HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 9833-3 Lot 27 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Ear h
echnics
=---
PREUMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Single - Lot, Residential Development
Lot 27, Tract 9833-3, Calle De Velardo
Temecula, Riverside COllnty, California
'i
.'
,
October 12, 1998
PROJECT NO. 98229-01
PREPARED FOR:
TEC
43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 103
Temecula, California 92590
Earth Technics P.O. Box 891989. Temecula, California 92589 (909) 699-5451.
GO
N
\
.
to
n
~
October 12, 1998
Project No. 98229-01
1.0 INTRODUCTION
.
At your request, we have performed a Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation for the above referenced site. The purpose of our
investigation was to evaluate the underlying soil conditions with
respect to the proposed development and to assess the geologic
and engineering constraints that might exist considering this
development.
.
The 40-Scale Preliminary Grading Plan prepared by Temecula
Engineering Consultants, Temecula, undated, was used to direct
our field work. Plate 1 presents our Geotechnical data obtained
during our field investigation. At the time of our investigation,
the property corners had been surveyed and staked.
ACCOMPANYING MAPS. ILLUSTRATIONS AND APPENDICES
Index Map - (2000-scale) - Page 2
Geotechnical Map - (40-scale) - Plate 1
Regional Fault Map - (1" = 20 miles) - Plate 2
Appendix A - Geotechnical Trench Logs
Appendix B - Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Appendix C - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
Appendix D - Slope Stability
Appendix E - References
~
.
.
INDEX.MAP
N
o
2000
.4000
SCALE
feet
INDEX MAP
OF
LOT 27, TRACT 9833-3
CALLE DE VELARDO, SANTIAGO ESTATES, TEMECULA AREA
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIF
SOURCE: U.S.G.S.. 7~ MIN. QUAD. PECHANGA 1968 CPR 1988)
:?
98229-01
Page 3
2.0 SITE LOCATION/CONDITIONS
The rectangular-shaped 2.61+/- acre property is located on Calle
De Velardo, an improved paved road in the Santiago Estates
development. Calle De Velardo forms the western property boundary
with vacant land in all remaining directions. The Index Map (Page
2) presents the topographic and geographic relationships of the
property to surrounding areas.
Topographically, the site is extremely variable from the
essentially flat ridge top area proposed for construction to over
26 degrees descending from the ridge to the northeast and east.
The existing pad was previously graded entirely in daylight cut
from 3-5 feet.
;
Heavy weeds and scrub brush cover the natural slopes below the
existing graded pad.
.
A large swale is located along the north side of the property.
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
According to the referenced 40-scale Grading Plans, the existing
pad will be slightly enlarged, and the driveway access improved
utilizing both cut and fill grading. The entire pad area for the
proposed single-family residence will be constructed in cut.
Minor fills are proposed for the driveway and turnaround areas,
with the remaining fill placed in non-structural landscape areas.
A 1 and 2-story single-family residence with attached garage will
be constructed on the pad.
On-site sewage disposal will be utilized in the natural areas
unaffected by the current grading.
4.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of our investigation included the following:
1. A review of available data pertinent to the site.
2. Subsurface exploration of the site utilizing 2 exploratory
backhoe trenches to depths as great as 7.3 feet. The
trenches were logged, and these logs appear in Appendix A of
this report. The trenches were tested for in-place density
utilizing the Sand Cone Method (ASTM D1556-64).
Representative bulk samples were obtained for testing.
4
98229-01
Page 4
3.
Detailed geologic mapping of the site.
4.
Laboratory testing of representative earth materials to
develop soil engineering parameters for the proposed
development.
5.
preparation of this report presenting our findings,
conclusions and recommendations concerning site development
based upon an engineering analysis of geologic and
geotechnical properties of the subsoils as determined by
field and laboratory evaluation.
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING
,
The following tests were performed for this project in our
laboratory in accordance with the American society for Testing
and Materials, the state of California standard Specifications or
contemporary practices of the soil engineering profession.
5.1 Maximum Densitv - optimum Moisture Determinations
This test determines the density that a soil can be compacted to
at various contents. For each soil moisture, there is a maximum
dry density obtained and the associated optimum moisture content.
The results are used to evaluate the natural compaction, control
of the grading process and as an aid in developing the soil
bearing capacity. This is based on ASTM Standard D1557-78 (five
layer method).
5.2 In-Situ Moisture and Densitv
These tests consisted of performing Sand Cone Density tests (ASTM
D1556-64) in the trenches to determine in-place moisture and
density. The results are used to analyze the consistency of the
subsoils and aid in determining the necessary grading to prepare
the pad area.
5.3 Sieve Analvsis
This test determines the material grading of the individual
particle sizes and is used in generating an engineering
classification.
5
98229-01
Page 5
5.4 Sand Equivalent Testinq
This is a test for the rapid determination of the relative
portions of fine silt and clay materials within the soil samples,
and is used for a relative comparison of soils in the
determination of the adequate paving sections for driveways, etc.
5.5 Expansion Testinq
The expansion index of the soils are determined by the U.B.C.
Method 29-2 and is used to design foundations for anticipated
expansion forces.
.
5.6 Direct Shear
.
A direct shear strength test was performed on a representative
sample of the on-site soils remolded to 90% relative compaction.
To simulate possible adverse field conditions, the sample was
saturated prior to shearing. A saturating device was used which
permitted the samples to absorb moisture while preventing volume
change. This test is used to determine soil strengths for slope
stability evaluations and for foundation bearing capacity.
6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The entire area of the proposed pad where the residence is to be
located was underlain by dense sedimentary bedrock below a depth
of 1.2-1.5 feet at the extreme edges. The central portions of the
existing and proposed pad are underlain by sedimentary bedrock at
the surface. In-place densities for the bedrock ranges from 122.6
pcf (93.8% relative compaction) in T-2 ast 1.1-1.6 feet to 124.2
pcf (95% relative compaction) in T-1 at 3.4-4.0 feet at moistures
of 8 to 9 percent. The areas below the existing pad where not cut
grading was performed are underlain by deeper colluvium to a
maximum depth of 4 feet over sedimentary bedrock.
No evidence of down slope movement is apparent in any of the
surrounding natural slopes.
7.0 GROUND WATER
No ground water was encountered on pad to a depth of 7.3 feet.
Historic high ground water is expected to be 63 feet at the
lowest elevations of the lot based on historic ground water (DWR
1971). The pad is underlain by bedrock, and at finished
elevations of 1205 feet would be 95+ feet above historic high
ground water. No evidence of seepage was seen in the natural
slope faces surrounding the property.
~
98229-01
Page 6
8.0 FLOODING
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the
County of Riverside, the pad site is not located within the
boundaries of a 100-year flood plain. The large swale on the
north side of the lot carries minor water during the rainy
season. The driveway access proposed off Calle De Velardo will
not cross any drainage areas. No flooding hazard exists at the
site.
9.0 GEOLOGY
,
The entire proposed building pad area is underlain by sedimentary
bedrock known as the pauba Formation (Kennedy, 1977). The vague
bedding exposed in the trenches, and in the cut slopes along
Calle de Velardo had a northwest strike from 60-70 degrees and
low angle dips of 5-6 degrees northeast. No evidence of slope
instability exists at the site or in the adjoining cut slopes
along Calle De Velardo.
The pauba Formation is a Late Quaternary non-marine sedimentary
deposit consisting of an interbedded sequence of silty and clayey
sands with minor gravel. Approximately 40 percent of the
formation at the site is the slightly silty to clean arkosic sand
member of the pauba Formation.
The remaining portions of the pauba Formation are poorly-bedded
clayey sandstones with minor gravel in well-cemented condition.
The site is not included in any state or County fault hazard zone
for active faulting.
10.0 SEISMIC SETTING/GROUND MOTION PARAMETERS
The regional seismic setting is shown on Plate 2. The nearest
active faults to the site include the Wildomar and Willard Faults
of the Elsinore Fault Zone which is located approximately 2.5
miles to the southwest. The Casa Loma branch of the San Jacinto
Fault is located 25 miles to the northeast.
The Elsinore Fault zone because of its proximity and seismic
potential to the site is the design fault when evaluating the
site seismic parameters.
1
98229-01
Page 7
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Fault
Maximum
Moment
Distance to site Maqnitude (M)
Peak Ground
Acceleration
At site (q)
Elsinore
2.5 MIles SW 6.8
0.33
San Jacinto
22.6 Miles NE 6.9
0.12
11.0 HISTORIC SEISMICITY
,
During the last 100 years in the San Bernardino/Riverside area,
the greatest number of moderate to large earthquakes (greater
than 6.0 M) have occurred along the San Jacinto Fault (Hileman,
Allen and Nordquist, 1974; Peterson, et all, 1996). The most
significant earthquake epicenters on the Elsinore Fault occurred
40+ miles to the southeast in the Anza and Julian areas. A
magnitude 6.6 earthquake occurred in 1910 in Elsinore.
We have utilized the computer program titled EQ SEARCH (Blake
(1994) to assess historic activity at the site. Based on this
analysis, the maximum ground acceleration at the site from the
period of 1800 to present is 0.33.
12.0 SEISMIC EXPOSURE
Although no precise method has been developed to evaluate the
seismic potential of a specific fault, the available information
on historic activity may be projected to estimate the future
activity of the fault. This is usually done by plotting the
historic activity in terms on number of events in a given time
interval versus magnitude of the event. Based on such plots,
recurrence intervals for earthquakes of given magnitudes may be
estimated. The other method of determining maximum probable
capability of the fault is by evaluating the accumulated stress
and determining the subsequent release of this stress in the form
of an earthquake over a given interval of time.
~
98229-01
Page 8
We have utilized strain rates of 5.0mm/year for the Elsinore
Fault suggested by Peterson, et al (1996) to estimate the maximum
probable earthquake. For this project the maximum probable or
"design earthquake" is defined by CDMG Note 43 at the maximum
historical event with a recurrence period of 100 years. We
estimate the maximum moment magnitude or "design earthquake" for
the Elsinore Fault to be 6.8 magnitude with a 10% possibility of
exceedance in 50 years. This is in agreement with the
deterministic model by Blake, (1994).
Based on data presented by Greensfelder (1974), we estimate the
maximum credible event for the Elsinore Fault in this region
would be an event of 6.8 magnitude. The maximum credible event
is the greatest event that the fault appears capable of
theoretically producing without a consideration of time interval
based upon the present tectonic framework.
13.0 GROUND MOTION CHARACTERISTICS
;
The ground motion characteristics which could affect the site
during the postulated maximum moment magnitude of 6.8 on the
Elsinore Fault were estimated. Available information in the
literature about maximum peak bedrock acceleration and its
attenuation with distance (Schnabel & Seed, 1973), the effects of
site-soil conditions on surface ground motion parameters (Seed &
Idress, 1982), and site response criteria (Hays, 1980) were
utilized.
This information indicates that maximum peak rock acceleration on
the order of 0.33 g may be anticipated at the site. Maximum
ground surface acceleration is expected to be the same based on
the near-surface sedimentary bedrock.
Repeatable ground acceleration can be estimated at 65 percent of
peak ground acceleration for design purposes (Ploessel & Slosson,
1974) with a value of about 0.25g. The predominant period of
bedrock acceleration is expected to be 0.30 seconds with 20
seconds of strong ground shaking (Bolt, 1973).
14.0 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS
The dense well-cemented nature of the underlying sedimentary
bedrock coupled with the depth to groundwater of over 95 feet in
the area of the proposed pad precludes such secondary seismic
hazards as liquefaction, lateral spreading or settlement of the
ground the house is being placed upon. No rockfall or landslide
hazard exists at the site. The potential for seismically-
triggered landslides is discussed in detail under the slope
stability section.
q
98229-01
Page 9
15.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
15.1 Foundation Desiqn
A strip and spread footing foundation system should provide an
adequate foundation for one and two-story buildings in this site.
All exterior footings should be founded a minimum of 18 inches
below adjacent finished grade for two-story buildings, and 12
inches for one-story buildings. Interior footings may be founded
a minimum of 12 inches below finished grade. When the footings
are founded in a minimum of 2 feet of properly compacted fill or
dense bedrock, an allowable bearing capacity of 1800 psf for 12
inch wide footings is acceptable for dead plus live load. This
value may be increased by one-third for short term wind and
seismic loading conditions.
When foundations are placed in natural soils, no cobbles over 6
inches should be left within the base of the foundation. A
typical foundation design is included in Appendix C. Two No. 4
bars top and bottom is recommended as a minimum design due to the
potential for expansive soils.
15.2 Settlement
Our subsurface investigation revealed that the natural
sedimentary bedrock is dense below a depth of 1 to 2 feet in the
slope areas. Footings should experience less than 1-inch
settlement with less than 1/2 inch differential settlements
between adjacent footings of similar sizes and loads. This
settlement is based upon grading of up to 35 feet of fill over a
distance of 45 feet horizontally. If thicker fills are proposed,
settlement could be greater and should be evaluated prior to
placement.
15.3 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade
Sufficient fine-grained materials exists within near surface
earth materials to possible create moisture problems. Therefore,
we recommend that a moisture barrier be placed under any concrete
slabs that might receive a moisture-sensitive floor covering.
This moisture barrier should consist of a 10-mil polyethylene
vapor barrier sandwiched between a 1-inch layer of sand, top and
bottom, to prevent puncture of the barrier and enhance curing of
the concrete. Heavy reinforcement of the slabs with No. 3 bars
on 24 inch centers is recommended. The subgrade below the slab
should be moisture conditioned and properly compacted prior to
placement of concrete.
\0
98229-01
Page 10
15.4 Expansive Soils
Expansion testing of near-surface clayey siltstone soils (T-1 ;
0-3 feet) possible at finished grades indicate that portions of
the Pauba Formation have a very high expansion potential. special
design provisions are necessary for the foundation or concrete
flatwork to resist expansion forces as shown on the Foundation
and Slab Recommendations for Expansive Soils in Appendix c.
15.5 Earthwork Shrinkaqe and Subsidence
No shrinkage of the sedimentary bedrock will occur during
grading, but shrinkage of 8-10 percent is expected for the
colluvial areas recompacted to compacted fill standards.
,
15.6 Retaininq Wall Desiqn
Retaining walls should be designed using the following
parameters:
o
o
o
Active pressure
Active pressure
Active pressure
(level backfill)
(2:1 backfill)
(1 1/2:1 backfill)
52 lb/ft /ft
62 Ib/ft /ft
70 lb/ft/ft
For purpose of lateral resistance, a value of 0.25 may be used
for frictional resistance. A value of 275 lb/ft /ft may be used
for passive resistance for footings placed into properly
compacted fill. Frictional and passive resistance may be
combined, provided the later is reduced by one-third.
Special loads for dead plus actual loads whould be considered in
the driveway/parking area that is retained.
15.7 Lateral Loads
Lateral loads in the near-surface soils are:
Active
At Rest
Passive
- 52 pounds per square foot of soil depth (psf/ft)
- 68 psf/ft
- 275 psf/ft (for wood shoring)
350 psfjft (for concrete footings)
Active means movement of the structure away from the soil; at
rest means the structure does not move relative to the soil (Such
as a loading dock); and Passive means the structure moves into
the soil. The coefficient of friction between the bottom of the
footings and the native soil may be taken as 0.25.
\\
98229-01
Page 11
15.8 Trench Stabi1itv
The near-surface soil to a depth of 5 feet should stand
vertically when excavated, however, trenches in excess of 5 feet
in depth should have the sides laid back at l:l in accordance
with OSHA requirements.
15.9 Slope Stability
The current grading, including slopes and finished face
inclinations, indicates the maximum slope height is less than 2
feet. The high strength values allow 2:1 (horizontal to vertical)
cut slopes up to 45 feet without gross or surficial instability.
Selection of Shear strenqth Parameters
,
The following shear strength parameter utilized for our slope
stability analysis was determined by our laboratory test results
as presented below:
Material
(Cut or Fill)
Friction Angle
(Deqreel
Cohesion
Ib / ft2
Anticipated On-Site Fill
27
450
We have utilized values of 27 degrees and 450 Ib/ft2 for bedrock
cut slopes although it represents a conservative number,
determined from a remolded saturated sample. Bedrock is expected
to be 20% + stronger (Coduto, 1989).
Even more critical to overall cut slope performance is the
orientation of joints, fractures and bedding. Plate 1 presents
our field measurements of the vague bedding, and as can be seen
on Plate 1, no adverse out-of-slope components are present to
initiate "block" or "wedge" type failures.
The slope stability analysis is presented in Appendix D utilizing
the tested shear strength parameters. Our method of analysis
incorporated a rotational mechanism of failure due to the well-
cemented nature of the bedrock and lack of well defined
continuous weak planes. The analysis indicates the natural 2:1
slopes are both grossly and surficially stable.
Lessor slopes in height or inclination will be stable by
inspection.
It.
98229-01
Page 12
Drainage and terracing should be in accordance with Uniform
Building Code Chapter 70 requirements. At no time should water
be diverted onto the slope face in an uncontrolled and erosive
fashion. Rapid erosion and rutting of the fill slopes, and the
non-cohesive clean sand cut slopes is possible and they should be
planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible.
16.0 GENERAL SITE GRADING
16.1 Clearinq and Grubbinq
The heavy brush and grasses should be stripped from any areas to
receive fill and removed off-site or stockpiled in landscape
areas. The existing pad is essentially weed free and will not
require clearing and grubbing prior to fill grading.
,
16.2 Preparation of Buildinq Pad Areas
The proposed building pad is shown entirely in cut and will not
require overexcavation. The dense sedimentary bedrock at finished
grades will not require recompaction.
16.3 Preparation of Surface to Receive Compacted Fill
All sufficiently dense (85 percent relative compaction) surfaces
which are to receive compacted fill should be scarified to a
depth of 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content and
compacted to 90 percent relative compaction. other softer areas
must be over excavated to sufficiently dense material and
recompacted. This would include raising existing fill grades. No
overexcavation would be required in the pad areas. Actual depth
of removal should be determined at the time of grading by
testing.
16.4 Placement of Compacted Fill
Compacted fill is defined as that material which will be replaced
in the areas of removal due to root removal, the placement of
footings and paving, and also wherever their grade is to be
raised. All fill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent
based upon the maximum density obtained in accordance with ASTM
D 1557-78 procedure. The area to be filled will be prepared in
accordance with the preceding section. The recompaction of the
cut material may be waived if field density tests indicate
densities in excess of compacted fill standards.
\~
98229-01
Page 13
Fills placed on natural slopes of 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or
steeper will require a key and benching as shown in Appendix c.
The new fill should be properly benched into the existing fill as
shown in Appendix C.
16.5 Pre-Job Conference
Prior to the commencement of grading, a pre-job conference should
be held with representatives of the owner, developer, contractor,
architect and/or engineer in attendance. The purpose of this
meeting shall be to clarify any questions relating to the intent
of the grading recommendations and to verify that the project
specifications comply with recommendations of this report.
16.6 Testinq and Inspection
During grading, density testing should be performed by a
representative of the soil engineer in order to determine the
degree of compaction being obtained. Where testing indicates
insufficient density, additional compactive effort shall be
applied with the adjustment of moisture content where necessary,
until 90 percent relative compaction is obtained.
Inspection of critical grading control procedures such as keys,
installation or need for subdrains, and bedrock orientation of
cut slopes should be made by a qualified soils engineer or
engineering geologist.
16.7 Development Impact
Provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into
the design and construction of the residential project, both the
proposed development and off-site areas will be safe from
geotechnical hazards.
17.0 GENERAL
All grading should, at a minimum, follow the "Standard Grading
and Earthwork specifications" as outlined in Appendix C, unless
otherwise modified in the text of this report. The
recommendations of this report are based on the assumptions that
all footings will be founded in dense, native, undisturbed soil
or properly compacted fill soil. All footing excavations should
be inspected prior to the placement of concrete in order to
verify that footings are founded on satisfactory soils and are
free of loose and disturbed materials and fill. All grading and
\~
98229-01
Page 14
fill placement should be performed under the testing and
inspection of a representative of the soil engineer.
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in
accordance with contemporary engineering principles and practice.
We make no warranty, either express or implied. Our
recommendations are based on an interpolation of soil conditions
between trench locations. Should conditions be encountered
during grading, that appear to be different that those indicated
by this report, this office should be notified.
-~ "
~~-- 'c
,t./,. '/:~ ~\\)\i'IEER/IVc'
'i..f.u~'lj'~bTQj-'1 d, <
~ . x,\'I Ii('","\ '?-
;::: ~ 1> \'0
4: "<r (:.. G>
Z. -
C")<J>
Larry J. Fast
R.C.E. 29150
Registration Ex
WLS/LJF:ss
Distribution:
(4) Addressee
\5
. .
. 'lli"';':>:
.~:<):;~{":: ,.:,~;.
" ." --......
. .../......!
!':'<~... :;::.'
.. .",..", .
S'o"! iI,'>
~ 1..\\' { .. .>.:.;.
':' .' \"f ,., ..r....'...,..
l:.... ..:::1:f~(-;:
. .'
-' .
",.
N
".' ','
"./
/'
Oa~\f13^i3a
..... ';:,....,.,<.. ":.;':Y}\'f~<
311\10
. .::r:-..~:,:>~\:~~:. ;~>~. . J: ;
:,,;,:.~>>,':~.:(r:'~?': :.'::
:::
i;,
'I
':'1'
"
"
.~'
,.
'. ,.~ 133~lS ~
\
.'.
-
-
-
L
i
;
\
1
\
i
\
...
=
\
.\."
'(
'..'. .
", ,."
_...S:..
.'". \
'~ , : : ~:
" b
..\~
~<:." : i'~.': .:.. . GJ
... "j'.ft;.. L
' . ~'-(J" -.....
0.--- . '-': , : '.
.' ""'''-'
'." . '." - ~
- ..... \
.- ",
\ . . \
,. . ;.'.
. ..' ,",.>>;<.
."....'. '-0''''
'~~~.- ~-~ ~:~~~~~~<~:~::
'", ==
. -.~
.
~'.~:'
:..~~
.
...~;.:'~
S;.",:,;,"
<'~:;:-:F~'
/
/
....---/
"
~:','
'. ,
.-
~ ~~.';\:~:;:;-:~..:.
':,:;( '~/:
'..:::~.:.::y..
;.~: -"....~:'
\
.
-."
,
.-
'.
,",
'.
.'
.:t
~/
-;/
,.
"
,
.':'
',',
~' :
r
,
--
:'l'
~,
"
,
: .~ :.
;;,'
l:
I
I
I
I
I
I
."
.'
..,
.'
.z
o
~
<l:
z
:5
.' a.
X
w
-
.'
.~.~.
'.
\\
"
...
j
.lIl
::..~."~ ".'.~.
'lI)'
. .>.'
Q)'
. >"
"'.
,;..,
u' ".
.."
"
J.l.l
Z c
8 .~
f-< ....
~ .f-<'
. f-<
..:
0--
....<.:>
<( .~
PO C
::> C
..: J.l.l
e.. .m
\
,
,
::c
u,
Z
J.l.l.
<t:
f-<
~
o
"...
~
'0
..,
'Cl.o
'K
,J.l.l
C\.I
t!-I
~
o
~
\I
"
.....
....
w
5
a..
V'
-
-
o
I
.~
(\l
c(j
f\
.
\
~~
-/
1952
M 6.1
~f . ~I' -;~
t~ ,~,
); ,..;:;.;t' , /
'.
'.
"
,
R
N
---
-.. '"""'-
-.
I
1947
~M6.2
.r=i...nt f..,.\.l.i !
.. I
'~1<
'.0
"0. ~.
~
".
..~~.. .
(~ .
"'0'
...(
....~
........
A ~~.N
~;\ '\
<;;, ". ~\~. ~\(lPl
\.. ~ "'.~~,
. 0" +.o~~, ~'9.~: ..'. \.~
. oC"~ [\ \\;
~,+:\ "l
~~~ 'l-~.'",~ -!"~~ I
. ~'.~'~", ~;p~ I'
. .: '\ '\... ... 0",
.....~ \'..~( \1
~...:~" 1',,~, .,:0. 1',
......~""" ~..' ~.
~. ~/~GS \~ ~I
. ',o!. \ .
.
1907 . ..,
. ~","A\H
,.!J."TQ.<'~I
1'-- .....,.
At'ft.. ..,t::j-..;-
10"
~
~"'+
"
,,'
M 6.8 ~"(j
PALM
SPRINGS
\
~.!!!:!.L!.
B
.,
----T
I
I
.
I
I
j
...
..........
........
".
'.
'.
".
\'" ~$"/"
\ - eolal/nll
"0 ..... 1.k1nd
to 0,
,................ .
. ..............................
....~~.
MILES'
\_ 0 10
~.
"'~
".,!,,,, /94/ ., "'"
'kM5.9-6.1 '\... _".'u-.--'
MAJOR EARTHQUAKES and RECENTLY ACTIVE FAULTS
. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION
W,O. NO:
TEe
9922~-o\
CALLe: "DE. VE.LAR-T>O,
DATE:
T ~MC:CO \..A
10 I "8
FIGURE:
PLATE 2
\1
~..-:,~ti:_~'.-:-.''':
I~-" -,..,......:
-,-,-.-.-..--..
__,-'___~'nU__
'"._--~..
......-_...-."-,-"'..-
__ _ _...._,_c
.._~.;.;
,,,...."""~..;...
APPENDIX A
--_..--~.
-~,:..:.._.... ,-..
i~:e-:::.:;.~:::~-'--~
-~...:..c;._~:'.:.:;;-.i::....
._-_._.~-,~,..'~."""'~-
- -- .-..-----'--'----....-.---".:...-. -'..-
-,. .------=--.-.-.~.-~_._-~~-~
,,~_.,",__.~_______r~.'_ _'-""._,,-._'_'>>
I~
~~
GEOTECHNICAL TRENCH LOG
ProJect Neme 0 -nc.
ProJect Number ' 9&'2.:2.':1-01
~ I J ,
-
. I: II. 1 i
~ -
- i 1 -~ I
I ~ =.
- ) c.tt i ~-
- - Ii"_ -
I: - i U'.
- 0 :S I:
I . E j j- i
~ .
.
0 13
"'''
$C.-, E1. u \23,\ '].'2.
L . tlJl.U
os I<- 114.2 0.b
<is
(%.0)
5
10
15
GRAPHIC LOG .
trend-
Elevetlon
1201, "'-.
1"-1
Equipment
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged~ . W,l.. SheY1/~--:"
Dete.
10/5/9&
Sempled by
" ,
o
8e.oil.CC"- -PI1~~a F'm _ R4 2,(; y(Cr;1t, S/Q. cl~~ty CO~
S~~rJ.. wi 5"% I"llv-.,ckc:l q>l11t.\. 'Ie.,) <k~,-&l olo....,..: MMf/I.l
~ "~~ ,~tJk~ 1'I.!-.It1on41/1, GdCoia_~~ ~"k.w ct.:r
Ovt <;;1,. +0 1n\llM1h ~vI ID'((J.blt. -h~ -1?IIA,1t#!
sllqilt'i tilt~ J'(j I1cA , St-.M1dC.,m~' aA- ~d<i,'.N ,<;6-
~ ~-7 tJ. "D.(~ .sf- dai'l>(1' 'p'orf-oM ~vt -tt!i'... '
CLeA" ;n+tt~.eN 'rru(, o ISO , ,S', ~v.tf~ .'
I'D.7}
Nt W~~~tfji~ 14VI~
00
scale: 1-. ,
. ,.
· Test " Symbols
B - Bulk '.....pl.
R - Ring Sempl.
se -' Send c-
MD - 'Mulmum 1len.1.,
as.. a.-In .Iz.
SE - Send Equl.......
E I - EJrpeneIon Index
(90) - ReIa.Iv. -CooIIpecllon
h .
echnics
\tt
ProJect Name.
. ProJect Number
-
i i
- --...--
... '0
Ii
F
o
5
10
15
GEO"fE<;:HNICAL . 'TRENCH LOG
~c
0eZZ':lI-O \
.
... ! )Ii
! b' - ~ i.
~J- ~!# 1= ....
lEi 1- !
iZl,(, 8.1-
9-3.&)
'I
GRAPHIC LOG
\
trend-
Elevation
1206 +/-.
I CA$ "- r:; e.~ 'I'-
T-Z
Trench No.
Equipment
j'
I. I
GEOTECHNICAL DE$CRIPTI~N
. .
I.oIJged by ~ IN. L-. S \\ ,vl, ~D.te -
.1
10/5/9&
Sampled by 1/
":' i
8~(loa.- P4lA~ Pm - V'1 f~ 'bl"b~II;IOY~74 _ v,,,,,,";"h
~oW 1./4 in.fu~.eJJ.tJ ~1IJ..>"d of ,"d''1ra~,,_~~,
S(I fJrf~ c.lA.ytc; 1~ v~ la n>U-4...... V -a ~ IS r. cL Iltf .
. ~~ N III t:- ~ -7 f'J W
,
. P.i.
o
5.1-
-r-, D .
NO~~/~HttI/1 /~V1i
. .
I.
scale: 1".'
· Test . Symbols
, B - BUlk alllllpl.
, R" Ring Sampl. ' .
se - . Sand Cone
. MD - Mulmum Den.It,
OS" !lraln alz.
. SE - Sand Equl......'
E, I " EJpen810n Ind..
.(90)- R."lJve-~lon
: .
Ear h .
echnlcs
?o
-~ C- H.' C ___._<. ...... _... ..-..-~.--~.<. -.- .
-~-____-__--:~ -. - ='-~''''-.:5~:~::~0.E::':::''''::_--:',;<: .~--:
APPENDIX B
u..
~~
~":.'_C;:':~;::'"'~__:__
-'~'._--~;";'--""
MAXIMUM DENSITY - OPTIMUM MOISTURE DETERMINATION
The maximum density was determined in accordance with ASTM
Standard D1557-78. The result by full laboratory curve is
Sample
Location
Depth
(Feet)
soil Description
Maximum
Drv Densitv
optimum
Moisture
T-1
0-3
(Soil Type B) Bedrock
pale brown silty sand
clayey siltstone (40%)
130.7
10.2
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION TESTING
U.B.C. METHOD 29-2
Sample Location
Depth
Expansion Index Expansion Potential
T-1
0-3'
71 very high
SAND EQUIVALENT TESTING
Sample Location Depth
Sand Equivalent
T-2(sandstone) 0-3'
43
ZZ-
'S_3IQ1f38~ 1fJ~_,!:r _.
IO'bn9b 'N"r
86/0 "DoSl~I~S
--.
L_
l
O<l~Vi"3"
111/6fJ/H9 fHID UHfI/6u36UIIIIIII/fJ:J
(J)
ii1
<
fTI
(J)
N
fTI
(J)
I
c
in
(J)
~
Z
o
J>
;0
o
j3.L
8
311'0';)
NOI.LnaU:L1SIO 3ZIS NI~~9
.LH913M A8 ~3NI~ lN3:> ~3d
~ ~ g
....,0.)"3W3.1..
~
o
b
-0 -
J> b
;0.
-l
o
r
fTI
o
J>
~
fTI
-l
fTI
;0
1.0
~..:...
r.
r
~
ITI
-l.
fTI
;0
(J)
2
<C:z
1I3SwnN
.LISIHX3
0
ITl
-0
-l t
:I:
(;)
;0
oZ ~
0 ITl
r
0 -I
I
I
I)) ~
--
"TI 0
enO
:-I. J>J>
z;o
oen
ITl
-or .--..
. .
:-r
en"TI
J>-
zZ
c;,1Tl
--
J>C:
o Z
~-
en"TI en
:em ~
pO
00
rr
J>J>
en en
en en
--
0
r
~
t
PROJECT:
6
-. ,
. I - 2 - 3 4 56
NORMAL PRESSURE- KIPS / SQ. FT.
- EXCAVATION NO. T-.1
DEPTH: 0-3'
-~SMOL."PiD To 90% ~E LA"T'''~ . CoM?h::nor-l
- SATURATED TEST IN SITU - MOISTURE -TEST
f6 .. - 1.1 ·
C .. 450 P.S.F
f6 II
c:..
.
P.S.F
DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA
lEe
Earth Technics
EXHIBIT
JOB NO" '3Q Z2., -01 DATE: 10192.
M.
E:~::~';~~':E:Z,_~-: .
.~"~~-~-~".;..;.;.__.
-""--".-~-~~ -",-.-;..;.~~~_.~--~.:.
--. -- .._~_. --- --- '.i~>::
.;.:.:-~,,:.~~-,
APPENDIX C
z5
.-'-"-:'.C'~..'i;~
,:';-':"-~~~,:;'~~~:'::,:;~",:~~_~::::=--,'~c
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
These specifications present Earth Technics Inc., standard
recommendations for grading and earthwork.
No deviation from these specifications should be permitted unless
specifically superseded in the geotechnical report of the project
or by written communication signed by the Geotechnical
Consultant. Evaluations performed by the Geotechnical Consultant
during the course of grading may result in subsequent
recommendations which could supersede these specifications or ~~e
recommendations of the geotechnical report.
1. 0 GENERAL
1.1 The Geotechnical Consultant is the Owner's or
Developer's representative on the project. For the
purpose of these specifications, observations by the
Geotechnical Consultant include observations by the
Soils Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering
Geologist, and those performed by persons employed by
and responsible to the Geotechnical Consultant.
1.2 All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed
on the project shall be conducted and directed by the
Contractor under the supervision of the Geotechnical
Consultant.
1.3 The Contractor should be responsible for the safety of
the project and satisfactory completion of all grading.
During grading, the Contractor shall remain accessible.
l.4 Prior to the commencement of grading, the Geotechnical
Consultant shall be employed for the purpose of
providing field, laboratory, and office services for
conformance with the recommendations of the
geotechnical report and these specifications. It will
be necessary that the Geotechnical Consultant provide
adequate testing and observations so that he may
determine that the work was accomplished as specified.
It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to
assist the Geotechnical Consultant and keep him
apprised of work schedules and changes so that he may
schedule his personnel accordingly.
1.5 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor
to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish
the work in accordance with applicable grading codes,
agency ordinances, these specifications, and the
approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the
Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions,
such as questionable soil, poor moisture condition,
inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are
2P
standard Grading and Earthwork specifications
Page Two
resulting in a quality of work less than required in
these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant will
be empowered to reject the work and recommend that
construction be stopped until the conditions are
rectified.
1.6 It is the Contractor's responsibility to provide access
to the Geotechnical Consultant for testing and/or
grading observation purposes. This may require the
excavation of test pits and/or the relocation of
grading equipment.
1.7 A final report shall be issued by the Geotechnical
Consultant attesting to the Contractor's conformance
with these specifications.
2.0 SITE PREPARATION
2.1 All vegetation and deleterious material shall be
disposed of off-site. This removal shall be observed
by the Geotechnical Consultant and concluded prior to
fill placement. . .
2.2 Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the
,Geotechnical Consultant as being unsuitable for
placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the
site or used in open areas as determined by the
Geotechnical Consultant. Any material incorporated as
a part of a compacted fill must be approved by the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to.fill placement.
2.3 After the ground surface to receive fill has been
cleared, it shall be scarified, disced, or bladed by
the Contractor until it is uniform and free from ruts,
hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may
prevent uniform compaction.
The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to
optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted as
specified. If the scarified zone is greater than
twelve inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and
placed in lifts not to exceed six inchesor less.
prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive
fill shall be observed, tested, and approved by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
2..1
Standard Grading and Earthwork specifications
Page Three
2.4 Any underground structures or cavities such as
cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic
tanks, wells, pipe lines, or others are to be removed
or treated in a manner prescribed by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
2.5 In cut-fill transition lots and where cut lots are
partially in soil, colluvium or unweathered bedrock
materials, in order to provide uniform bearing
conditions, the bedrock portion of the lot extending a
minimum of 5 feet outside of building lines shall be
overexcavated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with
compacted fill. Greater overexcavation couldbe
required as determined by Geotechnical Consultant where
deep fill of 20+ feet transitions to bedrock over a
short distance. Typical details are given on Figure D-
1.
3.0 COMPACTED FILLS
3.1 Material to be placed as fill shall be free of organic
matter and other deleterious substances, and shall be
approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. Soils of poor
gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics shall
be placed in areas designated by Geotechnical
Consultant or shall be mixed with other soils to serve
as satisfactory fill material, as directed by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
3.2 Rock fragments less than twelve inches in diameter may
be utilized in the fill, provided:
1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets.
2. There is a minimum of 75% overall of fine grained
material to surround the rocks.
3. The distribution of rocks is supervised by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
3.3 Rocks greater than twelve inches in diameter shall be
taken off-site, or placed in accordance with the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant in areas
designated as suitable for rock disposal. (A typical
detail for Rock Disposal is given in Figure D-2.
?8
standard Grading and Earthwork specifications
Page Four
3.4 Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise
considered unsuitable shall not be used in the
compacted fill.
3.5 Representative samples of materials to be utilized as
compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of
the Geotechnical Consultant to determine their physical
properties. If any material other than that previously
tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate
analysis of this material shall be conducted by the
Geotechnical Consultant as soon as possible.
3.6 Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly
spread, watered, processed, and compacted in thin lifts
not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a
uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and
compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise
approved by the Geotechnical Consultant.
3.7 If the moisture content or relative' compaction varies
from that required by the Geotechnical-Consultant, the
Contractor shall rework.the fill until it is approved
by the Geotechnical Consultant.
3.8 Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the
maximum density in compliance with the testing method
specified by the controlling governmental agency or
ASTM 1557-70, whichever applies.
If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by
the controlling governmental agency because of a
specific land use or expansive soil condition, the area
to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall
either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate
reference made to the area in the geotechnical report.
3.9 All fills shall be keyed and benched through all
topsoil, colluvium alluvium, or creep material, into
sound bedrock or firm material where the slope
receiving fill exceeds a ratio of five horizontal to
one vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of
the Geotechnical Consultant.
3.10 The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum width of
15 feet within bedrock or firm materials, unless
otherwise specified in the geotechnical report. (See
detail on Figure D-3.)
~
standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page Five
3.11 Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance
with the ordinances of the controlling governmental
agency, or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Consultant. (Typical Canyon Subdrain details are given
in Figure 0-4.)
3.12 The contractor will be required to obtain a m~n~mum
relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finish
slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and
stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either
over building the slope and cutting back to the
compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope
face with suitable equipment, or by any other procedure
which produces the required compaction approved by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
,
3.13 All fill slopes should be planted or protected from
erosion by other methods specified in the Geotechnical
report.
3.14 Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly. keyed through
topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or firm
materials, and the transition shall be stripped of all
soil prior to placing fill. (See detail on Figure 0-
03. )
4.0 CUT SLOPES
4.1 The Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect all cut
slopes at vertical intervals not exceeding ten feet.
4.2 If any conditions not anticipated in the geotechnical
report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or
confined strata of a potentially adverse nature,
unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes
encountered during grading, these conditions shall be
analyzed by the Geotechnical Consultant, and
recommendations shallobe made to mitigate these
problems. (Typical details for stabilization of a
portion of a cut slope are given in Figures 0-3a and 0-
5. )
4.3 cut slopes that face in the same direction as the
prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash
by a non-erodible interceptor swale placed at the tope
of the slope.
~
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page Six
4.4 Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report,
no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than
that allowed by the ordinances of controlling
governmental agencies.
4.5 Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance
with the ordinances of controlling governmental
agencies, or with the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Consultant.
5.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS
5.1 Trench excavations for utility pipes shall be
backfilled under the supervision of the Geotechnical
Consultant.
~
5.2 After the utility pipe has been laid, the space under
and around the pipe shall be backfilled with clean sand
or approved granular soil to a depth of at least one
foot over the top of the pipe. The sand backfill shall
be uniformly jetted into place before the controlled
backfill is placed over the sand. '
5.3 The on-site materials, or other soils approved by the
.Geotechnical Consultant shall be watered and mixed as
necessary prior to placement in lifts over the sand
backfill.
5.4 The controlled backfill shall be compacted to at least
90 percent of the maximum laboratory density as
determined by the ASTI D1557-70 or the controlling
governmental agency.
5.5 Field density tests and inspection of the backfill .
procedures shall be made by the Geotechnical Consultant
during backfilling to see that proper moisture content
and uniform compaction is being maintained. The.
contractor shall provide test holes and exploratory
pits as required by the Geotechnical Consultant to
enable sampling and testing.
6.0 GRADING CONTROL
6.1 Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by
the Geotechnical Consultant during the progress of
grading.
"3>1
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page Seven
6.2 In general, density tests should be made at intervals
not exceeding two feet of fill height or every 500
cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary
depending on soil conditions and the size of the~job.
In any event, an adequate number of field density tests
shall be made to verify that the required compaction is
being achieved.
6.3 Density tests should also be made on the surface
material to receive fill as required by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
6.4 All cleanout, processed ground to receive fill, key
excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals should be
inspected and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant
prior to placing any fill. It shal~ be the
contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical
Consultant when such areas are ready for inspection.
7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
7.l Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be
provided by the Contractor during grading and prior to
the completion and construction of permanent drainage
. controls.
7.2 Upon completion of grading and termination of
inspections by the Geotechnical Consultant, no further
filling or excavating, including that necessary for
footings foundations, large tree 'wells, retaining
walls, or other features shall be performed without the
approval of the GeoteChnical Consultant.
7.3 Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final
grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces,
interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent
nature on or adjacent to the property.
~'
FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS.
FOR EXPANSIVE SOilS
(ONE AND TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS)
1.ITOflY POO11NOI
EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION INDEX
o - 20 21 - 50 51 - 10 81 - 130
VERY lOW EXPANSION LOW EXPANSION MEDIUM EXPANSION HIOH EXPANSION
AU 'OOTINOI 11 INCHEI ALL 'DOTING' 11 INCHEI IXTI!1II10R 'OOTINOI ,. EXTI!:fltoR FOOTlNClI '4 ..eM,
DIE', 'OOTINGa OIEE'. FOOTtNaa IHCHEI DEEP. IMTEflID.. D!e:', I'NTEfltofl FOOTINOI ,.
CONT1NUOUI. NO ITlEL CONTINUOUS. I-NO." l,llt FOOTlNOS I. INCHES DEE'. INCHES DEE', I-NO. I IA" TOP
MOUIflED PO" UP"NIION TO'" AND 'OTTOM. l-NO. .. IA" TOP AND AND 10TTOM.
FOItCEI. lOTTO...
ALL FOOTING' " tNCHI!I ALL. 'OOTINOI tI INCHEI ALL FOOTINGS " INCHEII EXTERIOR FOOTtNOI .4 PIC"II
DEEP. FOOTlNOS DElP. FOOTINGI DE!', FOOTlNot DEEP. INTERIOR 'OOTINO. ,.
CONTINUOUS. NO ITUL CONTINUOUS. I-NO. .. UR CONTINUOUS. 1-NO. 4 .AR INCHEI DEEP. 1-"0. . IAII TOP
MWRED fOil UPANIION TOP AND 10TTOM. TOP AND IDTTOM. AND 10TTOM.
fORCEI.
NOT 1lE0UIIIED. 12 INCHEI DEEP. 1-NO. 4 IAR l' INCHEI DEEP. 1-f10. 4 IAR 24 INCHEI DEEP. 1-NO. . I"R
TOP AND lOTTO... TOP AND lOTTO... TOp AND 10TTOM.
1-'TOIIY fOOTINGI
GARAGE DOOR GRADE
tEAM
LIVING AIlEA FLOOR 'LA" 31 111 INCHEI THtCK. NO MEIH 81/1 INCttEl THICK. I 1/1 INCHEI THICK. 4 INCHEI THteK. . X '_11'
1lE0000D FOR UPANSK)N . X '-10110 WIRE ME'H AT . X '-10/'0 WIRE MElH AT WIRE MESH AT MID-HEIGHT.
'OItCEI. NO lASE REQUIRED. MID-HEtoHT.. INCHEI MID-HEIOHT. 4 ..cHE' NO. . DOWELLI FROM FOOnNO
. .... VIlOUEEN MQflTURE GRAVEL 0fII lAND IAIE. . GRAVEL OR lAND IAIE. . TO 'LA' AT 18 INCHEI ON
"'RRrER PLUS' INCH lAND. MIL VlIaUEEN MOllTURE Mil VllaUEEN MOllTURE CENTEII. 4 "CHES ORAVEL 0fIl
'ARRIER l"LUI 1 INCH .AND. .ARRIER PLUS' INCH lAND. lAND lASE. e MIL VI. QUEEN
MOllTURE lIARRIEfI PLUS ,
INCH SAND.
GAIltAGE fLOOR SLAlI '1/. IlICHEI THICIt. NO MEIH . ,,. IHCHEI THICK. a 112 INCHEI THICK. 4 INCHEI THICK. . X .-ell
RfOUlRED fOR UI'ANSION . X '-'0110 WIRE MESH OR . X '-10/'0 WIRE MElH OR WIItE MEIH OR aUARTER
'ORCEI. NO IA.E REQUIRED. QUARTER 'LAI.. 1I0LATE QUARTER SLA". leOLATE SLAIlI. 1I0UTE ....0.. ITlM
NO MOISTURE IARRIER FRO" 'TE" WALL fOOTlNGI. '''OM ITEM WAll 'OOTING.. WALL FOOTlNGI. 4 INCHEI
REQUlRED. . INCHEI ROCK. GRAVEL OR 4 INCHEI ROCK, GRAVEL OR ROCK, GRAVEL Dill lAND IAIE.
SAND "'IE, NO MOIITURE 'AND IAIE. NO MOISTURE NO MOIITUAE IAAAIER
.AAAIEA REQUIAED. .ARAIER REQUIRED. REQUI~ED.
""E-IOAKINO 0' LlVINO NOT REQUIRED. MOISTEN 10AK TO '2 INCHES DEPTH 10AK TO 11 "CHES DEPTH SOAK TO 24 INCHEI DEPTH TO
A"EA AND GARAGE ILAI I'AIOA TO POURING TO 4" AIOVE OPTI"U" TO ... AIOVE OPTlMU.. a.. AIOYE OPTIMUM MOlanmE
lOlLS CONCAETE. MOISTUAE CONTENT. MOISTUAE CONTlNT. CONTENT.
NOTEI: t) ALL DEPTHS ARE RELATIVE'TO aLAtIU'ORADE.
2) IP'ECIAL DEIIGN II REQUIRED fOA VERY HIGHLY EXPANSIVE lalLa.
FOUNDATION AND SLAB DETAil
(NOT TO SCALE)
DOWEL (WHEN Al:QUIAED)
YIIQUEEN
GRAVEL OR SAND 'AIE (WHEN REQUIRED)
FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
JOB NO.:
DATE:
FIGURE NO.:
33
EARTH TECHNICS
ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
(Boulders greater than two feet
in diameter)
--
BUILDING
Finish grade
Clear area for foundations,
utilities, and pools
-0- ~....:.. U - -0---0--
"-
o 0..1.. 0 0 0-.....
4' I 15' I ........
r ~ "
,
'---r------
10' or below depth of
deepest utility trench,
which ever is deeper
o
t
Windrow
TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (edgeviewl
Clean (S.E. > 30)
Granular soil flooded
to fill voids
Horizontally placed
compacted fill
PROFILE VIEW
~
TRANSITION LOT DETAILS
CUT-FILL LOT
NATURAL GROUND
1-
-
- ....
--
--
--
--
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR 1
,- MATERIAL APPROVED BY . ~
I THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
CUT LOT
--
- -REMOVE __ -- -
_ - - ""'-YNSUITABLE -..... _-
__ - - MATERIAL _
- - - --~
:::-:::_:_:_:_:-:::_-_-_-_-_:_-_-_-:...-_-_-_-_-~-~ ----------------T-:...-------------..:----:--
..' ___ __.".-_ "t'Y/' V\ I^
-COMPACTED:...-_-_--~--_ . \
~:~~~;:~~~ OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
---
--------
NATURAL GROUND
1-
--
-
--
-
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR f
r-- MATERIAL APPROVED BY .
t THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
NOTE:
Deeper overexcovolion and recomooction sholl be performed
if determined to be necesscry by the geotechnical consultant.
?::>5'
BENCHING DETAILS
FILL SLOPE
- --------.
---------------
_--:...--..:....:.COMP^CTEO .-.:------.
----. ,... -----
__-_-_-___-_-_-=~FILL :.:-.:.:------.:
---------------------
-------------------------------~,.;:::--~--~
--:::-:-::-:-:~--:-:-~ :::::-:---- --~
---------- -------~~~~~
--..:.:----------.:---~~----ffi -- -::1'
----------~----~ ~~~
PROJECTED PLANE ---- ---------~-
I I . f. ------------..:-;;-~------:=--';;..---
to maxImum rom loe -------;,------.-[,,. ~ .
------,-----~- ~~
of slope to approved ground _-:::-::-:-::z::""::---:----~-=:-:= '\
----------...:k 1 ,,..;->' REMOVE
---_.......-----.-.- "
_-;.2:".:.:.:--- __=.: UNSUITABLE:
_._------ ::.=-: - - M"TERIAL
...--------........ ,,.,. ~ ,...
_-=-::-:j:~-~~:- ~4' MIN. ~ "BEN H
_" _..... ___ C
~~.....__ -__ -.: -- BEN.CH HEIGHT
__-_-.:2% MIN.:..---- (typical) VARIES
------=,;;;.----
T ~^... - -;~-
2' MIN.l 15' MIN. I
KEY ~OWEST BENCH ..,
OEPTH (KEY)
U'
NATURAL
GROUND \
I"
_-: COMPACTED :-:-:-:;:"':"
----~ Fl L -------
_____t L ----------z-
------------..:- -".~--:--?
-----------------~
------- -----~-
--------~----~---
-------"'---_.-------
_____~__ ~ N
____..........c_____;{ .. ..c;::1r-"
------------ I
---........-----~---~,
-~----------..... .
REMOVE. NATURAL . .z::~:::-::.-:~ ....,,-\
UNSUITABLE GROUND ----------------~ ~
MATERIAL \c "-- - ---=-..:---::::- ,,..., r4' MIN. BENCH
- ---~--
_ _ .....-:: ;;::;;;=-_____-_-_ BENC I HEIGHT
. _ _ : -:.2%MiN.-:: (typical) VARIES
__ __ __ _ _ 17--
___ ."".,.~ I:~ ~t .
..... - ~151MIN.~
......... .... I LOWEST BENCH I
FILL OVER' CUT SLOPE
..........
.....
CUT
FACE
To be constructed prior
to fill placement
NOTES:
LOWEST BENCH: Depth and width subject to field change
based ~ consultant's inspection.
SUBDRAINAGE:. Back drpins may be required ot the
discretion of the geotechnical consultant.
.~
-
~~..--.
~':;._-
!i.
~.
~'..~-:.
i=i"~,:.:-_
1=':;-
IF-:::~-
I"'L .
I~~.u
I"'C::~_ .
~.
I~~:;~,"
I~'
;;~-':::
I~--
I~::
t:.,~~
E::;:--
:..;;;.-,
~f-...
~=,-
r.~ -
0;;.0:;::_
~~-- .,-.
~<C~-_._,__:~~~C":~.~_ .. - _~um
.. __ .c~,
APW-ENElliXD
,
. -......."-',
--"--'-~'"'
--"~~--
.......__ __ '0 _ ~ .~_ ._.
.',. -- ,-... -- .--...- ~" '-.-... .-',-.,.-----------.- -----.._-",-,-_.. -',' - -... --.
'-UIlnu;.-~Ii~~,,",i'i~~::;~:"~~~;;;;""~
-------
~,(.1u -
,-
SURF.! CI AL SLOPE S TABIU TY
S.F. = Hell'S) cos20( tan ~ + C
;Is H Sin ~ coso<..
49 oi '" O.63?
SI"o/ '" 0, '3!?'Z-
. T~n~ -- 0.610
.
zone of
saturation
i.
.
, "F-S =
. 1-I(~e.o)(b.6'11?L=.4so
,
,14 (1~2.?) (0.5Sl) (0, B~)
H= Depth' of saturation tone
~S = Bouyant weight ~f soil =(,&.0
fS." . l-I (47.1) -'1"4<;0
\-Il 60.9) ,
2l's = Total wet weight of soil = 1,2,5
~ = ~gle of internal friction = 27
C = Cohesion = A5D
S.F ~ ~
H' S.F.
1, 4.47
-
4 Z,b/.
..
Project No;: . g8 U4 -6 \
Calc. ~y: ~LS
Chit. by: LJ f
Date: . 1~/qb
:?:8
~'"
-
..:__--.:0
- .-~1J~\
:-:~~:-
..
PUBLISHED REFERENCES
Blake, T.F., 1994, Computer Services Software, A computer Program
for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration
from Digitized California Faults, EQFAULT, July 1995
Blake, T.F., 1994, Comnputer Services Software, A Computer
Program to Determine Historical Seismicity from Digitized
California Faults, EQSEARCH, July 1995
Bolt, B.A., 1973, Duration of strong Ground Motion: Proc. Fifth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 2927
.
Clark, M.W., Harms, K., et al., 1984, Preliminary Slip-Rate and
Map of Late-Quaternary Faults of California, U.S.G.S. Open-File
Report 84-106, 12 p.
Crowell, J.C., 1975, San Andreas Fault in Southern California, A
guide to San Andreas Fault from Mexico to carrizo Plain, C.D.M.G.
Spec. Rept. No. 118, 272p
Hart, E.W., 1994, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California,
C.D.M.G. Special Report No. 42, 25p
Hays, W.W., 1980, Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground
Motions, U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1114, 77p
Hileman, J.A., Allen, C.R., and Nordquist, J.M., 1974, Seismicity
of the Southern California Region, 1 January 1933 to 31 December
1972, Seismo. Laboratory, Calif. Institute of Tech., Pasadena,
Calif. 404p
Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the
Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California,
C.D.M.G. Spec. Report 131, 12 pages
Peterson,M.P., Bryant, W. A., Cramer, C.H., Reichle, M.S., 1996,
Probabilistic seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of
California, C.D.M.G. Open-File Rept. 96-08
ploessel, R.J., and Sloson, J.E., 1974, "Repeatable High Ground
Accelerations from Eartjqiales", in California Geology, Sept.
1974
Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motion and Soil
Liquefaction During Earthquakes, E.E.R.I. Nomograph, 134p,
Berkley Press
Slemmons, D.B., 1977, State-of-the-Art for Assessing Earthquake
Hazards in the United states, Army Corps of Engineers, Misc.
Papers, S-73-1, Repoort 6, Fault and Earthquake Magnitude, 240p
~