7 25.251 1.5591 1. 458 11 7.60 0.822 20.9 0.21610.8931 0.44] I 0.59
7 25.751 1.5881 1.471 11 7.60 0.822 20.9 0.21610.8901 0.44:: I 0.58
8 26.251 1. 619 I 1.487 33 0.78 0.772 38.9 In f in 0.8871 0.4461NonLiq
I 8 26.751 1. 653 I 1. 505 33 0.78 0.772 38.9 IEfin 0.8841 0.44 E: I NonLiq
8 27 .251 1. 687 I 1.523 33 0.78 0.772 38.9 Infin 0.8811 0.4501NonLiq
8 27.751 1. 7211 1.541 33 0.78 0.772 38.9 Infin 0.8781 0.45;'INonLiq
8 28.251 1. 754 I 1.559 33 0.78 0.7721 38.9 Infin 0.8751 0.45,[NonLiq
I 8 28.751 1.7881 1.578 33 0.78 0.772 38.9 Infin 0.8721 0.4561 NonLiq
8 29.251 1.8221 1.596 33 0.78 0.772 38.9 Infin 0.8691 O. 45E: I NonLiq
8 29.751 1. 8561 1.614 33 0.78 0.772 38.9 Infin 0.8661 0.4601NonLiq
I 8 30.251 1.8891 1.632 33 0.78 0.772 38.9 Infin 0.8641 0.46] INonLiq
8 30.751 1. 9231 1.650 33 0.7810.772 38.9 [lnfin 0.8611 0.46:, I NonLiq
8 31.251 1.9571 1.668 33 0.7810.772 38.9 Infin 0.8581 0.4641NonLiq
8 31. 751 1.9911 1.6861 33 0.7810.772 38.9 Infin 0.8551 O. 46E, I NonLiq
I 8 32.251 2.0241 1.705 33 0.7810.772 38.9 Infin 0.8521 0.46, INonLiq
8 32.751 2.0581 1.723 33 0.7810.772 38.9 Infin 0.8491 0.46E INonLiq
9 33.251 2.0921 1.741 44 0.9110.735 49.2 Infin 10.8461 0.4691NonLiq
9 33.751 2.1261 1.759 44 0.9110.735 49.2 Infin 0.8431 0.47(' I NonLiq
I 9 34.25 2.1591 1.777 44 0.9110.735 49.2 Infin 0.8401 0.4711NonLiq
9 34.75 2.1931 1. 7 95 44 0.9110.735[ 49.2 In fin 0.8371 0.472 NonLiq
9 35.25 2.2271 1.813 44 0.9110.735 49.2 )~nfin 0.8351 0.47e NonLiq
I 9 35.75 2.261 1.832 44 0.9110.735 49.2 Infin 0.832 0.474 NonLiq
9 36.25 2.294 1. 850 44 0.9110.735 49.2 Infin 0.829 0.474 NonLiq
9 36.75 2.328 1.868 44 0.9110.735 49.2 :':nfin 0.826 0.47: NonLiq
9 37.25 2.362 1.886 44 0.9110.735 49.2 j:Cnfin 0.823 0.47E NonLiq
I 9 37.75 2.396 1. 904 44 0.9110.735 49.2 1 e'en fin 0.820 0.476 NonLiq
10 38.25 2.429 1. 922 I 28 0.6710.702 30.1 I :':nfin 0.817 0.477 NonLiq
10 38.75 2.463 1. 9411 28 0.6710.702 30.1 I :.:nfin 0.814 0.477 NonLiq
I 10 39.25 2.497 1. 9591 28 0.6710.702 30.1 I ::nfin 0.812 0.477 NonLiq
10 39.75 2.531 1.9771 28 0.6710.702 30.1 I::nfin 10.809 0.47E NonLiq
10 40.25 2.564 1. 9951 28 0.6710.702 30.1 I ::nfin 10.806 0.47E NonLiq
10 40.75 2.598 2.0131 28 0.6710.702 30.1 I ::n fin 10.803 0.47E NonLiq
I 10 41.25 2.632 2.0311 28 0.6710.702 30.1 I-:nfin 10.800 0.47E NonLiq
10 41.75 2.666 2.0491 28 0.6710.702 30.1 I::nfin 10.797 0.479 NonLiq
10 42.25 2.6991 2.0681 28 0.6710.702 30.1 I :':nfin 10.794 0.479 NonLiq
I 10 42.75 2.7331 2.0861 28 0.6710.702 30.1 I :.:nfin 10.792 O. 47~1 NonLiq
I -5/N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11 I 43.251 2.7671 2.1041
50 I 0.9310.6741 51.3 IInfin 10.7891 0.4791NonLiq
NCEER [1997J Method
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PIIGE 3
File Name: LIQTEST.OUT
I
I
------------------------------------------------------------------------"-------
CALC. I TOTAL I EFF. I FIELD I FC I I CORR.ILIQUE.I 1 INDUC. I LIQUE.
SOIL I DEPTHI STRESS 1 STRESS I N IDELTAI C I (N1)60IRESISTI r I STRESS I SAFETY
NO. I (ft) I (tsf) 1 (tsf) I (B/ft) I N1 601 N I (B/ft) 1 PATIOI d 1 RATICi 1 FACTOR
----+------+------+------+------+-----+-----+------+-------+-----+------.+------
11 43.751 2.8011 2:1221 50 0.9310.6741 51.3 In f in 10.7861 0.47S'INonLiq
11 44.251 2.8341 2.1401 50 0.9310.6741 51. 3 Infin 10.7831 o . 47 S' I NonLiq
11 44.751 2.8681 2.1581 50 0.9310.6741 51. 3 :Enfin 10.7801 0.4791NonLiq
11 45.251 2.9021 2.1761 50 0.93 0.6741 51. 3 Infin 10.7771 o . 47f. I NonLiq
11 45.751 2.9361 2.1951 50 0.93 0.6741 51. 3 Infin 10.7751 o . 47f. I NonLiq
11 46.251 2.9691 2.2131 50 0.93 0.6741 51. 3 Infin 10.7721 o . 4 n. I NonLiq
11 46.751 3.0031 2.2311 50 0.93 0.6741 51. 3 :Enfin 10.7691 o . 47f. I NonLiq
11 47.251 3.0371 2.2491 50 0.93 0.6741 51. 3 Infin 10.7661 0.47,INonLiq
11 47.751 3.0711 2.2671 50 0.93 0.6741 51. 3 Infin 10.7631 0.47,INonLiq
12 48.251 3.1041 2.2851 36 0.74 0.6491 35.7 Infin 10.7611 0.47,INonLiq
12 48.751 3.1381 2.3041 36 0.74 0.6491 35.7 Infin 10.7581 o . 47Eo I NonLiq
12 49.251 3.1721 2.3221 36 0.74 0.6491 35.7 Infin 10.7551 o . 47 E, I NonLiq
12 49.751 3.2061 2.3401 36 0.74 0.6491 35.7 In fin 10.7521 o . 47Eo 1 NonLiq
12 50.251 3.2391 2.3581 36 0.74 0.6491 35.7 Infin 10.7491 o . 47" I NonLiq
12 50.751 3.2731 2.3761 36 0.74 0.6491 35.7 Infin 10.7471 o . 47" I NonLiq
12 51. 251 3.3071 2.3941 36 0.74 0.6491 35.7 :i:nfin 10.7441 0.47, INonLiq
12 51. 751 3.3411 2.4121 36 0.74 0.6491 35.7 Infin 10.7411 0.47'INonLiq
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
?II)
I
I 0
I -5
il -10
I -15
I -20
~
-
.....
~ -25
I .s::
0.
~ -30
I -35
I -40
I -45
I -50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(Nl )6 0 as
--- ---
" >
(' v
- I""
- '"
-
: "
-
: /
- /'
: K
- "
: v
- v
"" ""
I I I
05101520253035404550
N160 (bpf)
Fa:tor of Safety
o
-5
:
-
::
:
-
:
-
--.
-
:
--.
::
--.
-
-
-
:
-
:
~.
-
-, , , , , , " , , , '" ,
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
o. 0 O. 5 1. 0 1.1; 2. 0
F.S
~