HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 9833 Lot 2-3 Geotechnical Feasibility
I k"~\ . ..'7\. . _../ '
I ~~GEN COfJ~oration
. Soil Engineering and Consulting Services . EngineeringGeology. Compaction Testing
.lnspections-ConstruclionMalmialsTesling-laboraloryTesling-PercolalionTesling
. Geology. WalerResourceStudies . Phase 1& II Environmental Site Assessmenls
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NElWORK
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. ,
~ ,- - - \
F _ _ I
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Goyal and Gupta Residence
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 959-010-001 and 959-010-004
Lots 2 and 5, Tract Q833
Jedediah Smith Road and Calle Vellardo
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, Califomia
Project Number: T3065-GFS
January 28, 2004
Prepared for:
Mr. Paul Gupta
41636 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, California 92590
'. .
" ,- -- \--
/ ~ ,~
, .
" __ I
, ,- -- \
, -
, "
, - - I
\ ~ '- ,
, '
\ ,,"-
, . -
\ ,,"
~._~^L_.:._ _/ I , ,-:~; ~ I ~: I
COR . ATE ,OEFJCE4:160 E i"(pri~e.~Jrcl. N
08ANGECOtiNWO FI I; 2615:0ra0ge
~ 'SITE: -~~.en
" - - .- ,; ..:.-.~-/ "-:'-=:""--"
--,-~.,!_, ~ ,)',;-,.- ,,,'
rt . s~~e'Lf:~:ule. :A9259~ 'lJP~ne: [~9~1~6-22jo-'laX:;[9Q91~j;~1 ~ ~ ;~~~~~=;~
ee c:e;p~~ai~~~~~if2~~~~~:~.c~~:~~~(~~!~t~:;:~~~~\,~'-f~,)(<!?_l~lH~:~~:~Q,~~- _ :.,-~~ .". _~ ._.~
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-GFS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title
Paae
1_0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION ---------------------_______m._________________.___.m.__.___..m_______________..1
1.1 Site Description ..---.--____..._______.___.___._______.___.__mm.___.__...______.._______.___.___.________.______1
1_2 Project Description .-m..-------.__..____________....._________.._.________...________...._.m..__...._____.__._2
2.0 FINDINGS .____..___.________.__m______.__..._.____________.__________.......__._______________...________......__.._...2
2.1 Site Review __..... __ .____ ____...... ________.. __ m. ___...__.... _____ ____......_ ____... ____. __ ..... ____. ___..._ ____ ____ 2
2_2 Laboratory Testing_..__ _____ ___..... m__ __.. ___'''_' ____ __.. __.._..__ ___ ..__... ___ .____... m__ __...._. __. ____ ___ 2
2_2_1 General_... .____. ___.. __...._ _____. __ __.._ m_ ____.... ...._. ___....._. ___......_. ___ ____...__ ____.... m. _ 2
2.2_2 Classification __ _____ _... ____ ____..... __.. ___. .__..._ .m__ _...._ ____ ___..._. ___. __....__ ____ _.... __ ____ 3
2.2_3 Expansion Potential___ ___. __....__ ____..__..._. ___. __...... __. __....__ ___ ___...__. ____..__.... __... 3
2_2.4 Remolded Direct Shear Test .m-----m--..__m__......m_______m______m__m___um__3
2_2_5 Soluble Sulfates____ ___ _m_. ___ __.. ____ _____ ___ ...._. ___ __... __ m. ____.._. __.. ..._..__ __...... ____.. 3
2_3 Excavation Characteristics --.---.....__.___....___m___......___.__._......___......______.....____.___..___4
3_0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY m.__.__....________...._________..m.___.....___..__.__________m__4
3_1 Geologic Setting .-----m---------___.________..u..__.___._...___.__....._______.___..________...m..__..._____.. 4
3_2 Seismic Hazards____...... _____ ___ ....m__ ___...__ _____.__ .....____.........._... 'mm. __....._ _____.... ____ _...4
3_2.1 Surface Fault Rupture ..-m----....___m..__...._m____....m.._....m.___....___m__.._m_5
3_2_2 Liquefaction _. ___. .._.. ___. __...... ____ ___...... ___. ____.._. ___ __...._. ___ ____.... m__ _.....__ __....__ _ 5
3.2_3 Seismically-Induced Landsliding_...__ ____ ___...._ ____......_ ___.......__ ____.... __m.... m 5
3_2-4 Seismically-Induced Flooding, Seiches and Tsunamis__m__...mm_m_m__.5
3_3 Earth Materials ..---------....-.--------...__________.u________..._.m.__.....__.____.._._______..______.____.._._5
3_3_1 Alluvium (Qal) -----....--------......---.-....._.____.....______....m__.................__......_.__.5
3_3.2 Colluvium (Qcol) ___. ___..._ ____. ___..._. ____. ....m. ___ __..... ___..... ____ ___. ____ m. ___. _.. ____. __ 5
3_3_3 Pauba Formation (Qps)....______.__..______..__..___.___.___m_______..__________.____.____u__5
4_0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ._____.__._.._.___._....______.__.___________.______..___..._..__..._____._ 6
4_1 All Areas _________..___.___________.____._______.___.___________.__..________....__.______..___.___.m._____.._.__..___6
4_2 Oversize Material__.....m. __...... ____. ___...__. __. .... ___. ____..... ___ ___......_.. __...._ ___. __....._. __. _____._7
4.3 Structural Fill.... ___... __... ____. ___......__..__...._. ___. __...._ _m......._ ___......_. ____.... ____. _.....__......__.8
5.0 SLOPE STABILITY - GENERAL --.......m----....---___......________....m...__m___.._____m.....m__.._____8
5_1 Fill Slopes ____.....______.....____.__.__...._..___.___.___.___.___.___.___.___.._.___..__..__.____.__.____..__.________ 8
5_2 Cut Slopes.. ___. __. __..._. ___. ___...__. ___. ____ ___.. __...... __. ___..._. ___..__. __. __.. __.. __.. ___...... ____ _.._ ____. __ 8
6_0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS___.___.._________._m___._...___..____...____.___u__..__._m9
6_1 Foundation Design Recommendations ....m__....mmm..._m_____..m________________m_m..9
6_1_1 Foundation Size__m_____m__m_m..mm_..__m______..m_________m____umm__..__m_.._ 9
6_1_2 Depth of Embedment mm___..__.__m_.....__m___....__.__.__..m__....______....__m______9
6.1_3 Bearing Capacity ..---m----m--mm_____..__m___..__.m__....._______...m______m.__..m_9
6_1.4 Settlement --mum-m---um_______.._m_m____m________m_m__..__________m_m_____m__10
6.2 Lateral Capacity.._.. __ ____ _.._. ____. __...__. ______.. ___. ___. __. ____.__. __.. ___. __.. ___. ___. ____ ____. ___..._. ___. _ 1 0
6_3 Slab-on-Grade Recomrnendations..__.._______.._.______.._____m__.______m...m.__...._._______._10
6.4 Exterior Slabs ..-m--....-..m---....m_m_..__m________m_......_m____..._m_____m______.._m_..__m 11
l'
EnGEN COlporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-GFS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continuedl
Section Number and Title
Paae
7.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................. 11
7.1 Earth Pressures..................................................................................................11
7.2 Retaining Wall Design........................................................................................12
7.3 Subdrain ............................ ................ .......................... ....... ............... ................. 12
7.4 Backfill ......................... ........................ .................................................... '''''''''.. 12
8.0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................13
8.1 Utility Trench Recommendations........................................................................ 13
8.2 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations .............................................................13
8.3 Planter Recommendations .................................................................................14
8.4 Supplemental Construction Observations and Testing ......................................14
8.5 Plan Review..... ................. .......................................................................... ........14
8.6 Pre-Bid Conference............................................................................................14
8.7 Pre-Grading Conference ....................................................................................15
9.0 CLOSURE........................ .... ....................................... .......................................... ....... 15
APPENDIX:
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
27
I /~'\ .....",~ /.
~. --GEN
~'_-_:---i-i,." ~:: -'''c-''
I . .. ..,"'" "'iL~ ..... '..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l/
~;I
,
ilf-,I
.
-Soil Engineering and Consulting Services. Engineering Geology. Compaction Testing
-Inspections. ConslructionMalerialsTesting- LaboratoryTesting- Percolation Tesling
-Geology. Water Resource Studies . Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessmenls
corr~oration
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NElWORK
January 28, 2004
Mr. Paul Gupta
41636 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, California 92590
(909) 296-3397 / FAX (909) 296-3398
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Goyal and Gupta Residence
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 959-010-001 and 959-010-004
Lots 2 and 5, Tract 9833
Jedediah Smith Road and Calle Vellardo
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T3065-GFS
Reference:
1.
Bratene Construction & Engineering, Precise Grading Plan, Goyal and
Gupta Residences, Lots 2 and 5 of Tract Map No. 9833, Jedediah Smith
Road, Temecula, California, plans dated January 16, 2004.
Dear Mr. Gupta:
In accordance with your request and signed authorization, a representative of this firm has visited
the subject sites on January 22, 2004, to visually observe the surficial. conditions of the subject
lots and to collect samples of representative surficial site materials. Laboratory testing was
performed on these samples. Test results and preliminary foundation recommendations for the
construction and grading of the proposed development are provided. It is our understanding that
cut and fill type grading will take place for the proposed structural development. Footings are
planned to be excavated into bedrock or compacted fill. Grading for the driveway and hardscape
improvements will accompany the structural development and we have included appropriate
recommendations. Based on this firm's experience with this type of project, our understanding of
the regional geologic conditions surrounding the site, and our review of in-house maps, published
and unpublished reports, deeper subsurface exploration was not considered necessary.
However, in lieu of subsurface exploration, additional grading beyond that anticipated in this report
may be necessary depending on exposed conditions encountered during grading.
1.0
SITEIPROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1
Site Descriotion: The subject site is comprised of two (2) adjacent lots totaling
approximately 6.67-acres with vertical relief of approximately 95-feet. Drainage is
through sheet flow to the. north and south at gradients of approximately 25 to 40
percent The site is located on the south side of Jedediah Smith Road across from
Calle Vellardo. Access to the site is from Jedediah Smith Road. No structures are
10,cated_or.l..!b
'te.
, ,
, .
, " "
, , ,- -- \
, '
, .
, '
, '
,. F - - .'
. _ \"" J' "
" .
'. .
, -' ,- -- \
" ,
'. .
" -
.. -
. .
-
\ ~ ' "
-
\ /'"
, ~ ,- -
, .
\ ,'__ ; \ \ ,. \ \ / '__ I \ F \~I \ I ~ ' ~)-~:~- '~-=-/'"~~~.~i;:'
" I; ,i: ~d~ ~_ _ _ ~ I _ _ . -. - -~_~~~' . ..~-~ ::_.: ___, _ _ _ " _ _ _ _', _ n,.. ~~.: _ __''-'-.:'-. . ..__,_,,> ;~:':::~:;~~~;::~
COB. . I. OFFle.AlGa E. terprjse:Circle N rt ~ SUltaxTemec"la, CA92596.ptio"e::J9d9L~~6:2.:!30.t'aii,.l9Q~lf~~q1;?j!ili:: ;,,,,,,,::;::;;;;,,,~,
-''''._-'''-;''''''"_"'.. . .'.__.:. -.-.~"- """-"': ~",. ,-' . . .c,:?::-__: "-,' ....._:,";;":~;.: ....,,'-. -", >"."'" ":~,--_:-,:-,:;,:,,,,__,_.--;-;--<:c<:-::-._,.,
ORANGE GaUNTY 0 FI..2615qraoge. e "e.. Sa~~'iAna. lOA 927QT:~pl\Qne: (7i4ji5li6.~a51'''exI7141i546,4.Q!ig),.:,:
. B SJTI~:: ~.en e corp..~>r;;-;'E-MAfl: ~n-ge~~-r~@;~~e-~d~r~:c'o-~-' o_~-,_ -- -- ':;-_-::_:::"X';:;~:~~~
~-.:.. ~
---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.2
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.2.1
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-GFS
January 2004
Page 2
Proiect Descriotion: Based on our conversations with you and reviews of the
referenced grading plans, the proposed development will consist of two (2) two-story,
single family wood-framed structures with slab-on-grade foundations. The proposed
development will also consist of the construction of a driveway which both lots will share.
The northern portions of the driveway will include three (3) culverts and rip-rap to be
constructed in the drainage areas. It is our understanding that the owners of the parcels
on both sides of the driveway have given permission to encroach onto their property
during the driveway construction and to allow perrnanent slope encroachment A tennis
court will be constructed on Lot 2 and a separate pad for a proposed horse area will be
constructed on Lot 5. Retaining walls on both lots are proposed at various locations and
may be constructed during grading or at a later date. Both lots will have a cuVfill
transition. The remainder of both lots will consist of hardscape and landscape
improvements. We are providing general grading and minimurn footing
recornmendations for the proposed structures. Any special earthwork and/or foundation
recommendations for the proposed tennis court area should be taken into consideration
by a consultant who specializes in tennis court construction. Any changes to the
planned developrnent should be reviewed by this office so that additional
recommendations can be made, if necessary.
FINDINGS
Site Review: Based on our site visit, it appears that alluvium, colluvium and Pauba
Formation bedrock underlie the site. Alluvium occupies the low-lying northern portions
of the proposed driveway area. Pauba Formation bedrock is exposed on the ridges in
the remaining areas of the site. Since no deeper subsurface exploration was performed
for this investigation, the thickness and condition of the alluvium is not known. The site
is not located within a State designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No
faulting was observed during our site reconnaissance.
Laboratory Testina
General: The results of laboratory tests performed on samples of earth material obtained
during the site visit are presented in the Appendix. Following is a listing and brief
explanation of the laboratory tests performed. The samples obtained during the field study
..-
?
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-GFS
January 2004
Page 3
will be discarded 30 days after the date of this report. This office should be notified
immediately if retention of samples will be needed beyond 30 days.
2.2.2 Classification: The field classification of soil materials encountered during our site visit
were verified in the laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soils Classification
System, ASTM D 2488-93, Standard Practice for Determination and Identification of Soils
(Visual-Manual Procedures). The final classification is shown in the Laboratory Test
Results presented in the Appendix.
2.2.3 Exoansion Potential: Laboratory expansion tests were performed on samples of near-
surface earth materials in general accordance with ASTM D 4829-95 procedures. In this
testing procedures, a remolded sample is compacted in two (2) layers in a 4.0-inch
diameter mold to a total compacted thickness of approximately 1.0-inch using a 5.5 pound
weight dropping 12-inches and with 15 blow per layer. The'sample is compacted at a
saturation of between 49 and 51 percent. After remolding, the sample is confined under a
pressure of 144 pounds per square foot (psf) and allowed to soak for 24 hours. The
resulting volume change due to the increase in moisture content within the sample is
recorded and the Expansive Index (EI) is calculated. Preliminary EI testing was
performed, yielding an EI of 2. This is classified as a very low expansion potential. Import
soils or soils used near finish grade may have a different EI. At the conclusion of grading,
our firm should perform sampling and EI testing of the soils at final pad grade as well as at
footing grade. Those results should be forwarded and incorporated into the final
foundation design by the Project Structural Engineer.
2.2.4 Remolded Direct Shear Test: Direct shear tests were performed On selected samples of
near-surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 3080-98 procedures. The
shear machine is of the constant strain type. The shear machine is designed to receive a
1.0-inch high, 2.416-inch diameter ring sample. Specimens from the sample were sheared
at various pressures normal to the face of the specimens. The specimens were tested in
a submerged condition. The maximum shear stresses were plotted versus the normal
confining stresses to determine the shear strength (cohesion and angle of internal friction).
2.2.5 Soluble Sulfates: Based on our visual observation of the site and of the surficial soil
samples collected during our site reconnaissance, the proximity of bedrock to the surface,
our experience with this type of project, and test results from similar sites in the immediate
vicinity, testing for the presence of soluble sulfates was not considered necessary. In our
o
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.3
3.0
3.1
3.2
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-GFS
January 2004
Page 4
opinion, the near-surface soils do not contain excessive amounts of soluble sulfates. As a
result, normal Type II cement may be used for all concrete in contact with native soils at
the site.
Excavation Characteristics: Excavation and trenching within the alluvium is anticipated
to be relatively easy. Excavation and trenching in the bedrock will be more difficult due to
the higher bedrock densities typically encountered in the area. A rippability survey was not
within the scope of our investigation. However, based on our experience on similar
projects near the subject site, the bedrock is expected to be rippable with conventional
grading equipment.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY
Geoloaic Settina: The site is located in the Northern Peninsular Range on the southern
sector of the structural unit known as the Perris Block. The Perris Block is bounded on the
northeast by the San Jacinto Fault Zone, on the southwest by the Elsinore Fault Zone, and
on the north by the Cucamonga Fault Zone. The southern boundary of the Perris Block is
not as distinct, but is believed to coincide with a complex group of faults trending
southeast from the Murrieta, California area (Kennedy, 1977 and Mann, 1955). The
Peninsular Range is characterized by large Mesozoic age intrusive rock masses flanked
by volcanic, metasedimentary, .and sedimentary rocks. Various thicknesses of
colluvial/alluvial sediments derived from the erosion of the elevated portions of the region
fill the low-lying areas. The earth materials encountered on the subject site are described
in more detail in subsequent section of this report.
Seismic Hazards: Because the proposed development is located in tectonically active
southern California, it will likely experience some effects from earthquakes. The type or
severity of seismic hazards affecting the site is mainly dependent upon the distance to the
causative fault, the intensity of the seismic event, and the soil characteristics. The seismic
hazard may be primary, such as surface rupture and/or ground shaking, or secondary,
such as liquefaction or dynamic settlement. The following is a site-specific discussion
about ground motion parameters, earthquake induced settlement hazards, and
liquefaction. The purpose of this analysis is to identify potential seismic hazards and
proposed mitigations, if necessary, to maintain an acceptable level of risk. The following
seismic hazards discussion is guided by UBe (1997), eBC (1998), CDMG (1997) and
Petersen and others (1996).
1
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-GFS
January 2004
Page 5
Surface Fault RUDture: The site is not located within a State designated Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone. No faulting was observed during our site reconnaissance. The
nearest State designated active fault is the Elsinore Fault (Temecula Segment), located
approximately 0.5-miles (1 kilometer) to the southwest of the subject site. This conclusion
is based on literature review (references) and EnGEN Corporation's site visit. Accordingly,
the potential for fault surface rupture on the site is very unlikely.
Liauefaction: Based on the densities typically encountered in the underlying material
(bedrock), the potential for hazards associated with liquefaction is considered low.
Seismicallv-Induced Landslidina: Due to the overall favorable geologic conditions of
the site. the probability of seismically induced land sliding is considered low.
Selsmicallv-Induced Floodina. Seiches and Tsunamis: Due to the absence of a
confined body of water in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the possibility of
seismically induced flooding or seiches is considered nil. Due to the large distance of the
project site to the Pacific Ocean, the possibility for seismically induced tsunamis to impact
the site is considered nil.
Earth Materials
Alluvium (Qall: Alluvium exists along the drainage located at the far northern portion of
Lot 2 in the area of the proposed driveway crossing and culvert. The alluvium consists of
tan to brown sand to silty fine-grained sand and was found to be rnoist and loose to
medium dense in-place. Since no subsurface exploration was performed for this
investigation, the condition and thickness of the alluvium is unknown. The alluvium at the
driveway crossing is interpreted to be a minimum of 10 to 15-feet thick.
Colluvium (Qcoll: Colluvium mantles bedrock across the slope of the rernainder of the
site. The colluvium consists of brown porous silty sand. Since no subsurface exploration
was performed for this investigation, the depth and condition of the colluvium is unknown.
Based on our experience in the area and the exposed road cuts at the site, we anticipate
the colluvium in the proposed fill areas to range in thickness from 1 to 2-feet with local
pockets up to 5-feet thick below existing grades.
Pauba Formation (QDS): Pauba Formation bedrock is exposed on the ridges in the
center portions of the site. A thin mantle of colluvium, not shown on the site plan, overlies
the bedrock on the sides of the slopes. The Pauba Formation is generally massive to
EnGEN COtporatio~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0
4.1
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-GFS
January 2004
Page 6
thickly bedded with near horizontal bedding. On-site, the Pauba Formation consists of
brown silty sand and was found to be moist and medium dense to dense in-place.
EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
All Areas:
1. All vegetation should be removed from areas to be graded and not used in fills.
2. All man-made materials and oversize rocks, if any, should be removed from the
site and not used in fills.
3. All unsuitable alluvium must be removed to competent alluvium in the
northernmost driveway area at the crossing over the main drainage which extends
along Jedediah Smith Road. The depth of unsuitable alluvium is unknown at that
location, but it is thought to be approximately 4-feet Since this is a driveway
crossing, removal does not need to exceed 5-feet deep.
4. All colluvium and weathered bedrock should be removed to competent bedrock in
the proposed fill, structural and hardscape areas, cleared of any debris, and may
then be placed as engineered fill. Based on our experience in this area of
southwest Riverside County, depths of removals are anticipated to be
approximately 3 to 4-feet in the colluvial areas, and 1 to 2-feet in the weathered
bedrock areas. Deeper removals may be required depending upon exposed
conditions encountered.
5. All exposed removal and overexcavation bottoms should be inspected by the
Geotechnical Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist's representative prior to
placement of any fill. Bedrock bottoms should be probed to verify competency.
6. The approved exposed bottoms of all removal areas should be scarified 12-inches,
brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90
percent relative compaction before placement of fill. Maxirnum dry density and
optimum moisture content for compacted materials should be determined
according to ASTM D 1557-00 procedures.
7. A cut/fill transition will exist on both lots. Structures on shallow footings must not
straddle the cut/fill transition without the following remedial earthwork: The cut and
shallow fill portions of the structure areas should be overexcavated. The depth of
<\
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.2
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-GFS
January 2004
Page 7
overexcavation should be one-half of the depth of the deepest fill below proposed
grade with a minimum of 3-feet. The horizontal extent of the overexcavation
should extend outside of the perimeter footings to a distance equal to the
overexcavation depth with a minimum of 5-feet. However, deeper removals may
be necessary depending on the exposed conditions encountered during grading. If
the entire structure is located entirely into native bedrock material, overexcavation
will not be necessary. If after grading only a small portion of the structure straddles
a cut/fill transition, an alternative to overexcavation may be to extend all footings so
they are founded entirely into native bedrock material. Such a decision should be
made with the owner at the time overexcavation is to commence.
8. The proposed tennis court on Lot 2 will also straddle a cut/fill transition. The owner
may wish to contact a consultant who specializes in tennis court construction in
order to evaluate the need for special earthwork or foundation recommendations
for the construction of the actual tennis court.
9. All footings for retaining walls should be inspected by this office prior to
construction of the proposed walls.
10. A keyway excavated into competent bedrock should be constructed at the toe of all
fill slopes that are proposed on natural grades of 5: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or
steeper. Keyways should be a minimum of 15-feet wide (equipment width) and
tilted a minimum of 2 percent into the hillside. A series of level benches should be
constructed into competent bedrock on natural grades of 5:1 (horizontal to vertical)
or steeper prior to placing fill.
11. All fill slopes should be constructed at slope ratios no steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal
to vertical).
12. All cut slopes should be inspected by the Project Engineering Geologist to verify
stability. Cut Slopes exposing significant amounts of alluvium or slopewash may be
unstable. Unstable cut slopes may require flattening or buttressing.
Oversize Material: Oversize material is defined as rock, or other irreducible material with
a maximum dimension greater than 12-inches. Oversize material shall not be buried or
placed in fill unless location, materials, and placernent methods are specifically accepted
by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of
EnGEN Corporation
'P
I
~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-GFS
January 2004
Page 8
oversize material does not occur, and such that oversize material is completely
surrounded by compacted fill (windrow). Alternative methods, such as water jetting or
wheel rolling with a backhoe may be required to achieve compaction in the fill materials
immediately adjacent to the windrow. Oversize material shall not be placed within ten (10)
vertical feet of finish grade, within fifteen (15) lateral feet of a finished slope face, or within
two (2) feet of future utilities.
4.3 Structural Fill: All fill material, whether on-site material or import, should be accepted by
the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative before placement All fill
should be free from vegetation, organic material, and other debris. Import fill should be no
more expansive than the existing on-site material, unless approved by the Project
Geotechnical Engineer. Approved fill material should be placed in horizontal lifts not
exceeding 6.0 to 8.0-inches in thickness, and watered or aerated to obtain near-optimum
moisture content (within 2.0 percent of optimum). Each lift should be spread evenly and
should be thoroughly mixed to ensure uniformity of soil moisture. Structural fill should
meet a minirnum relative compaction of 90 percent of maximum dry density based upon
ASTM D 1557"00 procedures. Moisture content of fill materials should not vary more than
2.0 percent of optimum, unless approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer.
5.0 SLOPE STABILITY - GENERAL
5.1 Fill SloDes: It is our opinion that properly constructed fill slopes less than 30-feet tall and
equal to, or flatter than, 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical), will possess gross and surficial stability
in excess of generally accepted minimum engineering criteria (Factor of Safety at least
1.5) and are suitable for their intended purpose, provided that proper slope maintenance
procedures are implemented. These procedures include but are not limited to installation
and maintenance of drainage devices and planting of slope faces to protect them from
erosion in accordance with County of Riverside Grading Codes.
5.2 Cut SloDes: All cut slopes should be constructed at a slope ratio of approximately 2:1
(horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The cut slopes should be surficially inspected by the
Project Engineering Geologist. No adversely oriented joints or planes of weakness should
be observed during our inspection. It is our opinion that properly constructed and
inspected cut slopes, less than 30-feet tall and equal to, or flatter than, 2:1 (horizontal to
vertical), will possess gross and surficial stability in excess of generally accepted minimum
EnGEN Corporation
'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065.GFS
January 2004
Page g
engineering criteria (Factor of Safety at least 1.5) and are suitable for their intended
purpose.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Foundation Desian Recommendations: Foundations for the proposed structures may
consist of conventional column footings and continuous wall footings founded entirely
into properly compacted fill or entirely into native bedrock material but not a combination
of both. The recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation
design and construction are based on geotechnical characteristics and upon a very low
expansion potential for the supporting soils and should not preclude more restrictive
structural requirements. The Structural Engineer for the project should determine the
actual footing width and depth in accordance with the latest edition of the Uniform
Building Code to resist design vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces and should either
verify or amend the design based on final expansion testing at the completion of
grading.
6.1.1 Foundation Size: Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches.
Continuous footings should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of one (1) NO.4
steel reinforcing bar located near the top and one (1) No.4 steel reinforcing bar located
near the bottom of the footings to minimize the effects of slight differential movements
which may occur due to minor variations in the engineering characteristics or seasonal
moisture change in the supporting soils. Column footings should have a minimum width of
18-inches by 18-inches and be suitably reinforced, based on structural requirements. A
grade beam, founded at the same depths and reinforced the same as the adjacent
footings, should be provided across doorway and garage entrances.
6.1.2 DeDth of Embedment: Exterior and interior footings founded in bedrock or properly
compacted fill should extend to a minimum depth of 18-inches below lowest adjacent
finish grade.
6.1.3 Bearina CaDacitv: Provided the recommendations for site earthwork, minimum footing
width, and minimum depth of embedment for footings are incorporated into the project
design and construction, the allowable bearing value for design of continuous and
column footings for the total dead plus frequently-applied live loads is 1,500 psf for
footings in properly compacted fill and 2,500 psf for footings in bedrock material. The
EnGEN Corporation
\~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-GFS
January 2004
Page 10
allowable bearing value has a Factor of Safety of at least 3.0 and may be increased by
33.3 percent for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading such as wind or seismic
forces.
6.1.4 Settlement: Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values and the
maximum assumed wall and column loads are not expected to exceed a maximum
settlement of 0.75-inch or a differential settlement of 0.50-inch in bedrock or properly
compacted fill under static load conditions.
6.2 Lateral CaDacitv: Additional foundation design parameters based on bedrock or
compacted fill for resistance to static lateral forces, are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure). Passive Case:
Compacted Fill - 250 pcf
Bedrock - 400 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
Compacted Fill or Bedrock - 0.35
Lateral load resistance may be developed by a combination of friction acting on the
base of foundations and slabs and passive earth pressure developed on the sides of the
footings and stem walls below grade when in contact with undisturbed bedrock or
properly compacted fill material. The above values are allowable design values and
may be used in combination without reduction in evaluating the resistance to lateral
loads. The allowable values may be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live
. and/or dynamic loading, such as wind or seismic forces. For the calculation of passive
earth resistance, the upper 1.0-foot of material should be neglected unless confined by
a concrete slab or pavement. The maximum recommended allowable passive pressure
is 5.0 times the recommended design value.
6.3 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations: The recommendations for concrete slabs, both
interior and exterior, excluding PCC pavement, are based upon the antiCipated building
usage and upon a very low expansion potential for the supporting material as
determined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code. Concrete slabs should be
designed to minimize cracking as a result of shrinkage. Joints (isolation, contraction,
and construction) should be placed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute
(ACI) guidelines. Special precautions should be taken during placement and curing of
all concrete slabs. Excessive slump (high water/cement ratio) of the concrete and/or
improper curing procedures used during either hot or cold weather conditions could
EnGEN Corporation
\~
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.0
7.1
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-GFS
January 2004
Page 11
result in excessive shrinkage, cracking, or curling in the slabs. It is recommended that
all concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be performed in accordance with ACI
recommendations and procedures. Slab-on-grade reinforcement and thickness should
be provided by the structural engineer based on structural considerations, but as a
minimum, it is recommended that concrete floor slabs be at least 4-inches in actual
thickness and reinforced with at least No.3 reinforcing bars placed 24-inches on center,
both ways, placed at mid-height of the slab cross-section. . In areas where moisture
sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slab, we recommend the use of a
polyethylene vapor barrier with a minimum of 6.0 mil in thickness be placed beneath the
slab. The moisture barrier should be overlapped or sealed at splices and covered top
and bottom by a 1.0-inch to 2.0-inch minimurn layer of clean, moist (not saturated) sand
to aid in concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures.
6.4
Exterior Slabs: All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks,
etc., with the exception of PCC pavement) should be a minimum of 4-inches in actual
thickness. Reinforcing in the slabs and the use of a compacted sand or gravel base
beneath the slabs should be according to the current local standards. Subgrade soils
should be moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content to a depth of
12-inches immediately before placing the concrete.
RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
Earth Pressures: Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive granular soil (EI=O) or
very low expansive potential materials (Expansion Index of 20 or less) within a zone
extending upward and away from the heel of the footing at a slope of 0.5:1 (horizontal to
vertical) or flatter can be designed to resist the following static lateral soil pressures:
Condition Level Backfill 2:1 SloDe
Active 30 oct 45 pcf
At Rest 60 ocf -
Further expansion testing of potential backfill material should be performed at the time of
retaining wall construction to deterrnine suitability. Walls that are free to deflect 0.01
radian at the toP. may be designed for the above-recornmended active condition. Walls
that are to be restricted from such movement should be assumed rigid and designed for
the at-rest condition. The above values assume well-drained backfill and no buildup of
EnGEN Corporation
V\-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-GFS
January 2004
Page 12
hydrostatic pressure. Surcharge loads, dead and/or live, acting on the backfill within a
horizontal distance behind the wall should also be considered in the design.
7.2 Retainina Wall Desian: Retaining wall footings should be founded to the same depths
into properly compacted fill, or firm, competent, undisturbed, natural soil as standard
foundations and may be designed for an allowable bearing value of 1,SOO psf (as long as
the resultant force is located in the middle one-third of the footing), and with an allowable
static lateral bearing pressure of 2S0 psf/ft and allowable sliding resistance coefficient of
friction of 0.3S. However, retaining wall footings determined to be fully embedded in
unweathered bedrock may be designed for an allowable bearing value of 3,000 pounds
per square foot and lateral bearing of 400 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. When
using the allowable lateral pressure and allowable sliding resistance, a Factor of Safety of
1.S should be achieved.
7.3 Subdrain: A subdrain system should be constructed behind and at the base of retaining
walls equal to or in excess of S-feet in height to allow drainage and to prevent the buildup
of excessive hydrostatic pressures. Gravel galleries and/or filter rock, if not properly
designed and graded for the on-site and/or import rnaterials, should be enclosed in a
geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute in order to
prevent infiltration of fines and clogging of the system. The perforated pipes should be at
least 4.0-inches in diameter. Pipe perforations should be placed downward. Gravel filters
should have volume of at least 1.0 cubic foot per lineal foot of pipe. For retaining walls
with an overall height of less than 4-feet, subdrains may consist of weep holes with a
continuous gravel gallery, perforated pipe surrounded by filter rock, or some other
approved system. Subdrains should maintain a positive flow gradient and have outlets
that drain in a non-erosive manner.
7 A Backfill: Backfill directly behind retaining walls (if backfill width is less than 3-feet) may
consist of 0.5 to 0.75-inch diameter, rounded to subrounded gravel enclosed in a
geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute or a clean sand
(Sand Equivalent Value greater than SO) water. jetted into place to obtain proper
compaction. If water jetting is used, the subdrain system should be in place. Even if water
jetting is used, the sand should be densified to a minimum of 90 percent relative
compaction. If the specified density is not obtained by water jetting, mechanical methods
will be required. If other types of soil or gravel are used for backfill, mechanical
EnGEN Corporation
\-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-GFS
January 2004
Page 13
compaction methods will be required to obtain a relative compaction of at least 90 percent
of maximum dry density. Backfill directly behind retaining walls should not be compacted
by wheel, track or other rolling by heavy construction equipment unless the wall is
designed for the surcharge loading. .If gravel, clean sand or other imported backfill is used
behind retaining walls, the upper 18-inches of backfill in unpaved areas should consist of
typical on-site material compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in order
to prevent the influx of surface runoff into the granular backfill and into the subdrain
system. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill materials should
be determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557-00 procedures.
8.0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Utility Trench Recommendations: Utility trenches within the zone of influence of
foundations or under building floor slabs, hardscape, and/or pavement areas should be
backfilled with properly compacted soil. It is recommended that all utility trenches
excavated to depths of 5.0-feet or deeper be cut back to an inclination not steeper than
1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or be adequately shored during construction. Where interior or
exterior utility trenches are proposed parallel and/or perpendicular to any building footing,
the bottom of the trench should not be located below a 1: 1 plane projected downward from
the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing unless the utility lines are designed for the
footing surcharge loads. Backfill material should be placed in a lift thickness appropriate
for the type of backfill material and compaction equipment used. Backfill material should
be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction by mechanical means.
Jetting of the backfill material will not be considered a satisfactory method for compaction.
Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill material should be
determined according to ASTM D 1557-00 procedures.
8.2 Finish Lot Drainaae Recommendations: Finish lot surface gradients in unpaved areas
should be provided next to tops of slopes and buildings to direct surface water away from
foundations and slabs and from flowing over the tops of slopes. The surface water should
be directed toward suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of surface water should not be
allowed next to structures or on pavements. In unpaved areas, a minimum positive
gradient of 2.0 percent away from the structures and tops of slopes for a minimum
distance of S.O-feet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the properly in a non-
erosive manner should be provided.
EnGEN Corporation
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-GFS
January 2004
Page 14
Planter Recommendations: Planters around the perimeter of the structure should be
designed with proper surface slope to ensure that adequate drainage is maintained and
minimal irrigation water is allowed to percolate into the soils underlying the building.
Suoolemental Construction Observations and Testina: Any subsequent grading for
development of the subject property should be performed under engineering observation
and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Subsequent grading includes, but is not
limited to, any additional overexcavation of cut and/or cut/fill transitions, fill placement, and
excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN
Corporation, should observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be made
prior to installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel to verify and/or modify, if
necessary, the conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations of
overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement
subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other earthwork
completed for the development of subject property should be performed by EnGEN
Corporation. If any of the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions
are not performed by EnGEN Corporation. liability for the safety and performance of the
development is limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by
EnGEN Corporation.
Plan Review: Subsequent to formulation of final plans and specifications for the project
but before bids for construction are requested, grading and foundation plans for the
proposed development should be reviewed by EnGEN Corporation to verify compatibility
with site geotechnical conditions and conformance with the recommendations contained in
this report. If EnGEN Corporation is not accorded the opportunity to make the
recommended review, we will assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of the
recommendations presented in this report.
Pre-Bid Conference: It is recommended that a pre-bid conference be held with the
owner or an authorized representative, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, the
Project Geotechnical Engineer and the proposed contractors present This conference will
provide continuity in the bidding process and clarify questions relative to the supplemental
grading and construction requirements of the project
EnGEN Corporation
'{\..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.7
9.0
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-GFS
January 2004
Page 15
Pre-Gradina Conference: Before the start of any grading, a conference should be held
with the owner or an authorized representative, the contractor, the Project Architect, the
Project Civil Engineer, and the Project Geotechnical Engineer present The purpose of
this meeting should be to clarify questions relating to the intent of the supplemental
grading recommendations and to verify that the project specifications comply with the
recommendations of this geotechnical engineering report. Any special grading procedures
and/or difficulties proposed by the contractor can also be discussed at that time.
CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described in this
document It mayor may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes. .
In the event that changes in the assumed nature, design, or location of the proposed
structure and/or project as described in this report, are planned, the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes
are reviewed and the conclusions and recommendations of this report are modified or
verified in writing. This study was conducted in general accordance with the applicable
standards of our profession and the accepted soil and foundation engineering principles
and practices at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, implied or
expressed beyond the representations of this report, is made. Although every effort has
been made to obtain information regarding the geotechnical and subsurface conditions of
the site, limitations exist with respect to the knowledge of unknown regional or localized
off-site conditions that may have an impact at the site. The recornmendations presented
in this report are valid as of the date of the report. However, changes in the conditions of a
properly can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or
to the works of man on this and/or adjacent properties. If conditions are observed or
information becomes available during the design and construction process that are not
reflected in this report, EnGEN Corporation should be notified so that supplemental
evaluations can be performed and the conclusions and recommendations presented in
this report can be modified or verified in writing. Changes in applicable or appropriate
standards of care or practice occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening
of knowledge and experience. Accordingly, the conclusions and recommendations
presented in this report rnay be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes outside of the
control of EnGEN Corporation which occur in the future.
EnGEN Corporation
Y6
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-GFS
January 2004
Page 16
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our services. Often, because of design and construction
details which occur on a project, questions arise concerning the geotechnical conditions on the
site. If we can be of further service or should you have questions regarding this report, please do
not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience. Because of our involvement in the project
to date, we would be pleased to discuss engineering testing and observation services that may be
applicable on the project.
Respectfully submitted,
EnGE Corporation
FILE: EnGEN\Reporting\GFS\T3065-GFS Mr. Paul Gupta, Geotechnical Feasibility
EnGEN Corporation
\<\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-GFS
Appendix Page 1
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
1. Allen, C.R, and others, 1965, Relationship between Seismicity and Geologic Structure in
the Southern California Region: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 55,
No.4, pg. 753-797.
2. Bartlett and Youd, 1995, Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No.4, April 1995.
3. Blake, T F., 2000, EQ Search for Windows, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program for the
Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from California Historical Earthquake Catalogs.
4. Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E, 1997, Equations for Estimating Horizontal
Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A
Surnmary of Recent Work, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No.1,. Pages 128-
153.
5. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117.
6. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1954, Geology of southern California, Bulletin
170.
7. County of Riverside Planning Department, June 1982 (Revised December 1983),
Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan - Dam Inundation Areas - 100 Year Flood
Plains - Area Drainage Plan, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles;
8. County of Riverside, 2003a, County of Riverside General Plan - Hearing Draft, Safety
Element - Mapped Faulting in Riverside County: http://www.rcip.org/documents/
generaU>lan/gen.J)lan.
9. County of Riverside, 2003b, County of Riverside General Plan - Hearing Draft, Safety
Element - Earthquake Fault Zones: http://www.rcip.org/documents/general.J)lan/
gen.J)lan.
10. County of Riverside, 2003c, County of Riverside General Plan - Hearing Draft, Safety
Element - Generalized Liquefaction: http://www.rcip.org/documents/general.J)lan/
gen.J)lan.
11. County of Riverside, 2003d, County of Riverside General Plan - Hearing Draft, Safety
Element - Earthquake-Induced Slope Stability Map: http://www.rcip.org/documents/
general.J)lan/gen .J)lan.
12. Hart, Earl W., and Bryant, William A., 1997, Revised 1999, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in
California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone
Maps: State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 38
Pages.
13. Hileman, JA, Allen, C.R and Nordquist, J.M., 1973, Seismicity of the southern California
region, 1 January 1932 to 31 December 1972: Seismological Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology.
14. Ishihara & Yoshimine, 1992, Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits following
liquefaction during earthquakes, Soil and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 32, No.1, pg. 173-188.
7P
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-GFS
Appendix Page 2
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued)
15. International Conference of Building Officials (lCBO), February 1988, Maps of Known
Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portion of Nevada - To be
Used with the 1997 Uniform Building Code: Prepared by the California Division of Mines
and Geology.
16. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and character of faulting along the Elsinore fault zone in
southern Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special
Report 131,12 p., 1 plate, scale 1:24,000.
17. Mann, J.F., Jr., October 1955, Geology of a portion of the Elsinore fault zone, California:
State of California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, Special
Report 43.
18. Morton, D. M., 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' x 60'
Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0, United States Geological Survey, Open File
Report 99-172.
19. Morton, D.M., 2003, Geologic Map of the Winchester 7.5' Quadrangle, Riverside County,
California, Version 1.0: United States Geological Survey, Open File Report 03-188.
20. Petersen, MD., Bryant, WA, Cramer, C.H., Coa, T. Reichle, M.S., Frankel, AD.,
Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, PA and Schwartz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment for the State of California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open
File Report 96-706.
21. Pradel, 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No.4, April 1998.
22. Schnabel, P.B. and Seed, H.B., 1972, Accelerations in rock for earthquakes in the western
United States: College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 72-2.
23. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, LM., 1982, Ground motions and soil liquefaction during
earthquakes: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Volume 5 of a Series Titled
Engineering Monographs on Earthquake Criteria, Structural Design, and Strong Motion
Records.
24. State of California Department of Water Resources, Water Wells and Springs in the
Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Bulletin No. 91-21.
25. Tokimatsu and Seed, 1984, Simplified Procedures for the Evaluation of Settlements in
Clean Sands, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, October 1984.
26. Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Edition, by International Conference of Building
Officials, 3 Volumes.
27. Vaughan, Thorup and Rockwell, 1999, Paleoseismology of the Elsinore Fault at Agua
Tibia Mountain, Southern California, Bulletin of the Seismology Society of America,
Volume 89, No.6, pg. 1447-1457, December 1999.
EnGEN Corporation
Vv-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-GFS
Appendix Page 3
EnGEN Corporation
7Jt-'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;t
~
(JJ ~
Q. (JJ
Q.
Ul .
UlUl
WUl
Cl:W
f-Cl:
Ulf-
Ul
.3000
2000
W
f-" 1 000
<( <(
::;;W
H"-
f-
.J
::>
~
(JJ
Q.
o
o
.3000
2500
2000
(JJ
(JJ
<Il
~ 1500
+-' n;
Ul
~
g 1000
.c
Ul
500
o
o
SAMPLE TYPE:
DESCRIPTION:
.n;
0.1
.."
. "y't
+....jo"..j,.+.
1000
Horiz. Displ., in
0.2 0..3
SPECIFIC GRAVITY= 2.55
REMARKS: SILTY SAND.BROWN
UPPER PAD AREA
CaLL BY RW
CaLL ON 1-22-04
Fig. No.:
,..-..
2000
C, pst
.p, deg
TAN <P
4000
.3000
Normal Stress, pst
SAMPLE NO. :
0.4
WATER CONTENT, %
~ DRY DENSITY, pet
~ SATURATION, %
2 VOID RATIO
H DIAMETER. in
HEIGHT in
WATER CONTENT. %
f- DRY DENSITY, pet
Ul
W SATURATION, %
f-
f- VOID RATIO
<( DIAMETER. i n
HEIGHT in
NORMAL STRESS, pst
PEAK STRESS, pst
DISPLACEMENT, in
ULTIMATE STRESS, pst
DISPLACEMENT, in
Strain rate. in/min
CLIENT: PAUL GUPTA
PEAK ULTIMATE
277
38.7
0.80
8.9
116.8
62.5
0.362
2.42
1.00
0.0
116.8
0.0
0..362
2.42
1.00
1000
1076
0.09
929
0.22
0.2000
PROJECT: GOYAL/GUPTA RESIDENCES
5000
8.9
116.8
62.5
0.362
2.42
1.00
0.0
116.8
0.0
0..362
2.42
1.00
2000
1888
0.07
1692
0.21
0.2000
192
36.6
0.74
6000
2
3
8.9
116.8
62.5
0.362
2.42
1.00
0.0
116.8
0.0
0..362
2.42
1.00
3000
2680
0.06
2416
0.21
0.2000
SAMPLE LOCATION: JEDEOIAH SMITH ROAD,
TEMECULA
PROJ. NO.: T.3065-GFS
DATE: 1-27-04
DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT
EnGEN Corporation ~
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-GFS
Appendix Page <\
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
?At