The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTract Map 9833-3 Lot 29 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Ear h echnics :;.-- PREUMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Single - Lot, Residential Development Lot 2, Tract 9833-3, Calle De Velardo Temecula. Riverside County, California ~ -, September 10, 1999 PROJECT NO. 99289-01 PREPARED FOR: Marc & Marie Gosch 27409 Tierra Verde Drive Heme!, California 92544 RECEIVED SEP 151999 CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMEN" \ Earth Technics P,O. Box 891989, Temecula, California 92589 (909) 699-5451 September 10, 1999 Project No. 99289-01 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 20-Scale Grading Plan prepared by GW Engineering Inc., Hemet, 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 2 INDEX MAP ~ 2000 4000 N , o SCALE feel INDEX MAP OF 2.34+/- ACRES, NEC CALLE DE VELARDO & PESCADO DRIVE LOT 2, TRACT 9833-2 TEMECULA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SOURCE: U.S.G.S. 7~ MIN.~QUAD, PECHANGA 1968 (PR 1988) ~ 98289-01 Page 3 2.0 SITE LOCATION/CONDITIONS The trapizoidal-shaped 2.34+/- acre property is located At the northeast corner of Calle De Velardo and pescado Drive, both improved paved roads in the santiago Estates development. Calle De Velardo forms the western property boundary, Pescado Drive the southern boundary, with existing or underconstruction single- family homes 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 15 degrees descending from the ridge to the northwest. The weeds and grasses have been recently mowed and only stubble remains. No drainages are located on the property. 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ~ According to the referenced 20-scale Grading Plans, a large pad and driveway access will be constructed utilizing both cut and fill grading. Maximum cuts and fills are 6 and 7.5 feet respectfully at finished slope inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The pad area for the proposed single-family residence will be constructed in transition from cut on the south to fill on the north. Minor cuts and fills are proposed for the driveway and turnaround 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 99289-01 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 99289-01 Page 5 5.4 Sand Eauivalent Testina 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 Testina 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. ~ 5.7 Soluble Sulfate A representative surface sample was tested to determine soluble sulfate content. The test results are used to recommended the type and strength of concrete to be used in construction. 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 below a very thin colluvial soil. 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. 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 ~ 99289-01 Page 6 ground water. No evidence of seepage was seen in the natural slope faces surrounding the property. 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. 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 Fault of the Elsinore Fault Zone which is located approximately 1.8 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 99289-01 Page 7 TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF SEISMIC PARAMETERS Fault Maximum Moment Distance to site Maanitude (M) Peak Ground Acceleration At site (q) Elsinore 1.8 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 (1998) 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. We have utilized strain rates of 5.0 mm/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 8 99289-01 Page 8 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, (1998). 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. U.B.c. Seismic Parameters: Type B Fault Approximately 2.9 Km Sb Soil Type 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. ~ 99289-01 Page 9 15.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15.1 Foundation Desian 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 l-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. to 99289-01 Page 10 15.4 Exoansive Soils - Soluble Sulfate 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 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. This is in accordance with the U.B.C. Table 18-B-1. The soluble sulfate content was 32 ppm allowing normal Type II concrete with 2500 psi strength. 15.5 Earthwork Shrinkaae 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 Retainina Wall Desian . 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 lb/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 psf/ft (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. \t 99289-01 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 1:1 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 Strenath 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 (Dearee) Cohesion Ib/ft2 Anticipated On-site Fill 23.5 380 We have utilized values of 23.5 degrees and 380 lb/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. \Z. 99289-01 Page 12 Drainage and terracing should be in accordance with Uniform Building Code Appendix Chapter 33 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 Clearina and Grubbina Any heavy brush and grasses that exist at the time of grading 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 Bui1dina Pad Areas The proposed building pad is shown in transition and will 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 overexcavated 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. \~ 99289-01 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 Testina 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 ImDact 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 \~ 99289-01 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 rep 's office should be notified. ~c.\~EERING' 'L~ ~ ~<S q.l. ~ ~ <:-~ ~ - e>~ , Larry J. Fast R.C.E. 29150 Registration WLS/LJF:ss Distribution: (4) Addressee t~ '- I I I I I ; , I f ~9 I )/ I Iii ) It? ',- -. .~______\--r--_--':""""-- i \ ,. \ \ \ \ ". ~, -"~ . "- <)~, . 'C.) /." '.y ,S j /, ~6... " ,\ " , .-' /" .' ~ -'" ., ~ /' \' - ~... /' j':: ' ,', -~./ /__.~--_..-::.:..:...:..-..:-.~' . . - / : - "P" //~ / / :3 ~ ~~ -~.::!!.." . ~ ::! Q I , -, .' / I " -- -- ' ,/ ' 1>/ '-.,--r-.-- .', I , , i I . - " \ ' . - \ ~ \ " '....0; -;;;0 ~~ I Jil . _."._ :1::... .... ..- . _ . _ __ u_"" u. - __. ._, _."..,,4' - -; / I , / - ~ I .~ I ~ '" - ,. ~.:,: (J, t /~ I V , -- I ,:;; ~ / // '/;-"",,/,; ',. I . . C .- /. ..". . '. ." .' /. ". " / I . '. . - /" " '.' /' I', . ( , '/ I J ,/ - '~I cP ,-, -,-. ,.J\;)' ;.; .17:1 S -;- , (~ .I / / / I '" '<J> o I / f I I I I i " ., j I , 'ii 'I , \ . ~ .~-- ~-.....- I , , , , I --I) I. I I , ...---. ,.. 52 t-< t-< t"J ----a . I 1---. , ~. ~. ~ o t::l t"J I I , I " - - - - ....---- .~.-. -. T .... I,l. ~ . ~,[:\ ~ _..::>~~- - --- m G1 tx:l' "'C >< m tT1 :J> "'1:; 0 t:1 C ~ +---3 0 to o tT1 H ;1>- S ~ ~ ;g ~ o H ;J> ~ 'tI ;0 n .., s; -<;J> .., ,.... H .., .., .., H Z ;one: 0..... m;oo Z -f- Z 0 m n '" - :I: '" 0 '" Z m n .., H o Z -.,. ... ~ I N @~ ----~-- H "" '" '" ;0 0 '" H ;0 Q\Q ~ Z m ;0 G) >< -< ....... "" '" ;J> '" m Z m m '" m "" H "" ;J> o ;J> G) Z G) m m '" "" m "" H m H .., "" .., ;J> .., G) m m '" .., I :I: .... OQ ::r H 10 '" p.. '" o .... H Ul '~I '.1'0' "" H .., th -< th -f m 3: c m CII i5 Z DRIVE * * HH;o U'l ZC/:l tT.I , ,.... n '" m",o .., :;:: '" "':;:: m 1m 0 ""Z ;0 n.o 0 -0- om 0 "'0 :;:: 0;J> :I: H"" 0 ~"" e: ,.... '" ,... m ..,n m;J> ;0 ;0'" m H .0 "'0 e: mz H m ;0 "";0 m ;J>;J> '" G)'" mm H '" ""0 '" H"" '" .., I enH G) . ;J> :e:N t""" H ,.... ..,OQ 0 :I: 10 Z H N....... en '" Ul m .0 "" .,.,. .., m H m,.." ..,rt .., "'~ ~ mp.. "" ""'10 0'< ::;: PESCADO -----,A ._-- - ,. I \ , ; i ,. , I , , i -D ~ N ~ , 5? - <J' 'tI S m ... \ u..o~ - 19~2 M6.' ~i~' . I -;~ "<." . l . ~.7 I ' ..... ); ."'::"~I' I / . ',~ . '~I' ~ . I, ! ""'~"''' ~ 00 eo ,~., ~~ t,,_ . ..."....\ '\" " "" ~C: ...~ . "<\'4",,. . ......,.., "~ ~~~ .....'4IJ... ". ....~,. ". BAR TOW .... "0. . . ".0 " \ , R --- --. A ~~.N ~.\ '\ ~ .... ~ " .'0 :~>- ,\ (1"1 ~. ~ .-~!:-.:\ .~q, :.v".o~,,': ~~_~. \ \~: 7," - -. ..\11 . Oci.O!'oo. ~ \.\; ~ "'.:-\ 'I'l 'O"",O~~ ~ . b\ ~\~"'b1- ~~ 'I ...... ~: \ \ \ ~ o<\' <) ~... . ~.~,. ,.:.~ ;".1 ~~~ ...,.. v. .,;~ ';' "ll' . ~' ~'liIIYGS \~ )1 ~ \ . '.. 1907,' ., ~~"AlN . ,..!-l.1Q..-':'~1 . -__.. f.~'f. '\ 4I'SSIO ..--- ....Gj BANNI..... ~.., I' ,. 918 "40 M6.8 .,. . PALM , SPRINGS -..-- -I! i 1947 --../MU ~..~.:fl ~.m.q.1 B \ '%;.1, '.0 "0. /:' '" ::L.... FAU.lT .......... ........... '. ...... . \'" ~.n'" . ...' ea'tlllnll' . ...... Island T~. . .................... . .,....... . ....., . ...."" , "~. MILES \._ II 10 ~ Oooe .>~ ..t<'), 194. .....:.... . }:~__<M5.9.6.1 ......_.___ '__-" MAJOR EARTHQUAKES and RECENTLY ACTIVE FAULTS . SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION Gosc,:! CAu..E: "DE VE.L..A~:f)O, TSM~I..A DATE: FIGURE: PLATE 2 w.o. NO: 9g'2.M~OI \(0 APPENDIX A , 11 GEOTECHNICAL TRENCH LOG Project Nlme ~~H Project Number Oj0'l8CJ -() I - j ~ . ~ l I J_ 'ii i - - i 1: I ! = . '# . II! :::: 10 'i I . U " .!. ~ ~ . & - 0 t _ u. ~ I . '" ;: . E j -~ ~ . J .lI to 0 B MD st-\ I":r u I~./) 0.1 \ llS ~ (<J4,1l GS !'-' 115.; 9,S 'Sol- 195,B) Elevation 12'57""- Trench No. T - 1 Equlpmlnl GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION /N,LShey) I~ Logged by Dltl 0/8 / <J ') Slmpled by II ..,' S<>IL-/CO!..LVVlijM _ 1\9hf~II~."~h howl'> lol'lL%S'rll:J Slind ':.!n.rJ of cI~. Hod ~~ , dAmr (Jon"" 1.Lf1../4 (,'~ ~..d.I." eWiWCJ<.-fttub"f;.y, - t'<td 2.r;V(<.5/,.5/e CI~I7'I!.{''''~( S"a~ "'/5~. i'U"""tALd 1.",vd~ Yl-'. '(u-y- UM.I, .~ml'. v1(u~4iI"'f to V? p~ . 'Qu.. I n-tQ.) V.RJ<> o( b~WfL.l4h~.v 10 Yt<y<' .(;'I\i -Y'\.ld f'I'1Il/Yt BI/~ Iv cJ;..", Sli)'ll(. @~ N7o-75W 5' rlC. V.ftA, 1,)1. dg,mf. ~ 'n..J.hb.tJ.,'(c.tt<,.... oJ,,;,,! 10;;. 'i-f.Jik o 10 15 T.i)7~ ' , ' ",No WP#1/M01f-l'j /~v"r; , . ' .' GRAPHIC LOG trend- scale: 1"" * Test Symbols :' , B" lulk Simple R. Ring Sampl. . . se. Sand c- MD., Mulmum Denllty . OS ~'Oreln SIz. ':SE" Sind Equlvl"nt E I. ExplInelon Index (90). R.latlv. eomp.ctlon ",", . Ear h echnics I~ G.EOTECHNICALTRENCH LOG Project Name GosC::H proJecl Number ",qzAq -0 \ ~ I - . 6: K. I 1i~ 'i ~ - -; ! - I I ~ =oi . # . . = . ; .U 0: . . 6: - . & -. - 0 t . 'I u::i 6: ! - . E j - - ~ ~ . i .:l .. 0 1'21.8 g.4 -; l''l;.K> 5 Elevallon Equlpmenl Trench No. cPr,,~ '50)1) $\J PE.tJ. L l?IK~/l!OE. \1..(" '7-t/_ -:i- 2 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION w .1.-. S~1Q(II~ LOf/Pd by Date 9/8/99 Sampled by 10 SOIL/ C()u.UVld~\ _ SiU. T- i -6r. d.wCY'f-h''"'' ll~i)~oclL -Pll.w~h>, -V~p~'rJ'fb"''' IOVIt % -b hfOW~h ~w loll, j",.h"b;Ji&d S1l1J.Y'Cl.t Sl~ 'j~v~ sar>ds-lt,f)1. ~ I i5h-HJ c\6.!rJ 91!\v~ S6nds~t'{. v~ .uN'( sl dA>>ylv d'r>lf. l)f.OPirJ(- N bO'N ~/JG. o '-, ---.-.-.---;:.,.... 10 "- -r.D. ,- f'lo '/IJ~ /M"tll'r; " 15 " 'I GRAPHIC LOG trend- scale: 1". * Test Symbols B - ,Bulk S"mp'" R -Ring Slmpl. se" ,Sand c- MD" , Mulmum 'DenlU, , , , , OS ~,'Orlln SIz. " ' :,SE - 'Sand Equl......t E I " ExpaMlon Incl.. (90) - .RI..llve Comp8ctlon " , " h echnics \~ APPENDIX B , zo 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-l 0-3' 71 high SAND EOUIVALENT TESTING Sample Location Depth Sand Eauivalent T-2(sandstone) 0-3' 32 2.\ Direct Shear Test Data Project: GOSCH Job Number: 99289-01 Date: "".'- Exihibit: II B"'2"'I'iFt - ~<H;1-1; .-., <."., " Ear~c_hnll ~cs 9/10/99 .,; ,IL d II) - III C. .s;: . . III III l!! .. II) Cl c, .;: l'Il Gl ~ l/) 5 . , , ./ ----- ./" ~ .,/ . ~ o o , Normal Pressure-Kips/SQ. FT.' 5 Excavation Number: T-1 Depth: 0-3' Saturated Test t/J = 23.50 Degrees c = 380 P.S.F. . Actual Values ~ Best-Fit, Line Z-2- ... I Od~VI3" 311"';) NOl.ln8U~I.LSIO :3ZIS NI~~9 .LH~13M A8 ~3NI.:l .LN3:> 1:I3d 13.jlo "" g , S3luq3a~ Q,.nt3_: I o-~\3Z66 'N"r 8'00 '!)If/. :~B II~I"IH9 pull UHUIIII3'"IIIIIIIID:J 'VI 0";):1 W'3..L H ;JSO=> (/) jTj < ITI (/) N ITI (/) I c in . en ~ z o ]> ::0 o ~ (:) is o " - )> b :0 -l o r ITI o j; s: ITI -l ITI :0. I, 0 s: "" r r s: ITI -l ITI :0 (/) b 8 €-g 113BI'lnN .llBIHX3 'i:"Z 0 l11 " -l t :t Gl ;0 .Z. ~ 0 l11 r 0 --l , I \)l ~ -- 0 "TI (J)O ;-i, :1>:1> Z;O O(J) l11 "r --- . . :-r (J)"TI :1>- ZZ Ol11 - :l>C . Z :1>_ !n~ (J) :tl11 ~ pO ," 00 rr :1>:1> (J)(J) (J)(J) -- 0 r ~ ; APPENDIX C 2.1 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 the 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. , 1.4 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 z:s 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.r~location 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 opti~um 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. ~ 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 0-2. ' -z-1 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 place~ 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 fil~ unti~ 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.) 2e . o. 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 m1n1mum 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 properl,y. 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 D- '3. ) 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 shall be made to mitigate these problems. (Typical details for stabilization of a portion of a cut slope are given in Figures D-3a and 0- 5.) . l I 4.3 cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by a non-erodible interceptorswale placed at the tope of the slope. . 2.<\ ;;. T. 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.~ 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 tQ 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 01557-70 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 ~aintained. 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.~ Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the Geotechnical Consultant during the progress of grading. ~ , . 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 shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical Consultant when such areas are ready for inspection. 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 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 footing~ 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 eUllOINGS) 1-STOR'I' FOOTINoa EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION INDEX 0- 20 21 - 50 51 - 80 91 - 130 VERY LOW EXPANSION lOW EXPANSION MEDIUM .EXPANSION HIGH EXPANSION ALL FOOTINGS 12 INCHES All FOOTINOS 12 INCHES EXTEAIOR FOOTINGS" Exn''llOR fOOTINOS 24 INCHES DEE,.. FOOTINGS DEE', FOOTlNaS INCHES DEEP. INTERIOR DEEP. INTERIOR FOOTINGS 12 CONTINUOUS. NO STEEl CONTINUOUS. 1-NO." eA." FOOTlNOS 12 INCHES DEE", INCHES DEEP. 1-NO. 6 BAA Tal" REQUIRED FOR UP'ANStOH TO,. AND BOTTOM. 1wHO. .. SAR TOP AND AND eOTTOM. FORcn. BQTTOM. ALL FOOTINOS ,. INCHU ALL FOOTING 1 " INCHES ALL FOOTINOS 11 IHCHEa EXTERIOR FOOTINGa 24 IHeHU DEEP'. fOOTINGS DEE". FOOTINOS DEEP'. FOOTINGS DEEP. INTERIOR FOOTINOS ,. CONTINUOUII. NO !TEEL CONTINUOUS. 1-NO. .. SA,III: CONTINUOUII. 1-NO. .. 'AR INCHES DEEP. 1-NO. 6 liAR TOP REQUIRED FOR flU'ANIIION TOI" AND .OTTO.... TOP AND BOTTO.... AND BOTTOM. FORCES. NOT REOUIRED. 12 INCHES DEfl". 1-NO. .. IAR 11 INCHES DEEP. 1-NO. .. BAR 24 INCHES DEEP. 1-NO. a BAR TOP AND BOTTOM. TOI" AND BOTTOM. TOP AND BOTTOM. 2-STOftY FOOTINGII GARAGE DOOR GRADE IEAM LLVING AREA FLOOR SL.ABS :I 112 INCHE8 THICK. NO MESH :I 112 INCHES TH~K.. 3 1/2 INCHES THICK. .. INCHES THICK. 0 X 0-011 REOUIRED FOR EXPANSION o X 0-10"0 WIRE MESH AT o X 0-10110 WIRE ME8H AT WIRE ME8H AT MID-HEIGHT. FORCES. NO 'lASE REQUIRED. MID-HEIGHT. 2 INCHfS MID-HEIGHT. .. INCHE8 NO. :I DO WELLS FROM FOOTINO . Mil VISQLlEEN MOISTURE ORAVEL 01'1 SAND BASE. , OAAVEl 01'1 SAND BASE. , TO 8lAB ,AT 38 INCHES ON BAAAIER I"lUS 1 INCH SAND. MIL. VISQUEEN ...OISTURE MIL. V\SQUEEN MOISTURE CENTEA. .. INCHES ORAVEL. OR BARRIER )lolUS 1 INCH SAND. BARRIER PLUS 1 INCH 8AND. 8ANO BA8E. , MIL. VISQUEEN MOISTURE BARRIER I"LUS 1 INCH SAND. OARAOE flOOR SL.ABS :I 1/2 INCHES THICK. NO MESH :I 112 INCHES THICK. 3 112 INCHES THICK. .. INCHES THICK. 0 X 0-01' REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION o X 0-10110 WIAE ME8H 01'1 o X 0-10110 WIRE MESH OR WIRE MESH OR QUARTEA FORCES. NO BASE REQUIRED. QUARTER SLABS. ISOL.ATE QUARTER aLASS. ISOL.ATE aL.AU. ISOLATE FROM STEM NO MOISTURE BARRIER FROM 8TE... WALL FOOTlNQS. FROM STEM WALL FOOTINGS. WALL FOOTINGS. .. INCHES REQUIRED. 2 INCHES ROCK. GRAVEL. OR .. INCHES ROCK. GRAVEL OR ROCK. GRAVEL OR 8ANO BASE. SAND lASE. NO MOISTURE 8AND BASE. NO MOISTURE NO MOISTURE BAARIER BARRIER REQUIRED. BARR!f;R REQUIRED: REQUIRED. ""E-SOAKING OF LIVING NOT REQUIRED. MOISTEN 80AK TO 12 INCHES DE.PT,H 80AK TO '111 ..,CHE8 DEPTH 80AK TO 24 INCHE8 DEPTH TO A"EA AND GARAGE SLAI PRIOR TO POURING TO 4'" ABOVE OPTIMUM TO &Yo ABOVE OPTIMUM 6," ABOVE OP~IMUM MOISTURE SOILS CONCRETE. MOISTURE CONTENT. MOISTURE CONTENT. CONTENT. ' HOTES: 1) ALL DEPTHS ARE RELATIVE'TO 8LAB SUBGRADE. 2) SPECIAL DESION IS REQUIRED FOA VERY HIGHLY EXPANSIVE SOIL.S. FOUNDATION AND SLAB DETAIL (NOT TO SCALE) DOWEL (WHEN REOUIRED) 8ANO lASE (WHEN REQUIRED) SLAB 8UBORAOE ....r .. ,,- l' .. ~ .;. ~d :f,;~>., DEPTH OF EXTERIOR DEPTH OF PRE-SOAKED EXTUIOIt fOOTlMG FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS JOB NO.: DATE: FIGURE NO.: ?:2. EARTH TECHNICS- BENCHING DETAilS - -- - - -- . FILL SLOPE ----:":-:::-C-OMP:CTEO-:-:-:-:-:-. --_--.-_-:..-~~;.:-:. -. ..:...---------.:.. __________FILL ------- --------------------- --..:_-.:...---_-:...--~-----_'":..------:..:-...;:::..~--..: --:~..:- ::-:;::~::~::?-:~:~~_:_~::::;-:-~:-~ -----------~~--------=, -----------=---::-----~-:...-----~3 I"",,,, PROJECTEl? PLANE . _-_-:-:-:-:-:-:;2-::::::--~-~--3 110 I maxImum from loe ---------------r ''''~ ' of slope to approved ground _-:~::-:;:~::.::-~:~;;-::::-~~ V' , _-:...-_-..:_..;-~-__:...-..:_;:' f! 'A-'''' REMOVE __~____---....---lI; UNSUITABL= -....~-----..?::"':--- NATURAL ~-:::-:-::-:-:;:C'~ - ~ ,MATERIAL GROUND - -- ---:"'7~"":---- ~4' MIN ~ " \ ,II. -_-;.._-_-_-;....-~-_-_-_--- BENCH' BENCH ^ L -~_::.::~---:---:~-:-:- I. HEIGHT "" -I- __-_--=2% MIN.:..----- (typIcal) VARIES ------=,,;;,---- T ~^... -- , ~- 2' MIN.l I S' MIN. I KEY !"1-0WEST BENCH .., DEPTH (KEY) - ------------ . . _-: COMPACTED ;.-:-:-:;:-::- FILL OVER. CUT SLOPE ------....:--iF1LL=---;~----~ --=~::=:~:::~~:-=::-~-~-:r-~ --- ----..,:0: ~---....=-:--- -----------.--:-_---- :;--- -----.-..::-----:..:3 4 ,qll"-' ------------;-J, I _-:...;::...-:::-_-_-_-_-_-~_-___-J( ... REMOVE. NATURAL z-::_:",:-:"":-::?-:-5 ...." -\ UNSUITABLE GROUND ----------------~, ~ MATERIAL ~ ' _ '=\- - _-::~:;;::-2.- ......" r4' MIN. BENCH _ - ~ _~:;;:.,c------- SENe I HEIGHT , "', _~, - --:2%MiN.-::: ' ,(typicoll VARIES _ _ __ _ 'F -- . __ - ~~ ':.0-;: I . _ - ~IS' MIN.~ , ' ..... .... ..... I LOWEST 8 ENCH I --- --- .... CUT FACE To be constructed prior to fill placement NOTES: LOWEST BENCH: Depth and width subject to field change , based Co" consultant's inspection. S;j~ORAl~JAGE:. E!:,~k c~.:.:.,~ mey be required at the discretion or the geotechnical consultant. 33> TRANSITION LOT DETAILS CUT-FILL LOT NATURAL GROUND 1~ - - - -- - .". - ", --- --- --- -"'* 5' f- __- __- MIN. ~ - - - __ _\..: ~ __ __ 0- : COMPACTED ::FJLi.:-:-:...,..3-~-:::':"--'C.?~- - ~~-------:I -:-------::-:-::-: 30" MIN. ------------------."^"-\ ---j;..: "" VI' ". -r- .___________~___..._~,.;r:__........- ,... \ 'T --:~-~~~~i0:~~~~~:~:::::: OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPAcT .---.,...-~-O~I'C.-~--:...-..;::;,..- "-...,.,,,, ---"'~ ,... .------ -::.'(l."- - -:. -...: --- --- UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR , 1 r-- MATERIAL APPROVED BY - --.J f THE GEOTECHNICAL CO.NSULTANT CUT LOT -- -- --- NATURAL GROUND ~- -- - -- UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR f ,- MATERIAL APPROVED BY . r THE GEOTECHN ICAL CONSULTANT NOTE: "Deeper overexcovotion ond recomooction sholl be p~rform~d . if determined .0 be neces.scry by the geotechniCCI consultonl. ?A APPENDIX D ?5 SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY S.F. = H (b'a)cos2cxtan ~ + c 1fs H Sin ~ coso(. CA,4o( ... 0.Q"4 $,,,,,\ , (),(4~ .' T~n rj '" 0,4:;4 Sf'", \-\ ~b<;.Io) (D.%B)(O.434)-t-380 Ii (1':'2-) (O.44b) (oJj04) = 2b 1,..' H = Depth of saturation zone ~a = Bouyantweight of soil =b9.b 2l's ,; Total wet weight of soil = 132;tl .' ~ = f.ngle of internal friction = ZD,~ C = Cohesion = 380 , S.F.'= ,I I I . H' S.F. J-. 3.7~ 4 2.13 .. Sf~ ~.. ('t'),e.4) T ?'Qo W('5B.;--) Project No.: . ,)92BQ. 0 I Calc.~y: ~_Wd Chk. bY: W ~ Date: . 0/ ")9 3'- )>0 ;$ ~ ~ \ \~ ~ l<C. , Iv> l> ,1l .. \ \ \ \ -l . ~ I : jl~!\\ ~l~ ~ j:I~ I: . . "-.. --\ } o ., ~ \:i ~ ~ . /J Il lJl ~ r l'I - .~ ~ >- .. ~4! f T 'tl l> ~ o ~ APPENDIX E . !" ~~.~:"~~;::t}1;;^~.c~~~~;"~;Yjffi~~~j~:-f:~i:>-:-J~~i:_~,o_~t;~~.:; _ . 3~ PUBLISHED REFERENCES Blake, T.F., 1998, Computer Services Software, A Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults, EQFAULT, July 1995 Blake, T.F., 1998, 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 ~