HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3552 Lot 93 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
D ,
I _/
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i III
I
I
I
I
I
il
il
il
e
Ear
h e
echnics
EXHIBIT F
Il2.. 3;5:SL
l..o1"'l3
PREUMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Single - Lot, Residential Development
2.04+ j- Acres, NWC Cabrillo & John Warner Roads
A.P.N.922-14G-014
Temecula, California
July 18, 2002
PROJECT NO. 22348-01
RECEIVED
AUG 1 2 2002
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
PREPARED FOR:
Mr. Charles Gunderson
43925 EI Lucero Place
Temecula, California 92592-2678
\
:Earth Technics P.O. Box 891989, Temecula, California 92589 (909) 699-5451 FAX (909) 767-1193
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! I
, I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
e
e
>
<
July 18, 2002
Project No. 22348-01
1.0 INTRODUCTION
,At your request, we have performed a Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation for the above referenced site. The purpose of our
investigation was to evaluate the underlying soil conditions with
'respect to the proposed development and to assess the
'geotechnical and engineering constraints that might exist
,considering this development.
'The 20-Scale Grading Plan prepared by David Dixon Engineering,
'Temecula, dated June, 2002 was used to direct our field work.
:Plate 1 presents our Geotechnical data obtained during our field
investigation.
,ACCOMPANYING MAPS. ILLUSTRATIONS AND APPENDICES
Index Map - (2000-scale) - Page 2
Geotechnical Map - (40-scale) - Plate 1
Regional Fault Map - (1" = 20 miles) - Plate 2
Appendix A - Geotechnical Trench Logs
Appendix B - Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Appendix C - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
Appendix D - Slope Stability
Appendix E - References
2-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
e
INDEX MAP
e
"
Rancho California ,.~~"
.
.
.
", Q('\
,
~
o
;,
2000 4000
.
SCALE
feet I NDEX MAP
OF
2.04 +/- ACRES, APN 922~146-014
NWC CABRILLO & JOHN ,WARNER ROADS
TEMECUkA, CALIFORNIA
SOURCE:
U.S.G.S. 7~ MIN. QUAD. TEMECULA 1968 (PR 1975)
,
-" I
r1
~
~
I
...
'0,,0
-' .~~;;.~
Goll
,-
"'\.-
N
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
,
e
e
:22348-01
: Page 3
2.0 SITE LOCATION/CONDITIONS
'The roughly square-shaped 2.04+/- acre property is located at the
:northwest corner of Cabrillo and .Tohn Warner Roads, both improved
Ipaved roads in the City of Temecula. Cabrillo Road bounds the the
!property to the south, John Warner Road to the east, with
,existing houses in all remaining directions. The Index Map (Page
:2) presents the topographic and geographic relationships of the
Iproperty to surrounding areas.
'Topographically, the site is uniformly descending 8-12 percent to
:the south. Total relief across the lot is 24 feet.
'No improvements exist at the site. The pad is covered by light
,grasses with a few weeds on the lower portions of the lot.
,Winrows of dirt from recent lot clearing are located east-west
.across the lot.
,The lot is perimeter fenced with wooden fencing on the north and
,west. No other improvements exist on site.
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The current concept is to build a 1 & 2-story single-family
:residence with circular driveway access from Cabril10 Road. A
:secondary driveway will be constructed from John Warner Road.
IMany appurtenances, including a tennis court, pool, horse corral,
,and several outbuildings are planned.
,Grading will consist of 8-10 foot cuts on the north and fills to
'5 feet on SQuth. All slopes will be constructed at finished face
inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter.
,Water will be provided by pressurized pipeline.
4.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of our investigation included the following:
1. A review of available data pertinent to the site.
,2. Subsurface exploration of the site utilizing 2 exploratory
backhoe trenches to depths as great as 12.0 feet. The
trenches were logged, and these logs appear in Appendix A of
this report. The trenches were tested for in-place density
utilizing the Sand Cone Method (ASTM D1556-64).
Representative bulk samples were obtained for testing.
3. Laboratory testing of representative earth materials to
develop soil engineering parameters for the proposed
development.
'\
I
.
I
I
I
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
-
.
e
e
22348-01
'Page 4
:4. Preparation of this report presenting our findings,
conclusions and recommendations concerning site development
based upon an engineering analysis of the geotechnical
properties of the subsoils as determined by field and
laboratory evaluation.
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING
IThe following tests were performed for this project in our
Ilaboratory in accordance with the American society for Testing
'and Materials, the state of California standard Specifications or
'contemporary practices of the soil engineering profession.
5.1 Maximum Density - optimum Moisture Determinations
IThis test determines the density that a soil can be compacted to
:at various contents. For each soil moisture, there is a maximum
'dry density obtained and the associated optimum moisture content.
!The results are used to evaluate the natural compaction, control
of the grading process and as an aid in developing the soil
bearing capacity. This is based on ASTM Standard D1557-78 (five
'layer method) .
5.2 In-situ Moisture and Densitv
,These tests consisted of performing Sand Cone Density tests (ASTM
D1556-64) in the trenches to determine in-place moisture and
density. The results are used to analyze the consistency of the
subsoils and aid in determining the necessary grading to prepare
Ithe pad area.
,5.3 Sieve Analysis
,Thi.s test determines the material grading of the individual
:parti.cle sizes and is used in generating an engineering
:classification.
'5.4 Sand Equivalent Testinq
,This is a test for the rapid determination of the relative
IPortions of fine silt and clay materials within the soil samples,
,and is used for a relative comparison of soils in the
determination of the adequate paving sections for driveways, etc.
:5.5 Expansion Testinq
The expansion index of the soils are determined by the U.B.C.
IMethod 29-2 and is used to design foundations for anticipated
,expansion forces.
'5
I
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
e
e
,22348-01
,Page 5
5.6 Direct Shear
,A direct shear strength test was performed on a representative
:sample of the on-site soils remolded to 90% relative compaction.
To simulate possible adverse field conditions, the sample was
:saturated prior to shearing. A saturating device was used which
Ipermitted the samples to absorb moisture while preventing volume
I change. This test is used to determine soil strengths for slope
:stability evaluations and for foundation bearing capacity.
'5.7 Soluble Sulfate
,A representative surface sample was tested to determine soluble
:sulfate content. The test results are used to recommended the
'type and strength of concrete to be used in construction.
6.0 SUBSURFACE .CONDITIONS
The lot is underlain by a thick soil/colluvium 4.5-5.0 feet thick
'that is sof:t and dry. In-place densities for the soil/colluvium
,fill were from 102.7 pcf (80.6% relative compaction) in T-2 (2.1-
:2.6 feet) to 104.6 pcf (82.1% relative compaction) in T-1 (1.8-
2.4 feet) and moistures of 4-6 percent.
'The underlying pauba Formation bedrock was dense to very dense
with in-place densities of 116.9 pcf (90.2% relative compaction)
to 118.3 pcf (91.3% relative compaction) at depths of 5.5 - 6.0
feet.
7.0 GROUND WATER
!No ground water seepage was encountered on the site to a depth of
12.0 feet. Historic high ground water is expected to be 48-55
feet at the lowest elevations at the rear of the lot based on
:historic ground water in nearby wells (DWR, 1978).
:No evidence of seepage was seen in the natural slope faces
surrounding the property.
8.0 FLOODING
,According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the
County of Riverside, the pad site is not located within the
boundaries of a 100-year flood plain. No drainage swales or
steams cross the property. No flooding potential exists at the
site.
C:,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
e
.
;22348-01
I Page 6
9.0 GEOLOGY
The entire proposed building pad area is underlain at depths
Ibelow 4 -5 feet by sedimentary bedrock identified as the Pauba
Formation (Mann, 1955; Kennedy, 1977). The poorly-developed
Ibedding was oriented N15-20E and dipping 4-6 degrees NW. No
'evidence of slope instability exists at the site or in the nearby
:cut slopes along John Warner Road.
:The extreme northeast corner of the site has approximately 10-15
:feet included in the State and County fault hazard zone for
'active faulting for the Wildomar fault. The Wildomar fault is
,shown 225 f,eet north of the northern property line (Hart, 1999).
10.0 SEISMIC SETTING/GROUND MOTION PARAMETERS
,The regional seismic setting is shown on Plate 2. The nearest
,active faults to the site include the Wildomar Fault of the
!Elsinore Fault Zone which is located along the northern property
,line. The Casa Loma branch of the San Jacinto Fault is located 32
Imiles to the northeast.
The Elsinore Fault zone because of its proximity and seismic
IPotential to the site is the design fault when evaluating the
,site seismic parameters.
11.0 HISTORIC SEISMICITY
IDuring the ,last 100 years in the San Bernardino/Riverside area,
'the greatest number of moderate to large earthquakes (greater
than 6.0 M) have occurred along the San Jacinto Fault (Hileman,
Allen and Nordquist, 1974; Peterson, et all, 1996). The most
:significant earthquake epicenter of magnitude 6.0M on the
Elsinore Fault occured 12+ miles to the northwest in 1910 in Lake
Elsinore. Several earthquakes of magnitude 6.8M and 7.0M have
,occurred on the Casa Loma and San Jacinto faults approximately
20-22 miles northeast.
12.0 SEISMIC EXPOSURE
,Although no precise method has been developed to eval~ate the
seismic potential of a specific fault, the available information
,on historic activity may be projecLed to estimate the future
,activity of the fault. This is usually done by plotting the
historic activity in terms on number of events in a given time
interval versus magnitude of the event. Based on such plots,
recurrence intervals for earthquakes of given magnitudes may be
,estimated. A probabilistic evaluation of potential seismicity
for the site utilizing FRISKSP (Blake 1998) indicates a 10%
probability of exceedance of 0.62g in 50 years assuming all
seismic sources.
"1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.
.
e
e
2'2348-01
Page 7
We have utilized strain rates of 5.0 mm/year for the Elsinore
Fault suggested by Peterson, et al (1996) to estimate the maximum
moment earthquake. We estimate the maximum moment magnitude or
"design earthquake" to be 7.5 magnitude with a 10% possibility of
exceedance in 50 years. This is in agreement with the
probabilistic model by Blake, (1998).
,~2.1 1997 U.B.C. Seismic Parameters:
'The following UBC seismic parameters should be incorporated into
seismic design:
Nearest Active Seismic Source (Type B Fault) - 0.1 km
Soil 'I'Ype* - S"
Near Source Factor N. - 1.3
Near Source Factor Nv - 1.6
* Soil type may be Sc but requires additional field work to
verify.
13.0 GROUND MOTION CHARACTERISTICS
The ground 'motion characteristics which could affect the site
,during the postulated maximum moment magnitude of 7.5 were
estimated. Available information in the literature about maximum
peak bedrock acceleration and its attenuation with distance
('Joyner and Borzognia, 1994), the effects of site-soil conditions
on surface ground motion parameters (Seed & Idress, 1982), and
site response criteria (Hays, 1980) were utilized.
The predominant period of bedrock acceleration is expected to be
0.30 seconds with 24 seconds of strong ground shaking (Bolt,
1973) .
14.0 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS
The dense well-cemented nature of the underlying sedimentary
bedrock in 'the area of the existing pad at depths as shallow as
5.0 feet, and the historic depth to ground water over 48 feet
precludes such secondary seismic hazards as liquefaction, lateral
spreading or settlement of the ground the house is being placed
upon. No rockfall hazard exists at the building site. The
potential for seismically-triggered landslides is discussed in
detail under the slope stability section.
t6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
e
e
:22348-01
iPage 8
15.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
,15.1 Foundation Desiqn
,A strip and spread footing foundation system should provide an
adequate foundation for one and two-story buildings in this site.
All exterior footings should be founded a minimum of 18 inches
ibelow adjacent finished grade for two-story buildings, and 12
,inches for one-story buildings. Interior footings may be founded
a minimum of 12 inches below finished grade.
,When the footings are founded in properly compacted fill or dense
Ibedrock, an allowable bearing capacity of 1500 psf for 15 inch
,wide footings is acceptable for dead plus live load. This value
may be increased by one-third for short term wind and seismic
loading conditions.
,When foundations are placed in natural soils, no cobbles over 6
inches should be left within the base of the foundation. A
Itypical foundation design is included in Appendix C. Two No. 4
:bars, 1 top and 1 bottom is recommended as a minimum design.
,15.2 Settlement
'Our subsurface investigation revealed that the underlying
:sedimentary bedrock are dense and moisture conditioned. Based on
: soil streng,th values and in-place densities, footings should
,experience less than 1-inch settlement with less than 1/2 inch
differential settlements between adjacent footings of similar
~sizes and loads over a distance of 50 feet horizontally. This
,settlement ,is based upon grading of up to 25 feet of engineered
and compacted fill. If thicker fills are proposed, settlement
could be greater and should be evaluated prior to placement.
,15.3 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade
,Sufficient fine-grained materials ~xists within near surface
,earth materials to possible create moisture problems. Therefore,
'we recommend that a moisture barrier be placed under any concrete
!slabs that might receive a moisture-sensitive floor covering.
This moisture barrier should consist of a 10-mil polyethylene
vapor barrier sandwiched between a 2-inch layer of sand, top and
,bottom, to prevent puncture of the barrier and enhance curing of
,the concrete. Reinforcement of the slabs with 6x6-6/6 welded
'wire mesh centered in the 4 inch slab is recommended. The
subgrade below the slab should be moisture conditioned and
properly compacted prior to placement of concrete.
a..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
e
e
,
22348-01
Page 9
15.4 Expansive Soils - Soluble Sulfate
Expansion testing of near-surface silty sand soils (T-1 ; 0-4
feet) possible at finished grades indicate that the soils in the
pad area are very low expansion. This is in accordance with the
U.B.C. Table 18-B-1. No special design provisions are necessary
for the foundation or concrete flatwork to resist expansion
forces.
The soluble sulfate content was 62 ppm allowing normal Type II
concrete with 2500 psi strength.
15.5 Earthwork Shrinkaqe and Subsidence
,Shrinkage of the colluvium will occur during grading, estimated
,as 8-10 percent when recompacted to compacted fill standards. The
:sedimentary bedrock is expected to bulk 3-5% when placed as
,compacted fill.
.15.6 Retaininq Wall Desiqn
iRetaining walls should be designed using the following
!parameters:
o
,0
'0
Active pressure
Active pressure
Active pressure
42 1b/ft /ft
52 lb/ft /ft
58 1b/ft/ft
(level backfill)
(2:1 backfill)
(1 1/2:1 backfill)
For purpose of lateral resistance, a value of 0.35 may be used
,for frictional resistance. A value of 275 lb/ft /ft may be used
for passive resistance for footings placed into properly
compacted fill. Frictional and passive resistance may be
combined, provided the later is reduced by one-third.
:Special loads for dead plus actual loads should be considered in
!the driveway/parking area that is retained.
:15.7 Lateral Loads
!Lateral loads in the near-surface soils are:
,Active
At Rest
i Passi ve
- 42 pounds per square foot of soil depth (psf/ft)
- 58 psf/ft
- 275 psf/ft (for wood shoring)
350 psf/ft (for concrete footings)
,Active means movement of the structure away from the soil; at
irest means :the structure does not move relative to the soil (Such
.as a loading dock); and Passive means the structure moves into
Ithe soil. The coefficient of friction between the bottom of the
footings and the native soil may be taken as 0.35.
\0
.
I
I
I
B
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
.
e
e
,
,22348-01
;Page 10
;15.8 Trench Stability
The near-surface soil to a depth of 5 feet should stand
vertically when excavated, however, trenches in excess of 5 feet
in depth should have the sides laid back at 1:1 in accordance
,with OSHA requirements.
:15.9 Slope stability
The proposed graded fill and cut slopes are 4 and 9 feet,
Irespectfully, at finished face inclinations of 2:1 or flatter.
:The high strength values allow 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) cut
.and fill slopes up to 40 feet without gross or surficial
'instability.
Selection of Shear Strenqth Parameters
The following shear strength parameter utilized for our slope
stability analysis was determined by our laboratory test results
as presented below:
Material
(Cut or Fill)
Friction Angle
(Deqree)
Cohesion
Ib/ft2
Anticipated On-Site Fill
275
27.5
;We have utilized values of 27.5 degrees and 275 Ib/ft2 for
Ibedrock cut slopes although it represents a conservative number,
:determined 'from a remolded saturated sample. Bedrock is expected
'to be 20% + stronger (Coduto, 1989).
Even more critical to overall cut slope performance is the
,orientation of joints and fractures and bedding. All measured
vague poorly-defined bedding was at a low angles of less than 5
,degrees.
'No evidence of slope instability exists on the site and adjoining
areas. The bedrock and low angle into slope bedding orientation
,make all the natural slopes stable.
'Drainage and terracing should be in accordance with Uniform
Building Code Appendix Chapter 33 requirements. At no time
should water be diverted onto the slope face in an uncontrolled
and erosive fashion. Rapid erosion and rutting of the fill
slopes could occur, and they should be planted with drought
resistant landscaping as soon as possible.
\\
I
e
e
I
II
II
il
II
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
22348-01
Page 11
16.0 GENERAL SITE GRADING
16.1 C1earinq and Grubbinq
Any heavy brush and grasses or remaining trees that exist at the
time of grading should be stripped from any areas to receive fill
and removed off-site or stockpiled in landscape areas.
16.2 preparation of Bui1dinq Pad Areas
The proposed building pad is underlain by a 3.5-4.0 feet of loose
soil/colluvium that should be removed. The pad is shown in
transition from cut to fill, and the cut areas should
over excavated to a depth of 3 feet to a distance of 5 feet
outside building foundation lines to a remove the transition.
16.3 Preparation of Surface to Receive Compacted Fill
All sufficiently dense (90 percent relative compaction) surfaces
which are to receive compacted fill should be scarified to a
depth of 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content and
compacted to 90 percent relative compaction. other softer areas
must be overexcavated to sufficiently dense material and
recompacted.
16.4 Placement of Compacted Fill
Compacted fill is defined as that material which will be replaced
in the areas of removal due to root removal, the placement of
footings and paving, and also wherever their grade is to be
raised. All fill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent
based upon the maximum density obtained in accordance with ASTM
D 1557-00 procedure. The area to be filled will be prepared in
accordance with the preceding section.
Fills placed on natural slopes of 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or
steeper will require a key and benching as shown in Appendix C.
16.5 Pre-Job Conference
il
il
I
I
Prior to the commencement of grading, a pre-job conference should
be held with representatives of the owner, developer, contractor,
architect and/or engineer in attendance. The purpose of this
meeting shall be to clarify any questions relating to the intent
of the grading recommendations and to verify that the project
specifications comply with recommendations of this report.
16.6 Testinq and Inspection
During grading, density testing should be performed by a
representative of the soil engineer in order to determine the
\~
I
R
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
e
e
,22348-01
Ipage 12
:degree of compaction being obtained. Where testing indicates
,insufficient density, additional compactive effort shall be
iapplied with the adjustment of moisture content where necessary,
,until 90 percent relative compaction is obtained.
'Inspection ,of critical grading control procedures such as keys,
installation or need for subdrains, should be made by a qualified
:soils engineer.
Import soils to be utilized for fill should have very low
iexpansion potential equal to that of on-site native soils.
;16.7 Deve10nment Impact
;provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into
,the design and construction of the residential project, both the
Iproposed development and off-site areas will be safe from
'geotechnical hazards, including earth slippage and settlement.
17.0 GENERAL
All grading should, at a minimum, follow the "standard Grading
. and Earthwork specifications" as outlined in Appendix C, unless
,otherwise modified in the text of this report. The
,recommendations of this report are based on the assumptions that
,all footings will be founded in dense, native, undisturbed soil
.or properly compacted fill soil. All footing excavations should
be inspected prior to the placement of concrete in order to
verify that footings are founded on satisfactory soils and are
free of loose and disturbed materials and fill. All grading and
fill placement should be performed under the testing and
inspection :of a representative of the soil engineer.
'The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in
accordance ,with contemporary engineering principles and practice.
'Our recommendations are based on an interpolation of soil
conditions between trench locations. Should conditions be
encountered during grading, that appear to be different that
those indicated by this report, this office should be notified.
Submitted,
rJ;'
Warren erling
Director of Geotechnical Services
Jaleh, R.C.E. 30527
Registration Expires 3-31-03
FJ/WLS:ss
Distribution:
(3) Addressee
\-:?
-<?:...
.
~~
:"-;
-
~e
w
0::
:z >--
:0 >-
:i= ~
,<I: >--
:z ~
::5 s
:0. ~
'x w
,W
~\
r:-
~>.
... ..,
i '.
Ia 'a
..r, ~
~
"
-:' :"1
,
i
I '
'act nPlitt!" JUHor
~-_.-..
,
-. :, ~
.~
.'
.
,1;_ /v.......
C~
-1 ,. __,
-<:,==-1' .
e
;;
,
....--
_...._t
I,
1 -,
"
J
.-'-
--1
,
i'
,
"
."
"i;
~. '
;:
'r"
W
I-
:5
a.
~
'?
~
~
\\
, ,
<\',y
'\ .lli
'~
\1\!
i'
II
ii
II \t\
"
'I
:1
I
I
\'
dD\
_./
19~2
'" 6,1
"
R
N
I
00,;
-t'-""OOO.
I --...s.l.~~~..~~~~~S f.
'l~ '\
"
, -
- -- - T \.
,
I
I
,
'-,'>.'!< '~
.~.o -<'
~.{'"i' "9'c..
" ~\ \ ("
".-v.. ".
..,...."- .',
.~~ ,
~~r
........ ~u". .
...'>'..~~T~W
- ---..
I
---
'"
OV
~.' (,.
" "
\~~
...
-21952 _
..- M 6.4 Oc,'f.
~-c.'JI,fl\.:_ -
'-...
.,
?,>"
,c
,0
<0
1947
6"'6,2
....Jl.HI)( f1<I.",J
I
'-,
\
~..~l~.
B
I
'\~+"
<"
+0
.~(
".('
I
I
I
/
B
.r FAULT
~,
I
.,
I
I
~~"
Zr"'
1899
"'7+
1933
"'6.3
I
~~cn'c
Colelllle
IslQnd
.'.
B
...
'..
I
MILES
'1.--.0 10
G
B
...,!:"~,, 1941 ~~~l~Ull.'
.X"'~9-6'1 HISlq~IC M6.0~ EPICE TERS 18 0-1998 1856
I
,I)
to
AEG - 1973J
I
-.JOHN 'i\Jl>GlrlE~ /CAURILLO 1Co,li])S
IE.M1OC\JLA
W,O, NO.
DATE:
7/0'2.
FIGURE:
PLATE 2
\-5
'2"2348-01
-
lee
I .
I
I
I
: I
I
I
I APPENDIX A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\fp
'.
I
<
I P.roJect Neme
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GECW:CHNICAL TRENCHeOG
GUNDERSON EI tl
eve on 1047 +/-
PrOject Number 22348-01
Trench No T -1
Equipment Case 580 Super L Backhoe .
~ c
i :I 9- , GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
-;: '. &. ~ ~~ 'i
'i i- i t:
.. t =: . .
. u# . "! I
,:, 'l- e 'i . u Logged W.L. Sherling
c ! . . by 7/11/02
,- . . -.
&. 0 ii e " u . Oete
- ,- :> f H.L. Sherling
'" E .
! . ~ ;. - ~ ~ Sampled by
,~ . J .
.. 0 ..
0 ,r~D B 0
- DS U SM SOIL/COLLUVlUt1 - 10YR 5/4 yellO\~ish brown silty fine to -
c~ GS L 104.1 6.1 medium sand with minor fine gravel. Soft, dry, porous. -
51 K (82.1) Intervals of 3-6" of slightly silty sand medium to -
- S04 coarse, gradual lower contact. -
5li1 -!i
Cf 116. ~ 6.8 BEDROCK - PAUBA FORt4ATION - Brown 10YR 5/3 to very pale -
- 'MD B (90., ) brown 10YR 7/4 interbedded sequences of clayey sands, -
- U SM/ silty sands and sandy silts. Moderately dense to dense -
- L SC slightly damp. Occasional intervals of slightly silty -
10- K coarse sand 1-2" thick with 5% gravel. f-tJ
- f0-
LD. 12.0'
- NO HATER/MOTTLING
-
15- ~
- -
- -
- -
GRAPHIC LOG trend scale: 1-.
- - * Test Symbols
- -
- B - Bulk Somplo
- R - Ring Samplo
I , , f . , . SC - Sand eon.
I I I I I I , I I I I I MO - Mulmum Donllly
~ -
I- - GS - Groin SIz.
~ - SE - Sand Equlvelenl
I- - E I - Expenalon Indox
(90) - R.loll.. Compoc:llon
~ -
!- -
- - Ear h
- -
. . . . , , f I I . . , echnics
f I I I I I .
- .. "7:~ :;;...-"----...........
.. ~/
- ~ ~
- ~ \\
.
I ~oJect Name
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project Number
GE_CHNICAL TRENC~OG
GUNDERSON Elevation 1043 +/-
22348-01 Case 580 Super L Backhoe Trench No. T-2
Equipment
~ c:
i i .2 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
. ~ ~ !~ 'i
.. i ~ 15 i
t ~ !I:.
~ Q .. U.,. to . j
~ to U Logged by t, I Sherlin9
c: ! . .
:0 . . - .. 7/11/02
~ ii Q ~ U . ~ Date
a: ~
E to '" H.L. Sherling
! ,. to j - ~ ~ Sampled by
'f; . j .
.. Q III
I"
0
C3 102. 5.4 SM SOIL/COLLUVIUM - 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown silty fine to -
(80.0 medium sand with minor fine gravel. Soft, dry, porous. -
- Intervals of 3~6" of slightly silty sand medium to
coarse, gradual lower contact. -
- -
~~ SM/ -!
118.. 6.8 SC
(91. ) BEDROCK - PAUBA FORr1ATION - Brown lOYR 5/3 to very pale -
- brown 10YR 7/4 interbedded sequences of clayey sands, -
- silty sands and sandy silts. t10derately dense to den~i =-
- \ slightly damp. Occasional intervals of slightly silty -
10- coarse sand 1-2" thick with 5% gravel. ~
- T.D. 8.5' -
- NO WATER/MOTTLING -
- -
- -
15- ~
- -
- -
- -
GRAPHIC LOG trend scale: 1",
- - · Test Symbols
- -
- - B - Bulk Sample
- R" Ring Sample
I I I I I . I . SC - Sand Cone
I I I I I I I I I I I I MD. Maximum Denllty
-
- - G S - Gralll IIzI
- - SE - land equivalent
- - E I " Expanaloll Inde.
(90). Ralallve Compaction
-
- -
f- - Ear h
f- -
I I I I . I I I I I I I ~ .echnics
' I I I , I I I
- - :--"-;..--
- - ~/"
- - !:--' \~
.....-
- -
I,
I ·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
<
e
APPENDIX B
e
\c\,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t~
e
e
MAXIMUM DENSITY - OPTIMUM MOISTURE DETERMINATION
The maximum density was determined in accordance with ASTM
standard D1557-78. The result by full laboratory curve is
'Sample
Location
Depth
(Feet)
T-1
0-4
T-1
5-7
Sample Location
T-1
Sample Location
T-1
Soil Description
Maximum
Drv Densitv
(Soil Type A) Soil
light brown silty sand
with 5% gravel
127.4
(Soil Type B) Pauba Fm
dark brown silty sand
sandy silt
129.6
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION TESTING
U.B.C. METHOD 29-2
Optimum
Moisture
10.2
10.7
Depth
Expansion Index Expansion Potential
0-3'
14 Very Low
SAND EOUIVALE~T TESTING
Depth
Sand Equivalent
0-3'
22
ztJ
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
B
I
I
,<
"
e
e
Direct Shear Test Data
Project:
Gunderson
Job Nwnber:
22348-01
Date:
Ear~c_hnl.
~c.
7/15/02
5
.-/'
/ ",...-
.-/' ",...-
V
l-
lL
d
III
-
III
Q,
52
.
.
III
III
Ql
..
..
III
Cl
C
'i:
."
Ql
J:,
III
o
o
Normal Pressure--Kips/SQ. FT.
5
Excavation Nwnber:
T-l
Depth: 0-4'
Saturated Test
I/J = 27.50 Degrees
C = 275 P.S.F.
. Actual
Values
- Best-Fit
Line
2-\
I
I ;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~.;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,~
e
APPENDIX C
e
l-'?
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
e
e
"
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
These specifications present Earth Technics Inc., standard recommendations for grading
arid earthwork.
No deviation from these specifications should be permitted unless specifically superseded
inithe geotechnical report of the project or by written communication signed by the
geotechnical consultant. Evaluations performed by the geotechnical consultant during the
course of grading may result in subsequent recommendations which could supersede
these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report.
1.0 General
1.1 The geotechnical consultant is the owner's or developer's representative on
the project. For the purpose of these specifications, observations by the
geotechnical consultant include observations by the soils engineer,
geotechnical engineer, engineering geologist, and those performed by
persons employed by and responsible to the geotechnical consultant.
1,2 All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall
be conducted and directed by the contractor under the supervision of the
geotechnical consultant.
1.3 The contractor should be responsible for the safety ofthe project and
satisfactory completion of all grading. During grading, the contractor shall
remain accessible.
1.4 Prior to the commencement of grading, the geotechnical consultant shall be
employed for the purpose of providing field, laboratory, and office services
for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and
these specifications. It will be necessary that the geotechnical consultant
provide adequate testing and observations so that he may determine that the
work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the
contractor to assist the geotechnical consultant and keep him apprized of
work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his personnel
accordingly.
1.5 It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate
equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with
applicable grading codes, agency ordinances, these specifications, and the
?-~
e
e
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICA nONS
PAGE 2
approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant,
unsatisfactory conditions, such as questionable soil, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a
quality of work less than required in these specifications, the geotechnical
consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that
construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified,
1.6 IUs the contractor's responsibility to provide access to the geotechnical
consultant for testing and/or grading observation purposes, This may
require the excavation of test pits and/or the relocation of grading
equipment.
1,7 A final report shall be issued by the geotechnical consultant attesting to the
contractor's confonnance with these specifications.
SITE PREPARATION
2,1 All vegetation and deleterious material shall be disposed of off-site. This
removal shall be observed by the geotechnical consultant and concluded
prior to fill placement.
2.2 Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials detennined by the geotechnical
consultant as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be
removed from the site or used in open areas as detennined by the
geotechnical consultant. Any material incorporated as a part of a
compacted fill must be approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill
placement.
2.3 After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, tit shall be
scarified, disced, or bladed by the contractor until it is unifonn and free
from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may prevent
unifonn compaction.
~
-'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
3.0
e
e
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICA nONS
PAGE 3
The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture,
mixed as required, and compacted as specified. If the scarified zone is
greater than twelve inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and placed
in lifts not to exceed six inches or less.
Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be observed,
tested, and approved by the geotechnical consultant.
2.4 Any underground structures or cavities such as cesspools, cisterns, mining
shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines, or others are to be removed or
treated in a manner prescribed by the geotechnical consultant.
2.5 !ncut-fill transition lots and where cut lots are partially in soil, colluvium
or unweathered bedrock materials, in order to provide uniform bearing
conditions, the bedrock portion of the lot extending a minimum of 5 feet
outside of building lines shall be overexcavation a minimum of 3 feet and
replaced with compacted fill. Greater overexcavation could be required as
determined by geotechnical consultant where deep fill of20+ feet
transitions to bedrock over a short distance. Typical details are given on
Figure D- I.
COMPACTED FILLS
3,1 Material to be placed as fill shall be free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances, and shall be approved by the geotechnical
consultant. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics
shall be placed in areas designated by geotechnical consultant or shall be
mixed with other soils to serve as satisfactory fill material, as directed by
the geotechnical consultant.
1X
I
~
I . "
'I
I
I
I
I
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e
e
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 4
3.2 Rock fragments less than twelve inches in diameter may be utilized in the
fill, provided:
1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets,
2, There is a minimum of 75% overall of fine grained material to
surround the rocks.
3. The distribution of rocks is supervised by the geotechnical
consultant.
3.3 Rocks greater than twelve inches in diameter shall be taken off-site, or
placed in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical
consultant in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. (A typical
detail for Rock Disposal is given in Figure D-2,
3.4 Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered
unsuitable shall not be used in the compacted fill.
3.5 Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be
analyzed by the laboratory of the geotechnical consultant to determine their
physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is
encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of the is material shall
be conducted by the geotechnical consultant as soon as possible.
3,6 Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered,
processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness
to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and compacted
on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise approved by the geotechnical
consultant.
3.7 If the moisture content or relative compaction varies from that required by
the geotechnical consultant, the contractor shall rework the fill until it is
approved by the geotechnical consultant.
3,8 Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density in
compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling
governmental agency or ASTM 1557-70, whichever applies,
2.."\
I, -~
-0
. "
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
E
I
I
I
I
E
I
I
I
e
e
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 5
If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling
governmental agency because of a specific land use of expansive soil
condition, the area to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall
either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate reference made to
the area in the geotechnical report.
3.9 All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium alluvium,
or creep material, into sound bedrock or firm material where the slope
receiving fill exceeds a ratio of five horizontal to one vertical, in
accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant.
3,10 The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum width of 15 feet within
bedrock or firm materials, unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical
report. ( See detail on Figure 0-3. )
3,11 Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances
of the controlling governmental agency, or with the recommendations of the
geotechnical consultant. (Typical Canyon Subdrain details are given in
Figure 0-4. )
3.12 The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of
90 percent out to the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and
stabilization fills, This may be achieved by either over building the slope
and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction ofthe
slope face with suitable equipment, or by any other procedure which
produces the required compaction approved by the geotechnical consultant.
3,13 All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by other methods
specified n the geotechnical report.
3.14 FiII-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or
creep material into rock or firm materials, and the transition shall be
stripped of all soil prior to placing fill. (See detail on Figure 0-3, )
1$
I ,
.,
I "
I
i
:1
I 4'.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e
e
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICA nONS
PAGE 6
CUT SLOPES
4.1 The geotechnical consultant shall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals
not exceeding ten feet.
4.2 Ifany conditions not anticipated in the geotechnical report such as perched
water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of potentially adverse nature,
unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes encountered during
grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the geotechnical consultant,
and recommendations shall be made to mitigate these problems. (Typical
details for stabilization ofa cut slope are given in Figures D-3a and D-5. )
4.3 Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be
protected from slope wash by a non-erodible interceptor swale placed at the
top of the slope.
4.4 Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be
excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of
controlling governmental agencies.
4.5 Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of
controlling governmental agencies, or with the recommendations of the
geotechnical consultant.
:5,0 TRENCH BACKFILLS
-
5,\ Trench excavations for utility pipes shall be backfilled under the
supervision of the geotechnical consultant.
5.2 After the utility pipe has been laid, the space under and around the pipe
shall be backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at
least one foot over the top of the pipe. The sand backfill shall be uniformly
jetted into place before the controlled backfill is placed over the sand.
5.3 The on-site materials, or other soils approved by the geotechnical
consultant shall be watered and mixed as necessary prior to placement in
lifts over the sand backfill.
2-'\
.
,~
I ,
I I
I
I
I
I
I :6.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
il
il
II
II
,-
e
e
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 7
5.4 The controlled backfill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
maximum laboratory density as determined by the ASTI D1557-70 or the
controlling governmental agencies.
5.5 Field density tests and inspection of the backfill procedures shall be made
by the geotechnical consultant during backfilling to see that proper moisture
content and uniform compaction is being maintained. The contractor shall
provide test holes and exploratory pits as required by the geotechnical
consultant to enable sampling and testing.
GRADING CONTROL
6.1 Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the geotechnical
consultant during the progress of grading,
6.2 In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding two feet
offill height or every 500 cubic yards offill placed, This criteria will vary
depending on soil conditions and the size of the job. In any event, an
adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verifY that the
required compaction is being achieved.
6.3 Density tests should also be made on the surface material to receive fill as
required by the geotechnical consultant.
6.4 All c1eanout, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains,
and rock disposals should be inspected and approved by the geotechnical
consultant prior to placing any fill. It shall be the contractor's
responsibility to notifY the geotechnical consultant when such areas are
ready for inspection.
.
70
0 ,
.'
I ,
I
I 7,0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!I
il
il
II
II
e
e
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 8
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERA nONS
7.1 Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the
contractor during grading and prior to the completion and construction of
pennanent drainage controls.
7,2 Upon completion of grading and tennination of inspections by the
geotechnical consultant, no further filling or excavation, including that
necessary for footings, foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or
other features shall be prefonned without the approval of the geotechnical
consultant.
7.3 Care shall be taken by the contractor during final grading to preserve any
benns, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of pennanent
nature on or adjacent to the property,
"?;?\
I
.
I .-
,
I
I
R
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
eANSITION -LOT D.E"eLS
CUT-FILL LOT
NATURAL GROUND
\ -
---
-- -
--
--
--
-
--
11'1.\
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR 1
r-- MATERIAL APPROVED BY - ---.f
1 THE GEOTECHNICAL CO.NSULTANT
CUT LOT
--
--
NATlJRAi GROUND
~-
-
--
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR
r-- MATERIAL APPROVED BY
t THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
1
NOTE:
!?eeDer o".erexcovotion and recomoactian sholl be p~rformed
If de!erm.ned .0 be necesscry by the geotechniccl cansultont.
?;t--:
I .
<, .
I .
i I
I
I
! I
"
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I I
:1
il
!I
,I
II
II
,-
tt BENCHING DETAIlS
-- - - - .
---------------
---=- -=-_-:. COMP ~ CTED ,-': .:_-.:.
----- -. -----
_ -=-_-_-_-_-_....:-==_~ F ILL ::-: .:------.:
--:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-=-~~-?:-::
--.:.:_---.:_-----~-.:_-.:_- -=- -.:.:----..::..--::::
--------- ------- . -
---------- -------~~~~
- -.:.:.:--.:--.:.:_-;~ .:.:~-- ---
::_-------~-----~ ~~~
---------~---~~-
---------~ --
:::::---~---- ~-- -
1 to I maximum from toe _.:.:_-.:_-_-;2"'--.:----;~{ \N/~
of slope to approved ground _-.::-:~-::7:.:--:::-:::':';::.1?"':':- ~ \ REMOVE
__-_-.:;~---.:.:,;--:::~ 1 ,-,>. UN~' ;ITAB' c:
__.;;?.....-----~- _u L._
, , _;.:------.:.:-~--- ~ MATERIAL
--------......- ~ '
-------...--
_ _ -.:.:- 4' MIN.
". -_-,....:.:-7.:=-----.:.: I BE"CH BENCH
1 -r-.:;~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: r--" HEIGHT
-L- _:::-_:-2% M1N::;::-.::- (typical) VARIES
-----~----
T ~^' - ~^'J
2' MIN.\ 15' MIN. I
KEY t'LOWEST BENCH ...,
DEPTH (KEY)
FILL SLOPE
_-: COMPACTED :-:-:-:;:-::-
--.: -=----"'. F1LL :.:..:::-::..----:z
----.:-=-----.:--.....~----.:? 'Y-'
--------..------""""J '.
-------~-----."..-
-------~~---~---
--=-=-=-~=-:-_--~ I.-:~,;~
-----------~-~ I
--- ----- - - -....... - - -~,
_---a::-_-_--=--__ - -~
REMOVE, NA-U- AL ~ ~ '^" \
,UNSUITABLE GR~U~~ ...... --~~~w;~~;=~-~" \
MATE:=lIAL '\, __ ~ -- _-:::=;;:-c':::::-- r4 Ml~ BENCl2.
'\.. __ __ __~__:-:=--..: a.ENC.. I HEIGH \
--. _ __ ~::.2%MIN.--:.J' ('YPlcGI~ V;..?IES
--
\ __ ____ I~.A..V ^' .,("'......
/' ~__ -- \...--15' M1N.--J
__ ..... __ \ LOWEST BENCH \
NATURAL
GROUND\
,,,
,.,..
PROJECTED PLANE
FILL OVER' CUT SLOPE
-
.....
--
--
CUT
FACE
To be constructed prior
to fill plccement
""'-'>':
NOTES:
lOWEST BENCH: Depth and width subject to field change
, based C"I consultant's inspection.
S0~!J RAI~JAGE:. e",k c~,:.:.,:; ~::y be required at the
:iiscretlon or the geotecnnicol con3ullon:.
,'7
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
:1
II
II
,-
,.
-
t.al0RY'00'tHOI
12.no'" 'OOTINOS
I OAPl"Ol 00011I G"AOE
.E.....
UVtNO ...M... flOOR 'lA'S
OA..AOE ,\.OOR SLAaS
P"U-SOAKIHO OF llVIKQ
Ai'll" AND GARAGE SLAI
IOU.'
FOU
110N AND SLAB RECOMM
FOR EXPANSIVE SOILS
(ONE AND TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS)
EXPANSION INDEX
0-20
VERY LOW EXPANSION
ALL .00T1NOI 11 IHCNn
ou". .0011NOI
CONTINUOUI. NO lTElL
"IOUIRED 'OR Ell'ANSION
'ORCll.
ALL 'OOlIMOS " IMeNU
DU'. 'OOTINOS
CONT'Nuoua. NO nu\.
"10"'''(0 'OR EX,......SIOt4
,o"cu.
NOT fIIEou.M.O.
S 112 tNCHES THICIl.. NO UfStI
REOUlRED 'OR (XP'AN'I0t4
,ORCES. NO IAU REOUtAEa.
. MIL VlSOUEEN WOISTUlIlE
...."RIE" "lUS , INCH 'AND.
S 1/2 IMeHES THICK. NO "'UH
"EOUIAEO fOA EX"...NSION
,ORCES. NO ....SE REQUIRED.
NO WO.STURE IARRIER
fIIIOUlREo.
IoCOl REQUIRED. MOISTEN
,.RIOR TO ,"CURING
CONCRETE.
EXP'ANSION INDEX
21 - 60
LOW EXPANSION
ALL fOOTlNOI U' 'filCK1'
OUI'. 'OOTlNOI
CCNfTtKUOUI. ,-NO.. IAIII
TOI' ,uo lono...
ALL fOO'l'lNOI 11 INCKII
OUI'. fOO'l'lNOI
COfil'l'tKUOUS. '~MO. . IAIII
TOI' AND lOTTO".
U IfilCHES DElI'. '-NO. . IAIII
TOI' AND lOTTO".
, 112 PICHE, THtCIl.
. X 1_'0"0 WIRE "IE"H AT
"IO_HIEIOHT. 2' INCHU
OlllAVll 011I llANO IASf. I
WIL VI'OU'[EN ..O,.TUllllE
IAlllllllf.III 'hus , IfilCH lAND.
, 112 IHCHE' THICIl.
. X 1-'0110 WIlliE WE'H 011I
OUAilITEIII IlAI'. ISOLATE
FRO" 'TE" WALL 'OOTIHO..
2 INCHES ROCI(. GIIIAVEL 011
'AI<IO BA'E. HO ..OISTURE
IARRIER REOUIRED.
1I0AK TO '2 IHCHES DEPTH
TO ... AIOVE OPTlIoIIUIoII
WOISTURE CONTENT.
NOTES: 1) ALL DEPTHS ARE RELATlVE'TO SLAI SUeGRAOE.
:u IP'ECIAL OESION II AEOUIAEO FOR VERY HIGHLY EXP'AI<ISIVE SOIL'.
JOB NO.:
EXPANSION INDEX
51 - gO
MEDIUM .EXPANSION
uU'UO" 'OOTlMOI tI
INCHII DIE'. IMTEfUO"
,OOTINOI 12: INCHE' DEEP.
'-NO. . IA" '1'0" AMD
lOTTO".
ALL fOOTINOI tI INCHEI
DEEI'. 'OOTINOI
CONTIMUOUI. '-HO. . IA"
TO' AND lOTTO".
,. INCHEI DEEI'. ,-HO.. IA"
TOI' AND lOTTO".
, 112' !NeHIES THICK.
, X '-'0/'0 wun .,ESH AT
.,ID-HEIOHT. . INCHES
OlllAVEl Dill lAND lASE. I
..IL. VISOUEEN "OISTU"1E
IA""IE" 'LU' 1 INCH lAND.
, 112 INCHES THICK.
. X l-t0l10 WIRE MESH OR
OUA"'I'E" llLAIIS. ISOLATE
FROIoll ITIE" WAL.L. FOOTINO..
.. INCHES AOCK. GRAVEl OR
SAND lASE. NO MOISTURE
'AF~RIEA REQUIAED.
10AK TO U INCHES DEPTH
TO 6.. AIOVE OPTlWU"
101011 TURE CONTENT.
FOUNDATION AND SLAB DETAIL
DOWEl
SLABSUBGllAOE\
(wHEI<I REQUIRED), \.
v
(NOT TO SC^LE)
W":,:,'~~\
/
EXPANSION INDEX
V, - '30
HIGH EXPANSION
U:TE"lDfI fOOT....OS ,. tNC~.
OlE'. tNTtl'ltOlll 'OOTINOS U
'MCHU DIll'. '-NO. . IAIIl TOI'
AND aonOM.
tXTUIO" 'OOTtIIOS 2. INeNU
Otl'. INlEIIIIO" 'OOTlNOS 1a
INCHES DEE'. 1-140. " JAIIl TOI'
AND 10TTOM.
2. INCHEI DIEEI'. '-NO. " IAt!.
TOI' AND 1l0ll0".
. INCHEIl THICIl. . X I-I"
WlillE ..E'H AT WIO-HEIOHT.
NO. , COWELL' 'IIlOU 'OOllHQ
TO SLAB AT 36 INCHES ON
CENTlEIII. . INCHES ORAVEl 011I
IAHD IAIE. . WIL VISOUEIEN
..0IS1U'" '."'"IEf!. I'LUI ,
INCH lAND.
. INCHE' THICK. . X I-I"
WIRE WESH 0" QU...RTEJI
lILAI'. ISOlA.TE fAOW .n..
WALL ,QOTlHOl. .IHCHE"
AOCK. QRAVEL OR 5.AI<IO 'A'L
NO WQ'3TURE 'ARRIER
REOUIRED.
SOAIl; TO 24 INCHES OEP'" TO
6'" AIOVE QPTlWW 1rol0lSTURE
CONTENT.
I~SAI<I:)l"YEIl
/ r....ISOUEE..
/ / iOllAVEl OR S.....O '.Sf \......,... ..t~u".ttll
!
/: -
~o.""'. ..;. -0'
'~
,.
'.'-.~'. ....
DEp'TH Of
INTERIOR
FOOTlNO
lOlL ~
1 ,.""Oft '00"..
--------------
". ~:).u...... - r,_q~'t:->
',.'
FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
'DATE: FIGURE NO.:
]A
- ,~':,,,,,~'~.--
Q,.....:;."" -:;::'':o.n...,.~._t>
IXTEIUQR 'OOTlNQ
EARTH TECHNICS
., .
R ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.'
~
e e
APPENDIX D
/'
;;,"J
I
I
I
I S.F.=
I
I
I
I
I, ,.
.
I '"
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
,...
I
I
-
e
e
SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY
.J",n 0( 0 1),441.
U, () d. ':: O. \:'c)S
~ Vl0' -:. OS2-1
S.F. = H (?is) cos20< tan ~ + C
?is H Sin co<. coso<.
zone of
saturation
ps,
~(70'0) (0,8.' )(0.<;71) + ns
H (,,,2,<1) ((),a<1(,)(0'~0':;)
== 'Z b '/2- '
H = Depth of saturation zone
~B = :Bouyant weight of soil,
J_J2~ll-L:!:E7 s --
H ( S7, B5 )
F S ~
= 70,D
6"s = ,Total wet weight of soil = /3'Z 4
" = :f.ngle of internal friction = 1-7, '5
C=Cohesion = '270
H' S.F.
2 3, IS
-
'1 I. & S
Project No.:
Calc. by:
Chk. by:
Date:
-z.v;4B-D \
wW
(J
7/0'1--
'"!?(".
I..
..
)"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
.
I
I
I
e e
APPENDIX E
~\ !
~'
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
il
il
II
I
~
~l~ .
~'
e
e
PUBLISHED REFERENCES
Blake, T.F., 1998, Computer services software, A Computer Program
for the probabilistic Evaluation Horizontal Acceleration from
California Faults, FRISKSP, July 1998
Blake, T.F., 1998, Comnputer Services Software, A computer
Program to Determine Historical Seismicity from Digitized
California Faults, EQSEARCH, July 1995
Bolt, B.A., 1973, Duration of Strong Ground Motion: Proc. Fifth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 2927
Clark, M.W., Harms, K., et al., 1984, Preliminary Slip-Rate and
Map of Late-Quaternary Faults of Cnlifornia, U.S.G.S. Open-File
Report 84-106, 12 p.
Coduto, D.P., 1987, Down to Earth Soils Engineering, Volume 4,
Slope Stability, Cal. Poly university, Pomona
DWR, 1971 Water Wells and Springs in the Western Part of the
upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Riverside and San Diego
Counties, California", Brill. No. 91-20, 377
Hart, E.W., 1999, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California,
C.D.M.G. special Report No. 42, 25p
Hays, W.W., 1980, Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground
Motions, U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1114, 77p
Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the
Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California,
C.D.M.G. spec. Report 131, 12 pages
Peterson,M.P., Bryant, W. A., Cramer, C.H., Reichle, M.S., 1996,
Probabilistic seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of
California, C.D.M.G. Open-File Rept. 96-08
Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motion and Soil
Liquefaction During Earthquakes, E.E.R.I. Nomograph, 134p,
Berkley Press
Weber, F.H. Jr., 1977, Seismic Hazards Related to Geologic
Factors, Elsinore an d Chino Fault Zones, Northwestern Riverside
county, California, CDMG Open-File Report 77-5 LA, 96 pages
~