HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnicalInvestigation(Jun.9,2003)
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
LOTS 47 & 48-TRACT 23172
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
MDC-VAIL
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 9, 2003
\
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
I,
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
:GEOCON
INLAND EMPIRE, INC.
Project No. 20137-12-01
June 9, 2003
MDC-Vail
11650 Iberia Place, Suite 130
San Diego, California 92128
Attention:
Mr. Jerry Swanger, Sr.
Subject:
LOTS 47 & 48-TRACT 23172
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Gentlemen:
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 0
In accordance with your request and our proposal dated April 4, 2003 (Proposal No. LG-03163), we
have performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject project. The accompanying report
presents the findings of our study and our recommendations relative to the geotechnical aspects of
developing the site as presently proposed.
It is our opinion that the site is suitable for construction of the proposed development provided the
recommendations of this report are followed. Should you have any questions regarding this report, or
if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCONINCORPORATED
RRR:DH:tg
(6) Addressee
#-
;;,
Dale Hamelehle
CEG 1760
41571 Corning Place, Suite 101 . Murrieta, California 92562-7065 . Telephone (951) 304-2300 . Fax (951) 304-2392
1.
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE................................................................................................................. I
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... I
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 2
3.1 General. .............................................................................................................................. ... 2
3.2 Undocumented Fill (Qudf).................................................................................................... 2
3.3 Previously Placed Fill (Qpf) ................................................................................................. 2
3.4 Alluvium (Qal) ........... .......................................... ...................... ............ ............................... 3
4. GROUNDW ATER.......................................................................................................................... 3
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARD ................................................................................................................... 3
5.1 Faulting and Seismicity.........................................................................................................3
5.2 Seismic Design Criteria .............. ... ..................... .................................................................. 4
5.3 Liquefaction................................................................................................................... ....... 5
5.4 Effects of Liquefaction ......................................................................................................... 5
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................8
6.1 General. ................................................................................................................................. 8
6.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics......................................................................................8
6.3 Grading......................................................................................................................... ......... 9
6.4 Foundations...................................................................................................................... ... 11
6.5 Concrete S labs-on-Grade .................................................................................................... 13
6.6 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads..................................................................................... 13
6.7 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations .......................................................................... 14
6.8 Drainage.......................................................................................................................... .... 16
6.9 Plan Review.................. .......................... ................... ... ... ........... ................ ........... ............. 16
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Site Plan
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figures A-I - A-8, Logs of Borings
~
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX B
Table B-1, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results
Table B-II, Summary of Laboratory Direct Shear Test Results
Table B-III, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results
Table B-IV, Summary of Laboratory Water Soluble Sulfate Test Results
Table B-V, Summary of Single-Point Consolidation (Collapse) Tests
Figure B-1, Gradation Curves
APPENDIX C
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
APPENDIX D
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
LIST OF REFERENCES
A.
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the findings of a geotechnical investigation for the proposed retail development
located along the south side of Highway 79 South in Temecula, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure
I). The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate subsurface soil and geologic conditions at the
site and, based on conditions encountered, provide recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical
aspects of developing the property as presently proposed.
The scope of the investigation included a site reconnaissance, review of aerial photographs and
pertinent geologic literature, and the excavation of 8 small-diameter exploratory borings. A detailed
discussion of the field investigation, and the exploratory excavation logs are presented in
Appendix A. Laboratory tests were performed on soil samples obtained from the exploratory
excavations to evaluate pertinent subsurface soil and geologic conditions, and to assist in
recommendations for site grading and foundation design criteria. Appendix B presents a summary of
the laboratory test results.
The recommendations presented herein are based on analysis of the data obtained from our
exploratory excavations, laboratory tests, and our experience with similar soil and geologic
conditions. The site plan provided did not show the locations of the proposed buildings nor existing
or proposed finished grades. Once these plans have been prepared, they should be reviewed by
Geocon to determine if additional exploration or analysis is warranted.
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed site is located along the south side of Highway 79 South, in Temecula, Riverside
County, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). Specifically, the site is bounded on the north by
Highway 79 South, on the south by Wolf Store Road, on the east by a shopping center, and on the
west by partially developed commercial property. Previous improvements to the property include
mass grading in September of 1994. Testing and observation services were provided by Geocon
Incorporated, the results of which are presented in the report entitled Report of Testing and
Observation Services During Remedial Grading for Vail Ranch Commercial Site, Tentative Tract
No. 23172, Temecula, California, dated September 2,1994.
Some undocumented fill soils and end-dumped debris have been spread across the site.
Topographically the site is relatively level although irregular due to the placement of some
undocumented fill soils.
Project No. 20137-12-01
-1-
June 9, 2003
-s
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
We understand that the proposed development will consist of grading the site to construct an
unknown number 0 f building pads tor eceive 0 ne- 0 r two-story commercial structures a long with
paved parking and drive areas and associated infrastructure. It is anticipated that the buildings will be
wood framed, concrete tilt-up or masonry and will be supported on conventional concrete
foundations and slabs-on-grade or post-tension foundation systems. Although the project rough
grading plans have not yet been prepared, we estimate that the maximum depth of cut and/or fill will
be approximately 5 feet, or less.
The above locations and descriptions are based on a site reconnaissance and review of the referenced
site plan. If final development plans differ significantly from those described herein, Geocon
Incorporated should be contacted for review and possible revisions to this report.
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
3.1 General
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
In general, the site is underlain by compacted fill soils placed upon relatively deep alluvial soils as
described below. A thin layer of undocumented fill has been spread over some of the site.
Formational materials were not encountered during the investigation and are not anticipated during
construction of the proposed improvements.
3.2 Undocumented Fill (Qudf-not mapped)
Undocumented fill soils blanket the majority of the site and were encountered within the exploratory
excavations to depths ranging from approximately 1 to 2 feet. We understand that these materials
were imported as excess soils from the adjacent commercial development. In general, the fill soils
consist of slightly silty to silty, fine to medium grained sand with some chunks of concrete and
asphalt, as well as some organically rich piles. These soils will require remedial grading by complete
removal and compaction. Piles that contain large amounts of organics are not suitable for fill
placement.
3.3 Previously Placed Fill (Qcf)
Previously placed fill soils are present under the undocumented fills and were encountered to depths
ranging from 5 to 7 feet below existing grade. These materials were placed with testing and
observation services provided by Geocon Incorporated as documented in the referenced remedial
grading report (Geocon, 1994). The fill consists of dense, slightly silty and silty fine- to coarse-
grained sand. The upper portions of the fill will require regrading as recommended in the
Conclusions and Recommendations section ofthis report.
Project No. 20137-12-01
- 2-
June 9, 2003
(p
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
3.4 Alluvium (Oal)
Quaternary-age alluvial soils underlie the fill soils, and are generally composed of silty sand to sandy
silt. The depth of the alluvial soils extends below the depth of our deepest boring, approximately 50
feet. The density of the alluvial soils encountered is considered loose to medium dense and stiff. The
remedial grading recommended will not extend to the alluvial soils.
Collapse testing conducted on relatively undisturbed samples of the alluvium obtained from the
borings indicate that, in general, alluvial soils below the required removal depths have a relatively
low potential for collapse due to increases in moisture content. Therefore, removal of portions of the
underlying alluvium is not expected to be necessary.
4. GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from approximately 25 to 35 feet below existing
grade within borings Bl, B5, and B7. Groundwater is not anticipated to be a constraint during site
grading.
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
5.1 Faulting and Seismicity
The site, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismically active region near the
active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The principal source of
seismic activity is movement along the northwest-trending regional faults such as the San Andreas,
San Jacinto and Elsinore fault zones. These fault systems are estimated to produce up to
approximately 55 millimeters of slip per year between the plates.
By definition of the State Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is one which has had surface
displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault is
one which has been active during the Quaternary Period (last 1,600,000 years). These definitions are
used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards
Zones Act of 1972 and as revised in 1994 and 1997 as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Act and Earthquake Fault Zones. The intent of the act is to require fault investigations on sites
located within Special Studies Zones top rec1ude new construction 0 f certain habitable structures
across the trace of active faults.
Based on our review of the referenced literature, the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault
Hazard Zone. The site could, however, be subjected to significant shaking in the event of a major
Project No. 20137-12-01
- 3-
June 9,2003
1
1
I
1
1
1
earthquake on the Elsinore Fault or other nearby regional faults. Structures for the site should be
constructed in accordance with current UBC seismic codes and local ordinances.
5.2 Seismic Design Criteria
Our evaluation of the regional seismicity included a deterministic analysis utilizing EQF AUL T and
EQSEARCH (Blake, 2000) and UBCSEIS. The nearest known active fault and source of the design
earthquake is the Elsinore Fault Zone (Temecula Segment) located approximately 2.8 miles to the
southwest of the site. The maximum credible earthquake was estimated to be magnitude 6.8 Mw.
1
The Uniform Building Code (UBe) established Seismic Zones (often accepted as rmmmum
standards) based on maps showing ground motion with a 475-year return period or a 10% probability
of exceedance in 50 years. Our analysis indicates a 10% probability that a horizontal peak ground
acceleration of 0.60g (probabilistic mean) would be exceeded in 50 years. The design earthquake is
considered a magnitude 6.8 Mw event that would generate a probabilistic peak ground acceleration
(PHGA) of 0.60g (FRISKSP, Blake 2000). The effect of seismic shaking may be reduced by
adhering to the 1997 UBC and seismic design parameters suggested by the Structural Engineers
Association of California. The UBC seismic design parameters for this site are presented on Table
5.2:
1
I
1
1
1
TABLE 5.2
SITE DESIGN CRITERIA
1
Parameter Value UBC Reference
Seismic Zone Factor 0.40 Table 16-1
Soil Profile Sd Table 16-J
Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.44 Table 16-Q
Seismic Coefficient, Cv 0.77 Table 16-R
Near-Source Factor, Na 1.0 Table 16-S
Near-Source Factor, Nv 1.2 Table 16-T
Seismic Source B Table 16-U
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
The principal seismic considerations for most structures in Southern California are surface rupturing
of fault traces and damage caused by ground shaking or seismically induced ground settlement. The
possibility. of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since active faults are not known to
cross the site. Lurching due to ground shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a
significant hazard, although it is a possibility throughout Southern California.
Project No. 20137-12-01
-4-
June 9, 2003
<<0
1
1
5.3
Liquefaction
1
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose
shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include in-situ
stress conditions, intensity and duration of ground motion, the depth to groundwater, and the
gradation characteristics of the underlying soils. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in
the liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake
accelerations.
1
I
I
To evaluate the potential for liquefaction within the on-site soils, engineering analysis was
performed using methods outlined by Youd et. aI., (2001). For the analysis, Standard Penetration
Test (SPT) blow counts within the underlying alluvial soils found in the borings were utilized, along
with the relative density, groundwater depth, and gradation characteristics. SPT blow counts, where
recorded, were used directly and blow counts associated with the California Sampler were corrected
to correlate to SPT blow counts.
1
1
I
A site acceleration of 0.60g calculated from the probabilistic seismic analysis was used in our
analysis. This acceleration is based on a 10 percent probability in 50-year occurrence in accordance
with current State of California criteria for liquefaction analyses (DMG Special Publication SP-117,
August 1998).
1
1
During our investigation, groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 25 to 3 5 feet
below the existing surface. Given the elevation 0 f t he nearby T emecula Creek C harmel, we have
assumed a high groundwater level of approximately 20 feet below the existing grade for our
liquefaction analysis. Gradation characteristics of the underlying soils are presented in Appendix B
on Figure B-1.
1
1
1
Based on the information described above, the results of the analysis indicate that the majority of the
material below the projected high groundwater table to the depth explored (50 feet), could liquefy if
the site is subjected to the intense levels of shaking assumed in the analysis. Our computer-aided
liquefaction analysis (LIQUEFY2) is attached in Appendix C. The effects and mitigation of potential
liquefaction are discussed in the following section.
1
1
5.4
Effects of Liquefaction
1
Our analysis indicates that liquefaction could occur within the underlying soils below groundwater
for the levels of ground shaking assumed in the analysis. Adverse impacts associated with
liquefaction include ground rupture and/or sand boils, lateral spreading and settlement of the
liquefiable layers.
1
1
Project No. 20137-12-01
- 5-
June 9, 2003
a..
I
1
Lateral spreading occurs when liquefiable soils are in the immediate vicinity of a free face such as a
slope. Factors controlling lateral displacement include earthquake magnitude, distance from the
earthquake epicenter, thickness of liquefiable soil layer, grain size characteristics, fines contents of
the soil and SPT blow counts. Bartlett and Youd (Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121)
have concluded that lateral spreading is restricted to sediments with corrected SPT blowcounts
between 1 and 15 for earthquake magnitudes less than or equal to 8.0. Review of the boring logs and
the proposed development configuration indicate that the majority of the potentially liquefiable sands
below the assumed water table will be below the toe of slopes and, therefore, lateral spreading
should not occur and is not considered an adverse impact to the proposed development.
1
I
I
I
Surface manifestation due to liquefaction may consist of surface rupture and/or sand boils, and
surface settlement. Sand boils occur where liquefiable soil is extruded upward through the soil
deposit to the ground surface. This happens when the pore pressures in the 1 iquefiable s oill ayer
exceeds the overburden pressure. Providing an increase in overburden pressure and a compacted fill
mat can mitigate surface manifestation. Research presented by Ishihara (1985) indicates that the
presence of a non-liquefiable surface layer may prevent the effects of at-depth liquefaction from
reaching the surface. Subsequent research by Y oud and Garris (Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 121, November 1995) indicates that Ishihara's criteria may not be valid for certain conditions.
In addition, modifications to Ishihara's chart have been made to include higher ground accelerations
(Ishihara's 1985 chart was based on a 0.25 ground acceleration). Youd and Garris concluded that
Ishihara's criteria are valid for sites where lateral spreading will not occur. As discussed above,
lateral spreading should not occur and therefore, Ishihara's criteria are valid. However, the modified
curves provided by Y oud and Garris do not account for accelerations higher than 0.5 g. Based on
Y oud' s modified curves and the thickness of the non-liquefiable soil layer (layer above the assumed
groundwater table), surface manifestation cannot be ruled out, however, it is our opinion that the
potential is low.
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
Seismically-induced settlement will occur within the liquefied soil layer and/or layers after seismic
shaking stops due to rearrangement of the sand particles. An estimate of seismically-induced
settlement due to liquefaction was performed using procedures suggested by T okimatsu and Seed.
The estimated settlement is calculated using relationships between cyclic stress ratios, corrected N
values (blowcounts) and volumetric strain. Settlement estimates have been calculated using charts
and curves developed by Tokimatsu and Seed. Based on these charts we estimate a volumetric strain
varying from 0 to 2.2 percent, depending on the layer within the boring. Settlement is calculated as
approximately equal to om times the volumetric strain (%) times the thickness of the liquefiable
surface layer. This calculation results in a total estimated settlement of approximately 4 inches.
1
1
1
1
1
Project No. 20137-12-01
- 6-
June 9, 2003
\0
I
1
DMG SP 117 recommends that differential settlement should be estimated as 12 the total settlement.
However, DMG SP 117 also states that case histories of ground settlement occurring without lateral
spreading have not been widely reported and that if deep alluvium exists and the soil stratigraphy is
relatively uniform across the site, the use of 12 of the total settlement is extremely conservative. It
was concluded that differential settlements at level ground sites with natural soils are expected to be
small even if the total settlement is large. Such is the case for this site and, based on liquefaction
analyses, the site subsurface conditions are considered relatively uniform. Based upon these criteria,
and dividing each boring into layers dependant upon blow counts, we estimate maximum differential
settlements on the order of 1.5 inches across a span of 40-feet. This magnitude of movement is
similar as compared to other properties in the vicinity of the site and is within tolerable limits as
recommended by Riverside County.
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
Project No. 20137-12-01
-7 -
June 9, 2003
\\
I
1
1
6.1
6.1.1
I
1
6.1.2
I
1
6.1.3
1
I
6.1.4
I
6.1.5
1
I
I
6.1.6
1
6.2
1
6.2.1
1
6.2.2
1
1
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
No soil or geologic conditions exist at the site that would preclude the development of the
property as presently planned provided the recommendations of this report are followed.
The site is underlain by alluvium more than 50 feet thick. Alluvium below groundwater
levels has a potential for liquefaction. The most significant affect of soil liquefaction is
expected to be settlement caused by volumetric strain within the liquefiable layers. Based
on our analysis, we estimate a dynamic differential settlement of approximately 1.5 inches
across a span of 40-feet.
Remedial grading should include removal of all undocumented fill and any other
unsuitable materials encountered during grading. The remedial grading should extend
beneath all other surface improvements.
The majority of the soil anticipated to be encountered during remedial grading and
construction of improvements for the project consists of silty sands, sandy silts and sands.
The site lies 2.8 miles from the Temecula segment of the Elsinore Fault. This fault is
classified as active and is significant in that it is capable of generating large magnitude
earthquakes. Due to the site's proximity to a major active fault system, the site could be
subjected to severe shaking in the event of a major earthquake on these or other nearby
active faults.
Conventional strip footings and slab-an-grade with steel reinforcement or a post-tensioned
foundation system may be used at this site.
Soil and Excavation Characteristics
Excavations within the alluvial soils are expected to require a moderate effort with
conventional heavy duty grading equipment.
All excavations should be performed in conformance with OSHA requirements.
Temporary excavations for grading and during construction of improvements will be made
within relatively cohesionless sands. To prevent sloughing as a result of the cohesionless
sands, the excavations may require being sloped back at a gradient of 1: 1. If sloughing
occurs, slopes may have to be excavated at flatter gradients
1
Project No. 20137-12-01
- 8-
June 9, 2003
\'1,;
II
I
6.2.3
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
6.2.4
I
1
I
6.2.5
I
1
I
6.3
I
6.3.1
I
1
Laboratory testing was performed on soil samples obtained from the exploratory
excavations to determine their expansion characteristics. Results of expansion index tests
are presented in Table B-III. The on-site soils are anticipated to have a "very low" to "low"
expansion potential (Expansion Index of 50 or less) as defined by the Uniform Building
Code (UBC) Table No. 18-1-B. Recommendations presented herein assume that the site
will be graded such that soils with an Expansion Index (EI) of less than 50 will be present
to a minimum depth of 3 feet below proposed finish grade. If soils with an EI greater than
50 are exposed near finish grade, modifications to the foundation and slab-on-grade
recommendations presented herein may be required. Laboratory Expansion Index testing
should be performed on soils present within 3 feet of finish grade subsequent to the
completion of grading to verify the at-grade expansion characteristics. If import soils are
required to achieve design grades, Geocon Incorporated should be retained to perform
laboratory testing prior to importing the material to verify the that the soils have an
Expansion Index of 50 or less and that other characteristics meet project requirements such
as corrosivity properties.
Laboratory testing was performed on soil samples obtained from the exploratory
excavations to determine the water-soluble sulfate content. Results of these tests are
presented in Table B-IV. The results indicated that the samples tested yielded water-
soluble sulfate contents with a "negligible" sulfate rating as defined by the 1997 Uniform
Building Code (UBC) Table 19-A-4. These tests are general indications only and
additional testing should be performed at finish grade (materials within 3 feet of rough pad
grade elevations) after the completion of rough grading.
Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, if
improvements that could be susceptible to corrosion are planned, it is recommended that
further evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed. It is also recommended that these
results, and the recommendations from the corrosion engineer be forwarded to the
appropriate design team members (i.e. project architect and engineer) for incorporation
into the plans and implementation during construction.
Grading
All grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading
Specifications contained in Appendix D, and the City 0 f T emecula Grading 0 rdinance.
Where the recommendations of this section conflict with those of Appendix D, the
recommendations of this section take precedence.
1
Project No. 20137-12-01
- 9-
June 9, 2003
\'?
I
1
6.3.2
I
I
6.3 .3
1
1
I
I
6.3.4
I
I
I
6.3.5
I
I
I
I
6.3.6
I
I
I
Prior to commencing grading, a preconstruction conference with the owner or developer,
grading contractor, civil engineer and geotechnical engineer in attendance, should be held
at the site. Special soil handling can be discussed at that time. Grading restrictions as
related to the Native American cultural area should also be reviewed at that time.
Site preparation should begin with the demolition of any surface improvements (asphalt
pavement, concrete flatwork), underground utilities, deleterious material, trees,
stumps/roots, debris, and vegetation. All existing undocumented fill should also be
removed from within planned development areas of the site. It is anticipated that the
excavated soil can be re-used as engineered fill. The depth of removal should be such that
material exposed in cut areas or soils to be used as fill is relatively free of organic matter.
Material generated during stripping and/or site demolition should be exported from the
site.
Subsequent to removal of the unsuitable surficial soils and prior to the placement of
compacted fill soils, the exposed surface should be scarified and cornpacted in-place to a
minimum dry density of 90 percent of the maximum dry density, and near optimum
moisture content as determined by ASTM DI557-00. If loose, soft or wet areas are
exposed at the bottom of the excavation, the overexcavation should be deepened until firm
material is encountered. The total depth of removal should be determined in the field by
the project geologist during grading operations.
The site should then be brought to final subgrade elevations with structural fill compacted
in layers. In general, existing on-site soils are suitable for use as fill if free from
vegetation, debris and other deleterious material. Layers of fill should be no thicker than
will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. All fill soils should be compacted to at
least 90 percent of maximum dry density and near optimum moisture content, as
determined in accordance with ASTMD 1557-00. Fill materials placed below optimum
moisture content or excessively above optimum may require additional moisture
conditioning prior to placing additional fill.
Trench and retaining wall backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of
laboratory maximum dry density at or slightly above optimum moisture content. The upper
12 inches of fill within pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the
laboratory maximum dry density at or slightly above optimum moisture content.
1
Project No. 20137-12-01
- 10-
June 9, 2003
\11\
I
1
6.4
I
6.4.1
I
I
1
I
1
6.4.2
1
I
6.4.3
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
Foundations
The proposed structures can be supported on shallow foundation systems bearing on
properly compacted fill soils. Foundations for the structures may consist of either
continuous strip footings and/or isolated spread footings, or post-tensioned foundations.
Conventionally reinforced continuous footings should be at least 18 inches wide and
extend at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Isolated spread footings should
have a minimum width of 2 feet and should extend at least 24 inches below lowest
adjacent pad grade. Footings should be dimensioned based on an allowable soil bearing
pressure of 2,500 psf. The allowable bearing pressure value is for dead plus live loads and
may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic
forces. Steel reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of at least four No.5
steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footings, two near the top and two near the
bottom. Steel reinforcement for the spread footings should be designed by the project
structural engineer.
The minimum reinforcement recommended above is based on soil characteristics only
(depth of alluvial soils) and is not intended to replace reinforcement required for structural
considerations.
As an alternate to a conventional foundation system, the proposed buildings may also be
designed as post-tensioned systems. The following post-tensioned foundation
recommendations are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions within 3 feet of
finish pad subgrade will consist of granular "low" expansive soil (Expansion Index less
than 50). The post-tensioned system may be designed for an allowable soil bearing
pressure of 2,000 psf. The allowable bearing pressure value is for dead plus live loads and
may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic
forces. The recommended design parameters for the post-tensioned systems are presented
on Table 6.1.
I
ProjecI No. 20137-12-01
- 11 -
June 9, 2003
\~
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.4.4
I
I
6.4.5
I
I
I
6.4.6
1
I
I
I
TABLE 6.1
POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) Design Parameters Value
1. ThornIhwaile Index -20
2. Clay Type-Montmorillonite Yes
3. Clay Portion (Maximum) 30%
4. DepIh to Constant Soil Suction 7.0 ft.
5. Soil Suction 3.6 ft.
6. Moisture Velocity 0.7 in./rno.
7. Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance 2.6 ft.
8. Edge Lift 0.41 in.
9. Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance 5.3 ft.
10. Center Lift 2.12 in.
All post-tensioned foundation system footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches
and a minimum embedment depth of 12-inches measured from lowest adjacent grade. This
depth applies to both exterior and interior footings. The concrete slabs should be at least 5-
inches thick and underlain with at least 4-inches of clean sand or crushed rock. Those slabs
expected to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture sensitive
materials should be underlain by a vapor barrier placed at the midpoint of the sand layer.
No special subgrade preparation is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete, however,
the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be sprinkled, as necessary, to
maintain a moist soil condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
However, where drying 0 fsubgrade soils has occurred, reconditioning 0 f surficial soils
will be required. This recommendation applies to foundations as well as exterior concrete
flatwork.
Foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative
of Geocon Incorporated) prior to the placement ofreinforcing steel and concrete to check
that the exposed soil conditions are consistent with those anticipated and have been
extended to appropriate bearing strata. If unanticipated soil conditions are encountered,
foundation modifications may be required.
I
Project No. 20137-12-01
-12.
June 9, 2003
\f,.
I
1
6.5
I
6.5.1
I
1
I
6.5.2
1
I
I
6.5.3
1
I
6.5.4
I
1
II
1
6.6
6.6.1
I
I
I
Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
Building (interior) concrete slabs-on-grade should have a minimum thickness of 5 inches.
Slabs-on-grade for conventional footings should be reinforced with No.3 steel reinforcing
bars spaced 18 inches on center in both horizontal directions and placed mid-height in the
slab. The slabs should be underlain by at least 3 inches of clean sand and, where moisture
sensitive floor coverings are planned, or where slab moisture would be objectionable, a
visqueen moisture barrier should be placed at the midpoint of the sand blanket.
Exterior slabs (not subject to traffic loads) should be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced
with 6x6-6/6 welded wire mesh. The mesh should be positioned within the upper one-third
of the slab. Proper mesh positioning is critical to future performance of the slabs. It has
been our experience that the mesh must be physically pulled up into the slab after concrete
placement. The contractor should take extra measures to provide for proper mesh
placement.
All concrete slabs should be provided with adequate construction joints and/or expansion
joints to control unsightly shrinkage cracking. The spacing should be determined by the
project structural engineer based upon the intended slab usage, thickness and
reinforcement. The structural engineer should take into consideration criteria of the
American Concrete Institute when establishing crack control spacing patterns.
The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
slabs due to differential settlement of alluvium and fills of varying thickness. However,
even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco
walls and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit some cracking. The
occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil
characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced/controlled by limiting the slump of the
concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control
joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where fe-entrant slab comers occur.
Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads
Active earth pressures against walls will depend upon the slope of backfill and the degree
of wall restraint. Unrestrained walls with a level backfill should be designed to resist an
active pressure equivalent to that generated by a fluid weighing 30 pounds per cubic foot
(pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2: I (horizontal:vertical), an
active soil pressure of 40 pcf is recommended. These values assume a drained backfill
condition with no hydrostatic pressure behind the wall.
1
Project No. 20137-12-01
- 13-
June 9, 2003
\1.
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
6.6.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than O.OOIH (where H equals
the wall height in feet) at the top of the wall. For restrained walls, an additional uniform
pressure of 7H psf for walls with a height of less than 12 feet should be added to the above
active soil pressure.
6.6.3 The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular backfill material with
no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. If the retaining walls are subject to
surcharge loading within a horizontal distance equal to or less than the height of the wall,
or if conditions different than those described are anticipated, Geocon Incorporated should
be contacted for additional recommendations.
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
6.6.4 For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid
density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly
compacted granular fill soils. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface
extending away from the base of the wall at least 5 feet or three times the height of the
surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of
material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for
lateral resistance. A friction coefficient of 0.40 may be used for resistance to sliding
between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable
passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads.
6.6.5 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup
of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The
soil adjacent to the backfilled retaining wall should be composed of free draining material
for a lateral distance of one foot for the bottom two-thirds of the height of the retaining
wall. The upper one-third should be backfilled with less permeable compacted fill to
reduce water infiltration. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep
holes) is not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely
affect the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a
properly compacted granular (EI less than 50) free-draining backfill material with no
hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load.
6.7 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations
6.7.1 The following preliminary pavement sections are provided for preliminary budget
purposes. Actual pavement sections should be determined once subgrade elevations have
been attained and R-Value laboratory testing on subgrade samples is performed. Pavement
thicknesses were determined following procedures outlined in the California Highway
Project No. 20137-12-01
-14-
June 9, 2003
\ro
I
I
1
I
I
1
Design Manual (Caltrans). The preliminary pavement sections provided below were based
on an estimated R-Value of 30, based on a visual examination of the encountered soils. It
is anticipated that the majority of traffic will consist of light trucks and maintenance
vehicles. Summarized on Table 6.8 are the recommended preliminary pavement sections.
TABLE 6.8
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN SECTIONS
Estimated Traffie Asphalt Concrete Class 2 Aggregate Base
Location Index (TI) Thickness (inches) Thickness (inches)
Parking Areas 4.5 3 5
Main Driveways 6 3.5 8
1
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
6.7.2 Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for
Public Works Construction (Green Book). Class 2 aggregate base materials should
conform to Section 26-1.02A of the Standard Specifications of the State of California,
Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
6.7.3 Prior to placing base material, the subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and
recompacted to a minimum of9 5 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density at or
slightly above optimum moisture content. The depth of compaction should be at least
12 inches. The base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory
maximum dry density at or slightly above optimum moisture content. Asphalt concrete
should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Hveem density.
6.7.4 Loading aprons such as trash bin enclosures should utilize Portland Cement concrete. The
pavement should consist of a minimum 7 -inch concrete section reinforced with No.3 steel
reinforcing bars spaced 24 inches on center in both directions placed at the slab midpoint.
The concrete should extend beyond the trash bin such that both the front and rear wheels
of the trash truck will be located on reinforced concrete pavement when loading.
6.7.5 The performance of pavements is highly dependent upon providing positive surface
drainage away from the edge of pavements. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the
pavement will likely result in saturation of the subgrade materials and subsequent
pavement distress. If planter islands are planned, the perimeter curb should extend at least
6 inches below the bottom ofthe Class 2 aggregate base.
Project No. 20137-12-01
- 15-
June 9, 2003
\0..
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
6.8 Drainage
6.8.1 Adequate drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion
and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent
to footings or behind retaining walls. The site should be graded and maintained such that
surface drainage is directed away from structures and the top of slopes into swales or other
controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed into conduits
which carry runoff away from the proposed structure.
6.8.2 All underground utilities should be absolutely leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should
be periodically checked for leaks for early detection of water infiltration and detected leaks
should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to
infiltrate the soil.
6.8.3 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for
surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's sub grade and base course. We
recommend that drains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage
structures, or impervious above-grade planter boxes be used. In addition, where
landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, we recommended construction of a cutoff
wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 6 inches below the bottom of the
base material.
6.9 Plan Review
6.9.1 Geocon Incorporated should revIew the grading plans prior to being finalized.
Additionally, the foundation plans for the building(s) should also be reviewed to determine
if additional geotechnical recommendations are needed.
Project No. 20137-12-01
- 16-
June 9, 2003
'2P
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
'I
I
1
1
I
. LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
1.
The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon
the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the
investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during
construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon
Incorporated should b e notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The
evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was
not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated.
2.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, to ensure that the information and reconnnendations contained herein are
brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the
plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry
out such recommendations in the field.
3.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the
conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural
processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in
applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the
broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly
or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and
should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
1
Project No. 20137-12-01
June 9, 2003
1).
I
I
I
I
I
II
LIST OF REFEHENCES
Anderson, J. G., Synthesis of Seismicity and Geologic Data in California, U. S. Geologic Survey
Open-File Report 84-424,1984, pp. 1-186.
Bartlett, Steven F., and T. Leslie Youd, Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral
Spread, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Volume 121, No.4, November 1995.
Blake, T. F., EQFAULT, Version 3.0, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal
Accelerationfrom 3-D Fault Sources, User's Manual, 2000.
FRISKSP, Version 4.0, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Peak
Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources, User's
Manual, 2000.
I
__m_, LIQUEFY2, A Computer Program for the Empirical Prediction of Earthquake-Induced
Liquefaction Potential, User's Manual. Version 1.5, 1998.
..
I
mm, U BCSEIS, A Computer Program for the Estim~tion of Uniform Building Code Coefficients
Using 3-D Fault Sources, User's Manual. 1998.
California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, formally the California
Division of Mines and Geology, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of
California, Open File Report 96-08, 1996.
I
------,
Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, formally the
California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117, adopted March 13, 1997.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Geocon Incorporated, Consultation: Settlement Monitoring Results for Vail Ranch Commercial Site,
Tentative Tract 23172, Temecula, California, December 5,1997.
mm, Geotechnical Investigation for Tentative Tract 23172 Vail Ranch Commercial Site, Temecula,
California, December, 1992.
__om, Response to County of Riverside Review, Tentative Tract 23172, Vail Ranch Commercial Site,
Temecula, California, March 9,1993.
_m__, Report of Testing and Observation Services During Remedial Grading for Vail Ranch
Commercial Site Tentative Tract No. 23172, TEmecula, California, September 2,1994.
Geoscience support Services Incorporated, DRAFT: Geohydrologic Study, EMWD Percolation pond,
Task 1 Report, Groundwater Resources Development, December 2, 1992.
Ishihara, K., Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes, Proceedings of the Eleventh
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, A. A. Balkema
Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1985, vol. 1, pp. 321-376.
Jennings, C. W., Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Geological Survev.
formally California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994.
Project No. 20137-12-01
June 9, 2003
11'
I
I
I
I
I
LIST OF REFERENCES (Continued)
Larsen, E. S., Batholith and Associated Rocks of Corona, Elsinore, and San Luis Rey Quadrangles,
Southern California, Geological Society of America, Memoir 29, 1948.
Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Technical
Report NCEER-97-0022, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,
December 31, 1997.
Seed, H. B. and 1. M. Idriss, Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential, Journal
of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM9, p. 1249 ff.,
1971.
I
I
I
I
Tokimatsu, K., Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Volume 113, No.8, p. 861 ff., August, 1987.
Unpublished reports and maps on file with Geocon Incorporated.
Wesnousky, S. G., Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazard in California, Journal of
Geoohvsical Research, Vol. 91, No. B12, 1986, pp. 12,587,631.
Youd, T. Leslie and Christopher T. Garris, Liquefaction-Induced Ground-Surface Disruption,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Volume 121, No. 11, p. 805 ff., November 1995.
I
I
I
Youd, T. L, et aI., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Reportform the 1996 NCEER
and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 127,
No. 10, pp. 817-833.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project No. 20137-12-01
June 9, 2003
$":7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
II
I I
II
I
I
I
I
I
/\\ I,JI ~
~llti-"'l
::;/ !i1;
$l~rVJ$
7~
",iJi'
.,.
LD
~
~
/
of>/
~
~
/
\
\
,
---\'.... Rll../
_~--:..::.---,:,7
I ./
~,'
.1'"
23
,-
T
"
"-
itt",
,
;;~ r~
~/\ ,J;,4;iM ",:*0 :
(f~,/ ~;~;:;,~;l~~k~~ ~;<y/
/ / ,,,,,,,-. ";~"
<tt:tJ;/,' 28 -t
// x';
, --~ '
---- FS.. ',,'>---1------_:'
RESERVA TION
PECHANGA
27
26
INDIAN
"
\
'.
RESERVATI
'-..
29
/
SOURCE: 2003 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
t
N
NO SCALE
REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION GRANTED BY THOMAS BORTHERS MAPS.
THIS MAP IS COPYRIGHT BY THOMAS BROS. MAPS. IT IS UNLAWFUL TO COPV'
OR REPRODUCE ALL OR AN'( PART THEREOF, WHETHER FOR PERSONAL USE OR
RESAlE, WITHOUT PERMISSION.
VICINITY MAP
LOTS 47 & 48
TRACT NO. 23172
TEMECUlA, CALIFORNIA 1J'.
DATE 06-9-2003 I PROJECT NO. 20037 - 12 - 01 I FIG. 1
GEOeON
INCORPORATED
o
GEOTEOiNICAL CONSULTANTS
43280 8USlNESS PARK DR., SUITE 108, TEMECUlA, CAUFQRNIA 92590-3633
PHONE 909 587-8169 . FAX 909 676 .9860
. BRlAML I
I
DSKlEOOOO
E:/GEOTro-VI'\.AWGVK:MP.DWGlrd
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
,
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
~-
~E)("STING 't H\GHWA~--=____
---- ~--~
__- r.. HIGHWAY 79
_--~IMPROVED 't.
\
: B-5
\ S
0~
.
.
\
.
. B-6
\ S
Qcfl
.
.
\
.
.
\ B-3
.
. S
B-7
S
SB-4
Qcf I Qal
~~
B-3
S
B-2
S
Qcfl
STuRE
\,\1 U 1. F
RuAD
----
------
-
.
.
\
.
.
\
.
.
\
.
.
\
.
.
\
.
.
\
SB-1 :
\
B-7S
Qcf
(PRIVATE STREET)
LEG END _______________________________________________________. !
....APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING T
...COMPACTED FilL
SITE PLAN
LOTS 47 AND 48
TRACT NO. 23172
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
DATE 06-9-2003 I PROJECT NO. 20137 - 12 - 01 I FIG. 2
Qc:! no.ALLUVIUM (Shaded Where Buried)
GEDeON
INCORPORATED
o
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
43280 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE. SUITE 108 . TfMECUlA, CA 92590
PHONE 909 587-8169 - FAX 909 676-9860
PO I RSS 1 1 DSK t DOOOO
20137BR I RSS
N
APPROX. SCALE: 1" = 100'
<z;5
eel.
~I"~
"";' ,~..-
;~:,--:, .'~ ,"
&J'
APPENDIX
,
.
':-'~'. "....'.
-':':',-,
",;
""I"
~. -,'
"I'
:.,~ ' ~
~'I
-'.~ '.'
::_\1 _
"I'
"'. ..
,;",- -
,/'
".:.~.,--
r.-'-
'.
'I
t",~...-. ,,"
',-.'
Y'I' ,
~-:'--
',.'.
i! "
'c", "
(,'.
/'1'
'--:~'" ,
I
~~::' ,
"'. -
. ,
'I
;.,
-: ,,--
"I' ,
;.'," .'
"
>1
:"' '
co'.'
,
,- ~ --,.
'''',
..:",.,
L. . ,-
~ ' , -', . ~\<'" ;
a , " ~t(" ,
~-, -:-~~::__"-~-~ -_:"",:- - ~ "~,,,,.~~,,,,- r:","~",,,,,,,-,~-"_"r ";~~~~?~~.""~:.'-'". ~,' ~ '. ~'" ._?~~_.;:____.....~.,;.,-~<i+i......,_",-,=- ii_;<~d_.i..-.'~_,"';;'':''~~,
... ,'_c~~ ----, ""* "'lr-<'~==H'5t.- ""-""",.o~~"'~-'''''''''''", "~M<''?' ~:","-;,: '~'''''''-''-o'''hl~--'a
.~~ I _-:-_,~~_ _~~ !!t'~~~ .>~_"$;..~~~-. _~;;;:~..,:iil .....""
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Our field investigation was performed on May 12, 2003, and consisted of a site reconnaissance and
drilling 8 small-diameter borings. The exploratory borings were all drilled to a maximum depth of
approximately 50 feet using aCME 55 drill rig equipped with 8-inch-diameter hollow-stem auger.
During drilling, relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by driving a 3-inch O.D., split-tube
sampler 12 inches into the undisturbed soil mass with blows from a 140-pound automatic hammer
falling a distance 0 f 3 0 inches. The sampler was equipped with l-inch-high by 2'/.-inch-diameter
brass rings to facilitate laboratory testing. Standard Penetration testing was also performed.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The soil conditions encountered in the investigation were visually examined, classified, and logged
in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) practice for
Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D2488). Logs of the borings are
presented on Figures A-I through A-8. The logs depict the general soil and geologic conditions
encountered and the depth at which samples were obtained. The approximate locations of the borings
are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.
Project No. 20137-12-01
June 9,2003
1--1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO. 20137-12-01
'" BORING B 1 ~UJ--:- 't: w..
>- w
>- i=~t
OEPTH '" ~ SOIL (j)~ ",-
9 <<- ZlL ,,>-
IN SAMPLE a::t-~ w' >-Z
0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 05-12-2003 oq ",W
NO. :t: Z lu~o >-!!, ->-
FEET >- " (USC5) Z"'..J Oz
::; 0 WWlD '" "'0
'" EQUIPMENT MOBIL B-91 ,,-"'- 0 u
'"
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 0 '.1
B1-1 I FILL
I I Dense, dark brown, moist, Silty, fine SAND -
t I
2 I I -
- I fl SM - 57
BI-2 I
4 I t I -
I I - 43
BI-3 1 I 110.6 17.2
I
6 ALLUVIUM
BI-4 Stiff: gray to dark gray, moist, fine, Sandy SILT, micaceous. - 16 97.7 16.0
8 - -
- -
10 - ML - 16
BI-5 100.0 15.7
- - -
12 - -
BI-6
- -
14 - -------------------------------- ---- --- ---
.1 I Loose, gray, moist to wet, Silty fine SAND with interbedded lenses of silt
- I I - 17
BI-7 t I
16 - \ I -
- I tl -
I I
18 - t I -
SM
- I I -
.1 fl
20 - I I -
BI-8 I' 10
- I I -
22 - I fl -
- I -------------------------------- ---- f---- ----
StilL dark gray, wet, fine, Sandy SILT, micaceous
2. - -
- ..!. -
BI-9 -Groundwater encountered at 25 feet 9
26 ML -
-
28 - I -------------------------------- ---- f---- ---
I Medium dense, gray, saturated, Silty, fine SAND
I I -
J I
'.
Figure A-1,
Log of Boring B
20137-12-01.GPJ
1, Page 1 of2
D .,. SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ._. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
. n. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
.!. ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~ ... CHUNK SAMPLE
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDmONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO. 20137-12-01
'" BORING B 1 Zw_ ~ wii'
>- w Q"t
0 t- 00--:- ",-
DEPTH ~ SOIL t-z :ot-
0 <(<(- zu.
IN SAMPLE ~ "'f-~ wo f-Z
0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 05-12-2003 roW
NO. Z t;j~O O. -f-
r >-~
FEEf f- :0 (USGS) z"~ Oz
:J 0 WWlll '" :;;0
'" EQUIPMENT MOBIL B-61 0."'- 0 "
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
30 BI-I0 1'1 20
Medium dense, gray, saturated, Silty fine SAND
III -At 31 feet, 4" layer of fine to medium sand -
32 1"'1 -
- III -
34- III
1'1 8M
B1-11 r - 13
.11
36 III -
- 1'1
- 38 .r
.11
- III
40 1'1
B1-12 .r 22
- II
III -Becomes coarser, less silt
- 42 III
~.J-, I- -------------------------------- ---- 1---- ----
Medium dense, gray, saturated, fine to medium SAND with trace silt
44 -
- BI-13 18
SP
46 . . -
- 48 '-,- I-. -------------------------------- ---- 1---- ---
II Medium dense, gray, saturated, Silty, fine SAND
III 8M
- 50 III
BI-14 .1.' II
-
BORING TERMINATED AT 51 FEET
Groundwater encountered at 25 feet
Figure A-1,
Log of Boring B 1, Page 2 of 2
20137-12.Q1.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
o ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ . DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
. ".. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
.!. ...WATERTABLE OR SEEPAGE
IJ n. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~ n. CHUNK SAMPLE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
z,o..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO. 20137-12-01
'" BORING B 2 5UJ-:- ~ wi!'
>- w
" I- i=~t Ci.i~ ",-
DEF'TH 0 ~ SOIL ..;..;- zu. =>1-
IN SAMPLE ~ Q:~~ Wo I-Z
0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 05-12-2003 ",W
NO. Z tu~o O. -I-
FEET :I: >-~ Oz
l- => (USGS) Z"'~
::; 0 WWm '" :;;0
'" EQUIPMENT MOBIL B-61 0."'- 0 "
"
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 1 'I FILL
- III Medium dense, medium brown, damp, Silty, fine SAND
2 - III
III SM
B2-1 I 35
4 III
- II
B2-2 .1 38 118.8 8.0
1,1
6 1'1 ALLUVIUM
B2-3 III Medium dense, gray brown, damp, Silty, fine SAND 20 106.6 5.5
8 - III
.1.
II SM
I
10 B2-4 III 27 110.8 8.1
- II
.1
11
12 III
III
- 14 - ,-J.,; I- -------------------------------- ---- ~--- ---
Medium dense, light gray. dry to damp, fine to medium SAND, trace silt
B2-5 24
16 - -
-
18 SP
20 - B2-6 II
BORING TERMINATED AT 21 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Figure A-2,
Log of Boring B 2, Page 1 of 1
20137-12.01.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ .. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
. ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
Y ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1IIiIIrrJ. CHUNK SAMPLE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATlON AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONomONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
1f/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO. 20137-12-01
'" BORING B 3 5w-;- ~
>- w w;/1
DEPTH '" ~ i=~ti: en--:- ",-
0 SOIL <(<(- Z" :>1-
IN SAMPLE "" a::1-~ W' I-Z
0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 05-12-2003 0(.) enW
NO. :J: Z ~!;QO >-~ 5!z
FEEf I- :> (USCS) Zen""
::; 0 WWlD '" :;0
'" EQUIPMENT MOBIL B-61 0."'- 0 0
'"
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
f- 0 1'1 FILL
f- - 111 Dense, medium brown, dry to damp, Silty, fine SAND -
f- 2 - III
.1
f- - B3-1 .11 8M 70
f- 4 111
f- - 111
B3-2 I 49
f- 6 - 1 ,I
.1'1 ALLUVIUM
f- III Medium dense, grayish brown, damp, Silty, fine SAND
B3-3 25
f- B 111
f- - III
I
f- lD 111
B3-4 24
f- 11 8M
B3-5 .1
11
f- 12 III
- III
14 - I
11
B3-6 111 21
,1.1
f- 16 BORING TERMINATED AT 16 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Figure A-3,
Log of Boring B 3, Page 1 of 1
20137-12..Q1.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
On. SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
. ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
.!. ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
IiiiiiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDmONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOIWARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDmONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
~\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO. 20137-12-01
'" BORING B 4 z UJ_ ~ w:.o
>- UJ QUt
(!) I- Cii--:- ",-
DEPTH ~ SOIL I-Z ::>1-
0 ",,- zo.
'N SAMPLE ~ "'I-~ W' I-Z
0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 05-12-2003 o~ (J)W
NO. :I: Z tu~o >-i!, -I-
FEEf I- ::> (uses) z(J)~ Oz
:J 0 UlW<II '" :;;0
'" EQUIPMENT MOBIL B~l 0."'- 0 U
(!)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 1'1 FILL
.1 Medium dense, dark gray, moist, Silty, fine SAND -
B4-1 .:..1.:
2 -
.1 SM
II - 30
B4-2 III 124.9 9.1
4 .111 -
- - 26
B4-3 1 117.4 12.0
6 1,1
ALLUVIUM
Loose to medium dense, grayish brown, damp, fine to medium SAND, some -
B4-4 silt II 100.4 4.2
8 84-5 -
-
SMlSP
10 B4-6 - 21
97.7 8.2
-
12 -
- "~.--:-f-. -------------------------------- ----f---- ----
Medium dense, light brown, damp, fine to medium SAND, trace silt
14
- SP -
84-7 18
16 - -
-------------------------------- ----f---- ----
Soft, dark gray. moist, SILT, some fine SAND, micaceous
18 -
20 ML
84-8 4
22 --------------- ----f---- ---
Medium dense, gray. damp, fine to medium SAND, trace silt
24 SP
..
84-9 17
26
80RJNG TERMINATED AT 26 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Figure A-4,
Log of Boring B 4, Page 1 of 1
o n' SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
20137.12-01.GPJ
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~ on CHUNK SAMPLE
. "_ DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
.!: ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDmONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDmONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
1;'1/
I
I
I
I.
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
1
PROJECT NO. 20137-12-01
'" BORING B 5 5UJ--:- ~ wi
>- w
" I- i=~tL ~--:- ",-
DEPTH ~ SOIL
SAMPLE 0 <<- zu. ::>1-
IN .... "'I-~ Wu I-Z
0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 05-12-2003 "'w
NO. Z tu~o O. -l-
X >-e:.
FEET I- ::> (USGS) Z"''''' Oz
:; 0 WWm '" ::;;0
'" EQUIPMENT MOBIL B-61 .."'- 0 0
"
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 B5-1 .1 'I FILL
III Medium dense, grayish brown to dark gray, damp, Silty fine SAND -
2 III -
.1 . SM
B5-2 .11 - 34
4 - III -
III
B5-3 1'1 ALLUVIUM 25 99.0 12.0
- 6 III Loose to medium dense, dark gray, moist:. SiLty, fine SAND -
B5-4 III - 10.7
III 10 88.4
8 - -
B5-5 III
SM -
10 III -
B5-6 .1
II 8
III -
12 IJJ -
-------------------------------- ---- f---- ---
Medium dense, gray, dry to damp, fine to medium SAND, trace silt -
14 -
- B5-7 '.. - 18
16 -
- -
18 -
-At 19 to 22 feet, silt content increases
20 - B5-8 12
-
22
SP
24
-Becomes moist
- '.J
B5-9 -Groundwater encountered at 25 feet 21
26
28 -
-
Figure A-5,
Log of Boring B
20137-12.Q1.GPJ
5, Page 1 of 2
o n. SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
. ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
.y n. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~... CHUNK SAMPLE
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONomONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
:rr IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
~!;I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO. 20137-12-01
'" BORING B 5 Zw_ ~ w..
>- w QUt
t- U)--:- ",-
DEPTH '" ~ SOIL t-z ~t-
0 .;.;- zu.
IN SAMPLE ~ a::1-~ Wo t-Z
0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 05-12-2003 .,w
NO. z tu!QO O. -t-
r 0. OZ
FEET t- ~ (USGS) z"~ >--
:; 0 WWm '" ::;0
'" EQUIPMENT MOBIL B-61 0."'- 0 U
'"
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
30 B5-1O 18
Medium dense, gray, wet, fine to medium SAND -
32 -
- -
34 - ]I -------------------------------- ---- --- ---
Medium stiff: dark gray, wet SILT, trace fine sand, micaceous
-
BS-ll ML 6
36 -
- -------------------------------- ---- 1---- ---
Medium dense, gray, saturated, fine to medium SAND, some coarse sand,
38 trace silt -
- - .. .
40 B5-12 20
. .
- SP
42
- -
...
44 .
B5-13 -------------------------------- _--'2._ 1---- ---
46 Very stiff: dark gray, wet, SILT, trace fine sand, micaceous
48- ML
50 B5-14 25
BORING TERMINATED AT 51 FEET
Groundwater encountered at 25 feet
Figure A-5,
Log of Boring B 5, Page 2 of 2
20137.12..(J1.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
o "". SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ .., DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
y. ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
Iiiji;J ... CHUNK SAMPLE
. ... ORIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDmONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INOICATED.
'IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONomONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO. 20137-12-01
'" BORING B 6 Zw_ ~ ILl*'
>- W gUt
" I- w-:- ",-
DEPTH ~ SOIL I-Z "I-
0 ";";- zu.
IN SAMPLE ~ C:::t-~ Wo ...Z
0 e CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 05-12-2003 (l)w
NO. Z lii5Qo C. -I-
FEET J: (uses) z(l)~ >-& Oz
I- " :;0
:; 0 wWm '"
'" EQUIPMENT MOBIL B-61 0."'- e "
"
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 1'1 FILL
- III Medium dense to dense, dark gray, moist, Silty, fine SAND -
2 - III -
.1 SM
- .11 -
4 - III -
- ill
.,
B6-1 II ALLUVIUM 21
6 - III Loose to medium dense, gray, damp to moist, Silty, fine SAND -
- 1.1.1 -
B6-2 .1 14
8 - .11 -
- III -
10 - III SM - 13
B6-3 .1 105.7 18.5
.11
- III -
12 - III -
- .1 -
II
14 - III -
- III -
B6-4 1.lj 13
16 BORJNG TERMINATED AT 16 FEET
No groundwater was encountered
Figure A-6,
Log of Boring B 6, Page 1 of 1
20137.12.01.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
o ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
. ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
Y. ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
IIiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITlONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH lOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE GONDmONS AT OTHER lOCATIONS AND TIMES.
/'
~v
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO. 20137-12-01
'" BORING B 7 z"'_ ~ "'*
>- '" Qur:
CJ .... ....z"- Ci5--:- ",-
DEPTH 0 ~ SOIL <(<(- z"- OJ....
SAMPLE ~ "'....~ "'0 ....Z
'N 0 0 CLASS ElEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 05-12-2003 (/)'"
tJ!:20 c. -....
NO. J: Z >-lh Oz
FEET .... ::> (Uses) z(/)~ :EO
::; 0 ","'m '"
'" EQUIPMENT MOBil B-61 0."'- 0 0
CJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 0 .1'1
FJLL
- I Medium dense to dense. dark gray, moist, Silty, fine SAND -
- 2 It 1 -
.111
- I .1 i-
B7-1 III SM 40
- 4 '-
- - II[ ~
B7-2 .r -Less silt 37 115.7 5.2
.11
- 6 I~I -
-
.11 ALLUVIUM
- 8 - I Medium dense, gray to grayish brown, damp, Silty, fine SAND -
- :]} SM -
- 10 -------.------------------------- ---- --- ---
B7-3 Stiff: dark gray, moist, fine, Sandy SILT, micaceous 15 90.3 13.8
- -
- 12 - ML -
~ -------------------------------- ---- --- ---
Medium dense, gray, moist, fine to medium SAND, trace silt
I- 14 i-
l- i-
B7-4 20
16 i-
- i-
~18 - SP I-
-Becomes finer grained I-
~ 20 i-
B7-5 16
- - i-
-Fine grained sand, trace silt, medium sand
I- 22 - ~
- - '-
I- 24 - I-'r -------------------------------- i---- --- ---
II Loose, gray, moist, Silty, fine SAND
I- - III i-
B7-6 9
I- 26 - 1.1.1 i-
I- .1 l-
II
I- 28 III I-
III SM -Becomes medium dense
I- II[ i-
Figure A-7,
Log of Boring B
20137-12-01.GPJ
7, Page 1 of 2
D.,. SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ n. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
.!: n. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
[] n. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~... CHUNK SAMPLE
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
. .,. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
??
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO. 20137-12-01
0: BORING B 7 5w"" ~ w*
,. w
DEPTH " i ~~t: en"" 0:-
9 SOIL <(<(- ZLL "f-
'N SAMPLE a::~~ Wcj f-Z
0 0 CLASS ElEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 05-12-2003 CIlw
~~O O. -f-
NO. :I: Z ,.!!:. Oz
FEET f- " (uses) zCIl.... :;0
:J 0 wWm 0:
0: EQUIPMENT MOBil B-ll1 ..0:- 0 0
"
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
30 B7-7 1'1 Medium dense, gray, moist, Silty, fine SAND, becomes coarser grained 11
- III -
32 - It I -
- ~IJ-,,- ------------------------------ c---- --- ---
Medium dense, gray, saturated, fine to medium SAND, some silt
- 34 . . -
I... ..!- SP -
B7-8 -Groundwater encountered at 35 feet 16
36 BORJNG TERMINATED AT 36 FEET
Groundwater encountered at 35 feet
,
Figure A.7,
Log of Boring B 7, Page 2 of 2
o n. SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ n. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
20137.12.Q1.GPJ
IJ n. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
IiiJ 0.. CHUNK SAMPLE
. ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
.y- n. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDmONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
~'\
II PROJECT NO. 20137-12-01
I
I
'I
I
I
I
1
I
I
II
I
I
1
1
I
,I
I
1
0:: BORING B a ZUJ_ ~ -
,.. UJ 00 . UJ#
" I- ;::zt: Ci)-:- 0::-
DEPTH 0 ~ SOIL .;.;- zu. =>1-
SAMPLE .... o::t-~ UJu I-Z
IN 0 0 CLASS ElEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 05-12-2003 ",UJ
tu~o O. -I-
NO. :J: z ,..!:. Oz
FEEf l- => (Uses) z"'.... :;;0
::; 0 UJUJaJ 0::
0:: EQUIPMENT MOBil B-61 0.0::- 0 0
"
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 I TI FILL
I II Medium dense, dark gray, moist, Silty, fine SAND -
2 I II SM -
1 II I-
B8-1 I 28
4 ALLUVIUM
Stiff; gray, moist, Sandy SILT to a Silty fine SAND -
6 - -
-
B8-2 13
8 -
SMlML
-
10 -
B8-3 15
. -
12 -
------------------------------ ---- --- ---
StilI: dark gray, moist, SILT, trace fine sand
14 - I-
ML
- - I-
B84 12
16 BORING TERMINATED AT 16 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Figure A-a,
Log of Boring B a, Page 1 of 1
20137-12-01.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
o ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
. n. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
.!: ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~ ... CHUNK SAMPLE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDmONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
:IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONomONS AT OTHER lOCATIONS AND TlMES.
~lb
'.
".
'....1' ,,',.
r~~ ",:,"',,'C..,
<- ',.-","
?..,' ,:.
~:I,
"
:,:.
'.t.,.
~,-;
:;'.
~:i.~. .. ..
,I,
.: ~ ..
"'I,
.''',,'
'I"
';1'
~- .
,CI
t-~~: -:
i~
"I'
,~... -
:,..:, .~-
i,-
I
"'I'
:.;:" --..
"'1 '
:~':~-
;"~~: >
icl'
,"c_ ^
"I
'-'
'I
.".'1"
':.~ ,,'
ii.
<:'~
, ,.'''',
~:t/.-
APPENDIX
l;;";;;~,"~''!f11~~.i''''''i''L,;;;;,'4i''''''''':&i:,~,&'~:~:oi:;''''~;;;;'~~;J.''::;;~),~"",~::"";;':,;t_,
. '3?" .
"'~'-
,<_', :'_' ,,- - .' ,_ 'o:o.'::_,:~~::/t::>i.
;~.:~-~~{!:k~ff2i~:~:~~~t~;i-pg~;~^tdt~~~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'.
I
I
I
I
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected soil samples were
analyzed for in-situ moisture content and density, maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content, shear strength characteristics, expansion potential, R-value, gradation characteristics,
consolidation potential, and water-soluble sulfate content. The results of the laboratory tests are
presented in Tables B-1 through B-V and Figure B-1. In-situ moisture and density results are
presented on the boring logs, Figures A-I through A-8.
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557-01
Sample Description Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture
No. Density (pcf) Content (% dry wt.)
BI-I Dark Brown, Silty fine to course SAND 127.9 8.8
B5-1 Grey Brown Silty fine SAND 125.1 10.0
TABLE B-II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080-98
Sample No. Dry Density Moisture Content Unit Cohesion Angle of Shear
(pcf) (%) (psf) Resistance (degrees)
BI-I' 115.1 8.5 420 34
B5-1' 111.4 10.9 440 31
'Soil sample remolded to 90 percent relative density at near optimum moisture content.
Project No. 20137-12-01
-B-I-
June 9, 2003
/>I)
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE B-III
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829-95
Sample Moisture Coutent Dry Density Expausiou
Classificatiou
No. Before Test (%) After Test (%) (pet) Index
BI-1 8.8 20.8 113.4 21 Low
B5-1 9.8 25.2 113.2 25 Low
TABLE B-IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417
Sample No. Sulfate Content (% SO.) Sulfate Rating*
BI-1 0.011 Negligible
B5-1 0.023 Negligible
'Reference: 1997 Uniform Building Code Table 19-A-4.
TABLE B-V
SUMMARY OF SINGLE-POINT CONSOLIDATION (COLLAPSE) TESTS
ASTM D-2435-96
Sample In-situ Dry Moisture Content Axial Load with Percent
Number Density (pet) Before Test Water Added (pst) Collapse
BI-4 97.7 16.0 2,000 0.2
B2-4 110.8 8.1 2,000 1.5
B4-4 10Q.4 4.2 2,000 1.1
B5-3 99.0 12.0 2,000 0
B6-4 105.7 18.5 2,000 0
B7-3 90.3 13.8 2,000 0.2
Project No. 20137-12-01
-8-2 -
June 9, 2003
1>.\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO. 20137-12-01
GRAVEL SAND
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT OR CLAY
U. S. STANDARDISIEVE SIZE
I
8 16 30 50 I
3 " 1-112" 314" 318" 4 110 T 20 40 601100 200
100 Ii '" I I
I "".\ I
90 I;
I I 1\ \\ I
I I I
80 I I I
I: I \ \\ I
I! I I
70
l- Ii I ~\ I
I
CJ I: I I
~ 60
>- I I \' I
1Il I I \ I
0: 50 I I I
UJ m
z I:
u: I
l- I! I \
z 40
UJ Ii \
'-' I I
0: I: I I
UJ
Q. 30 \
I I \ I
I I I
20 I I \ I
I: I " I
I I I
10
I I I
I I I
0
O. o. O. 01
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION NATWC LL PL PI
. 61-8 20.0 (SM) Gray, Silty fine SAND
~ 61-11 35.0 (8M) Dark grayish brown, Silty fine SAND
.. 65-12 40.0 (SM~SP) Gray, fine to medium SAND
GRADATION CURVE
LOTS 47 & 48 OF TRACT 23172
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
20137-12-01.GPJ
Figure B-1
I>\f/
~l.
l.:r"-_~ _~
:-'''',:."",''r
~I'\\':-'~
:~ _1:~~:' -.- ~'",-;'
'~I~:"
~ .:.-, ".-- -
?OJ ',~
~I~. :::,:'
~~~.?-' ,_: ~.
'-',.
,,',
.'
,;.,:
. ~ ~
~:IL
:~"- "
f,:::':"
;1--
(i:.' ..
APPENDIX
~I'-
~I':' .
f~ '_
\.o{ ~
.:. :
.'" ',',
~ "~~~--/
;$.:,,_-0'
"'J"
~'I":
!;! q:
..
"f"'"
'.-; ~~ ......- " -
-.~ -'
-.... - -' .
~/!--~- 'j -
.,~I'
~~ :
i~
~.I..'.
q -:
~'. ...
:>tft. ,.'
~~:-~>
:"'1
~ :::
:.:~} <
~:'I':'
-- -.
'".co .
~~-. ,
.~"
.: ~
.
'i.I...
~f:~ _."
.'
.....
::" '-
"I'
~" ;"-
I'~' '"
S,y: 0_
.~-'::'. ~
I;.....
15;1-,-'
,-
~" "',.... '-.'- ',-'-<. -,- :._"
'~~~~~':~~i~ .1'
< ~-,
~:::.-~-.
'+.
__."Y-f'
....~.
~7;?" .
.i':;:';'~~~~;:~"':~;li~"~~:~~if1-~";;;;:;2_~~~,~~-::;:~i.~:~~~~~:Y~~
-;-'-:'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
FOR
LOTS 47 & 48-TRACT 23172
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 20137-12-01
*'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
*****************************
.
.
.
LIQUEFY2
.
.
.
.
Version 1.50
.
.
.
*****************************
EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF
EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
JOB NUMBER: 20137-12-01
DATE: 06-02-2003
JOB NAME: MDC-Vail
SOIL-PROFILE NAME: L1QTEST.LDW
BORING GROUNDWATER DEPTH: 20.00 ft
CALCULATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH: 20.00 ft
ElESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.80 Mw
SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.600 g
BOREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00
SAMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00
N60 HAMMER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.30
MAGNITUDE SCALING FACTOR METHOD: Idriss (1997, in press)
Magnitude Scaling Factor: 1.285
rd-CORRECTION METHOD: Seed (1985)
FIELD SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS.
Rod Stick-Up Above Ground: 3.0 ft
CN NORMALIZATION FACTOR: 1.044 tsf
MINIMUM CN VALUE: 0.6
A.~
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
i I
I
: I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
NCEER [1997J Method UQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PAGE 1
File Name: 20137.0UT
1 CALC.I TOTAL I EFF. IFIELD I FC 1 1 CORR.IUQUE.I IINDUC.IUQUE.
SOILI DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI N IDELTAI C I(N1)60IRESISTI r ISTRESSISAFETY
NO.1 (ft) I (lsf)1 (tsf)I(B/ft)IN1_601 N I(B/ft)1 RATIOI d I RATIOIFACTOR
----+------+------+------+------+----+-----+------+------+-----+------+------
1 I 0.251 0.0161 0.0161 22 I - I * I * I * I * I * I **
1 I 0.7510.04710.0471 22 I - I * 1 * 1 * I * I * I **
1 I 1.251 0.0781 0.0781 22 I - I * I * I * I * I * 1 **
1 I 1.751 0.1091 0.1091 22 I - 1 * I * I * I * I * 1 *'
112.2510.14110.141122 I - * I *1 * I * I * 1 **
112.7510.17210.1721221 - * I *1 * I * * I **
1 I 3.251 0.2031 0.2031 22 1 - * I * I * I * * I **
1 I 3.7510.23410.2341 22 I - * 1 * 1 * I * * I **
1 I 4.251 0.2661 0.2661 22 I - * I * I * I * * I **
1 1 4.751 0.2971 0.2971 22 I - * I * I * I * * I **
2 1 5.251 0.3261 0.3261 8 I - * I * I * I * * I **
2/ 5.7510.35210.3521 8 I - * I * 1 * 1 * * I **
2 1 6.251 0.3781 0.3781 8 I - * I * I * I * * I **
2 I 6.7510.40410.4041 8 1 - * 1 * 1 * I * * 1 **
217.2510.43110.4311 81- * 1 *1 * I * * I **
2 1 7.751 0.4571 0.4571 8 I - * 1 * 1 * I * * I **
2 I 8.251 0.4831 0.4831 8 1 - * I * I * I * * 1 **
21 8.7510.50910.5091 8 I - I 'I * 1 * 1 * * I **
2 I 9.251 0.5361 0.5361 8 I - I * 1 * 1 * 1 * * I **
21 9.7510.56210.5621 8 I - I * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 **
'2 110.2510.58810.5881 8 1 - 1 * * 1 * I * I * **
2110.7510.61410.6141 8 1 - 1 * * I * I * 1 * **
2111.2510.64110.6411 81-1 * *1 * I * I * **
2111.7510.66710.6671 8 I - I * * I * I * 1 * **
3112.2510.69510.6951 12 I - 1 * * 1 * I * 1 * **
3112.7510.72510.7251 12 1 - 1 * * 1 * 1 * 1 * **
3113.2510.75510.7551 12 I - 1 * * I * I * I * **
3113.7510.78510.7851 12 1 - 1 * 'I * 1 * I * **
3114.2510.81510.8151121-1 * *1 * 1 * 1* **
3114.7510.84510.8451 12 1 - I * * I * I * 1 * **
3 115.251 0.8751 0.8751 12 1 - 1 * * 1 * 1 * I * **
3115.7510.90510.905112 I - 1 * *1 * I * I * **
3 116.251 0.9351 0.9351 12 I - 1 * 1 * I * 1 * 1 * **
3116.7510.96510.9651 12 1 - I * 1 * I * 1 * 1 * 1 **
3/17.2510.99510.9951 12 1 - I * I * I * I * 1 * 1 **
'*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3117.7511.02511.0251 12 1 - 1 'I 'I ' I ' I ' I "
3 118.2511.05511.0551 12 I - 1 'I 'I ' I ' I ' I "
3118.7511.08511.0851 12 I - I 'I 'I ' I ' 1 ' 1 ..
3119.2511.11511.1151121-1'1 '1'1'1 'I"
3119.7511.14511.1451121-1'1 '1'1'1 'I"
4/20.2511.17611.1681 21 11.3810.8861 25.2 1 0.27710.9561 0.3751 0.95
41 20.7511.20911.1851 21 /1.38/0.8861 25.2 I 0.27710.9551 0.3801 0.94
41 21.2511.24111.2021 21 11.3810.886125.2 I 0.27710.9541 0.3841 0.93
NCEER [1997] Method UQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PAGE 2
File Name: 20137.0UT
1 CALC.I TOTALI EFF. IFIELD I FC I 1 CORR.IUQUE.I IINDUC.IUQUE.
SOILI DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI N IDELTAI C I(N1)60IRESISTI r ISTRESSISAFETY
NO.1 (It) 1 (tsf)1 (tsf)I(B/ltJIN1_601 N I(Blftll RATIOI d I RATIOIFACTOR
----+------+------+------+------+-----+-----+------+------+-----+------+------
4121.7511.27411.2191 21 11.3810.886125.210.27710.95210.38810.92
.4 122.2511.30611.2361 21 11.3810.886125.2 1 0.27710.9511 0.3921 0.91
4122.7511.33911.2531 21 11.3810.886125.2 I 0.27710.9491 0.3961 0.90
4 I 23.2511.37111.2701 21 11.3810.8861 25.2 1 0.27710.9481 0.3991 0.89
4 23.7511.40411.2871 21 11.3810.886125.210.27710.94610.40310.88
.4 24.2511.43611.3041 21 11.3810.886125.2 I 0.27710.9451 0.4061 0.88
.4 24.7511.46911.3211 21 11.3810.886125.210.27710.94310.40910.87
5 25.2511.50111.3371 18 I 0.0310.830119.4 1 0.19810.9411 0.4121 0.62
5 25.7511.53211.3521 18 10.0310.830119.410.19810.93910.41510.61
5 26.2511.56311.3681 18 1 0.0310.830119.4 1 0.19810.9381 0.4181 0.61
5 26.7511.59411.3841 18 10.0310.830119.410.19810.93610.42010.61
5 27.2511.62611.3991 18 10.03/0.830/19.410.19810.93410.42310.60
5 27.75/1.65711.4151 18 10.03/0.830/19.410.19810.93110.42510.60
5 28.25/1.68811.4311 18 10.0310.830119.410.19810.92910.42810.60
.5 28.75/1.71911.4461 18 0.0310.830119.410.19810.92710.43010.59
5 29.25/1.75111.4621 18 0.0310.830119.410.19810.92510.43210.59
5129.7511.78211.4781 18 0.0310.830119.410.19810.92210.43410.59
5130.2511.81311.4931 18 0.0310.830119.410.19810.92010.43510.59
5130.7511.84411.5091 18 0.0310.830119.410.19810.91710.43710.58
5131.2511.87611.5251 18 0.0310.830119.410.19810.91410.43910.58
5131.7511.90711.5401 18 0.0310.830119.410.19810.91210.44010.58
5132.2511.93811.5561 18 0.0310.830119.410.19810.90910.44110.58
5132.7511.96911.572/ 18 0.0310.830119.410.19810.90610.44310.58
51 33.25/2.00111.5871 18 0.0310.830119.4 I 0.198/0.9031 0.4441 0.57
5133.7512.03211.6031 18 0.0310.830119.410.19810.89910.44510.57
6134.2512.0631 H181 6 6.2010.798112.410.12610.89610.44610.36
.6134.7512.09311.6321 6 6.2010.798112.410.12610.89310.44610.36
:6135.2512.12311.6471 6 6.2010.798112.410.12610.88910.44710.36
A\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6 35.7512.15311.6611 6 16.2010.798112.410.12610.88610.44810.36
.6 36.2512.18311.6761 6 16.2010.798112.410.12610.88210.44810.36
6 36.7512.21311.6901 6 6.2010.798112.410.12610.87810.44810.36
J 37.2512.24411.7061 20 5.1310.735124.210.24610.87410.44910.70
.7 37.7512.27611.7221 20 5.1310.735124.210.24610.87110.44910.70
7 38.2512.30911.7391 20 5.1310.735124.210.24610.86610.44910.70
J 38.7512.34111.7561 20 5.1310.735124.210.24610.86210.44810.71
.7 39.2512.37411.7731 20 5.1310.735124.210.24610.85810.44810.71
.7 39.7512.40611.7901 20 5.1310.735124.210.24610.85410.44810.71
7 40.2512.43911.8071 20 5.1310.735124.210.24610.84910.44710.71
7 40.7512.47111.8241 20 5.1310.735124.210.24610.84510.44610.71
:7 41.2512.50411.8411 20 5.1310.735124.210.24610.84010.44610.71
7 41.7512.53611.8581 20 5.1310.735124.210.24610.83610.44510.71
7 42.2512.56911.8751 20 5.1310.735124.210.24610.83110.44410.71
7 42.7512.60111.8911 20 5.1310.735124.210.24610.82610.44310.71
.7 43.2512.63411.9081 20 5.1310.735124.210.24610.82210.44210.72
NCEER [1997] Melhod UQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PAGE 3
File Name: 20137.0UT
I CALC. I TOTAL I EFF. IFIELD I FC 1 I CORR.IUQUE.I IINDUC.IUQUE.
SOIL! DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI N IDEL TAl C I(N1 )60IRESISTI r ISTRESSISAFETY
NO.1 (It) I (151)1 (tsl)I(B/It)IN1_601 N I(B/It)1 RATIOI d 1 RATIOIFACTOR
----+------+------+------+------+-----+-----+------+------+-----+------+------
.7 43.7512.66611.9251 20 5.1310.735124.210.24610.81710.44110.72
7 44.2512.69911.9421 20 5.1310.735124.210.24610.81210.44010.72
.7 44.7512.73111.9591 20 5.1310.735124.210.24610.80710.43910.72
8 45.2512.76411.9761 25 5.4310.705128.310.32010.80210.43710.94
8 45.7512.79611.9931 25 5.4310.705128.310.32010.79710.43610.94
8 46.2512.82912.0101 25 5.4310.705128.310.32010.79210.43510.95
.8 46.7512.86112.0271 25 5.4310.705128.310.32010.78710.43310.95
8 47.2512.89412.0441 25 5.4310.705128.310.32010.78210.43210.95
8 47.7512.92612.0601 25 5.4310.705128.310.32010.77610.43010.96
8 48.2512.95912.0771 25 5.4310.705128.310.32010.77110.42810.96
8 48.7512.99112.0941 25 5.4310.705128.310.32010.76610.42710.96
.8 49.2513.02412.1111 25 5.4310.705128.310.32010.76110.42510.97
8 49.7513.05612.1281 25 5.4310.705128.310.32010.75610.42310.97
J,..fC
I
,til'~
~c;;.
,~::'
~..
;~I' '.
~'~ ~, ' -
""1" ,
-. , ,
~!----- - ;:~::-'-~
';;"';:
"'1"
~-'-,--':-
Z,:_~-. ;
;"1'
,":., -,~.
.:.. "
"'1'
,> ",
;.,.C' J
,~ - ..
{Ie
:~;-' . .
~t,.1 :
""I
~;
"'e
~b: ..
"'.;.'-.
APPENDIX
.~
5:1'
<:. ~...'
>:-, '
1"1'
!&! ;
'.
~l
""1'
?:-~;
fl,'"
,>,:-"
, ,
"I.
:;-:1 _'
~'r.;
"'1
"'-,,' :
c. .
~4:
'I"
:t;,~., --
'1
C:t;:';
I~>;: :.
~-~
~. J.O\'
~:I'" , . <::"i~ '
l.- . - -. ~ ~ ~ + _.
~?t,~ '0...,'",",-, '" <_~~.','.~- -,-",:~"~ - ~~~~ "'_.,~~'::" ~~..~~....~.,___...._.-...~~~'_-:...............:';<
~~~""'~ .~~.~",..A.""'~~'~~~~';<;~~_.~-:lf':';',,",~~"1-~~,..-:'~~ ,~.'ff~ ""~~~' "t ~ - L__~.., ~ ~~_....~..""""'-'n7 ~-';:~~.:.':f; ",.,....~,"
~~ $.,,-- -- ""...""........... + ~-~r..~~~~,._::.~_~M-~~....~~ _~ ~_~Y"'"''>l&.C>"J'-'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX D
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
LOTS 47 & 48-TRACT 23172
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 20137-12-01
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
.RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1. GENERAL
These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the
Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Incorporated. The recom-
mendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and
grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case
of conflict.
Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be
employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for
substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these
specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and
observation services so that he may determine that, in his opinion, the work was performed
in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the
Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes
so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly.
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 or agency
ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil rnaterials, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, and so forth, result in a quality of work
not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject
the work and recommend to the Owner that construction be stopped until the unacceptable
conditions are corrected.
2. DEFINITIONS
Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading
work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading
performed.
Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.
Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer
or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifYing
as-graded topography.
GI rev. 07/02
5"\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.4.
2.5.
2.6.
2.7.
3.1.
Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting fIrm
retained to provide geotechnical services for the project.
Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner,
who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be
responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's
work for conformance with these specifications.
Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained
by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site
grading.
Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include
a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the
development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are
intended to apply.
3. MATERIALS
Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or
imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction
of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as
defined below.
3.1.1. Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than I 2
inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of
material smaller than 3/4 inch in size.
3.1.2. Soil-rock fIlls are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4
feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow
for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as
specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12
inches.
3.1.3. Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet
in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as
material smaller than 3/4 inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall
be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity.
GI rev. 07/02
-:)z,
I
I
3.2.
I
3.3.
I
I
I
I
3.4.
I
I
I
I
3.5.
3.6.
I
I
I
4.1.
I
I
I
I
I
Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the
Consultant shall not be used in fills.
Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as
defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9
and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall
not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous
materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to
suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner
the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading
operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the
suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.
The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of
properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to
the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil
layer no thicker than 12 inches i s track-walked onto the face fori andscaping purposes.
This procedure may be utilized, provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner
and Consultant.
Representative samples of soil materials to be used for fill shall be tested in the laboratory
by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and,
where appropri'ate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics ofthe soil.
During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the
Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be
notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition
4, CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED
Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of
complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made
structures and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried
logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and
other projections exceeding 1-1/2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet
below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to
provide suitable fill materials.
GI rev. 07/02
~?:>
I
I
4.2.
I
I
4.3.
I
I
I
4.4.
I
Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly
disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments which are free of reinforcing
steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3
of this document.
After clearing and grubbing of organic matter or other unsuitable material, loose or porous
soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of
removal and compaction shall be observed and approved by a representative of the
Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of
6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent
uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.
Where the s lope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6:1 (horizontal:vertical), or
where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in
accordance with the following illustration.
I
TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
I
I
I
I
I
I
Finish Grade
Original Ground
2
"J1
Remove All
Unsuitable Material
As Recommended By
Soil Engineer
Slope To Be Such That
Sloughing Or Sliding
Does Not Occur
L
I
I "B"
See Note 1
Varies
See Nole 2 J
No Scale
DETAIL NOTES:
(1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, or sufficiently wide to
permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the
key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope.
I
I
I
(2) The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial
material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is
exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be
modified as approved by the Consultant.
I
GI rev. 07/02
5~
I
I
I
I
I
4.5.
5.1.
I
I
5.2.
I
I
6.1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
After areas to receive fill have been cleared, plowed or scarified, the surface should be
disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods. The area
should then be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted
as recommended in Section 6.0 of these specifications.
5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel
wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of
acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be
capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the
specified moisture content.
Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.
6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL
Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.1.1. Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should
generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be
thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture
in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts.
Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in
accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications.
6.1.2. In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the
optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM DI557-00.
6.1.3. When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant,
water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range
specified.
6.1.4. When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the
Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by
the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture
content is within the range specified.
GI rev. 07/02
-55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!I
6.2.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.1.5. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly
compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.
Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place
dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as
determined in accordance with ASTM DI557-00. Compaction shall be continuous
over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that
the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the
entire fill.
6.1.6. Soils having an Expansion Index of greater than 50 may be used in fills if placed at
least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content
generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material.
6.1.7. Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To
achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at
least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered
preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.
6.1.8. As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a
heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height
intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer
or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least
twice.
Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance
with the following recommendations:
6.2.1. Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be
incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured
15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or
3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.
6.2.2. Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be
individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock
fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar
methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in
maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and
shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.
GI rev. 07/02 -5c,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 6.3.
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
6.2.3. For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow
for passage of compaction equipment.
6.2.4. For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed III trenches excavated in
properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4
feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be
filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and
should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an
"open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should
first be approved by the Consultant.
6.2.5. Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either
parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site
geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet
center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next
overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall
be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher
windrow.
6.2.6. All rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the
windrows must be continuously observed by the Consultant or his representative.
Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3., shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.3.1. The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of2
percent, maximum slope of 5 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable
subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during
construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The
subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to
control post-construction infiltration of water.
6.3.2. Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock
trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently
placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the
rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall
consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying
water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with
compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory
roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the
GI rev. 07/02 61.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be
utilized. The number of passes to be made will be determined as described in
Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional
rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill.
6.3.3. Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM DI196-93, may be performed in
both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the number of
passes of the compaction equipment to be performed. If performed, a minimum of
three plate bearing tests shall be performed in the properly compacted soil fill
(minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be
performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the
compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock
fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the
soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection variation with number of
passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be
performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than
that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required
number of passes be less than two.
I
II
I
6.3.4. A representative of the Consultant shall be present during rock fill operations to
verify that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is
being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The
actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during
grading. In general, at least one test should be performed for each approximately
5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of rock fill placed.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.3.5. Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that,
in his opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are
properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be
required in the rock fills.
6.3.6. To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil
fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the
uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock
should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The
gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is
being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the
Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the
commencement of rock fill placement.
G1 rev. 07/02
~
I
I
I
I
I
7.1.
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
7.2.
7.3.
7.4.
6.3.7. All rock fill placement shall be continuously observed during placement by
representatives of the Consultant.
7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The Consultant shall be the Owners representative to observe and perform tests during
clearing, grubbing, filling and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in
vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill shall be placed without at least one field density
test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test
shall be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and
compacted.
The Consultant shall perform random field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock
fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fill material is compacted
as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any
disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion
thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be
reworked until the specified density has been achieved.
During placement of rock fill, the Consultant shall verify that t he minimum number of
passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant shall
request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the
placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing
an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been
applied to the material. If performed, plate bearing tests will be performed randomly on
the surface of the most-recently placed lift. Plate bearing tests will be performed to provide
a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is adequately seated. The
maximum deflection in the rock fill determined in Section 6.3.3 shall be less than the
maximum deflection of the properly compacted soil fill. When any of the above criteria
indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected
layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient
moisture applied.
A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of
rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as
recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project
Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed
during grading.
GI rev. 07/02
9\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.5.
7.6.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.1.
8.2.
The Consultant shall observe the placement of subdrains, to verify that the drainage devices
have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications.
Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:
7.6.1. Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:
7.6.1.1. Field Density Test, ASTM 01556-00, Density of Soil In-Place By the
Sand-Cone Method.
7.6.1.2. Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D2922-96, Density of Soil and
Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).
7.6.1.3. Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM DI557-00, Moisture-Density
Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using lO-Pound Hammer
and 18-Inch Drop.
7.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D4829-95, Expansion Index Test.
7.6.2. Rock Fills
7.6.2.1. Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM D1196-93 (Reapproved 1997) Standard
Method for Nonreparative Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible
Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and
Highway Pavements.
8. PROTECTION OF WORK
During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide
positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be
controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The
Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until
such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas
subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the
Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.
After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further
excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the
Consultant.
GI rev. 07/02
(pO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.1.
9.2.
9. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS
Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil
Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of
elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot
horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of
subdrain, the projec.t Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan
of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the
subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.
The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report
satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report
should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in
geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating
that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance
with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications.
Gl rev. 07/02
(0\