HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 18022 Parcel 4 Geotechnical Report
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
Ear h h .
ec nics
~
PREUMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Single - Lot, Residential Development
5.0+ 1- Acres, NEC Nicolas & Uefer Roads
Parcel 4, PM 18022, A.P.N. 957-Q90.023
Temecula, California
December 20, 2002
PROJECT NO. 2258&01
PREPARED FOR:
Mr. Lorin Phipps
clo Only You Realty
28745 Old Town Front Street, Suite D
Temecula, California 92590
\
Earth Technics P.O. Box 891989, Temecula, California 92589 (909) 699-5451 FAX (909) 767-1193
,-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
December 20, 2002
Project No. 22586-01
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
geotechnical and engineering constraints that might exist
considering this development.
The 40-Scale site Plan prepared by this office from field
measurements, was used to direct our field work. Plate 1
presents our Geotechnical data obtained during our field
investigation.
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
'l-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INDEX MAP
j
N
o
2000 4000
SCALE
INDEX MAP
rem OF
5.0 +/- ACRES, APN 957-090-023
PARCEL 4, P.M. 18022
NEe NICOLAS & LIEFER ROADS
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
SOURCE:
U.S.G.S. 7~ MIN QUAD. BACHELOR MTN. 1953 CPR 1973)
2>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! I
22586-01
Page 3
2.0 SITE LOCATION/CONDITIONS
The roughly rectagular-shaped 5.0+/- acre property is located at
the northeast corner of Nicolas and Liefer Roads, both improved
paved roads in the City of Temecula. Nicolas Road bounds the
property to the south, Liefer Road to the west, an existing house
to the north, and 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 highly variable from the flat ridge
along Liefer Road, to the existing 2:1 cut slopes descending to
the secondary building pad on the north. The southern 1/2 of the
site is very gently southeast descending flood plain. Total
relief across. the lot is 24 feet.
considerable improvements exist at the site including two
existing cut and fill graded pads. The two pads were graded
utilizing cut and fill to 16 and 12 feet, respectfully, at
finished face inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or
flatter. The lower, smaller, and more southern pad was created
with 5-6 feet of fill.
The entire site had been disced for weed control at the time of
our field work.
The lot is perimeter fenced with chain-link and barbed wire
fencing.
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The current concept is to place a manufactured I-story single-
family residence with attached garage on the gently sloping ridge
adjacent to Liefer Road. Driveway access will be provided from
Liefer Road. A 60-foot wide and 300 foot long cul-de-sac, Indian
Summer Road, is proposed along the northern property line, but
has not been constructed.
Grading will consist of overexcavation and minor cut and fill
grading of less than 2 feet to establish positive drainage. The
existing slopes will not be altered..
Water will be provided by pressurized pipeline, and sewage
disposal is proposed on the larger of the two existing pads below
the house location.
4.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of our investigation included the following:
1. A review of available data pertinent to the site.
4
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
22586-01
Page 4
2. Subsurface exploration of the site utilizing 2 exploratory
backhoe trenches to depths as great as 15.3 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 DI556-64).
Representative bulk samples were obtained for testing.
3. Laboratory testing of representative earth materials to
develop soil engineering parameters for the proposed
development.
4. Preparation of this report presenting our findings,
conclusions and recommendations concerning site development
based upon an engineering analysis of the 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 01557-00 (five
layer method) .
5.2 In-situ Moisture and Densitv
These tests consisted of performing Sand Cone Density tests (ASTM
DI556-64) 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
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
22586-01
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 in accordance with
ASTM 2216-88 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 area of proposed development is underlain by a thin
soil/colluvium 1.5-2.0 feet thick that is soft and dry. Benearth
the soil/colluvium the site is underlain by the Pauba formation
sedimentary bedrock in dense to very dense condition. In-place
densities for the sedimentary bedrock were from 115.0 pcf (92.1%
relative compaction) to 117.3 pcf (93.9% relative compaction) in
T-l at 1.6 to 4.5 feet, respectfully, and moistures of 4-6
percent.
7.0 GROUND WATER
No ground water seepage was encountered on the site to a depth of
15.3 feet. Historic high ground water is expected to be 38-45
feet at the lowest elevations at the rear of the lot based on
historic ground water in nearby wells (DWR, 1971).
No evidence of seepage was seen in the natural slope faces
surrounding the property.
(p
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
22586-01
Page 6
8.0 FLOODING
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the
County of Riverside, the southern 1/2 of the site is included in
the Santa Gertrudis Creek flood plain as shown on Plate 1. The
building site is located 100 feet horizontally, and over 16 feet
vertically above the flood plain. No flooding potential exists at
the building site.
9.0 GEOLOGY
The entire proposed building pad area is underlain at depths
below 1-2 feet by sedimentary bedrock identified as the Pauba
Formation (Mann, 1955; Kennedy, 1977). The poorly-developed
bedding was oriented N15-20E and dipping 4-6 degrees NW. No
evidence of slope instability exists at the site in the cut
slopes for the existing pad, or along Nicolas Road to the east.
No evidence of slope stability or faulting was noted in the
immediate area (Kennedy, 1977).
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 2.3 miles southwest. The
Casa Loma branch of the San Jacinto Fault is located 32 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.
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 epicenter of magnitude 6.0M on the
Elsinore Fault occured 12+ miles to the northwest in 1910 in Lake
Elsinore. Several earthquakes of magnitude 6.8M and 7.0M have
occurred on the Casa Loma and San Jacinto faults approximately
20-22 miles northeast.
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
1
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
22586-01
Page 7
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. A probabilistic evaluation of potential seismicity
for the site utilizing FRISKSP (Blake 1998) indicates a 10%
probability of exceedance of 0.62g in 50 years assuming all
seismic sources.
We have utilized strain rates of 5.0 mm/year for the Elsinore
Fault suggested by Peterson, et al (1996) to estimate the maximum
moment earthquake. We estimate the maximum moment magnitude or
"design earthquake" to be 7.5 magnitude with a 10% possibility of
exceedance in 50 years. This is in agreement with the
probabilistic model by Blake, (1998).
12.1 1997 U.B.C. Seismic Parameters:
The following UBC seismic parameters should be incorporated into
seismic design:
Nearest Active Seismic Source (Type B Fault) - 3.7 km
Soil Type* - SD
Near Source Factor N, - 1.3
Near Source Factor Nv - 1.6
* Soil type may be Sc but requires additional field work to
verify.
.13vO GROUND MOTION CHARACTERISTICS
The ground motion characteristics which could affect the site
during the postulated maximum moment magnitude of 7.5 were
estimated. Available information in the literature about maximum
peak bedrock acceleration and its attenuation with distance
(Joyner and Borzognia, 1994), the effects of site-soil conditions
on surface ground motion parameters (Seed & Idress, 1982), and
site response criteria (Hays, 1980) were utilized.
The predominant period of bedrock acceleration is expected to be
0.30 seconds with 24 seconds of strong ground shaking (Bolt,
1973) .
14.0 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS
The dense well-cemented nature of the underlying sedimentary
bedrock in the area of the existing pad at depths as shallow as
2.0 feet, and the historic depth to ground water over 48 feet in
the pad area precludes such secondary seismic hazards as
liquefaction, lateral spreading or settlement of the ground the
r5
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
22586-01
Page 8
house is being placed upon. No rockfall hazard exists at the
building site. The potential for seismically-triggered landslides
is discussed in detail under the slope stability section.
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 properly compacted fill or dense
bedrock, an allowable bearing capacity of 1500 psf for 15 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, 1 top and 1 bottom is recommended as a minimum design.
15.2 Settlement
Our subsurface investigation revealed that the underlying
sedimentary bedrock are dense and moisture conditioned. Based on
soil strength values and in-place densities, footings should
experience less than I-inch settlement with less than 1/2 inch
differential settlements between adjacent footings of similar
sizes and loads over a distance of 50 feet horizontally. This
settlement is based upon grading of up to 25 feet of engineered
and compacted fill. 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 2-inch layer of sand, top and
bottom, to prevent puncture of the barrier and enhance curing of
the concrete. Reinforcement of the slabs with 6x6-6/6 welded
wire mesh centered in the 4 inch slab is recommended. The
subgrade below the slab should be moisture conditioned and
properly compacted prior to placement of concrete.
Ii
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
22586-01
Page 9
15.4 Expansive Soils - Soluble Sulfate
Expansion testing of near-surface silty sand soils (T-l ; 0-4
feet) possible at finished grades indicate that the soils in the
pad area are very low expansion. This is in accordance with the
U.B.C. Table 18-B-l. No special design provisions are necessary
for "the foundation or concrete flatwork to resist expansion
forces.
The soluble sulfate content was 62 ppm allowing normal Type II
concrete with 2500 psi strength.
15.5 Earthwork Shrinkaqe and Subsidence
Shrinkage of the colluvium will occur during grading, estimated
as 8-10 percent when recompacted to compacted fill standards. The
sedimentary bedrock is expected to bulk 3-5% when placed as
compacted fill.
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)
42 Ib/ft /ft
52 lb/ft /ft
58 lb/ft/ft
For purpose of lateral resistance, a value of 0.35 may be used
for frictional resistance. A value of 275 lb/ft 1ft 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 should 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
- 42 pounds per square foot of soil depth (psf/ft)
- 58 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 0.35.
\0
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
22586-01
Page 10
15.8 Trench stability
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 proposed graded fill and cut slopes are less than 2 feet. The
existing cut and fill slopes are 16 and 12 feet, respectfully, at
finished face inclinations of 2:1 or flatter. The high strength
values allow 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) cut and fill slopes up
to 40 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
ICut or Fill)
Friction Angle
IDeqree)
Cohesion
Th/f~
Anticipated On-site Fill
26.5
325
We have utilized values of 26.5 degrees and 325 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 and fractures and bedding. All measured
vague poorly-defined bedding was at a low angles of less than 5
degrees.
No evidence of slope instability exists on the site and adjoining
areas. The bedrock and low angle into slope bedding orientation
make all the natural slopes stable.
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 could occur, and they should be planted with drought
resistant landscaping as soon as possible.
~
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
22586-01
Page 11
16.0 GENERAL SITE GRADING
16.1 Clearinqand Grubbinq
Any heavy brush and grasses or remaining trees 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.
16.2 preparation of Buildinq Pad Areas
The proposed building pad is underlain by a 1.5-2.0 feet of loose
soil/colluvium that should be removed. The building pad area
should over excavated to a depth of 2 feet to a distance of 5 feet
outside building foundation lines to a remove the loose near
surface soils.
16.3 Preparation of Surface to Receive Compacted Fill
All sufficiently dense (90 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.
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
o 1557-00 procedure. The area to be filled will be prepared in
accordance with the preceding section.
Fills placed on natural slopes of 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or
steeper will require a key and benching 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
\1.--
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
22586-01
Page 12
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, should be made by a qualified
soils engineer.
Import soils to be utilized for fill should have very low
expansion potential equal to that of on-site native soils.
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, including earth slippage and settlement.
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
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.
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 this report, this office should be notified.
war~ l'er
Director if Ge
Services
FJ/WLS:ss
Distribution:
(3) Addressee
\~
-I"
I
0-
lltl
<00
,
-/T/ - -:Y
/,...--- ........
/?(\c l
r:
.1
~
\
\\
\
\
/
/
j
...-
II
,\
11\'
"'
//
/"
~:>
/..-;'
N> ()
.r
/~
;-
'1,\\'
"'\1/"
.?-
//
../-
/~-
/
/
/
!
/
I
/
,
,
/
///
/
/
/
/
/
/
0\\\
c
~7--r i 11(( i
~ '\"'\\"~
/(1' '\ it' /'
//1 i V>'2
A / b
/ \ ./
I /"" "
/ ~;-,
// '- \\;
<. \
\
-
.--...--~
/
,/
/
.----
".-r:""
./
""
1/ ~
~
,
.------------
{'\
".("1 .
,/" I
/'
_~ /~i II J
hj M
M X
~ hj
n t"' "
o 0 m
t"' ~ ><
:>' :>' "tl
>-3 >-3 r-
H 0 :J>
o ~ Z
Z >< :J>
>-3 >-3 -i
M ~ -
Ul M 0
>-3 Z Z
Ul n
i:I1
M
(fl
1fI\
,
./,,/
(p/l-Ve)
-p i-l
~_r-.)
.,
\ .----
\
,
\
,
\
' \
j / )
I \ /
\ ~'-
& ,,~ ~V //
'///
\ "/,/ /
~V /
/
/ //
/
(
( \
/)
/ /
/
/
//
/
_/
/
/
I
1
1
-----
I
1
4
fl 0
] I
LJ
f-' hj
o ~
o H
"" 3:
:>'
M ~
X ><
hj
:>' t"'
Z M
{fl :>'
H n
o i:I1
Z H
Z
t"' Gl
M
:>' n
n i:I1
i:I1 :>'
H 3:
Z to
Gl M
~
n {fl
:0::
P
3:
to
M
~
Ul
/
/
__.___ <2 AI IcoLAS RDA-D
----------- -- ---,-
-*
OZ
~O
H
<:hj
t'J0
:::~
:>'>-3
><H
{fl0
- Z
MO
>-3"':1
n
. :>'
to
{fl
o
~
hj
>-3
H
o
Z
{fl
><
{fl
>-3
M
3:
e
Z
o
M
~
//
-'
,//
/
III
-<
III
-i
m
::
c
m
III
C;
Z
*
{flW
M]
hjto
>-3M
HO
n~
o
>-30
:>'3:
Z
"i:I1
o
e
Ul
M
~
M
10
e
H
~
M
{fl
f-'
o
o
o
I
Gl
:>'
t"'
t"'
o
Z
.*
...:>,
U1hj
Ohj
t"'
{flH
IOn
e:>,
g;~
MO
Z
"':I
gJ~
>-3>-3
M
o
"':10
"':I
:>'
to...
{flU1
o
~Ul
hjlO
>-3e
H:>'
o~
ZM
:>'"':1
~M
MM
:>'>-3
H
{fl
*--
ot"'
"':1M
:>'
wn
]:0::
"':IH
OZ
OGl
>-3
n
::::0::
tj~
Mto
M
n~
i:I1Ul
:>'
3:H
to{fl
M
~f-'
N
o
t"'
H
Z
M
:>'
:u
"':I
M
M
>-3
"'"
'"
~
~
l'l
o
~
l\l
(\I
~
""
,
o
~
N
"tl
~
....
;$
I
"""\
;1.0"
----
1952
M 6.1
I
'"
...
~~.../
~
...:~-"
....
(;: I I ~<
i ." .,~ I " -fC't~
); ....:.....1' / ,~
., i' 1ft ,
/ '
"'~"" ~
.. '~-9"'"
...~t.OC "',,~ \" >-
'+"Iy.., ............ ",
-9,. '."'"
"~
~."
........~v. ",
....~~ ....~ARSTOW
c
,
,
I
R
,
,
N
._-~
'.
-----
-I
I
'.
1947
6M6.2
~Atll)l fP.\.A,.T
\ I
~.~q-
B
"\.
I
o,;~~o
~~~..~~~~S F.
'l~ '\
"
----~ '.... \.
I '0,
J .
,
I
I
\.~?-'"
<",
"'0
.,,(
\~
~
I
I
I
.....
I
.......
'"
'.
I
I
~.
"'7c;.
Z>=.
1699
M7+
'.
I
.....~~~~Ii,,(f
", Is/and
..-'; . .
".
'.
I
MILES
\_0 10 '(f
'" ~
'4f.J~', '\ i'4
\ ~,'\ <~~h~
1694
.:JULIAN
SAN 0 I' E G
"
I
'"
'"
'"
.....
I
"'%., ~.. MaT
'.""., 1941 ~- .
"fK'~ M5.9-6. HISTQRIC M6.0+ EPICE
. I....
. ..-
. .
. . - .
",
I
I
"uP
to
.lI.EG - 1973)
I
''2258", -0 1
I
NICoLAS ~ LI~~ "';!OAllS,
DATE:
~MEc\.lLA
w.o. NO:
12}02.
FIGURE:
PLA:re ~
/"
\J
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
,<0
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
Project Number
Project Name
Equipment
GEOTECHNICAL TRENCH LOG
22586-01/02
Phipps
Case 580
Trench No. T-l
Date
Elevation
Super L Backhoe
12/12/02
1188 +/-
~ - '"
t) il 0 Geotechnical Description' >
* ~ c. - .H ~
~ '" ~~nIC.
~ 1;; c 0 ~
jj ~ " u ""~ " Logged by: W.Sherling
C\ '0; 'iij rJj ~
~ ..... " il ~
0 -u
! " 1 C\ u . ~
~ 8 ~~ _fI) Sampled by: W.sherling
'0 ::i
fI) fI)~ ~
0- [IJ
J]IID"
I- V SM
sc.-t~ DS_ L_ 115..0 4.3
K {n.1 SOIUCOLLUVIUM - Light yellowish brown 10
GS YR 6/4 silty fine medium sand with minor fine
3- EI gravel. Soft, dry, porous. Sandy silt at lower
sc.-l~ contact. Gradual lower contact.
S04 117.3 5.1
5- (93.9
6-
7- BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATION - Very pale
brown IOYR 7/3-8/2 interbedded sandy siltstone
8- (20%) and silty sand stone with minor fine gravel.
9- Thick beds of sl. silty to nearly clean uniform
medium sand stone with gravel (25% overall).
10- Dense to very dense, sl. damp. Occ. thin interbeds
Il- I 1-4" thick of clayey sand at 8'+. r
12-
13- T.D. lOA Feet
No Water/Mottling
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
\\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
GEOTECHNICAL TRENCH LOG
Project Number
Project Name
Equipment
,22586-01/02
Phipps
Case 580
Date
Elevation
Super L Backhoe
12/12/02
1175 +/-
Trench No. T-2
~ ~ .~
1:> 5 Geotechnical Description' >
Po ]
* ~ ~ 2 tii
~ Yi ,€ 0 ~ :~IC.
] u "'~ " Logged by: W.Sherling
E- o ~ .~ <Ij tii
~ '- " ~ ~ ::s
! 0 -a -u
! u . ..c
~ 8 ~~ _CrJ ~ Sampled by: W.sherling
'0 ;:i
crJ crJ~ U.l
0-
1-
2- BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATION - Yellow
SM/SC IOYR 7/6-7/4 interbedded silty sand (70%) and
3- sandy silt. Weakly cemented sandstone with minor
4- fine gravel to 1/4". Portions of clean sandstone are
5- non-cohesive caving. Moderately dense to dense,
sl. damp. Occ. thin interbeds at 7'+ of clayey sand.
6-
7-
8-
9-
lO- B
U
11- GS L
K
12-
13-
14-
15- T,O, 15.3 Feet
No Water/MolllinQ
16-
17-
18-
19-
\tt>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
\'\
.
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MAXIMUM DENSITY - OPTIMUM MOISTURE DETERMINATION
The maximum density was determined in accordance with ASTM
Standard DI557-78. The result by full laboratory curve is
Sample
Location
Depth
(Feet)
Soil Description
Maximum
Drv Densitv
optimum
Moisture
T-l
0-4
(Soil Type A) pauba Fm
dark brown silty sand
sandy silt
124.9
10.3
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION TESTING
U.B.C. METHOD 29-2
Sample Location
Depth
Expansion Index Expansion Potential
T-l
0-4'
16 Very Low
SAND EOUIVALENT TESTING
Sample Location
Depth
Sand Equivalent
T-l
0-4'
21
~o
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project:
Phipps
Job Number:
22586-01
Date:
Direct Shear Test Data
Ear~c_hnll
~CS
12/19/02
.
5
~
V .......
.............. .....-
........
..,;
u..
d
en
-
III
Q.
i:
,
,
III
III
(I)
..
...
en
Cl
c
0;:
t'lI
(I)
.c
en
o
o
Normal Pressure-Kips/SQ. FT.
5
Excavation Number:
Depth: 1-4'
T-l
Saturated Test
t/J = 26050 Degrees
C = 325 P.S.F.
. Actual
Values
- Best-Fit
Line
?\
s31uq38~ q:jie'3
~ 0- 9_~C;ZZ "N"r
ZO{Z 8100 S1M:~8
,
r-
s<1VQ3 '2>9;1"31"1
'1.!6010.9 pul1 UHU!6u36u!lI"'W:J
~-g~-~ VIO~3W~
1138wnN
1181HX3
-z2
sv-rO;)l l'l
NOl.lnSIH.lSIO 3ZIS NI~HE>
J.H913M ),,8 ~3NI.:l J.N3::> ~3d
~ ". 8 ..... ~
(f)
~
<
~
(f)
N
fTl
(f)
I
c
(f)
(f)
--l
)>
Z
o
)>
:lJ
o
~
b
~ 5 F-=:::;
::0 _,
--l
()
r
rrl
o
)>
s:
rrl
--l
fTI
::0
) 0
s: -
r
r
s:
rrl
--l
rrl
::0
(f)
(5
b
o
is
z
o
H-l
, ,
.,-
~.
~o
0,
.l..!>
~.._---
:"1
I
t
Gl
:u
J>
<
I'Tl
r
o
UlO
J>J>
z:u
OUl
I'Tl
~
!:j
o
r
~
:
Ul."
J>-
Zz
ol'Tl
:u:-
- r
J><=
. Z
J>_
in'"
:x:m
pO
00
rr
J>J>
lJ)Ul
lJ)Ul
o
I'Tl
"tl
--l
:I:
"
;-i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
.
APPENDIX C
z;,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
These specifications present Earth Technics Ine:., standard recommendations for grading
and earthwork.
No deviation from these specifications should be pennitted 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 pUIpOse 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 apprized of
work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his persoIUlel
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
zA.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
.
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 2
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 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 fmal 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, tit 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.
,
z5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 3
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 shan be removed and placed
in lifts not to exceed six inches or less.
Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fin shall be observed,
tested, and approved by the geotechnical consultant.
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 unifonn bearing
conditions, the bedrock portion of the lot extending a minimum of 5 feet
outside of building lines shall be overexcavation a minimum of3 feet and
replaced with compacted fill. Greater overexcavation could be required as
detennined by geotechnical consultant where deep fin of20+ feet
transitions to bedrock over a short distance. Typical details are given on
Figure D-I.
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.
z.c..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! I
I
I
I
I
I
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 4
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 of75% overall offme grained material to
surround the rocks.
3. The distribution ofrocks is supervised by the geotechnical
consultant.
33 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.
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 the is 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.
2.1
-
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
'.
I
I
I
I
I
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGES
If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling
governmental agency because of a specific land use of 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. )
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 D-4. )
3.12 The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum 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 n the geotechnical report.
3.14 FiIl-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 D-3. )
Z-~
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 6
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 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 cut slope are given in Figures D-3a and D-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
top of the slope.
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.
Zl\
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
.
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 7
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 agencies.
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.
6.2 In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding two feet
of f1l1 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 everit, 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 c1eanout, 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. .
3>0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 8
7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERA nONS
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 excavation, including that
necessary for footings, foundations, large'tree wells, retaining walls, or
other features shall be preformed 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.
3\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
TRANSITION LOT DETAILS
CUT-FILL LOT
.-
.-
.-
NATURAL GROUND
~ .
--
-
- .-
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR . 1
r- MATERIAL APPROVE.D BY . --.J
f THE GEOTECHNICAL CO.NSULTANT
CUT LOT
--
-
--
--
NATURAL GROUND
~-
-
--
.-
-
- -
- -
---- .".......
_~ REMOVE _
- -- . YNSUITABLE~_- 'MS1~C.h
_:..- - MATERIAL _ ,'<
- - - - ~- . ~.
- -- -------------- --------------------- 30" MIN
--------------------~ --------~------------ .
::---:.-------..:--=:-:---::7:;;::-~ -,i;..Yi-:::..------ "^'-----/~-:::y^-:::--- T
. - COM? ACTED :..-_-_:::;..-~__:..-_ .
--:~~.s:?~ I//' OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT .
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR f
. ,- MATERIAL APPROVED BY .
r THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
NOTE:
Deeper overexcavation and recomooction shall be p~dormed
. if de!ermined '0 be necesscry by the geotechnicct consultonl.
.?>Z-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
BENCHING DETAILS
FILL SLOPE
'"
----- -
---------------
--------:. COMP" CTED .---------:
----- - -----
- --------:...---:..-=-": FI L L :..;...:--------..:
---------------------
--------------------_-:...-:...-----:;.;::.-~....:-~
_-:::: :-:-::-::.:-::.l: : :-~-=- ::::-?-:--;;:=-~
- -=-:_-------------_-:...~-----==--::::-_..:::'_~'"
----------=-----=-----~_:..-_-_-~ 1/'..1"....
PROJECTED PLANE _-_-:-:-:-:-.:-::.:-~~-:~~:-3
I to I maxI'mum from toe -------....-----~f \.-....""
------.",,-----~ '''''
of slope to aporoved ground _-_-_-_-_-~......---..:---;.:=-..:--- .
. ------------ - - - - - -"" REMOVE
------------r! """yr-" .
"----~-;.:::-------.,;=.!'""---~ UNSUITABL:
-,>'.&_----...?::"':---
. . .---=-.::---: -=--c..... - '" MATERIAL
/' ~ -:-;.._-_-_-:..-:-:::-~_=_:::- I ~E~~H I BENCH
I^ 1 -r..:;.;-.:'"_-_-_-_-.=__-_-.=_ r- I ., HEIGHT
~ _:::::2% "MIN::::::- (typical) VARIES
T -~;---::---;:
2' MIN. I 1 S' MIN. I
KEY !'"1-0WEST BENCH .,
DEPTH (KEY)
NATURAL
GROUND \
FILL OVER' CUT SLOPE
-
_-: COMPACTED :-:-:..;:::"::-
---------; Fill :---..:::-.:::.-:..-:..;.
--_-:...-----_-:...---...."..~------?:
---------------J~
--------------",-.-
-------~~---~---
--------:...-.,.=..::.-------.:7""'1 ,""10./::"
-------"'-----~, ~
-------"'-------4 I
----==------------".-.---~ ...
NA-U- "L "..--~
J rt;.... ~_____:..?"'_~
UNSUITABLE GROUND,- ---------------"7" . I
MATERIAL ~ -- --:..-..=-..:.--::-__~ '...-"" r4' MIN.;j
. '\ -- - -- ---~..;c::.-:-:1 SENe:; I
. '" - - ~~--=-=2%M.,N.~-' (typicQf~
-- - - \ _-- .;....V^' "'ff"
_'1--- ~15'MIN.--J
-- -- . LOWE:S7 BENCH l
--
REMOVE.
\
BENCH
HEIGHT
V.-"-:=lIES
--
--
--
,.,.."'"
CUT
FACE
To be constructed prior
to fill plccement
NOTES:
LOWEST BENCH: Depth end width subject to field change
. based c."'\ coosultant's inspectioo.
S~!!ORA1~JAGE:, E::-~k c:.:':',:; mcy be r~uired at the
:iiscretlon or the geotechnical con:;ullant.
'7:3>
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR EXPANSIVE SOILS
(ONE AND TWO-STORY RESIOENTIAL BUILDINGS)
'-ITORY 'OO'IMOI
EX,.AHSIOH INDEX EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION INOEI EXPANSION fHDEX
0-20 21 - &0 5' - 80 " - 130
VERY lOW EXIIAHIIOH LOW EXPANSION MEDIUM .EXPAHSION HIGH EXPANSION
AU. 'OO'fIMQ1 '2 1NeMf.1 ALL ,oonNOS " 'MCNU IXTE,no" 'OOTINOI " IXU"101JIl 'OOTINOI ,. 1IJtC~.
OIEP. 'OO'IIeOI OUP. 'OOTlNaa ""CHEI DEE', INTERIOR DElE'. "UMOfIl 'OOTINOI 1:1
c;:,ON,...UOUI. NO ITIlL COWTINUOUI. I-NO." 1..11: 'OOTINOe " tMCHlEI DEEI'. I..CHES DEEP. '-NO. . ..... lOP
"EOUttlED ,(Nt U....lIlstOtC TOP AND IOTTOM. t-Mo. .. IAIIl TOP AND AND 10TTOW.
'OfI;CU. 101TOM.
ALL ,.oomos ,. tNeMU ALL ,OOTINOI ,. nfcttt. ALL FOOTllitQS ,. INCHES IEXUIUO" 'OOTINOa ,. .NCH.'
DEE'. foo'INOS OUP. 'DOTING' DEEP. FOOTINOI DEE". INTrilUOfl 'OOTINOS ,.
CONT....UOUS. NO Inu COM'INUOUI. '....0. .. 1..1t CONTlNUOUI. t-NO. .. _A'" INCMES DEEP. ....0. I ........ TOP
REOUIftEO 'Oft I.PANIION TO" "NO 'OTtOIll. TOP AND IOTTOW. ......0 10TTOM.
'ORCU.
NOT ftEOUIMD. " btCMlS DEEP. I-NO. . ....ft .. INCHES DEEP, t-HO, .. 110ft ,. tNCHES DEEP. 1-1040. . ....11I
TO.. AND 'OTTOW. TOP AND 10TTOW. TO" ...NO lOTTO".
'-"Ofty FOOTINOS
QAftAOE 00011I QLIIIIADE
lEA..
L"'*Q AM'" 'LOOft 'LA'S S I" INCHES THICK. NO MI,'" , 1I11INCNES THlCK~ S 1/2 INCHES THICK. . INCHES THICK. I J: I-I"
ItEOUlLIIIIED'O'l U......'I0t4 , )l '.'01'0 wlltE "UM AT . X e..o"o W.ftE WEaH AT WILIIIIE MESH AT l,nO_HEIOHT.
FORCES. NO lASE IIEO\IIAEO. IIIO-HfIOHT. 2 INCHU "Io-HEIOHT. .. tHCMES NO. S DOWELL' '11011I 'OOllNO
. IIIl 'III QUEEN MOISTURE OfloAYlL OR ,...ND 'ASf. I OlliiA"" 01'1 8"NO 'AaE. . TO aL.... AT SI IMCHU ON
....I'I.I.I!III PLU' 1 INCH 'ANO. IIIL ""CUffM 1I0lSTUIIIIE IIIL VISOUEIN uOISTUflE CENTEIl.. .. ..eMU Oflo...yU 011II
..III111!f1t )oLUS , INCH 'AND. 'AllftlEIII PLUS. INCH ."'ND. lAND .ASE. I WIL VISOUE!.N
WOISTUlIIE IAIIIIRlElII ""U$ 1
.NCM 'AND.
OA""OE 'LOOR SLAes :11112 INCHES 'H'CI(. NO yes... a 112 INCHE. THtel(. a 1/' INCHES THICK. . INCHES 'HICI(. I J: '.1"
REQUIRED 'OR U"ANSIOH 1 X '-'01'0 WI"E IIESH Oft . :I( '.101'0 wtAE WEIH OR WIRE WESM Otl OUARtER
,olllcn. NO BASE REQUIRED. OUUtE" aL"'S. ISOLAn OU"'RTER aLAIS. ISOL.ATE .L....S. ISOL...TE 'RO" STEW
NO MOISTURE IARRIfR ,..ow snw W"'LL 'OOTlNO'. 'ROW STEW WALL. 'OOTUfOS. WA.LL FOOTINOS. ... INCHES
REOUIRED. , INCHES flOCK, Olll.YEL OR .. INCHES AOCK, GR"'YEL OR ROCIt. ORAYU Ofl ,,,,ND 'ASE.
SAND ....SE. NO MOIS1IJfIE SAND ....SE. NO MOISTURE HO WOt,TURE ....RRIER
BARRIER REQUIRED. B"RRIER REQUIRED. REQUIRED.
.."E-SOAKINO OF LlVINQ IoICT REOt.nREC. UOISTEN SOAII: TO 12 'HCHEs DEP,,"I 80AI( TO III INCHES DEPTH 'OAII: TO 2. INCHES DEPTH TO
....l... AIoID GARAOE oSL"'. "AIOR TO ..OURINO TO .... "'.OVE OPTlWUIoI '1'0... ....OyE OPTlWUw ., AeovE OPTlIroIUIoI WOISTURE
801L' CONCRETE. WOISTURE CONTENT. MO'STURE CONTENT. CONTlENT.
NOTES: ,) All DEPTHS ARE RELATIVE'TO SlAlI SUBGRAOE.
,) e'ECIAl OESION 1$ REQUIRED FOR yt:tlT HIGHLT EXPANSIVE SOIL.S.
FOUNDATION AND SLAB DETAIL
(NOT TO SC^lE)
DOWEl
5LAe SUBGRAOE\ WI;jE ...~s..-
'WH" "0"'"001-\ \. ''''\, \ I
~=.j":....."\-'...,-
~~;.o "7~.:.?n''7':':'1:>
jSAHOt4TER
/ rVISCUEE"'l
/ / rOR4VEL OR $A"'O ..S{ (.....i;.. ;IlC.UUllOI
!
._h .
./ .-.' ": ~
"o.~...;
~
.
.,,.....
.;~.:.:
'-: ~r,
u...... ('~"":'~
:0'
',.' .'
DEPTH OF
IIoI1'elll;.OR
'OOTlNO
'OIL ~
1____.-:~~~::.._____
FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
JOB NO.:
'DATE:
FIGURE NO.:
EARTH TECHNICS'
I
,I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX D
=5
IIiI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY
----
s,;, 0\ ~
Co-<J 0{ ~
To,Yl Ji
O,44b
0,8%
D.<\qq
S.F. = H (~B) cos20< tan ~ + C
?fs H Sin c<. cOSo<.
zone of
saturation
I '
:=26fz.
"Fs. t+(71.B)( 0,\',0\)(0,1\99)+325-
r\ (I?Ll:z)(O,AAi,)(ba<JS)
I
I
I
I
S.F. =
I
I
I
I
I
H = Depth of saturation zone
~B = Bouyant weight ~f soil
= 7 \ ,lQ
fS,
ti ( Z.e,,7o)
+ 325
".
H ( ':>3.'57)
~s = Total wet weight of soil =
~ = Angle of internal friction =
C = Cohesion =
134.7-
2.(..5
31-<5
=
H' S.F.
t- <:1.'57
-
4 1,05
~
Project No.:
Calc. by:
Chk. by:
Date:
2'1.50&6-01
wLS
F"S
1"2./ UJ/o2-
~
.
. '~.-
~i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
APPENDIX E
3\ .
.
~
~~tII
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PUBLISHED REFERENCES
Blake, T.F., 1998, Computer Services Software, A Computer Program
for the Probabilistic Evaluation Horizontal Acceleration from
California Faults, FRISKSP, July 1998
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.
coduto, D.P., 1987, Down to Earth Soils Engineering, Volume 4,
Slope Stability, Cal. Poly University, Pomona
DWR, 1971 Water Wells and Springs in the Western Part of the
upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Riverside and San Diego
counties, California", Bull. No. 91-20, 377
Hart, E.W., 1999, 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
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
Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motion and Soil
Liquefaction During Earthquakes, E.E.R.I. Nomograph, 134p,
Berkley Press
Weber, F.H. Jr., 1977, Seismic Hazards Related to Geologic
Factors, Elsinore an d Chino Fault Zones, Northwestern Riverside
County, California, CDMG Open-File Report 77-5 LA, 96 pages
~
..