HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 9833-3 Lot 16 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
;.
... ,.-.,-
~.'::._-
Ii"
;~.
!~
I:::. _
I""
;c.
~.
0'
c
~.
~:
~,~-
[.
.
C'"'
.-
:-
.
ac,
~,E,"a.~~;:h
.. . ~.~ '.- -
.. ".nf ~e;c:hnics
~REIJMINARY GEOl'ECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Single - Lot, Residential Development
Lot 16, Tract ~ Calle De Velardo
Ternecula, River$ide County, California
June 27,1998
PROJECT NO. 98169-01
PREP~ED FOR:
Byron :f<Lynae Carr
24079 Huntridge Drive
Murrieta, :ealifomia 92562
[DT/6
RECEIVED
SEP 111998
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
\
,~... --::'.. _'. " .. -- .'~
Earth~'It!3Jo1ttti;cs"iR.e:,iB.()xa!1t989, T@1ecula, California 92589 (909) 699"5451
,~":.,c ." c',nC 'E .ooo:;~:~,~.:,~ti.c.C....7'::,C'_ ".,
.
.
June 27, 1998
Project No. 98169-01
.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
.
At your request, we have performed a preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation for the above referenced site. The purpose of our
investigation was to evaluate the underlying soil conditions with
respect to the proposed development and to assess the geologic
and engineering constraints that might exist considering this
development.
.
.
The 50-Scale Preliminary Grading Plan prepared by Manning
Engineering, Temecula, undated, was used to direct our field
work. Plate 1 presents our Geotechnical data obtained during our
field investigation. At the time of our investigation, the
property corners had been surveyed and staked.
ACCOMPANYING MAPS. ILLUSTRATIONS AND APPENDICES
Index Map - (2000-scale) - Page 2
.
Geotechnical Map - (50-scale) - Plate 1
Regional Fault Map - (1" = 20 miles) - Plate 2
'Geologic Cross section - Plate 3
.
,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
.
1--
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'n
.
.
, .
INDEX,MAP
,/ ,,<9
,,'
! ,,"
)/
~~q ", . 0
. 0/.. ~
/, 'l~
o.
2000
4000
, SCALE
feet
INDEX MAP
OF
LOT 16, TRACT 9833-3, A.P.N. 945-160-004
CALLE DE VELARDO, SANTIAGO ESTATES, TEMECULA AREA \
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIF
SOURCE: U.S.G.S. 71, MIN. QUAD, PECHANGA 1968 CPR 1988)
'."
N
.3
.
98169-01
Page 3
.
2.0 SITE LOCATION/CONDITIONS
.
'The irregularly-shaped 4.02+/- acre property is located on Calle
IDe Velardo, an improved paved road in the Santiago Estates
,development. Calle De Velardo forms the eastern property boundary
'with vacant land 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 extremely variable from the
,essentially flat drainage area to the west to over 26 degrees
: descending from the ridge to the northeast.
:The existing pad was previously graded entirely in cut, and a
:1.75 cut slope is located at the northeast corner of the pad.
.
Heavy weeds and scrub brush cover the natural slopes below the
!existing graded pad.
'A large south-draining swale is located at the west end of the
property.
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
.
:According to the referenced 50-scale Grading Plans, the existing
pad will substantially enlarged utilizing both cut and fill
;grading. A combination cut and retaining wall will be constructed
.on the north to a maximum height of 30 feet. Fill slopes will be
:constructed to the south, west and east to a maximum height of 25
~feet. The cut and fill slopes will be constructed at finished
iinclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The
grading will create a transition lot from cut to fill.
.
'A 1 and 2-story single-family residence with attached garage will
:be constructed on the pad.
.
.On-site sewage disposal will be utilized in the natural areas
below the proposed fill slope.
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 15.4 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.
.
.
L\.
.
98169-01
Page 4
.
3. Detailed geologic mapping of the site.
4.
Laboratory testing of representative earth materials to
develop soil engineering parameters for the proposed
development.
.
5.
Preparation of this report presenting our findings,
conclusions and recommendations concerning site development
based upon an engineering analysis of geologic and
geotechnical properties of the subsoils as determined by
field .and laboratory evaluation.
.
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING
.
The following tests were performed for this project in our
. laboratory in accordance with the American Society for Testing
'and Materials, the state of California standard Specifications or
contemporary practices of the soil engineering profession.
.
;5.1 Maximum Densitv - optimum Moisture Determinations
.
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.
IThe 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
Ilayer method) .
.
'5.2 In-Situ Moisture and Densitv
.
'These tests consisted of performing Sand Cone Density tests (ASTM
D1556-64) in the trenches to determine in-place moisture and
;density. The results are used to analyze the consistency of the
,subsoils and aid in determining the necessary grading to prepare
the pad area.
5.3 Sieve Analvsis
.
This test determines the material grading of the individual
particle sizes and is used in generating an engineering
.classification.
~
.
.
98169-01
Page 5
.
5.4 Sand Eouivalent Testino
.
This is a test for the rapid determination of the relative
:portions of fine silt and clay materials within the soil samples,
and is used for a relative comparison of soils in the
,determination of the adequate paving sections for driveways, etc.
:5.5 Expansion Testino
.
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.
:5.6 Direct Shear
.
,A direct shear strength test was performed on a representative
sample of the on-site soils remolded to 90% relative compaction.
To simulate possible adverse field conditions, the sample was
,saturated prior to shearing. A saturating device was used which
:permitted the samples to absorb moisture while preventing volume
,change. This test is used to determine soil strengths for slope
,stability evaluations and for foundation bearing capacity.
.
6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
.
'Most of the proposed pad where the residence is to be located was
underlain by dense sedimentary bedrock below a depth of 3.5-5
:feet. In-place densities for the bedrock was 123.6 pcf (94.8%
:relative compaction) at moistures of 8 to 9 percent. The areas
:below the existing pad where fill is proposed is underlain by
:deeper colluvium to a maximum depth of 4 feet over sedimentary
:bedrock. The colluvium was soft and porous with in-place
densities of 108.2 (86.7% relative compaction) to 111.4 pcf
'(89.3% relative compaction) at moistures of 8 percent.
.
.
,No evidence of down slope movement is apparent in any of the
,surrounding natural slopes.
7.0 GROUND WATER
.
,No ground water was encountered in the swale west of the proposed
.pad to a depth of 15.4 feet. Historic high ground water is
,expected to be 46 feet based on historic ground water (DWR 1971).
.The pad is underlain by bedrock and at finished elevations of
,1150 feet would be 70+ feet above historic high ground water. No
:evidence of seepage was seen in the natural slope faces
surrounding the property.
.
~
.
98169-01
Page 6
.
8.0 FLOODING
.
,According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the
'County of Riverside, the pad site is not located within the
boundaries of a 100-year flood plain. However, the large swale
,on the west side of the lot carries minor water during the rainy
season. The driveway access proposed off Calle De Velardo will
.not cross any drainage areas. No flooding hazard exists at the
'site.
.
9.0 GEOLOGY
.
The entire proposed building pad area is underlain by sedimentary
Ibedrock known as the pauba Formation (Kennedy, 1977). The vague
Ibedding exposed in trenches had a northwest strike from 60-70
:degrees and low angle dips of 5-6 degrees northeast. No evidence
:of slope instability exists at the site or in the adjoining cut
'slopes along Calle De Velardo.
.
The Pauba Formation is a Late Quaternary non-marine sedimentary
deposit consisting of an interbedded sequence of silty and clayey
sands with minor gravel. Approximately 70 percent of the
.formation at the site is the slightly silty to clean arkosic sand
:member of the Pauba Formation.
.
:The site is not included in any state or County fault hazard zone
~for active faulting.
1.0. 0 SEISMIC SETTING / GROUND MOTION PARAMETERS
.
:The regional seismic setting is shown on Plate 2. The nearest
'active faults to the site include the Wildomar and Willard Faults
of the Elsinore Fault Zone which is located approximately 2.5
'miles to the southwest. The Casa Loma branch of the San Jacinto
Fault is located 25 miles to the northeast.
.
IThe Elsinore Fault zone because of its proximity and seismic
potential to the site is the design fault when evaluating the
'site seismic parameters.
.
1
.
.
.
98169-01
Page 7
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF SEISMIC PARAMETERS
.
.~ault
Distance to site
Maximum
Moment
Maqnitude (M)
Peak Ground
Acceleration
At site (q)
Elsinore
2,5 MIles SW
6.8
0.33
.
San Jacinto
22.6 Miles NE
6.9
0.12
.
11.0 HISTORIC SEISMICITY
.
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 epicenters on the Elsinore Fault occurred
,40+ miles to the southeast in the Anza and Julian areas. A
,magnitude 6.6 earthquake occurred in 1910 in Elsinore.
.
,We have utilized the computer program titled EQ SEARCH (Blake
(1994) to assess historic activity at the site. Based on this
analysis, the maximum ground acceleration at the site from the
Iperiod of 1800 to present is 0.33.
12.0 SEISMIC EXPOSURE
.
iAlthough no precise method has been developed to evaluate the
!seismic potential of a specific fault, the available information
on historic activity may be projected to estimate the future
!activity of the fault. This is usually done by plotting the
'historic activity in terms on number of events in a given time
.interval versus magnitude of the event. Based on such plots,
Irecurrence .intervals for earthquakes of given magnitudes may be
I estimated. The other method of determining maximum probable
capability of the fault is by evaluating the accumulated stress
'and determining the subsequent release of this stress in the form
of an earthquake over a given interval of time.
.
.
~
.
.
98169-01
Page 8
.
We have utilized strain rates of 5.0mm/year for the Elsinore
Fault suggested by Peterson, et al (1996) to estimate the maximum
probable earthquake. For this project the maximum probable or
"design earthquake" is defined by CDMG Note 43 at the maximum
. historical .event with a recurrence period of 100 years, We
estimate the maximum moment magnitude or "design earthquake" for
the Elsinore Fault to be 6.8 magnitude with a 10% possibility of
,exceedance in 50 years. This is in agreement with the
,deterministic model by Blake, (1994).
.
.
Based on data presented by Greensfelder (1974), we estimate the
:maximum credible event for the Elsinore Fault in this region
'would be an event of 6.8 magnitude. The maximum credible event
is the greatest event that the fault appears capable of
theoretically producing without a consideration of time interval
.based upon the present tectonic framework.
.
13.0 GROUND MOTION CHARACTERISTICS
.
The ground emotion characteristics which could affect the site
,during the :postulated maximum moment magnitude of 6.8 on the
Elsinore Fault were estimated. Available information in the
literature 'about maximum peak bedrock acceleration and its
,attenuation with distance (Schnabel & Seed, 1973), the effects of
,site-soil conditions on surface ground motion parameters (Seed &
Idress, 1982), and site response criteria (Hays, 1980) were
'utilized.
.
This information indicates that maximum peak rock acceleration on
the order of 0.33 g may be anticipated at the site. Maximum
:ground surface acceleration is expected to be the same based on
'the near-surface sedimentary bedrock.
.
I Repeatable ground acceleration can be estimated at 65 percent of
Ipeak ground acceleration for design purposes (Ploessel & Slosson,
1974) with .a value of about 0.25g. The predominant period of
Ibedrock acceleration is expected to be 0.30 seconds with 20
:seconds of strong ground shaking (Bolt, 1973).
.
14.0 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS
.
The dense well-cemented nature of the underlying sedimentary
Ibedrock coupled with the depth to groundwater of over 70 feet in
'the area of the proposed pad precludes such secondary seismic
:hazards as liquefaction, lateral spreading or settlement of the
ground the house is being placed upon. No rockfall or landslide
'hazard exists at the site. The potential for seismically-
Itriggered landslides is discussed in detail under the slope
'stability section.
q
.
.
98169-01
Page 9
.
15.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
15.1 Foundation Desiqn
.
A strip and spread footing foundation system should provide an
adequate foundation for one and two-story buildings in this site.
All exterior footings should be founded a minimum of 18 inches
below adjacent finished grade for two-story buildings, and 12
inches for one-story buildings. Interior footings may be founded
a minimum of 12 inches below finished grade. When the footings
are founded in a minimum of 2 feet of properly compacted fill or
dense bedrock, an allowable bearing capacity of 1800 psf for 12
inch wide footings is acceptable for dead plus live load. This
value may be increased by one-third for short term wind and
seismic loading conditions.
.
.
.
When foundations are placed in natural soils, no cobbles over 6
inches should be left within the base of the foundation. A
typical foundation design is included in Appendix C. Two No. 4
bars top and bottom is recommended as a minimum design due to the
potential for expansive soils.
15.2 Settlement
.
Our subsurface investigation revealed that the natural
sedimentary bedrock is dense below a depth of 4 to 5 feet in the
slope areas. Footings should experience less than 1-inch
settlement with less than 1/2 inch differential settlements
between adjacent footings of similar sizes and loads. This
settlement is based upon grading of up to 35 feet of fill over a
distance of 45 feet horizontally. If thicker fills are proposed,
settlement could be greater and should be evaluated prior to
placement.
.
15.3 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade
.
Sufficient fine-grained materials exists within near surface
earth materials to possible create moisture problems. Therefore,
we recommend that a moisture barrier be placed under any concrete
slabs that might receive a moisture-sensitive floor covering.
~'his moisture barrier should consist of a 10-mil polyethylene
vapor barrier sandwiched between a 1-inch layer of sand, top and
bottom, to prevent puncture of the barrier and enhance curing of
the concrete. Heavy reinforcement of the slabs with No. 3 bars
on 24 inch centers is recommended. The subgrade below the slab
should be moisture conditioned and properly compacted prior to
placement of concrete.
.
\0
.
.
: 98169-01
Ipage 10
.
,15.4 Expansive Soils
.
IExpansion testing of near-surface clayey siltstone soils (T-2 ;
:5-7 feet) possible at finished grades indicate that portions of
Ithe Pauba Formation have a very high expansion potential. special
'design provisions are necessary for the foundation or concrete
Iflatwork to resist expansion forces as shown on the Foundation
'and Slab Recommendations for Expansive Soils in Appendix c.
;15.5 Earthwork Shrinkaqe and Subsidence
.
No shrinkage of the sedimentary bedrock will occur during
:grading, but shrinkage of 8-10 percent is expected for the
.colluvial areas recompacted to compacted fill standards.
115.6 Retaininq Wall Desiqn
.
:Retaining walls should be designed using the following
:parameters:
,.
'0
o
.0
Active pressure
Active pressure
Active pressure
(level backfill)
(2:1 backfill)
(1 1/2:1 backfill)
52 lb/ft /ft
62 lb/ft /ft
70 lb/ft/ft
.
'For purpose of lateral resistance, a value of 0.25 may be used
for frictional resistance. A value of 275 lb/ft /ft may be used
,for passive resistance for footings placed into properly
.compacted fill. Frictional and passive resistance may be
,combined, provided the later is reduced by one-third.
'Special loads for dead plus actual loads whould be considered in
the driveway/parking area that is retained.
.
115.7 Lateral Loads
Lateral loads in the near-surface soils are:
'Acti ve
:At Rest
Passive
- 52 pounds per square foot of soil depth (psf/ft)
- 68 psf/ft
- 275 psf/ft (for wood shoring)
350 psf/ft (for concrete footings)
.
:Active means movement of the structure away from the soil; at
.rest means the structure does not move relative to the soil (Such
las a loading dock); and Passive means the structure moves into
:the soil. The coefficient of friction between the bottom of the
footings and the native soil may be taken as 0.25.
.
.
\\
.
.
'98169-01
ipage 11
: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 current grading, including slopes and finished face
inclinations, indicates the maximum slope height is 30 feet or
less. The high strength values allow 2:1 (horizontal to vertical)
'cut slopes up to 45 feet without gross or surficial instability.
Selection of Shear Strenqth Parameters
.
,The following shear strength parameter utilized for our slope
stability analysis was determined by our laboratory test results
as presented below:
.
Material
(Cut or Fill)
Friction Angle
(Deqree)
Cohesion
lb/ft2
'Anticipated On-site Fill
29
375
.
,We have utilized values of 29 degrees and 375 lb/ft2 for bedrock
cut slopes although it represents a conservative number,
,determined from a remolded saturated sample. Bedrock is expected
Ito be 20% + stronger (Coduto, 1989).
.
,Even more critical to overall cut slope performance is the
orientation of joints, fractures and bedding. Plate 1 presents
.our field measurements of the vague bedding, and as can be seen
on Plate 1, no adverse out-of-slope components are present to
.initiate "block" or "wedge" type failures.
I.
I
:The slope stability analysis is presented in Appendix D utilizing
:the tested shear strength parameters. Our method of analysis
.incorporated a rotational mechanism of failure due to the well-
:cemented nature of the bedrock and lack of well defined
.continuous weak planes. The analysis indicates the 2:1 cut slopes
are both grossly and surficially stable.
.
:Lessor slopes in height or inclination will be stable by
: inspection, including the proposed 25 foot high cut slopes.
\z.,
.
.
.
.98169-01
IPage 12
.
,Drainage and terracing should be in accordance with Uniform
IBuilding Code Chapter 70 requirements. At no time should water
,be diverted onto the slope face in an uncontrolled and erosive
lfashion. Rapid erosion and rutting of the fill slopes is
:possible and they should be planted with drought resistant
.landscaping as soon as possible.
16.0 GENERAL SITE GRADING
.
:16.1 Clearinq and Grubbinq
.The heavy brush and grasses should be stripped from any areas to
,receive fill and removed off-site or stockpiled in landscape
areas.
.
:16.2 Preparation of Buildinq Pad Areas
:.
;
'The proposed building pad is shown in transition from cut to fill
,and will have to be overexcavated to a minimum of 30 inches from
!finished grades as shown in Appendix C.
;16.3 Preparation of Surface to Receive Compacted Fill
.
'All sufficiently dense (85 percent relative compaction) surfaces
,which are to receive compacted fill should be scarified to a
'depth of 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content and
.compacted to 90 percent relative compaction. other softer areas
'must be overexcavated to sufficiently dense material and
:recompacted. This would include raising existing fill grades.
ITypical overexcavation depths based on our field testing would be
11-2 feet. Actual depth of removal should be determined at the
time of grading by testing.
.
116.4 Placement of Compacted Fill
.
:compacted fill is defined as that material which will be replaced
lin the areas of removal due to root removal, the placement of
'footings and paving, and also wherever their grade is to be
raised. All fill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent
based upon the maximum density obtained in accordance with ASTM
D 1557-78 procedure. The area to be filled will be prepared in
accordance with the preceding section. The recompaction of the
'cut material may be waived if field density tests indicate
densities in excess of compacted fill standards.
.
\~
.
.
'98169-01
I Page 13
.
'Fills placed on natural slopes of 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or
:steeper will require a key and benching as shown in Appendix c.
The new fill should be properly benched into the existing fill as
:shown in Appendix c.
.
;16.5 Pre-Job Conference
.
Iprior to the commencement of grading, a pre-job conference should
Ibe held with representatives of the owner, developer, contractor,
'architect and/or engineer in attendance. The purpose of this
:meeting shall be to clarify any questions relating to the intent
of the grading recommendations and to verify that the project
specifications comply with recommendations of this report.
:16.6 Testinq and Inspection
.
.
,During grading, density testing should be performed by a
,representative of the soil engineer in order to determine the
:degree of compaction being obtained. Where testing indicates
.insufficient density, additional compactive effort shall be
:applied with the adjustment of moisture content where necessary,
,until 90 percent relative compaction is obtained.
.
: Inspection .of critical grading control procedures such as keys,
installation or need for subdrains, and bedrock orientation of
: cut slopes .should be made by a qualified soils engineer or
!engineering geologist.
;16.7 Development Impact
.
Iprovided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into
'the design .and construction of the residential project, both the
!proposed development and off-site areas will be safe from
geotechnical hazards.
17.0 GENERAL
.
,All grading should, at a minimum, follow the "Standard Grading
'and Earthwork Specifications" as outlined in Appendix C, unless
.otherwise modified in the text of this report. The
,recommendations of this report are based on the assumptions that
all footings will be founded in dense, native, undisturbed soil
or properly compacted fill soil. All footing excavations should
Ibe 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
.
I.
I
\A
.
1
I
98169-01
.page 14
.
fill placement should be performed under the testing and
inspection of a representative of the soil engineer.
.
3-31-99
.
.
.
.
WLS/LJF:ss
.
Distribution:
(4) Addressee
.
.
\5
.
, ,
~ ..:......--
o
L/l
'I""""I~ ~ W
00 OOZ ~ .....
1-4 HH Z r-::s
Z "", ::>
o E-oc(....J:r:
j <Ll~ g:U :;:' a.
l3 ~";';2;;'j ~~
I tJ,.:lZ c.!'~ ~~,
o ""0 _
o ..;.... ""'''' 00"0
N :::::lE- 00 ZOO,
.... 0',,", .... 0 ""$
00 00 @3 . Iii ~ ;:: ;2'<i5
!:9 000 -~ ""'''''el'
- L/l~ ,,",0 ,"" 0
5,,r/ 0 0 U
'Z...-.J u.. h N u.. (f)
'oJ 0:0- I a:loo UJ
'" <Ll ::c "" ..;
'" "" <Ll E-< E-< ""
.' ,lfl ~ ~ lli ~ ~ ~. ~
' -',,0 5" Z ""' g]!;iz .
' ~ , \' " ,\ \~ ;; ~ S ~ ~ & ~ ~
" 'r.\>\\l>., 'J.;':< " ' '~8" 5;;~~ ~"
", ,fie ". ',Ul " \ ' , l! ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~' ~
' , , "t '10' '\ I/) ~ t: g; 0 ~ ::l :2;. Q
, '" \ Ulr. , 'J m < .. .' , ,
- ., II /v-r' l\\i\" \;,,~, _', . .....:l~. ~
'lil ,- \-UJ'-'!4 ,JA ,~,' .' _ --~-'1' ~ ~z"'
'. ':'..':<. '~ ~~", , , " . · .," "0
' u " .- u"
"", z..; j@
..; >- 0 <Ll..;
u ~ 1-4 ~.p..
.... g E-< >-><
~z ~ ::i "" <Ll t/,
~ :s;: ~ I) uoo 0 ~~UJ
----=~, -'1 (.-c' ' ,'~ S ~'\, ~ ~~~, ~ ~ ~ ~
' .- "'.- r '%I 'u. n
-~ _~\~..J\\ \)' ~U/.- h..- /2 'J I" .n::
= I\. ' " 'l, """''' " 'U "
' '0. ~ ' ',>,;', ' , d ~ '0/,~ v- / ~ ,S< i!5 <
". 'Jt",p) " ~ .~~t ~"/~'" ~ i ~ ~ ~
"-d <-'/1 /~ .. ~ . 0 5
' H - ""'///"'-"'..- V..- "'" . u
""'" ~
.....
· ~ 7/1, ~'<'.~ - 'II ~ ~r , I 5 ~ ~ ~
· ' "'" ", '1\\ (&-(,,, , 1 ' ',~ ~ \, \'"
f)}ll'l. I); 8. ,~~~. \\\n- (jv;<;//, "
?'/l!-h/'I, /" !;III", ,II 'xf,&,,~
~~ -==-~..:/- /..'/ -~~.):d) kW0",,,,'
~'~ - ~ ~ . 'ArJ.Y~// _
=--~
~.."
~- ~ ~~- . .~ . -- VI-?! 91"
"'" /C --~, - ~;,:.; D "z~~1? '0
~.~~ ' ~ /~L~l~L~'~I/ !>~
~s. . '~4 .'~5 il:.,. ..~ ... f~~.
~ ~ J. ~ \ ,', ,~. . _~"\ "k~'-r'o'"
y ~ ~ ~"-~"")
: ~ ~ " ~- ~",~,::s~~
'"", - - -=-"""~~ ,
' " ~ ~ - - "'~~"'''<~('''')
\. ~ ~ ~ :~~~~~")
'N
>'" ~~\.\\. b~~ .""-" ~~. 7 ~
'~~;~ ~~~~\~~~1'-!~'~
~~;;;;I~I\!IIII-., ~~ .. ~, . trg 1
,g ~- ~= --. <--"
'=I=~ --c-m-_~ - ~"~""'"'~ _ z
. .~ - . -, .. """''''''''''. --'
" ..- ~ - ~ ="=~~\~~ ,
' !J - ~ . , ~""':i&~ _ __ _
.. -- ".." ,~---
. . ~.., , """-~
~.
. \
~
,
r
:""
~
I:~
~.:~.
'.
".
----- .
"
'-
~
,'....
~.;.,
I
. J
I
~ 19S2 "':~-'
...
ab~ lot 6.1 tit1 I, "
. I , ,
~_..;}} I . .
-
R N
---
.~ '. '. -.--- -I t
i
i
. 1947
dlot6.2
",AN\'J( f.\I.,L1 !
\
~.~1.
--'- -T B
'\
.
I '.
I ".
~
.~~ , (~ .
I "'c'
....;0 I ''''<
"0. ~ \~
., '"
. j
.
.
.
.
... ~...,.
... : 0.'011..
"~"". /shnd
r-' ".
....
.........................
.
\~
"~.
.
MILES
,_ 0 10
~.
'.
-oot}
"<'.l
..~k-<Ii:J.6, I ~ \.::-..... _.'''__ ,,______
MAJOR EARTHQUAKES and RECENTLY ACTIVE FAULTS
. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION
.
W,O. NO:
CA.RR
qa 1M -0 I
CA L.L. E "DE YEL.A'Rl>O,
OATE:6/98
Tt;ME'Cll\.,A
FIGURE:
PLATE 2
\1
.
.
r. l'
.
" '
";-rj-I-l- ,
"I-I II: I
i"'-, - i.,.
I,ll I I
-; -I" I-f',"
"1'1-1---
-'~I-i-'-
, ,
1 I j I
.
'" I I' I I
'--'-'-1-'-1--'- .-
" I I
, ,
.
__--.:_I~I_,.
, t l - I
,
I ,
--,---'","
Ii
"
','-
I I " I
· --1~+~-;-'
,I I I.
-,-r-Y---i-
.
,
'~iJ=i_ ._
" '
- --'-i-',-,-
r"1 1 ,-'-i-! I ,
.- ,--,-nl-. .
!', t 1
~. I
.
.
e,
, ,
_...J......_'....,_I__
'_I. ,_I' I
'-'-'
,
",__,_U;
.
I" I--
I
"( ,
_,_i__'
, "
I! :
I~I-I
I I'
.
" ,
. "
--+-4- __
" I I, F
:.IJ-=-Il-o---=,
1111. I
.':+_j_~I~I_.!~!--:.
i-_=.J-!_lnIIJ I
'!! I; :
! I-t!
I I, :i'
T I'll I 1
IiI t
. I
" ,
: -I-l -I
I '/-j-'-:-,--,
.l_; ;--!--.-rj-llin
.
,. :._" I ,', I. I
~; !~. -"~'I :-:+-;-;-;-;.:
(': :.''t;':f ~t~:~i:::-;~:,
'.' 1/~ T' -,'.' ,
, ti""-'~I &0~B,-~",~",=-,,~,.~.~,.
l~::::-r-' _!l/.
-,-, , 1 -':J::: r~: U_:="
-'-~-- -~t-. -- -rJ
, ,',', ~~ ' :' , .
. Ci:ll \1 :!..~J
'<W~Ji I
:-:1'1 \:~!' :yq
I \ :.: 1:- t .
, " ~,~,'~,'~,'_,,'h-,_1::_:~-;-.',::I~_',;_, Ill"/~~~/'-,..:\_!"
, '-I" I ITr':-,j-'7,,+-, , "'-"T'- ~ " , ~ , ..
"" I! -1-n:I.l-rrr-i j ill I I' I I I ,- - I I I I II ,I t\ .\ . I .
"- -:-::=t=-J~l --I~:~~:~~-:-'_' ,., :'-'-1-=1."1 '_-'-'-,,=I~~t=J-rl-, . ~\~'1~'~,'
__'~I~_ 1 -'~_r'=-~-=-Tll}-,-,-,-r-I-II-----' II f- 1-1~t---,~'-\Tr'r~
" I I! 'I ! ',' I, j - - ,\" 1
'j - -;i!-,-t-)- I -,-',-,-,-, - I~ '--, ': 8\-,~:i"
- - -=-.-=-(T_I-(' ''-:-1 \ - If-' \
- 4 ,- ). I
. ,'<j \-, t
-- ~ ~ 'f . l.~"
~ 3 \ ' (' !.~ I
\ " \ ',' :
;::'1'1')
"';(:l
" \
,
" ,
" ,
: -t-; -,-
'-j-: -,-,
~;~'J=-i~-
,
" ,
.... -!-(
~:~=,=I._,- __._,__I___'~_
,11'1" I I I!"
_~,:LCCI~.~'C,L::'.~< _
I I I 1 I I I I I I I'
, _ I 1-1--1 .'-1-,"1-1-:1-:
,- -~'~-=C1I'_:-'-' ~U~r~crl-'
I It, ; I I
<
'Ill I ,
.;-1-'-'1-1-1-'-
I'-I-:-)-i-~----I-I-' '--, -, I"' - ~ " I
-, 11-1-,-1--,-,-,-,-
"t.' 11',."
1 "-'-'-'--j-I-:-I'-
,- ,-'--,---;'---:!-i -1- 1 ,
,_'_._.~.:.i....'-=-I:J-=-L!_'_'..' , 1
. j I" : '-H-i i l 'I
, 1 I -,- l~-i-; 1-1-'-1- ,-';--j-,- II' , ,
,-, -1'11-- -:-Il-t-I-~ -';-,--1'-, --,-1--"-
. '-'CI~I=-=I=F:-_':.-_,=! ~I-=-I=i_,'
- -ll-rl-' -j I'
-'-~'-~--I-I-(i-, I I'
- -~-'.I .---,-'~--
'~~jJ~r.-:~:-: ' ,
_ -'-'-_!,-.'
.'I_.~'
- - -'-'-'-1
-,--
'.-;-1-,,--
, ,
, -~I-I--"
',0 i-, i
l.1' r-I-,-
~ I-i-'
~-l--L' - - -
, ,
- ,-r;-i--;-'l-j - !
1- 1-' I I I 1 ,
; ,-'. -:-I-r-:'~I
. -1-I-r:I~ITfl---I.-; :
'-II-:'illl-,-~:, _-, ' , I
~ITcr-DT(lJ-=-lr'i~I=-. -I-CCCI }~Q1IJ~--
, j I , ; :TTl , 1 1 I III ! I ' ! I II I ,. .
,-'--,-n:-rTl'-"- - -- - --- - - -
, . , 1_"_1'_1___1_1 , j , j , -, '
!--IIi 1 I" fl-'-I-j-Jf-l-r~rl I :.I,~I'-(-~~_
,'-i-l.=-tJ._ _1_ f I-j-,-,-,--r-,-,-,,-,u ....--<
, ,
. -r
,ii,
--J-r(---
t~ I - !
I-' 1
, ,
-,-,
, ,
___I :_1___ __
I!"; j it
---(-1- 1-; !" t ' ,
-:"",1 nl_,'" ( ! , I I :
-__'_I=FI
, :-'--;
,--,--,-1-"-
, ,
--'-'~I'
.c(
_,U,_,__'
, ,
_~I_~_I_'.
-,
'f~-'_~!~I_;
.:,i.~=:=:=;~j- j .!-
t
1'_'lnl_'_"~ I,
.'_._,~-=-I~I~____ J_l~l
I I I I I 1 I Ij I ,
.'~I~~Cl=CCCI~-rl.i' .1 I ,
j i.1 i,I_IJ 1,1 1_1_1_1_'__'
., I "f 1 IJ j I I 1 I I 1 r
.-' t i.,jl,-TI--,'i-rl--,-(i
l'-'-I-j I"TTI-I- -I 1'1 -I" '
I-i-'T-f-I-:---l -1-'-
~~-:-~-::T='T,M_i" -:-; I I
I' ,I I' 1_'1_1_.1.-'
, , I ; 1-:-1- j '_/_1_1_'
~'--I~i-I-' I 1 I 1 ' I
. ,~I-j-T-l--I-- -, ,-' : " ': ,
',' (-I-JT~-~-rl--r--r-r-I-I--'
',TT'i-:-,+n:n+r-I-",,-,- '
" '
~
o
'"
~
.,
;_'__1_.1
!.I_'_'
: j; l
_:_j f
_-CI_L '~__I
.I~'_!_ 1
Ll I
,',
, ,
a: '.
o-LL'
~I I
1_'
1 I 1 I!
- -1-,- -I'
'::'1_,I~'I_i~ '=-J=,i~I':r=I....'u'
, " ;! I I I 0
1-:- 0 -:-1-1'-1-, I
'; - '.~ ~. 'Ti-r+-:--,- 0
- - - -1' --,-
" ,
'.','-;+
. -,-,-,-
,
1 I 1 I I
--,---,-
" ,
I
g
~
:-1
-I-iT
.,0
IS'>
, ,
'~
,
, ,
I'
, ,
;-i
'_Ij-L. 1
_ _' 1 i ! I 'I J _1_ ._1_
I I 1 1 1 I 1.1 I I'
1_-.1 i-_:~L.1=C,~_I=-L.I_,_I_
'I I: 1.1 1.1 j I I I I I,j'
'-1- .;"-1-1' -:~, "j-:--;-,-
,
_._=-'~I_. I_~_!_~.....!......L
! i. ':", i 1
- -=l~-;-~~:-+~:-' - '-l~!~\--H-1-j'
;' ;---,'---;--;-1 1-1j--',','-,-""
, ,
, - 1 ~
, ,
, ,
i-,l-'-
- '1 -,
C')
W
J-
:3'
D.o'
_1_'_' _1_'_ '
I I,'
1--1'- .'-1-1'
'1 0-:-'1-,'
'S '~,~:J ,I
- ,.
-1-,1-1-
. _I~T
._,_'
o
, -
'"
::!!
, Q)
" -
-n-:', v "
-I -1--
'T',"I'" , !
-j-'.Li'
, ,
1 I"!~ j-1J
'--'-
, ,
! I'". I
~}J-::-)l~-I-!--I-
"---'-'-'-.
" i
_,_t__
, ,
,!'j'
, ,
,-.
i 1-1-, 1 ;
-'-:-11'-'-=-.1
I', I
.!=L~I_I_I.
,
_.'.~~',-I-'
[ I I: 1
1--1'1-1
..J_'_I_~!_
1 J__'-~I.
" ,
.~~--'
" '
,,,-,-,' ,',
:::-,='=:=T'I-.~'
-.J-='-C:'-:'- -
../_'- I
'II';! ,
--- -H~:-~i
, ,
...:..:J:--j'::'C,
'-LLl '
J.J,' ,-.
,
, ,
,
" ,
1-1--
_U'I
','
"
" ,
, ,
T
0.._1.
, .R:
"
, ,
,
" ,
1-1 .-:.:Y -\- i
_\ j j I I I 1-1- I
',',', '~' -,-,-, ,
'-iTI--I-~' 'n. i
',:r~,t::~ J'-;-'
",! 1 i I I I
-'1--,'
!;-I-i- i"' -1-rl'l i
I"'I-,--'j-.-' ':-:-1_-'-1-
,",:I"-IT'lfFfi':'U
_ :'-~-:-~-jI=r-'-l-'-" -+_~ _I.
.
.
.
1.
.
'e
-. ~
-""
.
.
.
.
.
'.
~,:~~-
APPENDIX A
\0..
~ "'~
--'-..'-
= ---~._-
~.Z;;ji~,
GEOTECHNICAL . TRENCH LOG'
. .
'I.
ProJect. Name cA~l2.
Project Number" ~e,\bO)'OI
Etevatlon 1\ 07 -t</_
Equipment CAS6- 0 FIe !< Pd4:ko€
Trench No. T - ~
.
, J
~ I GEOTECHNICAL
. 6!l & ~~ 'ii DESCRIPTION
- -
I - i ~ I
~ D u#, . II! W. L, ShUII~1
I .U Logged by 6/24/95
- 0 J .!I. 'Date
~ 0 1t u. ~
, -
,I . ::0 : Sampled by It
. E j-
~ u .:l
.,
0 e 0
MD. '. Ct> '-L!NIUM! Pel-UNIVi! dK,bnlVJr'\ It>~~ '3/3S';'~ Sq '1d. "'I ml ~Gi'
- , U I-
- L \~.i C'1Q.t~, S.,(+, pOr1lt.lA, sl. <brnf' <5 rVd, bl'iU' c,;,~+t.lo\-. ~I.oIM I-
sc~ I<- ~/~ I-
I(~n'
\ 1I..(f'l- ').1.,-:-2'.. .'... . / =
6- .Mt> ' , f-!
~~ GiS 8 m,'&' '1,4- tf>)ROCI( - ra~ 1:>6. frn - J:n+uj,(dded ;erllRnuof c/a:;SI N--
S'L '. tI l-
I.- ('1,ra)
-~ Sf. j,'/f D\1lW";Sh qYCIj IO"',.,,/'/- (20%) O!"Q (T\td-0/VlA(~' e I-
k
- DS SIf1dSful'1L_ "e~ f~lt bl'OWVI IC\'~ e/:" .s:ndrtow-Is dfr1A.L I-
~ loW- hor> _ C4M-4 I Ve. , ~dJ aolt >I/.oYZ.C? ~, CiOJfy srlt I J I-
10- ~S 11 , --+-I-in iJRJded 18' W'-1/v,'t/<-, BfJ~I~. N6tJ-70W I 4.b,JG. f.t
- v "'
- l <liSc..n+,~(,(O~O~~ ,eM,
K f-
- f::-Mq J'191~ 1 ~lh~Y". C(jV'~ ,;" S'qn drtow Inhvw, f-
- I-
15- . , f.t!
- ; \, i). \~S I-
- No Vf~/l4oitll~ I-
- l-
. ,
GRAPHIC LOG . trencl-' acale: 1".
-
. - '. .Teat Symbols
- -
- B ~ Bulk ..mpl.
. R" Ring "mp'.
I , I I I . , , Be" ..nd c-
I , I I '. I I I T I I I MD. llulmum Denali,
-
- ~ as" Gr,'n Biz.
0 - . . BE, ~ Il8nd Equ....iaftt .
. . E I " E>rp8nalon Ind..
- .
(90)" R.I.llve CoInp8ctlon
!.~. .
l- . "
I- - Ear h
I- . .
. I I I I I I I I , I I '.~ ~8chnics
I '1 I , I I I I
. ~;....
. zP
- ~
...-
- -
,.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
GEOTECHNICAL TRENCH LOG'
· Project Namo
: Project Number,
<'-AfU2.
981~q -0 I
Elevation
Equipment
\1'32-'+/-
US E: 580"- pocj<:/IQe
Trench No.
T-'2
.
c: t j
. '" B. L, I GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
- ~
- - i f
I ~ =. IN. L-. Shed,~
:,::. a li~ L08lled by 6/24!,Qfl.
- II i -. , Date
r~ 0 f u:; II:
:1 . E i~ ! Sampled by I'
~ ..
0 , 0
' , deac;'~"'-"'O{,2 s;/f
" S'OI '-I Co u..lJIIIlIM -' ,Sa ,.,-~ -fo....
- -
;lj 111.4 e.?> 1'0% .:.
r
CB~.3) -
. '6lO-l>l<oCJL- - r:alolbA f", -
$- - S'~ t-i ~,'htC""fho'" -!
, - t-
- f3eJd I ~ 'N 1S'/'J 5"'~ t-
. 71., r-
0 -r.D. t-
10- t-Ic y.J~/Mcill;~ ~
- I-
0 t-
- ,..
- r-
15- , , f4!
, ,
- f-
,
- f-
- I-
GMPHICILOG " trend- scale: 100:
-
. - I- , · ,Test Symbols
- l-
. I- B - Bulk Slmpl.
. ' I- R - Ring Slmpl.
I I I I I I _L I se - Sind c-
" I I I I , I I I , , I I MD - . Max,mum Denlll.
' , -
~ - OS - Grain 11z.
,
,- 0 ' SE - SInd Equ',,_ , '
- 0 E I '0 Expanolon Ind..
, (90) - R.llllve Comp8cllon
,I- 0
I- - "-
- - Ear h
'- -
I I :J I I I i I ' I .J. I I echnics
' , , . . . , ,
. ~;....
. '];-\
. ~
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
;.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,~""~-'._,
-,,"-<,~'-,_.
_' ~~cl:;::.;Z~:'- -,~
j
APPENDIX 8
2P
.
.
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 Depth
; Location (Feet)
T-1 0-3
.
T-1 5-7
.
.
:Sample Location
T-1
.
;Sample Location
T-1(sandstone)
.
.
.
.
soil Description
Maximum optimum
Drv Densitv Moisture
(Soil Type A) Colluvium
dk. brown silty sand
with trace of clay
124.8
13.8
(soil Type B) Bedrock
pale brown silty sand
clayey siltstone (20%)
130.4
10.2
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION TESTING
U.B.C. METHOD 29-2
Depth
Expansion Index Expansion Potential
5-7'
very high
71
SAND EQUIVALENT TESTING
Depth
Sand Equivalent
5-7'
43
z;!J
.
.
.
.,
.
.
.
.
;
!.
.
.
6
.
l-
lL 5
.
a
en
"
en 4
Q.
-
~
I
C/) 3
en
LLJ
0:
I- , ,
en ' ,
2 I,
'I I_I
C)
2
-
0:
~
LLJ I
::c
en
PROJECT:
o
- 0
".. I
2 3 4 5
PRESSURE- KIPS / SQ. FT.
, I
NORMAL
6
EXCAVATION NO. T-1 DEPTH: 5 -7 I
'R€MOLDE'D To ~c>y. 'Re:LA'\I\'~ ColJ\f'ACIION
SATURATED TEST IN SITU MOISTURE lEST
" = 2CJ ·
C = 375 P,S.F
" .
c =
.
P.S.F
DIIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA
CARR
Earth Technics
EXHIBIT
JOB NO,: q816~-01 DATE: l:,/q8
-z,:A..
a ;
.
~
..J
U
.
1/)1/)
1/)1/)
C! <(<(
..J..J
uu
. ~ oc!
11I:1:
iii ii:cri
-<i
z .
en, :J<(
0::
W
l-
. W
0 ::!:
0::
ex ..J
0 2
z ::!:
~ ci I
. (/) 0:: 11I0
ZZ
, W -<(
CI1 I- l1.1/)
:> w
I :!:
<(
(/) 0 ..J .
-'
w ..in:
. N W
en ..J
0 of
I- III
W 1/)0 II)
> 0::, It:Z 1-
! LoJ 9 ~ <(<( ~~t-=
, ,en 01/) l1.
'u
.
.
..J
III 0
,~ z'
g It:
" C)
:
q :I:
I-
~ D-
III
0
0
i
I
.
""
II)
"--
,~ g lil
. PER CENT FINER BY WEIGHT
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
.
Byl WLS Dale I t.{ 9&
J.N.", qa \,,~. 0 I
Earth Technics,
CARR,. C"'Ll./i
DIl V t/..A~PO
EXHIBIT
NUMBER
7,,-{
Con.lllfi"g~"gi_" 6"" Geo/ogi.'.
:}
:~
:J
:)
APPENDIX C
:}
()
:J
:t
:.
)
z,(q
,
'.
.
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
.
These specifications present EarthTechNcs Inc., standard
recommendations for grading and earthwork.
No deviation from these specifications should be permitted unless
specifically superseded in the geotechnical report of the project
or by written communication signed by the Geotechnical
Consultant. Evaluations performed by the Geotechnical Consultant
during the course of grading may result in subsequent
recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations of the geotechnical report.
.
1.0 GENERAL
.
1.1 The Geotechnical Consultant is the Owner's or
Developer's representative on the project. For the
purpose of these specifications, observations by the
Geotechnical Consultant include observations by the
Soils Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering
Geologist, and those performed by persons employed by
and responsible to the Geotechnical Consultant.
1.2 All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed
on the project shall be conducted and directed by the
Contractor under the supervision of the Geotechnical
Consultant.
.
.
1.3 The Contractor should be responsible for the safety of
the project and satisfactory completion of all grading.
:During grading, the Contractor shall remain accessible.
.
1.4 :prior to the commencement of grading, the Geotechnical
Consultant shall be employed for the purpose of
,providing field, laboratory, and office services for
:conformance with the recommendations of the
:geotechnical report and these specifications. It will
:be necessary that the Geotechnical Consultant provide
adequate testing and observations so that he may
determine that the work was accomplished as specified.
:It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to
assist the Geotechnical Consultant and keep him
apprised of work schedules and changes so that he may
schedule his personnel accordingly.
.
.
1.5 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor
to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish
the work in accordance with applicable grading codes,
agency ordinances, these specifications, and the
approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the
Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions,
such as questionable soil, poor moisture condition,
inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are ~~
.
.
standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page Two
.
.
resulting in a quality of work less than required in
these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant will
be empowered to reject the work and recommend that
construction be stopped until the conditions are
rectified.
.
1.6 It is the Contractor's responsibility to provide access
to the Geotechnical Consultant for testing and/or
grading observation purposes. This may require the
excavation of test pits and/or the relocation of
grading equipment.
1.7 A final report shall be issued by the Geotechnical
Consultant attesting to the Contractor's conformance
with these specifications.
.
2.0 SITE PREPARATION
.
2.1 All vegetation and deleterious material shall be
disposed of off-site. This removal shall be observed
by the Geotechnical Consultant and concluded prior to
fill placement. ' ,
2.2 Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the
'Geotechnical Consultant as being unsuitable for
placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the
site or used in open areas as determined by the
Geotechnical Consultant. Any material incorporated as
a part of a compacted fill must be approved by the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to ,fill placement.
2.3 After the ground surface to receive fill has been
cleared, it shall be scarified, disced, or bladed by
the Contractor until it is uniform and free from ruts,
hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may
prevent uniform compaction.
.
.
.
The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to
optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted as
specified. If the scarified zone is greater than
twelve inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and
placed in lifts not to exceed six inches or less.
.
Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive
fill shall be observed, tested, and approved by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
1--~
.
.
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
page Three
.
.
2.4 Any underground structures or cavities such as
cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic
tanks, wells, pipe lines, or others are to be removed
or treated in a manner prescribed by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
.
2.5 In cut-fill transition lots and where cut lots are
partially in soil, colluvium or unweathered bedrock
materials, in order to provide uniform bearing
conditions, the bedrock portion of the lot extending a
minimum of 5 feet outside of building lines shall be
overexcavated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with
compacted fill. Greater overexcavation couldbe
required as determined by Geotechnical Consultant where
deep fill of 20+ feet transitions to bedrock over a
short distance. Typical details are given on Figure 0-
1.
.
3.0 COMPACTED FILLS
.
3.1 Material to be placed as fill shall be free of organic
matter and other deleterious substances, and shall be
approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. Soils of poor
gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics shall
be placed in areas designated by Geotechnical
Consultant or shall be mixed with other soils to serve
as satisfactory fill material, as directed by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
.
3.2 'Rock fragments less than twelve inches in diameter may
:be utilized in the fill, provided:
.
:1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets.
,2. There is a minimum of 75% overall of fine grained
material to surround the rocks.
3. The distribution of rocks is supervised by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
'.
3.3 Rocks greater than twelve inches in diameter shall be
taken off-site, or placed in accordance with the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant in areas
designated as suitable for rock disposal. (A typical
detail for Rock Disposal is given in Figure 0-2.
.
~
.
.
Standard Grading and Earthwork specifications
Page Four
.
.
3.4 'Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise
considered unsuitable shall not be used in the
'compacted fill.
3.5 :Representative samples of materials to be utilized as
compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of
'the Geotechnical Consultant to determine their physical
:properties. If any material other than that previously
tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate
analysis of this material shall be conducted by the
Geotechnical Consultant as soon as possible.
.
.
3.6 Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly
spread, watered, processed, and compacted in thin lifts
not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a
uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and
compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise
approved by the Geotechnical Consultant.
.
3.7 If the moisture content or relative compaction varies
from that required by the Geotechnical. Consultant, the
Contractor shall rework ,the fill until it is approved
by the Geotechnical Consultant.
.
3.8 Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the
maximum density in compliance with the testing method
specified by the controlling governmental agency or
ASTM 1557-70, whichever applies.
If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by
the controlling governmental agency because of a
specific land use or expansive soil condition, the area
to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall
either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate
reference made to the area in the geotechnical report.
.
.
3.9 All fills shall be keyed and benched through all
topsoil, colluvium alluvium, or creep material, into
sound bedrock or firm material where the slope
receiving fill exceeds a ratio of five horizontal to
one vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of
the Geotechnical Consultant.
.
3.10 The key for side hill fills shall be a m~n~mum width of
15 feet within bedrock or firm materials, unless
otherwise specified in the geotechnical report. (See
detail on Figure D-3.)
~
.
.
standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page Five
.
.
3.11 Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance
with the ordinances of the controlling governmental
agency, or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Consultant. (Typical Canyon Subdrain details are given
in Figure 0-4.)
.
3.12 The contractor will be required to obtain a m~n~mum
relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finish
slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and
stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either
over building the slope and cutting back to the
compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope
face with suitable equipment, or by any other procedure
which produces the required compaction approved by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
.
3.13 All fill slopes should be planted or protected from
erosion by other methods specified in the Geotechnical
report.
.
3.14 Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properlY,keyed through
topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or firm
materials, and the transition shall be stripped of all
soil prior to placing fill. (See detail on Figure 0-
~3 . )
,
!.
,
,
4 . 0 CUT S,LOPES
.
4.1 The Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect all cut
!slopes at vertical intervals not exceeding ten feet.
4.2 :If any conditions not anticipated in the geotechnical
:report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or
:confined strata of a potentially adverse nature,
unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes
,encountered during grading, these conditions shall be
analyzed by the Geotechnical Consultant, and
,recommendations shall be made to mitigate these
problems. (Typical details for stabilization of a
portion of a cut slope are given in Figures 0-3a and O-
S.)
I.
.
4.3 cut slopes that face in the same direction as the
prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash
by a non-erodible interceptor swale placed at the tope
of the slope.
~\
.
.
Standard Grading and Earthwork specifications
Page Six
.
.
4.4 Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report,
no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than
that allowed by the ordinances of controlling
governmental agencies.
4.5 Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance
with the ordinances of controlling governmental
agencies, or with the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Consultant.
.
5.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS
5.1 Trench excavations for utility pipes shall be
backfilled under the supervision of the Geotechnical
:Consul tant.
.
5.2 After the utility pipe has been laid, the space under
.and around the pipe shall be backfilled with clean sand
lor approved granular soil to a depth of at least one
:foot over the top of the pipe. The sand backfill shall
:be uniformly jetted into place before the controlled
:backfill is placed over the sand.'
5.3 .The on-site materials, or other soils 'approved by the
.:Geotechnical Consultant shall be watered and mixed as
'necessary prior to placement in lifts over the sand
:backfill.
.
.
5.4 :The controlled backfill shall be compacted to at least
:90 percent of the maximum laboratory density as
'determined by the ASTI 01557-70 or the controlling
:governmental agency.
'.
.
5.5 Fie1d density tests and inspection of the backfill
:procedures shall be made by the Geotechnical Consultant
:during backfilling to see that proper moisture content
and uniform compaction is being maintained. The,
contractor shall provide test holes and exploratory
pits as required by the Geotechnical Consultant to
,enable sampling and testing.
6.0 GRADING CONTROL
.
6.1 Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by
the Geotechnical Consultant during the progress of
grading.
?::>1,
.
.
standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page Seven
.
.
6.2 In general, density tests should be made at intervals
not exceeding two feet of fill height or every 500
cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary
depending on soil conditions and the size of the job.
In any event, an adequate number of field density tests
shall be made to verify that the required compaction is
being achieved.
.
6.3 Density tests should also be made on the surface
material to receive fill as required by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
.
6.4 All cleanout, processed ground to receive fill, key
excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals should be
inspected and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant
prior to placing any fill. It shall be the
:Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical
:Consultant when such areas are ready for inspection.
7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
.
7.1 :Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be
;provided by the Contractor during grading and prior to
'the completion and construction of permanent drainage
':controls.
.
7.2 Upon completion of grading and termination of
inspections by the Geotechnical consultant, no further
filling or excavating, including that necessary for
footings foundations, large tree 'wells, retaining
walls, or other features shall be performed without the
approval of the Geotechnical Consultant.
.
7.3 Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final
grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces,
interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent
nature on or adjacent to the property.
.
.
}~
.
.
FOlllNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR EXPANSIVE SOILS
(ONE AND TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS)
.
1-ITQJlY FOOTINGS
EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION INDEX
0-20 21 - 60 51 - 80 " - 130
VERY LOW EXPANSION LOW EXPANSION MEDIUM EXPANSION HIGH EXPANSION
,ALL FOOT'NOI 11 INCHt:1 ALL ,oonNOI 12 INOIfEI IJlTI..10111: 'OOTINOI " EXTEltlOIlt FOOTINOS 14 tHCHlI
1 DEE'. 'OOTlNOI DeEP. FOOTlNGa INCHEI DEEfI. INTE"IOIII: DEE', INTEIII:IOR FOOTINOI 11
: CONTINUOUI. NO lTEIL CONTINUOUS. '-NO.4 I"PI FOOTINOS 11 INCHES DEE', INCHES DEE', '-NO. . ."" TOfl
I I'tEQUIJtED FOIII: IlCflANIION TO'" AND IOTTOM. 1-MO. 4 ..", TO," AND AND BOTTOM.
, 'Olll:CEI. IOTTOM.
I ALL 'OO,TINOI " INCHII ALL 'OOTINal 11 tHOME' ALL 'OOTINOI ,. INCHEa EXTERIOR FOOTINOS 24 INCHIlI
1 DEEP, 'OOTINOI DEEP, FOOTINOI DEEP. FOOTINOI DEEP. INTEAIOR FOOTINGI ,.
: CONTINUOUS. NO STEEL CONTINUOUS. 1-NO. . IAft CONTINUOUS. 1-NO. . IAR INCHEI DEEP. 1-hO. IS IAA TOP
IIIIEOUIIIlED FO" EXPANalON TOP AND 10TTOM. TOP AND 10TTOM. AND BOTTOM.
, FOIIICES.
,NOT ftEQl.IIIIlED. 11 INCHES DEEP. 1-NO. . IA" l' fNCHEI DEE". 1-NO. 4 IA" 14 INCHES DUtt. t-NO. I IAIII
TO" AND 10TTOM. TO" AND 10TTOM. TO" AND 10TTOM.
1-1T0"Y IIOOTlNOS
.
.
GAIIIAOE 000" G"ADE
IEAM
.
L1V.INQ. AReA FLOO" SLAIS " 111 INCHES THICK. NO MESH S 111 INCHEI TtttCK. . 1/1 INCHES THICK. . INCHEI THICK. . X 1-'"
I IIIEQUIIIlED FOR EX"ANSION . X 1-10110 WI"E MESH AT . X 1-10110 WI"E MESH AT WI'" MEaH AT MID-HEIOHT.
'FORCES.,NO IAaE REQUIRED. MID-HEIGHT. I INCHEI MID-HEIGHT. . fNCHES NO. . DOWELLa FAOM FOOTINQ
'I MIL VlaOLEEN MOl11lJlltE QRAVEL Oft: IANO IAIE. I OIllA'lEL Dill lAND IAlE. . TO aLAI AT II INCHES ON
IIAARIER PLUS 1 INCH lAND. . MIL VIIOUf:EN MOISTURE MIL VIIQUEEN MOIITUIIIE CENTEIII. . INCHEI GAAVEL 0"
IA""IE" 'pLUI 1 INCH 'AND. IARRIEIII PLUI 1 INCH lAND. lAND BAlE. I MIL VIIQUEEN
MOISTURE IIAAAIER PLUI 1
INCH lAND.
OA"AGE FLOOA alA.I 1.,12 INCHES THICK. NO MEIH I 111 INCHES THICK. I 112 lNCHES THICK. . INCHES THICK. I X I-I"
IREQUIAED FOR EXPANalON . X 1-10110 WIlliE MEIH 0" 1 X '-10110 WIRE MEIH OR WIRE MESH Dill QUARTER
'FORCES., NO IAIE REQUIRED. QUARTER ILAII. ISOLATE QUA"TEIII SLABI. laOLATE ILAIS. ISOLATE FROM ITEM
I NO MOISTURE IARAIE" FROM STEM WALL FOOTlNOI. FIIIOM STEM WALL FOOTfNOS. WALL FOOTlNOI. . fNCHES
. REQUIRED. I INCHES 1II0CK. GRAVEL 0" 4 INCHES flOCK, QRAVEl OR ROCK. GRAVEL OR lAND IAle.
lAND IAIE. NO MOllTURE lAND IAIE. NO MOIITURE NO MOISTURE IAAAIE"
IAAAIEA REQUIRED. IAAAIE" IIlEQUIAEO. IIIEQU~ED.
,."e-aOAKING OF LIVING I NOT "eQUIRED. MOISTEN 10AK TO 11 INCHEI DEPTH aDAK TO 11 INCHES DEPTH 10AK TO 24 INCHEI DePTH TO
AIIlEA AND GARAGE aLAI I PRIOR TO POURINQ TO .,. AIOVE OPTIMUM TO iii,. AIOVE OPTIMUM iii,. ABOVE OPTIMUM MOISTURE
IOILI : CONCRETE. MOISTURE CONTENT. MOISTURE CONTENT. CONTENT.
.
I.
HOTEl: 1) ALL DE..THI ARE RELATIVE'TO ILAI IUBOAADE.
I) a"ECIAL DElION IU REQUIRED FOR VERY HIOHLY EXPANSIVE SOILI.
FOUNDATION AND SLAB DETAIL
(NOT TO SCALE)
.
DOWEL (WHEN REQUIRED)
SAND LAYER
VIIQUEEN
QRAVEL Dill lAND IAlE (WHEN AEQunlID)
.
.
IxnllllOR PooT"'"
FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
?f\
J,OB NO.:
DATE:
FIGURE NO.:
.
EARTH TECHNICS
.
ROCK DISPOSAL DET AI L
(Boulders greater than two feet
in diameter)
.
BUILDING
.
Finish igrade
Clear area for foundations,
utilities, and pools
'O-~~U--o--o-.
"-
o oi 0 0 <^-.
4' I 15' I "-
f ~ "
,
'--r------
10' or below depth of
deepest utility trench,
which ever is deeper
o
.
t
Windrow
.
.
TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (edge view)
Clean (S.E. > 30)
Granular soil flooded
to fill voids
.
Horizontally placed
compacted fill
.
PiROFILE VIEW
.
.
?J-5
.
.
TRANSITION LOT DETAILS
.
CUT-FILL LOT
NATURAL GROUND
~ '
--
-
- -
.
--
--
-
.
--
__ - _ 5' L
_ _--- ._.-- MIN. I ~
- ----~ ~---- -
::COMPACTro ~FILL;':::-:-~-2~--e?-\':-:-::';- ~------.::+----~-----':-- 30" MIN.
_________________.~."'i __ ..... ' --r-
,..::...-_-_-_-_-_-___-_-,.;:..---=:=--_-:\:.~-~~~--C-- ^'" ~' ~~ f
-=-~~-:~~:--S\)\"\f'-S.-..;::;~--:--- OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
,- _-,-...._ -..:-.;-.:\,)t'i_:..--_ '''~.,^
'---.....0:\.1'" ------
---,,~ ._-........---
:':.'i'''' -~----
, "
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR 1
r-- MATERIAL APPROVED BY , ---I
f THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
.
.
CUT LOT
.
NATURAL GROUND
1-
--
1
I
I.
--
--
----- ..".,."'"
--- --- ..,.". .",.
_ ~ -REMOVE _--
_ _ _ - UNSUITABLE ____ _ - ' 5' I,
_,_ "MATERIAL _ MIN-. r-i
:;.-:::-:-:_:-:_:-:-: ~_:::-:-:-:~:_=--:;..~ .:----..:-----T----:---~----=----------
~CciMPACTED :_:::~~-~-: ,,)j ~ I^
~~~~~~~~ OVER EXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
.
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR f
,..-- MATERIAL APPROVED BY ,
r THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
.
NOTE:
Deeoeroverexcovation and recomoaction sholl be performed
if determined to be necesscry by the geotechnicCI consultant.
?jP
.
.
BENCHING DETAILS
PROJECTED PLANE
- ---- -- .
---------------
--------:. COMP' CTED .-.:------.
-----. -.-,.... . - -----
_ _-_-_-_-_-_-:..-_-...: F1L L :..-----------.:
---------------------
--....:- -=- -=------------------------~~~--...:
_--: -_::-j:::::j:_~::':-~--i'-:--::;:::-:-~:-~
_-_-.::_-_-_-_-_-_-_-:.:_ _ _-_-~- - - - ::1'
_-_-_-_-::------~---=-;z-~ I/,~r"'"
--------------~~--
I to I maximum from toe .:.:----------;- ---:..[ --;,.~
______~- 7" ,""""''/
of slope to approved ground _-:-:-:-:-::7..::::-.::----;..?::'".:..:- \
-----------;.k 1 ,"';;::: REMOVE
----........-----.,,--
--,2------...--- UNSUITABL=
__-~---:------~----- MATERIAL
--------- .... --.:::..
_ _ --:-:-:~~::.:-: ~4' MIN ~ "
1/7 -_-...-----~-~--.:--: BENCH' BENCH
1 -;;:_:.:_:~-=:.: I. HEIGHT
--L- __-_-..=2% MIN.:"---: (typical) VARIES
T -,~^... =:;;.----:~:-
2' MIN.\ IS' MIN. I
KEY t""LOWEST BENCH -,
CEPTH (KEY)
.
FILL SLOPE
.
'"
.
NATURAL
GROUND \
,,,,
.
.
-
------------
, .
_-= COMPACTED :-:-:-;::-
------:~ Fl LL =---~-----;.
------- ----F~
---------=------,-~.:_---~- .,
-------~-----........-
--------------~---.:_-~.:_---
-----.........-::----~ ~~1 .
----.-...oC------1 · ~ ,..
_-::-=--;:::"_-.:_-:;~--- I
--~---------- .
REMOVE. NATURAL '.z::-::-_:-:-_-~_"'5 ,....,,-\
UNSUITABLE GROUND ------------~ ~
iMATERIAL ~ '\... - :-, _-~;:::::- ......, l-4 'MIN. BENCH
_ _ - _-_--:;::"_-_-_-_ BENC HEIGHT
, _ _ _ ~~~%Mli\[-:: (typico()1 VARIES
__ __ 1
---- .".~ I~ . . .
_ - h--151 M1N.~
_ -- I LOWEST BENCH I
:FILL OVER' CUT SLOPE
.
.
.
--
--
CUT
FACE
To be constructed prior
to fill placement
.
.
NO"TE S:
LOWEST BENCH: Depth end width subject to field change
based C-"'l consultant's inspection.
SUSORAtNAGE:. Back dr!2ins may be required at the
discretion or the geotechnicol consultant.
,?'"
()
:}
,)
:}
,)
,)
APPENDIX D
)
J
)
)
~
')
.
SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY
. ~ o(~ 0.895
$1 h 0< ~ Q,'Hb
T~n ~'" 0.'3'74
.
S.F. = H (~B) cos2o<.tan ~ + C'
~s H Sin p( COSo<.
.
S,f. .... 1-1 (1,8.0 )(0.BOI)(0''7<;4)+ ?75
zone of 1-\ (\?2.~)(0.44&)(O,8%)
saturation
.,
.
Sf,
H ('}D,IQ,) + ~7S
1-1 ( '52.8)
.
= '2-1,,'11-
H = Depth of sa'turation zone
)rB = Bouyant weight ~f ,soil, = b8,b
.
~s = Total wet,weight of soil = 1?2.S
P = ~gle of internal friction = '29
C = COhesion = '37'5
.
S F = "
.. . . .
.
" S.F.
H
"'V 4. \'2
-
A , 'Z,?A
Project No.: 0 B 110'3 -0 ,
Calc. by: vJLS
. ~,
, -
Chk. by: Wf=-
Date: ~ 6/n(~a
.
'bo...
.
.
** PCSTABL5M **
by
Purdue University
1
.
--Slope Stability Analysis--
simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop
or Spencer's'Method of Slices
.
Run Date:
Time of Run:
Run By:
Input Data Filename:
outp~t Filename:
Plotted Output Filename:
6/98
98169-i
98169-0
98169-p
.
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
Carr 10' 2:1 fill
.
.
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
5 Top Boundaries
5 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd
1 .00 25.00 20.00 28.00 1
-2 20.00 28.00 80.00 60.00 1
3 80.00 60.00 210.00, 60.00 1
4 210.00 60.00 230.00 75.00 1
5 230.00 75.00 250.00 75.00 1
.
1
.
,ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
1 Type(s) of Soil
.
Soil
Type
No.
Total Saturated
unit wt. unit wt.
(pcf) (pcf)
Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
Friction,
Angle
(deg)
Pore
Pressure
Paramo
Pressure
Constant
(psf)
Piez.
Surface
No.
· 1
1
'115.0
121. 0 ,
375.0
29.0
.00
.0
o
A critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random
Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. '\()
.
.
lOp Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
.
10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 10
Along The Ground Surface Between X =
and X =
Points
26.00
60.00
Equally 'Spaced
ft.
ft.
Each Surface Terminates Between
and
X = 25.00 ft.
X = 100.00 ft.
.
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation
At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 10.00 ft.
.
5.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Restrictions Have Been Imposed Upon The Angle Of Initiation.
The Angle Has Been Restricted Between The Angles Of -45.0
And -15.0 deg.
.
1
.
Following Are Displayed The
Failure Surfaces Examined.
First.
Ten Most critical Of The Trial
They Are Ordered - Most critical
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * *
.
Faifure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
X-Surf
(ft)
Y-Surf
(ft)
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
26.00
30.75
35.61
40.55
45.54
50.54
55.51
60.43
65.24
69.93
74.46
78,79
82.90
86.75
90.31
93.57
96.50
31.20
29.62
28.45
27.70
27.36
27.44
27.95
28.87
30.20
31. 94
34.06
36.56
39.42
42.61
46.11
49.90
53.96
A.\
.
.
.
.
18
19
99.07
99.94
58.24
60.00
***
2.294
***
.
Individual data on the 19 slices
. Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice . width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load
No. Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs (kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs (kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg)
1 4.7 1120.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
2 4.9 3347.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
. 3 4.9 5437.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
4 5.0 7321. 7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
5 5.0 8941. 6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
6 5.0 10249.9 .0 .0 ;0 .0 .0 .0 .0
7 4.9 11212.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 , .0 .0
8 4.8 11807.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
. 9 4.7 12030.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
10 4.5 11886.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
11 4.3 11398.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
12 1.2 3156.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
13 2.9 7188.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
14 3.8 8405.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 '.0 .0 .0
. 15 3.6 6415.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
16 3.3 4494.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
17 2.9 2116.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
18 2.6 1155.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
19 .9 87.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
. Fai:J,ure Surface Specified By 17 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
. 1 26.00 31.20
2 30.28 28.62
3 34.87 26.63
4 39.68 25,27
5 44.63 24.56
6 49.63 24.52
. 7 54.59 25.14
8 59.42 26.42
9 64.04 28.33
10 68.37 30.84
11 72.32 33.90
12 75.83 37.47
. 13 78.83 41.47
14 81. 27 45.83
15 83.11 50.48
16 84.32 55.33
17 84.83 60.00 A,.1,.
.
.
***
2.311
***
. "
.
.
.
.
18
..."
94.81 '
2.358
60.00
...
-1'
bI\
y
A
x
I
s
F
T
.
.00
31. 25
62.50
93.75
125.00
156.25
x '.00 +------- -+--------~+---------+---------+----~----+
.
31.25 + 1.
.5137
02136.
. .52176. .
.52176.. .
" .02176....
A 62.50 + . .513.6. . ~ .
.581.6....
. .541966....
. " .05412.6... "
.05413~2.2
00511466
X 93,75 + . .00143
..10
.
I 125.00 +
" .
. , ,
S 156.25 +
. -- , -
187.50 +
.
- 1
"
r"'.. 218.75 +'
.
.
~-5
.
,
,
,
,
APPENDIX E
~
.
.
PUBLISHED REFERENCES
Blake, T,F., 1994, Computer Services software, A Computer Program
for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration
from Digitized California Faults, EQFAULT, July 1995
.
Blake, T.F., 1994, Comnputer Services software, A Computer
Program to Determine Historical Seismicity from Digitized
California Faults, EQSEARCH, July 1995
.
Bolt, B.A., 1973, Duration of strong Ground Motion: Proc. Fifth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 2927
Clark, M.W., Harms, K., et al., 1984, Preliminary Slip-Rate and
Map of Late-Quaternary Faults of California, U.S.G.S. Open-File
Report 84-106, 12 p.
.
Crowell, J.C., 1975, San Andreas Fault in Southern California, A
guide to San Andreas Fault from Mexico to Carrizo Plain, C.D.M.G.
Spec. Rept. No. 118, 272p
Hart, E.W., 1994, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California,
C.D.M.G. Special Report No. 42, 25p
.
Hays, W.W., 1980, Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground
Motions, U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1114, 77p
.
Hileman, J.A., Allen, C.R., and Nordquist, J.M., 1974, Seismicity
of the Southern California Region, 1 January 1933 to 31 December
1972, Seismo. Laboratory, Calif. Institute of Tech., Pasadena,
Calif. 404p
,Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the
Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California,
C.D.M.G. Spec. Report 131, 12 pages
.
Peterson,M.P., Bryant, W. A., Cramer, C.H., Reichle, M.S., 1996,
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of
California, C.D.M.G. Open-File Rept. 96-08
,.
1
Ploessel, R.J., and Sloson, J.E., 1974, "Repeatable High Ground
,Accelerations from Eartjqiales", in California Geology, Sept.
1974
,Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motion and Soil
Liquefaction During Earthquakes, E.E.R.I. Nomograph, 134p,
Berkley Press
.
Slemmons, D.B., 1977, State-of-the-Art for Assessing Earthquake
,Hazards in the united States, Army Corps of Engineers, Misc.
Papers, S-73-1, Repoort 6, Fault and Earthquake Magnitude, 240p
A\
.