HomeMy WebLinkAboutHarveston Supplementa lGeotechnical & Review Mass Grading
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\llbralt'{v
::::::::UC" &1""'\
~ --
~ =-
- -
-=---
- --
1961 - 2001
Leighton and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION AND GEOTECHNICAL
REVIEW OF l00-SCALE MASS GRADING
PLAN, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29639,
HARVESTON
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
LDOI-058GR
ProjectNo. 110231-003
August 15,2001
RECEIVED
SE.P 1 9 7001
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTrv;E'~T
Prepared For:
LENNAR COMMUNITIES
24800 Chrisanta Drive, #200
Mission Viejo, California 92691
\
41715 Enterprise Circle N. Suite 103, Temecula, CA 92590-5661
(909) 296-0530 . FAX (909) 296-0534 . www.leI9hlongeo.com
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Leighton and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
August 15,2001
Project No. 110231-003
To:
Lennar Communities
24800 Chrisanta Drive, #200
Mission Viejo, California 92691
Attention:
Mr. Bill Storm
Subject:
Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation and Geotechnical Review of l00-Scale Mass
Grading Plan, Tentative Tract No. 29639, Harveston, Temecula, California, LDOI-058GR
In accordance with your request, Leighton and Associates, Inc. has completed a supplemental geotechnical
investigation and review of the l00-scale Mass Grading Plan for Tentative Tract No. 29639 located in the
Winchester Hills area of Temecula (see Figure 1). This report summarizes our fmdings, conclusions, and
recommendations regarding the geotechnical conditions within the property limits of Tract 29639 with
respect to the current mass grading plans (RBF Consulting, ZOO 1). This report summarizes our findings,
conclusions, and recommendations regarding the known geotechnical conditions encountered within the
property of Tentative Tract No. 29639. For ease of reference, we have included appropriate data from
previous geotechnical investigations and other pertinent reports. Based on our review, the referenced mass
grading plans are acceptable from a geotechnical viewpoint and the subject development is feasible
provided the recommendations contained herein are implemented during future design and construction.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate
this opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew T. Guatelli, PE, GE 2320
Senior Project Engineer
RFRIATG/mm1fina11110231003PRELIM.doc
Distribution: (7) Addressee (1 unbound)
(3) RBF Consulting; Attention: Ms. Tracey Thiros
41715 Enterprise Circle N. Suite 103, Temecula, CA 92590-5661
(909) 296-0530 . FAX (909) 296-0534 . www.lelghlongeo.com
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................1
1.1 Scope of Work.............. ....... ...... .... ............. ............ ......... ........... .................... ................ ............ ............1
2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS .....................................................................................2
2.1 Proposed Development and Site Description........................................................................................2
2.2 Regional Geology................................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Site Geologic Units ................................................................................................................................ 3
2.3.1 Artificial Fill- Documented.....................................................................................................3
2.3.2 Artificial Fill- Undocumented (Map Symbol- Afu) .............................................................3
2.3.3 TopsoiVColluvium.................................................................................................................... 3
2.3.4 Alluvium (Map Symbol- Qal) .................................................................................................4
2.3.5 Quaternary Older Aluvium (Map Symbol- Qoal)...................................................................4
2.3.6 Pauba Formation (Map Symbol- Qp)......................................................................................4
2.4 Rippability.... ......... .... .......... .......................... ................ ............................... ..........................................4
2.5 Faulting and Seismicity.... ....... ....... ................ ......... ...... ........... ......... .....................................................5
2.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards .......................................................:...........................................................5
2.6.1 Ground Rupture ........................................................................................................................ 5
2.6.2 Liquefaction. .;.................. ...................... ............................. ......................................................5
2.6.3 Seiches / Tsunamis........ ............. ......... ............... .................................... ................................... 6
2.6.4 Landsliding.................... ............ .......................................................... ............................ .........6
2.6.5 Seismically-Induced Settlement.................... ............................. ................... ........................... 6
2.7 Structural Seismic Design Parameters ................................................................................................... 6
2.8 Surface and Groundwater...................................................................................................................... 7
3.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 8
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................10
4.1 Earthwork... .................... .............. ....... ........ .......... .................. ........................... ................................... 10
4.1.1 Removal and Site Preparation ................................................................................................10
4.1.2 Structural Fills and Oversize Materials ..................................................................................11
4.1.3 Utility Trenches and Cast-In Place Pipe (CIPP) ....................................................................11
4.1.4 Shrinkage, Bulking and Subsidence.......................................................................................12
4.1.5 Settlement...... ..................... .................. ................... ........................ ................ ...... ............... ...13
4.1.5.1 Settlement from Building Loads.........................................................................................13
4.1.5.2 Settlement of Fill Soils........................................................................................................13
4.1.6 Preliminary Pavement Design Parameters .............................................................................13
- i-
~D.= :?
-...:::!' --
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents (continued)
4.2 Slope Stability .......................................................................................................................................14
4.3 Drainage............................ ....... ......................................... ................ .......... ................ .................. ........ 15
4.3.1 Subdrainage................. ......................... ........................ ............. ........ ..... ........... ................ ......15
4.4 Tentative Foundation Design ....................... ............. ............... ..... ........... ....... ........ ..... .................... ....15
4.4.1 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations..................................... 17
4.5 Footing Setback.................................................................................................................................... 18
4.6 Corrosion ............... ................ ................... ....... .............. ................ ...... ........ ..... ........................... ......... 18
4.7 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control.................................................................................19
4.8 Irrigation, Landscaping and Lot Maintenance.....................................................................................19
4.9 Concrete Flatwork ................ .......... ........ ............... ............... ................. ..................... ............ ........ ......19
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW..................................................................................................................20
5.1 Plans and Specifications........................... ........ .......... ............ ...................... ........ ................................20
5.2 Construction Review ............................................................................................................................20
5.3 Supplemental Geotechnical Report .....................................................................................................20
6.0 LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 21
Accompanving Figures. Tables. Plates and Appendices
Figures
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
End of Text
Tables
Table 1 - Minimum Foundation and Slab Design Recommendations, Very Low Expansion
Table 2 - Minimum Foundation .and Slab Design Recommendations, Low to Med. Expansion
Table 3 - Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Recommendation
Table 4 - Lateral Earth Pressures
End of Text
End of Text
End of Text
End of Text
Appendices
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Geotechnical Boring Logs, Leighton & Associates
Appendix C - Previous Boring and Trench Pit Logs
Appendix D - Laboratory TestResults
Appendix E - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
Plates
Plates 1 through 5 - Geotechnical Map, Tract 2639
In Puet
---- &1
:::::::::
;:::: ~Al.
-.: ~==,
-...:::!' --
-ii -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
110231-003
1.0 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE
The purpose of this geotechnical plan review was to summarize all pertinent geologic and geotechnical data
obtained to date, and evaluate this data with respect to the current mass grading plans for the subject project.
Additional subsurface geotechnical work consisting of the excavation, logging and sampling nine hollow
stem auger borings was performed to complete this study. The scope of services conducted during our study
is provided below:
1.1 Scope of Work
Our scope of work for this investigation included the following items:
· Review of available information, including reports presented in Appendix A and the lOO-scale
Mass Grading Plan for Tentative Tract No. 29639, prepared by RBF Consultants;
· Site reconnaissance to observe and document the current surface conditions.
· Geotechnical field investigation, consisting of drilling, logging and sampling a total of nine hollow
stem borings to determine subsurface conditions. Boring logs are presented in Appendix B.
· Laboratory testing of samples collected during the field investigation to determine soil engineering
properties. Test results are presented in Appendix D.
· Analysis and geotechnical review of geologic constraints including remedial removal earthwork,
slope stability evaluation, faulting, seismic parameters and preparation of preliminary foundation
design parameters for site pavements and foundations;
· Review, analysis, and incorporation of previously collected geotechnical data onto the Mass
Grading Plans; and
.
Preparation of this report, presenting our findings, conclusions and preliminary recommendations
regarding the proposed grading and development of the site.
- 1 -
~UI:;-- L
~ _- .J
-=---
-...:::!' -.::
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
110231-003
2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS
2.1 Proposed Development and Site Description
Based on our review of the referenced Mass Grading Plans, (RBF, 2001) and our understanding of the
project, the proposed development may consist of individual and multi-family residential home sites,
open space areas, a lake and associated roads and appurtenances. Conventional cut and fill hillside
grading is proposed with excavation and fill depths on the order of 62 and 36 feet, respectively.
Remedial removal of surficial soils will increase the fill depth to over an estimated 50 feet. Permanent
cut and fill slopes are both proposed at inclinations of 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical) with maximum heights
of approximately 16 feet. Temporary cut and fill slopes are proposed with a maximum height of 42 feet
and 25 feet respectively are proposed at inclinations of 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical).
Topographically the site is characterized by rolling hillsides and intervening alluvial valleys. Site
elevations vary from a high of approximately 1,112 feet above mean sea level (ms!) along the easterly
trending ridgeline located in the south-west portion of the site (Sheet 7) to a low of approximately 1,070
feet above msl near the western property boundary (Sheet 7). The ridgelines are variable in orientation
and form a dendretitic drainage pattern directing drainage to the south and primarily to the southwest.
Previous grading and improvements along the site boundaries are associated with the construction of
Margarita Road, Date Street, Sweetwater school site and Tract 29286 (Lot 11 and 65 of Tentative Tract
29639).
Vegetation on the site consists of a moderate growth of grasses and weeds, which cover the majority of
the site. Some stockpiled enddump soils and other construction debris is locally scattered on the property.
2.2 Regional Geologv
The subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in southwestern
California known as the Peninsular Ranges. It is characterized by steep, elongated ranges and valleys
that generally trend northwestward. The most common rock types found in the Peninsular Ranges
consist of 140 to 105 million-year old formations (Silver and Chappel, 1988), including the
metasedimentary Bedford Canyon Formation and Santiago Peak Volcanics. These formations were
intruded by granodiorite, quartz monwnite and other granitics of the Southern California Batholith
during the Cretaceous period (Kennedy, 1997). Tectonic activity along the numerous faults in the
region has created the geomorphology present today.
Specifically, the site is situated in the southern portion of the stable Perris Block, an eroded mass of
Cretaceous and older crystalline and metamorphic rock. Thin sedimentary, metamorphic and volcanic
units locally mantle the bedrock with alluvial deposits filling in the lower valley and drainage areas. The
Perris Block is bounded by the San Jacinto fault zone to the northeast, the Elsinore fault zone to the
southwest, the Cucamonga fault zone to the northwest and to the southeast by the Temecula basin which
is poorly defined.
The Perris Block in the Temecula Valley region had a complex history, apparently undergoing relative
vertical movements of several thousand feet in response to movement on the Elsinore and San Jacinto
fault zones. These movements, in conjunction with the semi-arid climate and the resistance to weathering
of the rock, are responsible for the formation and preservation of ancient, generally flat-lying erosion
surfaces now present at various elevations. These surfaces give the Perris Block its unique geologic
character. The sedimentary units of the subject site were deposited on these erosion surfaces.~I' 11
;:::; --
~ =_1
-- -~- \p
- 2 - -...:::!' _.;::
I
I I
I
110231-003
deposits (recent and older Pleistocene-aged) and Pauba formation sedimentary materials fill in the lower
valley and drainage areas.
2.3 Site Geologic Units
I
I
The earth materials encountered on site consist of documented artificial fill, undocumented fill, topsoil,
colluvium, recent and older alluvium, and the Pauba formation. These units are discussed in the
following sections in order of increasing age. The approximate surficial distribution of these materials
is depicted on the accompanying Geotechnical Maps (Plates 1- 5). Anticipated remedial removal
depths within each of these units (when known) have also been provided in this section for ease of
reference. General earthwork remedial removals are discussed in Section 4.1 of this report.
I
2.3.1 Artificial Fill- Documented
I
I
I
I
Documented fill exists as canyon and road embankment fill placed during construction of
Margarita Road, Date Street (Leighton, 200la) and existing sheet graded Lot 11 and Lot 65
(Converse, 2000). These fills are generally considered suitable for support of additional fill or
structures. Evaluation of the fills and associated underlying alluvial soils associated with
Margarita road fill embankment may be needed based on future planned development and
exposures during grading. Grading adjacent to these existing fills will require removal of
unsuitable surficial soils adjacent to the existing toe of slopes and evaluation of removal bottom
accepted by others. Benching into the existing fill embankments and evaluation of the fill to be
left in place should be performed during rough grading in these areas. Additional removal of
existing documented fill soils may be required based on conditions encountered and the planned
development.
2.3.2 Artificial Fill- Undocumented (Map Svmbol- Afu)
I
Undocumented Fill exists in limited areas as retention basins, small stockpiles and exploratory
trench backfill throughout the site. Basin embankments and stockpiles of undocumented fill were
generally less than 5 to 10 feet in height and consist of fill soils that are likely generated from
onsite sources. Some onsite undocumented fill soils may have been placed in drainage swales to
facilitate passage of unimproved roadway. Undocumented fill soils, where present, are
unsuitable in their present state to support structural fill or improvements. These onsite soils
should be cleared of debris and organic material, moisture conditioned and placed in general
accordance with recommendations of this report including Appendix F.
I
I
2.3.3 Topsoil IColluvium
I
I
TopsoiVColluvium will be encountered mantling the majority of the site. Composition and
thickness will vary depending upon which unit it overlies. Topsoil and colluvium will likely
have a low to a medium expansion potential and generally consist of reddish brown, silty sand,
silty clay to sandy clay with a variety of minor roots. Generally, topsoil and colluvium will
range from two to six feet thick, but thicker accumulations may be encountered. All topsoil and
colluvium should be removed from any areas that will receive structural fill soils and/or
structural improvements. Topsoil and colluvial materials cleared of debris and organic material
are suitable for reuse as compacted fills. This material may be low to highly expansive.
I
I
I
I
Thick colluvial soils may also contribute to slope-instability where they are day-lighted in cut
slope faces. If thick colluvial soils are observed at the top edges of cut slopes, recommendations
-3-
~DH::;-
~ --
-...:::!' ~.:::
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
110231-003
for flatter slope layback (flatter than 2: 1) or removal and replacement may be necessary. A
detail of this lay back may be provided during a pre-construction meeting.
2.3.4 Alluvium (Map Svmbol- OaD
Alluvium soil was .encountered in drainage areas and throughout the lower portions of the site.
The alluvial soils are locally derived, deposited in the drainages, and generally consist of gray_
brown, damp to moist, silty fine to medium sand. Alluvium is Holocene-aged (less than 11,000
years old). All alluvium should be removed from any areas that will receive structural fill soils
and/or structural improvements. Removal depths within the alluvium will range from 3 to 10
feet, depending upon location (See Geotechnical Map, Plate 1-5). Some localized deeper
removals tnay be necessary. Alluvial tnaterials cleared of dehris and organic materials are
suitable for reuse as compacted fills.
2.3.5 Ouaternary Older Alluvium (Map Svmbol- OoaD
Older alluvium was encountered locally in the major drainage areas underlying the younger
Alluvium. The older alluvium represents a horizontally stratified unit in which individual layers
vary in color, moisture content, density and composition. Unit layers are typically composed of
dark olive brown to reddish brown, moist, stiff to dense, very fine sandy clayey silt to silty
coarse sand with abundant iron oxide staining, caliche common, scattered pebbles, mottling, and
minor porosity.
The generally non-porous, dense, moist older Alluvium is considered suitable to support
additional fill or structures.
2.3.6 Pauba Formation (Map Svmbol- 00)
The late Pleistocene-aged Pauba Formation was encountered throughout the site. This bedrock
unit is generally comprised of light brown to olive-brown to medium brown, damp to moist,
medium dense to dense, siltstone, sandstone and silty claystone. Fractures are commonly lined
with calcium carbonate. The dense, unweathered Pauba formation materials are considered
suitable for support of additional fill or structures. The expansion index tests within the Pauba
formation indicate a low to medium expansion (See Appendix D). However, some of the clayey
weathered materials and distinct clay beds within the Pauba formation have a high to very high
expansion potential. Removal depths within the weathered Pauba Formation will generally range
from approximately two to four feet, depending upon location. Localized deeper removals may be
necessary to remove the higWy weathered or expansive tnaterials. The Pauba formation materials
are suitable for use as compacted fills if prepared in accordance with recommendation of this
report and the City of Temecula guidelines. The clay materials tnay be considered for use in the
lake liner construction. Additional testing is currently being performed on the site clay materials
to determine suitability for use as the lake liner.
2.4 Rippabilitv
The onsite Pauba formation is anticipated to be readily rippable utilizing conventional heavy-duty earth
moving equipment. Localized lenses of moderately indurated siltstone and sandstone tnay be
encountered. but should also be rippable.
-4-
~HI=- 1
~ --
-...:::!' ~.:::
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
110231-003
2.5 Faulting and Seismicitv
The subject site, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismically active region near
the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The principal source of
seismic activity is movement along the northwest-trending regional faults such as the San Andreas, San
Jacinto and Elsinore fault zones. These fault systems produce up to approximately 55 millimeters per
year of slip between the plates. The Elsinore fault zone is estimated to accommodate a slip rate of 4-5
millimeters per year (mm/yr.) (WGCEP, 1995).
By definition of the State Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is one which has had surface
displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). The State Mining and
Geology Board has defined a potentially active fault as any fault which has been active during the
Quaternary Period (approximately the last 1,600,000 years). These definitions are used in delineating
Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act of 1972 and
as subsequently revised in 1994 and 1997 (Hart, 1997), as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Act and Earthquake Fault Zones. The intent of the act is to require fault investigations on
sites located within Special Studies Zones to preclude new construction of certain inhabited
structures across the trace of active faults.
The subject site is not included within any earthquake Fault Zones as created by the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Hart, 1997). The nearest zoned active fault is the Temecula segment
of the Elsinore Fault Zone located approximately 1.0 miles (1.7km) southwest of the westerly
portion ofthe site.
There are several significant active faults within southern California that could affect the site in
terms of ground shaking. Of these, the San Andreas, San Jacinto and Elsinore-Temecula fault zones
are the most prominent due to their proximity and relative high seismic potential.
2.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards
Secondary hazards generally associated with severe ground shaking during an earthquake are ground
rupture, liquefaction, seiches or tsunamis, flooding (dam or levee failure), landsliding, rock falls, and
seismically-induced settlement.
2.6.1 Ground Rupture
Ground rupture is generally considered most likely to occur along pre-existing active faults.
Since this study nor previous geologic studies have not identified on-site recent (Holocene)
fault activity, the potential for site ground rupture is considered very low.
2.6.2 Licmefaction
Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to
earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose, granular soils below a near
surface ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most
clayey silts, silty clays and clays deposited in fresh water environments are not adversely
affected by vibratory motion. Liquefaction is characterized by a loss of shear strength in the
affected soil layers, thereby causing the soil to flow as a liquid. This effect may be manifested
at the ground surface by settlement and/or sand boils. In order for the potential effects of
liquefaction to be manifested at the ground surface, the soils generally have to be granular,
- 5-
~U&= ~
-...:::!' --
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
110231-003
loose to medium dense, saturated relatively near the ground surface and must be subjected to
a sufficient magnitude and duration of ground shaking.
Based on our observations and the findings of referenced geotechnical reports, the soft near
surface alluvial deposits (soils susceptible to liquefaction) within the proposed development
area will be removed and recompacted during planned remedial grading. The proposed design
placement of up to 27 feet of compacted fill will also mitigate the potential effects of
liquefaction. In addition, significant drainage features will receive a subdrain prior to
placement of planned fill. Therefore, it is our opinion that following implementation of
grading and earthwork recommendations herein, the potential for adverse liquefaction and
associated dynamic liquefaction-related settlement to affect structures due to the design
earthquake event is considered low for this site.
2.6.3 Seiches I Tsunamis
Due to the distance to large bodies of water, the possibility of Tsunamis is considered very
low. .Some seismically induced wave action (seiche) should be anticipated in property areas
adjacent to the man-made lake planned for this portion of the project. Further discussion of
this potential will be provided in our forthcoming lake design letter.
2.6.4 Landsliding
Several landslides have been mapped by others on offsite, adjacent properties. The major
onsite earth materials observed are generally not prone to landsliding. Due to the flat-lying
nature of the Pauba formation and the planned grading depicted on the referenced mass
grading plan (RBF, 2001), landsliding due to seismic activity or other methods is not
anticipated.
2.6.5 Seismicallv-Induced Settlement
Seismically induced settlement generally occurs within areas of loose dry granular soils with
relative low density. Following the recommended removals, site preparation and fill
compaction as described in Section 4.1, the potential for seismically induced settlement
(dynamic densification) is low. We estimate the dynamic densification to be approximately'/"-
inch in 30 feet for the compacted fill over bedrock or formation, up to 50 feet thick. Further
refinement of estimated dynamic densification should be performed during review of precise
grading plans or after completion of rough grading.
2.7
Structural Seismic Design Parameters
Our evaluation of the regional seismicity included a deterministic analysis utilizing EQFAULT
and EQSEARCH, (Blake, 1998 & 2000). The nearest known active fault and source of the
design earthquake is the Temecula Segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone located approximately 1.0
mile (1.7km) west of the western portion of the site. The maximum credible earthquake is
estimated to be magnitude 6.8.
The Uniform Building Code (UBC) established Seismic Zones (often accepted as rrummum
standards) based on maps showing ground motion with a 475-year return period or a 10%
probability of exceedance in 50 years. Our analysis indicates a 10% probability that a peak ground
-6-
::::::::11
~ ~~'\
-...:::!' --
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.8
110231-003
acceleration of 0.68g would be exceeded in 50 years. The design earthquake therefore, is considered
a magnitude 6.8 event on the Temecula segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone. The effect of seismic
shaking may be mitigated by adhering to the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and seismic
design parameters suggested by the Structural Engineers Association of California. This site is
located within seismic zone 4. Seismic design parameters are presented below:
Seismic Zone =
Seismic Source Type =
Near Source Factor, N. =
Near Source Factor, Nv =
Soil Profile Type =
Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration =
(10% probability of exceedance in 50 years)
4
B
1.3
1.6
So
0.68g
The structural engineer should consider both the UBC design factors presented in this Section as
well as the PGA (10% probability of exceedence in 50 years) when designing the foundations for
improvements on this site.
Surface and Groundwater
Surface water was observed flowing in the drainage area underlying proposed Lot 8. This surface
flow originates from the existing storm drain outlet of the adjacent development. Groundwater is
anticipated to be encountered during grading or future development. In addition, groundwater
levels can be expected to fluctuate seasonally within the subject site. During the rainy season,
groundwater and/or seepage may be prevalent in the canyon bottoms and wash areas.
Standing and surface flowing water was observed on the site at the time of this review, and
therefore canyon subdrains will be required in the canyon fill areas. Groundwater and/or seepage
may also develop in fill and cut slopes within fill and earth materials of contrasting perrneabilities
or within bedrock joints and fractures. Treatment of possible seepage within building pads or
slope areas can be provided on an individual basis after an evaluation by the geotechnical
consultant during grading operations. Perched groundwater is possible on this project site at
cut/fill contacts or at lower permeable zones or layers within bedrock or fill. Additional review
of the potential perched water zones and mitigation will be made during grading and earthwork.
-7-
:::::::I~I
~U~=== \0
-...:::!' -.:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
110231-003
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on our geotechnical evaluation and review of the referenced rough grading plan, it is our opinion
that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint and may be constructed
provided the following recommendations are implemented during grading and incorporated into the
design and construction.
The following is a summary of the geotechnical conclusions that may affect development of the site.
· Maximum amount of cut and fill based on currently available plans, (Appendix A), is 62 and 36 feet,
respectively. The Maximum height of both proposed permanent cut and fill slopes indicated on these
plans (Appendix A) is approximately 16 feet. The depth of maximum fill may increase due to
remedial grading beyond that recommended herein.
· Permanent cut and fill slopes up to 16 feet in height if constructed at inclinations of 2: 1 (horizontal to
vertical) are considered stable. These slopes may be subject to increased erosion if left unplanted or
unprotected. The use of granular cohesionless (sand) earth material on slope faces should be avoided.
· The Pauba formation bedrock is anticipated to be readily rippable to design elevations.
· Based on our supplemental subsurface investigation, our review of the previously completed
geotechnical reports, and our experience on nearby sites, it is our opinion that the on-site earth
materials can be excavated with well-working, heavy-duty conventional grading equipment.
· Based on laboratory testing and visual classification, onsite soil materials generally possess a very
low to high expansion potential. However, very highly expansive clay bedrock will be encountered
during rough grading. Additional testing should be performed during site grading to verify these data.
Selective grading of very highly expansive earth material may be necessary. Topsoil if reused near
pad grades may be considered low to highly expansive soil.
· Laboratory test results indicate the soils present on the site have a negligible to moderate potential for
sulfate attack on concrete and moderate potential for corrosion to buried metal improvements.
· The site will likely experience strong ground shaking during the duration of the project. The design
ground motion having a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years is expected to produce a
peak horizontal ground surface acceleration at the site of 0.68g.
· Secondary seismic hazards consisting of densification and liquefaction are considered low for this
site. Considering the site conditions, planned remedial earthwork, and existing/predicted groundwater
elevations.
· The existing onsite soils appear suitable for fill construction provided they are relatively free of
organic material and debris. Clayey expansive soils should be thoroughly blended with sandy soils
and placed a minimum of 5 feet below planned finish grade elevation.
· Ground water was encountered during our investigation in boring B-2 at 26 feet below existing grade.
Shallow ground water is not expected to be a factor during site excavation and construction. Perched
groundwater is possible along cut/fill contacts or in areas of contrasting permeability.
Recommendations to mitigate the potential for ground water buildup are included in Section 4.0. In
addition, localized seeps may occur in isolated areas in the future after periods of heavy rainfall or
irrigation. These localized seeps should be treated on an individual basis, if they occur.
- 8 -
:::::::01'
;:: --
~ =-
-~-
-...:::!' -=
\\
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11 0231-003
.
Due to the granular nature of the on site soils; unprotected or unplanted slopes may be subject to
increased erosion. The proposed slopes should be planted as soon as feasible and watering should be
kept to the absolute minimum necessary to maintain plant vigor.
Settlement and compacted fill over bedrock is not anticipated to be excessive. Seismically induced
settlement, (densiflcation) should be considered in structure design.
Limited testing site soils and experience on nearby projects indicate that site earth material may be
used in the construction of the planned late. Additional evaluation and discussion will be provided in
a separate letter.
.
.
-9-
:::::::11
;:::; --
~ -=--=:: \-z...
-...:::!' --
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
110231-003
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Earthwork
Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
in Appendix E and the following recommendations. The recommendations contained in Appendix E are
general grading specifications provided for typical grading projects and some of the recommendations
may not be strictly applicable to this project. The specific recommendations contained in the text of this
report supersede the general recommendations in Appendix E. The contract between the developer and
earthwork contractor should be worded such that it is the responsibility of the contractor to place the fill
properly in accordance with the recommendations of this report and the specifications in Appendix E,
notwithstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant.
4.1.1 Removal and Site Preparation
Prior to grading, the proposed structural improvement areas (i.e. all structural fill areas,
pavement areas, buildings, etc.) should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions. Heavy
vegetation, roots, and debris if encountered should be disposed of offsite. Water wells, septic
tanks and cesspools,. if encountered, should be removed or abandoned in accordance with the
Riverside County Department of Health Services guidelines.
All unsuitable compressible materials should be removed from the proposed fill areas and any
cut areas where unsuitable materials extend below proposed cut grades. Unsuitable materials
will consist of undocumented fill, exploratory trench backfill, topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, and
weathered bedrock. These soils should be removed down to competent dense material as
detennined by the geotechnical consultant, scarified, moisture-conditioned, and compacted
prior to placing fill. The removal limit should be established by a 1: 1 projection from the
edge of fill soils supporting settlement-sensitive structures. downward and outward to
competent material identified by the geotechnical consultant. Removals adjacent to
Margarita Road may be limited due to existing underground utilities. If the desired removals
are not feasible along Margarita Road, additional consolidation/settlement testing of the
existing, left-in-place soils should be performed. Additional foundation recommendations or
setbacks for settlement sensitive structures may be warranted in this area.
Any overexcavated surface of bedrock should be scarified and/or cross-ripped and watered
prior to placement of compacted fill. The over excavated surface should be sloped a minimum
of 2 percent to facilitate drainage along the filVbedrock contact toward the street. The actual
overexcavation depth may be increased based on the field condition encountered and proposed
foundation system.
Overexcavation of cut/fill transition pads to a minimum of 3 feet below pad grade should be
performed during grading procedures if finish pad elevation and building locations are known.
This overexcavation does not include scarification or pre-processing prior to placement of fill.
Overexcavation may be increased to maintain a maximum differential fill thickness on an
individual lot to no more than 20 feet. Overexcavation limits can encompass the entire lot or
limits can extend to approximately 10 feet outside of proposed building locations. The
overexcavation in either case should extended to the street area and be sloped a minimum of 2
percent toward the street to reduce accumulation of subsurface water underlying the pad.
-10-
~UI::--
~ --
~ ~-
-...:::!' -.;::
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
110231-003
Actual limits can be detennined during rough grading. It is expected that most transition lots
will be overexcavated during rough grading when building pad areas are detennined.
After completion of the recommended removal of unsuitable soils and overexcavation of
transition lots, the approved surface should be scarified a minimum of 8-inches, moisture
conditioned as necessary to near optimum and compacted prior to placing fill.
The removal depths of the compressible materials will vary with location. Preliminary
estimated removal depths are depicted on the Geotechnical Map (Plates 1 through 5). Removal
will also include benching into competent material as the fills rise. Moderately to non-
weathered Pauba formation siltstone and sandstone is considered competent material.
Generally, dense Pauba formation bedrock is considered competent if extremely weathered
material is not encountered.
Keyways will be necessary at the toe of proposed fill slopes throughout the site. Keyways are
also required at a fill over cut contact. Please consult Appendix E for schematics of these
keyways. Keyways should be excavated into dense bedrock as depicted in Appendix E.
Continuous benching into dense bedrock should be conducted as the fill placement proceeds.
Benching and keying should be of sufficient depth to remove all loose material as shown in
Appendix E. A minimum bench height of 2 feet into approved bedrock material should be
maintained at all times. The keyway bottoms should be a minimum of 18 feet wide and inclined
into slope at least 2 percent.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
For fill over cut slopes, a keyway should be excavated between the fill and competent bedrock
after removal of unsuitable surficial soils. The cut portions of the slope and keyway
excavations should be geologically mapped by a geologist prior to fill placement to ensure
competent bedrock material will be exposed in the underlying cut slope.
4.1.2 Structural Fills and Oversize Materials
The onsite soils are suitable for use as compacted fill, provided they are relatively free of
organic materials, debris and oversize materials. Areas to receive structural fill and/or other
surface improvements should be prepared in accordance with Section 4.1.1 and scarified to
minimum depth of 8 iIiches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted. The
optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size
of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding
8 inches in thickness. Fill soils should be placed at or above the minimum optimum moisture
content. Fills placed on slopes steeper than 5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) should be keyed and
benched into approved formational soils (see Appendix E for benching detail).
In areas of fill thickness over 50 feet (if any, due to deepened removals of alluvium) should
be constructed with 95-percent compacted fill below the 50-foot depth. Fill slopes should be
overbuilt a minimum of 2 feet and trimmed back to the compacted core or rolled with
weighted sheepsfoot compaction rollers as the fill slope height increases in maximum 5 foot
increments.
4.1.3 Utilitv Trenches and Cast-In-Place Pipe (CIPP)
The granular, low-expansive onsite soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided
they are screened of rocks over 6 inches in diameter and organic matter. Trench backfill should
- 11-
:::::::::01
~ --
~ -~::::. \"?
-...:::!' -=
I
I
I
I
I
110231-003
be compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical
means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM Test Method DI557-9l).
Excavation of utility trenches should be performed in accordance with the project plans,
specifications, and all applicable OSHA requirements. The contractor should be responsible
for providing the "competent person" required by OSHA standards. Contractors should be
advised that sandy soils (such as fills generated from the onsite alluvium) can make excavations
particularly unsafe if all safety precautions are not taken. In addition, excavations at or near the
toe of slopes and/or parallel to slopes may be highly unstable due to the increased driving force
and load on the trench wall. Spoil piles from the excavation(s) and construction equipment
should be kept a minimum of 10 feet (or the depth of trench) away from the sides or tops of the
trenches.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
For planning purposes, it is our opinion that CIPP storm drain systems within the subject
development will be feasible from a geotechnical perspective. Based on our laboratory data and
our professional experience on the adjacent Sweetwater School site, it is our opinion that the
trench wall stability requirements of local water districts will be achieved. California-OSHA
requirements should be followed during all pipeline trenching. It is the contractor's
responsibility to maintain a safe work area during underground construction at all times.
Additional soil testing should be performed dnring grading or trench excavation to confrrm
these fmdings and determine the actual expansion and corrosion potential of the soils in contact
with the CIPP system.
Groundwater was locally encountered dnring our field exploration. Although significant
changes to the regional groundwater table are not anticipated, changes can and do occur with
time, season and the influence of irrigation. The subject tract will receive canyon subdrains
dnring mass grading and therefore groundwater will be controlled, however, seepage within
trench walls is possible. Seepage within trenches is not anticipated to effect trench wall
stability.
4.1.4 Shrinkage. Bulking and Subsidence
The volume change of excavated onsite materials upon recompaction is expected to vary with
materials, density, insitu moisture content, location, and compaction effort. The in-place and
compacted densities of soil materials vary and accurate overall determination of shrinkage and
bulking cannot be made. Therefore, we recommend site grading include, if possible, a balance
area or ability to adjust import/export quantities to accommodate some variation. Based on our
subsurface investigation and experience with similar materials, the following values are
provided as guidelines:
Topsoil, Alluvium, and Undocumented Fill
Pauba Formation
10 to 15 percent shrinkage average
10 percent shrink to 5 percent bulk
A subsidence factor of 0.2 feet should be applied to the overall site in evaluation of earthwork
balance.
- 12-
:::::::::11
;:::; --
::!iii_~:::. ,I-
-...:::!' .::: n-
I
I
I
I
110231-003
4.1.5 Settlement
Settlement of onsite fill materials is expected to occur during and within 90 days following fill
placement. However, following the placement of fill and construction of residences, additional
settlement may occur due to (a) new footing/foundation loads and (b) compression within the
fill due to the effects of increasing subsurface fill moisture during the life of the project.
Settlements of buildings on bedrock pads or settlement of fills of less than 10 feet thick is not
expected to be significant.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.1.5.1 Settlement from Building Loads
Buildings located on compacted fill soils (90 percent relative compaction) should be
designed in anticipation of Yz inch of total settlement and 'A inch of differential
settlement in 40 feet or the least dimension of the building, whichever is a greater
distortion. The majority of settlement associated within building land(s) is anticipated
to occur during construction as the load is applied. These settlements and angular
distortions are for imposed building loads and do not include compression within the
fill itself nor dynamic settlements.
4.1.5.2 Settlement ofFill Soils
Fill thickness on the project site is expected to be in the range of zero to approximately
36 feet. Our evaluation of compression within the fill soils assumes that fills are not
placed with more than 20 feet of fill thickness variation on any single residential lot.
In addition, if any fills are placed such that they exceed 50 feet in thickness, they
should be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction below 50 feet.
Compressibility of properly placed compacted fills is anticipated to be relatively low.
PosH:onstruction total settlements for areas underlain by compacted fill overlying
bedrock, prepared in accordance with recommendations herein, is anticipated to be on
the order of 1 to 2 inches with differential settlement on the order of 1 inch in 40 feet.
The project structural engineer and architect should consider the potential effect of
dynamic settlement (See Section 2.6.5) as well as static fill settlement. An additional
evaluation of fill settlement should be prepared during or following rough grading.
Artificial fills over 50 feet should be monitored following grading.
I
I
I
I
I
4.1.6 Preliminary Pavement Design Parameters
Final pavement design should be determined based on actual site subgrade testing at the
completion of rough grading. However, for planning and estimating purposes we have made
some assumptions based on the anticipated usage. Actual resistance value (R-Value) test
results performed during this investigation indicate site near surface soils and highly weathered
bedrock posses an R-Value of 67 to 70 (Appendix D). Due to the presence of expansive soils
onsite an assumed R-value of 40 has also been calculated and provided herein. Therefore,
corresponding pavement design values are based on the R-Value of 67 and 40, and are
summarized in the table below. Tests of the exposed subgrade during rough grading should be
performed to confirm the appropriate pavement section. Appropriate traffic index (T!) data
should be selected by the project civil engineer or traffic engineering consultant for finalization
of the pavement section and should be in general accordance with City of Temecula and
industry standards.
- 13 -
:::::::::61
;:::: -
~-~::::. ./
-...:::!' -.;:: \ ;)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
110231-003
AC Pavement Section Thickness
Class 2 Aggregate Base (AB)
TI Asphaltic-Concrete (AC) Rock (R=78) Thickness (inches)
Thickness (inches) R=40
R=67 (Assumed)
5 3* 6* 6
6 3 6 6.5
7 4 8* 8
8 5 8 8
. .
* City ofTemecula nummum pavement design requrrements.
The subgrade soils in the upper 6 inches should be properly compacted to at least 95 percent
relative compaction (ASTM D1557) and should be well moisture~onditioned to near optimum
and kept in this condition until the pavement section is constructed.
Minimum relative,. compaction requirements for aggregate base should be 95 percent of the
maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557. Aggregate base should conform
to the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" (green book) current edition or
Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base having a minimum R-value of78.
The preliminary pavement sections provided in this section are meant as minimum, if thinner or
highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair may be
needed. The use of concrete cutoff or edge barriers should be considered at the perimeter of
driveway areas when they are adjacent to either open (unfinished) or irrigated landscaped areas.
4.2 Slope Stabilitv
Based on our review, both permanent cut and fill slopes are proposed at 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical)
inclinations and flatter with heights up to approximately 16 feet. Temporary cut and fill slopes are on
the order of 42 feet and 25 feet, respectively. Based on our review, it is our opinion that the proposed
cut and fill slopes will be grossly and surficially stable, provided cut slopes are free from adverse
geological conditions, such as out of slope bedding and jointing. All cut slopes and temporary
construction cuts should be observed by an engineering geologist during grading. All slopes should be
constructed in accordance with the most current version of the Uniform Building Code (UBC)
guidelines and the City of Temecula requirements. If there is a discrepancy between the
recommendations in the UBC, City of Temecula requirements or these presented in this report, the
more stringent recommendations should be used.
Due to the granular nature of the soils, surficial erosion may develop on unplanted or unprotected
slopes. In addition, due to the granular nature of the soils at the subject site, construction of the fill
slopes may warrant blending of cohesive (silts and clays) soils into very sandy soils in order to increase
surficial slope stability. This recommendation will be given at the time of rough grading based on the
soils encountered.
-14 -
~UA::--
- --
~ ~.::::
-...:::!' --
\~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
110231-003
Cut and fill slopes should be provided with appropriate surface drainage features and landscaped (with
drought tolerant vegetation) as soon as possible after grading to minimize the potential for erosion.
Berms should be provided at the top of fill slopes, brow ditches should be constructed at the top of cut
slopes. Lot drainage should be directed such that surface runoff on the slope face is minimized. The
outer portion of fill slopes should be either overbuilt by 2 feet (minimum) and trimmed back to the
finished slope configuration or compacted in vertical increments of 5 feet (maximum) by a sheepsfoot
roller as the fill is placed. The slope face should then trackwalked by dozers of appropriate weight to
achieve the final configuration and compaction out to the slope face.
4.3 Drainage
Over-the-slope drainage should not be permitted. All drainage should be directed away from slopes
and structures by means of approved permanent/temporary drainage devices. Adequate storm drainage
of the super pads should be provided to avoid siltation of temporary catch basins. Linear sandbagging
of the super pads tangential to flow directions in periodic intervals, should reduce erosion potential of
runoff over these pads.
4.3.1 Subdrainage
Subdrainage will be necessary in canyon fills and fill over cut keyways. Fills generally saturate
near geologic contacts and the subdrains should outlet this excess water to suitable discharge
areas. Contacts on fill over cut slopes which daylight cut material can present seepage
problems once irrigation of the slopes and upper pads begins. The subdrainage within the fill
over cut keyways should mitigate this seepage problem. Subdrain details are provided in
Appendix F, General Earthwork and Grading Specifications. Preliminary locations of canyon
subdrains are depicted on the Geotechnical Maps (Plates 1- 5). Canyon subdrains up to 500
lineal feet should consist of 6-inch diameter perforated pipe. Canyon subdrains greater than
500 feet should consist of 8-inch pipe and greater than 1,000 feet should consist of l2-inch
pipe. A 20-foot section of non-perforated pipe should be placed at the outlet location. The
connection between the perforated and non-perforated pipe should be sealed with a minimum 6-
inch thick, concrete cut-off wall placed a minimum of 2 feet beyond the perimeter of the gravel
"burrito". All outlets should be protected with a concrete apron and cover. Subdrain pipe may
be schedule 40 PVC (or equal) placed in accordance with Appendix E.
4.4 Tentative Foundation Design
The proposed foundations and slabs of the single-family residential structures should be designed in
accordance with structural considerations and recommendations presented herein and the appropriate
chapters of the UBC. Conventional foundations (Table 1) may be used on lots with low expansion
potential. For foundations constructed upon soils with an expansion index of greater than 20 (El>20),
the foundations should be designed by a registered structural engineer in accordance with the
appropriate sections of the current and adopted UBC, approved alternatives of City of Temecula, and
soils criteria and parameters recommended in this report (Table 2). Alternative post-tensioned
foundation design parameters are provided in Table 3, located at the rear of the text.
Foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations, the seismic
parameters of Section 2.7 and the recommendations presented in Table 1, Minimum Foundation and
Slab Design Recommendations for footings and slabs on very low expansive soils. Conventional
- 15 -
~I&I::--
~U _-
~-~-
-...:::!' -.:
V\
----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
110231-003
footings/slab systems on very low expansive soils may be enhanced for improved performance by
structurally tying the slabs-on-grade to the perimeter and interior footings as directed by the structural
consultant for this project. The slab-on-grade and footings may be poured monolithically to further
utilize the system under fill seismic load or differential settlement. Table 2 Foundation guidelines for
footings and slabs on low to medium expansive soils using Chapter 18 of the UBe. Alternative post
tension (PT) design parameters for foundations on low to medium expansive soils are provided in
Table 3. If highly expansive soils are encountered during grading near finish pad elevation, additional
design parameters will be provided. We recommend that as grading progresses, each building pad be
evaluated for its expansion potential, and differential fill thickness. The fmal footing and slab design
for each proposed residential structure should be designed based on the results of that evaluation.
These individual pad tests may result in changing of a particular pad recommendation (e.g. change
from low expansion to medium expansion potential).
The footing width, depth and the slab-on-grade thickness should be designed by the structural
consultant based on recommendations made herein, the soil characteristics indicated herein and the
UBC (1997 edition or currently adopted by the City of Temecula). The under-slab moisture barrier
should consist of 2-inches of sand over 1O-mil visqueen over 2-inches of sand (a total of 4-inches of
sand, S.E. 30 or greater). The lower 2-inches of sand may be eliminated, providing 2-inches of sand
over visqueen on lots exposing very low expansive soil at subgrade !!!: if the foundation concrete mix is
designed using a minimum 4,OOQpsi compressive strength and a water cement ratio of 0.5. The
recommended vapor barrier should be sealed at all penetrations and laps. Moisture vapor transmission
may be additionally reduced by use of concrete additives, Moisture vapor retard but not eliminate
moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slabs. A slipsheet or equivalent
should be utilized above the concrete slab if crack-sensitive floor coverings (such as ceramic tiles, etc.)
are to be placed directly on the concrete slab.
Future homeowners and homeowners' association should be informed and educated regarding the
importance of maintaining a constant level of soil moisture. Homeowners should be made aware of
the potential negative consequences of both excessive watering, as well as allowing expansive soils
to become too dry (Le., the soil will undergo shrinkage as it dries, followed by swelling during the
winter, rainy season or when irrigation is resumed, potentially resulting in distress to improvements
and structures). Improperly designed, constructed, or maintained planters often pond water and cause
deep moisture penetration and soil moisture change. Since deep and repeated soil moisture change can
damage the adjacent structure, placement of planters adjacent to foundations or other sensitive
hardscape, such as pools and spas, should be discouraged if adequate and proper maintenance can not be
assured. Our recommendations assume a reasonable degree of homeowner responsibility, if the
homeowners do not adequately maintain correct irrigation and drainage, some degree of foundation
movement should be expected. However, this movement typically does not cause structural damage, but
will cause such things as stucco cracking and dry wall separation..
Please note that UBC Chapter 18 is based on certain climatological assumptions with regard to soil-
moisture conditions around and beneath the foundations. Soil-moisture change below slabs is the major
factor in expansive soil problems. The UBC design method does not contain specific provisions to
account for the effects of irrigation, presaturation, or other non-dimate-related influences on the
moisture content of subgrade soils. In recognition that this method does not take into account such
things as the influence of homeowner watering, we have adjusted our geotechnical design parameters to
account for responsible homeowner maintained improvements. Such improvements include properly
designed planters and lawn areas. In utilizing these parameters the foundation engineer should design
the foundation system to the acceptable deflection criteria determined by the structural engineer or
architect.
- 16-
~UA::--
~ .-
~-
-...:::!' -.;:: ~
I
I
I
I
110231-003
The slab subgrade soils should be presoaked in accordance with the recommendations presented in
Tables 1, 2 and 3 (presented at the rear of text) prior to placement of the moisture barrier and
foundation concrete.
4.4.1 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaininl! Wall Desil!fi Considerations
I
The recommended lateral pressures for the low expansive site soil (expansion index less than 50
per UBC l8-I-B) and level or sloping backfill are presented on Table 4, (rear of text).
I
Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The
magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can yield
under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be
designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength
of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be
design~d for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance
developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance.
I
I
For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls founded
above the static ground water and backfilled with soils of very low to low expansion potential is
provided in Table 4 (presented at rear of text). The equivalent fluid pressure values assume low
expansive, free-draining conditions. If conditions other than those assumed above are
anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis
by the geotechnical engineer. Surcharge loading effects from the adjacent structures should be
evaluated by the geotechnical and structural engineer. All retaining wall structures should be
provided with appropriate drainage and waterproofing. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain
to a suitable outlet. Typical wall drainage design is illustrated in Appendix E.
I
I
I
For sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil
interface. Lateral passive pressures may be used in accordance with the values provided in Table
4. These values may be used for foundations with a embedment of one foot and increased by the
same value for each additional foot to a maximum lateral bearing of 2,OOOpsf. In combining the
total lateral resistance, the passive pressure or the frictional resistance should be reduced by 50
percent. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. The
passive resistance value may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration,
including wind or seismic loads. The horizontal distance between foundation elements
providing passive resistance should be a minimum of three times the depth of the elements to
allow full development of these passive pressures. The total depth of retained earth for design of
cantilever walls should be the vertical distance below the ground surface measured at the wall
face for stem design or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning and sliding.
I
I
I
I
Wall backcut excavations less than 5 feet in height can be made near vertical. For backcuts
greater than 5 feet in height, but less than 15 feet in height, the backcut should be flattened to a
gradient not steeper than 1: 1 (horizontal to vertical) slope inclination. For backcuts in excess of
IS feet in height, specific recommendations should be requested from the geotechnical
consultant. The granular and native backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D 1557). The granular fill should extend
horizontally to a minimum distance equal to one-half the wall height behind the walls. The
walls should be constructed and backfilled as soon as possible after backcut excavation.
Prolonged exposure of back cut slopes may result in some localized slope instability.
I
I
I
I
- 17 -
:::::::11
;::: -
~ -~::::. \li
-...:::!' -=, -\-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
110231-003
Foundations for retaining walls in competent formational soils or properly compacted fill should
be embedded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade. At this depth, an allowable bearing
capacity of 2,000 psf may be assumed.
For free standing (unrestrained) walls over 5 feet or that present a life/safety hazard, the lateral
earth pressures should be increased to reflect the increment of additional pressure caused by the
design earthquake. Accordingly, an increment of lateral pressure equal to 21 H2, where H is the
height of the wall, should be applied at a distance of 0.6H above the toe of the wall. Under the
combined effects of static and earthquake loads on the wall, a factor of safety between 1.1 and 1.2
is acceptable when evaluating the stability (sliding, overturning) of the wall (NA VFAC DM
7.02). All retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate pipe and ground drainage
and waterproofing.
4.5 Footing Setback
We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all structural
footings and settlement-sensitive structures (i.e. fences, walls, signs, etc.). This distance is measured
form the outside edge of the-footing, horizontally to the slope face (or to the face of a retaining wall).
Please note that the soils within the structural setback area possess poor lateral stability and
improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalk,- fences, pavements, etc.) constructed within this
setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. Potential distress to
such improvements may be mitigated by providing a deepened footing or a pier and grade-beam
foundation system to support the improvement. The deepened footing should meet the setback as
described below.
Slope Height Recommended Footing Setback
< 5 feet 5 feet minimum
5-15 feet 7 feet minimum
> 15 feet H/2, where H is the slope height, not to exceed
10 feet for 2: 1 slopes
4.6 Corrosion
Laboratory tests indicate a negligible to moderate concentration of soluble sulfates in onsite soils
(greater than 150 ppm) for representative samples (Appendix D). Minimum resistivity and pH tests
(Appendix D) were performed on representative soil samples previously by Leighton and Associates.
The limited test results indicate the onsite soils are moderately corrosive to burled uncoated metal
conduits or other improvements. It is recommended that sulfate testing be performed on representative
finish grade soils at the completion of rough grading. Concrete foundations in contact with site soils
should be designed to resist sulfate corrosion in accordance with Table 19-A-4 of the Uniform
Building Code. A qualified corrosion engineer should be consulted if corrosion sensitive materials are
to be used. Additional corrosion (pH, chloride, resistant) testing onsite soils should be performed
during grading.
- 18 -
~UI=-
~ --
~-~-
. -...:::!' -Jiii:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.7
4.8
4.9
110231-003
Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control
Positive drainage of surface water away from structures is very important. No water should be
allowed to pond adjacent to buildings. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing
drainage away from buildings at a gradient of at least 2 percent for a distance of at least 5 feet, and
further maintained by a swale on drainage path at a gradient of at least 1- percent. Where limited by
5-foot side yards, drainage should be directed away from foundations for a minimum of 3 feet and
into a collector swale or pipe system. Where necessary, drainage paths may be shortened by use of
area drains and collector I?ipes and/or paved swales. Eave gutters also help reduce water infiltration
into the subgrade soils if the downspouts are properly connected to appropriate outlets.
Planters with open bottoms adjacent to buildings should be avoided, if possible. Planters should
not be designed adjacent to buildings unless provisions for drainage, such as catch basins and
pipe drains, are made. No ponding of water from any source (including irrigation) should be
permitted onsite as moisture infiltration may increase the potential for moisture-related distress.
Experience has shown that even with these controls for surface drainage, a shallow perched
ground water or subsurface water condition can and may develop in areas where no such
condition previously existed. This is particularly true where a substantial increase in surface water
infiltration resulting from site irrigation occurs. Mitigation of these conditions should be
performed under the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant on a case-by-case basis. .
Irrigation. Landscaping and Lot Maintenance
Site irrigation should be controlled at all times. We recommend that only the minimum
amount of irrigation necessary to maintain plant vigor be utilized. For irrigation of trees and
shrubs, a drip irrigation system should be considered. We recommend that where possible,
landscaping consist primarily of drought-tolerant vegetation. A landscape consultant should
be contacted for proper plant selection. For large graded slopes adjacent to open space areas,
we recommend native plant species be utilized and that irrigation be utilized only until plants
are well established. At that time, irrigation could be significantly reduced.
Upon sale of homesites, maintenance of lots and common areas by the homeowners and
homeowner's association, respectively, is recommended. Recommendations for the
maintenance of slopes and property are included in Appendix F for your review and
distribution to future homeowners and/or homeowner's associations.
Concrete Flatwork
In order to reduce the potential for differential movement or cracking of driveways, sidewalks,
patios, or other concrete flatwork, welded wire mesh reinforcement consisting of 6x6-1O/1O or No.
3 rebars at 24 inches on center (each way) is suggested along with keeping pad grade soils at an
elevated moisture content.
- 19-
:::::::::11
S; ~=== 2D
-...:::!' -.::
I
110231-003
I
I
I
I
I
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
Geotechnical review is of paramount importance in engineering practice. The poor perfonnances of many
foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to inadequate construction review. We recommend
that Leighton and Associates be provided the opportunity to review the following items.
5.1 Plans and Specifications
The geotechnical engineer should review the project lot specific rough grading plans, foundation plans
and specifications prior to release for bidding and construction. Such review is necessary to detennine
whether the geotechnical recommendations have been effectively implemented. Review findings
should be reported in writing by the geotechnical engineer.
I
I
I
5.2 Construction Review
Observation and testing should be performed by Leighton and Associates representatives during
grading and construction. It should be anticipated that the substrata exposed during construction may
vary from that encountered in the previously excavated borings and test pits. . Reasonably continuous
construction observation and review during site grading and foundation installation allows for
evaluation of the actual soil conditions and the ability to provide appropriate revisions during
construction, if required.
I
Site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils, approval of imported earth materials, fill placement,
foundation installation and other site geotechnically-related operations should be observed and tested
by representatives of Leighton and Associates.
I
Additional laboratory tests of subsurface materials to confirm compacted density and moisture content,
corrosive potential, expansion potential, and resistance value (R-value) should be performed during
grading.
I
I
5.3 Supplemental Geotechnical Report
I
Supplemental geotechnical recommendations for the proposed lake will be provided under a separate
cover. This report will address grading recommendations for the lake area and evaluation of onsite
earth materials to be used in lake construction. Construction techniques and geotechnical comments on
existing plans for the lake will be provided.
I
I
I
I
I
- 20-
~U&= a
-...:::!' --
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
110231-003
6.0 LIMITATIONS
This report was necessarily based in part upon data obtained from a limited number of observances, site
visits, soil samples, tests, analyses, histories of occurrences, spaced subsurface explorations and limited
information on historical events and observations. Such information. is necessarily incomplete. The nature
of many sites is such that differing characteristics can be experienced within small distances and under
various climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time.
This report was prepared for Lennar Communities, based on Lennar Communities needs, directions, and
requirements. This report is not authorized for use by, and is not to be relied upon by any party except
Lennar Communities and its successors and assigns as owner of the property, with whom Leighton has
contracted for the work. Use of or reliance on this report by any other party is at that party's risk.
Unauthorized use of or reliance on this report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Leighton
and Associates from and against any liability which may arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless
of any fault, negligence, or strict liability of Leighton and Associates.
- 21 -
~U&~ ~
-...:::!' -::
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11 0231-003
TABLE 1
Minimum Foundation Recommendations for Design of Foundation on Verv Low Expansive Soils
-..; ~;' .< "~'.., .... ~'.; '. U.B.C. Expansion Index
.;, . ... \;';;:;T;'~:i F:. 'X0-, 0-20
;,'i",'.,. ','"pc. .' Very Low Expansion
l..story Footings All footings 12" deep. Reinforcement for continuous footings: one No.4 bar top and
(See Note I) bottom.
2-Story Footings All footings 18" deep. Reinforcement for continuous footings: one No.4 bar top and
(See Note 1) bottom.
Minimum Footing Width Continuous: 12" for I-story
Continuous: 15" for 2-story
Isolated column: 24" (18" deep minimum)
-
Garage Door Grade Beam A grade beam 12" wide x 12" deep
(See Note 2) (18" deep for 2-story) should be provided across the garage entrance.
Living Area Floor Slabs Minimum 4" thick slab. 6x6-1 0110 WWF reinforcement at midheight 2" clean sand over
(See Notes 3, 4 and 6) 10 mil moisture barrier.
Garage Floor Slabs Minimum 4" thick on 2" sand base over moisture barrier on pad 6x6-10I10 WWF
(See Notes 4, 5 and 6) reinforced at midheighL Slab should be quarter-sawn.
Presoaking of Living Area Near optimum to a depth of6".
and Garage Slabs
Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,000 pounds per square foot
(one-third increase for short term loading) (one-third increase for short term loading)
Notes:
(1) Depth of interior or exterior footing to be measured from lowest adjacent finish grade or drainage swale flowline elevation.
(2) The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as that of the adjoining footings.
(3) Living area slabs should be tied to the footings as directed by the SbllCtural engineer.
(4) IO-mil Visqueen sheeting or equivalents are acceptable. All laps and penetrations should be sealed.
(5) Garage slabs should be isolated from stem wall footings with a minimum 3/8" felt expansion joint.
(6) Sand base should have a Sand Equivalent of 30 or gre.xer (e.g. washed concrete sand).
-p'?
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
110231-003
TABLE 2
Minimum Foundation Recommendations for Design of Foundation on Low and Medium Expansive Soils
UBC Expansion Index UBC Expansion Index
Low Medium'
(21-50) (51-90)
I-Story Footing 12" 18"
(see note I)
2-Story Footing IS" IS"
(see note 1)
1 or 2-Story Isolated Column Footings IS" 24"
Exterior of Minimum Foundation 24" 24"
Presoaking 1.2 times the optimum moisture to a 1.3 times the optimum moisture to a
depth of 12 inches denth of 18 inches
Plasticity Index For EI=21-50 Use PI=25 For EI=51-90 Use PI=35
Allowable Bearing Capacity (one-third 2,000 pounds per square foot (one- 2,000 pounds per square foot (one-
increase for short term loading) . third increase for short term loading) third increase for short tenn loading)
TABLE 3
Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Recommendations
for Expansive Soils
Expansion Index (UBC 18-2)
Design Criteria UBC Expansion Index UBC Expansion Index
Low Medium
(21-50) (51-90)
Edge Center Lift: 5.5 feet 5.5 feet
Moisture
Variation. em Edge Lift: 2.5 feet 3.0 feet
Differential Center Lift: 2.0 inches 2.0 inches
Swell, Ym Edge Lift: 0.5 inches 0.8. inches
Modulus of Sub grade Reaction (k) 150 psi/in
Minimum Perimeter Footing Embedment Depth. 12 inches i 8 inches
I-Storv
Presoaking 1.2 times the optimum moisture 1.3 times the optimum moisture
to a depth of 12 inches to a denth of 18 inches
Allowable Bearing Capacity: 2,000 psf (one-third increase for short term loading)
TABLE 4
Lateral Earth Pressures
Conditions Equivalent Fluid Weight (pc!)'
Level Backfill 2:1 Slope Backfill
Active 45 65
At-Rest 65 100
Passive2 250 (maximum 2 ks!) 125 (Sloping Down)
I Assumes drained conditions. (See Appendix E)
2 Assumes a level condition that will remain for the duration of the project.
1Pr<
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
Base Map: CDMG, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone,
Murrieta Quadrangle, 1 990
Lennar Communities
Harveston
Tract 29639
Temecula, California
Site
Location
Map
:::::.~R
~ =-.: ..,L'
~-=cP
Project No. 110231.003
Date August 2001
Figure No.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
110231-003
APPENDIX A
References
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 1994, Settlement Analysis, Technical Engineering and
Design Guides as Adapted from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No.9, ASCE
Press, 1994
Blake, T.F., 1998a, EQSEARCH A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration
From Southern California Historical Earthquake Catalogs, User's Manual, 94 pp.
Weith data updated, 1995
Blake, T.P., 1996, EQFAULT, A Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal
Acceleration from Digitized California Faults, User's Manual, 79 pp. ,
, 1998a, FRISKSP, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Seismic
Hazard Using Faults as Earthquake Sources, User's Manual, 116 pp.
, 2000, Annual Update of California Seismicity Database, Thomas F. Blake Computer
Services and Software. version 4.0.
BSSC, 1994, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, Part 1 -
Provisions, FEMA 222A4, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic
Regulations for New Buildings, Part 1 - Provisions, FEMA 222A, Federal
Emergencv Management Agencv, 29Op.
Converse Consultants, 2000, As-Built Geology and Grading Report, Including Geotechnical Design and
Construction Recommendations, Tract 29286, Sweetwater Elementary School, City
of Temecula, California, Converse Project Number 99-81-305-32, dated June 30,
2000.
, 1999, Summary of Geotechnical Conditions, Sweetwater Specific Plan, Approximately
560-Acre Site, Temecula, California, Converse Project Number 98-81-104-01, dated
June 21, 1999.
1990, Geotechnical Investigation, Tentative Tracts 25321 thtough 25324, and 25464,
Winchester Hills Residential Development, Temecula, California, Converse Project
Number 89-81-173-01, dated October 8,1990
, 1988, Liquefaction Evaluation, Winchester Hills, Tentative Parcel Map 23336, Rancho
California, California, Converse Consultants Inland Empire (CEIl) Project Number
88-81-117-01, dated September 9, 1988.
EnGen Corporation, 1999, Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study Proposed Sweetwater Elementary
School, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Project Number T19l8-
GS,datedDecember 17, 1999.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997 Uniform Building Code, Volumes 1-3.
A-I
-z,.("
~II::--
~ .-
~-
-...:::!' -.:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
110231-003
Ishihara, K., 1985, "Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquake", Proceedings of the Eleventh
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, A.A.
Belkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Kramer, Steven, L., 1996, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, 1996.
Krinitsky, E., L., Gould, J., P., Edinger, P., H., 1993, Fundamentals of Earthquake-Resistant
Construction, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1993.
Leighton and Associates, 2oola, As-Graded Report of Rough Grading for Tract 29111-1 and Tract
23626-1 (Proposed Park Site), Planning Area 2, Lots 1 Through 67, Murrieta Hot
Springs Area, Riverside County, California, Project Number 11980158-005, dated
January 15,2001.
, 2001 b, As Graded Report of Rough Grading for Tract 29111, Planning Area 2, for
Tract 29111, Planning Area 2, Lots lThrough 58, Murrieta Hot Springs Area,
Riverside County, California, Project Number 11980158-005, dated July 20, 2001.
Mann, John F., 1955, Geology of a Portion of the Elsinore Fault Zone, California Division of Mines and
Geology, Special Report 43, dated October, 1955.
McGuire, R. K., 1978, FRISK: Computer Program for Seismic Risk Analysis Using Faults as Earthquake
Sources, U.S. Geological Survev Open-File Report 78-1007, 69p.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1986a, Soil mechanics design manual 7.01, Change 1: U.S. Navy,
September.
, 1986b, Foundations and earth structures, design manual 7.02, Changes 1: U.S. Navy,
September.
Petersen, M. D., Bryant, W. A., Cramer, C. H., Cao, T., ReicWe, M. S., Frankel, A. D., Lienkaemper, J.
J., McCrory, P. A., and Schwartz, D. P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment for the State of California, California Department of Conservation.
Division of Mines and Geologv Open-File Report 96-08: U.S. Geological Survev
Open-File Report 96-706.
RBF Consulting, 2001, Harveston Mass Grading Tentative Tract No. 29639, dated July 2, 2001, LDOl-
058GR, 14 Sheets.
Saul, R. B., 1978, Elsinore fault zone, south Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines
and Geology Fault Evaluation Report FER-76 and supplements (unpublished).
Schnabel, P.B., and Seed, H.B., 1973, "Accelerations in Rock for Earthquakes in the Western United
States", Bull. of the Seismol. Soc. of Am., Vol. 63, No.2, pp 501-516.
Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., and Kiefer, F.W., 1969, Characteristics of Rock Motions During Earthquakes,
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, V. 95, No. SM5, Proc.
Paper 6783, pp. 1199-1218.
A-2
1-\
-II
;:::; -
;::: --
~ ~.:::
-...:::!' .;::
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
110231-003
Silver, L. T., and Chappel, B. W., The Peninsular Ranges Batholith: An Insight into the Evolution of the
Cordilleran Batholiths of Southwestern North America, Transactions of the Royal
Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences, 79, 105-121, 1988.
Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking,
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No.8, dated August 1987
WGCEP - Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1995, Seismic Hazards in Southern
California: Probable Earthquake Probabilities, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., Vol. 85,
No.2, pp 379-439.
A-3
1fb
~I~I::--
~II .-
-- -~-
-...:::!' -:
I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1
I Date 7-20-01 Sheet -L of 1
Project Lennar-Harveston Project No. 110231-003-
Drilling Co. CAL PAC Type of Rig B-51
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140lbs Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Hole +. 1133' Location See Map
0 ~ ..
4)~ 0""':" DESCRIPTION -
I: () Z - u; ..
0 "'- :E", .. ..0 ~ . "rn ~
iij .. .. ~ 1:0 ,,- ...
all _I: -u
<1.0 - c.. ~<I. .... U. -
iliu. ~u. f!...J 0 -~ -- _rn 0
" z E ID.. ,., 01: '0:; ..
iii .. <I. ~ :;;0 logged By MDK <I.
rn C U rn~ ~
Sampled By MDK
0 01 TATERNARY PAlJBA FORMATION rOo)
Ba5.i
1130 @ , @ 2.5': Medimn yellow-brown, mois~ m<dium dense, fine 10 COllISe AL, MD.
1 22 SM SAND; micaceous, scattered pebbles DS,RV
5 @ 5': Olive-brown, moIst, m<dium dense, very fine, sandy SILT; SU
2 41 ML micaceous, thin silty m<dium sand layen;
1125
10 @ 10': Olive-brown, moIsllo damp. medium dense, very fine to
3 22 medium SAND; micaceous, contains a2-3"layer of clayey silt
1120
15 @ IS': Dm:k: olive-brown, very moist, m<dimn stiff 10 stiff, sligbtly silty SU,HD.
4 33 88.0 38.7 CL CLAY; some ash in this layer MD.DS.
B:,!f E1
@ 5-19'
@ 17': Dm:k:olive-brown,mois~stiff. silty CLAY; no ash
1115 5 16 CL
@ 19': Dm:k: olive-brown, moIst, very dense, very silty, fine 10
20 6 83 123.1 6.6 SM abundant coarse SAND; massive
7 90 128.8 10.4 S @ 20': Same as above but with CLAY
1110
25
Total Depth 22'
No Grouiidwater Encountered
Backfilled with Native 7-02-01
1105
~o...
30
SAMPLE TYPES:
S SPLIT SPOON
R RING SAMPLE
B BULK SAMPLE
T TUBE SAMPLE
Q GRAB SAMPLE
C CORE SAMPLE
TYPE OF TESTS:
SU SULFATE
OS DIRECT SHEAR
MD MAXIMUM DENSITY
eN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
CO COLLAPSE
HD HYDROMETER
SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
AL ATTERBERQ LIMITS
EJ EXPANSION INDEX
RV R-VALUE
---0'
;;:::: -
;;:: =.:::
~=S
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIA rES, INC.
I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
I I Date 7-20-01 Sheet 1 of 2
Project Lennar-Harveston Project No. 110231-003-
Drilling Co. CAL PAC Type of Rig 8-61
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140lbs Drop 30"
Elevetlon Top of Hole +. 1183' Location See Map
6 ~ .,
GJt/t. iii""":" DESCRIPTION ~
() ~ .,
z .,0 ., ~ "rn ~
.c~ :Eo> ., """
all " " ~& "- III .
~" -(J
"-0 ~ ii. 2lg, .,,, (J. -
2lLL l!.J 0 iiiili -~ _rn 0
Cl Z E ... 0" '0:) "
III Q. d :;0 Logged By MDK "-
rn (J rn- ~
Sampled By MDK
0 .. .." Al L1 WHIM rOan
.... ..
, 0
.. e.-
.. ......
:~.:. ..
e..... .. @ 2': Darl< brown. mois~ very silty. medium to coarse SAND; no
..:.".::
.. ...... 1 10 SM caliche, no blocky or ped structures, massive
....
.....
e.. e.
..... ..
o '
." -.
5 .. ."'-." @ 5': Darl< reddish-brown. mois~ very silty. medium to very collISe
:~.:. ..
..... 2 12 SM SAND; no caliche. no blocky or pOd structures, massive
'.' ...; Ba~4
o. ".
.. ...... @ -10'
....
.....
..... ..
.... e.
. .
o. ..-
. .""..0
:...:. ..
10 ..... ..
.... e.
. 0 @ 10': Darl<reddish-brown. very moist, medium dense, v:::;j, silty. SA, CO
o. ..-
.. ."".0 3 29 clayey. medium to very coarse SAND with scattered pcb les, (HCN=
....
..... IDaSSLVe, no caliche. no blocky or perl development -0.18%)
.... e.
..... ".
o .
,," e.-
. ......
......:. ..
..... ..
e." ....
0- -.-
15 .. ."'-."
:"":." @ 15': UJEer layer- Same as 10'. more silt and clay; Lower layer- light
..... 4 34 SC
..... "0 reddi gray. damp to mois~ medium dense, medium to coarse
o . SW
,," -.- SAND; micaceous, massive, friable
......
:,,":. ..
e..... ..
".:,,".::.
.. ..:."
: ",::. .
... .. 0
20 .. ....
~OOR~llM~~)--------- CO
5 36 96.6 29.4 S @ 20': Dark olive-brown. very mois~ medium stiff. medium sandy, (HCN=
clayey SILT; abundant clay, micaceous, massive, unit continues to a -0.32%)
depth of 25'
155
6
@ 25': Dark olive-brown. verymois~mediumdense. slightly silty,
SM/S medium to abundant coarse SAND; massive, top of sample very
silty, [me to coarse SAND
@ 26': Groundwater Encountered
42
?fJ
30
SAMPLE TYPES:
S SPLIT SPOON
R RING SAMPLE
B BULK SAMPLE
T TUBE SAMPLE
I
Q GRAB SAMPLE
C CORE SAMPLE
TYPE OF TESTS:
SU SULFATE
OS DIRECT SHEAR
MD MAXIMUM DENSITY
CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
CO COLLAPSE
HD HYDROMETER
SA SIEVE ANAL VSIS
AL ATTERBERG UMlTS
EJ EXPANSION INDEX
RV R.VALUE
~UI
;:::; -
:;:::: =:::
~ -=-:
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIA TES, INC.
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
I
Date
Project
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter
8"
Lennar-Harveston
CAL PAC
Drive Weight
Sheet 2
Project No.
Type of Rig
of ~
110231-003-
B-61
Drop 30"
7-20-01
I -
Elevation Top of Hole +. 1183' Location See Map
d i:' .,
I s:: CD~ 0""":" DESCRIPTION -
- .,
0 () Z .,0 7ii ~ - .,Ul ~
-- .I:_ :E", ., s::_ "'- ...
'iim am " " ~ _s:: -C)
"'0 - ii ~&. .,,, c). -
Wi'" ~... l!..J 0 iii~ -- _Ul 0
<:l Z E ,., Os:: 0::) "
ijj .. a.. ~ =-8 Logged By MDK ...
Ul Q Ul~ ~
, Sampled By MDK
30 QUATERNARY PAUBA RlRMA TION (OJ:!)
- 7 75/11" 112.2 5.0 SM @ 30': Dark olive, vecy mois~ dense to very dense, silty. fine to
I medium SAND; mlcaceous, massive
-
1150 ..
I ..
35- @ 35': light olivo-gray, very moist. mediumdense to dense, medium
.. 8 41 SPISM SAND; massive, micaceous, friable, very clean sand, increased silt
I in upper portion of sample
..
1145 ..
I -
40- @ 40': Dark olive, moist. very stiff. clayey, very fine sandy SILT; very
.. 9 58 106.5 20.5 ML small, massive, micaceous .
I ..
1140 ..
I -
45- 10 85 SM @ 45': Dark olivo-brown, V~ist to saturated, very dense, silty. fine
.. to abundant very coarse S ; massive, micaceous
I -
1135 ..
I -
50
..
I -
1130 ..
I -
55- Total Depth 50'
.. Groundwater EncOlmterOO @ 26'
Backfilled with Native 7-20-01
I -
1125 ..
I - ~\
60
TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE
SAMPLE TYPES: SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER --01
I s SPLIT SPOON 0 GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANAL VBIS ;;:; -
R RING SAMPLE e CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS ;:::: =.:::
B BULK SAMPLE eN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX ~-=
T TUBE SAMPLE eR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
140 Ibs
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIA TES, INC.
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3
I
Date 7-20-01
Project
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter 8"
Elevation Top of Hole +. 1085'
Lennar-Harveston
CAL PAC
Drive Weight
Location
Sheet 1 of
Prolect No.
Type of Rig
2
11 0231 -003-
8-61
Drop 30"
140lbs
See Map
1085
o
.."0 ..
"0:.".::.
.. ......
.... ..
....
:.: ::.:Sog5
'.' '. @0-5'
.. ."..."
.... ..
....
..... .
.. ....
"._ 0..-
.. ......
.... ..
....
0.. eo..
"0" ....
00..
0......
:..":. ..
...... ..
.. ....
"0- -0.
0......
:..":. ..
..... ..
... ....
o. ..
.. ......
:~.:.. Sog6
:... ::.: @ 11-13'
"0- -0.
. ......
:.::."
...... ..
"0" ....
0" e.
.. ."..."
.... ..
....
..... ..
.0....
"0000.
.. ......
:..":. ..
"0.00 ..
... ....
.0....
.. ......
:.::. ..
"0.00 ..
.0....
0 ~ tDrf.. III
1Ii-:- DESCRIPTION -
z 1Il'O Ui III
~ . IIlUl ~
" ~ C'l; ::J- .. .
_C -(,)
'ii. ~"" Ill" (,). -
-~ -- _Ul 0
E mOl ,., Oc '0::) "
.. ll.. ~ :;;0 Logged By MDK ""
Ul C (,) Ul~ ,.,
Sampled By MDK I-
AI1.UVIUM (Oa])
C ()
0 .c_ :e", III
--
'ill all ""0 s
ijLL ~LL f!..J 0
jjj Cl z
1
15
@ 2.5': Dark olive-brown. damp, loose, mfdiwn to coarse, sandy SILT;
massive, micaceous, no caliche, no ped or blocky structure
1080
5
2
32
110.1 5.3 SM
@ 5': Dark reddish-brown. damp,mfdiwndense, very silty, medium to
abundant coarse SAND; massive, some rootlets
CN
3
15
SClS
@ 10': Darl<: reddish-brown. mois~ mfdiwn dense, silty, clayey. fine to
coarse SAND; massive, no caliche, no ped or blocky strocture
SA
SC
4
24
108.2 20.6 SM
@ 15': Dark brown. very moist, mfdiwn dense, very silty, mediwn to
abundant coarse SAND; massive, no caliche, no ped or blocky
structure; upper portion of sample same as 10'
co
(HCN=
-055%)
5
12
OLDER ALLlMlJM COoall- - - - - - - - - - SA, lID
SCIS @ 20': Darl<: olive-brown. mois~ mfdiwn dense, slightly clayey, very
silty. medium to coarse SAND; massive
OIJATERNARYPAUBAR:>RMATIONCOnl - - - - -
6 80 119.3 6.0 SMIS @25': Medium olive-brown, verymois~mfdiwndense, silty,mfdiwn
SAND; micaceous, massive
~
SAMPLE TYPES:
S SPUT SPOON
R RING SAMPLE
B BULK SAMPLE
T TUBE SAMPLE
G GRAB SAMPLE
C CORE SAMPLE
TYPE OF TESTS:
SU SULFATE
OS DIRECT SHEAR
MD MAXIMUM DENSrrv
CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
CO COLLAPSE
HD HYDROMETER
SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS
EI EXPANSION INDEX
RV R-VALUE
--01
::::::: -
;:: =.:::
~~
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIA TES, INC.
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3
Date
Project
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter
7-20-01
8"
Lennar-Harveston
CAL PAC
Drive Weight
Sheet 2 of
ProJect No.
Type of Rig
2
110231-003-
8-61
Drop 30"
I -
Elevation Top of Hole +. 1085' Location See Map
~ '"
I ci QJ~ iii""":" DESCRIPTION -
I: - '"
0 0 Z "'0 '" ~ . "'0 ~
J:_ :E", '"
:;i ~ Ol ~ 1:_ :1- ...
all ""0 ii. ~&. _I: -C) -
"'Ol C).
~u. c!lu. E.J -~ -- _0 0
z E IDOl 01: 0::) Ol
jjj Cl ,., :;8 Logged By MDK
.. "" C5 ""
I 0 0- ~
~ , Sampled By MDK
lOSS 30
SM/SI @ 30': Medium gray-brown, very moist, medium dense, silty, medium
I - 7 32 SAND; massive. no secondaiy weathering, upper portion of sample
contained more clay
-
-
I -
1050 35- 8 45 ML @ 35': Dm!;: olivo-brown, very moist, dense, very fine sandy SILT; very
I - micaceous, abundant 1-3" diameter caliche nodules
-
-
I -
1045 40- Total Depth 36.5'
- No Groundwater EncOWltered
I Backfilled with Native 7-20-01
-
-
I -
1040 45-
-
I -
-
I -
1035 50-
-
I -
-
I -
1030 55-
-
I -
-
I - '?'?
1025 60
TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE
SAMPLE TYPES; SU SULFATE! HD HYDROMETER ~DA
I s spur SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANAL VSIS =:;:; -
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG L1Mrrs ;:::: =.::
B BULK SAMPLE eN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX ~=:
T TUee SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
140lbs
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCiA TES, INC.
I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4
I Date 7-20-01 Sheet 1 of ~
Project Lennar-Harveston Project No. 110231-003-
Drilling Co. CAL PAC Type of Rig B-61
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140lbs Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Hole +. 1091' Location See Map
d ~ III
C G)~ 0""":- DESCRIPTION -
() Z - III
0 .l:_ III 11I0 III ~ Ill'" ~
ii am :c'" " " ~ c_ """ CD '
_c -(J
<>'0 - a ~~ Ill" (J. -
it"- ~"- l!!..J 0 -- 0
z E ail; oc -'"
iii Cl >- :;;0 '0::) Logged By MDK "
CD <>. ~ <>.
'" C (J "'- ~
Sampled By MDK
0 ... .." AI.! UVIUM (Oal1
"..::"::
1090 . . ":."
.... ..
....
..... , @ 2': Dark brown, very mois~ loose, silty, medimn to very abundant
.. .... CO
',' '.' 17 111.0 6.0 SM coarse SAND; massive, minor porosity (HCN~
. . ..
:..":. .. -0.15%)
..... ..
".:."'::.
5 , ...... @ 5': Dark reddish-brown, moist, medimn dense, very silty. medimn to
:..,,:. .. 2 27 SC
1085 0.. _. abundant coarse SAND; top of sample is clayey sand
00" .... SM
00...
, .0:.0
:"":. ..
..... ..
".:.".::
, . "
, ..
:..":. ..
10 -.. o.
.. .... @ 10': Dark reddish-brown, mois~ medimn stiff. medimn sandy, CO
',' "
1080 . .... 3 44 120.1 12.8 SC clayey SILT; massive, minor porosity. massive (HCN~
.... ..
.... -0.06%)
0.. o.
.. ....
0.. o.
. . "
. ..
:..":. ..
0..00 ..
.. ....
'".. o.
. ....
15 :...... .. @ 15': Dmkreddish-brown, ANb mois~ medimn dense, sli~y clayey.
".. o.
1075 ".:.0.:: 4 18 S silty. medium to coarse S ; massive, contains 3-6" c y rich
rone
. . ..
:..":. ..
..... ..
.. ....
eo- 0.0
. ....
:..":,..
0..". ..
20 .. ....
OIJATERNARYPAUBAFORMATION(Ool- - - - - -
1070 5 51 111.7 17.8 SW @ 20': Light reddish-brown, mois~ mediwn dense, medimn to very
coarse SAND; massive clean channel sand
1065
25
@ 25': Reddish,.brown, damp to mois~ medimn dense to dense, silty,
SM medium to coarse SAND; massive
6
38
1f.
30
SAMPLE TYPES:
S SPLIT SPOON
R RING SAMPLE
B BULK SAMPLE
T TUBE SAMPLE
I
Q GRAB SAMPLE
C CORE SAMPLE
TYPE OF TESTS:
SU SULFATE
DS DIRECT SHEAR
Me MAXIMUM DENSITY
eN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
;g.~A:::--
!'"iiB _-
~.:::;.:
CO COLLAPSE
HD HYDROMETER
SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
AL ATTERBERG L1Mn'S
EI EXPANSION INDEX
RV R~VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIA TES, INC.
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING lOG B-4
I
Dale 7-20-01
Project
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter 8"
Lennar-Harveston
CAL PAC
Drive Weight
Sheet ~ of
Project No.
Type of Rig
2
110231-003-
8-61
Drop 30"
I -
Elevation Top of Hole +. 1091' Location See Map
~ <n
I 0 G)~ cD"",:" DESCRIPTION -
" - <n
0 () Z u; ~ - <n", ~
.&::- :Eo> <n <nO
il " " ~ "- ,,- ...
all -" -u
"'0 0 'ii. ~8. <n" U. -
ilu. "u. f!..J -~ -- -'" 0
0 z E mOl 0"
iij Cl >- :;0 '0::) Logged By MDK "
.. '" c '"
I '" u "'- ~
.. , Sampled By MDK
30 @ 30'; Medium olivo-py. moist, medimndense to dense, silty.
I 1060 - 7 68/11 " 105.4 13.0 SM medium SAND; mIcaceous, massive
-
-
I - -
35- @ 35'; Medimn gIll?:;,:::st, dense. sligbtIy silty. medium SAND;
11055 - 8 65 SM massive; clean c 1 sands
-
-
I -
40- @4O'; Darl<: olive. very mois~ stiff. very fine, sandY. clayey SILT;
1050 9 60 ML Jll8SS1Ve., Inlcaceous
I -
-
I -
45- @ 45'; Medimn Jl>'lly. ~,medium dense to dense. medimn to
1045 - 10 64 SM abundant coarse SAN ; micaceous, massive., channel sand
I -
-
I -
50- 11 75/10" Cl.. @ SO', Darl<: olive-py, very mois~ very stiff, very fme sandy, silty
1040 - ClAY
I -
-
I -
55- TotalDeplh51.5'
1035 - No Groundwater EnCOWltered
I Backfilled wilhNative 7-20-01
-
- .1f
I -
60
TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE
SAMPLE TYPES; SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER .A~
I S sPur SPOON G GRAS SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE ON CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX ~-=: -==.:
T TUBe SAMPLE OR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
140lbs
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIA TES, INC.
I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5
I Date 7-20-01 Sheet 1 of 2
Project Lennar-Harveston Project No, 110231-003-
Drilling Co. CALPAC Type of RIg 8-61
Hole DIameter 8' Drive Weight 140lbs Drop 3011
Elevation Top of Hole +. 1098' Location See Map
,; ~ III
I: tDr/! 1Ii-:- DESCRIPTION -
- III
0 .s::_ " III Z III 0 iij ~ . IIltJl ~
-- :e", ~ 1:_ ,,- " .
';ill all a> a> _I: -()
<>'0 - C. a> " III a> (). -
it"- ~"- !!..J 0 -~ C<>. -- _tJl 0
Z E ma> 01:
jjj Cl ,.. :;;0 o::i Logged By MDK a>
" Q, ~ <>.
tJl C () tJl~ ~
Sampled By MDK
0 .. ., Al 1.1 NIUM lOa])
to:,"'::.
. ....
.... .
....
..... . @ 2': Darl<: brown, mois~ coarse, very silty, medium to coarse SAND;
'0 ....
"0- -.- I 7 122.7 7.7 SM
1095 . .... porous, masSIve
.... .
....
..... .
5 00:,"::.
. .0:." @ 5': Darl<: ~brown, medium dense, very silty, medium to very
':~':. . co
"0."0 . 2 34 SM coarse S ; minor porosity, massive (HCN=
"00 .... Ba 7 -0.65%)
" ..' ~
, .... @ -10'
:".:. .
1090 ..... .
"0:."::
. .0:,"
:"":. .
10 ..... .
OJ DER AU.IJVJlJM 1000]) ---------
3 16 SC!CL @ 10': Dark olivo-brown, mois~ medium stiff, sandy. very silty CLAY;
Dl8.SSlve
1085
15 @ 15': Darl<:reddish-brown, mois~ medium dense. v~ '::1' slightly CN
4 35 115.3 10.0 clayey. medium SAND; pockets of sand between si t clay
layers, some peel surfaces
1080
20 @ 20': Dark olivo-brown, v~ mois~ medium dense, sli~y dense,
5 14 ML medium to coarse. sandy ILT; massive, scattered p bIes
1075
25 OlJATRRNARYPAIJBARJRMATlONIOnl- - - - - -
6 43 100.6 22.4 ML @ 25': Dark olive, very mois~ mediumdense to dense, very fine, sandy
SILT; very micaceous, massive, no porosity
1070
1}-
30
TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE
SAMPLE TYPES; SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER ~IA
S SPLIT SPOON Q GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANAL VSIS :::.::: -
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS ;::: =;:::
B BULK SAMPLE eN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX ~ -=-.;:
T TUBE SAMPLE cR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIA TES, INC.
I
I
Date 7-20-01
ProJect
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter S"
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5
Lennar-Harveston
GAL P AG
Drive Weight
140lbs
Sheet 2 of
Project No.
Type of Rig
2
110231-003-
8-61
Drop 30"
I -
Elevetlon Top of Hole +. 109S' Location See Map
~ III
I .; GJof!. iii""":" DESCRIPTION -
" () Z - III
0 "'- :Eo> III III 0 III ~ - Ill(/) ~
iii ~.2 "- ,,- " .
ail " " -" -0
"-0 - 'ii. ~&. Ill" o. '0
ijLL ~LL l!...J 0 -~ -- _(/)
z E m" 0" 0:; "
iii Cl >- :;0 Logged By MDK
" c.. ~ "-
I (/) c 0 (/)~ ?:
" Sampled By MDK
30 @ 30': Interbeds of two units, each layer, which ore ~ted twice:
- 7 36 Ml;:<;:I t. Dm:k olive, mDist, medium stiff to stiff, clayey SIr: ; massive, very
I SW nncaceous
- 2 light yellowish-gmy, damp, medium to very loose SAND; mable,
iron oxide staining
1065 -
I -
35- 8 77 115.9 7.8 SM @ 35': Dad<: olive-brown. v:;1~';;;.;'~ dense to .very dense, very silty.
. v
I -
1060 -
I -
40-
I -
-
1055 -
I -
45- Total Depth 36'
- No Groundwater Encountered
I BacldilIed with Native 7-20-01
-
1050 -
I -
50-
-
I -
1045 -
I -
55-
-
I -
1040 -
I - ?~
60
TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE
SAMPLE TYPES; SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER --OR
I S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ;::; -
R RING SAMPLE! C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMITS ;;:: =::::
B BULK SAMPLE eN CONSOUDATtoN EI EXPANSION INDEX ~ ==s
T TUBe SAMPLE OR CORROSION RV R.VALUE
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIA TES, INC.
I Date 7-23-01 Sheet 1 of 2
Project Lennar-Harveston Project No. 11 0231-003-
Drilling Co. CAL PAC Type of Rig 8-61
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140lbs Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Hole +. 1075' Location See Map
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6
.. ....
eo:.-.::.
.. ......
:~.:. ..
-.. eo..
"0:.".::.
.. ......
.... .
....
..... ..
..:...::.
.. ......
:..::. ..
..... ..
" . '. B 12
. .'. . ag
. '....:' @5-IO'
:~.:. ..
".... ..
.. ....
'"._ e.-
. .e.-.,"
:~.:. ..
e.. eo..
e.," ....
0- ..
.. ......
....
.....
e.. 0...
.... -.
.......
.. ......
:~.:. ..
..... ..
eo:.-.::.
.. ....."
:~\.. ..
e.... ..
..:...::.
.. ......
:~.:. ..
..... ..
..:...::.
.. ......
:~.:. ..
e.... ..
.. ....
~ III
0 4J~ 0""":" DESCRIPTION -
- III
Z III 0 III ~ . IIlm ~
" ~o 1ii'S ,,- .. .
_c -(J
'ii. 0"- "" (J. '0
-~ Cc. -- _m
E 01" ,.. Oc a:; MDK "
.. c. ~ :;;0 Logged By c.
m C (J m~ ~
Sampled By MDK
ALI.IMlJM (Oan
c "
0 .c_ :E", III
ii ii,ll "
c.o -
ij"- 2l"- f!.... 0
w Cl Z
1075 0
1070 5
1065 10
SAMPLE TYPES:
S SPLIT SPOON
R RING SAMPLE
B BULK SAMPLE
T TUBE SAMPLE
I
I
@ 2': Medium olive-brown, dry, medium dense, very fine, sandy SILT:
massive, scattered rootlets. no blocky or ped smface deveJ.opment,
no visible porosity
61
122.0 3.4
2
37
@5':Mediumolive-brown,dry,mediumdense, very silty. fine to very
coarse SAND; massive
3
128.9 6.2 SM
@ 10': Dark brown, damp, medium dense, very silty. fine to abundant
coarse SAND; minor porosity, massive, minor ped surfaces
79
4
SCI
@ 15': Dark oliv';'brown, damp. medium dense. clayey. very silty, fine
to abundant coarse SAND
39
OUATERNARYPAUBAR:>RMATlON((4l)- - - - - -
5 8319" 120.8 4.6 SM @ 20': Medium olive-brown, dry 10 damp, dense. very silty, fine to
abundant coarse SAND; massive witli some very coarse sandy
layers; bottom of sample fairly clean v<Tj COllISe sand
6
@ 25': light grayish-brown, damp 10 mois~ medium dense, medium 10
coarse SAND; very clean, maole, iron oxide staining
27
SP
Q GRAB SAMPLE
C CORE SAMPLE
TYPE OF TESTS:
SU SULFATE
OS DIRECT SHEAR
MD MAXIMUM DENSITY
CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
co COLLAPSE
HD HYDROMETER
SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS
EI EXPANSION INDEX
RV R~VALUE
:::::::1'
;;::: -
~-=--==::::
~=
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIA TES, INC.
co
(HCN=
-0.51%)
SA, HD.
CN
~
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6
I Date 7-23-01 Sheet 2 01 2
Project Lennar-Harveston Project No. 11 0231-003-
Drilling Co. CAL PAC Type 01 Rig 8-61
Hole Diameter 6" Drive Weight 140lbs Drop 30"
Elevation Top 01 Hole +. 1075' Location See Map
,., '"
ci Q)~ ui"'i" DESCRIPTION -
I: - :t:: '"
0 J:_ .!! '" Z ,"0 '" ~ .. '"Ul ~
ii J:Cl ~ 1:_ ,,- Ill.
'all " " _I: -0
<>'0 '0 Q. ~g, '"" o. -
~LL ~LL E-' -~ -- _Ul 0
Cl z E 1lI" ,., 01: '0:; "
iii '" <>. C :;0 Logged By MDK <>.
Ul 0 Ul~ ,.,
Sampled By MDK I-
1045 30 @ 30': Medium gray, ~ to moist, medium dense, coarse to very
7 47 105.9 3.1 SP coarse SAND WIth pcb les ond small cobbles
1040 35
8
48
@ 35': Olivc>-brown, very moist, medium dense to dense, silty fine
SAND; micaceous, weakly bedded, some layers contain clay
1035 40
9
75 118.1 13.1
@ 40': Dark olivc>-brown, very IDDis~ stiff to very stiff. silty CLAY;
base of sample is medium. gray w/caliche and scattered pebbles
1030 45
10
52 SCI
@ 45': Dark olivc>-brown, very mois~ dense, very silty. clayey fme
SAND; massive
1025 50
11
8019" ML
@ 50': Dark olive-brown, very mois~ very stiff, very fine, sandy SILT
w/trace clay, micaceous, iron oxide staining, massive
1020 55
Total Depth 5l.5'
No Grouiulwater Encountered
Backfilled wlth Native 7-23-01
~
1015 60
SAMPLE TYPES;
S SPLrr SPOON
R RING SAMPLE
B BULK SAMPLE
T TUee SAMPLE
G GRAB SAMPLE
C CORE SAMPLE
TYPE OF TESTS:
SU SULFATE
OS DIRECT SHEAR
MD MAXIMUM DENSITY
eN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
CO COLLAPSE
HD HYDROMETER
SA SIEVE ANAL YS)S
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS
EI EXPANSION INDEX
RV R-VALUE
~.~R=-
_u _-
~ ==.::
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIA TES, INC.
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-7
I Date 7-23-01 Sheet 2 of 2
Project Lennar-Harvestcn Project No. 11 0231-003-
Drilling Co. CAL PAC Type of Rig 8-61
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140lbs Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Hole +. 1173' Location See Map
~ ..
d fJJ'#. oi~ DESCRIPTION -
- ..
0 Z iii ..rJi f!!.
J:_ :E"" .. ..0 ~ ..
1:_ :1- " .
all " " ;=0 _I: -0
"-0 - 'ii. ou- 8g, .." 0, -
8"- E-' 0 -~ -- _0 0
Cl z E m" ... 01: o~ "
" Cl. ~ :;;8 Logged By MDK "-
0 C 0- ~
Sampled By MDK
32 @ 30': Darl<:. olive-brown. very mois~ dense, very fine sandY;;,~rY
SILT; .5-2" wide :ronos of well cemented. very dense ma .
35
40
Total Depth 315'
No Groul1dwater Encountered
BlICkfiJIed with Native 7-23-01
45
50
55
1>..\
60
SAMPLE TYPES:
S SPLIT SPOON
R RING SAMPLE
B BULK SAMPLE
T TUBe SAMPLE
G GRAB SAMPLE
C CORE SAMPLE
TYPE OF TESTS:
su SULFATE
DS DIRECT SHEAR
MD MAXIMUM DENSITY
eN CONSOUDATION
CR CORROSION
co COLLAPSE
HD HYDROMETER
SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS
EI EXPANSION INDEX
RV R-VALUE
~.~A=--
-U _-
~=.s
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIA TES, INC.
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-8
7-23-01
I
Date
Project
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter
8"
Lennar-Harveston
CALPAC
Drive Weight
Sheet 1
Project No.
Type of Rig
of -2-
11 0231-003-
8-61
D 30"
I rop _
Elevation Top of Hole +. 1124' Location See Map
ci ,.. lU~ 10
I 16"'"':' DESCRIPTION -
c - - 10
0 z iii
0 .c_ :Eel 10 100 ~ " 10m ~
iai " " ~.f c_ ,,- as.
0.31 _c -0
0.0 - a. ~&. 10" o. -
~LL ~LL f!...J 0 -~ -- _rn 0
Cl z E Ill" ,.. Oc 'O::j "
iii as 0. ~ ::;:0 Logged By MDK 0.
I rn c 0 rn~ ~
. Sampled By MDK
0 OUATERNARYPAUBA RlRMATION rOp)
I -
- B:'5-9
- @ 5'
I 1120 -
5- @ 5': Medium yellow-brown, damp, dense, very silty, fine 10 coarse
I - 1 85 SM SAND; micaceous, massive, no blocky or ped surface development
-
2 88 SP @ 7': Li~ yellow-brown, damp, very dense, medium 10 coarse SAND;
- tIIllSSJ.ve
I 1115 - @ 9': Medium yellow-brown, damp 10 moist, very dense, silty. medium
10- 3 65 SM to abundant coarse SAND; massive
- @ 11': light olive-gray, damp, very dense, silty, fine SAND
I 88/ll" SM
- 4
-
SMIMl @ 13': Dark olive-brown, damp, very dense, fine sandy SILT with
I 1110 - 5 85/11- scattered small pebbles
15- @ 15'; Datk. olivc-bro\\1l, moist, very dense, clayey SILT; massive
- 6 70 111.7 12.0 CL-MI
I -
7 71110" SMIMl @ 17': Dark olive-brown, moist, very dense, fine 10 medium, sandy
- SILT
I 1105 - @ 19': Same as above
20- 8 68
- @ 21': Dark olive, moist, very stiff, very silty CLAY; no calicbe,no
I - 9 81111- 97.0 25.0 .n ~ ash, massive
- @ 23': Same as @ 17', some clay
68 CL-MI
I 1100 - B~lO
25- @ -30'
CL-MI @ 25': Darlc olive-brown, moist, very stiff. slightly clayey SILT; no
- 44 caliche, no secondary weathering
I - @ 27': Same as above
- 58 CL-MI
I 1095 - @29': Darlcolive,moist, very stiff, silty CLAY; verymicoceous with A(v
10 63 1MU:!
30
TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE
SAMPLE TYPES: SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER ~IA
I S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANAL VBIS
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MO MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS ;:: -
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX ~=.:::
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE ~~ -==,S
140lbs
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCiA TES, INC.
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-8
I Date 7-23-01 Sheet 2 of ~
Profect Lennar-Harveston Profect No. 110231-003-
Drilling Co. CALPAC Type of Rig 8-61
Hole Diameter 8" Drive WeIght 140lbs Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Hole +. 1124' Location See Map
.; ~ m
I: GJ"i!. 0""':" DESCRIPTION -
- m
0 " Z mO iii ~ .. mC/l {!!.
J:_ :Eel m
~i all G> .. ~ 1:_ :1- os.
"-0 - ~&. _I: -0
Q. m.. 0. '0
i'jLL. ~LL. l!!-' 0 -~ -- _C/l
z E 1IIG> 01: 0::) ..
iij CJ os "- ~ :;;0 Logged By MDK "-
C/l C 0 C/l~ ~
Sampled By MDK
30 mica along lhin bedding pIanes
B~l1 @ 31': Light gmyish:olive, verymois~ very stiff CLAY; mottkd, some SA,RD,
@ 0-33' 11 47 80.8 45.6 CL mica, minor Caliche AL.MD.
El,SU,
Pinhole
12 60 93.3 28.8 CL .@ 33': Same as above, more caliche
35 @ 35': T~f Sample: Dark olivo-brown, very moist, very stiff, very
7419" silty Y; no caliche; Bottom of Sample: V darl< olive, mmst,
v e
40
45
Total Deplh 365'
No GrOlmdwater EilCOWltered
Bacldilled wilh Native 7-02-01
50
55
ht.'?
60
SAMPLE TYPES:
S SPLIT SPOON
R RING SAMPLE
B BULK SAMPLE
T TUBE SAMPLE
G GRAB SAMPLE
C CORE SAMPLE
TYPE OF TESTS:
SU SULFATE
DS DIRECT SHEAR
MD MAXIMUM DENSITY
eN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
CO COLLAPSE
HD HYDROMETER
SA SIEVE ANAL YBIS
AL ATTERBERG UMITS
EI EXPANSION lNDEX
RV R.VALUE
~IA:::--
~ .-
~::::;~
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCJA TES, INC.
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-9
I Date 7-23-01 Sheet 1 of -L-
Project Lennar-Harveston Project No. 11 0231 -003-
Drilling Co. CAL PAC Type of Rig B-61
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140lbs Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Hole +. 1124' Location See Map
d ~ "'
C QJ~ 0"'":' DESCRIPTION -
() z - Ui "'
0 .c_ :E", "' ",0 ~ .. "'en {!!.
-- c_ "'- ca.
ial 1ial " " ~ _c -(.)
<>'0 - 'ii. ~ll. .." (.). -
i'iu. "u. f!....I 0 -~ -- _en 0
C Z E mal Oc
iii Cl ,.. :;0 'O=i Logged By MDK "
ca 11. ~ 11.
en C (.) en- ~
Sampled By MDK
0 QUATERNARY PAlmA R>RMA TIQN (Op)
Bag 8 1 90/10" SM @ 4': Medium olive, mois~ dense 10 v<:rf dense, silty fine 10 mediom RV
S @4-5' SAND; micaceous, massive
@ 5': Same as above
2 80 SM
@ 6': Mottled dark: olive-brown and reddish-brown, moist, very dense,
3 85 SM sil~ fine to coarse SAND; massive, iron oxide staining
@ 7': live. moist, very stiff, clayey SILT; very micaceous
@ 8': Same as above
4 50 Ml..
10 @ 95': Same as above
5 49 Ml.. @ 10': Same as above
@ 11': light gray. damp, dense. v<:rf fine SAND; micaceous
6 32 SW
@ 12.5': Same as @ 12'; light colored material CR
7 38 86.2 36.2 CL
@ 14': Dw:kreddish-brown, mois~ dense, v<:rf silty fme 10 v<:rf COllISe, SA,HD.
15 8 43 77.3 44.0 CH with highly plastic ClAY AI., CN
@ 15.5': Dark olive, v<:rf mois~hardCLAY; upper portion is v<:rf
9 38 94.0 30.3 CL micaceous in horizontal layers
10 75110" @ 17': Same as above, v<:rf hard caliche nodules cr ash
20
2S
Total Depth 18.5'
No Grouiuiwater EnCOWltered
Backfilled with Native 7-23-01
M
30
SAMPLE TYPES:
S SPLIT SPOON
R RING SAMPLE
B BULK SAMPLE
T TUaE SAMPLE
G GRAB SAMPLE
C CORE SAMPLE
TYPE OF TESTS:
SU SULFATE
OS DIRECT SHEAR
MD MAXIMUM DENSITY
ON CONSOUDATlON
OR CORROSION
CO COLLAPSE
HD HYDROMETER
SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS
EI EXPANSION INDEX
RV R-VALUE
.R=~
~~===
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCJA TES, INC.
I
Log of Boring No. BH-4
Date Drilled:
IquiPment
4124/90
Logged by: DCP
Checked by:
140 Ib / 30 in
GFR
Bucket AUller
Driving Weight and Drop:
round Surface Elevation: 1104 feet
Depth to Water:
none encountered
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES ~
This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and '" I-
~ I- 3
.... should be read together with'the report. This summary applies only at the 0
"- 0 W I-
0 location of the boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions 11. 0: H
H may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the " ::J Z .
J: J: W III I- ::J~ 0:
l- n. passage of time. The da_ta presented is a simplification of actua~ conditions :> ::.: 3 Ul "- W
n. <tel H ..J 0 H >-0 J:
W 0:0 encountered. 0: ::J ..J 0 o:u. I-
0 el..J 0 QJ QJ E O~ 0
ALLUVIUM (Qal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained
.. sand, abundant organics, black
OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine
grained sand, rootlets throughout, minor pinhole voids,
dark :brown
41
10 122 c
.' t If;
CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine grained sand, minor silt,
micaceous, brown
'--f
34
I3 102 c
,
32 9 105
fine grained silty sand interbeds
26
25
95
fine grained sandy clay interbeds
19
28
93
P6
Project No.
Drawing No.
89-81-173-01
A-4
I Log of Boring No. BH-5
I:at~ Drilled: 4/24/90 Logged by: DCP Checked by: GFR
Bucket Auger Driving Weight and Drop: 140 Ib 1 30 in
.. qUlpment: .
fround Surface Elevation: 1099 feet Depth to Water: none encountered
'-:..
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES
This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and X f-
~ f- 3
"" should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the 0
4- 0 UJ f-
() location of the boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions u. Ir H
H may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the "- :J Z .
:r :r UJ IfJ f- :J~ Ir
f- a. passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual_conditions :> '" 3 (J) 4- UJ
a. <to H ...J 0 H >-0 :r
UJ IrO encountered. Ir :J ...J 0 Ira. f-
0 O...J 0 Q] Q] lC o~ 0
. . ALLUVIUM (Qal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained,
brown /
\-.------------------------------------
'.' . SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, abundant
pinhole voids, brown
42 5 98
5 ..
:
',' .
.'
OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - SILTY SAND (SM): medium 35 6 115
. . to coarse grained sand, brown.
10 ..
..
. .
.' .
.. ---------------------------------------
.. . SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand, trace clay,
..
micaceous, olive green and brown 10 115
34
15
---------------------------------------
CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine grained sand, micaceous,
olive green
44 7 107
20
25
fine grained silty sand (sm) interbeds
31
11 108
30
31 18 110
End of boring at 30 feet
No caving
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled 4/24/90
b(c
Project No.
Drawing- No.
89-81-173-01
A-5
""l!!'"
.~
.~; Date Excavated:
II Equipment:
I Ground Surface Elevation: 1089 feet
I
II
,..
f' .~~
I'
"I
i:
II
d
"
,'ct'
r
..,1
iJ
..
1.-.
ij
II
if
~J
"
q
;.ft
I
;1
,~'l
.'
JJ
'1 .
~I
.
I
r
"I
':1.
i. ~
I ~ Converse Consultants
c-I
Log of Test Pit No. Tp"':3
DCP
Checked by.
GFR
Logged by:
4/18/90
Driving Weight and Drop:
Backhoe
Depth to Water:
none encountered
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES ~
This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and X I-
~ I- ~ 3
... should be.read together with. the report. This summary applies only at the 0
.. 0 W I-
~ 0 location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions lL Ir H
H "- ::J Z .
:I: :I: may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the W tJ) I- ::J~ Ir
l- lL passage of time. The data presented is.a simplification of actual conaitions :> '" 3 tJ) .. W
lL <IC!J H ..J 0 H J-U :I:
W Ira encountered. Ir ::J ..J 0 IrlL I-
0 C!J..J 0 lD lD >:: D~ 0
. ALLUVIUM (Qd) - SILTY SAND (SM' [i,,, '"
: : :... .. medium grained sand, very little silt, well. sorted, r
. \ moist, loose, brown' I
. . ~____________________________________J
: :.:: : : '\ CLA ~y SAND ~SC): fine grained sand, abundant r
- 5 - : :.:::: : orgamcs, very mOIst, loose, black
: OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine
grained sand, pinhole voids and rootlets throughout,
.. dry, dense, reddish brown. Lower 2 feet appears to be
.. reworked Pauba Formation.
: ..
- 10 ~ BEDROCK. - PAUBA FORMATION (Qp)
SANDSTONE: fine grained, silty, weathered,
massive, dry, soft, brown
End of test pit at 12 feet No groundwater encountered
No caving Test pit backfilled 4/18/90
SCALE: 1"=5' (H=V) SKETCH << , NSSOE.
..... . .' : ',..' ~. -9aL ~ . ..... . '. 'J
.;.;....::::...~.;.. '~.'~'~~
. '. . /". . .. /" . . //7
. /.' '.. T.op.soU,i .' '. .'. ./
. ../. /. I .
~. -:-:- :-. ---- -
. /
Q laJi /
.;"
.
'.: ........ ~ . . .... .......j
....'. .' 'Qp ..' .......
~:.::.:~.:...>.;.. }~:.~ (~:.:~.
A"\
Project No.
Drawing No.
Inland Empire
89-81-173-01
A-12
log of Test Pit No. TP-l0
Date Excavated:
4/14/90
Logged by:
DCP
Checked by:
GFR
Equipment:
Backhoe
Driving Weight and Drop:
~'
l Ground Surface Elevation:
1101 feet
Depth to Water:
none encountered
;;:
. SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES ~
This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and l< ...
~ ... ~ 3
... should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the 0
.. 0 W ...
~ 0 location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions u. '" H
H " ::J Z ~
r r may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the W (Jl ... ::J~ '"
... a. passage of time. The da.ta presented is a simplification of actual conditions :> ::;; 3 (Jl .. W
a. "Cl H J 0 H >-U r
W "'0 encountered. '" ::J J 0 ",a. ...
0 ClJ 0 OJ OJ >: o~ 0
: TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained sand,
.. . " abundant organics, very moist,loose, black I
.'
: OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine
: ,. _grained sand, rootlets are oxidized to about 3 feet,
.. - minor voids drv, dense, brown
L- 5
End of test pit at 5 feet
No caving
No groundwater encountered
Test pit backfilled 4/19/90
SCALE: 1"= 5' (H=V) SKETCH . :N15"E
.rTo psoil
"'-."" ,-,::,p-'. ."L0> ..y
;7
'. .' '-. Qoal ..........
'. . '0 .
-. .
. :.......
- -
No
.1.
i.
.~~':
:~
'".'
~. .~.
..;;
l
<:1
l
:.'t'
-.J:.
;>;
'.~'
-r
, :~.
1
t .~>$.'
. .~
"j
:, '~.~r
-+ r-'
-.-~:
J
j1"
f:~
";i'
?i
1,
f
~:
-..'t1''.:
'~1
e;
J~
.1
~
'4
....\
g.
.';>'
..t
~ Converse Consultants .Inland Empire
Projed No.
Drawing N,::
89-81-173-01
A-19
II
I
,I
/ .
II
i~
.,,1
'" '.-'
iP
".
!? ,
I~'
"I
I ".
i'~
"I
i~
"I
~i
r,~
I ' ,.',
,~'5i1'
I
11,1
I ~
I,,,",
1;5'
Ir,J
f'
,,1
r,~,
Ij~>~~:
II,'~I".
1:'''1
.'
In,1
I~~r
~I
~,';,.
....~~.
~:t-}
[I
"'".
ttf.;;"
r
f;1
~j~.
Log of Test Pit No. TP-l1
Date Excavated:
.4/19/90
Logged by:
DCP
Checked by:
GFR
Equipment:
Backhoe
Driving Weight and Drop:
Ground Surface Elevation: 1098 feet
Depth to Water.
none encountered
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project and'
should .be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the
location of the test pit and at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions
may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the
passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions
encountered.
SAMPLES ~
" l-
I- v "
0
0 W l-
lL 0: H
" ::J Z .
W I{J I- ::J~ 0:
:> :< " Ul \- W
H ...J 0 H >-u J:
0: ::J ...J 0 O:C1. I-
0 In In E OV 0
ALLUVIUM (Qal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine grained
sand, rootlets throughout, loose, moist, .dark brown /
. .
. . :. OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoal) - SILTY SAND (SM): fine
:..: . . grained sand, rootlets to 3 feet, minor voids, dry,
5 _.. \. _ _ ~e51~e _ t:, _v:rJ _ ~e51~e~ ~r_o~51_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ r
h CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine grained sand, minor /
I \ pinhole voids, slightly moist, very dense, dark brown
End of test pit at 6 feet
No caving
No groundwater encountered
Test pit backfilled 4/19/90
SCALE: 1'=5' (H=Y)
SKETCH
.
N85"W
~~.~.
\ '." . .
~Qal' ......:e-:.--.:. '_'
. . '. '.
Q?~} . .'.: ' . ',:)
--'v-" '.. .
-:'" -.--;- ."":""7'".:-- --; _
../... '. .. .:7 ': :-,.-:: .
"-. ,/: . '" .. 1.' ..;/
A.~
I.I~
Iii ~ Converse
.,
.,'
Project No.
Drawing No.
Consultants Inland Empire
89-81-173-01
A-20
.
~-
I
.,.
~'-'I.!
,
P'I'
~;
~:
~
Iii
~I'"
f,:
~
.
;1
fi
~I
i
F,'I
~
'fl...
"
t
.
I
'"
.0
I
:1' 0
. .f!
..
I~
., :
"
~
. >
;IJ
-,
~
,],. ~
;~: 0
I \ ~
I, .J~
I. .
~~i'"'''-:;''' _""'.r..="",;.,..""""""t;t"'~::J:..f"..........."....!,,",,-""""''";'::''''''__ ---~-
-~_., ~- -
'N;.J'~~ ..........._ ~" ._~" ~,,~ _ .""'.. _-"""'-"'_ "_.~"
-
DA
SUMMARY
BORING NO 6
20
,""""." 6-8~8 . ~~~
o ....f': 0
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF' THIS BOFtIHG AND AT THE ~'f:l... . < ~
T1MEOF'DR1LLING SUB5URF'ACECONOITlOHSMAYOIF'F"ERATOTHERLOCATlOH5 ~L.~ ()'f:lO~ <$.1-0 ..
TH "'~ ~ AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF' TIME THE DATA + ~ .I- 0 '- ~ .1':1.-..
~" (/;>0 PRESENTED IS A 51MP1.1F'IC...1'lOH OF' ACTUAL CONDITIONS EMeOUN'TERED. ....~1-~ ".t:...,s. (\(..1- 'o~~
ET ,..~ .J..-I' ~'f:l" ~C:c, .~;.. ~.
~ ~ E~EVATION. 1075:1: A ~ '\oA"'" . ~
0 SMf dry loose light SilTY SAND7SAND
SP brown fine to medium sand, small
amaunt of silt
-
- slightly medium reddish ,
moist dense brown 15
1 5.7 3.8 109
- I--
11
.
)-
brown predominantly medium sand
- 14
I-- moist olive- fine sand; large amount of
2 brown silt; trace of cloy 7.8 ]5.7 118
I--
;-
- Cl stiff dark CLAY
11
olive- silty
- SC brown CLAYEY SAND
goldl fine sand; large amount of ]8
olive sil t and cloy
- .2 gray 20.4 ]6.3 ]08
-
- -
SP wet whi tel SAND
- brown medium to coarse sand
.
ML moist olive- SILT 16
gray sandy and clayey
-
-
DE?
'N
FE
5
10
15
25
30
qJ
LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION
Winchester Hills, Rancho California, California
for: Rancho California Development Company
Project No.
88-81-117-01
@
Drawing No.
Converse Consultants Inland Empire
A-]O
'"
ll'...~ ~<=-~,-= ~~
I
I
I
I
i
8
:1
i
i
~
il
i
i
,
.)
'"
.Q
,
~I
ia
;;
..1
., .::
"0
~
1,- K
.: Q.
" <(
~
}.~I' ::
, ~
l' C
i .
, Q
Z
~
:J~
t-.=.=""~'''''='''''''' ,~- ~<v"",,,,,~.,=,,,,,,,,,,,"...~_
u _," .. "_~_ -="- .,
UO?'_
........."........."O:..'L J___~... ,
_''''n.~~<..~. _.... _ -..M<SI
SUMMARY
BORING NO 6 (continued)
DATE ORILLED: 6-8-88 . ~~~~~
~ .....~ 0
TH 15 SUh",.cARY APPLIES ONL'f AT THE LOCATION or THIS BORING AND AT THE ,of\o 'l,.. <0 . (~,l.. .
TlM"'D"",... SU",U"ACECD'D,nD"'MAVD""UTOT"",OC^,'O",, :.. 0.,. -;. ,. 0 ,
~ AHO MAY CHANGE AT THIS lOCATlOH WITH THE pASSAGE or TIME. THE DATA -f;.~ J- 0 -c.~ J..~v..
'!t,,"f; 0.... PRESENTED 15 It. !lIMPlIFlC....TlON OF ACTUAL. CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. ,,\1--~ 'i;..s- ,:1-.s- G>-t'
<1''/ _..'fi ~1l: ,>-{.. ~"';.. .
.. ~~- '. - ;.C',l.. C'-s,.io ). J-
~ ~ . . . ;.~. .
/VIL [11 moist rhstiff r olive- SI LT (cont.) J
CL very very gray SILTY CLAY
moist stiff silty
OEPTH
IN
FEET
3"
22
.
-
35-
-
-
24
.'.
40-
reddi sh
olive-
brown
23
4 5-
0
0
SM dense
-
5 0-
0
20
.
SILTY SAND
fine sandi medium amount
of silt
56
End of boring at 51.5'
Slight seepage at 24' to 26'
No caving, boring backfilled
"-
-
-
-
-5\
LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION
Winchester Hills, Rancho California, California
Rancho California Development Company
PrOlect No.
..
88-81-117-01
@
Drawing No.
Converse Consultants ,Inland Empire
A-ll
~ -
on =", ....oft::~.
:\1
I
,I
"
I
;'f,
'''I..
k
;1
i [i'J.
"-
: '.':-
-J.
:,!II
;1
"
,
...
il
~
..
fI
~-
.1.'
I,:
~
lI.
~I
.
il
t
:)
rl
#.
tl
.1
.
TEST DATA 1
. .
lJXATION : RANCHO CALIFORNIA
.
INSTRUMENT : F15CKE087 I
ELECTRONICS: T1 I
OPERATOR : GB/DH :
Soil Total Unit Weight (pcf): 120 I
.
CONE l?ENETROJ:v1ETER.
SOUNDING CPT-8
PROJECl' : CONVERSE R. C. DEVE-WH
PROJECl' No: 88-230-5602
TEST DATE : 06-10-1988
Assumed Depth' to Water (Feet): 50
DRPTll
1ft}
---....--
1.0
2.0
3,0
l.O
5.0
6,0
1,0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
lto
13.0
H.O
15.0
16,0
11 ,0
18,0
19,0
20.0
21.0
22.0
23.0
2l.O
25.0
26.0
21,0
28.0
29.0
30.0
31.0
32.0
33,0
34,0
35.0
36.0
31.0
38,0
39.0
10.0
U,O
42.0
13.0
H.O
15.0
16.0
41,0
18.0
49.0
NORllALlZEO
CONB
(ts!)
....---
m.l
151,6
80.0
m.l
109.6
91,9
8905
99.0
8U
III ,9
123.2
126.6
210.2
188.8
118.1
138.3
98.8
94.9
72,1
94.2
28.1
H.l
HO,5
111.1
131,1
165.8
195.1
14,1
38,8
21.1
58,1
19,8
17,8
10.3
Z5.5
18,3
18.0
36,2
78.1
25,2
20.6
16,9
19.0
11.1
11.8
18.0
55.3
25.9
32,0
FBICTION
SATlO
(l)
..-..-
1.21
U6
0.89
0.62
0.85
0.10
1.00
0,18
0.81
0.15
0.19
0.83
0.14
0.82
0.90
0.86
0.80
0.95
l.17
1.80
6,50
6.51
0.86
1.31
3.81
2.10
1.63
3.60
1.69
8.05
4.61
5,ll
6.10
5.92
6.02
5,15
5.l!
1.33
5,16
5.51
1.50
1,13
4.60
1,92
6,91
5.16
4.96
5,16
5,92
SOIL 8BBAVIOB TYPB
SAIlD TO SILTY SAIlD
SAIID TO SILTY SAIlD
SAIlD TO SILTY SAlID
SAIlD TO SILTY SAlID
SAlID TO SILTY SAIID
SIJID TO SILTY SIJID
SAIlD TO SILTY SAlID
SIJID TO SILTY SAlID
SAlID TO SILTY SAIlD
SAIlD TO SILTY SAlID
SIJID TO SILTY SAlID .
SAlID TO SILTY SAlID
SAlID TO SILTY SAlID
SIJID TO SILTY SAlID
SAIlD TO SILTY SAlID
SAIlD TO SILTY SAlID
SAlID TO SILTY SAlID
SIJID TO SILTY SAlID
SILTY SAIlD-SAlIDY SILT
SILTY SAlID-SAlIDY sm
ISAIlDY CLAY-SILTY CLAY
SILTY CLAY TO CLAY
SAlID TO SILTY SAIID
SIJID TO SILTY SAlID
ICLAYBY SAlID-SAlIDY CLAY
SILTY SAlID-SAlIDY SILT
SAlID TO SILTY SAIID
ICLAYEY SAlID-SAllDY CLAY
ISAlIDY CLAY-SILTY CLAY
ISAIlDY CLAY-SILTY CLAY
ISAIlDY CLAY-SILTY CLAY
SILTY CLAY TO CLAY
SILTY CLAY TO CLAY
tSAlIDY CLAY-SILTY CLAY
ISAlIDY CLAY-SILTY CLAY
CLAYEY SILT-SILTY CLAY
ISAIlDY CLAY-SILTY CLAY
ISANDY CLAY-SILTY CLAY
ISAlIDY CLAY-SILTY CLAY
SILTY CLAY TO CLAY
CLAm SILT-SILTY CLAY .
CLAYEY SILT-SILTY CLAY
CLAm SILr-SILTY CLAY
CLAYEY SILT-SILTY CLAY
SILIT CLAY TO CLAY
SILTY CLAY TO CLAY
ISAIlDY CLAY-SILTY CLAY
SILTY CLAY TO CLAY
tSANOY CLAY-SILTY CLAY
I - IIlDICATBS OVEllCONSOLlDATBD OR CEKElIl'BD Il!I'ERUL
:= The Earth -Technology Corporation
EQUIV
BBLA TIVR
OBllSITY
--.....-..-
90-100
60-10
10-50
10-50
50-60
10-50
10-50
10-50
10-50
10-50
50-60
50-60
60-10
60-10
60-10
50-60
10-50
10-50
60-10
60-10
50-60
10-80
9HOO
10-BO
BQUIV
FRICTION
ABGLS
lH5
10-42
35-10
10-12
lH2
10-l!
35-40
lH2
35-40
10-42
10-42
10-12
lH5
IH2
10-42
10-42
IH2
10-42
35-40
35-10
10-12
lH2
35-40
1HZ
BQUIV
Nl
HOO
60-80
20-25
Z5-40
25-40
25-10
25-10
2HO
20-25
25-40
25-40
10-60
60-BO
60-80
60-80
10-60
2HO
25-10
Z5-10
10-60
25-40
10-15
10-60
8HOO .
HOO
HOO
HOO
60-80
25-10
25-40
10-60
20-25
15-20
10-60
25-40
10-15
10-60
10-60
8HoO
25-40
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
20-25
15-20
60-80
Z5-40
25-10
--
RQUIV
Nl'
>100
60-80
20-25
25-10
25-40
20-25
25-40
25-10
20-25
20-25
. 25-10
. 10-60
60-80
60-80
60-80
10-60
25-40
25-10
10-60
10-60
10-60
20-25
10-60
80-100
>IOO
>IOO
HOO
60-80
10-60
10-60
60-80
25-40
25-40
10-60
25-40'
20-25
60-80
10-60
80-100
25-10
20-25
20-25
20-25
20-25
2HO
25-40
60-80
25-10
10-60
Sui:
IC-TI/Ne
(ksf)
2,02
2.01
3.29
2.09
5.21
3.ll
3.ll
3,15
2,31
3.38
l.ll
3.61
8.13
5.11
1.18
3.13
3,91
3,59
3.82
3.93
6,52
5,99
3.82
Su2:
FslA
(hf)
2.02
2.01
3,29
Z.09
5.21
3.11
3,ll
3.15
2,37
2,83
1.1l
3.61
8,13
1.53
3.01
2.50
2.98
2.91
3,82
3,52
6.52
5.22
3.82
??/
1
1
11
'"'-
'"If
"
~
4\.'1'
i'
\
rl'
ot
""
~.
,.
;!!II
ml
~
r....
~,:I
..
J.
#.
i
')!,
'I;
"
.
.1....
'.
-
"'1'
,
..1
'I"
.'
~~
"1
I
~I
o
DEPTH IN HETERS
.. In CD r- "' OJ 0 - '" 0'1 .. In
,. - ,. - ,. ..
, ,
DEPTH IN FEET
In 0 .. 0 .. 0 In 0 "'
- '" ... ...
'"
0'1
-
o
In
o
-
o
-
....
er
a:
-
ZN
0-
-
....
U
-
a:
...
I
II
.........
Z
-IX
_=>
0-1
enD
u
o
I,
e
e
...
hi
U
Z
er
....-
enN
-X
enu
hi....
a:c>
:c
Z-
0"-
-en
........
u
-
a:
...
..
0
0;
0 I.
e;;
0 . 1\
'N.
0 ~
]~ !\ .
\
::; \,
r
0 ~JI
:: IV
t >v-./V .N~
.,
.'. VI \~ A
\ 'V ~
,^,V
j. . .
- r .
--v... V\ .~ I r\ ( f'-v. It
N
'{ VI' It ~/
~r
..
CD \ n
...
hi
U
z_
erN
....X
enu
-....
In"
"'>:
a:-
"-
."'en
Z....
o
u
'"
.,
In
.,
-
In
-
o In 0
N '" OJ
DEPTH IN FEET
In
OJ
o
..
In
...
o
In
,
o
I I
- '"
.
0'1
I I
... In
I , I I
CDf'CDg,
I I
o _
-. -
,
'"
-
,
..
-
.
In
-
,
OJ
~-
DEPTH IN HETERS
t;'?
l-
ll')
llJ
I--
ll:
llJ'
I--
llJ
,]:
t:lcp
ll:f-
....0...
llJU
Z ..
llJW
LCD
o
a::
llJe..
Z
t:l
U
~
..
-
..
{i
~
li
~-=
Jl~
.,e-
.::;:..
....
III
:r
~
I to-
WNw
>00
WtOw
Olll:.:
IU
'Olll
U(T)~
. N U.
0::,
(Xl ..
WCDa:
Ul UJ(Xl
OC ,. lIJ m
wa:40l
>UJ::l....
zaJZJ
04 0
u=:J~~
zz,
'::J-~(O
UU::lO
WUJa:: ..
"l-UJ
cccnl-
a:a:za:
a..~-o
',I
.,
I
il
I
a....
\1
"
."1
\)
;
P-
I
i
r
\1
~
i
I
]
I
~I-
~
I'
;.:
t:
11
;;,
'",
tl
-".-
il
I
PENETROJ:v!ETER TEST DATA I
LOCATION : RANCHO CALIFORNIA
I
INSTRUMENT : F15CKE087 !
ELECTRDNICS: Tl I
OPERATOR : GB/DH I
Soil Total Unit Weight (pef): 120 I
I
CONE
SOUNDING : CPl'-9
PROJEcr : CONVERSE R,C, DEVE-WH
PROJEcr No: 88-230-5602
TEST DATE : 06-10-1988
Assumed Depth to Water (Feet): 50
llOllHALIZED FRICTION EQUIV BQUIV EQUIV EQUIV Sui: Su~:
DEPTH roHE RATIO SOIL BBII.\VIOR TYPE BEL.lTIVE FRICTION HI NI' (C-TI/He FsIA
(Ct) (taC) (S) DIDISITY AHGLE (ksC) (ksf)
--..-- ----- -- ------ ----- --------.. ---- --------- -------
1,0 51l,1 I.61 ISAND TO SILTY SAND >100 )100
~,O ~20,5 1.15 SAND TO SILTY SAND 10-80 40-12 HOO HOD
3.0 123,4 0,85 SAND TO SILTY SAND 50-50 40-4% 40-50 40-50
4.0 118,3 0.68 S/JID TO SILTY SAND 40-50 40-12 2HO ~5-40
5.0 91,9 0.88 SAND TO SILTY 8AHIl 40-50 4HZ 25-40 25-40
6,0 113,4 0,12 SAND TO SILTY SAND 40-50 40-12 2HO ZHO
1.0 83-.4 0.98 SAND TO SILTY SAND 40-50 3HO 2HO 25-40
8.0 150,8 1,14 SAND TO SILTY S/JID 50-10 4H2 10-50 50-80
9.0 110.0 0.95 SAND TO SILTY SAND 50-50 40-1t 25-10 2HO
10,0 19,1 0.51 SAND TO SILTY SAND 30-10 3HO 15-20 15-20
11,0 51,5 1.18 SILTY 8AHIl-S/JIDYSILT 10-50 3HO 10-15 15-20
12.0 123.8 0,75 SAND TO SILTY S/JID 50-50 4H~ Z5-40 ~5-10
13.0 120,5 0.81 S/JID TO SILTY SAND 50-50 10-l~ ~HO ~HO
14.0 m.5 0.77 SAND TO SILTY SAHO 50-50 4H2 ~HO 2HO
15.0 134.0 0,58 SAND TO SILTY SAND 50-50 4H2 2HO ~5-10
15,0 113,5 0.98 SAND TO SILTY SAND 50-50 10-42 40-60 40-60
11,0 129.3 1.05 SAHD TO SILTY SAND 50-50 IH~ 10-60 10-60
lE.O 130.0 0.65 SAlID TO SILT! SAND 50-60 4H2 25-40 Z5-10
19,0 120,4 1.03 SAND TO SILTY SAND 50-50 40-4% 10-60 10-50
20.0 118,0 0,13 SAlID TO SILTY SAlID 50-50 10-42 60-80 40-50
21,0 188.8 1.03 SIJID TO SILTY SAND 50-10 4H~ 80-100 80-100
22.0 151.5 0,86 SAHD TO SILT! SAlID 50-60 40-42 40-60 10-60
~3,O 31,4 5,53 tSANDY CUY-SILTY CLAY %5-10 40-60 %.51 U7
24.0 143,8 o.n SAND TO SIm SAlID 50-50 40-42 40-60 10-50
~5,0 120.1 0.84 SAND TO SILTY SAHD 50-50 . 40-12 2HO 2HO
-';J\
I - DIDIC.lTES OVB8COHSOLIDAI'BD OB CllHRI/I'BD I!.\TRRIAL
- -
=- Th,;;:o 17r:;.,..+}, '1'~},nI"\7.....rl-P" r,...--.-._~:__
,
, -
~-I
,.
'I
[)
-
.fl.-'
:r
j,
"
'"
t.:I..
".
;:
I
g
II
iii
tl
l1.
~.,'
f~
~.
~
~
I
~.
ill
~
r....'.
:.I
,
I:'
\:,
..
II
tI
.,
r...--.
tI
fl.
r...
t__
-1
DEPTH I N METERS
a ~ '" OJ .. III eD r- eD OJ a ." '" OJ .. III
T' T' T' " " -
, , ,
DEPTtI I H FEET .....
a III a III a III 0 OJ a III 0 ~ If)
" " '" ... ..
IU
.....
o
...
...
er
0::
-
ZN
0-
...
...
U
...
0::
.....
J~
l~
\
Z
-""
...::>
0..J
<no
u
a
UJ
U
Z
er
...-
<nn
...:0::
<nu
UJ.....
0::'"
>::
z-
0.....
"'<n
......
u
...
0::
.....
..
a
OJ
..
a
OJ
.~
'"
h
a
'" . M
V
a , i
" '\JV
",,,^,,,
a
" ^\ . .
"^'
a
IV
I
(~ 'V ~ ~ /'\rP
'" If
V
..
CI>
UJ
U
z_
ern
...'"
lnU
...,
<n'"
UJ>::
0::-
"-
"'<n
Z...
o
U"
a
III
a
-
In
-
a In a
'" '" OJ
DEPTH IN FEET
III a III a
OJ ... ... III
. . , , , ,
a " '" OJ .. In
- " - - - -
,
Q
f I
~ '"
.
OJ
I l
.. In
,
CI>
.
...
.
CD
,
OJ
DEPTH IN METERS
o
o
~
'"
,;
0:
IU
I-
IU
,]:
tJ'f
0:1-
1-0....
IUU
Z ..
IUW
0.. OJ
o
0:
1Ua...
Z
tJ
U
~
'"
-
'"
~
...
~
<:
-<::'"
....-
~l
..::-
~'"
....
III
:r:
~
I t'-
UJNID
>00
UJ(OUJ
0lJ1:.::
IU
. Olf)
UCTl_
~Nu.
I ..
UJIDa:
UJIDIJ.JID
Cl: .. CD ID
UJ a::!:0l
> lJ.J=:).....
z CDZ I
O:!: 0
U ::J 1-.....
zz J
.. IJ.J
f-f-:!:(O
U.U:::lO
lJ.JLL1a:..
"",i-lLl
ceCIl/-
a: a::z a:
a...a...-o
I
II
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
110231-003
APPENDIX D
Laboratorv Testing Procedures and Test Results
Atterberg Limits: The Atterberg Limits were determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method
04318 for engineering classification of the fine-grained materials and presented in the table below:
Plastic Plastic USCS
Sample Location Liquid Limit (%) Limit (%) Index (%) Soil Classification
B-1, Bag No.1, 0-4' NP* NP NP NP
B-8, Bag No. 11,30-33' 39 20 19 CL
B-9, Ring No.8, 13' 61 28 33 CH
· NP = Non Plastic
Consolidation Tests: Consolidation tests were performed on selected, relatively undisturbed ring samples in
general accordance with ASTM test method D2435. Samples were placed in a consolidometer and loads
were applied in geometric progression. The percent consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as the
ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original I-inch height. The consolidation pressure curves
are presented in the test data (attached).
Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests were performed on selected undisturbed and remolded samples which
were soaked for a minimum of 24 hours under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing.
Samples were then transferred to the shear box, reloaded, and pore pressures set up in the sample (due to
transfer) were allowed to dissipate for a period of approximately one-hour. Following pore pressure
dissipation, samples were subjected to shearing forces. The samples were tested under various normal loads
by a motor-driven, strain~ontrolled, direct-shear testing apparatus at a strain rate of less than 0.001 to 0.5
inches per minute (depending upon the soil type). The test results are presented in the test data.
Friction Apparent
Sample Location Sample Description Angle (degrees) Cohesion (pst)
Peak Relaxed Peak Relaxed
B-1, Bag No.1, 0-4' Yellow brown to olive brown, silty 32 30 0 100
SAND (SM) (remolded to 90%)
B-7, Ring No.2, 5' Brown, Poorly Graded SAND, 41 34 350 125
with silt (SP/SM)
Maximum Densitv Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials
were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557. The results of these tests are presented in
the table below:
Maximum Optimum Moisture
Sample Location Sample Description Dry Density
(pet) Content (%)
B-1, Bag No. I, 0-4' Yellow brown to olive brown, 121.0 8.5
silty SAND (SM)
B-8, Bag No. 11,30-33' Grey-olive to brown-olive, sandy 116.0 12.0
clay (CL)
fJ&
D-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
110231-003
Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of the selected material was evaluated by the Expansion
Index Test, ASTM D4829. The specimen was molded under a given compactive energy to approximately
the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation or approximately 90 percent relative
compaction. The prepared I-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimen was loaded to an equivalent 144 psf
surcharge and inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of this test is
presented in the table below:
Compacted Expansion Expansion
Sample Location Dry Density
Sample Description (pet) Index Potential
B-8, Bag No. 11,30-33' Grey-olive to brown-olive, 105.1 85 Medium
sandy clay (CL)
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate content of a selected sample was determined by standard geochemical
methods in general accordance with the CTM 417 test method. The test results are presented in the table
below:
Sample Location Sample Description Sulfate Potential Degree of
Content (ppm) Sulfate Attack*
B-1, Ring No.2, 5' Olive-brown, sandy silt (ML) <150 Negligible
B-8, Bag No. 11,30-33' Grey-olive to brown olive, sandy <150 Negligible
clay (CL)
B-1, Ring No.4, 15' Dark olive-brown, silty clay (ML) <150 Negligible
*Based on the 1997 editioo of the Uniform Building Code, Table No. 19-A-4, prepared by the International Conference of
Building Officials (ICBO).
Hvdrocollapse Tests: Hydrocollapse tests were performed on selected, relatively undisturbed ring samples.
Samples were placed in a consolidometer and loads were applied in geometric progression. The percent
hydrocollapse for each load cycle was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the
original I-inch height. A negative test result indicates sample expansion upon wetting. The hydrocollapse
pressure curves are presented in the test data. Where applicable, time-rates of hydrocollapse were recorded
and presented below:
Sample Location Sample Description Dry Density % Hydrocollapse
(before test) (pct)
B-2, Ring No.3, 10' Dark reddish-brown silty, SAND (SCISM) 123.0 0.18
B-2, Ring No.5, 20' Dark olive-brown, sandy clayey SILT 106.1 0.32
(SC/ML)
B-3, Ring No.4, 15' Dark brown, silty SAND (SM) 110.2 0.55
B-4, Ring No.1, 2' Dark brown, silty SAND (SM) 120.6 0.15
B-5, Ring No.2, 5' Dark green-brown, silty SAND (SM) 121.7 0.65
B-6, Ring No.1, 2' Medium olive-brown, silty SAND and 124.7 0.51
sandv SILT (SM/ML)
D-2
~\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
110231-003
"R"-Value: The resistance "R".value was determined by the California Materials Method No. 301 for
subgrade soils. Two samples were prepared and exudation pressure and "R"-value determined on each one.
The graphically determined "R"-value at exudation pressure of 300 psi is summarized in the table below:
II Sample Location I Sample Description I R-Value I
B-1, Bag No.1, 0-4' Yellow brown to olive brown, silty 70
SAND (SM)
B-9, Bag No.8, 4-5' Olive-brown, silty SAND (SM) 62
Minimum Resistivitv, Chloride and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity, Chloride, and pH tests were performed
in general accordance with California Test Methods 532, 422. The results are presented in the table below:
Sample Location Sample Description pH Minimum Resistivity Chloride Content
( ohms-cm) (ppm)
B-9, Ring No.7, 12' Grey to dark red-brown, - - 246
Sandy clay (CUCH)
Classification or Grain Size Tests: Typical materials were subjected to mechanical grain-size analysis by
sieving from U.S. Standard brass screens (ASTM Test Method 0422). The data was evaluated in determining
the classification of the materials. The grain-size distribution curves are presented herein (attached), and the
Unified Soil Classification (USCS) is presented in the test data and the boring logs. These results include
hydrometer test results where performed (attached)
Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content and dry density determinations were
performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings and/or trenches. The results of
these tests are presented in the boring logs. Where applicable, ouly moisture content was determined from
"undisturbed" or disturbed samples.
Pinhole Dispersiion Tests: The qualitative measurement of the dispersibility and consequent
colloidal erodibility of clay soils were performed on select soils sample(s) in general accordance with
ASTM D46460.
Sample Location Description Dispersion Classification
B-8, Bag No. 11,30-33' Grey-olive to brown olive, sandy ND3 - Slightly Dispersive
clay (CL) (remolded to 90%)
~co
D-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
:t:
Cl 50
[j
:::
~ 50
0::
UJ
::!: 40
u.
I-
Z
~ 30
c::
UJ
Q.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
60
/
/
/
/
/
/~/
For classification offine.grained
50 soils and fine-grained fraction of
coarse.grained soils
ClorOL
MHorOH
CHorOH
Q:
-;; 40
~
."
~
- 30
~
g
(II 20.
~
Q:
///
/
/
///
/
/
/
/
10
,
Ml or Ol
o
o
70
80
90
100
20
30 40 50 60
Liquid Limit (LL)
10
GRAVEL
COARSE FINE
MEDIUM FINE
SAND
FINES
SILT
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING
3.0. 1 112~ 314ft 318"
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
#10 #20 #40 #60 #100
HYDROMETER
#4
#200
100
I ....... "'-. I
I
,
I
I
I "-
II '\
\...
II "\
Ii I
II
!
I
I
I
i
I
,
90
80
70
20
10
o
100.000
1.000
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
0.100
0.010
10.000
Boring
No.
B-2
Sample
No.
3
Soil Type GR SA FI LL PL PI
(%)
SCISM 0 54 45 N/A N/A N/A
Depth
(ft.)
10.0
r;:1f~:':::::&*'LABS. LvI.'.
~-...~-,- "~:"'~"~~~:-,-~
Project No.:
110231.()03
Harveston
Sample Description:
Brown clayey I silty sand (SCISM)
ATTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE - SIZE CURVE
ASTM 0 4318, 0 422
~
I
I
08-01
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
:I:
C> 60
W
s:
1;; 50
c::
UJ
;!; 40
u..
I-
Z
~ 30
c::
UJ
Co.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
60
For classification of fine-grained
50 soils and fine-grained fradion of
coarse-grained soils
~/./~ .
CHorOH
//
/-
//
./
CLorOl
MH or OH
a:
;; 40
"
"0
C
- 30
i:'
;g
~ 20
~
a:
/
/
/
/
/
10
/
MLorOL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit (LL)
GRAVEL SAND FINES
COARSE FINE CRSE MEDIUM FINE SILT
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER HYDROMETER
3.0M 1112" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
I '.... J-... I I
[\
\
1'\
,
\.
I \
I I
I
I I
I I
90
80
70
20
10
o
100.000
10.000
1.000
PARTICLE" SIZE (mm)
0.100
0.010
Boring
No.
B-3
Sample
No.
3
Depth
(ft.)
10.0
Soil Type
GR SA FI LL PL PI
(%)
o 60 40 N/A N/A N/A
SM/SC
Sample Description:
Brown silty I clayey sand (SM/SC)
T;ft?f.~':::::~~~*,:;:LARS. INC.
..-.,........"'.. c~c;;:..,.'~~~_~:'-~"..""
Project No:
110231-003
I
I
Harveston
ATTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE - SIZE CURVE
ASTM D 4318, D 422
fP
08-01
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
60
/
//
50
For classification of fine-
arained soils and fine-
arained fraction of
coarse-a rained soils
//"
/"
CH or O~////
///1
/ I
/
/
ii:
-;; 40
~
"C
"
- 30
~
:~
Vi 20
~
ii:
/
/' CLorOL
/"/
//
/
/
/
/"
MH or OH
//
10
CL.ML ~/ MLorOL
o
o
10
20
30
40 50 60
Liquid Limit (LL)
70
80
90 100
GRAVEL
COARSE FINE
u.S. STD. SIEVE OPENING
3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4
CLAY
FINES
SILT
CRSE
FINE
u.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
#10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
I i"
I"
I \
\
't
'-
-......
...... ......
I
90
80
70
....
:I:
~60
UJ
3:
1;; 50
Q(
UJ
;;!; 40
u.
....
Z
~ 30
Q(
UJ
a.
20
10
o
100.000
10.000
1.000 0.100
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
0.010
0.001
Boring
No.
B-3
Sample
No.
5
N/A,N/A,N/A
Depth
(ft.)
20
Soil Type
GR:SA:FI
(%)
0:51:49
LL,PL,PI
SC
!;~TE~:!'\~EST
'~,.,!1:}",'"
Project No.: 110231-003
Sample Description:
Olive brown clayey sand (SC)
HARVESTON
ATTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE - SIZE CURVE
ASTM D 4318, D 422
eo\
08-01
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
60
50
For classification of fine-
Qrained soils and fine-
arained fraction of
coarse-orained soils
./
CL or OL
//
CH or OH /"
//.
ii:
-; 40
~
"C
C
- 30
::
;g
~ 20
m
ii:
/
MH or OH
10
~.~ MLorOL
o
o
10
20
30
40 50 60
Liquid Limn (LL)
70
80
90 100
GRAVEL
COARSE FINE
u.s. STD. SIEVE OPENING
3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4
FINES
100
CRSE FINE
U.s. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
#10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
CLAY
SILT
BO
-.., ""-
III
\.
\
I
'lI
.... r-. I
~
I I
90
70
I-
:I:
~60
w
$:
1;; 50
c::
w
z
u: 40
I-
Z
W
u 30
c::
w
c.
20
10
o
100.000
10.000
1.000 0.100
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
0.010
0.001
Boring
No.
B-6
Sample
No.
3
Depth
(ft.)
10
Soil Type
GR:SA:FI
(%)
1:55:44
LL,PL,PI
SM
N/A,N/A,N/A
Sample Description:
Brown silty sand (SM)
:r:,T~RJ\TEST Project No.: 110231-003
"t'~'!11lS ""'" HARVESTON
ATTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE - SIZE CURVE
ASTM D 4318, D 422
(p'V
08-01
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
60
/
/./
////
///
50
For classification of fine.
orained soils and fine-
arained fraction of
coarse-arained soils
CH or OH
1i:
';;"40
~
'0
~
- 30
~
:~
'tl 20
~
1i:
//
/CLorOL
/ .
/
//
//'
MH or OH
10
o /
o
~-~ MLorOL
70
10 20 30 40 50 60
Liquid Limit (LL)
80 90
100
GRAVEL
COARSE FINE
u.S. STD. SIEVE OPENING
3.0" 1 112" 3/4" 3/8" #4
SAND
FINES
SILT
CLAY
CRSE FINE
u.s. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
#10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
- ~
[\
\
I I
II ....... I I
'"
... I
I
"l
1--
I I
90
80
70
I-
:J:
~60
UJ
s:
fu 50
0::
UJ
~40
I-
z
UJ
U 30
0::
UJ
a.
20
10
o
100.000
10.000
1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
Depth Soil Type GR:SA:FI LL,PL,PI
(ft.) (%)
30-33 s(CL) 0:37:63 39,20,19
Boring
No.
B-8
Sample
No.
11
Sample Description:
Brown sandy lean clay s(CL)
E~TER.ATEST Project No.: 110231-003
..:'i"%,LAilBS ',., HARVESTON
ATTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE - SIZE CURVE
ASTM D 4318, D 422
(p~
08.01
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
60
/'
/'/~
/'//
50
For classification affine.
arained soils and fine-
orained fraction of
coarse-arained soils
CH or OH
ii:
;; 40
.
."
C
- 30
~
;g
. 20
~
ii:
.
10
/
/ CLorOL
//
MH or OH
o /
o
CL.M!.. MLorOL
10
20
70
30
40 50 60
Liquid Limit (LL)
80
90 100
GRAVEL
SAND
FINES
COARSE FINE
U.S. STD. SIEVE OPENING
3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4
CRSE MEDIUM FINE
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUM8ER
#10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
SILT
CLAY
100
'"
;-.... "-
......
\
~ I !
I ,
"'-
90
80
70
I-
J:
f2 60
w
:::
~ 50
c::
w
'"
u: 40
I-
'"
W
u 30
c::
W
0-
20
10
o
100.000
10.000
1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
Depth Soil Type GR:SA:FI LL,PL,PI
(ft.) (%)
13 (CH)s 0:24:76 61,28,33
Boring
No.
B-9
Sample
No.
8
Sample Description:
Brown fat clay with sand (CH)s
;;;"'.TERATE'ST Project No.: 110231-003
"0\t,~;t.~S ,., HARVESTON
ATTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE - SIZE CURVE
ASTM D 4318, D 422
(j\
08-01
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
~
'if.
~ 0.50
c:
0
~
E 1.00
0
-
OJ
0 1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
Boring
No.
8-6
It
r---... r---t-- \
\
'-- \
~~
\'
I Inundate with
Tap water
,\
~
0.01
0.10
1.00
Pressure, p (ksf)
10.00
100.00
Sample
No.:
Moisture
Content (%)
Initial Final
Initial Final
Dry Density
(pet)
Initial Final
Void Ratio
Degree of
Saturation (%)
Initial Final
Depth
(ft.)
3
10.0
7.6 14.2 129,2 125,1 0.305 0.321 67 100
Sample Description:
Brown clayey sand (Se)
~.". . ProjecINo.: 110231-003
..EI'ilATEST
. LAB$......... Harveston
,
ONE - DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
(ASTM D 2435)
<t?
08-01
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;;g
e.... 3.00
c
o
15
E 4.00
o
-
Q)
o
Boring
No.
B-3
0.00
II
'- Lf Inundate with
Tap water
\
1\
\
-- ......
1.00
2.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
0.01
0.10
1.00
Pressure, p (ksf)
10.00
100.00
Sample
No.:
Moisture
Content (%)
Initial Final
Initial Final
Dry Density
(pef)
Initial Final
Void Ratio
Degree of
Saturation (%)
Initial Final
Depth
(ft.)
2
5.0
4,7 14.1 115.7 121.5 0.457 0,379 28 98
Sample Description:
Brown silty sand (SM)
:r Project No.: 110231-003
~T~'l't.ATWST
"'~!!lS " Harveston
ONE - DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
(ASTM 0 2435)
rJr;
08-01
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;;g
e..... 3.00
<:
o
~
E 4.00
o
-
Ql
o
Boring
No.
8-5
0.00
.............
t
'\ \
\ -r Inundate with
Tap water
'"
"-
"- ~\
.....
1.00
2.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
0.01
0.10
1.00 10.00 100.00
Pressure, p (ksf)
Moisture Dry Density Void Ratio Degree of
Content (%) (pet) Saturation (%)
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final
Sample
No.:
Depth
(It.)
4
15,0
18.9 121,6 116.0 0.386 0.337 68 100
(,1
9.7
Sample Description:
Brown clayey sand (SC)
~.::n::RATIEST Project No.:
'~!l)S' Harveston
ONE - DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
(ASTM D 2435)
110231-003
08-01
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3030.1094
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING
1.0
General
1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and
earthwork shown on the approved grading planes) and/or indicated in the geotechnical
report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the
geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the
geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the
earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result
in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall
eriIploy the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The
Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical
report( s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical fmdings, conclusions,
and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work
plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel
to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.
During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe,
map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design
assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the
interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform
the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed
conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be
geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground
after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial
removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive ftIl.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-<:onditioning and processing of the
subgrade and ftIl materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the
attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to
. the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified,
experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of
ground to receive fill, moisture-<:onditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill.
The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these
Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely
responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications.
The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a
work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of
(pro
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTIfWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 2 of6
work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to
. commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical .
Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in
. advance of .such changes. so that appropriate, observations and tests can be planned and
accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware
of all grading operations,
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and
agency ordinances, these Specifications, and. the recommendations in the approved
geotechnical report(s) and grading planes). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition,
madequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in
.. a quality of workless tbanrequired in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant
shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be. stopped until
the conditions are rectified.
2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious
material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to
the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on
.. _. specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic
- materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter.
Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. .
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the
affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper
evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area
As presently defined by the State of California, most refmed petroleum products (gasoline,
diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered
to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids
onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fmes and/or imprisonment,
and shall not be allowed
~
3030.1094
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Leighton and Associates. Inc.
GENERAL EARTIlWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 3 of6
2.2 Processing: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the
. Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified. to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing
ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section.
. Scarification shall continue until soils are,broken down and free. of large clay lumps or
clods and the working surface is reasonably unifonn, flat, and free of uneven features that
would inhibit uniform compaction.
2.3 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the
approved geotechnical report( s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy,
organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to
competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.
2.4 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal
. to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details
for a graphic illustration. . The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and .
u. c, .atleast2 feet deep,intocornpetent material as, evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as c
otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping
flatter than 5: 1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade
for the fill.
2.5 Evaluation! Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and
processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded,
and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive
fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant
..0.. prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for
determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches,
3.0 Fill Material
3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to
placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high
expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical
Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.
3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defmed as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum
dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be burled or placed in fill unless location,
materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and
such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill.
Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet
of future utilities or underground construction.
3.3 I!!m2J1: If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall
10
3030.1094
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
......1. ....
. .,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Leighton and Associates. Inc.
GENERAL EARTIIWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 4 of6
meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the
Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2working days) before importing begins so that ..
its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed.
4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
4.1 Fill Lavers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per
Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The
Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading
procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread eveuly
and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.
. 4.2. _,_. Fill Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, .
.'. as necessary to attain'a relativelyuniforrn moisture'content at or slightly over optimum.; .
, Maximum density, and optimum .;soil..' moisture . content tests. shall, be, performed in._ _
accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method
DI557-91).
4.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture-<:onditioned, mixed, and eveuly
spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density
(ASTM Test Method 01557-91), Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be
either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently
achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.
4.4 . _ . Compaction offill Slooes:., In addition to.normal compaction procedures specified above,
compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot .
rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other. methods producing
satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant.. Upon completion of
grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of
maximum density per ASTM Test Method 01557-91.
4.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill
soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests
shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction
test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be
selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are' judged to be prone to
inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the filVbedrock benches).
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in
vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a
guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope
face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill
construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical
Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these
minimum standards are not met.
3030.1094
"\\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Leighton and Associates. Inc.
GENERAL EARTIfWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 5 of6
4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate
elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate
." ... with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade .stakes are established so that the
Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a .
minimum, two grade stakes witbin a horizontal.distance of 100 feet and vertically less than.
5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided.
5.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the
grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional
subdrains- and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions
encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for
line and'grade after installation and prior to.burial,'.'Sufficient-time should be allowed by the'
Contractor for these surveys; ,.'
6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the
Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans
are estimates ouly. The actual extent of removal shall, be determined by the Geotechnical .
Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut
slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the
slope; unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant .
7.0 Trench Backfills
7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench
excavations.
7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable
provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material
shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1
foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and
densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit
to the surface.
7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the .conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least
one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.
3030.1094
",\1,-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Leighton and Associates. Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 6 of 6
7.5
Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard
Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the
Geotechnical. Consultant that the fiU,lift, can- be. compacted to the minimum relative
compaction by his alternative equipment and method.-
'\'?
3030.1094
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NATURAL
GROUND
"'-
FlaIOVE
UNSUITABLE
1lA1ElIAl
FlU SLOPE
PROJECTEl PLANE
1 TO 1 M'\XIMIJU Fi'lCM TOE
OF SlOPE 'TO AFl'flOVE!) GflClJND
-L
== IIIN.---
~15' 1IIN.-1
LOWEST BElIClf
(K:1J
4' TYPICAl.
BENot LBEIICH
H6GHT
~,,,
FIU.QVEn-Cur
SlOF'E
--
-
---
-
2" lItN.
KE'!' DEl"TH
CUT FACl;
SHAU. BE CONSTFlJCl'EO PflIOR
. 'TO FiLl. Pl.AC8EHT'TO ASSlJfiE
AOeCUAn: GECLOGlC COlCITlCNS
Pl'lOJEC'TEl Pl.AHE
1 'TO 1 MA:ClMUM FMCM
TOe OF SlCI'E'TO
APf'ROIIED Gl'lCUNO
CUT FACl;
TO BE CCNSTRJCTEO Pl'lICR
TO FiLL FU~ lENT ,/ :::::-
,,/
,
cur .QVE.q..fILL
SlOF'E
OVERBUILT AND
'TllIIlBACX
REJIIOVE
UNSUITABLE
1lA1ElIAl
For Subdrain;s See
Standard DetaIl C
2" IIIN.
KE'!' DEPTH
-i%MJii=---
~ ~~
15' IIIN.
LOWEST BENClf
(KE'Il
BEliCH H6GHT -
BelCl-IING SHALl. BE DCNE WHEN SlOPS
ANGlE IS ECUAL TO OR GflEA1E"THAN 5:1
MlNIMUM BENCH HEiaHT SHAll. BE 4 '=1
MINIMUM FiLL W10TH SHAl.L BE 9 ,= I
'\~
IrnNG AND BENCHING
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPEQRCATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS A
-II
=-~
~ --
~ =~
Rev. 7 00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FINISH GRADE
--- ----
- - - - - = == = = == = = = = === = =::;[:=:: =:: = ::~~=:=~:: =:: =:: =::= ==== ~
__ .,r=" - ::t-- ---
_ _-========-=~ -tJ==== ~====-~=~==== =====-f:;-==-::-
_____;/ _ ____ "T:I2.J.----- \J.
__ __=,.::=::=::~::~~D::::==~=V~=~=====::~D;::~~::~::==-_.
=-=-=-~:;z- ii~==-=-=-=-==-=--4'MIN'-:-=~-~-~-~----:-~--
= ====== == =~ _ _= ===~= ~ == === =D~==== - = ==== == = .::===- ~= - -,
=~~== ==== =-==-==-==-= ==~~==== ===== ===~ -=-=-=- -- -- - -- -- -
JETTED OR FLOODED
APPROVED SOIL
· Oversize rock Is larger than a inches
in largest dImension.
. Backfill with approved soil jetted or
flooded In place 10 flll all the vcld~
· Do not bury rock within 10 feel: of
finish grade.
. Windrow of buried rock shall be
parallel to the flnished slcpe face.
SECllON A-A'
PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
- ---
-----
-------- --------
~::: ~ =~- = - ~ =- =-= ======== == = - =- = -~A ~-==-=======-= ~ -=- = -=- =- =- =- =-~.
- ----
_-_-_-_-:::-:::-:::-:::-:::- _:::-:::~-:::-:::-:::=:::=j AI :-::::::_=:::=:::~===:::::::::=:::=:::==~==========- ~
JETTED OR FLOODED
APPROVED SOIL
"\~
OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPEOFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS B
I
II
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NA1URAl
GROUND
~
~-~=~~=~=~=~~~;~~;=~=~=~=~~=== --
~- - - - -::-::=:-::--
~=~===-=-=-=- ===~=*
"'~ ~---~
- - - - ......
'.:. ::
TYPICAL
BBIICHING
REMOVE ;
UNSUITABLE MAlERIAL
'" ,~
SUBDRAIN
(See Alternates A and B)
SUBDRAIN AL1ERNATEA
PERFORATED PIPE SlRRDU\lDED
WITH FILTER MATBUAl
FIlTER MA1ERIAL
FILTER MATERIAL SHAll BE CLASS 2 PBl.MEABlEMATERIALFStSTATEOf
CAlIFORNIA. STANDARD SPECIFICATION, QR APPROVED ALTERNATE.
CLASS 2 GRADING AS FOllOV'l'S:
m1El MATERIAl. (9fT 1FT)
Seve5ize
,.--
3/4"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No. 30
No. 50
No. 200
Percent Passim
100
90-100
40-100
25-<0
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
SUBDRAlN AL lORNATE A-1
SUBDRAlN ALlORNATE A-2
SUBDRAIN AL 1ERNATE B
DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAlN TffiMlNAL
C3/4" GRAVEL WRAPPED IN Fll.1E\ FABRIC J
12" MIN. OVERlAP
~ Fll.TER FABRIC
(MIRAFl140NC OR
APPROVED EQUIVAlfNT) ;.;. ,,:- ~
..4:......
.....:Cfc" .
""""'
FlNlSHE!)GlWll!
FlLTERFABRlC
(MtRAFI1QCR
AI'I'A)\'EDEQ\4VAtfNT)
r-~""
I "~~
... 6ilIf'tN.
--
p"",,,,,,,,,
........
3/4"CPENGAAOEDGAAVa.
OIVPF'ROYEDEQ.I1VJlENT
SMIH.
3/4. MAX. GRAva OR
ALTERNATE B-1 APPROVED EQJIVAlENT AL1ERNATE B-2
(9FT '1FT)
o PERFORATED PIPE IS OPT1ONAL PER
GOVERNING AGENcY'S REQJIJlEMENT5
,\(p
CANYON
SUBDRAIN
GENERAl EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS C
..
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
IPMIN;.I
OUTLET PIPES
4"+ NON-PERFORATED PIPE,
100' MAX. O,c. HORIZONTALLY
30' MAX. O,c. VERTICAlLY
l'z _____________ ___ _
J ---~----------
~. -_ 2~~1N.-=- _
- - - -
---.----------------
------------------
___ - - - -=-=-2% MIN._- - - - - - __
I ' 15' MIN. -I
KEY DEPTH . KEY WID1H
2' MIN.
sUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B
sUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A
POSITIVE SEAL 9-KlJlD BE
PROVlD8) AT THE JOINT"
~
//
FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFI I4<J a>.
APPROVED
EqJ IV ALENT)
CALTRANS QASS 2
FILTER MATERIAl. (3FT.'1FT)
OlffiET PIPE
(NON-PERFa<ATID)
OUTLET PIPE }
(NON-PERPORATID) .. - . 6" MIN.
~ ,.:':-:.;
. .' 44 .~
::;..-- '.. ::. ~"MIN.
::;..--
3/4" ROO< (3FT.31FT)
WRAPPED IN FILTER FPBRIC
T -CCNNECTION FRO'!
COlLECTION PIPE TO amET PIPE
· SUB DRAIN INSTAllATION - subdrain collector pipe shall be installed with perforations down or,
unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant Outlet pipes shall be non-perforatEd
pipe. The subdrain pipe shall have at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot Perforation shall
be 1/4" to 1/2" if drilled holes are used, All subdrain pipes shall have a gradient at least 2 % towards the
outlet
.
sUBDRAIN PIPE - subdrain pipe shall be AS1M D2751, AS1M D1527 (Schedule 40) or sDR 23,5 ABS pipe
or ASTM D3034 (Schedule 40) or sDR 23.5 PVC pipe.
.
'\'\
All outlet pipe shall be placed in a trench and, after fill is placed above it, rodded In vertfy integrity,
BUTTRESS OR
- REPLACEMENT FILL
SUBDRAINS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPEOFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS D
I -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CUT-FILL 1RANSIllON LOTOVEREXCAVATION
REMM
UNSJrrA8lE \
GROUND - v.-'
--
- -
-
---
-
-
5',
MIN.
4'MIN. ,'</<'
T
-
-
...-::::
-CCl>lPACfED FllL .:> ..-::: -.
~ -.'"":-' ^ ..,..,
--~==:;-:;=-~ ::::-=-=-=-:;:::-~=~-=--
--- ~~
-------~- ~ .
-----.......-::---
_ TIPlC'l.
,,<,/ BENCHING
UNWEA1HERBl BBlROQ( OR MATERIPl. APPROVED
./ BY 1HE GEOTECHNICPl. CCl'ISULTANT
O\1:FEXCAVATE
AND RECCJo1PAcr
~.
~
..
SIDE HILL FILL FOR CUT PAD
NAllJRAl
GPOUND "'-- __
-
-
-
/'
/'
/'
/'
/
/
-
/'
RES1RIc:rED LSEAAEA
/
/'
/
/ FINISHED cur PPD
/
OVEREXCAVATE
AND Rf;CCMPACT
(REPlACEMEllTFIIL)
TIPlC'l.
BENCHING
SEE STANDARD C€TAIl FCR SUBDRAINS
WHEN REQ,JIREO BY GEorECHNlCPl. CCl'ISULTANT
,,'0
TRANsmON LOT FILLS
AND SIDE HILL FILLS
GENERAL EAR1HWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS E
SUBDRAIN OPTIONS AND BACKFILL WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF <;50
OPTION 1: PIPE SURROUNDED WITH
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
0~ON2:GRA~~D
IN FILTER FABRIC
5WPE
OR lEVEL
5WPE
OR lEVEL
WATERPROOANG
(SEE GENERAl. NOlCS) WATERPROOANG
(SEE GENERAl. NOlCS)
12' MINIMUM
, .
CLASS 2 PERMEABlE
FItTER MA1EUAl WEEP HOLE .,
WEEP HOLE .., (SCE GRADATION) 14 TO 1\'2 INQi SlZE
(SEE NOTE S) (SEE NOTE S) ,. GRAVEL WlWlPED IN FD..lER
.,. FABR1C
4 INOl DIAMETER '..
lEVEL OR PERFORATEP PIPE lEVEL OR
SWPE (SEE NOTE 3) SWPE
Class 2 Filter Penneable MaIerial Gradatkn
Per Caltrans Speciflcatla1s
Sieve Size
I"
3/4"
318"
No. 4
No. 8
No. 30
No. SO
No. 200
Percent Passil1Q
100
90-100
40-100
2S-4O
18-33
5-tS
0-7
0-3
GENERAL NOTES:
* Waterproofin9 should be provided where moisture nuisance problem through the wall is undesirable.
. .* Water proofing. of the walls I.s not under purview of the geotechnical engineer
. All drains should have a gradient of 1 percent minimum
'Outlet portion a/the subdrain should haw a 4~nch diameter solid pipe discharged Into a suitable dispcsal area designed bY the project
. engineer, The subdrain pipe should be accessible for maintenance (roddlng) .
*Other subdrain backfill options are subject to the review by the geotechnical engineer and modification of design parameters.
Notes:
1) Sand should have a sand equivalent of 30 or greater and.may be densified by water jetting,
2) 1 Cu. ft, per ft. of 1/4- to 11/2~nch size gravel wrapped In filter fabric
3) Pipe type should be A5TM 01527 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) SOR3S or A5TM 0178S Polyvinyl Chloride plastic (pVC), Schedule
40, Annco A2000 PVC, or approved equivalent. Pipe should be installed with perforations down. Pelforatlons should be 3/8 inch in
diameter placed at the ends of a 120-degree arc in two rows at 3-inch on centei- (slaggen!d)
4) Riter fabric should be Mlrafi 140NC or approved equivalent.
S) Weephole should be 3-inch minimum diameter and provided at 10-foot maximum Intervals. If exposure is pennitted, weepholes should
be located 12 inches above finished grade. If exposure is not pennitted such as for a wall adjacent to a sidewalk/auD, a pipe under the
sidewalk to be discharged throu9h the curb face or equivalent should be provided. For a basement-type wall, a proper subdrain outlet
system should be provided,
6) Retaining wall plans should be relliewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer. ,\p...
7) Walls over six feet in height are subject to a special review by the geotechnical engineer and modifications to the above requirements.
RETAINING WALL BACKALL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL
FOR WALLS 6 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT
WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF <50