HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 34220 Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation.~',e .~~~~D
SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION
LA BELLA VIDA "
LOMA LINDA ROAD
AT TEMECULA LANE
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PREPAREDFOR
D.R. HORTON
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 8, 2005
1
GEOCON
INLAND EMPIRE, INC.
Project No. T2288-12-01
February 8, 2005
D.R. Horton
5927 Priestly Drive, Suite 200
Carlsbad, Califomia 92008
Attention: Mc Pat Parker
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS ~~
~
GEOCON [NLAND EMPIRE, INC.
Subject: LA BELLA VIDA
LOMA L[NDA ROAD AT TEMECULA LANE
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Dear Mr. Parker:
In accordance with your request, we have performed a supplemental geotechnical investigation for
the subject property located in the southwestern area of Temecula, California. The accompanying
report presents the results of our study and includes our wnclusions and recommendations pertaining
to the geologic and geotechnical aspects of developing the property as presentiy proposed. Itis our
opinion that the site is suitable for development, provided the recommendations of this report are
followed.
Should you have questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the
undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
y~~RED ~Fp~O
~ \
~ usaa. ~',.
IATO ~
attiato
Lisa A ~ N0. 2316 "''
.
CEG 2316 * CEflTIFiED *
ENGINEERING
Nj, GEOLOGIST ~~Q'
9r~~F CAUF~P
~ 41571 Corning Ploce, $uite 101 ^ Murrieta, California 92562-7065 ^ Telephone ~951 ~ 304-2300 ^ Fox ~951 ~ 304~2392
Z
(6) Addressee
,
I',
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ....
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
~ 3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ...........................................
3.1 Undocumented Fill (Qud~ .......................................................
~ 3.2 Alluvium (Qal) .........................................................................
4. GROUNDWATER .............................................................................
.........................2
.........................2
.........................2
..........................2
5. GEOLOG[C HAZARDS ........................................................................... .......................................2
5.1 Faulting and Seismicity ................................................................... .......................................2
5.2 Seismic Design Criteria .................................................................. .......................................3
53 Liquefaction .................................................................................... .......................................4
5.4 Seismically Induced Flooding ......................................................... .......................................4
6. CON CLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... .......................................5
6.1 General ...................................................................................:........ .......................................5
6.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics ................................................ .......................................5
6.3 Grading ....................................................................:...................... .......................................6
6.4 Bulking and Shrinkage Factors ....................................................... .......................................7
6.5 Slopes ............................................................................................... ......................................8
6.6 Foundation ....................................................................................... ......................................8
6.7 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads .................................................. ....................................12
6.8 Flexible Pavement Design ............................................................... ....................................13
6.9 Slope Maintenance ........................................................................... ....................................14
6.10 Drainage ........................................................................................... ....................................14
6.11 Plan Review ..................................................................................... ....................................14
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
REFERENCES
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Geologic Map
Figure 3, Surficial Slope Stability Analysis
APPENDIX A
FIELD [NVESTIGATION
Figures A-1 - A-4, Logs of Borings
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Table B-I, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results
Table B-II, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results
Table B-III, Summary of Laboratory Single-Point (Collapse) Consolidation Tests
Table B-IV, Summary of Laboratory Water-Sotuble Sulfate Test Results
Table B-V, Summary of Laboratory Atterberg Limits Tests
Figure B-1, Grain-Size Distribution Curves
APPENDIX C
BOR[NG LOGS AND LABORATORY DATA FROM C.H.J. INC., 2003
APPENDIX D
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
APPENDIX E
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
~
~
, , SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
I~ 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the findings of a supplemental geotechnical investigation for a proposed
i approximately 22-acre multi-family residential subdivision located immediately northwest of the
intersection of Loma Linda Road and Temecula Lane in Temecula, California (see Vicinity Map,
, Figure 1). The purpose of the investigation was to review the previous geotechnical investigation for
the site, evaluate the site geologic conditions, sample and observe the prevailing soil conditions and,
based on the conditions encountered, provide recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of
' developing the project as presently proposed.
' The scope of the supplemental investigation included a site rewnnaissance, review of previous
geotechnical reports prepared for the site, review of aerial photographs and pertinent geologic
' literature (see References); and the excavation of four exploratory borings. Details of the field
investigation are presented in Appendix A. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are
depicted on the Geologic Map, Figure 2.
~ Laboratory testing was performed on samples of materials obtained from. the exploratory excavations
1 to determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, in-situ moisture and density,
expansion potential, Atterberg Limits, collapse potentiai, grain size distribution and water-soluble
, sulfate content. Details of the laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B.
A geotechnical investigation was prepared for the site by CHJ, Inc. in 2003. CHJ excavated ten small
diameter borings to a maximum depth of 48'/z feet. Their liquefaction analysis considered a high
groundwater level of 25 feet bgs, a ground acceleration of 0.76g, and a Mw of 7.5. CHJ indicated that
liquefaction within well and poorly graded sand layers was probable to a depth of 39 feet and a 26 to
28 foot thick layer of non-liquefiable soil would be necessary above the liquefaction zone [o prevent
surface manifestation of liquefaction. CHJ discussed pile foundations and provided recommendations
i~ for both conventional and post-tensioned slab foundation systems. CHJ recommended a removal of
two feet to native soils. CHJ estimated a seismic settlement of 3.1 inches and a differential settlement
I of 1.5 inches. Laboratory results indicated soils had an expansion potential of low and near medium,
negligible sulfate content and were moderately to severely corrosive. CHJ's boring logs and
laboratory data are included in Appendix C. Their boring locations are noted on Figure 2.
'
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site is an irregular-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 22 acres, located
immediately nor[hwest of the intersection of Loma Linda Road and Temecula Lane in Temecula,
~
5
, Project No. T2288-]2-Ol - 1- February 8, 2005
California. The site is bounded on the southwest by Pechanga Pazkway; on the southeast by Loma
Linda Road; on the northeast by Temecula Lane; on the north by Canterfield Drive; and on the
northwest by an existing residential tract. Topographically, the site is relatively flat, sloping gently to
the northwest. At the time of our investigation, channel improvements were under construction along
the southwestern portion of the property, northeast of Pechanga Parkway. The southwestem area of
the property was being utilized as a fill stockpile and staging area for the channel improvements.
Several undocumented fill and debris piles were observed throughout the property as were building
foundations. On-site sewage disposal systems and well(s) are likely present within the property in
association with the former strucwres. Elevations range from approximately 1430 feet above Mean
Sea Level (MSL) in the southem portion of the property to 1415 feet above MSL in the northern
portion. '
We understand that a multi-family residential subdivision with associated street improvements is
proposed for the property. A topographic map obtained from the CHJ report was utilized as the base
map for our Geologic Map, Figure 2. It is anticipated that the maximum cut and fill depths (exclusive
of remedial grading) will be approximately 5 feet. Fill slopes are anticipated to be less than 10 feet
high and to be constructed at a ratio of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical).
The descriptions of the site and proposed development are based on a site reconnaissance,
observations during the field investigation, and a review of the referenced geologic publications. If
project details differ significantly from those described, Geocon should be contacted for review and
possible revision to this report.
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The materials encountered on the site include su~cial soils consisting of undocumented fill and
altuvium. Bedrock was not encountered to the maximum depth of exploration at 51 feet. The surficial
soils encountered are discussed below.
3.1 Undocumented Fill (Qudf)
, Undocumented fill was encountered to depths of one to four feet within the CHJ borings in the
southeastern and southwestem portions of the site. Geocon boring B-1 encountered three feet o£ fill in
the southern portion of the property. Several stockpiles of fill and debris were observed throughout
~ the property. The fill encountered within the borings consisted of loose to medium dense, damp to
moist, dark brown fine sand. The fill stockpiles appear to have been generated by the adjacent
I~ channel improvements; therefore, the soils are likely similar to those encountered within the borings.
The undocmnented fill is not considered suitable for the support of engineered fill or improvements
~
, Project No. T2288-12-O1 - 2- February 8, 2005
~
and will require will require removal and replacement prior to placing additional fill or settlement-
sensitive structures.
3.2 Aliuvium (Qal)
Alluvial deposits are present throughout the site and extend to depths in excess of 50 feet. A slightly
older alluvial stream terrace is present within the southwestern half of the site. Although this is an
older geomorphic surface than the younger stream channel deposits located in the northeastern half of
he site, both of the units are mapped as Qal for the purposes of this report. The alluvium is generally
comprised of stiff/loose to very stiff/medium dense, moist, silts, clays and fine to coarse sands. The
upper portion of the allwium will require remedial grading prior to placing additional fill or
settlement-sensitive structures.
4. GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was not encountered within the exploratory borings to a depth of 50 feet. CHJ reports
historic groundwater was 1 foot to 29 feet below the ground surface between 1924 and 1960, with a
drop in groundwater levels of 70 feet between 1995 to 2000,to a depth of 95 feetin 2003. They
considered a high groundwater level of 25 feet below ground surface likely during the lifetime of the
development. Groundwater related problems are not expected to be encountered during site
development [f shallow perched groundwater is encountered during construction, it is our opinion
that it can be managed with the use of sump pumps placed in the bottom of excavations.
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
5.1 Faulting and Seismicity
The site, like the rest of southern Califomia, is located within a seismically active region near the
active margin behveen the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The principal source of
seismic activity is movement along the northwest-trending regional faults such as the San Andreas,
San Jacinto and Elsinore fault zones. These fault systems are estimated to produce up to
approximately 55 millimeters of slip per year between the plates.
~ By definition of the State Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is one, which has had surface
~ displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 1 I,000 years). This definition is used in
- delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act
I of 1972 and as revised in 1994 and 1997 as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and
Earthquake Fault Zones. The intent of the act is to require fault investigations on sites located within
i Earthquake Fault Zones to preclude new construction of certain habitable structures across the traces
, of active faults.
' Project No. T2288-12-01 - 3- February 8, 2005
1
Based on our review of the referenced literature, the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault
Hazard Zone. Additionally, the site is not located within a Riverside County Earthquake Fault Zone.
The site could, however, be subjected to significant shaking in the event of a major earthquake on the
San Jacinto fault or other nearby regional faults. Structures for the site should be constructed in
accordance with current UBC seismic codes and local ordinances.
5.2 Seismic Design Criteria
Our evaluation of the regional seismicity included a deterministic analysis utilizing FRISKSP and
EQSEARCH and UBCSEIS (Blake, 2000a, b, and c). The nearest known active faults are the Wolf
Valley fault located approximately 600 feet west of the property; the Wildomar fault Iocated 1800
feet northeast of the property; the Willard fault located approximately 1 mile west of the property.
Due to the proximity and potential magnitude of a seismic event along the Wildomar fault, it is
considered the fault for which the design basis earthquake will be calculated.
The Uniform Building Code (UBC) established SeiSmic Zones (ofren accepted as minimum
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°/o probability that a horizontal peak ground
acceleration of 0.60g (probabilistic mean) would be exceeded in 50 years. The design earthquake is
considered a magnitude 6.8 Mw event that would generate a probabilistic peak ground acceleration
(PHGA) of 0.60g (FRISKSP, Blake 2000). The effect of seismic shaking may be reduced by adhering
to the 1997 UBC and seismic design parameters suggested by the Structural Engineers Association of
California. The UBC seismic design parameters for this site are presented on Table 5.2:
TABLE 5.2
SITE DESIGN CRITERIA
Parameter Value UBC Reference
Seismic Zone Factor 0.40 Table 16-I
Soil Profile Sp Table 16-J
Seismic Coefficient, C, 0.57 Table 16-Q
Seismic Coefficient, C~ 1.02 Table 16-R
Near-Source Factor, Na 1.3 Table 16-5
Near-Source Factor, N~ 1.6 Table 16-T
Seismic Source 8 Table 16-U
The principal seismic considerations for most structures in southern California are surface rupturing
of fault traces and damage caused by ground shaking or seismically induced ground settlement. The
possibiliTy of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since active faults are not known to
O
Project No. T2288-12-O1 - 4- February 8, 2005
,
, cross the site. Lurching due to ground shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a
significant hazard, although it is a possibility throughout southem California.
,
5.3 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose
shear strena h during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include
intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in-situ
stress conditions and the depth to groundwatec Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in
the liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake
accelerations.
To evaluate the potential for liquefaction, the high groundwater level was considered to be at a depth
of 25 feet and the soil profile from Boring B-2 was utilized. The results of this analysis (see
Appendix D), using the computer program LIQUEFY 2, indicates that portions of the subsurface soils
are potentially susceptible to liquefaction upon application of a 0.60g acceleration. Given the relative
thickness of the potentially liquefiable soil compared to the thickness of the overlying nonliquefiable
soil, it is our opinion that surface manifestations resulting form soil liquefaction are not likely. The
most significanl impact of the liquefaction will be settlement caused by volumetric strain within the
liquefiable layers. Based on relationships development by Tokimatsu and Seed, we estimate that the
differential settlement resulting from soil liquefaction will be less than 2 inches over a 40-foot span.
However, Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) borings on the easterly adjacent property (Geocon, 2003)
indicate that the liquefaction potential is less than that noted by the hollow-stem borings.
5.4 Seismically Induced Flooding
' Seismically induced flooding due to a tsunami at the site is considered highly unlikely due to the
property's location at approximately 45 miles from the nearest coastline and a low site elevation in
excess of 1415 feet above MSL. The site is located approximately 6 miles west oF Vail Lake
, Reservoir. Due to the distance, it is unlikely that the site would be significantly affected in the event
of failure of Vail dam. Therefore, flooding due to dam rupture is also considered unlikely at the
' property. ,
'
,
~
~
, Project No. T2288-12-01 - 5- February 8, 2005
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General
6.1.1 No soil or geologic conditions were encountered at the site that would preclude the
development of the property as a residential subdivision provided that the recommen-
dations of this report are followed.
6.1.2 The existing fill and upper portion of the alluvium is considered unsuitable in its present
condition for support of surface improvements and will require removal, moisture
conditioning and compaction.
6.13 Portions of the soils possess a potential for (iquefaction. It is our opinion that the presence
of the liquefaction-susceptible soils will not have a significant impact on project
development. The magnitude of seismic-induced settlements are expected to be within
acceptabte limits..
6.1.4 Groundwater was not encountered during the CHJ or Geown investigations. Based on
recent well data, current groundwater is approximately 95 feet bgs. Therefore, groundwater
related problems are not expected to be encountered during site development.
6.1.5 The majority of the on-site materials consist of sands, silts and clays, which generally
possess a low to rnedium expansion potential, as defined by the Uniform Building Code
(UBC) Section 18-I-B, and exhibit moderate shear strength characteristics. Very low to low
(EI<50) expansive on-site soils are considered suitable for use as fill, capping of lots and
construction of fill slopes. Materials with an expansion potential greater than low (EI?51)
should be kept at least 3 feet below proposed finish grade elevations (if possible).
6.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics
6.2.1 In our opinion, the fill and alluvium can be excavated with conventional grading
equipment.
6.2.2 Excavations should be performed in conformance with OSHA requirements. Excavations
made adjacent to property lines or the existing improvements should nob be left open
during hours when construction is not being performed.
6.23 Laboratory testing was performed on soil samples obtained from the exploratory
excavations to determine the expansion characteristics. Results of Expansion Index tests
are presented in Table B-II. The on-site soils are expected to generally have a low
' Project No. T2288-12-01 - 6- February 8, 2005
\O
expansion potential (Expansion Index of 50 or less) as defined by the Uniform Building
Code (UBC) Table No. 18-I-B. Some localized medium expansive soil (EI>50) may also be
present on-site. Laboratory Expansion Index testing should be performed on soils exposed
at finish grade subsequentto the completion of grading to verify the at-grade expansion
characteristics.
6.2.4 The results of laboratory testing indicates that the samples tested yielded water-soluble
sulfate contents with a negligible sulfate rating as defined by the 1997 Uniform Building
Code (UBC) Table 19-A-4. Resistivity testing by CHJ indicates on-site soils are
n:oderately to severely corrosive. These tests are general indications only and additional
testing should be performed at finish grade (materiais within 3 feet of rough pad grade
elevations).
6.2.5 Geocon does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, if improvements
that could be susceptible to corrosion are planned, it is recommended that further
evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed. It is also recommended that these results,
and the recommendations from the corrosion engineer be forwarded to the appropriate
design team members (i.e., project architect, engineer, etc.) for incorporation into the plans
and implementation during construction.
6.3 Grading
63.1 Grading should be performed in accordance with the Recon:mended Grading Specifications
contained in Appendix E and the requirements of the city of Temecula. Where the
recommendations of this section conflict with those of Appendix E the recommendations of
this section take precedence.
63.2 Prior to grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with the owner or
developer, grading contractor, civil engineer and geotechnical engineer in attendance.
Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time.
633 Site preparation should begin with the removal of deleterious material, underground
utilities, on-site sewage disposal systems, cons[ruction debris and vegetation. The depth of
removal should be such that material exposed in cut areas or soils to be used as fill are
relatively free of organic matter. Material generated during stripping and/or site demolition
should be exported from the site.
1 6.3.4
,
Any on-site wells should be abandoned in accordance with California Well Standards
Bulletin 74-81, amended by Bulletin 74-90.
' Project No. T2288-12-O1 - 7- February 8, 2005
~`
i~
, 63.5 The fill and upper portion of the alluvium should be removed to a depth where suitable
alluvium is encountered. The estimated depth to suitable soil at the Geocon borings, is
, indicated on the Geologic Map (Figure 2). Building pads regardless whether they are cut or
fill pads, should be underlain by at least 4 feet of compacted fill. Actual removal depths
' should be determined by our personnel at the time of mass grading based on the actual soil
conditions encountered.
' 63.6 During remedial grading temporary slopes should be planned for an inclination no steeper
than l:l (horizontal:vertical). Grading should be scheduled to backfil( against these slopes
, as soon as practical. Removals along the edge of grading should include excavation of
unsuitable soils that would adversely affect the performance of the planned fill, i.e., extend
removals within a zone defined by a Iine projected down and out at an inclination of 1:1
, from the limit of grading to intersect with approved left-in-place soils.
63J Afrer removal of surficial soils, the exposed ground surface should be scarified, moisture
conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture content, and compacted. Fill soils may
then be placed and compacted in layers to the design finish grade elevations. Fill, including
backfill and scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
laboratory maximum dry density and near optimum moisture content, as determined by
ASTM Test Procedure D 1557-02.
6.4 Bulking and Shrinkage Factors
Estimates of embankment bulking and shrinkage factors are based on comparing laboratory
compaction tests with the density of the material in its natural state as encountered in the
exploratory excavations. It should be emphasized that variations in natural soil density, as
well as in compacted fill density, render shrinkage value estimates very approximate. As an
example, the contractor can compact the fill soils to any relative compaction of 90 percent
or higher of the maximum laboratory density. Thus, the contractor has approximately a
10 percent range of control over the fill volume. Based on the limited work performed to
date, it is our opinion that the following shrinkage and bulking factors can be used as a
basis for estimating the amount that the on-site soils may shrink or swell (bulk) when
excavated from their natural sta[e and placed as compacted fills.
~~
' Project Na T2288-12-O1 - 8- February 8, 2005
,
'
'
TABLE 6.4
SHRINK/BULK FACTORS
Soil Unit ShrinWBulk Factor
Undocumented Fill 10-15 percent shrink
Alluvium 7-12 percent shrink
We also suggest that a subsidence t9ctor of U2 }ee[ be cons~tleretl m earthworK balance calculauons.
, 6.5 Slopes
6.5.1 Based on the existing topography and surrounding development, the maximum height of
the proposed slopes will be on the order of 10 feet high at an inclination of 2:1 (horizontal
to vertical). A surficial stability analysis was also performed as part of this study. A copy of
our surficial analysis is provided as Figure 3.
6.5.2 Fill slopes should be overbuilt at least 3 feet horizontally and then cut to the design finish
grade. As an alternative, fill slopes may be compacted by backrolling with a sheepsfoot
compactor at vertical intervals not to exceed 4 feet and then track-walked with a D-S
bulldozer, or equivalent, such that the soils are uniformly compacted to at least 90 percent
to the face of the finished slope.
6.53 In general, cohesionless soils should not be placed in the outer 15 feet of the face of fill
slopes. Where cohesionless soils are exposed in cut slopes, these soils should be removed
and replaced with suitable soils.
' 6.5.4 Slopes should be planted, drained and main[ained to reduce erosioa Considera[ion should
be given to landscaping the slopes relatively soon afrer completion to reduce the potential
' for su~cial erosion. Irrigation lines should be placed on slope surfaces, not within trenches
on the slope face or along the top of slopes.
' 6.6 Foundation
' 6.6.1 Foundations and sfabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations, the
seismic parameters provided in this repoR and the recommendations presented in
Table 6.6.1. Footings may be dimensioned based on an allowable soil bearing pressure of
' 2,000 psf. Foundations for either Category I, II, or III, as described in Table 6.6.1, may be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (ps~ (dead
' plus live load). This bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for transient loads such
as wind or seismic forces. Based on the results of our preliminary testing, we anticipate that
the buildings at this site may be designed for low to medium soils (EI<90). We recommend
'
~3
' Project No. T2288-12-O1 - 9- Febmary 8, 2005
that as grading progresses, each building pad be evaluated forits expansive potential. The
final footing and slab design for each building should be designed based on the results of
that evaluation. These individual pad tests may result in the changing of a particular pad's
expansion potential (e.g., low to medium). These recommendations are provided as a
minimum and do not supersede local ordinance codes or requirements of the project
structural engineer.
TABLE 6.6.1
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY
Foundation Minimum Continuous Footing Interior Slab
Category Footing Depth Reinforcement Reinforcement
(inches)
Two No. 4 bars 6 x 6-]0/10 welded wire
I 12 One top and bottom mesh a[ slab mid-point
Four No. 4 bars No. 3 bars at 24 inches on
~~ 18 Two [op and bottom center, both directions
Four No. 5 bars No. 3 bars at 18 inches on
III Zq Two top and bottom center, both directions
CATEGORY CRITERIA
Notes:
Category I: Maximum fill thickness is less than 20 feet and Expansion Index (Ei)550.
Ca[egory IL' Maximum fill thickness is less than 50 feet, variation in fill [hickness is be[ween ]0 fee[
and 20 feet across any one building or EP50.
Category III: Fill thickness exceeds 50 feet, variation in fill thickness exceeds 20 feet, or EP90.
l. Footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches.
2. Footin~ depth is measwed from lowest adjacent subgrade. These depths appty to both exterior and
interior footings.
3. Interior living area conaete slabs should be a[ least 4 inches thick for Categories I and II and
5 inches thick for Category [IL This applies to both building and garage slabs-on-grade.
4. Interior concrete slabs should be underlain by at least 4 inches (3 inches for a 5-inch slab) of
clean sand (SE>30) or crushed rock.
5. Slabs expected to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture sensitive
materials should be underlain by a 10-mil vapor barzier covered with at least 2 inches of the clean
sand recommended in No. 4 above.
' 6.6.2
'
For Foundation Category III, the structural slab design should consider using interior
stiffening beams and connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the slab thickness. In
, Project No. T2288-12-01 - 10 - February 8, 2005
~~
,
~ addition, consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs, which exceed 5 feet in
width, to the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur.
~ 6.63 Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1
(horizontal:vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are recommended
' due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur.
• For fill slopes less than 20 feet high, building and wall footings should be deepened
, such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from
the face of the slope.
' • For fill slopes inclined at 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter, the bottom outside edge
of buildin~ and wall footings should be at least 5 feet horizontally from the face of
the slope, regardless of slope height.
' • Swimming pools located within 7 feet of the top of fill slopes are not recommended.
Where such a condition cannot be avoided, it is recommended that the portion of the
, swimming pool wall within 7 feet of the slope face be designed assuming that the
adjacent soil provides no lateral support. This recommendation applies to fill
slopes up to 30 feet in height.
' • Although other improvements which are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete
flatwork or masonry walls may experience some distress if located near the top of a
slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible,
' however, to incorporate design measures, which would permit some lateral soil
movement without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be
consulted for specific recommendations
, 6.6.4 As an alternative to a conventional foundation, a post-tensioned foundation system could
be used for this site. The post-tensioned systems should be designed by a structural
I' engineer experienced in post-tensioned slab design and design criteria of the Post-
, Tensioning Institute (UBC Section 1816). AI[hough this procedure was developed for
II' expansive soils, it is understood that it can also be used to reduce the potential for
foundation distress due to differential fill settlement. The post-tensioned design should
' incorporate the geotechnical parameters presented on the following table entitled
Preliminary Post-Tensioned Foundation System Design Parameters for the particular
Foundation Category designated. It is recommended that post-tensioned slabs have a
' minimum thickness of 5 inches. Recommended allowable soil bearing pressures are
presenYed in Section 6.6.1.
,
, ~7
, Project No. T2288-12-01 - 11 - February 8, 2005
TABLE 6.6.4
PRELIMINARY POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN
PARAMETERS
Pos[-Tensioning Ins[i[ute (PTI) Foundation Category
Design Parameters I(EI<Sl) ^ (EI<91) [I-(EI<131)
1. Thomthwaite [ndex -20 -20 -20
2. ClayType-Montmorillonite Yes Yes Yes
3. Clay Portion (Maximum) 30% 50% 70%
4. Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7.0 ft. 7.0 ft. 7.0 ft.
5. Soil Suction 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft.
6. Moisture Velocity 0.7 in./mo. 0.7 in./mo. 0.7 in./mo.
7. Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft.
8. Edge Lift 0.41 in. 0.78 in. 1.15 in.
9. Center Lift Moiswre Variation Distance 53 ft. 53 ft. 53 ft.
10. Center Lift 2.12 in. 3.21 in. 4.74 in.
Notes:
1. Footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches. Footings should have a depth of at least
12 inches for Category I, 18 inches for Category I and 24 inches for Category I[I.
2. Interior living area concrete slabs should be at least 5 inches thick. This applies to both building
and garage slabs-on-grade.
3. Interior concrete slabs should be underlain by at leas[ 3 inches of clean sand (Sand Equivalent
>30) or crushed rack.
4. Slabs expected to receive moishve sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture sensitive
materials should also be underlain by a 10-mil vapor barrier covered with at least 2 inches of
the clean sand recommended in No. 3 above.
6.6.5 Our experience indicates post-tensioned slabs are susceptible to edge lift, regardless of the
underlying soil conditions, unless reinforcing steel is placed at the bottom of the perimeter
footings and the interior stiffener beams. Current PTI design procedures primarily address
the potential center lift of slabs but, because of the placement of the reinforcing tendons in
the top of the slab, the resulting eccentricity afrer tensioning reduces the ability of the
system to mitigate edge lifr. The foundation system should be designed to reduce the
potential of edge lifr occurring for the proposed structures.
' 6.6.6 No special subgrade preparation is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete, however,
the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be sprinkled, as necessary, to
' maintain a moist soil condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
However, where drying of subgrade soils has occurred, reconditioning of surficial soils will
I '
~~ ~ Project No. T2288-12-01 - 12 - February 8, 2005
V~
be required. This recommendation applies to foundations as well as exterior concrete
flatwork.
6.6.7 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
slabs due to expansive soils and differential settlement of fills of varying thickness.
However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein,
foundations, stucco wails, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit
some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete
shrinkage cracks is independent of the suppoRing soil characteristics. Their occurrence
may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete
placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in
particular, where re-entry slab corners occur. ,
6.7 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads
6.7.1 Retaining walis not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be
designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density
of 30 pounds per cubic foot (pc~. Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2.0
to 1.0, an.active soil pressure of40 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures assume that
the backfill materiats within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward
from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index of less than 50. For those lots with
finish grade soifs having an Expansion Index greater than 50 and/or where backfill
materials do not conform to the above criteria, Geocon should be consulted for additional
recommendations.
~ 6.7.2
~
Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.OO1H (where H equals
the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall i~ feet) at the top of the wall. Where
walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 7H psf
should be added to the above active soil pressure.
~ 6.73 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup
' of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect The
use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes, etc.) is not
recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely impact the
~ property adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly
compacted granular (Expansion Index less than 50) backfill material with no hydrostatic
, forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are
anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon should be contacted for
additional recommendations.
~
~1
' Project No. T2288-12-O1 - 13 - February 8, 2005
6.7.4 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of one foot may be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet
below the base of the wall has an Expansion Index of less than 50. The proximity of the
foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing
pressure. Therefore, Geocon should be consulted where such a condition is anticipated.
6J.5 For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid
density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly
compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure
assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet or three times the vertical surface
generating the passive pressure, whichever is greatec The upper 12 inches of material not
protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral
resistance. An allowable friction coefficient of 035 may be used for resistance to siiding
between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable
passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads.
6.7.6 The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maacimum height of 8 feet. In the event that
walls higher than 8 feet or other Types of watls are planned, such as crib-type walls, Geocon
should be consulted for additional recommendations.
I, , 6.8 Flexible Pavement Design
~
6.8.1 The following pavement sections are preliminary. Final pavement design sections should
be determined once rough subgrade elevations have been attained and R-Value testing on
subgrade soils is performed. These preliminary pavement thicknesses were determined
using procedures outlined in the California Higlnvay Design Manual (Caltrans) and are
based on an assumed R-Value of 20. Summarized below are the recommended preliminary
pavement section thicknesses.
TABLE 6.8.1
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN SECTIONS
~
~
'
Estimated Asphalt Concrete Class 2 Base
Location Traffic Index (TI) (inches) (inches)
Local Streets 5.0 3.0 8
Collector Streets 6.5 3.5 11
Greater thickness may be required by the local governing agency.
\~
~ Project K~o. T2288-12-01 - 14 - February 8, 2005
6.8.2 Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the Slandard Specifications for
Public Works Construction (Green Book). Class 2 aggregate base materials should conform
to Section 26-1.02A of the Standard Specifications of the Slate of California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans).
6.83 Prior to placing base material, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of at least 12
inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative
compaction per ASTM D1557-02. The base materials should also be compacted to at least
95 percent relative compaction. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 95
percent ofthe Hveem density.
6.8.4 The performance of pavements is highly dependent upon providing positive surface
' drainage away from the edge of pavements. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the
pavement will likely resutt in saturation ofthe subgrade and subsequent pavement distress.
6.9 Slope Maintenance
Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) may, under conditions which are
both difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope
instabiliry. The instability is Typicaliy limited to the outer three feet of a portion ofthe slope
and usually does not directly impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the
slope. The occurrence of surficial instability is more prevalent on fill slopes and is
generally preceded by a period of heavy rainfa(I, excessive irrigation, or the migration of
subsurface seepage. The disturbance and/or loosening of the surficial soils, as might result
from root growth, soil expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may
also be a significant contributing factor to surficial instabiliTy. It is, therefore, recom-
mended that, to the ma~cimum extent practicaL (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils be
either removed or properly recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be placed on the surface
and periodically inspected and maintained to eliminate leaks and excessive irrigation,
and (c) surface drains on and adjacent to slopes be periodically maintained to preclude
ponding or erosion. Although the incorporation of the above recommendations should
reduce the potential for surficial slope instability, it will not eliminate the possibility, and,
therefore, it may be necessary to rebuild or repair a portion of the project's slopes in the
future.
6.10 Drainage
Adequate drainage provisions are imperative. Under no cirwmstances should water be
allowed to pond adjacentto footings. The building pads should be properly finish graded
~~
jl' Project No. T2288-12-01 - 15 - February 8, 2005
after the buildings and other improvements are in place so that drainage water is directed
away from foundations, pavements, concrete slabs, and slope tops to controlled drainage
devices.
6.11 Plan Review
The soil engineer and engineering geologist should review the 40-scale grading plans to
verify their compliance with the recommendations of this report and determine the
necessiTy for additional analyses and/or recommendations. Should a post-tensioned
foundation system be selected for the project, the soils engineer should be provided the
opportunity to review the structural foundation plans prior to finalizing to verify substantial
conformance with the recommendations of this report.
~
Project No. T2288-12-01 - t6 - February 8, 2005
i ,
1 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
, L The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon
the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation.
I If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during wnstruction, or if the
proposed construction will diFfer from that anticipated herein, Geocon should be notified so
that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the
' potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services
provided by Geocoa
2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are
brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the
plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out
such recommendations in the field.
3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions
of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or
the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or
appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of
knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by
changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied
upon afrer a period of three years.
Z~
' Project No. T2288-12-01 February 8, 2005
REFERENCES
Blake, T.F., 1998, Liquefy2, Interim Version 1.50, A Cornputer Program for the Empirical Predretion
of Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction Potential.
Blake, T.F., 2000a, EQSEARCH, Version 3.OOa, A Computer Progrmn for the Estimation of Peak
Horizontal Acceleration from Southern California Historical Earthquake Catalogs, Updated
with Version 4.00
Blake, T.F., 2000c, FRISKSP, Version 4.00, A Computer Program for Detennining the Probabilistic
Horizontal Acceleration
Blake, T.F., 2000d, UBCSEIS, Version 1.03, User's Manual for Evoluating the Seismic Parameters
in accordance with the 1997 UBC
Califomia Department of Water Resources, 2003, Water Data Library, 1999 - 2003, URL:
http: //weI Lwater.ca.gov/
California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Studies Zones Map Series, Pechanga Quadrangle,
scale 124,OOQ dated January l, 1990.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1954, Geology of Southern California, Bulletin 170.
California Building Code, 2001, State of California, California Code of Regulations. Title 24, 1998,
California Building Code: [nternational Conference of Building Officials and California
Building Standards Commission, 3 Volumes.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismrc
Hazards in Califon~ia, Special Publication 117.
' C.H.J., Inc., 2003, Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Be//agio Senior Project. Parcel Mup No. 8856,
' Parcel Nos. 1 and 1, North Cortter of Pala Road and Loma Lrnda Road Temecula, Calijornia,
Prepared for Construction Resource Grouq Inc., Job No. 03356-3, dated May 23, 2003.
J
'
, •
,
CounTy of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency Geographic Information
Systems, Riverside County Environmental Hazards Map, scale: 1 inch = 2 miles, dated May
2, 1999.
Geocon [ncorporated, 2003, Geotechnical and Fault Investigation, Temecula Lane Residential
Development, Tenaecula, California, Project No. 20159-12-01, dated November 7, 2003.
2v
' Project No. T2288-12-02 February 8, 2005
Hart, Earl W. and Bryant, William A., 1997, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, CDMG
Special Publication 42, revised 1997.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code, Structural Engineering
Design Provisions.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source
Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, Prepared by California Division of
Mines and Geology.
Jennings, C.W, 1985, An F~planatory Text to Accompany the 1:750,000 scale Fau1t mad Geologic
Maps ofCalifornia.• Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 201, 197p., 2 plates.
Jennings, C.W, 1994, Fault Activiry Map of Califorttia and Adjacent Areas, Scale 1:750,000.
Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern
Riverside Counry, California, CDMG Special Report 131.
Mann, J. F, Jr, October 1955, Geolo~ of the Elsinore Fault Zone, California, State of Califomia,
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, Special Report 43.
, Pacific Soils Engineering Inc., 1989, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zoning and Liquefaction Study
of the Murdy/Trotter Parcel, Wolj I~alley, Rancho Calrfornrq County of Riverside, CA, W.O.
400103, dated April 5, 1989.
Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., 2001, Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Tentative Tract 29798, Wolf
Creek Specific Plan, City of Temecula, California, W.O. 400622, dated September 20, 2001.
Petra Geotechnical, Inc, 2001, Fault Investigation, 39-Acre Site, Located on Highway 79 East of
.Iedediah Smrth Road, Crty of Temecula, Riverside County, California, JN. ]86-01, dated
April 30, 2001.
Riverside County Planning DepaRment, January 1983, Riverside County Comprehensive Genera! Plan
- Counry Seismic Hazards Map, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 1974, Aerial Photographs ] 039 and
1040, scale 1"=2000'.
Southern Califomia EaRhquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation
of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitrgating Lrquefaction Hazards in
Calrjornia, March 1999.
Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evalualion ojSettlensents in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking,
in Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, August, 1987.
!~
,
I, Western Municipal Water District, Cooperative Well Measuring Program, Spring 2003.
~!i , Youd, T.L., ET. AI., 2001, Lrguefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER
and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, in
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, October 2001.
'
'
,
,
'
'
,
'
Z~
'
I ~~~~ //V ' ~C ~-: ~ ~ ~~ ..~~ . ~~-~i~~ i~~~,~~ ... ~I ~ ~~%
~ ~~S ~~Ilrii ~~~ ) ~ f0 i ~u0o~- ~/ri ~ ~ ~ll.it i'... ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ '~
il/~t~/ ~/t 7~~~i~~ ~) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, / i ,.~
~~ l~ !a <~ / ~~ ~ ' . / ~
! S 1 ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~~ ~l )~ . ~ / _
iV~~'r~%f~br~i~~i~~~~i}~i~ i~/x ii 1 0,'{,?i., j/'~/~ I) -.__ J a.~.- . P~.~1~' ~'. ~~ ' ~ :..~.
~
. . ~
i _
~,1 ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ l f~~ n~~.~ ~~~~~ ~ 1 ~ ,~ ~~t~~ A~o ~i ' . P ~ ~ ~~~i
h ~ ~h-. / . ~ ' "~ i
~
\. ~
i Ipy°~i i r2- Q / ~~ /:i ~y ' , i ~ I~I n/ ~.. . '~
'A l0 ii4 tl t i / '~ / 8u ~i
~ r il r_ ~ rdl '~ ~ ~~po
~ y ~ ' ~ - ~
~ n.~ ~< ~.ri ~~ _ ~, - '~~. i "tft'a . ~ ..
'i i r ~a~ ..~' _ '' ' ~ "'~ ) _w~u , . . .
. ~ ~ t
T ~ ,. ! ~ / ~ . i ' ~ L+- . ~ / ~ l~ ~
i ~ ~~~
/ ~ , (
~ ~l ~. ~__." > ~ ... ~. ~ ~ ~ ' -_ . - ~ .l ~ C~
~ . •
~ I / / .~ ' ~ ~ / . 0~~ 1~'~~ ~ ~ r~" ~
~ ~~~ '. ~ ' / ~ ~ ~ 0 ' ' ~ ;' A ~
~~ ~ ~I ~ ~
~ ~i~" ~ ~ ~ , ~ - .•: ~ - ( ~ ~ ~ ~ IzaJ~ ~` ^~~ r' 1
]9 ii~~ i ~ ~\ / ( ~ \ ~l i .. ) l~ ~(~~~::
c~ ~
ue~~ ~o ~ ~ ~L
~_" c~ ~Y~ /T~ ac~~ t~ q ~1 i ~~~r~ ~1~~ i~ ri ~ I ~(/~, ~~~~~ .
-~~~~ ~~Z V -~-.~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ , t-~~`Vil-~~ ~: ~~` ~`~+~t ~ .~::_ ~ ( f,'~j , V \\.
f
~ :'Q f< ~. ~ ~. 9 ~ +~ ~~ _ ~~.~ l~.l i
~ ~m ~h ~ ./ _i r~o° ~`~ - ~ ~ lJj~, ~ . 1~~,~ ~ ~ ~~
I ~ f * °~~ ~ ( ~(~.~'~ ~ I i di ¢ ~ ~ _'))~~o~ ~I ^: i~ I~~ ~ ~ ~r ~d~~/
~ u i ~~ / ' ~ i t t ~ino _~_ C~ I~~ ~~ (', ~1~~ ~ ' ~~
~ v ~i I' ~ V ~~ ~/~ _~ ~~ ~ -~ ~ ~ 1~~-IQ~ 1 .
i i ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ . i ~ ~ ~ I• ~~~.- 'a
E~~ ~( \ '~ (-, ~al ~ti=~ ~~I~ A `/~
w.r~ ' ~ ~ j ~r~i2t` ~ ~~ ~' ~~ ~ oZ ~ - /
~ ~ ~ i2 % ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ; ~ ( ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ jl~~~~ ~ .:
I ~
~i ~~~ ell .: . % ~ .~~~ ~ , ~_ / ~ ~ A ~ . ~ _.,
\ '7
ii. "~n • ~ ~~~ ` ( "~ ~ --~~i i ~ S - ~
~ ~ ` i ~ SITE ~~ ^`~ f .: l ~2 ~~3~ °~
-.~ ~_ ; , ~
1~ ,~ ~~~, ~.~ o~o='~ ~LOCATIO ~ ~
T ~ '
~~i ~ ~ ~ ~~ .y p~~ o ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~~ ~ ~~20o C. i~ . M -
~ \ ~ ~
c ~L ~
i ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ V l \ ~ ~ ~'; .. J
.y
~~ii, ~ . ~ ' ,C ~ . • ~ j ~ ~ _ J ~ [ ~ i fj _
n ~ \ , c ~ ~ ~ ' a'~~
M1 1j ~ If`r'eil ~ C ~~A ,~ AA ~ ...
p ~r ~ f~/ . ~ ' ~ . ~ ~ ~ > ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
} ~~
i J ~ 1 ~YT ~ 1 1 . ~ ' d// _~ t ' ~ ~ '. r:
p ~~
/~ r ~ ~l .~ 1 ~ ~~~" // ~~ ~ ~<O ~i"t~ _-~ r
'l / ..A ~~~ / A ~ V / ~. _ ._ ~ r ~ J/
~ ~ _ `~~6M 1h96 ~'. I ~ .-~ I ~iA
~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~\ ~ '~ 00 , % i ~1 s ~ ~ { ~
200~~~Zilr~ .. ~ ~ .. ~~ / . ~ ~ ~ ~ C i '-''zJ ~
~ ~. r
~\~ /~ 1 ~ ~ ` 1 `\ ~ . ~ /"~~ ~ `., .~~f ~ ;
~~ ~ ~ _/ J ~ ~ 11
J ~ I 1 h~" ~~ ~
~ `"~ ~'~ ~~ ~ V ~ `~ l ' ~~~ t F ~! ~ i~ ~~~ii
~ tQ ~ sa- ~ A ~ iNbi> r:FS~-~ ~. ri n 1`~ ° 28 =~ , _~ i~ ~ ~
1~
'~~~~~~~ ` i~ ~.~ I ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~~ I ..~~ i! l ~' l~~°.:
~ I -~ V ~ ~ ~ / . ~ I l ~ ~ ~ .
f > '~ ,/~~~ 1 ~ ' - .
! /~ .\f'1 ~ \i~~ 4 ..~ ;~ 1 \ , ~' :``~ - : ,~a
r / _ ~ , ~, s ~ ,,. ,J -
/'~ L \~ I ~~[ ~ ~' ° i_~ ~ `e i i ~ . _.. _ ,~ ~
.
_ z \ .
~f~/~.%- , ~~ .~i.' tl~ 1``^, , i~ ~i I~I ~ r~> .~.~~~ I.'f .. l.: . ( \F~ -;- ~ ~ ~~ I\ - ~(~ .i~
i
SOURCE USGS SPECIAL STUDIES ZONES MAP, PECHANGA ~
QUADRANGLE, DATED 1-1-90.
~I
SCALE
0 2.000 Feet
~
GEOCON ~~~
INLAND EMPIRE, INC.
GEOTECHNICALCONSULTANTS
41577 CORNING PLACE, SUITE 101 - MURRIETA, CA. 92562-7065
PHONE 951 304-2300 - FAX 951 304-2392
VICINITY MAP
LA BELLA VIDA
LOMA LINDA ROAD AT TEMECULA LANE~
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
DATE: 02-OS-2005 PROJECT NO.: T2288-12-01 FIG. 1
N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
_ (~
~ ~ h~
.k~• ~ u- ~ > > Z ~ LL
0 F (~ ~ p Q
~ F- F- Z Z W F- o J o'
Q Z ~ ~~ W J ~
X ~ ~ U m~~ Z ~ U Z w~
0 p ~ ~ C~ Z F- ? ~ Q W~ c~.i
`rn, ~ ~ W a O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ p W ~ ~
Z
' F . ~ Q Z ~ O ~w v~i w 2 U > F Q O
~~, . O~ ~ Q C~ C7 W ~ U O ~ Q UQ w
~ U a J W Q..7 O
.~ o~ 1 w Q~~ a
~ f ~ ~~ oz ~ o mo~ ~
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I ~Y^ ~ ~ Jp~ ~n
,,,~ (B ,u U~ d.(p o - Z F g
O ~ ° pi ~ M' ~ ~ J ~
,~ ~ m - ' °" h~ x ~ W O o
-_.....~ ~ ~ J Q
- -~-- - ~ - -- - - -~~' --- - - - - - ~- - --- - -~- --- -' - - - -~.
( , su '
f "' ~'
...., ,r d n.r ' L
~ ~~~~ • 'tia , ~v ,A ~
6/ ~
0
'~ W I ~` ~
~ ~ a m
~ ~, m ~ M
% ~} 0I ^ ~ U
a
». m w
~ Q w r~ ` ~ ~
~~~-- p ~ ~ = m
aw ~ `~'~7 ~ , ~ N
r~ ~~d~~ ~ ~,„ s o
a r...!~ ~~ •~ls ~ ~~ ~ ~j ~ w ~
~~~- m ~ . e- ~-^' /.z F~m
~ ,,, ~ ~ /~ = m ~/ , F-~ „ ~ ~ Q
...,.... ~j ~ ~~ ` ~ ~""•~/ O W y U u
~~ /~~ ~ Q/ ^ ~ ~ pg°o
, • \ . . , ~ ~'~"i Q[7v
~ 0
!~ ~ OW U?~
~--.,,~„a~ ~ A.~p A! ~ '+" V. ~ Q = ~ N
~~~ VOm
w •_ /~
l ~ W U W
'15~` '~... V ~ O ~ O
~z w~
~, ~ l .,A'~. _~` aaz wtw c~ a a
:> _ ~ .. f'~ - ~ ~ GNK . /l , •
m +_ ~ " Hsb~l ~ ~
' ~ ~
~, ~ - ~. ~. : .~,
~ •:~. n ~,
.~ ,~ ~ 'm ~+'~ -~
,--.._.~ ,~ ~r-/~.~~~'.~./~
ti- ~ \. ` Mi O>A . _ _, ~- /CC~ / ,( i
~ ~v l K /\
~~ ~
~ ~`J
...r _ /f~ ~ ~ -.
q ' 1 ;.., ~ * ` ~ W p ~ . ~ /
;..~.~.: ~ a . ~ ,\ ~,, ~, ~ .
a /
~ `; ~ \.. ~ w/ ~ O / ,~. Y
=~w _ ~,~ , , ~ /
;x.v R~ ~a~ °1 J ~ ~ ~ ~ IC
~ ` f ^-~"'/'~~ ~ ~ ~ .
~
~ ~ .,.~ m ~ ~ . ~ ti m ; \ "' ~
~, ~ '~~,~o~~ ~, y~,~ , ~
~ra `
' ~~OG~
~iyry ~S ~ ,,. h \~Q\~~ /~ u
~` ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 p~
Y ~/~. /~
ii~~1~,~ ~ W lll ` ~J ~ Q
~ `~,:r: , , ~I r w` ' 1i ~ MJ
Q ~R ~ 0 ~ a ~
~
J ~ r
~, `~~jo,~J / , `~ ~ o ` } ~ ~.
~ ~
O~S >,/y ~ ~ J r ` '
~
~ ~j~ ~
b ~
~ ~ l~S,, "' oo ; ~I
/A LL
. . >~ \ b~~~ ~ ' ' ~
~~S J '' ~ I
~ • - N'- II
//~ . ~ ~ o
~ .~ ~ ~
YKVJL~ l.l 1V V.
~~
ASSUMED CONDITIONS:
Slope Height H = Infinite
Depth of Saturation Z = 4 feet
Slope Inclination 2:1 (Horizontal:Verti cal)
Slope Angle i = 26.6 degrees
Unit Weight of Water yw = 62.4 pounds per cubic foot
Tota] Unit Weight of Soil y, = 125 pounds per cubic foot
Angle of Intemal Friction ~ = 18 degrees
Apparent Cohesion C = 435 pounds persquarefoot
Slope saturated to vertical depth Z below slope face.
Seepage forces parallel to slope face
ANALYSIS:
C+(y, - y w)Z cosZ ~ tan ~
FS = = 2.5
y~ Z sin r cos i
REFERENCES
(I) Haefeli, R. The Slability ojSlopes Acted Upon by Parallel Seepage, Proa Second Intemational
Conference, SMFE, Rotterdam, 1948, l, 57-62.
(2) Skempton, A. W., and F. A. Delory, Stability ofNalural Slopes rn London C/ay, Proc. Fourth
Intemational Conference, SMFE, London, 1957, 2, 378-81.
SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
LA BELLA VIDA
LOMA LINDA ROAD AT TEMECULA LANE
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
Z~
FIGURE 3
APPENDIX
~
II
, APPENDIX A
' FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was performed on January 26, 2005, and consisted of a site reconnaissance and the
' excavation of four exploratory borings. During drilling relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained
by driving a 3-inch O.D., split-tube sampler 12 inches into the undisturbed soil mass with blows from a
' 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The sampler was equipped with 1-inch by 2~/a-inch
diameter brass rings to facilitate laboratory testing. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were also
_ performed.
The soil conditions encountered in the excavations were visually examined, classified and Iogged in
' general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) practice for Description
and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D2488). Logs of the borings are presented on
~ Figures A-1 through A-4. The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions encountered and the depth at
which samples were obtained. Logs of CHJ borings are presented in Appendix C. The approximate
locations of the exploratory excavations (Geocon and CHJ) are shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 2.
,
~
'
'
~
'
~
~
~
~/ \
' Project No. T2288-12-01 - A-1 - February 8, 2005
1
'
,
'
,
~
~
~
~
,,
~
'
~
'
~
~
~
,
~
PROJECT NO. T2288-12-01
w BORING B 1 o w_ ~ ~
e
DEPTH ~
~ Q ~ Z~ ~^ w
~ F
S4MPLE ~ ~ SOIL Q Q y Z li ~ Z
F
T NO~ ~ ELEV. (MSL.) 1420± DATE COMPLETED Ot-26-2005 Z W m ~ a ~ o
E o ~ scs
~ EQUIPMENT CME 75 4x4 a~` o c~
c~
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
o B, ` I
I
~
~ M d um dense, damp, brovmish gray, Silty, 5ne SAND
I.
~ SM
Z BI-2 ~
~~ {.-~ 47 128.G 67
ALLUVIUM
4 Stiff, mois[, fine Sandy CLAY; trace pinholes
QI-3 19 I19J 12.9
6
Bl-4 -Very stiff, moist, brownish gray, fine, sandy clay; trace silt 26 I133 ]6.2
g CL
~~ BI-5 Stiff, increased silt content at 10 feet 23 I 123 14]
72
~
---------------------------------
Stiff, mois[, yellowish brown, fine, Sandy SILT --- --- ---
14
MI.
BL6 16
i6
___-'_
-__
___
'__
.-I - I- Laose, moist, ligh[ yellowish brown, Silty, very fine SAND
18 I- ~ I
I I.I. SM
20 {
I
I
BI-7 ~.
. { . 13
BORING TERMINATED AT 21 FEET
No groundwa[er encountered
Backfil]ed
Log of Boring B 1, Page 1 of 1
T2288-02-01.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ~"- SAMPIING UNSUCCESSfUL ~... STANDARO PENETRFTION TEST ~... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE O_. CHUNK SAMPLE t_. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE THELOGOFSUBSURFAGEUJNOrtIONSSHOWNHEREONAPPLIESONLVATTHESPECIFlCBORINGORTRENCHLOCATIONANDATTHEOATEINDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATNE OF SUeSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS NNO TIMES.
~
PROJECT NO. T2288-12-Ot
~ BORING B 2 o w_ ~ --
e
OEPTH r
~ < SOIL ~ Z~ N" w
~ F
SAMP~E
"° ~ 3
ELEV. (MSL.) 1475± DATE COMPLETED 01-26-2005 Q Q y
w~ a 2 li
o a J Z
o i
FEET ~ ~ ~ uscs W J ~ ~ O
J O
~ EQUIPMENT CME 75 4x4 W
a~ m ° ~
~
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~ ALLUVIUM
Soft, we[, dark brown, Clayey SILT; rwtlets
2 ~
B2-1 -Medium s[iffa[ 3 fee[ ~~ 8 88.1 42.6
4
_________________________________
___
___
___
, Loose, moist, yellowish brown, fine SAND
6 B2-2 ~ SP 10 107.4 10.0
______
____
___________________ ___ ___ ___
B -_
. __
__
Loose, damp, yellowish brown, fine ro coarse SAND
62-3 SP 14 104.7 4.7
t0
__
_________________________________
___
___
___
~ Medium dense, mois[, ligh[ grny, fine [o medium SAND
12 B2-4 ~. SP 18 112.2 9.1
.. . -_- ___ ___
14 .-I ,
-~ - In[erbedded, medium dense, 6ne to coarse SAND and very s[ifT, SILT layers
{ at 15 fee[
62-5 I
~ 24
76 -I
I ~
.
~ SP/ML
---------------------------------
---
---
---
Medium dense, damp, light gray, very fine lo fine SAND, trace silt
18
20 B2-6 SM/SP 25
22
~ _
24 _________________________________
Medium stifl; mois[ [o we[, dark grzy, fine, Sandy SILT ___ ___ __
B2-7 1 I
26 ~n-
_______
__
____
_
_________ ___ ___ ___
28 - -
___
___
Medium dense, dam li ht tan, fine ro coarse SAND, trace silt
P~ S
SM/S W
Log of Boring B 2, Page 1 of 2
T228&12A1.GPJ
SAMPLESYMBOLS ~'-SAMPLINGUNSUCCESSFLIL ~._STANDAROPENETRATIONTEST ~...DRNES4MPLE(UN~ISTURBE~~
~...DISTURBEDORBAGS4MPLE Q...CHUNKSAMPLE 1...WATERTABLEORSEEPAGE
NOTE'. THELOGOFSUBSURFACECONpR10N$$HOWNHEREONAPPLIESONLVATTHESPECIFlC00RINGORTRENCNLOCATIONANOATTHEOATEINDICATEO.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESEMATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CAN~ITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND T~MES.
3~
PROJECT NO. T2288-12-Ot
w BORING B 2 ~ w_ --
e
DEPTH ~ Q
SOIL O Z LL N^
; w
~ v
IN
~+MPLE
N0 ~
~ 3
~
LtA55
ELEV. (MSL.) 1415± DATE COMPLETED 01-26-2005 ~F y W y
U ~Z
W
FEET ~ ~ ~ ~uscs~ i W m ~ a ~ o
J ~ EQUIPMENT CME 75 4x4 a~" o c~
c~
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
30 Bz g 16
SM/SW
32
~ ___ ________________ ___ ___ ___
34 .
~-
.I~. . Medium dense, mois[, dark gray, Silry to Ciayey, Fne SAND
ffi-9 .i . /~ 44
36 ~.
X~
38
~~~_ SGSM
~
40 B2-10 ~~ 13
~ ~~
~ -Light tan color, decreased silt and clay con[en[
42 I~i.
.~
1 ________________ ___ ___ ___
44 . Medium dense, damp, Iigh[ tan, very fine ro fine SAND
62-11 27
46
SP
48
50 BZ ~ Z -Dense at 50 fee[ 32
BORING TERMINATED AT 21 FEET
No groundwerer encountered
Backfilled
Log of Boring B 2, Page 2 of 2
T228B42-O1.GPJ
SAMPLESYMBOLS ~"'SAMPLINGUNSUCCESSFUL ~...STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST ~...DRIVESAMPLE(UNDISTIIRBED)
~... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ^._ GHUNK SAMPLE Z... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THELOGOFSUBSURFACECONDITIONSSNOWNHEREONAPPLIESONLVATTHESPEGIFICBORINGORTRENGHLOCATIONANOATTHE~ATEINDIGATED.
R IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATNE OF SLIBSURFACE CANDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
3?'
i~
~
~
~
I
~
~
~
'
'
~
,
i
'
PROJECT NO. T2288-12-01
w BORING B 3 o w_ ~ ~
DEPTH Y
~ < SOIL ~ Z~ w F
IN ~`MPLE
No. ~
p
= ~
~
z
CIA55
ELEV. (MSL.) 1415± DATE COMPLETED 01•26-2005 ~ F u)
~~? 3 w LL
0° ~ Z
~? ~
FEEr r ~ 1USC51 Z W o
m Y a ~ Z
J O
~
EQUIPMENT CME 75 4x4 W~
a Q ~O
~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
B3-1 I ~ ALLWIUM
- ~~I n'II- Soft, moist [o wet, dark brown, fine, Sandy SILT; hace clay
2 -----
B3-2 I :I ---- ry ------ ry --------------
Medium dense, ve moist, broum, Sil fine SAND ---
9 ---
101.9 ---
17.0
,{ SM
4 I
I
.
~1
.~
-~ -~I-
{ ________
Medium s[iff, very mois[, dark gray, fine, Silty SAND ___ ___ ___
B3-3 ~-.
~
~ SM I1 105.0 20.8
6 ~
~
.
1~1 _______
B3-4
. ____-___ __-
Medium dense, damp, light gray, ~ery fine to fine SAND __-
20
97.0
4.5
8
10
g3 5
_
19
102.6
3.8
12
SP
14
B3-G 15
16
.~ -Loose, fine to medium sand wi[h trace clay chunks
18
~~. - I- Medium dense, mois[, gray, Silty, fine SAND
20 ~
.
~ SM
B3 7 4
j
_I 22
BORING TERMINATED AT 21 FEET
No groundwater encoun[ered
Backfilled
Log of Boring B 3, Page 1 of 1
T228842-O1.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ~-' SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ~_. STANOARD PENETRATION TEST ~... DRNE S4MPlE (UNDISTUR6ED)
~...OISTUROEDOR8AG54MPLE Q_.CHUNKSAMPLE 1...WATERTABLEORSEEPAGE
NOTE: THELOGOFSUBSURFACECONDITIONSSHONMHEREONAPPLIESONLVATTHESPECIFlCBORINGORTRENCHLOCATIONANDATTHEDATEINDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO 8E REPRESENTATNE OF SUBSURFACE CON~ITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AN~ TIMES.
/
PROJECT NO. T2288-12-01
w BORING B 4 a ~ o
DEPTH }
~ 6 SpIL ~
~ Z LL
` ~^ w
~~
~~ SAMPLE ~
p
Z
cuss Q
~ N Z ~" ~
`
'
T No ELEV. (MSL.) 1420± DATE COMPLETED 01-26-2005 a ° a !
~
FEE r ]
O ~USCS) Z w m
w ~~ ~ O
~
~
EQUIPMENT CME 75 4x4 ~ J
a O U
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~ .I ."I- ALLUVIUM
~-I. ~-I Medium dense, moist, brown, Silty, fine SAND; some pinholes, rootlets
2 B4 I .~I { I.
~
~
29
I169
6.8
4 {
~ . ~. ~
~I~
-.I ~ _~I_
SM
6 B4-2 ~~~ {~~ -Dense, yellowish brown at 6 feet S I 125] 9.0
8 ~~.~
I .I.
B4-3 ~I ~~~' -Medium dense, brown, trace pinFales at 9 feet 28 115.2 14.4
10 I ~ I
-----
---
---
---
----------------------------
Stiff, damq brown, fine, Sandy SILT
12 B4-4 17
14
ML
B4-5 -Increased sand, trzce day at 15 fee[ 21
16
_________________________________ ___ ___ ___
18 Medium dense, damp, Iight tzn, very fine to 6ne SAND
SP
20
~-6 34
BORING TERMINATED AT 2l FEET
No groundwarer encoun[ered
Back511ed
Log of Boring B 4, Page 1 of 1
T2288-02-01.GPJ
SAMPLESYMBOLS ~'-SAMPLINGUNSUCCESSFUL ~...STHN~AROPENETRATIONTEST ~...ORIVESHMPLE(UNDISTLIRBED)
~... DISTUftBED OR BAG S4MPLE Q... CHUNKSAMPLE 1... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THELOGOFSUOSURFACECONDITIONSSHOWNHEREONAPPLIESONLVATTHESPEQFICBORINGORTRENCHLOCNTIONAN~ATTHEDATEINDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARFUNTED TO BE REPRESEMATNE OF SUBSURFACE CON~RIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
3°~
APPENDIX
~~
,
,
r
,
LJ
,
,
,
'
,
,
,
'
~
'
'
~
~
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected undisturbed
samples were tested for their in-place dry density and moisture content, consolidation and collapse
characteristics. Disturbed bulk and representative "undisturbed" samples were tested to determine
maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, collapse potential, grain size distribution,
Atterberg Limits and expansion characteristics. Water-soluble sulfate tests were also performed.
Results of the laboratory tests are presented in tabular and graphical form herewith.
TABLE B-I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 7557-02
Maximum Optimum
Sample Description Dry Density Moisture Content
No. (P~~ (% dry wt.)
BI-I Dark brown, fine Sandy SILT 125.1 10.7
TABLE B-II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829-95
Sample Moisture Content Dry Density Expansion
No. gefore Test (%) After Test (%) (Pcfj Index
B3-1 12.2 25.2 104.2 25
' ~
,
TABLE B-III
, SUMMARY OF SINGLE-POINT CONSOLIDATION (COLLAPSE) TESTS
ASTM D-2435-96
Sample
Number In-situ Dry
~~P ~
Densi c Moisture
Content
geforeTest Axial Load with
Water Added
(ps~ Consolidation
Before Water
(%) percent
Colla se
P
BI-3 119J 12.9 2,000 2.0 -0.9
B1-4 1133 16.2 2,000 23 -0.6
B2-1 88.1 42.6 2,000 6.8 0
B2-2 107.4 10.0 2,000 2.2 03
B3-3 105.0 20.8 2,000 5.0 0
B4-1 1] 6.9 6.8 2,000 0.7 -0.8
B4-2 125.7 9.0 2,000 13 -13
B4-3 115.2 14.4 2,000 l.l 0.6
Nega[ive value indicates soii expansion
TABLE B-IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417
Sample No. Water-Soluble Sulfate (%) Sulfate Exposure
B3-1 0.003 Negligible
TABLE B-VI
ATTERBERG LIMIT TEST RESULTS
Sam le No. Li uid Limit %) Plastic Limit % Plastici Index
B2-7 37 Non-plastic Non-plastic
B2-]0 33 Non-plastic Non-plastic
~`
'
'
i ,
'
'
'
,
,
,
I '
,
'
'
,
1
'
'
'
,
PROJECT NO. T2288-12-Ot
U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
16
30
5
3" 1-1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 20
40
4 ~p
60 1 0 200
100
90 I I
I
I I I
$~
I I
I I
I
I I I
70 I I I
=
~ I I I
w
~
60 I I I
} I I I
m I I I
W 50 I I I
Z
LL I I I
~
z
90 ~ ~ ~
w
~ I I I
I I I
30
a I
I I
I I
Z~
I
I I
I
I I I
10 I I I
I I
0 I I
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
•
m
GRADATION CURVE
LA BELLA VIDA
WOLF VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
2l9&4-01.GPJ
Figure B-1
~
GRAVEL SAND
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT OR CLAY
SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION NAT WC LL PL PI
82-6 20.0 (SM-SP) Brown SAND with trace silt
B2-S 30.0 (SM-SWj Brown, SAND with trace silt
'
I~,
'
,
~
'
'
,
'
,
I ,
,
,
,
~
,, ,
'
'
~
PROJECT NO. T2288-12-01
U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
~ 16
30
5 6
3" 1-1l2". 3/4" 3/8" 4 10
20
40
0 1 0 200
100
90 I I I
I
I I I
gQ
I I
I I
I
I I
70 I I I
=
~ I I I
W
~
60 I I I
y I I I
m I I I
w 50 I I
Z
LL I I I
F
z
90 I I I
W
~ I I I
I I I
3 ~
°' I
I I
I I
20
I
I I
I
I I
10 I I I
I I I
0 I I I
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
m
GRADATION CURVE
LA BELLA VIDA
WOLF VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
228&12-01 GPJ
, Figure B-2
3°~
GRAVEI SAND
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT OR CLAY
SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION NAT WC LL PL PI
62-7 25.0 (ML) Dark grayish brown, Sandy SILT
62-10 40.0 (SM) Dark grayish bmwn, Silty SAND
i'
I,
~
'
,
'
'
,
, APPENDIX C
~ CHJ BORING LOGS AND LABORATORY DATA, 2003
FOR
' I '
LA BELLA VIDA
LOMA LINDA ROAD AT TEMECULA LANE
' TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
' PROJECT NO. T2288-12-01
~
'
'
'
1
'
~~
,
i
, ' ~ c•.~• ~•
,
, , Enclosure "B" (lof2)
Job No. 03356-3
•F
' ~ KEY TO LOGS
F
' ! LEGEND OF LAB/FIELD TESTS:
Bulk Indicates Disturbed or Bulk Sample
' ~ Cor. ChemicaUCorrosivity Tests
' . ; Dist. Indicates Disturbed Sample
DS Direct Shear Test (ASTM D 3080)
";• Exp. Expansion Index (UBC Standazd Test Method 18-2)
' MDC Maximum Density Optimum Moisture Determination (ASTM D 1557)
N.R. Indicates No Recovery of Sample
~ PI Plasticity Index
"
'
~ Ring Califomia
Indicates Undisturbed Ring Sample. Undisturbed Ring Samples are obtained with a
Sampler" (3.25" O.D. and 2.42" I.D.) driven with a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The
blows per foot are converted to equivalent SPT values.
,~ SA Sieve Analysis (ASTM C 136)
SPT Indicates Standard Penetration Test. The SPT N-value is the number ofblows required to drive
an SPT sampler 12 inches using a 140 pound weight falling 30 inches. The SPT sampler is 2"
d
3/8" I
D
, i O.D. an
1-
.
.
'~ ENGINEERING PROPERTIES FROM SPT BLOWS
Relatio nshi of Penetration Resistance to Relative Densit for Cohesionless Soils*
t (After Mitc ell and Katti, 1981)
'` k roximaTe
A
ti
D
ri
pp
p
ve
esc
Number of
t
D
it
R
l
(%)
i
a
rve
ens
e
v
tv
SPT Blows (Ni~bo Re]ative Dens
i
' I
<4 Very Loose 0-15
4-10 Loose 15-35
i 10-30 Medium Dense 35-65
' i 30-50 Dense 65-85
>50 Very Dense 85-100
j * At an effective overburden pressure of 1 ton per square foot (100 kPa). Note that our equivalent SPT-
'~ t Nbo values have not been normalized for overburden.
,;~ Approximate Values of Undrained Shear Streneth for Cohesive Soils
(Terzaghi and Peck, 1967)
' ~ ~ Number of Approximate Undrained
`` SPT Blows (Ni~bo Soil Consistencv Shear StrenQth (psfl
f <2 Very Soft Less Than 250
I ,~j 2-4 Soft 250-500
4-8 Medium Stiff 500-1000
, 8-15 Stiff
15-30 Very Stiff 1000-2000
2000-4000
~ ~ >30 Hard More Than 4000
~'/
~,~-
s
'
.
„
,;
~ ~ ,
ij
' il
1
, .i
I 7
' i;
' I.
' f~
, la
' ~.
' [
' t
~ 11
~ i` R
lG
' i d
~~
, ~f
f~
, ~d
f~
I I
1_~
~!
,i{
<<
Ij
t_s
,i.
L
r ~
:
z~ i Nf P~ f f
lL ~
N 3 0"• - w O
Ii n
Q ~ .
f ~
=
U u
~ "
:
. ..
,. . w
o
~ 89~ • ' Fl ~ W
Z ~. j~~~ 1 y J ! C
O
0 a
c
W O
~
~-- 8 N m a
a
p o z°
g ~P ~ ~
~ '° R
Q ~ .
~ o
~ W
W r
~
~ ~
~ W
Q W <
J ~ Y1 O ~ '~ v~i
\ ~~U, LLU
,
P
W
. c
a ~
'~
~ d
J o ~
W
N'
Fn-.
a~S'- w~.
.94~ _~ •
~'^
_
~ y~
. ~l. #-'~I #'
Q
W-
p' .
b J ~
~ ~ )a
C m
O ~
~ o a~
0
tl
s
i
2 Z
a~ ~
J j
O J
~
~
W
O .. ~ : z o i .'~ °' F
I ~~ °" > ~3
~
d e~ °o : M
~
~ . e~
~ ~
¢ 7a ~ ~ °
~!
~S
~~
>
~
oi
°` ~
.
W
~ ~r
° i~
°r a
o ~ :~ ~W
i~
i
l~
f O s
i
J
O p
J np
2
u
O~'
~1
.. ° - 9 - 7., >~
y o; ~
~
Q Q
~ ~W
3' pQ
~° >6
e~ ~
°r mj Qy
e `
2 °> •: ~t Y ~% .; ~2
~ J O^ ~1
J ]
~ jJ 0'
U : Y : S -
~ ~°a 3 a s c~ 3 a 3
~ y 7 (9 (g (g (9 N N v,
Q ~h
~.~'~.P. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~
U ' ; ~
,~ . ~,..~
i .
: ; . . . , .~ 1
i a .Y~:lv: I 1 1~
1i .
~ • b 'i~.'a~.'Y. ~. ~. ~. , . , .
i`. il I' : . .... .... .....
~
rN
LL
Q
2
U ;
~- i
~ O'
N ~<
Q s
J
a
G
0
e .~i
~
>
0
a
~
a
u
U
N
V) -~ u
W i S
H ~ ~
r+ 2
z-
I _
~ a
a
~ >.
¢i
3 toin
No r
y w`~W
" WJ~ ~ yl ~:
U y ~ ~ ?: ~s n =:.
Z 2~ W 4 V O 4 W ~ LL y O
.J O ¢r
w~ ~ W
Q s Wr
JF - W
a c
0 ~ U- ~ ~ U~ y a
O
~ ~ O I~ V
J J R ~ w } °~ 2~
~ :/1
W ~ W J ~ W° a ~ O O J a ~~~
~~
° ~I
~
Q
~ Q Q C U
V, 2 N
" r
x p'
E~ x
~b~b V Q Q
Y! y~ ~
N „
YJ ~ •
a°h~~
~
~ °w w °1~a
C ~ J s i~ S+
~ a o ~i
¢
V1 ~~
3 v
V V Y
~o Y
Enclosure "B" (2of2)
Job No. 03356-3
~ ~
> i i
^ I 1 I
)
~ I
: i
~2 = i
) I
, 0
~ - ~
~
~ I
~
~
` DNII-6 ' I
J
I I 1 ~
~
I J
d ~
I I ~ ~ ~.
~..
I I
~
W
~'^.
Vl:
~.:' Q
~ ~
~ Q
O LL
Q c;
U ~
~ Z~
tN .
~,
Q. ~
J: . ~
U •
J3.
O ~
O ~
W ~
~
o. n N o o Z
X30n'/ Al/J/15V7d i ~
~
S~q~ 03M~eYJ-?wi i0 I
ud1~JU~S5~10 ~aOAbDY~I tl4! ~
c
:
e> a
o• '
~
~
x
.~ ~ - e ~
~~~
u ~u~
Z u> °o ~
Q ~
~ e
~ ~
u ° ~
° ~
~ 33 a^ o
J ~ O B G
j
Oj
~ !J
o
^ ~
~° UW
~: Z
~ W
~z 't
s
..,o~ o • ~ ~ O e
~a
i
~ J
D
1
p J
~p
h~ ~F
>
YU
J ~y j
Y
~ N
u) j
~ ~
~O
j~q
` V
° vIG n
: i V
u
m urs u] u i ~o
~Y 3
~ ~~~~
z ~1
~. S~Y
~ SV VU Z
~
t61~~ O\NJ VV .¢0~1 Y< k
d
~. h
_
0 0 o a <
? ~ o ~ E o: i
J J J = 2 S F-
'f U ,'p ~ .U ' O a
~ 1 \ \
~
~ i
~
-
~ ---- .
.
. f
:
~
°o
~
ri
.
?
o J
O
~ ~ N
JJ J
U
z
f
~>
2 Q
f O T
J 4 Q
f9
p
J
o) ~ V N a V J
_
~
° R~~' _
W
= Z J ~ ~ ~ ~ .
a o k
~
S u!
~ ~
W~
R. .d
~~ .
r ;
~
' ; i
~~
' ~
1 ; ,
~
' I l
' ,~
~;P
~
, ~
' f
'. `
t
~.:
''t
'.1
v
t.Y
~
'~
3
' I
~
,"4
~
1r
1~
'"
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 1
Date Drilled: 4/22/03 Client Construction Resource Group,inc.
Equipment: CME 55 Drill Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 140 Ib/30 in
Sudace Elevation(ft): ] 021t Logged by: T.D. Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
SAMPLE S ~ a ~
~ N Q
~ ~
~ ~ VISUALCLASSIFICATION ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ o ~ F
. Q~ ?~~ ca~,
Q
W a
~ f~,~
M C~ 0.l ~`'s'...~ ~W ~ C] °' .~-1 F
{ML) Clayey Silt with fine sand, light gray brown Q~ ~32
12 9.4 93 I Ring
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, light gray brown 4$
- 5
_ 16 4.6 105 Ring
(SP) Sand, fine, light giay brown 3.z
- 10 ~
_ - ~ -. IS 3.! 98 Ring
- 15 I
IQy,? ~
~ 31 3.2 I10 Ring
~
~
Z (SP-SM) Sand, fine with medium and cilt, light gray s.6
(7rown
~ Z~ 16.5 114 Fting
z5 , I
32 10.6 114 Ring
(SW) Sand, fioe, light brown i 3-z
30
35 2.7 117
I Ring
~,~ ~ LAGO BELLAGIO SENIOR PROJECT Job No. Enclosure
~~ v .~~ ~~=~ ~ PARCEL MAP 8856, PARCELS 1& 2, TEMECULA 03356-3 $- j d~
i
, 'I
~,
' 1~
iI
1 :
_~ r _
~ ..
, ..
ri
il
~ 1
' ,
, ,
, .i
~ '
l
' ;
'' ~
,
~.k
rx
lr
' ` 1
'I F ~
i
~ i
'. ~ ~
,rp ~
~
.1
~
0
~
~~
' ¢
.'s
I ~ i
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 1
Date Drilled: 4/22/03 Client: Construction Resource Group, Inc.
Equipment CME 55 Drill Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 140 Ib/30 in
Sur£ace Elevation(ft): 1021t Logged by: T.D. Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
SAMPLES ~y o [-~
_ _ _ _" _ _ _ 0 3 -
0 ~ Q
~ ~
x VISUAL CLASSIFICATION ~ r~i~ ~ ~
~ ['~
F
~ ~ ~' 3>
O q~
~ ~Cqti
W
Q p ~a C.] w W
w" ~
w~ ~ a
Ca .. , 6
a F-
: (SW) Sand, fine, light brown
33
3.7
106
Ring
(SP) Sand, fine to coarse, light brown 2.5
40
4y6" 3.6 118 Ring
45
- 42/6" 2.8 124 Ring
END OFBORING I j
NO BEDROCK
50 P~CTICAL REFUSAL AT 47.0'
NO FILL
MINOR CAVING
NO FREE GROUND WATER
55
I
6~ - ~
~
~
65
LAGO BELLAGIO SENIOR PROJECT Job No. Enclosure
~~ • •
~~/ v ~ PARCEL MAP 8856, PARCELS 1& 2, TEM~CULA 033~6-3 B-1 b~
i
{
' I
, 1
t
,
~ ,
1 '
~
'
' ,
, .
r
i~
1~
~
,.~
~
' i
,'
r
16
, ~ ~
~
x ~
~ 4 ~
~
' ~ c
c
t c:
~
0
' Y m
?
t:
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 2
Date Dnlled: 4/22/03 Client: Construction Resource Group, Inc.
Equipment: CME 55 Dnll Rig Driving Weigh[ / Drop: 140 lb/30 in
Surface Elevation(ft): 1025f L.ogged by: T.D. Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
SAAfPLES
E..~ .~
. p
F~
"'
.._
_
. ~ ~
~ U ~ ~y P-i
~ ~ Q
~ VISUAL CL,ASSIFICATION ~ cn ~ ~ ~ ~
x a ~ p 7 Q~ Y~~ ~p
~vi
q ~,~j ~ Q ~ 0.a1~ w~ (a p' Q
~1F
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, dazk brown r•;n ~6.t
(CL) Sandy Clay, 6ne, dark gray brown Qra ia.i Cor., Exp.,
Hydro., PI
14 15.9 ~P'
SPT
5
22 14I SPT
10 (ML) Sandy Silt, fine, gray brown t5'
14 17.6 SPT
~ 5
I I5.5
.
i 14 14.1 SPT,SA
20
22 19.5 SPT
25
(SP) Sand, fine to medium with coarse, light gray brown 4.z
~ 28 3.8 SPT, SA
30
(SP-SM) Sand, fine with silt, gray brown
56
6.8
SPT
~,~, ~ LAGO BELLAGIO SENIOR PROJECT Job No. Enclosure
~~ V v~~~ ~ PARCEL MAP 8856, PARCELS 1&. 2, TEMECULA 03356-3 $-2g ~
, ~
,~
''' ,
' : ,
11 ~
~r
' ~
' '
' ,
~ '
' '
'. t
' t
'. 1
, t
,
f
F
'~ E
<
~
~ ~
'' ~
P ~
~
o =
~
0
, m
1j
'`
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 2
Date Drilled: 4/22/03 Client: Construc[ion Resource Group, Inc.
Equipment: CME 55 Drill Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 140 lb/30 in
Surface Elevation(ft): ] 025t Logged by: T.D. Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
snrar~e s O o ~
- - -
v~ O F F. ~l
~ ~ VISUAL CLASSIFICATION c~i~ ~ ~
F ~
~ ~
~,
~ ~ w
~
~C
3.7
q~ ~
~cqF
q a W ~ ap? w Q° a
W
C7 x Cl a
i w ~ -
[
-~
(SP-SM) Sand, fine with silt, gray brown i
(SM) Silty Sand, fine with clay, gray brown I
I
27
16.7
SPT,SA
40
38 IL6 SPT
45
~
9S/3.5"
3.8
SPT
END OF BORING
SO NO BEDROCK
NO REFUSAL
FILL TO 1.0' '
MINOR CAVING
NO FREE GROUNDWATER
55
60
i
~
65
~
^ n LAGO BELLAGIO SENIOR PROIECT Job No. Enclosure
~~~~~~ PARCEL MAP 88~6, PARCELS I& 2, TEMECULA 03356-3 B-2b ~~
~i
' I~
' ;i
i~~
: ~ _
'
' ,
' li
, ,
' ..
' .
' ~
'.:
',.
f
'. F
i
'. i
~ u
'' ` ~
L
~
k L
I 'a
S m
f o
''~ ~
z
0
m
1:~
i
~r
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 3
Date Drilled: 4/22/03 Client: Construction Resource Group, Inc.
Equipment: CME 55 Drill Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 140 lb/30 in
Surface Elevation(ft): 1020t Logged by: T.D. Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
SAMPLE S ~ o [~
h
~ Oa Q
~
'-' U VISUAL CLASSIFICAI'ION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~]
H x
a
, ~
`«
G
~ ? ~
La v~ ~
~
" F,
q ¢
a ~ ~
,.
~ ~ w Q p~
Q
W
C7 w W ~ ° ' .
-1 [
-~
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, dazk brown to gray brown Nanve i2~
7 Il.l 108 Ring
r
- 5
14 203 107 Ring
_ brown
(CL) Sandy Clay
fine IB.S Exp.,
,
,
~ Hydro.. PI
_ 1~ ~
10 22.1 103 Ring.
Consol.,
DS
- IS
8 20.1 lI0 Ring
(SP-SM) Sand; fine to medium with silt, light brown 4$
- 20
27 5.0 I12 Ring
25
. 28 14.4 120 Ring
END OF BORING ~
NO BEDROCK
NO REFUSAL
30 NO FILL
MINOR CAVING
NO FREE GROUNDWATER
~ ,~ n LAGO BELLAGIO SENIOR PROJECT Job No. Enclosure
~~ v v~~~ PARCEL MAP 8856, PARCELS i& 2, TEMECULA 03356-3 $-3 ~~
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 4
Date Drilled: 4/22/03 Client: Conslruction Resource Group, Inc.
Equipment: CME 55 Drill Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 140 Ib/30 in
Surface Elevation(fr): 1O15t Logged by: T.D. Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
SAMPLES ~ o ~
--- p
a Q
~ ~ VISUAL CLASSIFICATION ~ ~'~' ~
~, ~ E'~
~
~
~
~
`~
' a ~
W
A r~ p w
x Ca w r~j
aai ., ~ ~-
w~ a
~1 ._, d
a[-~
(SM) Silty Sand, fine with clay, dazk brown Qr~ s.6 SA, SE
(SM) Silty Sand, £ne, gray brown
14 ~.6
9.7
96 MDc
Ring,
Consol.
$
14 9.1 I06 Ring
~ p
, (SP-SM) Sand, fine with medium and silt, gray brown
( 8 9
I 7 I i.9 94 i Ring
15
QYa? 16 11.6 IC3 Rine
Z~
18 11.8 99 Ring
END OF BORING
Z~ NO BEDROCK
NO REFUSAL
NO FILL
MINOR CAVIl~!G
NO FREE GROUNDWATER
30
(~~ ,~,~ LAGO BELLAGIO SENIOR PROJECT Job No. Enclosure
~~ I~/ LI ~~J s PARCEL MAP 8856, PARCELS 1& 2, TEMECULA 43356-3 $-t} ~,
, .i
,~
, .i
rt
' „
'~
' ..
, f~
' •
1
' ~
' .~
' .:
~
' . i
'.k
i
1 t
e
I
' ~ L
I ~
' '~ ~
~
~
~ ~
'.i "
~
k p
I
' } U'
z
d
' ml
i
i
,.r
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 5
Date Drilled: 4/22/03 Client Co~struction Resource Group, Inc.
Equipment: CME 55 Dril] Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 140 Ib/30 in
Surface Elevation(ft): 1O15t Logged by: T.D. Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
suarLe s ~, o
~
- - - O [-~ Ca
~ ~ VISUAL CLASSIFICATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [~
F,
~
`.G
~
~.7
o'
O~
O
r~"~ ~
~H
~
Q c7a ~ G w wW, w~ U
Q° ~ aH
(SM) Silty Sand, fine with clay, dark brown Qre s.i
7 17.6 SPi
5 (SP-SM) Sand, fine with medium and silt, light gray 4$
brown s 6.5 ser
L
- 10 Qya?
20 4.4 SPT
- 15 '
25 3.7 SPT
(SM) Silty Sand, fine with clay, dark gray
- 20
I i5 ?4.0 SPT
~ 25
28 4.6 SPT
END OF BORING
NO BEDROCK
NO REFUSAL
30 NO FILL
MINOR CAVING
NO FREE GROUNDWATER
LAGO BELLAGIO SENIOR PROJECT Job No. Enclosure
• •,~ ~e Q
~~ `-~ PARCEL MAP 8856, PARCELS 1& 2, TEMECULA 03356-3 B-S ~
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 6
Date Drilled: 4/22/03 Client: Construction Resource Group, Inc.
Equipment: CME 55 Drill Rig Dnving Weight / Drop: 140 lb/30 in
Surface Elevation(ft): 1019t Logged by: T.D. Measured Bepth to Water(ft): N/A
5.4MPLE5 ~ ~
~
_ _ _- ' _.-_ " . . O
~ Q
~ ~ VISUAL CLASSIFICATION ~ ~~ ~
H f'~
~ W
x~1
3..
Q ~
~a~N
a w ~1 W ~ W w~ C1 °' .~ F"
Ca C7
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, dark brown Q~ t t.3 SA, SE
10 7.8 104 Ring i
5
18 10.1 96 Ring, DS
/
(SP-SM) Sand, fine to medium with silt, ligh[ brown Q~' ~$
10
I
~ ta I t.o toi a~„g
15
~
I7 ~
6.0
107
Ring
20
25 23 105 Ring
END OF BQRING
25 NO BEDROCK
NO REFUSAL
NO FILL
MINOR CAVING ~
NO FREE GROUNDWATER .
30
~
I
LAGO BELLAGIO SENIOR PROJECT Job No. Enclosure
~~~ • •
~ L~1 LI ~ PARCEL MAP 8856, PARCELS 1& 2, TEMECULA 03356-3 $-( ~`
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 7
Date Drilled: 4/22/03 Client: Construction Resource Group, Inc.
Equipment: CME 55 Drill Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 1401b/30 in
Surface Elevation(fr): ] 025t L,ogged by: T.D. Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
~
'~ '
~
0
' ~ i
E `
F c
1 j c
~
'¢
c
~ m
' -`
c
~
- SAMPLE S F o ~
_--
_-_
_ _ ' _ ' _ _
_ _ _
.p_ . .
Q ~ Q
~ ~
~ ~ VISUAL CLASSIFICATION ~ ~ ~ ~
~. ~' x 3.~ ~
Q~ H
Q ~
a
~
A
~ a °
W ' o
~
Q° ~
w
c7 w w w~ .-iH
(SM) Silty Sand, fir,e with clay, dark brown QYa ~Z ~
10 113 104 Ring
g (SM) Silty Sand, fine, brown g~
22 7.4 115 Ring
1~
~ 31 3.4 108 Ring
15 I
i
I
~ J9
l 6.0 122 Ring
fine to medium with coarse and silt, light
(SP-SM) Sand 3~
2~ ,
brown
I7 7.8 IOft Ring
25 I
32 1.7 III R'ing
END OF BORING
' NO BEDROCK ~
NO REFUSAL I
30 NO FILL
MINOR CAVING
NO FREE GROUNDWATER
~~ ,~ n LAGO BELLAGIO SENIOR PROJECT Job No. Enclosure
~~L~1l~l~ ~~
PARCEL MAP 8856, PARCELS 1& 2, TEMECULA 03356-3 $-'] ~'Jj
t fl
~i
' ~i
i+
' ',
1-.°--
, ~.
ir
' Il
t '
' 4
~
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 8
Date Drilled: 4/22/03 Client: ConsWction Resource Group, Inc.
Equipment: CME 55 Dnll Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 140 Ib/30 in
Surface Elevation(ft): ] 030f Logged by: T.D. Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
SAMPLES ~ \ ~
- - - - - - _ _ _ -- OO a Q
T ~ VISUAL CLASSIFICATION ~ v~i ~' ~
F, ~ f~
nF.
C7 w
-~~- ,~-~
O Q,
""~ p
~,' ~
~a~ v~
Q
c7~
~a
C~ a~i
amw
w5 U
Q°'
aH
f ; . (SM) Silty Sand, fine, brown Fin 6.6
S 10.7 SPT
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, brown Qya 6.7
~
-
?5
53
SPT
~ [O
28 4.8 SPT
(SP-SM) Sand, fine to medium, light gray brown 4°
- 15 I
i
31 2.3 SPT
- 2~
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, gray brown is zo t Sri
ENDOFBORING
25 NO BEDROCK
NO REFUSAL
FILL TO 4.0'
MINOR CAVING
NO FREE GROUNDWATER
30
'_~ ~ ^ n LAGO BELLAGIO SENIOR PROJECT Job No. Enclosure
~~~/ v~~~ PARCEL MAP 8856, PARCELS 1& 2, TEMECULA 03356-3 $-$ ~
r
~- s
' i
;
I
~, . i
.~
~ .
~ ~
,
~'_.
i
~.:
~ '
~ :
i
~. :
~. t
,
, ~
i
i
!`
~F
r
i
' ~
P ~
~j [
~
~
0
~ ~
,` ~
~~ ~
c
z
a
~ o
'1 m
~
,i
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 9
Date Drilled: 4/22/03 Client: ConsVuction Resource Group, Lnc.
Equipment CME 55 Dnll Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 140 lb/30 in
Surface Elevation(fr): 1025t Logged by: T.D. Measured Degth to Water(ft): N/A
_ __ _
_ ___
' - -. _
..
SAMPlE
S F ,-
~
~ . .
_ _ '__
__"'"_ _ __-______
.________
_._._
.
_ .
.
'
._
__
O ~ q
v ~ ~ ~
~ VISUAL CLASSIFICATION ~ ~ ~
aF., ~~ ' ~ p'a Q~ ~~
~ ~y
w
~ Qu~
'
f~ C7 c. Ca W Da ~ L] ° ~-1 F
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine with clay, dazk brown to brown Qra ts.z Cor., MuC
9 12.4 99 Ring
5
17
I 95 I10 Ring
] O
20 14.4 I I7 Ring
(SP) Sand, fine, light brown 3.4
?5
. . 29 6.2 120 Ring
Zo I
2J Z.R IG2 Ring
~$
. 3A 2.4 111 Aing
END OF ~ORING
NO BEDROCK
NO REFUSAL
30 NO FILL
MINOR CAVING
NO FREE GROUNDWATER
~~ ~ ~ LAGO BELLAGIO SENIOR PROJECT Job No. Enclosure
~ ~ l~~/~lJ ~ ~~J •
PARCEL \4AP 8856, PARCELS 1& 2, TEMECULA 03356-3 $-9 ~
, 1
~
~ f
~ ,
, L_
~ i
~ ~
~ ,
~ '
~it
i~
i
~ T
~ ~
C
~
i
"t
~.G
~
~, ~
i
'. 6
~ _:
1} m ~~~o ~
~F
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 10
Date Dnlled: 4/22/03 Client: Construction Resource Group, Inc.
Equipment: CME 55 Drill Rig Dnving Weight / Drop: ]4016/30 in
Surface Elevation(ft): 1027t Logged by: T.D. Measured Dep[h [o Water(ft): N/A
. SAMPLES o
W ~
'__-__ ___ _ ". ____
. . _ _ .. _ - _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ - _ - _ ..O - _
_ _ _
O a Q
w ~ VISUAL CLASSIFICATION ~ cn ~n ~
F„ ~ f~
x
~
~
x
~
o'
Q
~~
~~ ~
~~
~
w p W
c~
I~]
t0 aW
w
w~ a a
C] w
¢
a[--~
A C7 ~--~ ._, "
(ML) Silty with sand, fine, dark brown to b:o,~n Qn 9_4 sn, sE
19 71.1 IG8 Ring
I
5 I
1L' 1L~J 106 Ring,
f
G Consol.
10 I
;
i3
~ ~
I 17.5
114
Ring
15
~ ~ i
I
11 19.6 109 Ring
Z~
I 17 N.R N.R Ring
ENB OF BORIlVG
25 NO BEDROCK
NO REFUSAL
NO FILL
MINOR CAVING
NO FREE GROUNDWATER
30
i
LAGO BELLAGIO SENIOR PROJECT Job No. Enclosure
~ PARCEL MAP 8856, PARCELS 1& 2, TEh4ECULA 03356-3 ~-j Q~
,.i
~•a• ~•
APPENDIX "~"
LABORATORY TESTING
~
r
I
~ i
~
rf
1 ~
~r
~~~
sf
1~:
1;1
, ~ r
1~-
re
~~a
rE
~
~~e
I;
~tL
ri
!
1[
fTf
~Il
~F
~~
~
~~.
E
~s
,,
,~
s
~
~,
F
1~
p
l
PLASTICITY INDEX:
Boring
No.
2
3
Depth of
Sample (ft.l
1.0
6.0
TEST DATA SLTIVIMARY -
Classification
Sandy clay, fine
gray brown (CL)
Sandy clay, fine
brown (CL) .
EXPANSION INDEX:
Uniform Building Code Standard Test Method 18-2
Liquid
Limit
%
34
40
~~~~~~
Enclosure "C-1"
Job No. 03356-3
Plastic Plasticity
Limit Index
% %
zo.h is.a
22.° 17.1
Depth of Initia] Final Degree of
Boring Sample Moisture Moisture Saturation Expansion Expansion
Nos. (ft•l % (%) (%) Index Potential
2 1.0 11.4 21.9 48 33 "]ow"
3 6A 12.2 23.6 49 45 "low"
~1
:
1„
„
i , .
~i
' ,.
(e
-
1~
r;
~ ~ ~
~j
~'
!'t
It
' !a
~;-
1 I;
i~
, ~i
r~
I~~
~i
1 ti
' I i
~
fP
j
~~
l'
~ '
,[{
i
, ~d
I~~
~..5
1•~;
a
U
O A
O ~p
O m N
U E
r ~j
D
~
N a
0 c
J
ti ` ui
---- - -- - y a ~
e_ 3_.
~ ~ ~ J 0
_ U E ~ m
a
M N ~ ~ q ~
`o E ~ ~ . o d W
o ~ ~ ~
o 'u' Q ° ° (~ m m
A
Z m a
`
E m
° Q p o
E o o N ~
°
p O O ~
a J
O p`
U ~
(O
ti m M
E ~ o ~ o
a z
o ~ ~
p "" "' '_ "" " _' " " " "' ' '. .. . "" " " " "'
N
<p o . E ..
~ o
~
~ N
U I ~ ° c E
~
I- °
"
°~ o
~0 ~
Z
~ ~ w ° o 0
Q ~ a ~ -~
N a
N ' '" " " " " " "' .. . "' " " " " " '_ _' _" W
C ~
a
d
J
J ~
~ ~ ~
~
v
~
a Q
D T
~p Z ~ L.LJ
~
~
~ I
~
~
~
~ ~
Q
~o o <
3 <
3 n
N
Z N
yi u a n ~ O
(n
• ~
C7 o ~
U m
- ~ v o
a
v
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'
U _
T
m .
T
m
y
~ a
N
u
u
`0
~ ~
N ~ = '
a
N
3
3
~ O
~ c ~ m
~~ O LL "
d
4
4
L U
v_ = ~ 3 z
VI ~
M .
.
..
.
.
..
.
.
.
. N "
T ~
T ~
I ~
~ ~ ~ i
~
~
- I ~
~ ~
_ ~
_ ~
_
o _
Z
~
N . L N tll tn
_ p O O O
~ . . . .. . . . .. . . .. .._ .._ . O
O ~
` ~
~ o
D a ro
o ~
~ m
m
m ~
a
a
a
a ~7
{{{~~~
~
U E • ^ i
~,
~
0
0 V
°o °m ro ~ c°n ~°n v ~°+~ N ~ ~ ~
1H JI 3M J, 9 2f 3N 1~ 1N 3~ a3 d
~
,~
~~,~
~,
I~~
..
' ~ t
i
, 1 ~
~ ~ a
lii
r~
' i .
't e
i~
, ,
f;
~
,i~
'~ ~
~~ f
~
,L ~
F
1~ i
i
~
~l i
IF
'~i
~ ~
~~
r
s'
a ~
U
~
0
~
~
a
N
U
_ v ~
U 9
¢
N q
V
~ J
U Q
_ ___
_
__
__.
.
_
_
. -
.
-
. . _
. -
.
. _
_ _
_
_
. ,w
Y/ .
~ E ~
~
T
W
._°.
°
N
O
10 I > N D
`
V E s o ~ v1 n c
- _ ° E o o o W
j ~ ~ ~
o N Q o o ~ ro q
"
E
E
o
o a
~ m
rn a
`o
`
°
~
o
O
F
a
J
U m
p
U
M
(O
E O ~
o u r`~i
r~
E ~
N ~
~ ~ n
O ;
c
Y O
- - ~ 0
o o R z
o ~ ~
p . .. . . .. .. .. " " "" "' _' " "" "' "
- " '"
N
tp
~
U ~ o
~ E
°
c .
E
~y O ~
VI ~D
~
I
W N
o
~ Z
p
Q - ~ a ~ ~
N a°
d
_
..
..
..
.'
" " ' __ '. .. .' '_ " " " " " '. " W
~
__ ~
o
N ~
N N
' ~ ~ ~
0 N
N
~
Z
~
~ 1
1 -
~~•
C.
:°.
° i I I N
N
~
° ~--
L
tn
, "
¢ -
~
z
¢
°'
~
~ LV
N 5 q N
n
;
• C~ U
-
o ~
= v
.
..
""
'"
"
'_
'"
""
..
...~
"
'"
""
"'
"'
"
'.
..
U
n`
~ ~
N
N y o L
~ ~ a
N
v
~ O
~ - ~ ~
~ _ o LL
~
V
T
4
T U
~
~
N ~
'_
""
"
'_
'_
"
'""
'
..
.'
""
._
..
._
"
"'
'"
'""
'_
"
~
m
T
C
T
a
I ~
'~
~ m
N m
h
~
ir1
! d
~
~ J
U J
U
~ I U .~
t o 0
_ 2 ~ [O
[7 . ' ' . . . . . . .. ... . .. . N
O ~
-
O `
~
I ~
N
U ~
O
N
l7
> m
m
~'
N
N .
a
n ~
o
- ~
U E • a
~,
~ ~
i o
°
Op
~
Oro
O
~
~
O
O~
O
N
O
O o
'~
~
1H J1 3M ,18 a 3N I~ 1N 3~ 2i3 d
~
,
~~
1~
1 . ~
1 I[
_' LL __ _
1~~
~ `i
(f
' I d
i
, .i
~
1~
' . s
„
,,E
fP
'll
,~t
~;
P
' y
, ,~~
n
'l E
'~ ~
fP
~.i
~t
e
f
~I
O U
~
O
U
°'
o ~
y
v
~' U
N
U
U rc
~ m
°
U
n
N
O
a c
~
i
_-_ - '
._
__
-
.-
_
__
-
._
_
__
-
-
._.
_
___
_.
_
_ -
'-
'
_
-
_'
' '
" ~ E
. Q
>
-
.
; ~ a
~ o
~, U E m o ~ fn m c
I ° ~ ~ o W
,~ o e ' ~ ~
~. I o N a o c (~ m m
m
~ E
0
0 Z
~ 9
p
~ a
°
E
O a
0 o
0
~
a
J
~p c
o
U
M
tp
A m v M
E
r
~ ~ o ~ °
N
o
a
z°
o ~ ~
o . " " _ "' '_ _' ... .. .. .. .. . ... .. .. " '
N
E
~o
~
t O
V ~ o
~
E
~
°
N
~
0
c .
D
E
cL
F ~
~ ~
-
(n jy
N
'p O
9
U ~
7
.O
Q ~ d J ~
~ " " " ' _ _ _ " "'" "' "' _ "' '" "" "' "' "' '" _" "
~ I W
~
~ c
~ N ~ o
N '
a
o` Q
II ~
R Z ~ ~ w
R o
`
~
w
~
m
~
=
3 ~Q
~
Q ~
I
Z
Q
N
m
~
ai
~
o
~ N
1~
~
f~
~ ~
U N
~
3 V
L
m
n
~
o
"
"
"
"
_' ~
_"
'_
"
"
"
_'
"
_'
"
"
.. .. . . . ' . U o
~ ='
3 >.
,~ LL.
y
n
T
E
~ ~
~ ~ ~ i
~
9
3 O
~~ ~ ~ v
I'1 o LL C
d
1
d
~
~
~%
y
O
y
C
G
V
C U
~
y v
m
"
"'
"_
" "
"
"'
"
"
"
""
...
.
_"
'"
""
"
'"
""'
"
' ~ T
v ~
a N
T ~
~ C
h
~ C
N ~
N
~
~
~n
_
- I m
~
~
~ a
~ ~
N o
U r
t o
~ 0
r 0
r
a ~ N t7
t7 . . . .. ... . . . . . . . .. ~
~
O
O •
H
N
a m
`
N
N
N ~
~
m
~ m
N
N •
a
a
a n
o
:7 E • ^ t
N
0
O V
O
O m ~
1H r
JI
3M t~D
J.
8 a N
3N
l~ V
1N
3~ M
2i3
d N ~ ~ ~
~
T
Maximum Density Optimum Moisture Determination Test (ASTM i557)
1a0
130
c
U
a
T
C ~2~
N
~
T
~
~~~
ioo
0
5 10 15 20 25
Moisture Conieni (%)
Boring# Depth(ft) Soil/SampleType Yma(P~) wP,(%)
, q Z (SM) Silty sand, fne, gray brown 118 12.5
. 9 0.5 (ML) Sandy silt, fine with clay, dark brown to brown 123 12.0
MOIS7URE DENSIYY TEST
Projed: Proposed Lago Bellagio Senior Project
~OC2lI0f1: Northwest Comer o/ Pala P.tl. and Loma Linda Fd., Temecula, CA
Job No.: D33563 Enclosure: C3
~ ~ • N • ~ • WCORPOf2ATED
~~
Saturate
Consolidation Test (ASTM D 2435)
0
~ ----- -_--- -----
- --- ~- - --- ----- ------
Satura!e I
2
0
~ 3 - -~-~ -
~ Saturate i
~ I
c
0
a
m
~
0 4
N
C
O
U
5 __ __I
I
~ i
i
6
~ i 1
~
~oo iooo ioooo
Normal Stress (ps~
Boring # Depth(ft) Soi!/Sample Type y~ (pc~ MC(°%) HCS(%)
• 3 10 (CL) Sandy clay, fine, brown 103 22.1 -0.52
. 4 2 (SM) Silty sand, fine gray brown 96 9.7 0.45
• 10 7 (ML) Silt, fine with sand, dark brown to 6rown 106.U 18.7 -0.38
HCS = HytlmConsolitla~ion Strain ( % ) __
COPISOLiDATIOPJ TEST
Project: Proposed Lago Bellagio Senior Projed
LOC2(10(1: NortMmst Comero( Pafa Rd. and Loma I.intla Rd, Temecula, CA
Job No.: D335G3 Enclosure: C-4
~ ~ • i[r-~ • ~ • INCORP4RATED
~~
Direct Shear Test (ASTM D 3080)
Boring # Depth(ft) Soil/Sample Type Ya (P~ MC(%) C(ps~ y~(°)
• 3 10 (CL) Sandy day, fine, brown / undisWrbed 103 22J 435 18
~ g 7 (SM) Silty sand, fine, dark biown / undisWrbed 90 1 ~. ~ 154 32
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Project: Proposed Lago Bellayio Senior Project
~OC2t10~1: NoMwes~ Comer o( Pala RE. and loma Lintla F.E., Temecula, CA
Job No.: 03356-3 Enclosure: C-5
~ ~ • [Nl] • ~ ° INCQRFURATED
~3
O.D 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 <^OC0.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0
Normal Stress (ps~
U
~
(~sd) ssa~~g ~eayg u' m
d ~
°o °o °o a °n °o °o
~
~
~ N
F V
N N
~ O
h
~
m
g ~
~
a
~
N v
o
o a v1
~ C
J
~
_ _ -_ -__ '-'_--______ -m. m _V- .____ _-_ _-'
~ _<p. _ _
J
V ~ a
i o 0
~ ~O J U
~ {{~ d C W
o
° w ~
F"
O ~
N $
~
N d'
a ~
c
a
y
W
o
' m
m
o a '~
~ _ rn a
N
¢ Iw
v, ~ O
y F m
N C ~
(~ O
~ \ N ~ J U ~
M
i° O ~ ~ N ~ O
L
z n o 0
u
a z
o
° ?,
o
m
a
o
~
V c
O E
~
~ R Z
~ o 0
a ~ -~
0
Q
i
o ~
a ~
~ ~ ~
d
a a
Y O
N
~
~ ~
~
'- ~ C
~ ~
m
O o
(n \
C O
~ °
` U
~
°~ n
~ Z
~ c
c
v
U
10
~'
N
Q
m
U
T
~
e
~I~,
~ C
N
p L ~
~
J V
U
v O
~
~
~
N ~ Q
a
~
O ~
#
m ~
C
0
0 ~
0 0 0 °o °
N
' m •
uO} O N
O N O
~ (+1 N N
~sd) ssa~lg ~eayg ~
~
U
m
(~sd) ssa~~g ~eayg c'~ a
d u~
°o °o o° °o °o °o o
~ O ~
O~
C~1 ~
F' U
t ") NJ N N O
~ m
g N
~ '
~
N 9
C
O
0 0- ~
4'1 J N
___ _ ...- _ ------__.__ "-__--_ 0
.t~ ____ m _- _ ' -
~ -~p_ j
U a
i o 0
H J
N
{LI °
~-
c c
W
0
°
~
F'
`0
10
N 9 ~
N
Q'
N
°
`~ Q
W ~
o ry
`°
o n
~
0 ~D Z
N m d
y
0
N ~ O
N
~
m
~
U
~ ~ {~
~
o ~ \
U ~ W
~ ~ ~ ~
v~i O ~ °a N y~j O
Z ~ ~
a L
a ~ °
a o
z
a
a
0 t
m
~
o
~
u c
° E
~
d
m Z
~ o 0
~ a ~ ~
0
~
_ o ~
a ~
a F
Q
~ ~
n
~
~
N O
E
m ~
~ ~
~
m- ~
0 c
3
~
o <n ° ~
o
~ ~
~
~
~
~
c
~
~ Z
,n ~ c -
U
~
a
~
N ~
~
C
y
N
~
~
p N fn
~
~ V
~
v ~
~ ~
~
\ N L
a
m n
~ ~
c
~ ~
o ~
O
O
0 0 0 0
O O O ~ O
O O ~
CLI
•
N
M M N N ~ ~
(}sd) ssa~as ~eayg
~
~
~~
' ENCLOSURE"GE
JOB NO. 03356-3
M. J. Schiff & Associates, Inc.
, , Co~rsulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 Phone: (909) 626-0967 Fax: (909J 6Z6-3J/ 6
431 ~i! BaselineRodd E-mai!!al~r~j~1jschiff.com
Claremont CA 91711 website: mjscHiff.cam
,
I, Table 1- Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
I
i Lago Belagio Senior Pmject -
' Your #03356-3, MJS&A #03-0496LAB
30-Apr-03
' .
Sample ID
' ZB 9A
' Resistivity Units
' as-received ohm-cm 580 2,200
saturated ohm-cm 410 1,700
' Pg 83 7.9
Electrical
, Conductivity mS/cm 1.07 0.35
, . Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium Ca2~ mg/Icg ]04 56
' ; magnesmm Mg2+ mg/kg 34 29
, sodium Na'~ mg/kg 1,062 117
~
Anions
, carbonate C03Z- mg/kg 24 27
bicarbonate HCO~~ mg/kg 1,330 531
~
'; chloride Cl~~ mg/kg 520 25
t sulfate SO4Z- mg/kg 813 ND
Other Tests
I , !
~ ammonium NHy~~ mg/kg 136.8 11.4
nitrate NO~~~ mg/kg 40.1 9.1
' ~ sulfide SZ qual na na
i
Redox
mv
na na
' °
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract.
,. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
` ND = not detected
na = not analyzed
, '
' !
~So
' ~ Page 1 of I
APPENDIX
~~
1
'
'
1
~
'
'
'
~
'
1
,
1
'
'
'
1
'
'
APPENDIX D
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
FOR
LA BELLA VIDA
LOMA LINDA ROAD AT TEMECULA LANE
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. T2288-12-01
~
.............................
' LIQUEFY2 `
* Version 1.50 '
*k*++#iM+ki+4+W#+1#rt#4i#fH1f
EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF
EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
JOB NUMBER: T2288-12-01 DATE: 02-07-2005
JOB NAME: Boring B-2
SOIL-PROFILE NAME: LIQTEST.LDW
BORING GROUNDWATER DEPTH: 25.00 ft
CALCULATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH: 25.00 ft
DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.80 Mw
SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.600 g
BOREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00
SAMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00
N60 HAMMER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.30
MAGNITUDE SCALING FACTOR METHOD: Idriss (1997, in press)
Magnitude Scaling Factor: 1.285
rd-CORRECTION METHOD: Seed (1985)
FIELD SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS.
Rod Stick-Up Above Ground: 3.0 ft
CN NORMALIZATION FACTOR: 1.044 tsf
MINIMUM CN VALUE: 0.6
~v~
NCEER [1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
File Name: T2288-12-01.OUT
PAGE 1
~ CALC.~ TOTAL~ EFF. ~FIELD ~ FC ~ ~ CORR.~LIQUE.~ ~INDUC.~LIQUE.
SOIL~ DEPTH~STRESS~STRESS~ N ~DELTA~ C ~(N1)60~RESIST~ r ~STRESS~SAFETY
NO.~ (ft) ~(ts~~ (tsf)~(B/ft)~N1_60~ N ~(B/ft)~ RATIO~ d ~ RATIO~FACTOR
1 ~ 025~ 0.015~ 0.015I 7 ~- ~` ~ ` ~ ' ~' ~' ~'"
1 ~ 0.75~0.045~0.045I 7 ~' ~* ~ '~ * ~' ~' ~"
1 ~ 1.25~0.075~0.075~ 7 ~- ~' ~ '~ ' ~` ~ " ~"
1 ~ 1.75~ 0.105~ 0.105~ 7 ~- ~' ~ ` ~ ' ~' ~ ' ~"
1~2.25~0.135~0.135I 7~' ~'~ '~ '~'~ '~"
1~2.75~0.165~0.165I 7~- ~*~ '~ '~'~ *~**
1 ~ 3.25~ 0.195~ 0.195I 7 ~' ~' ~ `( ' ~' ~ ' ~"'
1 ~ 3.75~ 0.225~ 0.225I 7 ~' ~* ~ * ~ ' ~' ~ * ~'*
1 ~ 4.25~ 0.255~ 0.255I 7 ~- ~' ~ ' ~ ' ~' ~ ' ~"
1 ~ 4.75~ 0.285~ 0.285I 7 ~- ~' ~ * ~ ' ~' ~ ` ~*'
2 ~ 5.25~ 0.315~ 0.315~ 9 ~' ~` ~ * ~ ' ~' ~ * ~**
2~ 5.75~0.345~0.345I 9 ~' ~' ~ `~ * ~" ~ ` ~"
2 ~ 6.25~ 0.375~ 0.375I 9 ~' ~* ~ ` ~ ` ~* ~ * ~'*
2~ 6.75~0.405~0.405I 9 ~' ~' ~ '~ ' ~' ~ ' ~"
2~ 7.25~0.435~0.435~ 9 ~` ~'( '~ ' ~' ~ ` ~"
2 ~ 7.75~ 0.465~ 0.465~ 9 ~' ~* ~ ` ~ ' ~' ~ ` ~'*
2 ~ 825~ 0.495~ 0.495~ 9 ~- ~* ~ ' ~ ' ~' ~ * ~'*
2 ~ 8.75~ 0.525~ 0.525I 9 ~' ~' ~ ' ~ ' ~' ~ ' ~'*
2 ~ 925~ 0.555~ 0.555I 9 ~' ~` ~ ' ~ ' ~` ~ ' ~"*
2 ~ 9.75~ 0.585~ 0.585I 9 ~- ~* ~ ' ~ ' ~' ~ ' ~"`
2 ~ 10.25~ 0.615~ 0.615I 9 ~ ' ~' ~ ' ~ * ~* ~ ' ~"
2 ~ 10.75~ 0.645~ 0.645I 9 ~ - ~* ~ ' ~ ` ~* ~ ` ~'*
2 ~ 1125~ 0.675~ 0.675I 9 ~` ~* ~ ' ~ ` ~`( * ~*'
2 ~ 11.75~ 0.705~ 0.705I 9 ~' ~"' ~' ~ ' ~' ~ * ~"
2~12.25~0.735~0.735I 9 ~' ~* ~ *~ * ~* ~ * ~**
2 ~ 12.75~ 0.765~ 0.765I 9 ~- ~' ~ ` ~ ' ~' ~ ' ~'"
2 ~ 13.25~ 0.795~ 0.795I 9 ~- ~~ ~ ` I ' ~~ ~ ~ ~~`
2~13.75~0.825~0.825I 9 ~` ~' ~ *~ * ~* ~ * ~**
3 ~ 14.25~ 0.855~ 0.855I 18 ~ - ~* ~ * ~ * ~* ~ * ~*`
3 ~ 14.75~ 0.885~ 0.885I 18 ~ ' ~' ~ * ~ ' ~* ~ * ~'*
3 ~ 15.25~ 0.915~ 0.915I 18 ~ ' ~* ~ * ~ * ~* ~ " ~**
3 ~ 15.75~ 0.945~ 0.945~ 18 ~ -(* ~ ' ~ ` ~' ~ * ~'*
3~16.25~0.975~0.975~ 18 ~ -~*~ '~ '~*~ *~`*
3 ~ 16.75~ 1.005~ 1.OO5I 18 I ` I` ~ ' ~ ' ~' ~ ' ~`~
4~17.25~1.035~1.035I 20~ '~'~ *~ '~*~ *~**
10
,
' 4~17.75~1.065~1.065I 20 ~-~*~ *~ '~`~ '~"
4~18.25~1.095~1.095I 20 ~'~*~ *~ '~*~ '~"
4~18.75~1.125~1.125I 20 I'I~~ ~~ ~~`~ "~"
' 4 ~ 19.25~ 1.155~ 1.155~ 20 ~- ~` ~ ' ~ ' ~* ~ * ~**
4 ~ 19.75~ 1.185~ 1.185~ 20 ~- ~* ~ * ~ ' ~* ~ * ~'*
4 ~ 20.25~ 1215~ 1.215~ 20 ~- ~* ~ * ~ * ~* ~ ' ~**
, 4 ~ 20.75~ 1.245~ 1.245I 20 I- I~ ~ ` ~ `(" ~ ` ~'~
4 ~ 2125~ 1275~ 1.275~ 20 ~- ~' ~ ' ~ ' ~' ~ ` ~"
'
' --- -------- ----- ----------------
NCEER [1997] Method L IQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 2
, ------------------- -------- ----- ----------------
File Name: T2288-12-01 .OU T
, -------------------------------- ----- ----------°--------------------------
~ CALC.~ TOTAL~ EFF. ~FIELD ~ FC ~ ~ CORR.~LIQUE.~ ~INDUC.~LIQUE.
SOIL~ DEPTH~STRESS~STR ESS~ N ~DELTA~ C ~(N1)60~RESIST~ r ~STRESS~SAFETY
' NO.I ~ft) I~tS~I ~tS~I~BIft)~N1 _60~ N ~(B/ft)~ RATIO~ d ~ RATIO~FACTOR
- --+-----+------+-----+---- --+- ----+-----+------+------+-----+------+------
4 ~ 21.75~ 1.305~ 1.305I 20 ~- ~* ~ ' ~ * ~' ~ " ~'*
4 ~ 22.25~ 1.335~ 1.335I 20 I' I' ~ ~ ~ ` ~~ ~ ~ ~"`
' 4 ~ 22.75~ 1.365~ 1.365~ 20 I' I' ~ ` ~ ' ~~ ~ ~ I~~
4 ~ 23.25~ 1.395~ 1.395I Z~ I' I~ ~ ` ~ ' ~~ ~ ` ~``
' 4 ~ 23.75~ 1.425~ 1.425~
4 ~ 24.25~ 1.455~ 1.455I 20
20 ~- ~" ~ ' ~ ' ~* ~ * ~**
I' I~ ~ ` ~ ` ~" ~ ` ~'~
4( 24.75~ 1.485~ 1.485~ 20 ~- ~* ~ * ~ * ~' ~ * ~*`
5 ~ 25.25~ 1.515~ 1.507~ 8 ~ 6.66~0.834~ 15.2 ~ 0.156~0.941 ~ 0.369~ 0.54
' 5 ~ 25.75~ 1.545~ 1.522~ 8 ~ 6.66~0.834~ 152 ~ 0.156~0.939~ 0.372~ 0.54
5 ~ 26.25~ 1.575~ 1.536~ 8 ~ 6.66~0.834~ 15.2 ~ 0.156~0.938~ 0.375~ 0.53
5 ~ 26.75~ 1.605~ 1.550~ 8 ~ 6.66~0.834~ 15.2 ~ 0.156~0.936~ 0.378~ 0.53
S ~ 27.25~ 1.635~ 1.565~ 8 ~ 6.66~0.834~ 15.2 ~ 0.156~0.934~ 0.380~ 0.53
' 5 ~ 27.75~ 1.665~ 1.579~ 8 ~ 6.66~0.834~ 15.2 ~ 0.156~0.931 ~ 0.383~ 0.52
6 ~ 28.25~ 1.695~ 1.594~ 12 ~ 1.14~0.790~ 13.5 ~ 0.136~0.929~ 0.385~ 0.45
6 ~ 28.75~ 1.725~ 1.608~ 12 ~ 1.14~0.790~ 13.5 ~ 0.136~0.927~ 0.388~ 0.45
' 6 ~ 29.25~ 1.755~ 1.622~ 12 ~ 1.14~0.790~ 13.5 ~ 0.136~0.925~ 0.390~ 0.45
6 ~ 29.75~ 1.785~ 1.637~ 12 ~ 1.14~0.790~ 13.5 ~ 0.136~0.922~ 0.392~ 0.44
' 6 ~ 3025~ 1.815~ 1.651 ~
6 ~ 30.75~ 1.845~ 1.666~ 12
12 ~ 1.14~0.790~ 13.5 ~ 0.136~0.920~ 0.394~ 0.44
~ 1.14~0.790~ 13.5 ~ 0.136~0.917~ 0.396~ 0.44
6 ~ 31.25~ 1.875~ 1.680~ 12 ~ 1.14~0.790~ t3.5 ~ 0.136~0.914~ 0.398~ 0.44
6 ~ 31.75~ 1.905~ 1.694~ 12 ~ 1.14~0.790~ 13.5 ~ 0.136~0.912~ 0.400~ 0.44
' 6 ~ 32.25~ 1.935~ 1.709~ 12 ~ 1.14~0.790~ 13.5 ~ 0.136~0.909~ 0.401 ~ 0.43
6 ~ 32.75~ 1.965~ 1.723~ 12 ~ 1.14~0.790~ 13.5 ~ 0.136~0.906~ 0.403~ 0.43
6 ~ 33.25~ 1.995~ 1.738~ 12 ~ 1.14~0.790~ 13.5 ~ 0.136~0.903~ 0.404~ 0.43
6 ~ 33.75~ 2.025~ 1.752~ 12 ~ 1.14~0.790~ 13.5 ~ 0.136~0.899~ 0.405~ 0.43
' 7 ~ 34.25~ 2.055~ 1.766~ 35 ~ 6.35~0.758~ 40.8 ~Infin ~0.896~ 0.407~NonLiq
7 ~ 34.75~ 2.085~ 1.781 ~ 35 ~ 6.35~0.758~ 40.5 ~Infin ~0.893~ 0.408~NonLiq
' 7 ~ 35.25~ 2.115~ 1.795~ 35 ~ 6.35~0.758~ 40.8 ~Infin ~0.889~ 0.409~NonLiq
' ~~
7 ~ 35.75~ 2.145~ 1.810~
7 ~ 36.25~ 2.175~ 1.824~
7 ~ 36.75~ 2.205~ 1.838~
7 ~ 37.25~ 2235~ 1.853~
7 ~ 37.75~ 2.265~ 1.867~
7 ~ 3825~ 2295~ 1.882~
~ ~ sa.~s~ z.szs~ ~.ess~
8 ~ 3925~ 2.355~ 1.910~
8 ~ 39.75~ 2.385~ 1.925~
8 ~ 40.25~ 2.415~ 1.939~
8 ~ 40.75~ 2.445~ 1.954~
8 ~ 41.25~ 2.475~ 1.968~
8 ~ 41.75~ 2.505~ 1.982~
8 ~ 42.25~ 2.535~ 1.997~
8 ~ 42.75~ 2.565~ 2.011 ~
8 ~ 43.25~ 2.595~ 2.026~
NCEER [1997] Method
35 ~ 6.35~0.758~ 40.8 ~Infin ~0.886~ 0.409~NonLiq
35 ~ 6.35~0.758~ 40.8 ~Infin ~0.882~ 0.410~NonLiq
35 ~ 6.35~0.758~ 40.8 ~Infin ~0.878~ 0.411 ~NonLiq
35 ~ 6.35~0.758~ 40.8 ~Infin ~0.874~ 0.411 ~NonLiq
35 ~ 6.35~0.758~ 40.8 ~Infin ~0.871~ 0.412~NonLiq
35 ~ 6.35~0.758~ 40.8 ~Infin ~0.866~ 0.412~NOnLiq
35 ~ 6.35~0.758~ 40.8 ~Infin ~0.862~ 0.412~NonLiq
10 ~ 4.37~0.730~ 13.9 ~ 0.136~0.858~ 0.413~ 0.42
10 ~ 4.37~0.730~ 13.9 ~ 0.136~0.854~ 0.413~ 0.42
10 ~ 4.37~0.730~ 13.9 ~ 0.136~0.849~ 0.413~ 0.42
10 ~ 4.37~0.730~ 13.9 ~ 0.136~0.845~ 0.412~ 0.42
10 ~ 4.37~0.730~ 13.9 ~ 0.136~0.840) 0.412~ 0.42
10 ~ 4.37~0.730~ 13.9 ~ 0.136~0.836~ 0.412~ 0.42
10 ~ 4.37~0.730~ 13.9 ~ 0.136~0.831 ~ 0.411( 0.42
10 ~ 4.37~0.730~ 13.9 ~ 0.136~0.826~ 0.411 ~ 0.42
10 ~ 4.37~0.730) 13.9 ( 0.136~0.822~ 0.410~ 0.43
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 3
File Name: T2288-12-01.OUT
~ CALC.~ TOTAL~ EFF. ~FIELD ~ FC ~ ~ CORR.~LIQUE.~ ~INDUC.~LIQUE.
SOIL~ DEPTH~STRESS~STRESS~ N ~DELTA~ C ~(N1)60~RESIST~ r ~STRESS~SAFETY
NO.~ (ft) ~(ts~~ (ts~~(B/ft)~N1_60~ N ~(B/ft)~ RATIO~ d ~ RATIO~FACTOR
8 ~ 43.75~ 2.625~ 2.040~
9 ~ 44.25~ 2.655~ 2.054~
9 ~ 44.75~ 2.685~ 2.069~
s ~ as2s~ 2.~is~ 2.oas~
s ~ as.~s~ 2.~as~ z.oss~
9 ~ 4625~ 2.775~ 2.112~
9 ~ 46.75~ 2.805~ 2.126~
9 ~ 47.25~ 2.835~ 2.141 ~
9 ~ 47.75~ 2.865~ 2.155~
9 ~ 48.25~ 2.895~ 2.170~
9 ~ 48.75~ 2.925~ 2.184~
9 ~ 49.25~ 2.955~ 2.198~
9 ~ 49.75~ 2.985~ 2.213~
10 ~ 4.37~0.730~ 13.9 ~ 0.136~0.817~ 0.410~ 0.43
zz ~ o.os~o.~os~ zo.s ~ o.~s~~o.s~2~ o.aos~ o.s2
22 ~ 0.03~0.709~ 20.3 ~ 0.197~0.807~ 0.408~ 0.62
zz ~ o.os~o.~os~ zo.s ~ o.~s~~o.aoz~ a.aas~ o.sz
zz ~ o.os~o.~os~ 2o.s ~ o.is~~o.~s~~ o.ao~~ o.sz
22 ~ o.os~o.~os~ zo.s ~ o.~s~~o.~sz~ o.aos~ o.ss
22 ~ 0.03~0.709~ 20.3 ~ 0.197~0.787~ 0.405~ 0.63
22 ~ 0.03~0.709~ 20.3 ~ 0.197~0.782~ 0.404~ 0.63
22 ~ 0.03~0.709~ 20.3 ~ 0.197~0.776~ 0.403~ 0.63
22 ~ 0.03~0.709~ 20.3 ~ 0.197~0.771 ~ 0.401 ~ 0.63
22 ~ 0.03~0.709~ 20.3 ~ 0.197~0.766~ 0.400~ 0.63
zz ~ o.os~o.~os~ zo.s ~ o.is~~o.~s~~ o.sss~ o.sa
22 ~ 0.03~0.709~ 20.3 ~ 0.197~0.756~ 0.398~ 0.64
~v
,,
~'
'
'
'
'
'
, APPENDIX E
' RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
I
LA BELLA VIDA
LOMA LINDA ROAD AT TEMECULA LANE
I' TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
~,i' PROJECT NO. T2288-12-01
II,
,
'
;'
'
'
1~
'
,
',' RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
; ' 1. GENERAL
1.1. These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the
' Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Inland Empire, Ina The recom-
mendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the eaRhwork and
grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case
, of conflict.
I' 1.2. Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be
employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for
substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these
' specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and
observation services so that he may determine that, in his opinion, the work was performed
, in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the
Contractor to assistthe Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes
I so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly.
13. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency
ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, and so forth, result in a quality of work
not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject
[he work and recommend to the Owner that construction be stopped until the unacceptable
conditions are wrrected.
2. DEFINITIONS
'
2.1. Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading
work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading
performed.
2.2. Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.
23. Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer
or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying
as-graded topography.
"V
GI rev. 07/02
,
, 2.4. Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm
retained to provide geotechnical services for the project.
' 2.5. Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner,
who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be
, responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's
work for confonnance with these specifications.
' 2.6. Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained
by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site
' grading.
' 2.7. Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include
a geologic reconnaissance or geologic imestigation that was prepared specifically for the
development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are
' intended to apply
~'' 3. MATERIALS
3.1. Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soii excavated from the cut areas or
' imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction
of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock filis, as
' defined below.
' 3.1.1. Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard Iumps greater than 12
inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of
material smaller than 3/4 inch in size.
'
3.1.2. Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4
, feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow
for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragmems or hard lumps as
' speciFed in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12
inches.
, 3.1.3. Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet
in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as
' material smaller than 3/4 inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall
be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity.
'
' GI rev. 07/02
1p
' 3.2. Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the
Consultant shall not be used in fills.
33. Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as
defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9
and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall
not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous
materials. However, if observations, odors or soi( discoloration cause Consultant to
suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner
the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading
operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the
suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.
3.4. The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of
properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to
the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil
layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes.
This procedure may be utilized, provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner
and Consultant.
3.5. Representative samples of soil materials to be used for fill shall be tested in the laboratory
by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and,
where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil.
3.6. During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the
Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractoc The Consultant shall be
notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition
4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED
4.1. Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of
complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made .
structures and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried
logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and
other projections exceeding 1-ll2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet
below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to
provide suitable fill materials.
1~
'
al rev. uiiut
~
' 4.2. Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly
disposed at an approved off-site faciliTy. Concrete fragments which are free of reinforcing
steel may be placed in fiils, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 63
' of this dowment.
~ 43. After clearing and grubbing of organic matter or other unsuitable material, loose or porous
soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of
' removal and compaction shall be observed and approved by a representative of the
Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of
6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would fend to prevent
' uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.
' 4.4. Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6:1 (horizontal:vertical), or
where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in
accordance with the following illustration.
~
, TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
' Finish Grade ^ ~Original Ground ~
~ ,~
~ ~
~ ~Finish Slope Surface
Remove All
' Unsuitable Material
As Recommended By
Soil Engineer Slope To Be Such Thal
~
Sloughing Or Sliding
' Does Not Ocwr I Varies _I
,.8,.
' See Note t See Note 2
' No Scale
~ DETAIL NOTES: (I) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, or sufficientty wide ro
permit complete coverage with [he compaction equipment used. The base of the
key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slighdy into the natural slope.
' (2) The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial
material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is
exposed in the bottom of [he key, the depth and configuration of the key may be
modified as approved by the Consultant.
'
1~
' Glrev.07/02
4.5. After areas to receive fill have been cleared, plowed or scarified, the surface should be
disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods. The area
should then be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted
as recommended in Section 6.0 of these specifications.
5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
5.1. Compaction of soil or soil-rock fil] shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel
wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatio-tired rollers, or other types of
acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be
capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the
specified moisture content.
5.2. Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 63.
6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL
6.1. Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.1.1. Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should
generally not exceed 8 inches. Each tayer shall be spread evenly and shall be
thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture
in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts.
Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in
accordance with Section 6.2 or 63 of these specifications.
6.1.2. In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the
optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557-00.
6.13. When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant,
water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range
specified.
6.1.4. When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the
Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fil( shall be aerated by
the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture
content is within the range specified.
~~
GI rev. 07/02
6.1.5. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly
compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.
Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the implace
dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as
determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-00. Compaction shall be continuous
over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that
the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the
entire fill.
6.1.6. Soils having an Expansion Index of greater than 50 may be used in fills if placed at
least 3 Feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content
generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material.
6.1J. Properly compacted soil FII shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To
achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at
least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered
preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the foliowing paragraph.
6.1.8. As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a
heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height
intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer
or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least
twice.
6.2. Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance
with the following recommendations:
~i , 6.2.1. Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be
incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured
' 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or
3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.
' 6.2.2. Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be
individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock
I, fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar
methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in
I' maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and
shall be approved by the Consultant prior to p]acement.
'
' GI rev. 07/02
~~
'
II , 6.2.3. For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow
for passage of compaction equipment.
' 6.2.4. For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in
properly compacted sorl fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4
' feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be
filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and
should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an
' "open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should
first be approved by the Consultant.
'
6.2.5. Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either
parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site
' geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet
centervto-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next
' overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall
be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher
' windrow.
6.2.6. All rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the
' windrows must be continuously observed by the Consultant or his representative.
' 63. Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.13., shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
d
ti
h
f
lt
i
ng recommen
a
ons:
t
e
o
ow
' 63.1. The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2
percent, maximum slope of 5 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable
, subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shalt be provided with subdrains during
construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The
, subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to
control post-construction inFltration of water.
' 63.2. Rock fills shall be placed in lifrs not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock
trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently
' placed lifr. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the
rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall
' consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lifr face and spraying
water continuously during rock placement. Compaction eqwpment with
compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory
' roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the
' GI rev. 07/02
~~
11
' required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.33 shall be
utilized. The number of passes to be made will be determined as described in
Paragraph 633. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional
' rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil FII.
' 633. Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D1196-93, may be performed in
both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the number of
passes of the compaction equipment to be performed. If performed, a minimum of
, three plate bearing tests shall be performed in the properly compacted sor! fill
(minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be
' performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the
compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock
' fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the
soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection variation with number of
passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be
' performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than
that determined for the properly compacted soil fiIL In no case will the required
' number of passes be less than two.
63.4. A representative of the Consuitant shall be present during rock fill operations to
' verify that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is
being properly applied and tha[ specified procedures are being followed. The
' actual number of plate beazing tests will be determined by the Consultant during
grading. In general, at least one test should be performed for each approximately
5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of rock fill placed.
'
63.5. Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that,
, in his opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are
properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing wiil not be
' required in the rock fills.
63.6. To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from over]ying soil
' fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the
uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock
, should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The
gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is
being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the
t Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the
commencement of rock fill placement.
'
' GI rev. 07/02
O'~
'
' 63.7. All rock fill placement shall be continuously observed during placement by
representatives of the Consultant.
, 7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
' 7.L The Consultant shall be the Owners representative to observe and perform tests during
clearing, grubbing filling and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in
vertical elevation of soi! or soil-rock fill shall be placed without at least one field density
, test being performed within that intervaL [n addition, a minimum of one field density test
sha(I be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and
' compacted.
7.2. The Consultant shall perform random field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock
' fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fill material is compacted
as specified. Density tests shail be performed in the compacted materials below any
disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion
' thereof is below that specified; the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be
reworked until the specified density has been achieved.
1
73. During placement of rock fill, the Consultant shal( verify that the minimum number of
' passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant shall
request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the
placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing
' an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been
applied to the material. If performed, plate bearing tests will be performed randomly on
' the surface of the most-recently placed lifr. Plate bearing tests will be performed to provide
a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is adequately seated. The
t maximum deflection in the rock Sll determined in Section 6.33 shall be less than the
i
fl
ti
f th
l
d
t
d
il f
ll
Wh
f th
b
it
i
mas
mum
e
y compac
ec
on o
e proper
e
so
i
.
en any o
e a
ove cr
er
a
indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected
' layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient
moisture applied.
' 7.4. A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of
rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as
, recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project
Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed
' during grading.
'
' GI rev. 07/02
CY
'
' 7.5. The Consultant shall observe the placement of subdrains, to verify that the drainage devices
have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications.
, 7.6. Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:
' 7.6.1. Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:
' 7.61.1. Field Density Test, ASTM D1556-OQ Density of Soil In-Place By the
Sand-Cone Method.
, 7.6.1.2. Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D2922-96, Density of Soil and
Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).
7.6.13. Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D1557-00, Moisture-Density
~ Relations ojSoils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer
and 18-Inch Drop.
' 7.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D4829-95, Expansion Index Test.
7.6.2. Rock Fills
, 7.6.2.1. Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM D1196-93 (Reapproved 1997) Standard
Method for Nonreparative Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible
' Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and
Highway Pavements.
' 8. PROTECTION OF WORK
8.1. During construction, the Contractor shall propedy grade all excavated surfaces to provide
' positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be
controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The
Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until
' such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas
subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the
' Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.
, 8.2. After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further
excavatio~ or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the
Consultant.
'
,
'
' GI rev. 07/02
~
'
' 9. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS
9.1. Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil
' Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of
elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot
, horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of
subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan
of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the
' subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.
' 9.2. The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report
satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report
' should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in
geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating
that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantiai conformance
' with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
1
'
'
GI rev. 07/02
~