The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSupplemental Geotechnical Investigation Nov. 12, 1998L�. Geolechnical * Geologic* Environmental StRKD-r ,-,:UPPLEMENTALGA TECHNICAL I N TRACTS 23066-5 AND 23067-2, REDH TEMECULA REGION, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR US HOME CENTRAL CALIFORNIA DIVISION 4371 LATHAM, STREETi SUITE 204'. , RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501. W.o 2565 -A-SCNOV: EMBER 12 1998 A� Geolechnical * Geologic* Environmental StRKD-r I 1 U I 11 I 1 1 I I I • Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental 24890 Jefferson Ave. • Murrieta, California 92562 • (909) 677-9651 • FAX (909) 677-9301 November 12, 1998 W.O. 2565 -A -SC US Home Central California Division 4371 Latham Street, Suite 204 Riverside, California 92501 Attention: Ms. Tina Mokhtarzadeh, Land Development Manager Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk Area, Temecula Region, Riverside County, California Dear Ms. Mokhtarzadeh: In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a supplemental geotechnical investigation of subject site. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate if alluvial sediments subject to hydroconsolidation were present and, if so, to assess the potential for differential settlement at surface grades, in light of the proposed grading, so that recommendations for mitigative measures could be provided. A secondary purpose of our investigation was to provide a preliminary liquefaction assessment based on alluvial engineering properties and laboratory data so that, if warranted, mitigative measures could be provided. Thirdly, our investigation was performed in order to provide geotechnical design parameters for foundation and retaining wall- design, as well as earthwork and grading guidelines, including estimated remedial removal depths. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our field exploration, geologic and geotechnical engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the project site is suitable for the proposed development from a soils engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in the text of this report are implemented. The primary geotechnical concerns with respect to the proposed development are: • Hydroconsolidation or settlement of the onsite alluvium may be an issue on some ' lots where complete removal of alluvium was not performed on the adjoining tracts, and/or where existing improvements (such as EI Chimisal Road) will constrain the ' depth and lateral extent of recommended removals. Recommendations for mitigative foundation design (including post -tensioned slabs) and construction are provided herein. 1-��3��-� 72x306 7 I ' Our analyses indicate that the additional fill proposed on both sides of EI Chimisal Road should generate differential settlements of less than 1/2 -inch over a distance of 40 feet, which should be within tolerable limits typical for existing pipelines within this street area. Nonetheless, for conservatism, construction of the proposed fills adjoining EI Chimisal Road will require that removals and fill placement be performed in such a fashion that the grades, and raising of grades to proposed design elevations, occur in an equivalent manner on both sides (north and south) ' of EI Chimisal Road, at the same time, so as to not impart an "unbalanced" condition to underlying soils supporting the existing roadway and associated pipeline, as a result of differential settlement concerns. Further, it is recommended that cut-off valves be constructed on each end of the water transmission pipeline, to facilitate repair, although unlikely, should the line be damaged during construction. In addition, settlement monuments should be established at a minimum of four locations along the pipeline in order to evaluate the magnitude of settlements that actually occur during fill placement. • Owing to its potentially compressible nature, removal and recompaction of the colluvium/topsoil covering the bedrock, and most of alluvial soils in the drainages will be required, if settlement sensitive improvements are proposed in those areas. ' Removal of landslide deposits will also be necessary. • Expansion index testing indicates site soils have a very low to low expansion potential; however, soils with medium to perhaps high expansion potential may also exist onsite. ' Previous laboratory test results indicate that generally the site earth materials have a negligible sulfate exposure for corrosion to concrete. Test results regarding sulfate, pH, and potential for corrosion to exposed steel (saturated resistivity), were not available at the time of this report and will be forwarded to you as an addendum letter when they are complete. Similarly, R -value testing was also not complete at the time of this report and will also be included in an addendum letter. • Our analyses indicate that the portion of the site, adjacent to EI Chimisal Road, and ' located in a broad alluvial drainage, has a very low potential for liquefaction to occur and manifest itself at the surface. All other portions of the site are not susceptible to liquefaction, and/or liquefaction potential will be completely eliminated by standard grading procedures. Therefore, no recommendations for mitigation of liquefaction are deemed necessary. • Groundwater was encountered during our investigation generally as perched on the bedrock (Pauba Formation) in alluvial drainages. Perched groundwater may be encountered during grading in other areas within the Pauba Formation, and may occur after site development as a result of precipitation and/or irrigation. I IFi1e:e:\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a sgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC Page Two 1 I P, 11 I 1 [1 [1 I i IJ 1 • Settlement values have been presented and should be reviewed by the structural engineer and incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed development. It is estimated that the site has a low risk associated with the potential for dynamic settlements to occur and adversely affect surface improvements developed on this site, provided our recommendations are implemented. • The seismicity acceleration values provided herein should be considered during the design of the proposed development. • The geotechnical design parameters provided herein should be considered during project planning design and construction by the project structural engineer and/or architects. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions pertaining to this report, please contact us at (909) 677-9652. Respectively submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. Maung aung i Staff Engineer i o n P. Frankli�/�LL'" ineering Geologist, Cq MMG/JPF/ARK/mo Albert R. Kleist` Geotechnical Engineer, G 0 No. 4733 Exp. 0E -30-G1 ),t Distribution: (5) Addressee (BdtFiuf `:/ (1) Addressee (Unbound with Sepias) (1) Paul Moote & Associates, Attn: Mr. Paul Moote (Unbound with Sepias) (1) Hunsaker and Associates, Attn: Mr. Paul Huddleston US Home W.O. 2565 -A -SC File*e*\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi Page Three GeoSoils, Inc. I I [1 11 1 I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPEOF SERVICES...................................................1 BACKGROUND.........................................................1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............................................. 1 FIELDSTUDIES ..........................................................2 MASS WASTING........................................................ 2 REGIONAL SEISMICITY .................................................. 3 Seismic Shaking Parameters ......................................... 4 WATER AND GROUNDWATER ............................................. 4 Groundwater Withdrawal...........................................4 Groundwater Rise..................................................4 Surface..........................................................4 Subsurface....................................................... 5 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS .......................................... 5 Liquefaction...................................................... 5 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement Summary .................... 6 AREAL SUBSIDENCE....................................................7 GEOLOGIC DEVELOPMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................ 8 Ground Surface Amplification ........................................ 8 Other Geologic Constraints Considered ................................ 9 LABORATORY TESTING..................................................9 Classification......................................................9 Laboratory Standard................................................9 Moisture-Density..................................................10 Expansion Potential...............................................10 Consolidation Testing ............................................. 10 Direct Shear Testing...............................................11 Soluble Sulfates/pH/Resistivity - "R" Value ............................. 11 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 11 General.........................................................11 Demolition/Grubbing..... 13 ........................................ Treatment of Existing Ground ....................................... 13 FillPlacement...........................:.............:...........14 El Chimisal Road .................................................14 CutAreas.......................................................15 GeoSoils, Inc. iSubsurface and Surface Water......................................15 Subdrains....................................................... 15 ' Slope Design ............ :....................................... 16 .................................. Temporary Construction Slopes .. 17 Transition Lots...................................................18 ' Earthwork Balance................................................18 Grading Settlements ............................................... 19 Settlement Evaluation.............................................20 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION DESIGN ..................................... 21 Bearing Value .................................................... 21 ' Lateral Pressure .................................................. 21 FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION .......................................... 21 Conventional Foundations..........................................22 Very Low to Low Expansion Potential (Expansion Index 0 to 50) ...... 22 Medium Expansion Potential (Expansion Index 51 to 90) .. 23 Preliminary Post -tensioned Slab Design ............. ............ 24 TOP -OF -SLOPE WALLS.................................................26 ' RETAINING WALLS ..................................................... 27 General......................................................... 27 Restrained Walls .................................................. 28 Debris Walls/Impact Walls .......................................... 28 Cantilevered Walls ................................................ 28 Wall Backfill and Drainage .......................................... 28 ' Footing Excavation Observation .. 29 RECOMMENDATIONS -POST EARTHWORK ................................. 29 Planting and Landscape Maintenance ................................ 29 Erosion Control...................................................30 ' Additional Site Improvements ....................................... 30 Additional Grading................................................30 Footing Trench Excavation ............ ..30 ' Drainage ................ ........................... ..30 FLATWORK AND HARDSCAPE RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 31 Tile Flooring.....................................................31 Gutters and Downspouts...........................................32 Exterior Slabs and Walkways ........................................ 32 SUPPLEMENTAL MOISTURE CONDITIONING ............................... 32 ' TRENCH BACKFILL ..................................................... 33 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS ............................................ 33 US Home Table of Contents File. e:wp7\murrtrc2500\2565a.sgi GPage ii eoSoils, Inc. ' ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A - References ................................... Rear of Text Appendix B - Boring Logs .................................. Rear of Text Appendix C - Seismic and Liquefaction Data ................... Rear of Text Appendix D - Laboratory Test Results ......................... Rear of Text Appendix E - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines ......... Rear of Text Plates 1 through 7 - Geotechnical Maps .............. Rear of Text in Pockets I I I I I 11 I US Home Table of Contents File e.wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi Page diGeoSoils, Inc. ' SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TRACTS 23066-5 AND 23067-2, REDHAWK AREA TEMECULA REGION, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ' SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services included the following: 1. Review of readily -available geologic data for the area (Appendix A) including stereoscopic infra -red "false -color" and black and white aerial photographs. 1 2. Geologic site reconnaissance and mapping. 3. Augmentation of existing near surface information with subsurface exploration consisting of 16 hollow stem auger borings across the site. S4. Appropriate laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected during our subsurface exploration program. 5. Geologic and engineering analysis of the data collected. 6. Preparation of this report presenting our conclusions and recommendations with respect to geotechnical design criteria and considerations. BACKGROUND The site has been investigated previously by Petra Geotechnical, Inc. (Petra). Site conditions have generally not changed since the issuance of Petra (1998). The reader is referred to that report for a discussion of site geotechnical conditions, regional and site geology, and faulting and seismicity. GSI has reviewed Petra (1998) and is in general agreement with their conclusions and recommendations, except as discussed in this report. Unless specifically superceded herein, the conclusions and recommendations contained in Petra.(1998) remain pertinent and applicable, and should be appropriately implemented. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ' It is our understanding that Tract 23066-5 and 23067-2 are proposed to be developed with about 90 and 119 single-family residential dwellings, respectively, with open space, associated interior roadways and underground utility improvements. We also understand that the proposed buildings would consist of one- or two-story structures, with shallow foundations, utilizing wood -frame, masonry -block, or the tilt -up type of construction. ' Building loads are assumed to be typical for this type of relatively light construction. Sewage disposal is understood to be accommodated by tying into the regional municipal system. GeoSoils, Inc. I I I 11 I Typical cut and fill grading techniques would be required to develop the site in order to achieve design grades. Cut and fill slopes ranging in height up to ±30 feet and ±40 feet high, respectively, are proposed at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter in Tract 23066-5. With Tract 23067-2, cut and fill slopes ranging in height up to ±65 feet and ±55 feet high, respectively, are proposed at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. Minor fill -over -cut slopes are proposed in both tracts. FIELD STUDIES Field studies conducted during our investigation consisted of the following: 1. Geologic reconnaissance and mapping. 2. Excavation of 16 hollow stem auger borings to evaluate the near surface and deeper soil and geologic conditions. The borings were logged by a geologist from our firm who collected representative bulk and undisturbed samples for appropriate laboratory testing. Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix B. The approximate locations of the borings as well as pertinent previous explorations, are presented on Plates 1 through 7. MASS WASTING Mass wasting refers to the various processes by which earth materials are moved downslope in response to the force of gravity. Examples of these processes include slope creep, surficial failures, and landslide deposits. During field work in preparation of Petra (1989), a shallow landslide deposit was identified in the vicinity of proposed Lots 23 through 25 and 31 though 33. Supplemental work presented in Petra (1998) suggests that this "ancient' highly eroded deposit is similar to colluvial deposits located throughout the site. Based on the information provided by Petra (1989, 1998) and our own field observations, the landslide deposit identified in Petra (1989) is likely a relict feature, not indicative of existing slope instability, or a relatively thick colluvial deposit. This deposit should be removed during site grading and should not adversely affect site development. In general, natural slopes are to be left in place during grading, and may be subject to near surface creep, minor "pop outs," and erosion. These processes are considered to be typical to all sloping ground surfaces and the site is considered to be at no greater risk than any other adjacent property in the vicinity. Recommendations are provided herein and in Petra (1998) for the mitigation of the potential effects of these processes in the future. US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk Fi I e. e:\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a. sgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 2 F LI REGIONAL SEISMICITY The acceleration -attenuation relations of Joyner and Boore (1982) and Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994) has been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 1997). For this study, peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site were determined based on the random mean attenuation curves developed by Joyner and Boore (1982) and Campbell (1994). These acceleration -attenuation relations have been incorporated in EQFAULT, a computer program by Thomas F. Blake (1997), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using up to 150 digitized California faults as earthquake sources. The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a user-specified file. If a fault is found to be within a user -selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal ground acceleration that may occur at the site from the upper bound ("maximum credible") and "maximum probable" earthquakes on that fault. Site acceleration (g) is computed by any of the 14 user -selected acceleration -attenuation relations that are contained in EQFAULT. Based on the above, peak horizontal ground accelerations from the upper bound (maximum credible) event may be on the order of 0.67g to 1.24g, and a maximum probable event may be on the order of 0.60g to 0.77g. Historical site seismicity was evaluated utilizing the computer program EQSEARCH (Blake, 1997). This program performs a search of historical earthquake records, for magnitude 4.0 to magnitude 9.0 within a specified radius (e.g., 100 miles), between the years 1800 through June of 1998. Based on the selected acceleration -attenuation relation, a peak horizontal ground acceleration is estimated, which may have affected the site during the specific seismic event listed. In addition, site specific probability of exceeding various peak horizontal ground accelerations and seismic recurrence curves are also estimated/generated from the historical data. The maximum repeatable horizontal ' acceleration experienced by the site during the period of 1800 to 1998 was found to be about 0.13g corresponding to an earthquake of about M6.8 approximately 19 miles away, that occurred on April 21, 1918. An approximate M7.6 earthquake subjected the site to ' horizontal acceleration of about 0.06 g on June 28, 1992, and was located about 55 miles from the site. �I I A probabilistic seismic hazards analyses was also performed using FRISK89 (Blake, 1997), which models earthquake sources as lines and evaluates the site specific probabilities. Printouts of pertinent portions generated from EQFAULT, EQSEARCH and FRISK89 are included in Appendix C. Based on a review of these data and considering the relative seismic activity of the southern California region, a repeatable ground acceleration of 0.28g was selected for use in our evaluation. This value was considered as it corresponds to a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (or a 475 year return period). Selection of this design event is important as it is the level of risk assumed by the Uniform Building Code minimum design requirements. This level of ground shaking corresponds to a Richter magnitude event of about 6.8. -7`eeo'2- 301010 -45 ?,e�3a1�7 Tracts 23066.5 and 23067-2, Redhawk File: e: \wp 7\murr\rc2500\2 565a. sg i GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 3 F, I LI [1 1 r' 1 I I 1 I I Seismic Shakinci Parameters Based on the site conditions, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code (International Conference of Building Officials, 1997) and Peterson and others (1996), the following seismic parameters are provided. Seismic zone (per Figure 16-2*) 4 Soil Profile Type (per Table 16-J*) So Joyner and Boore Subgrade Type Class C Seismic Source Type (per Table 16-U*) A Distance to Seismic Source 2.1 mi. (3 km) Upper Bound Earthquake M,,, 6.8 * Figure and table references from Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code (1997). WATER AND GROUNDWATER Groundwater Withdrawal It is our understanding that no deep, regional aquifer -penetrating production wells are planned for the site. The potential for subsidence to occur onsite from groundwater withdrawal is considered low, based on the fact that the Pauba Formation (bedrock) either crops out onsite or immediately underlies the alluvial or colluvial filled swales. Groundwater Rise As documented in the nearby Murrieta area, and noted locally in Temecula, rise of groundwater levels may cause hydroconsolidation of previously unsaturated alluvial or colluvial sediments. Groundwater rise is most likely caused primarily by urban irrigation from up -gradient development and, secondly, from rainfall infiltration, a reduction in permeability of subsurface materials, or a decrease in evapotranspiration. A rapid rise in groundwater levels is a phenomenon that cannot be discounted. Accordingly, we have analyzed the potential for site alluvial or colluvial soil hydroconsolidation and resulting differential surface settlement in the event of groundwater rise. Surface Surface water affecting the site is primarily limited to precipitation. Runoff water from seasonal storm, which is not retained by either vegetation of soil, moves downslope via sheetwash, rills, and gullies into the canyons which transect the property. Surface water gathered in these canyons eventually flows to Temecula Creek. Most site canyons have US Home W.O. 2565 -A -SC Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk November 12, 1998 Ftle.e \wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. I I F_ 1 intermittent stream flow, with surface water present only during or shortly after seasonal storms. Site development will require provisions for adequate control and disposal of surface water. Subsurface Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface investigation. Wells in the vicinity are apparently producing from various perched aquifers at depths. The regional groundwater gradient is generally down toward the north-northwest, and generally parallels the regional topography. Perched groundwater may occur where relatively impermeable soils underlie relatively permeable soils. Such conditions may be encountered onsite. These observations reflect site conditions at the time of our investigation and do not preclude changes in local groundwater conditions in the future from heavy irrigation, precipitation, or other factors not obvious at the time of our field work. Additional discussions of groundwater are presented within the conclusions section of this report. SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS Liquefaction Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses produced by earthquake induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionless soils. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to lateral movement, sliding, consolidation of loose sediments, sand boils, and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs primarily below the water table, but after liquefaction has developed, it can propagate upward into overlying, non -saturated soil, as excess pore water dissipates. Liquefaction susceptibility is related to numerous factors and the following conditions should exist for liquefaction to occur: 1) sediments are relatively young in age and have not developed cementation; 2) sediments consist mainly of medium to fine grained relatively cohesionless sands; 3) the sediments have low relative density; 4) free groundwater is present in the sediments; and 5) the site experiences a seismic event of sufficient duration and large enough magnitude to induce straining of soil particles. One of the primary factors controlling the potential for liquefaction is depth to groundwater. ' Liquefaction susceptibility generally decreases as the groundwater depth increases for two reasons: 1) the deeper the water table, the greater the normal effective stress acting on ' saturated sediments; and 2) age, cementation, and relative density of sediments generally increase with depth. Thus, as depth to the water table increases, and as the saturated sediments become older, more cemented, have higher relative density, and confining I US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk Fi I e: e'\wp 7\murrVc2500\2565a. sg i GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 5 ■ normal stress increases; the less likely they are to liquefy during a seismic event. Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential when groundwater is greater than 30 feet, and ' liquefaction is unlikely at 60± feet or more below the ground surface. Following a review of the laboratory data and boring logs, soil profiles were established to ' evaluate the potential for liquefaction to occur in the subsurface soils, after remedial removals. The soil profiles were constructed using worst case scenarios in borings B-1, and B-4 as information bases. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts were modified as appropriate based on a review of the grain -size distribution (fines), densities (normal confining pressures) and assumed water level. The soil profiles established are, in our opinion, representative of existing subsurface site conditions for these portions of the site. The regional groundwater table was not encountered in our borings. For the purpose of our liquefaction analysis, groundwater was assumed to be 10 feet below the existing ground surface. If groundwater were to be present; it would likely be well below this assumed level and therefore decrease the potential for liquefaction. CJ The "Regional Seismicity" section of this report presents the seismic shaking that would be most likely to produce strong ground motion at the site. Within Appendix C, probabilistic, and historic site specific seismic parameters are presented. Based on a review of this data and considering the relative seismic activity of the southern California region, a ground acceleration of 0.28g was selected for use in the liquefaction analyses. A review of these analyses indicates that all soil layers display a 1.25 or greater factor of safety against liquefaction (note: a safety factor of 1.25 is recommended by Seed and Idriss, 1982), except one layer within boring B-1, at a depth of 193/4 to 273/4 feet (8 feet thick), and boring B-4 as a depth of 201/4 to 301/4 feet, below existing grade. See Appendix C for the results of the computer generated analyses of borings B-1 and B-4 using Liquefy 2 (Blake, 1986). As indicated above, these zones do not correlate from boring to boring and appear to be vertically and laterally discontinuous, moderately thick beds of sands. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction to occur at the EI Chimisal Road area of the site and manifest itself at the surface is very low, even if the groundwater should rise to the 10 foot level. Elsewhere, site sediments are not susceptible to liquefaction, and/or liquefaction potential will be completely eliminated by standard grading procedures. Therefore, no mitigation for liquefaction is deemed necessary at this time. Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement Summary A summary of the potential for liquefaction and/or dynamic settlements to adversely affect improvements to the site is presented below. In addition, design criteria is presented for the project engineers to consider during structural/civil site design, planning and improvement construction. The maximum thickness of any liquefiable soil layer (Factor of Safety less than 1.25) identified in our analyses was 11 feet. Using the relationships generated by Ishihara US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk Fi I e: e: \wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi GeoSoils, Inc. w.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 6 I 1 'i [.I LI LI (1985), and maximum liquefiable zone thickness of 11 feet, adverse surface effects from liquefaction would not be anticipated if a minimum non -liquefiable confining layer thickness of approximately 9 feet is maintained, such as is planned at the subject site. Site preparation in alluvial areas to remain after grading will include recommendations (presented in a later section) to assure that this minimum thickness will be provided below settlement sensitive structures. Due to the depth of the layer that is susceptible (more than 25 feet), we conclude that the potential for manifestation of liquefaction at the surface is low. An analysis of the magnitude of dynamic settlement that could occur during a 10 percent probability seismic event (i.e., 0.28g) was performed. The results of that analysis indicates that angular distortions of 1 in 950 could occur. The project structural engineer should consider this level of foundation system distortion in their structural analysis. It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of maximum probable or credible earthquakes occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would occur in this general area. Considering the subsurface soil conditions and site seismicity, it is estimated that the site has a low risk associated with the potential for dynamic settlements to occur and adversely affect surface improvements developed on this site. AREAL SUBSIDENCE Our review of readily available data indicates that the site is not subsiding due to down - faulting along a bordering fault zone, and is probably not subsiding due to groundwater withdrawal. The scope of this potential for affecting the subject site is beyond the scope of this current study. However, areal subsidence generally occurs at the transition/slope condition between materials of substantially different engineering properties. Thus, the only potential for this condition exists between the bedrock and alluvium. Based on the available data, the bedrock underlies all of the alluvium at depth; therefore, this potential is considered low. Our review of available stereoscopic aerial photographs showed no features generally associated with areal subsidence (i.e., radially -directed drainages flowing into a depression(s), linearity of depressions associated with mountain fronts, etc.). Ground fissures are generally associated with excessive groundwater withdrawal and associated subsidence, or active faults, and active faults are not known to transect the property. In addition, our review did not indicate that excessive groundwater withdrawal in the site vicinity is occurring at this time. US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk File: e:\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a. sgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 7 I ' GEOLOGIC DEVELOPMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ' Evidence for significant active debris flows that may impact the subject development was not noted on the property and in our review of aerial photographs. However, the potential ' for significant debris flows within natural swales is considered low to perhaps moderate under present soil cover, vegetation and annual precipitation conditions for several areas on the natural slopes. ' In consideration of the potential for prolonged rainfall, possible brush fires and vegetation denudation, we recommend that the project civil engineer consider using ' debris/desilting/detention basins and/or debris impact walls with sufficient freeboard in those areas where swales or significant hillside gully areas intersect the proposed development, if applicable. Although unlikely, additional walls may be necessary based ' on conditions disclosed during grading. The potential for surface flooding, although considered low, cannot be entirely precluded. Hence, this should be further evaluated by the design engineer. The western portions of the site and areas at the base of the natural swales should be reviewed. The design ' parameters for the debris walls and impact walls are provided in the retaining wall section of this report. The design civil engineer should size the debris walls using the tributary area and assuming a soil to water value of 0.3 to impact the wall. ' Debris catchment or deflection devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and constructed to mitigate the mudflow debris potential. The proposed mitigation can be ' constructed using earthen berms or masonry walls which should be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 125 pcf (Hollingsworth and Kovacs, 1981) and have a minimum of 5 feet of freeboard, a paved "V" -ditch, and a catchment/storage area base width suitable for equipment egress for removal of accumulated debris. Deflection devices should have such a flow line gradient as to be considered self clearing, to allow for the continued transport of the debris along the device to a location for removal. Ground Surface Amplification Based on findings from the Loma Prieta earthquake, soft soil sites may amplify bedrock motions under strong seismic shaking (Mitchell and others, 1990). In certain cases, deep soft soil deposits have exhibited stronger surface shaking (greater acceleration) and longer periods than those of rock or rock overlain by stiff soil layers (Mitchell and others, 1990). Previous studies of similar soil profiles subject to strong ground shaking have indicated ' amplifications of peak accelerations (on rock) by factors of 2 to 6. Data computed directly using relations by Seed and Idriss and recorded during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake indicated that for soft soil sites, ground accelerations tended to be higher (above two ' standard deviations from the mean) than other stiff soil or rock sites for the same distance from the epicenter (Housner, 1990). LJ I US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk Fil e. e.\w p 7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sg i GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 8 ' The horizontal shaking force that will be transmitted to the shallow foundations on this site will be directly related to the surface acceleration. If amplified, the horizontal acceleration ' could increase the horizontal shaking force. Based on the available preliminary subsurface and seismic data, the potential exists for this phenomenon to be experienced in the deeper ' subsurface materials. This condition will be mitigated by the following foundation/footing recommendations presented herein. If determined by the project structural engineer that the predicted settlements could compromise the structural integrity of the foundation system or superimposed structure, alternative remedial recommendations should be sought from this office. ' Other Geologic Constraints Considered The following list includes other pertinent potential seismic related hazards that have been evaluated for the site. Based on review of previous reports and published data (Kennedy, 1977), it is our opinion the potential for these hazards to affect the site is negligible. • Surface fault rupture • Ground lurching or shallow ground rupture ' LABORATORY TESTING Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Classifications were supplemented by mechanical analyses in accordance with ASTM ' D2487 for representative specimens. The soil classifications are shown on the boring logs in Appendix B, and the sieve analyses are presented in Appendix D. ' Laboratory Standard The maximum density and optimum moisture content was determined for the major soil ' types encountered in the borings. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D-1557. The moisture -density relationship obtained for these soils are shown below: 1 1 ' US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk ' File a \wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a sgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 9 - OPTIMUM BORING AND . MAXIMUM DRY - MOISTURE SOILTYPE DEPTH FT. DENSITY PCF CONTENT Silty SAND (SM) tan to reddish B-3 @ 2'-3' 131.0 9.5 brown (alluvium) Silty Sand (SM), light brown B-5 @ 4'-5' 135.0 8.0 ' US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk ' File a \wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a sgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 9 I -I L I 11 Moisture -Density The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each selected undisturbed sample of the soils obtained from the borings. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. The results of these tests are shown on the boring logs (Appendix B). Expansion Potential Expansion index testing was performed on representative samples of the site materials in general accordance with Standard 18-2 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Results are presented in the following table. LOCATION SOIL TYPE EXPANSION INDEX OPTIMUM B-3 @ 2-3 BORING AND MAXIMUM DRY MOISTURE SOILTYPE DEPTH FT. DENSITY PCF CONTENT Slaty SAND (SM), light brown 8-7 @ 2'-3' 131.0 9.0 alluvium 1 SAND, tan alluvium 2 Very Low Silty SAND (SM), tan to brown B-9 @ 4'-5' 132.5 9.0 (fill) SAND (SP), light tan (alluvium) B-13 @ 2'-3' 1 125.0 10.5 Silty SAND (SM), brown B-15 @ 4'-5' 135.0 8.0 (alluvium) Moisture -Density The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each selected undisturbed sample of the soils obtained from the borings. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. The results of these tests are shown on the boring logs (Appendix B). Expansion Potential Expansion index testing was performed on representative samples of the site materials in general accordance with Standard 18-2 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Results are presented in the following table. LOCATION SOIL TYPE EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL B-3 @ 2-3 Silty SAND, tan to reddish brown (alluvium) 0 Very Low B-7 @ 2'-3' Silty SAND, tan (alluvium) 19 Very Low B-9 @ 4'-5' Silty SAND w/ gravel, tan (fill) 24 Low 8-13@2'-3' 1 SAND, tan alluvium 2 Very Low Consolidation Testing Consolidation tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM test method D-2435. Test results are presented in Appendix D. US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk File: e:\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 10 ' Direct Shear Testing ' Shear testing was performed on selected undisturbed and remolded samples of site soils in general accordance with ASTM test method D-3080. The remolded sample was ' compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard at optimum moisture content. Test results are presented in Appendix D. Soluble Sulfates/pH/Resistivity - "R" Value Samples of the site materials were analyzed for soluble sulfate content and corrosion to ' ferrous metals, and submitted for R -value testing. The results were not complete as of the date of this report. When the results are complete, they will be forwarded to you as an addendum letter. ' CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, and our engineering and geologic ' analyses, it is our opinion that the project site is suited for the proposed use from a soils and geologic viewpoint. Geotechnical developmental considerations include thick compressible alluvium, fill underlain by compressible alluvium on the tract margins (i.e., ' such materials cannot be completely removed), and associated differential settlement concerns. Owing to the above, some lots will require post -tensioned slabs. The recommendations presented previously and below should be incorporated in the design, ' grading, and construction considerations. General ' 1. Soils engineering and compaction testing services should be provided during grading to aid the contractor in removing unsuitable soils and in his effort to compact the fill. 2. Geologic inspections should be performed during grading to verify and/or further evaluate geologic conditions. Although unlikely, if adverse geologic structures are encountered, supplemental recommendations and earthwork may be warranted. ' 3. Groundwater is not expected to be a major factor in development of the site. However, caving and sloughing may be a factor in all subsurface excavations and ' trenching. All excavations should be performed in accordance with OSHA standards. Seeps and seasonal saturated soil zones not encountered at the time of our field work may be present and contingency for this condition should be ' considered. 7e,;)3e67 US Home W.O. 2565 -A -SC Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk November 12, 1998 File.e:\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi Page 11 GeoSoils, Inc. ' 4. It appears that moderate to very difficult ripping should be anticipated for most of the bedrock rock within the site. Blasting is not anticipated, however. Oversized rock materials may be encountered during grading; such materials would likely ' require special handling methods during site development. Disposal methods might include approved rock blankets, windrowing, burial in pits, or other acceptable methods. If feasible, crushing oversized materials or exporting to an ' offsite location may also be considered. 5. Due to the nature of some of the onsite materials as well as long term drying of cohesion materials, some caving and sloughing may be anticipated to be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Therefore, current local and state/federal safety ordinances for subsurface trenching and other excavations should be implemented. ' 6. Experience from past grading of tracts in similar bedrock terrain indicates that conventional earthmoving equipment should be able to excavate most, if not all, bedrock materials within planned excavation areas. ' 7. The soil and bedrock materials encountered throughout the site are expected to generally range from very low to low, to possibly medium to highly expansive, and ' have low sulfate contents. Accordingly, the use of sulfate resistant concrete (Type V) is not warranted, based on the data to date. Additional testing of earth materials and review of laboratory results, when available, by a corrosion consultant should be considered. ' 8. Stabilization is not anticipated on proposed cut slopes, however, this should be further evaluated during grading, based on conditions disclosed during grading. ' 9. If applicable, where gully or swale areas intercept the proposed development, we recommend that the project civil engineer consider using debris/desilting/detention basins and/or debris impact walls with sufficient freeboard in those areas, in order ' to mitigate potential debris flows. Previous and subsequent recommendations in this report should be followed and reviewed during grading and final plan preparation. ' 10. At the time of preparation of this report, the proposed finish pad grades, locations of any structures, types of structures, and loading were of a preliminary nature. The recommendations presented below should be reviewed and revised, if necessary, by the project soils engineer and geologist when grading plans become available prior to the start of grading. General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines are ' provided at the end of this report as Appendix E. Specific recommendations are provided below. ' US Home W.O. 2565 -A -SC Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk November 12, 1998 t File:eAWP7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi Page 12 GeoSoiils, Inc. ' Demolition/Grubbing 1. Existing shrubs and any miscellaneous construction materials and debris should be removed from the site. Existing stockpiles, if remaining, may be used as fill, provided that concentrations of vegetation, trash, and miscellaneous debris or ' oversized boulders are removed prior to fill placement, and the remaining earth materials adhere to the guidelines provided herein. ' 2. Any previous foundations, or remnants of foundations, appurtenant structures, and improvements, cesspools, septic tanks, leach fields, or other subsurface structures uncovered Le, during the recommended removal and recompaction work should ' be observed by GeoSoils, Inc. so that appropriate remedial recommendations can be provided during grading. F 1 3. Cavities, loose soils, soft soils (including all geotechnical/geologic exploratory test pits and trenches) remaining after demolition and site clearance should be cleaned out, inspected by the soils engineer, processed, and replaced with fill which has been moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Treatment of Existing Ground 1. All existing undocumented fill on the site should be removed in areas planned for development. Additionally, the slide debris, colluvium, and surficial alluvium should be removed and recompacted. These materials may be re -used as engineered fill. For planning purposes this depth is shown as spot depths of estimated removal depths on Plates 1 through 7. The depth of removals should be further evaluated during grading by the soils engineer. 2. Subsequent to the above recompaction in areas designated as removals, the exposed subsoils should be brought to at least optimum moisture content, then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard to a depth of 12 inches. 3. Existing fill and removal materials may be reused as compacted fill provided that major concentrations of topsoil, vegetation, oversized material and debris are removed prior to fill placement. 4. Where cuts in the slide debris, colluvium, or alluvium are equal to or greater than the recommended removals depths shown on the Plates, the areas should be cut to grade, documented by the geotechnical consultant, then the upper 12 inches below finish grade should be scarified, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk File e:\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 13 I 5. Where the proposed cuts in the slide debris, colluvium, or alluvium are less than the recommended removal depths shown on the Plates, the areas should be cut to grade, then the final surface should be removed and/or scarified to an additional depth of 12 inches, or the recommended removal depth shown on Plate 1 minus the amount of the cut, whichever is greater. 6. Localized deeper removal may be necessary due to buried drainage channel meanders or dry porous materials. The project soils engineer/geologist should observe all removal areas during the grading. Fill Placement Fill materials should be brought to at least optimum moisture, placed in thin, 6- to 8 -inch lifts and mechanically compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. 2. Fill materials should be cleansed of major vegetation and debris prior to placement. 3. Any oversized rock materials greater than 12 inches in diameter should be placed under the recommendations and supervision of the soils engineer. 4. Any import materials should be inspected and determined suitable by the soils engineer prior to import or placement on the site. 5. Efforts should be made to keep expansive soils lower than 3 feet from finish grades. ' EI Chimisal Road ' Our analyses indicate that the additional fill proposed on both sides of EI Chimisal Road should generate differential settlements of less than 1/2 -inch over a distance of 40 feet, ' which should be within tolerable limits typical for such pipelines. Nonetheless, for conservatism, construction of the proposed fills adjoining EI Chimisal Road will require that removals and fill placement be performed in such a fashion that the grades, and raising of ' grades to proposed design elevations, occur in an equivalent manner on both sides (north and south) of EI Chimisal Road, at the same time, so as to not impart an "unbalanced" condition to underlying soils supporting the existing roadway and associated pipeline, as a result of differential settlement concerns. Further, it is recommended that cut-off valves be constructed on each end of the water transmission pipeline, to facilitate repair, although unlikely, should the line be damaged during construction. In addition, settlement ' monuments should be established at a minimum of four locations along the pipeline in order to evaluate the magnitude of settlements that actually occur during fill placement. 11 US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk File: e:\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 14 ' Cut Areas ' All proposed cut areas, including building pads and slopes should be inspected and approved by the geologist prior to finishing. Upon inspection, the geologist would determine if any remedial grading is necessary. Subsurface and Surface Water I CJI Subsurface and surface waters, as discussed previously, are generally not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along fill/bedrock contacts and along zones of contrasting permeabilities may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. The groundwater conditions observed and opinions generated were those at the time of ' our evaluation. Conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors that were not obvious at the time of our evaluation. 1 Subdrains Local seepage along the contact between the bedrock and overburden materials or along jointing patterns of the bedrock may occur. Accordingly, subdrains are recommended. The actual location of subdrains will be provided in the field, however, preliminary locations are shown on Plates 1 through 7. Where removals are below the subdrain flowline, the removal materials may be reused as compacted fill provided they are granular, and at a moisture content of at least 2 percent over optimum moisture content (or 1.2 times optimum moisture content, whichever is greater). Based upon the field conditions and proximity of storm drain or drainage structures, subdrains may be placed and their outlets tied directly into the storm drain system or other suitable outlets. Actual locations of subdrains will be provided during grading, based on exposed conditions, however, subdrains may be anticipated in all canyon areas. Subdrain details are provided in Appendix E. The project civil engineer should locate and map the subdrain and the outlet systems during grading. The slope of the subdrains is suggested as 1 to 2 percent minimum. If the subdrains tie into the storm drain system, due to the relatively low flow anticipated for the subdrains, backflow preventers should be installed at the storm drain/subdrain tie - US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk File e*\wp7\murnrc2500\2565a.sgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 15 I ' in. If allowed to daylight above grade, animal screens should be provided. Subdrain clean -outs should be considered, based on conditions encountered during grading. ' Slope Design Fill slopes should be designed at a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) gradients or flatter and should not exceed about ±55 feet in height. Fill slopes should be constructed in accordance with recommendations provided herein and county and city ' ordinances. and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent throughout, including the slope surfaces. Guidelines for slope construction are presented in Appendix E. 2. Cut slopes should be designed at 2:1 or flatter in any onsite material to the maximum proposed height of about ±65 feet. While instability of these slopes during construction or afterward is not anticipated, adverse geologic conditions may be encountered which may require remedial grading or laying back of the slope to ' an angle flatter than the adverse geologic condition. 3. Local areas of highly to severely weathered bedrock or non -cohesive sands may be ' present. Should these materials be exposed in cut slopes, the potential for long term maintenance or possible slope failure exists. Evaluation of cut slopes during grading would be necessary in order to identify any areas of severely weathered ' rock or non -cohesive sands. Should any these materials be exposed during construction, the soils engineer/geologist, would access the magnitude and extent of the materials and their potential affect on long term maintenance or possible ' slope failures. Recommendations would then be made at the time of the field inspection. ' 4. Loose rock debris and fines remaining on the face of the cut slopes should be removed during grading. This can be accomplished by high-pressure water washing or by hand scaling, as warranted. ' 5. Where loose materials are exposed on the cut slopes, the project's engineering geologist would require that the slope be cleaned as described above prior to making their final observations. Final approval of the cut slope can only be made subsequent to the slope being fully cut and cleaned. 6. The design engineer should consider utilizing brow ditches, debris/retention basins, rip rap, debris walls and/or other measures or devices at the top or toe of the ' proposed cut slopes to mitigate potential debris flows that may originate in swales that intercept the slopes. These devices may need to be maintained periodically, and this should be considered during project planning. i ' US Home W.O. 2565 -A -SC Tracts 23066-5 and 230674, Redhawk November 12, 1998 File: e:\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi Page 16 ' GeoSoils, Inc. I 1 I 7. Cut slopes should be mapped by the project engineering geologist during grading to allow amendments to the recommendations should exposed conditions warrant alternation of the design. The contractor should allow for sufficient time during grading to allow for the mapping of slope back -cuts. Temporary Construction Slopes Due to the conditions expected to be encountered during rough grading, it is anticipated that temporary construction slopes, backcuts, false slopes, haul roads, and other temporary conditions will be constructed at a minimum slope ration of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. Excavations for removals, drainage devices, debris basins, and other localized conditions should be evaluated on an individual basis by the soils engineer and engineering geologist for variance from this recommendation. Due to the nature of the materials anticipated, the engineering geologist should observe all excavations and fill conditions. The geotechnical engineer should be notified of all proposed temporary construction cuts, and upon review, appropriate recommendations should be presented. Front cuts may also be cut at a 1:1 slope gradient. The possible instability of temporary cut slopes during excavation, or canyon clean-out, cannot be precluded, and should be emphasized to the grading contractor. The temporary stability depends on many factors, including the slope angle, structural features in the bedrock, shearing strength along planes of weakness, height of the slope groundwater conditions, and the length of time the cut remains unsupported and exposed to equipment vibrations and rainfall. The possibility of temporary cut slopes failing during canyon clean -outs, excavations, etc., may be reduced by: 1. Minimizing the operations extent in both duration and physical dimensions. 2. Limiting the length of a cut exposed to destabilizing forces at any one time. 3. Cutting no steeper than those backcut inclinations specified by the geotechnical consultant. 4. Avoiding operation of heavy equipment or stockpiling materials on or near the top of the backcut or trench. All OSHA requirements with regard to excavation safety should be implemented by the grading contractor. 5. Provide temporary drainage and diversion barriers for the grading work to reduce the potential for ponding and erosion. US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk File e:\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 17 I I n 1 1 - 11 1 I Transition Lots In order to establish a uniform subgrade beneath the proposed foundations or materials of differing expansion potential, the cut portions of the cut/fill transition lots should be overexcavated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with compacted fill. Prior to replacing the overexcavated area with compacted fill, the exposed subsoils/bedrock should be well scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Due to the steep natural slopes and possible saturated soils within the tributary canyons, or where the ultimate fill depth is substantial, the overexcavation may need to be increased to a depth of at least 5 to 10 feet, or to a ratio of 3:1 (maximum to minimum fill thickness) across the individual lots. This recommendation is provided to mitigate the possible adverse effects due to deep fills on only a portion of a particular lot and/or building pad. Actual overexcavation depths should be provided during grading, based on the conditions disclosed during removals of unsuitable materials. Due to the condition of the outer portions of the existing embankments descending to the site and the potential for significant settlement, overexcavation of these areas will be required. Prior to placing any fill at the bases of the existing graded slopes, a minimum 1:1 backcut from the existing embankments should be excavated. The backcuts should commence at the top of the existing slopes. Normal benching should be maintained in the backcut while fill placement progresses. Since these fills are likely compacted engineered fills, future differential settlements, provided GSI's recommendations are followed, are anticipated to be within the limits of standard design recommendations for Post -Tensioned slabs in this area. Earthwork Balance The volume change of excavated materials upon compaction as engineered fill will vary with material type an location. It is anticipated that the alluvial materials will subside approximately 0. 15 to 0.20 feet due to the static and dynamic loading conditions imposed by earthwork equipment. The earthwork shrinkage/bulking factors for removed material may be approximated by using the following parameters: Artificial fill ......................................... 15% to 20% shrinkage Colluvium ............................................ 15% to 20% shrinkage Alluvium and Older Alluvium ............................. 10% to 15% shrinkage Slice Debris ............................................ 0% to 5% shrinkage Pauba Formation ....................... 0% to 5% bulking to 0% to 5% shrinkage The above factors are based on in-situ density testing performed during the field exploration phase of our evaluation. US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk File: e.\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi GeoSoiis, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 18 E Grading Settlements ' GSI has estimated the potential magnitudes of total settlement, differential settlement, and angular distortion. The analyses were based on the laboratory test results from borings near the affected portions of the site. Laboratory data (Appendix D) were also reviewed ' for the evaluation of the site settlement potential. ' Ground settlement should be anticipated due to primary consolidation and secondary compression of the left -in-place older alluvium as will occur on portions of the site. The total amount of settlement and time over which it occurs is dependent upon various t factors, including material type, depth of fill, depth of removals, initial and final moisture content, and in-place density of subsurface materials. Compacted fills, to the heights anticipated, are not generally prone to excessive settlement (on the order of 1 to 21/4 inches). However, some post -construction settlement of the left -in-place alluvium is expected and the majority of this settlement is anticipated to occur within several months to as much as 1 ± year following grading. The total settlement that occurs after this time ' is anticipated to be within acceptable limits (on the order of 2± inches). This settlement will be monitored and revised based on actual field data. The number and locations of the settlement movements will be provided in the field. 1 1 I Angular distortions were evaluated by assuming that the narrowest portion of a potentially affected structure as 40 feet. Another factor controlling angular distortion was underlying geologic conditions (e.g., cut/fill transitions, sloping bedrock contacts). We have assumed that the multi -family, single-family, or commercial structure would be constructed within a zone setback 20 feet from the top or toe of slopes, but no further back than 80 feet, and that the side yard setbacks would be 5 feet. If, however, underlying geologic conditions control angular distortions, the estimates will need to be reviewed and possibly revised based on the specific dimensions and locations of an individual structure. An estimation of potential settlements and angular distortions for the affected lots is presented later within the 'Post -tensioned Slab Design" section of this report. . Mitigation of grading settlements may include a combination of: 1. Decreasing the slope of the cut/fill transition under building areas 2. Using either post -tensioned slabs, mat foundation or drilled piers 3. Monitoring fill settlements during and 90- days after construction (minimum) using monuments installed in accordance with Appendix E. �it°�3 alo to �S, US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk Fil e * e: \wp 7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 19 Settlement Evaluation ' Any settlement sensitive structures should be evaluated and designed for the combination of site-specific soil parameters and the estimated settlements and angular distortion values provided below: 11 1 I 1 Boring Number Estimated Total Settlement (inches) Build Immediately Built at 50% Consolidation* Estimated Time to 50% Consolidation (Months) Estimated Differential Settlement inches Estimated Angular Distortion Estimated Differential Settlement inches Estimated Angular Distortion B-1 2.46 1.85 11260 0.92 11520 2.3 B-2 2.20 1.65 11290 0.83 11570 2.1 B-3 2.30 1.73 1/280 0.86 1/555 2.0 B-4 1.50 1.13 1/426 0.60 11850 1.5 B-5* B-6* B-7 1.40 1.05 1/455 0.53 11910 1.5 B-8 2.28 1.71 11280 0.86 11560 2.3 B-9 1.92 1.44 1/330 0.72 11660 2.3 B-10 1.4 1.05 11455 0.53 11910 1.5 B-11 0.76 0.57 11840 0.30 111680 0.8 B-12 1.23 0.92 11520 0.46 1/1040 1.2 B-13 0.9 0.68 11710 0.34 111420 0.7 B-14* B-15 1.0 0.75 11640 0.38 1/1280 0.9 B-16** * Indicates alluvium will be completely removed or no additional fill will be placed in proposed cut area In ' bedrock. ** Indicates boring advanced in area of future development. 1 1 Specific lot by lot design parameters will be provided, based on the conditions disclosed during grading. Tentatively, within Tract 23067-2, Lot 22, correlates with B-1, Lot 23 correlates with B-2, Lots 25 and 26 correlate with B-3, Lot 28 correlates with B-4, Lots 17 and 18 correlate with B-10, Lot 8 correlates with B-11, Lot 93 correlates with B-12, Lot 118 US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk Fi le: e: \wp 7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 20 correlates with B-13, and the lots near Calle Banoelos correlate with B-15. Similarly, within Tract 23066-5, Lot 7 correlates with B-7, Lot 9 correlates with B-8, and Lot 10 correlates with B-9. If determined by the project structural engineer that the predicted settlements could compromise the structural integrity of the foundation system or superimposed structure, alternative remedial recommendations should be sought from this office. M PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION DESIGN Bearing Value 1. An allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot may be used for the design of continuous footings 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep. This value may be increased by 20% (per code) 200 lbs./sq. ft. for each additional 12 inches in depth to a maximum value of 2,500 lbs./sq. ft. The upper 6 inches should be excluded from the embedment due to the effects of landscaping. 2. The bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for seismic or other temporary loads. Lateral Pressure 1. For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.30 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load. 2. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 225 pounds per cubic foot with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. 3. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. 4. All footings should maintain a minimum 7 foot horizontal distance the base of the footing and any adjacent descending slope, and minimally comply with the guidelines depicted in the latest edition of the UBC, (slope finish grade away from foundations 1 to 2%). FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION The following foundation construction recommendations are presented as a minimum criteria from a soils engineering standpoint. The onsite soils expansion potentials are generally in the very low to low range (expansion index 0 to 50), however, soils in the medium or possibly high range (expansion index 51 to 90, and 91 to 130, respectively) US Home W.O. 2565 -A -SC Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk November 12, 1998 Re:e:\wP7\muMrc2500\2565a.sgi Page 21 ' GeoSoils, Inc. Mmay also be present onsite. It is anticipated that soils with a very low to low expansion potential will be the predominate soil type exposed during site grading. Accordingly, the following foundation construction recommendations assume that the soils in the top 3 feet of finish grade will have a very low to low or medium expansion potential, M for planning and design considerations. Recommendations by the project's design - structural engineer or architect, which may exceed the soils engineer's recommendations, should take precedence over the following minimum requirements. Final foundation design will be provided based on the expansion potential of the near surface soils encountered during grading. Conventional Foundations Very Low to Low Expansion Potential (Expansion Index 0 to 50) 1. Exterior and interior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches for one-story loads, and 18 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface for two-story loads. All footings should be reinforced with two No. 4 reinforcing bars, one placed near the top and one placed near the bottom of the footing. Footing widths should be as indicated in the Uniform Building Code (International Conference of Building Officials, 1997). 2. A grade beam, reinforced as above, and at least 12 inches wide should be provided across large (e.g. doorways) entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of adjoining footings. 3. Concrete slabs, where moisture condensation is undesirable, should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of 6 mil polyvinyl chloride or equivalent membrane with all laps sealed. This membrane should be covered above and below with a minimum of 2 inches of sand (total of 4 inches) to aid in uniform curing of the concrete and to protect the membrane from puncture. 4. Concrete slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick, and should be reinforced with 6 inch by 6 inch, No. 10 by No. 10 (6x6 - W1.4 x W1.4) welded -wire mesh or No. 3 reinforcing bar at 24 inches on center. If welded wire mesh is selected, No. 3 reinforcing bar at 24 inches on center should be doweled between the exterior footing and 3 feet into the slab. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure placement near the vertical midpoint of the concrete. "Hooking" the wire mesh is not considered an acceptable method of positioning the reinforcement. 5. Garage slabs should be reinforced as above and poured separately from the structural footings and quartered with expansion joints or saw cuts. A positive separation from the footings should be maintained with expansion joint material to permit relative movement. ' US Home W.O. 2565 -A -SC Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk November 12, 1998 ' File:e.\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a.5gi Page 22 GeOSoils, Inc. 6. Presaturation is not required for these soil conditions. The moisture content of the subgrade soils should be equal to or greater than optimum moisture content in the slab areas. Prior to placing visqueen or reinforcement, soil moisture content should be verified by this office within 72 hours of pouring slabs. Medium Expansion Potential (Expansion Index 51 to 90) 1. Exterior and interior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches for one-story loads, and 24 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface for two-story loads. All footings should be reinforced with two No. 4 reinforcing bars, one placed near the top and one placed near the bottom of the footing. Footing widths should be as indicated in the Uniform Building Code (International Conference of Building Officials, 1997). 2. A grade beam, reinforced as above, and at least 12 inches wide should be provided across large (e.g. doorways) entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of adjoining footings. 3. Concrete slabs, where moisture condensation is undesirable, should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of 6 mil polyvinyl chloride or equivalent membrane with all laps sealed. This membrane should be covered above and below with a minimum of 2 inches of sand (total of 4 inches) to aid in uniform curing of the concrete and to protect the membrane from puncture. 4. Concrete slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick, and should be reinforced with 6 inch by 6 inch, No. 6 by No. 6 (6x6 - W2.9 x W2.9) welded -wire mesh or No. 3 reinforcing bar at 18 inches on center. If welded wire mesh is selected, No. 3 reinforcing bar at 18 inches on center should be doweled between the exterior footing and 3 feet into the slab. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure placement near the vertical midpoint of the concrete. "Hooking" the wire mesh is not considered an acceptable method of positioning the reinforcement. 5. Garage slabs should be reinforced as above and poured separately from the structural footings and quartered with expansion joints or saw cuts. A positive separation from the footings should be maintained with expansion joint material to permit relative movement. 6. Presaturation is recommended for these soil conditions. The moisture content of the subgrade soils should be equal to or greater than 120 percent of optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches below grade in the slab areas. Prior to placing visqueen or reinforcement, soil presaturation should be verified by this office within 72 hours of pouring slabs. ' US Home W.O. 2565 -A -SC Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk November 12, 1998 Fi1e:e:\wP7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi Page 23 �OS01'liS, Inc. 0 Preliminary Post -tensioned Slab Design M It is GSI's opinion that conventional slab design may not accommodate the foundations distortion that the underlying subsurface geometry and/or fill thicknesses would impart to some of the lots that are likely to be graded at the site. The recommendations presented below should be followed in addition to those contained in the previous sections. The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by a registered structural engineer or civil engineer familiar with post -tensioned slab design or corrosion engineering consultant. Upon request, GSI could provide additional data/consultation regarding soil parameters as related to post -tensioned slab design. Concrete slabs, where moisture condensation is undesirable, should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of 6 mil polyvinyl chloride or equivalent membrane with all laps sealed. This membrane should be covered above and below with a minimum of 2 inches of sand (total of 4 inches) to aid in uniform curing of the concrete and to protect the membrane from puncture. The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by a registered structural engineer or civil engineer familiar with post - tensioned slab design or corrosion engineering consultant. Upon request, GSI could provide additional data/consultation regarding soil parameters as related to post -tensioned slab design during grading. The post -tensioned slabs should be designed in accordance with the recommendations of the California Foundation Slab Method or Post -Tensioning Institute Method. The slabs should be designed for at least 1 inch of surficial differential settlement (i.e., at least 1 inch in a 30 -foot span) for low expansion soils. Based on review of laboratory data for the onsite materials, the average soil modulus subgrade reaction K, to be used for design, is 100 pounds per cubic inch. This is equivalent to a surface bearing value of 1,000 pounds per square foot. California Foundation Slab Method: It is recommended that slabs be designed for a free span of 15 feet. From a soil expansion/shrinkage standpoint, a fairly common contributing factor to distress of structures using post -tensioned slabs is a significant fluctuation in the moisture content of soils underlying the perimeter of the slab, compared to the center, causing a "dishing" or "arching" of the slabs. To mitigate this possible phenomenon, a combination of soil presaturation and construction of a perimeter cut-off wall grade beam should be employed. All slab foundation areas should be moisture -conditioned to at least optimum moisture, but no more than 6 percent above optimum moisture, for a depth of at least 12 inches below subgrade. A continuous perimeter curtain wall should extend to at least a depth of 18 inches below exterior grade for high expansion soils. The cut-off walls may be integrated into the slab design or independent of the slab and should be a maximum of 6 inches. A US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk Fi I e: e:\w p7\mu rr\rc2500\2565a. sgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 24 visqueen vapor barrier should be placed underneath the slab sandwiched between two 2 -inch layers of sand. This vapor barrier should be lapped adequately to provide a continuous waterproof barrier under the entire slab. Other applicable recommendations presented under conventional foundations should be adhered to during the design and construction of the project. Post -Tensioning Institute Method: Post -tensioned slabs should have sufficient stiffness to resist excessive bending due to non-uniform swell and shrinkage of subgrade soils. The differential movement can occur at the comer, edge, or center of slab. The potential for differential uplift can be evaluated using the 1997 Uniform Building Code Section 1816, based on design specifications of the Post -Tensioning Institute. The following table presents suggested minimum coefficients to be used in the Post -Tensioning Institute design method. Thornthwaite Moisture Index -20 inches/year Correction Factor for Irrigation 20 inches/year Depth to Constant Soil Suction 5 feet Constant soil Suction 3.6 The coefficients are considered minimums and may not be adequate to represent worst case conditions such as adverse drainage and/or improper landscaping and maintenance. The above parameters are applicable provided structures have gutters and downspouts and positive drainage is maintained away from structures. Therefore, it is important that information regarding drainage, site maintenance, settlements, and effects of expansive soils be passed on to future owners. Based on the above parameters, the following values were obtained from figures or tables of the 1997 Uniform Building Code Section 1816. The values may not be appropriate to account for possible differential settlement of the slab due to other factors. If a stiffer slab is desired, higher values of ym may be warranted. Expansion Index of Soil Sub rade Low EI Medium EI High EI em center lift 5.0 feet 5.5 feet 5.5 feet em edge lift 2.5 feet 2.7 feet 3.0 feet ym center lift 1.10 inch 2.0 inch 2.5 inch ym edge lift 0.35 inch 0.50 inch 0.75 inch US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk File: e:\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a. sgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 25 Expansion Index of Soil Low EI Medium EI High EI Sub rade Differential Settlement (Inches) 1 0 2.0 2.5 Soil Material Kaolinite Illite and Montmorillonite Deepened footings/edges around the slab perimeter must be used to minimize non- uniform surface moisture migration (from an outside source) beneath the slab. An edge depth of 12 inches should be considered a minimum. The bottom of the deepened footing/edge should be designed to resist tension, using cable or reinforcement per the structural engineer. Other applicable recommendations presented under conventional foundation and the California Foundation Slab Method should be adhered to during the design and construction phase of the project. TOP -OF -SLOPE WALLS The geotechnical parameters provided below may be utilized for top -of -slope sound walls which are founded in competent bedrock or engineered/compacted fill materials. A pier -and -grade -beam foundation system for walls placed near or directly adjacent a top - of -slope is recommended from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations contained herein are applied in the design and construction of the foundations. The tip elevation of the piers should be such that the entire bearing surface should be bedded below a 1:1 projection from any adjacent structure or road area. The wall footings or grade beams spanning between the piers should not have any lateral loading present from wind or seismic sources. In areas where the deepened footings are founded in the proximity of retaining wall foundations or other footings, the combined effect of the footing surcharge and foundation loadings should not exceed the allowable bearing value (1500 psf). Provided the drilled foundations have a minimum depth of 6 feet below the lowest adjacent grade (excluding the pier cap) for walls immediately adjacent to a slope face, and a minimum depth of 5 feet for walls with an offset of 2 feet or greater from the top -of -slope. This embedment assumes penetration into engineered fill or competent bedrock. The sound wall piers will gain most of their support from the adhesion of the soils along the shaft. A value of 250 pounds per square foot (psf) skin friction along the pier shaft may be used. Due to the pressure of potentially expansive soil, this value should not be applied to the soil in the upper 3 feet. Consideration should also be given to providing a spacer below each length of grade beam to allow for the effects of potentially expansive soils. The allowable bearing denoted above is for the net bearing value (soil and footing weight may be neglected). An allowable lateral soil pressure of 300 psf, applied to embedded US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk Fi I e: e:\wp7\m urr\rc2500\2565a.sgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 26 Melements grater that three feet in depth (and one foot in depth for walls with an offset of two feet or more from the slope face), should be used for computing resistance to lateral loads M for footings or piers adjacent a slope face. A spacing of 10 feet (maximum), center -to - center, should be used for the design of shallow piers. Friction along grade beam bottoms should not be considered for the lateral capacity of this type of foundation. Additionally, the soils in the upper 5 feet may apply a creep load to piers and pier caps. M A value of 1000 pounds (per foot) should be applied to piers of pier in the upper 4 feet as a uniform pressure to accommodate creep loads. The strength of the concrete and grout should be evaluated by the structural engineer of record. The proper ASTM tests for the concrete and mortar should be provided along with the slump quantities. The placing of joints (expansion and crack control) should be incorporated into the wall layout. This expansion joints should be placed no greater than 20 feet on -center and should be reviewed by the civil engineer and structural engineer of record. GSI anticipates distortions on the order of 1.5± inches in 50 feet for these walls located at the tops of slopes. GSI should review the joint pattern and wall configuration with respect to the cut/fill depths and provide comment. Lateral keys or dowels should be provided within pier caps at expansion joints to resist lateral drift between wall sections. J 1 1 GSI will consider an alternative foundation system for the walls, if the alternative accommodates the distortions and potentially expansive soil conditions for the site. RETAINING WALLS General The design parameters provided below assume that very low to low expansive soils (Class 2 permeable filter material or Class 3 aggregate base) are used to backfill any retaining walls. If high to very highly expansive soils are used to backfill the proposed walls, increased active and at -rest earth pressures will need to be utilized for retaining wall design, and may be provided upon request. Building walls, below grade, should be water- proofed or damp -proofed, depending on the degree of moisture protection desired. The foundation system for the proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the preceding sections of this report, as appropriate. Footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below adjacent grade (excluding landscape layer, 6 inches) and should be 24 inches in width. There should be no increase in bearing for footing width. US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk Fi I e: e:\w p71mu rrVc2500\2565a.s g i GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 27 Restrained Walls M Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at -rest equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) of 65 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas of male or re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner. MDebris Walls/Impact Walls The active earth pressures as previously indicated should utilize an EFP of 125 pcf. Impact and debris walls should be designed in a similar manner. The debris walls and impact walls should be supported by footings with a minimum embedment of 18 inches into competent bedrock. Consideration should be given to supporting debris and impact walls on drilled piers embedded a minimum 6 feet into engineered fill or competent bedrock. Cantilevered Walls The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 10 feet high. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, -seismic events or adverse geologic conditions. When wall configurations are finalized, the appropriate loading conditions for superimposed loads can be provided upon request. I US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk File. e.\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi GeoSoiils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 28 Surface Slope of Equivalent Retained Material Fluid Weight Horizontal to Vertical P.C.F. Level* 30 2 to 1 43 * Level backfill behind a retaining wall is defined as compacted earth materials, properly drained, without a slope for a distance of 2H behind the wall, where H is the height of the wall. Wall Backfill and Drainage rThe above criteria assumes that very low expansive soils are used as backfill, and that hydrostatic pressure are not allowed to build up behind the wall. Positive drainage must be provided behind all retaining walls in the form of gravel wrapped in geofabric and outlets. A backdrain system is considered necessary for retaining walls that are two feet I US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk File. e.\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi GeoSoiils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 28 or greater in height. Backdrains'should consist of a 4 -inch diameter perforated PVC or ABS pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material or'/z-inch to3/a-inch gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). The filter material should extend a minimum of one horizontal foot behind the base of the walls and upward at least one foot. Outlets should consist of a 4 -inch diameter solid PVC or ABS pipe spaced no greater than 100± feet apart. The use of weep holes in walls higher than 2 feet should not be considered. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted with native soil. Proper surface drainage should also be provided. Consideration should be given to applying a water -proof membrane to all retaining structures. The use of a waterstop should be considered for all concrete and masonry joints. Footing Excavation Observation All footing excavations for walls and appurtenant structures should be observed by the geotechnical consultant to evaluate the anticipated near surface conditions prior to the placement of steel or concrete. Based on the conditions disclosed during the observations of the footing excavation, supplemental recommendations may be offered, as appropriate. IRECOMMENDATIONS -POST EARTHWORK IPlanting and Landscape Maintenance Graded slopes constructed within and/or exhibiting or exposing weathered bedrock, colluvial, or alluvial materials are considered erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon after construction. Plants selected by the project landscape architect should be light weight, deep-rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Graded cut slopes exposing less weathered bedrock are anticipated to be relatively non- erosive and will present difficulty for establishment of vegetation on the dense bedrock. Jute -type matting or other fibrous covers may aid in allowing the establishment of a sparse plant cover. Water can weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Positive surface drainage away from graded slopes should be maintained and only the amount of water necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Overwatering should be avoided as overwatering the landscape area could adversely affect the proposed site improvements. Planting of shrubs or trees adjacent to foundations is not recommended. Homeowners guidelines will be provided in the final report or separately. Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk File. e.\wp 7\murr\rc25002565a.sgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 29 MErosion Control M Cut and fill slopes will be subject to surficial erosion during and after grading. Onsite earth materials have a moderate to high erosion potential. Evaluation of cuts during grading will be necessary in order to identify any areas of loose or non -cohesive materials. Should any significant zones be encountered during earthwork construction, remedial grading (e.g., stabilization fills) may be recommended; however, no remedial measures are anticipated at this time. Consideration should be given to providing hay bales and silt fences for the Mcontrol of surface water during grading. Additional Site Imarovements Recommendations for exterior swimming pool design and construction in light of the presence of varying thickness of fills and expansive soils, can be provided upon request, after site earthwork is complete. If, in the future, any additional improvements are planned for the site in general or individual lots, consultation and recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements may be provided upon request by the client or the homeowners. Additional Grading This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been compacted. This includes completion of grading in the street and parking areas and utility trench and retaining wall backfills. Footing Trench Excavation All footing trench excavations should be observed by a representative of this office prior to placing reinforcement. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be moisture conditioned and properly compacted if not removed the site. If excavations become inundated during significant rainstorms, footing trenches should be reviewed for mitigation, if necessary. Drainage Positive site drainage within lots and common areas should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations at a minimum of 1% to 2% for a distance of 5 to 3 feet, respectively, and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. Roof drainage should be tight lined and directed to a suitable outlet. Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area. Due to the expansive nature of on-site soils, combined ' with the hardness and low anticipated permeability of the bedrock, local areas of seepage may develop due to surface sources of irrigation or heavy rainfall. Minimizing irrigation will ' US Home W.O. 2565 -A -SC Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Fledhawk November 12, 1998 File*e \wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi Page 30 GeoSoils, Inc. Mlessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop, remedial recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. The use of fertilizers may change M the chemistry of tF a soils or runoff water and alter the performance of piping, foundations, and subgrade structures. Consideration should be given for review by a qualified corrosion specialist. FLATWORK AND HARDSCAPE RECOMMENDATIONS M1. Planters and walls should not be tied to the house. 2. Driveways, sidewalks, and patios adjacent to the house should be separated from the house with thick expansion joint filler material. In addition, all sidewalks and driveways should be quartered and poured with expansion joints no farther than 8 to 10 feet apart. 3. Overhang structures should be supported on the post -tensioned slabs or structurally designed continuous footings tied in at least two directions. 4. Any masonry landscape walls that are to be constructed throughout the property should be grouted and articulated in segments no more than twenty (20) feet long. These segments should be keyed or doweled together. 5. Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible connections to accommodate differential settlement and expansive soil conditions. r r 6. Finish grade on the lots should provide a minimum of 1-2 percent fall to the street as previously indicated. It should be kept in mind that drainage reversals could occur, including post -construction settlement, if relatively flat yard drainage gradients are not maintained. Tile Flooring Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small cracks in a post -tensioned slab may not be significant. Therefore, the designer should consider additional steel reinforcement of concrete slabs on -grade where tile. will be placed. The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets. Slipsheets or a vinyl crack isolation membrane (approved by the Tile Council of America/Ceramic Tile Institute) is recommended between tile and concrete slabs on grade. US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk File a \wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC November 12, 1998 Page 31 Gutters and Downsaouts As previously discussed in the drainage section, the installation of gutters and downspouts is suggested to collect roof water that may otherwise infiltrate the soils adjacent to the structures. The downspouts should be drained into PVC collector pipes or non-erosive devises that will carry the water away from the house. Exterior Slabs and Walkways Exterior concrete slabs -on -grade (walkways, patios, etc.) should be constructed with a minimum four inch thick slab, and reinforced with steel rebar or welded mesh. The reinforcement should consist of No. 3 rebar placed at 24 inches on center in two horizontally perpendicular directions (long axis and short axis), or 6x6-10/10 welded wire mesh. It is important for the performance of the slab that the reinforcing be located near mid -slab thickness using chairs, supports, etc. Hooking is not an acceptable method of reinforcement placement, and is not recommended. Distortions on the exterior slab -on -grade due to potentially expansive soils and proximity to slopes may warrant additional mitigation. This may include crack control joints (4 to 6 feet spacing in horizontally perpendicular directions [long axis and short axis]), and expansion control joints at intervals 10 feet or less. Other considerations for mitigation may include the use of thickened edges for slabs at the top of slopes, fiber mesh mixed into the concrete, or pre-moistening/pre-saturation of subgrade soils to optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches, or 130 percent of optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches, respectively, for low or expansive soils. Air conditioning (A/C) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into the building foundation (PT slab) or constructed on a rigid slab with flexible couplings for plumbing and electrical lines. A/C waste water lines should be drained to a suitable outlet (see above). Shrinkage cracks could become excessive if proper finishing and curing practices are not followed. Finishing and curing practices should be performed per the Portland Cement Association Guidelines. Mix design should incorporate rate of curing for climate and time of year, sulfate content of soils, corrosion potential of soils, and fertilizers used on site. SUPPLEMENTAL MOISTURE CONDITIONING For post -tension slabs at 18 -inches of embedment, the moisture content of the subgrade soils should be equal to or greater than 130 percent of the soils optimum moisture content to a depth below subgrade of 18 inches, prior to pouring concrete. This soil moisture content should be verified by a GSI representative. Once pre -construction testing is completed the visqueen barrier should be placed on the moistened soil within 72 hours and the slab be poured within 72 hours. US Home W.O. 2565 -A -SC Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk November 12, 1998 ' File:e:\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi Page 32 GeoSoils, Inc. MTRENCH BACKFILL M 1. Utility trench backfill within the influence of structures (buildings and appurtenances), slopes, and beneath hard scape features should be brought to at least optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Flooding/jetting of trench backfill is not recommended for the site soil materials. Due to contrasting soil conditions, uniform sand backfill (SP or SM) should not be utilized, other than immediately above and below pipelines, (approximately 1 foot thick). 2. Sand backfill should not be allowed in exterior trenches adjacent to and within an area extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of a foundation for a retaining wall, building, or key appurtenant structures. 3. When excavating trenches, the contractor should conform to CAL -OSHA, local safety codes, and grading ordinances. 4. The utilities will be backfilled utilizing on site soils and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction, or as required by the governing agency. The bedding dimensions and setbacks of trenches will follow the County of Riverside ordinances and utility company requirements unless superseded herein. All utility backfill soil test results will be forthcoming in a report by GSI. 5. Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass below the footing or grade beam utilizing a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass through the footing or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in the laboratory are believed representative of the total area; however, soils materials may vary in characteristics between test excavations. Since our investigation is based upon the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing, and geologic, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. It is possible that variations in the soil conditions could exist beyond the points explored in this investigation. Also, changes in groundwater conditions could occur at some time in the near future due to variations in temperature, regional rainfall, and other factors. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities. ' US Home W.O. 2565 -A -SC Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk November 12, 1998 File:e:\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi Page 33 GeoSoiils, Inc. APPENDIX A REFERENCES i APPENDIX A REFERENCES Blake, Thomas F., 1997, EQFAULT , EQSEARCH, and FRISK89, computer programs and users manuals (EQSEARCH revised June, 1998). Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y., 1994, Near -Source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration from worldwide accelerograms recorded from 1957 to 1993: Proceedings, Fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. III, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, pp. 293-292. Dudley, P. H., 1936, Physiographic history of a portion of the Perris block, southern 1 California: The Journal of Geology, Vol. XLIV. Envicom Corporation, 1976, Seismic safety and safety elements technical report, for the County of Riverside. Giessner, F. W., Winters, B. A., and McLean, J. S., 1971, Water wells and springs in the western part of the upper Santa Margarita River watershed: United States Geological Survey, Bulletin 91-20. Greensfelder, R. W., 1974, Maximum credible rock acceleration from earthquakes in California: California Division of Mines -and Geology, Map Sheet 23. Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault -rupture hazard zones in California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. Housner, G. W., 1970, Strong ground motion in Earthquake Engineering, Robert Wiegel, ed., Prentice -Hall. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier, California. 1 Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet No. 6, scale 1:750,000. 1 Joyner, W.B, and Boore, D.M., 1982a, Estimation of response -spectral values as functions ' of magnitude, distance and site conditions, in Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and Blake, eds., T.F., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. , 1982b, Prediction of earthquake response spectra, in Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and Blake, eds., T.F., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. Kennedy, M. P., 1977, Recency and character of faulting along the Elsinore fault zone in southern Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 131. GeoSoils, Inc. ' Mann, J. F., 1955, Geology of a portion of the Elsinore fault zone, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 43. Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., 1992, Murrieta special geologic study zone report, Murrieta, California, no work order number, dated April 17, (for Builders Cooperative ' Association, Murrieta, California). Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 1998, Geotechnical evaluation, Tracts 23066-5 and 23067, Redhawk area, Riverside County, California, Job No. 163-98, dated May 6. Sadigh, K., Egan, J., and Youngs, R., 1987, Predictive ground motion equations reported ' in Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1988, "Measurement, characterization, and prediction of strong ground motion", in Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics ll, Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, Von Thun, J.L., ed.: American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp. 43-102. Sadler, Peter M., and Morton, Douglas M., 1989, Landslides in a semi -arid environment with emphasis on the inland valleys and southern California: Publications of the Inland Geological Society, Vol. 2. rSeed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M., 1982, Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes: Earthquakes Engineering Research Institute Monograph. Shlemon, R. J., and Davis, P., 1992, Ground fissures in the Temecula area, Riverside County, California, in Pipkin, B. W., and Proctor, R. J., eds, Engineering Geology Practice in Southern California, Association of Engineering Geologists Special Publication No. 4, p. 275-287. ' Shlemon, R. J., and Hakakian, M., 1992, Fissures produced both by groundwater rise and groundwater fall: a geologic paradox in the Temecula -Murrieta area, southwestern Riverside County, California, in Stout, M. L., (ed): Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, Long Beach, California, p. 143-150. Sowers and Sowers, 1970, Unified soil classification system (After U. S. Waterways Experiment Station and ASTM 02487-667) in Introductory Soil Mechanics, New York. F, L I I US Home Appendix A ' Fi1e:e:\wp7\murn2500\2565a.sgi Page 2 GeoSoiils, Inc. I I C I I 7 1 1 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT: US HOME BORING e-1 SHEET 1 OF 2 Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-19-98 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger + v } o j Standard Penetration Test ` w + 9Q Water Seepage into hole I al — o J j Undisturbed, Ring Sample L N N N O ❑ I + L + Y11 3 N d O N J O - ID L O U E T v i - + N J C J1 — 0 a. L o m l Description of Material 1❑ m j❑+, m ❑ N I ❑ I L N SP ALLUVIUM @ 0', SAND, light tan, dry, loose; very fine to coarse grained. 6 11 SM 121.6 11.0 81.0 1 @ 5', SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist, medium dense. Z: 10- 15 118.2 10.7 71.0 @ 10', as per 5'. 15 '. 1 2 SC 115.5 13.2 81.0� 15', CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, moist, medium dense. j 20 11 SM 116.7 10.4 66.0 20', SILTY SAND, brown to reddish brown, moist, loose. 25- I 15 124.3 8.6 68.0 - @ 25', SILTY SAND, brown, moist, medium dense; coarse to i very coarse grained, micaceous. GeoSoils, Inc. I' Redhawk PLATE 6-1 I I 1 i [l I I 1 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W O. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT: US HOME BORING a-1 SHEET 2 OF 2 Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-19-98 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger f v } a Standard Penetration Test a } ^ L + J :A- Water Seepage into hole C u ] m ( Undisturbed, Ring Sample L N Wi N O + L m R N ] - + E L` o w Description of Material t, ,p0/1 1 ' Sc 118.0 14.9 98.0 X PALIBA FORMATION @ 30', CLAYEY SAND, light brown to olive brown, moist, dense; very fine to fine grained. 35 �//,150/6" 50/6' SM 120.1 11.1 78.0 � @ 35', SILTY SAND, orange brown to olive brwon, moist, " dense. ao 50/8' SC 116.6 16.2 100.0 @ 40', CLAYEY SAND, light brown to olive brown, moist, dense; fine grained. 45 50/8' i 121.0 13.4 97.0 45', as per 40'. X i 50- 50/5' 124.8 4.0 33.0 / @ 50', as per 45'. , Total Depth = 51' No groundwater encountered No caving Backfilled 10-19-98 55 J GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE 8-2 I 1 7 I 1 I LJ BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.0. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT US HOME BOR/NG B-2 SHEET 1 OF 2 Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-19-98 Sample SAMPLEMETHOD: Hollow Stem Auger } 3 o Standard Penetration Test Water Seepage into hole Undisturbed, Ring Sample m m m u : t o 3 0M a a o a - U L O UE m c o - w L I o 0Description of Material p t0 �J+ m no O t N SP ALLUVIUM j @ 0', light tan, dry, loose. /,/-50/10"SM 124.8 1 4.0 33.0 - - @ 2', SILTY SAND, dark brown, damp, dense; fine to very coarse grained. 5 29 124.5 5.7 46.0 r @ 7', SILTY SAND, medium to dark brown, damp, medium = dense. 10- 027 2 7 123.0 6.7 51.0 @ 12', as per 7'. 15- 514 14, P/S 107.7 7.5 37.0 @ 17', SAND AND SILTY SAND, tan to medium brown, damp, medium dense. 20 16 SM 118.8 10.7 72.0 @ 22', SILTY SAND, reddish brown to brown, moist, medium j dense. 25- 50/11 0 11 SM/ 117.3 114.6 94.0 I1 PALIBA FORMATION '— Sc @ 27', SILTY SAND to CLAYEY SAND, medium brown to olive brown, moist, dense. GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE B-3 I L I I I I 11 I I I I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W. p. 2565 -A -SC I PROJECT -US HOME BORING 6-2 SHEET 2 OF 2 Redhawk DA TE EXCA VA TED 10-19-98 Sample SAMPLEMETHOD: Hollow Stem Auger « C 3 c Standard Penetration Test o w + + a - i o- .- L + Water Seepage into hole cm '— ' I Undisturbed, Ring Sample d - aLI a UE L o I m Description of Material U m �J+m JN O L V1 SM/Sc PAUBA FORMATION (CONT.) 50/7' SP/ 108.3 21 .2 100.0 @ 32', SAND AND SILTY SAND, light tan to olive gray, SM saturated, dense; fine to coarse grained, poorly sorted. Groundwater seepage at 32'. 35- 50/11 0/11 ' 106.0 22.8 100.0 @ 37', SILTY SAND, dark reddish brown to olive brown, saturated, dense. ao 50/6' 127.6 9.5 85.0 @ 42', as per 37'. i Total Depth = 43' Groundwater seepage at 32' Backfilled 10-19-98 45 50 55 GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE e -a U I J [l I I I 1 I I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO 2565 -A -SC PROJECT. US HOME BORING B-3 SHEET 1 OF ? Redhawk DA TE EXCA VA TED 10-19-98 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger I + v Standard Penetration Test w a + Water Seepage into hole vl 0 0 t Undisturbed, Ring Sample L N 0 d — U CI 0 U E S v - � + a U E W I C z; — N x � a N Description of Material I 0 m D +, m J N O L N SM I ALLUVIUM @ 0', SILTY SAND AND SAND, light tan to reddish brown, dry, loose. k//11 5 101.6 4.0 17.0 @ 5', SILTY SAND, dark brown, damp, loose. 10 I 19 108.1 10.1 51.0 - @ 10', SILTY SAND, brown, moist, medium dense. 15- 19 119.0 12.0 82.0 @ 15', SILTY SAND, light gray to light tan, moist, medium is dense. 20-- 48 SP 111.5 9.9 54.0 @ 20', SAND, light tan, moist, dense. 25 I 50/11 i 1117.6 9.8 164.0 I I @ 25', SAND, light tan to gray, moist, dense. GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE B-5 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 25654 -SC j PROJECT' US HOME BOR/NG B-3 SHEET 2 OF 2 , Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-19-98 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger V } X o Standard Penetration Test W i + ^ L + 4� Water Seepage into hole c" 0 J m !� Undisturbed, Ring Sample L N d N 0 ❑ d + L Q. DI 3 N D I — 71 LI 0 UE N J 0 , C J. — N x L o a Description of Material ❑ m J +� O] J N� O L 41 j� 44 SM 111.6 18.5 100.0 PALIBA FORMATION @ 30', SILTY SAND, datk olive brown, moist, dense. 35 122.6 11.8 90.0 1 @ 35', SILTY SAND, dark reddish brown to dark olive brown, X/50/10' moist, dense. Total Depth = 36' No groundwater encountered No caving Backfilled 10-19-98 45 Redhawk GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-6 %��-3 alo 4o 7.e C;z3 0l0 I I I I I I I I BORING LOG rGeoS i1s, Inc. WO. zsss-A-sc PROJECT. US HOME BORING B-4 SHEET 1 OF 2 Redhawk DATE EXCA VA TED 10-19-98 Sample I I SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger ,. + v } o Standard Penetration Test .`. ±m +3 Water Seepage into hole I Undisturbed, Ring Sample r a m o u : W 3 vin a a o 6 - D L; O UE S - + w a L o A Description tion of Material ❑ m� +, m �� ut ❑ E w SP ALLUVIUM - ; @ 0', SAND, light tan, dry, loose. 13 105.0 2.8 13.0 @ 2', SAND, light to dark tan, damp, medium dense. 5- 12 12 SM 121.8 11.7 87.0 - @ 7', SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist, medium dense; fine to coarse grained. 10 i I _ 10 119.7 11.9 83.0 ,- @ 12', SILTY SAND, dark olive brown, wet, loose; fine to — very coarse grained. 15 13 GM 106.9 12.2 59.0 @ 17', SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, dark olive brown, wet, 1 medium dense; gravel to 1" in diameter. i •I 20 1 ? ' 1 5 SM 116.1 12.5 78.0 @ 22', SILTY SAND, dark olive brown, wet, medium dense; r very fine to medium grained. 25- 1 23 102.0 22.7 97.0 - @ 27', SILTY SAND, brown, wet, medium dense; fine to coarse grained. 1 Water seepage @ 27' GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE B-7 SI GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT: US HOME Redhawk 35 45 BORING LOG Sample Wo. 2565 -A -SC BORING B-4 SHEET 2 OF 2 DA TE EXCA VA TED 10-19-98 3 V C Standard Penetration Test o T2�,� L . CN l lii Undisturbed, Ring Sample 0 ❑ a 0N 3 a VIA S W J C ,I N S 35 45 BORING LOG I PAUBA FORMA I ION ICUN 1. 120.7 11.6 83.0 - @32', SILTY SAND, reddish brown, moist, dense; fine ,grained. Total Depth = 33' Water seepage at 27' No caving Backfilled 10-19-98 Redhawk GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-8 Wo. 2565 -A -SC BORING B-4 SHEET 2 OF 2 DA TE EXCA VA TED 10-19-98 SAMPLEMETHOD: Hollow Stem Auger V C Standard Penetration Test o L . dd Water Seepage into hole l Undisturbed, Ring Sample + 0N Description of Material I PAUBA FORMA I ION ICUN 1. 120.7 11.6 83.0 - @32', SILTY SAND, reddish brown, moist, dense; fine ,grained. Total Depth = 33' Water seepage at 27' No caving Backfilled 10-19-98 Redhawk GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-8 I n 11 11 I 11 (-7 LIQ BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. Wo. zsss-A-sc PROJECT: US HOME BORING B-5 SHEET 1 OF z Redhawk I DATE EXCA VA TED 10-19-98 I ^ Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger v Standard Penetration Test Lr Water Seepage into hole tal — ° ] n Undisturbed, Ring Sample t W vl N 0 J L /. 2 N ] Y 3 M111 E a — 9 L 0 U U Ei- 0 ] c ]I — escr h P L 0 0 Description of Material p 0 m 011 m = yr o r= w SM COLLUVIUM @ 0', SILTY SAND, light brown, dry, loose to medium dense. 5 ;l 15 SM 112.1 6.4 36.0 _ ALLUVIUM @ 5', SILTY SAND, very dark brown to light black, damp, medium dense. 10 18 122.7 8.1 61.0 SILTY dark brown, moist, medium dense; fine 0ry to very coarse grained. A 15 10 111.5 7.4 40.0 @ 15', SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose; fine to very coarse grained. 20 17 112.3 10.7 60.0 @ 20', as per 15', medium dense. i 25 29 SM/SC 107.9 17.9189.0 li ( PAUBA FORMATION 1! '.?, @ 25', SILTY SAND TO CLAYEY SAND, dark olive brown, .:, moist, medium dense; very fine to fine grained. Water seepage @ 25' I i 15: GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE B-9 BORING LOG Geo Soils, Inc. W.0. 2565-A-SC I PROJECT: US HOME BOR/NG 6-5 SHEET 2 OF 2 Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-19-98 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger v ^ ^ = Standard Penetration Test L Water Seepage into hole 0 Undisturbed, Ring Sample w m L L N o R— D L 0 U E Sv - + N j c— N T L o m Description Of Material /, I50/7" SM I 122.4 10.1 76.0 PAUBA FORMATION (CONT-) @ 30', SILTY SAND, reddish to yellowish' brown, moist, dense; fine to medium grained. Total Depth = 31' Water seepage at 25' Backfilled 10-19-98 35 40 45 I 50 55 I i I GeOSOIIs, Inc. Redhawk PLATE 8-10 [1 I 1 �1 Ll L n iJ I 1 Efl u I I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT. US HOME BORING _ 8.6 SHEET 1 OF 2 Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-20-98 i Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger + ,.�,' v 3C Standard Penetration Test o / 40 Water Seepage into hole v — c ro ! Undisturbed, Ring Sample o L N L N 0 J + L (1 N J I - D L O E T `- + U 5 L U W m j� n 0 o 0 Description of Material m v", SM ALLUVIUM @ 0', SILTY SAND, light brown, dry, loose. 10 108.9 4.3 22.0 = @ 2', SILTY SAND, dark brown, damp, loose; fine to medium grained. 5- 18 124.8 8.4 69.0 @ 7', as per 2', medium dense; fine to very coarse grained. 10 19 SC 119.7 13.9 96.0. @ 12', CLAYEY SAND, dark olive brown, moist, medium dense; fine to very coarse grained. 15- 50/7' SM 121.4 13.8 100.0 PAUBA FORMATION @ 17', SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown, moist, dense; = fine to medium grained. 20 42 ML 120.7 13.6 97.0@ 22', CLAYEY SAND AND CLAYEY SILT, dark orange _ brown, moist, dense; very fine to fine grained. 5 25- 150/9' 150/9"1 124.2 11.3.90.0 _ @ 27', CLAYEY SAND, dark yellowish brown to light brown, moist, dense; fine to coarse grained. J Total Depth = 28' No groundwater encountered GeOSolls, Inc. Redhawk PLATE 8-11 GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT. US HOME Redhawk 50 55 BORING LOG WO, 2565 -A -SC BORING B-6 SHEET 2 OF 2 DATE EXCAVATED 1020-98 SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger � I Standard Penetration Test + Fij Water Seepage into hole N ;j•, Undisturbed, Ring Sample L J N Description of Material Backfilled 10-20-98 Redhawk GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE 3-12 Sample 3 w + + w — _ ^ C L L J L N N N 0 J O + + Y - 0. L — C L 0 U E L o m D+I m Dm t 50 55 BORING LOG WO, 2565 -A -SC BORING B-6 SHEET 2 OF 2 DATE EXCAVATED 1020-98 SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger � I Standard Penetration Test + Fij Water Seepage into hole N ;j•, Undisturbed, Ring Sample L J N Description of Material Backfilled 10-20-98 Redhawk GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE 3-12 I I U 1 I I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W 0. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT. US HOME BORING R -T SHEET 1 OF 2 Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-20-98 Sample x SAMPLE METHOD Hollow Stem Auger _ o Standard Penetration Test o o- ' Water Seepage into hole — C u o a j�%/ Undisturbed, Ring Sample t a s a o 0 + L i1 a a a — ML 0U E D� - « o m 0 H o Description of Material m SM 1 ALLUVIUM @ 0', SILTY SAND, light tan, dry, loose. 5 8 113.3 7.1 41.0 @ 5', SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist, loose; fine to coarse grained. 10- 15 123.8 9.1 71.0 @ 10', SILTY SAND, dark olive brown, moist, medium dense; minor gravel to 3/4". ~: 15 15 SP 113.5 11.5 67.0 @ 15', SAND WITH SILT, yellowish brown, moist, medium dense; fine to very coarse grained. 20 50/8' SM 122.6 10.8 82.0 PAUBA FORMATION - @ 20', SILTY SAND, orange brown, moist, dense; fine to very coarse grained. 25 50/10'SP 103.0 11.9 52.0 @ 25', SAND, light tan, moist, dense; poorly graded, medium "I to coarse grained. I GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE 6-13 I 1 1 [] 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 11 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT US HOME BORING B-7 SHEET 2 OF 2 Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-20-98 Sample SAMPLEMETHOD: Hollow Stem Auger Standard Penetration Test 0 3 o- } i + r Water Seepage into hole r ul o u 0 Undisturbed, Ring Sample + Y -.0 3 N 1 (L N J f M — v L ou e W C� — 0 S L e " Description of Material ❑ m I7 + m ❑ o ❑ L WO 0/10'SP 113.3 12.6 73.0 PAUBA FORMATION (CONT.) i @ 30', as per 25', wet. I 35 j50/11 'ML 112.6 17.4 98.0 r @ 35', CLAYEY SILT, dark olive brown, moist, dense; fine grained. 40 - 50/6' 125.0 10.4 85.0 r @ 40', SILTY SAND, dark orange brown, moist, dense; fine to medium grained. Total Depth = 41' No groundwater encountered No caving Backfilled 10-20-98 45- 55055 50- 551 1 GeoSoils, Inc. !, Redhawk PLATE B-14 I [1 rI BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 2565 -A -SC I PROJECT: US HOME BORING B-8 SHEET 1 OF 2 Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-20-98 Sample SAMPLE METHOD. Hollow Stem Auger ., .�. e o Standard Penetration Test + t3_4 Water Seepage into hole m m C° : Undisturbed, Ring Sample El L N o + Y �-d 0 00 a a J 6 — U C 0 U E -0 a L o " Description of Material ❑ m❑+ ,0 J N ❑ L N SP ALLUVIUM @ 0', SAND, light tan, dry, loose; poorly graded. 14 SW 101.5 4.4 18.0 '• @ 2', SAND, light tan, damp, medium dense; well graded. 5 �i- 8 SM 108.3 10.0 50.0 s @ 7', SILTY SAND, very dark brown, moist, loose. 10 •' 15 M/S 121.2 12.7 92.0 @ 12', SILTY SAND AND CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, moist, medium dense; fine to very coarse grained. / 15 y 48 SM 112.9 15.3 87.0 s @ 17', SILTY SAND, orange brown, moist, dense. 20- 035 3 5< M/S 108.4 20.1 100.0 PAUBA FORMATION @ 22', SILTY/CLAYEY SAND, olive brown, moist, medium -'• dense; fine grained. F 25 0 I li 50 SM 119.7 14.3 99.0 @ 27', SILTY SAND, orange brown to olive brown, moist, dense. GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE B-15 I 1 1 1 1 1 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W. 0. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT. US HOME BORING B-8 SHEET 2 OF 2 Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-20-98 Sample SAMPLEMETHOD. Hollow Stem Auger ^ v + v cL Standard Penetration Test w w + Water Seepage into hole z m i Undisturbed, Ring Sample c mw 10 1 + L a — o o u E a" + o m �. o 4 Description of Material m �' 1 SM PAUBA FORMATION (CONT.) ;{50/9 -is P/ 116.2 10.5165.0 ;;I @ 32', SAND AND CLAYEY SILT, olive brown to dark tan, moist, dense; very fine to very coarse grained. I Total Depth = 33' No grundwater encountered 35 No caving Backfilled 10-20-98 a0 I a5 50 I I 55 I GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE B-16 [1 [l 1 11' F 11 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W. 0. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT. US HOME BORING 8-9 SHEET 1 OF Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-20-98 I SampleSAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger + v 'Standard Penetration Test " v _ C w Water Seepage into hole u Undisturbed, Ring Sample L N Wl m o + L + Y - Ll 3 U E f1 N J a — U LI O U E 9 v + ❑" M m D H o m Description of Material SM ARTIFICIAL FILL @ 0, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, tan, dry, loose to medium I = dense. 5 18 SM 118.2 11.1 74.0 @ 5', SILTY SAND, brown to olive brown, damp, medium dense; minor gravel to 3/4". 10 9 119.0 9.6 65.0 - @ 10', SILTY SAND, dark brown to black, moist, loose; v- I _= - organics, twigs. 15 /50/11 'SP/ 118.9 10.4 70.0 ALLUVIUM SM @ 15', SAND AND SILTY SAND, dark tan, moist, dense; fine to very coarse grained. 20 45 SW 100.2 11.1 45.0 ;•;• PAUBA FORMATION @ 20', SAND, tan to orange brown, moist, dense; well :- graded, fine to medium grained. 25, 48 SM 117.3 15.2 98.0 -:• @ 25', SILTY SAND, orange brown, moist, dense; fine to II I very coarse grained. ER.dhawk GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-17 I 1 I [l 1 1 1 1 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W O. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT: US HOME BORING B-9 SHEET 2 OF 2 Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-20-98 Sample SAMPLEMETHOD: Hollow Stem Auger _ Standard Penetration Test 0 w + 'b Water Seepage into hole ♦ — L " ] 0 Undisturbed, Ring Sample v Ell L N 0N 0 J a + L + Y— n J N L N ] v + — v L 0 U E 1 a C« 0 H o 0 y Description of Material m' m 0/11 'SW 104.7 15.9 73.0 ;• • PAUBA FORMATION ICONT.) @ 30', SILTY SAND, orange brown, moist, dense; very fine to fine grained, micaceous. 35 43 108.5 16.7 84.0 •;•; @ 35', as per 30'. Total Depth = 36' No groundwater encountered No caving Backfilled 10-20-98 40 45 50 55 I I I j GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE B-18 I 1 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT. US HOME BORING B-10 SHEET 1 OF 2 Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-20-98 Sample e SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger a C h Standard Penetration Test L « ,, PV Water Seepage into hole L Nal m a u L., Undisturbed, Ring Sample ♦ Y - �; 3 N D e' N L a — V LiO U E Tv - t m j c �1 — 0 x L o M Description of Material o m D +! m 7 W O r_ rn SM COLLUVIUM 1 _ @ 0', SILTY SAND, light brown, dry, loose to medium dense. .% 16 SM 107.0 3.7 17.8 ALLUVIUM @ 2', SILTY SAND, brown, damp, medium dense; some organics, rootlets. 5 50 GM '123.8 5.8 45.3 @ 7', SILTY SAND AND GRAVEL, light tan to orange brown, damp, dense; gravel to 3/4" in diameter. 10 1 1 1�1 • '!- 48 SM 111.6 13.4 74.0 @ 12', SILTY SAND, brown to orange brown, moist, dense. y 15- 0/11 5M/ 118.2 11.8 78.0 PAUBA FORMATION SP @ 17', SAND AND SILTY SAND, light orange brown, moist, dense; fine to very coarse grained. 20- 00/11"SP 0/11 'SP 120.6 11.4 81.0 @ 22', SAND, light tan, moist, dense; fine to very coarse grained. 25 50/7' SM/ 119.2 10.9174.0 =_I @ 27', SILTY SAND AND SILTY GRAVEL, light orange GM - brown, moist, dense; fine to very coarse grained. GeoSoils, Inc. i Redhawk PLATE B-19 I 11 1 C 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT: US HOME BORING B-10 SHEET 2 OF 2 Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-20-98 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger v V L Standard Penetration Test > ± ^ L + Water Seepage into hole L m m m o u t 0 ''j Undisturbed, Ring Sample y- a a rn v a a 4 - a LU E T" + 0 c N D L o m Description of Material ❑ m �❑+ m ❑N ❑ E N M/GM = PAUBA FORMATION (CONT.1 -i 50/9'1 SW 107.6 14.1 69.0 ' @ 32', SAND, light orange brown, wet, dense; well graded. " Water seepage at 32'. 35 .' 50/8' SM/ 110.4 17.6 93.0 @ 37', SILTY SAND AND SAND, tan, saturated, dense; SP poorly graded. 40 0/10' 110.3 18.6 99.0 @ 42', CLAYEY SILT, olive brown to yellowish brown, moist, dense. 45- 50/8 121.5 13.2 97.0 @ 47', as per 42'. Total Depth = 48' Water seepage from 32' to 42'. Backfilled 10-20-98 50 I i 55 i GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE B-20 I I I I I I I I I I I I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W. 0. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT: US HOME BORING 8-11 SHEET 1 OF 2 Redhawk i I DATE EXCAVATED 10-21-98 Sample SAMPLEMETHDD: Hollow Stem Auger + v « o Standard Penetration Test w + u Water Seepage into hole t an d N o. 7 0 t ;% Undisturbed, Ring Sample W m C.I m n o o c N Description of Material SM ALLUVIUM @ 0', SILTY SAND, light brown, dry, loose. 5 j 0/105M/ 119.3 10.1 69.0 @ 5', SILTY SAND AND SAND, light orange brown, damp, SP dense; fine to coarse grained. 10 0/11 'SM 114.9 14.9 90.0 "' PAUBA FORMATION @ 10', SILTY SAND, brown to dark orange brown, damp, dense. 15 ;50/10' SP 108.9 6.5 33.0: @ 15', SAND, light tan to tan, damp, dense; poorly graded. 20 ':;50/9" SM 126.0 11.2 95.0 @ 20', SILTY SAND, dark orange brown, damp, dense; fine to very coarse grained. 25 50/7'1 SP 1 107.2 5.7 28.0 @ 25', SAND, light orange brown, damp, dense; well graded. I GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE B-21 I I 1 1 I I H 11 IJ I Ir L_ 1 1 I r] I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. it WO. 2565 -A -SC I PROJECT: US HOME BORING B-11 SHEET 2 OF 2 Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-21-98 Sami le SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger C Standard Penetration Test o : :•. w ± a + Al Water Seepage into hole Undisturbed, Ring Sample V - + Q. — D L OU E T o m 0. 1 m D o L � Description of Material 0 �", 50/8'1 SP 1 101.6 4.0 17.0 PAUBA FORMATION (CONT.1 @ 30', as per 25', poorly graded, fine to very coarse grained. 35 0/10' 105.9 7.0 33.0 @ 35', SAND, light tan to light orange brown, damp, dense; poorly graded. 50 M/S 114.9 14.5 87.0 @ 40', SILTY SNAD AND CLAYEY SAND WITH SILTS, dark yellowish brown to olive brown, moist, dense; fine grained. i i a5 50/9' SMI 107.8 9.6 48.0 @ 45', SILTY SAND AND SAND, light tan to dark orange brown, moist dense; sands are well graded. Total Depth = 46' No groundwater encountered No caving Backfilled 10-21-98 50 55 GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE B-22 702,30101 -s, 72co34!:57:�7 ;:7 d I I I I I i I I I �I I I C I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W. 0. 2565 -A -SC I PROJECT: US HOME BORING B-12 SHEET I OF 2 Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-21-98 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger with California Sampler } 3 a Standard Penetration Test w } ^ L Water Seepage into hole v. — c m Undisturbed, Ring Sample L NUI N 0 D + L d + Y -.0 3 N n N 7 a. - a LI 0 U E 3" - + j C- N 3 L 0 0 Description of Material ❑ J+I L N JN ❑U m m J SM j ALLUVIUM @ 0', SILTY SAND, light brown, dry, loose. 11 110.2 2.8 14.7 - @ 2', SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, dry, loose; some j organics, rootlets, gravel up to 1/2 " in diameter. 5 11 109.8 9.6 50.0 @ 7', SILTY SAND, dark brown, damp, loose; fine to coarse grained. 10- 44 SM/S 118.5 12.4 83.0 =� @ 12', SILTY SAND AND SAND, light orange brown, moist, dense; fine to coarse grained. 15 - 50/8' 115.1 9.3 57.0 PAUBA FORMATION @ 17', SAND AND SILTY SAND, dark tan, moist, dense. 20 Y 0l10'SP 106.5 14.0 67.0 @ 22', SAND, tan, damp, dense; fine to very coarse grained, poorly graded. 25 I 50!7'1 SM 115.0 15.3 92.0 _ @ 27', SILTY SAND, dark orange brown, moist, dense; fine J to medium grained, minor coarse grains. GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE B-23 M 1 I I 1 i I I I I 1 I 1 BORING LOG Geo Soils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT US HOME BOR/NG B-12 SHEET 2 OF 2 Redhawk DA TE EXCAVATED 10-21-98 r SampleSAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger with California Sampler « v ""+ Standard Penetration Test o J a } ^ L + I Water Seepage into hole Undisturbed, Ring Sample t m m m o o L 4 - U L: O U E .. N C ,I - 02 L o A Description of Material ❑ m 7+� m 7N ❑ L N SM 106.2 4.4 21.0 PAUBA FORMATION (CONT.) 50/8' SP 107.9 15.4 76.0 @ 32', SAND, light ornage brown, moist, dense; fine to very coarse grained. 35- 50/9, 118.7 14.3 97.0 11 @ 37', SAND, dark tan, saturated, dense; poorly graded. Water seepage at 37' 40 ;50/9' SM/ 110.2 19.2 100.0 @ 42', SILTY SAND TO CLAYEY SAND, dark olive brown, Sc moist, dense. 45 gg{ t% i "50/8' ML @ 47', CLAYEY SILT, dark olive brown, moist, dense. Total Depth = 48' Water seepage from 37' to 42' Backfilled 10-21-98 so 55 ! I Geo Soils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE B-24 I 1 I' 1 1 I I 1 C] I I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W. 0. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT: US HOME BORING 8-13 SHEET 1 OF 2 Redhawk I DATE EXCAVATED 10-21-98 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hallow Stem Auger with California Sampler c Standard Penetration Test + oEl + a L + -. Water Seepage into hole c u ' " I Undisturbed, Ring Sample L L N 01 N O + I L (L + Y -xi! 3 0 D V W ° v ,; N v L o A Description of Material SP ALLUVIUM @ 0', SAND, light tan, dry, loose; poorly graded. 5 '! 5 SM 113.7 10.8 63.0 @ 5', SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist, loose. 10 11 117.3 12.1 78.0 @ 10', as per 5'. 1524 119.4 12.7 87.0 -'l @ 15', SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, moist, medium dense; fine to very coarse grained. 20 0/10'SM 115.6 15.7 96.0 PAUBA FORMATION @ 20', SILTY SAND, dark olive brown, damp, dense; fine grained, micaceous. 25 50/7' 119.0 10.3 70.0 @ 25', SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown, damp, dense; fine to medium grained. I GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE B-25 I f'1 I I I I 11 I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W. 0. 2565 -A -SC PRO✓ECT.US HOME BORING 8-13 SHEET 2 OF 2 Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-21-98 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger with California Sampler v I o 0 E] Standard Penetration Test w ^ C r + ;-,� Water Seepage into hole nm Undisturbed, Ring Sample N3 � 0 0 + L %I + X- a N � - + Ll 0 I — c LI o U E L o Da' s y Description of Material to m 50/8' SP 109.6 5.1 27.0 PAUBA FORMATION (CONT.1 @ 30', SAND, light tan, moist, dense; poorly graded, fine to coarse grained. 35-- 0/10 'SM 114.3 17.1 1100.0 '_ ! @ 35', SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown to reddish brown, I moist, dense. I 40 M/S 118.5 15.2 100.0 L, @ 40', SILTY SAND AND CLAYEY SAND WITH SILT, dark //150/7 olive brown, moist, dense. Total Depth = 41' No groundwater encountered No caving Backfilled 10-21-98 45- 55055 50- 55 I I GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE 8.26 I I I I I r I I I 0 I r 1 r I I I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT: US HOME BORING 6-14 SHEET 1 OF 2 Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-21-98 Sample %. SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger .. s .— I ii i > Standard Penetration Test Water Seepage into hole Undisturbed, Ring Sample L N GI N O 7 + L M - D Ll O U E S + s N Description of Material oL SM ALLUVIUM @ 0', SILTY SAND, light brown, dry, loose to medium dense. 5� 8 119.6 10.7 74.0 I s @ 5', SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist, loose; fine to medium grained. to 15 116.2 14.5 91.0 @ 10', SILTY SAND WITH -GRAVEL, brown, moist, medium dense; gravel to 1/2" in diameter. t5 26 114.6 14.4 86.0 @ 15', SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, dark yellowish brown to '' dark orange brown, moist, medium dense; gravel to 1 1/2" in diameter. 20 150/8' SP 106.5 8.3 40.0 @ 20', SAND, dark tan to tan, moist, dense; fine to very coarse grained. I I 25 0/10'SP/ 104.4 11.5 52.0 PAUBA FORMATION SM @ 25', SAND AND SILTY SAND, light orange brown, moist, dense; fine to medium grained. GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE B-27 J J I '1 I I I I I I I I 1 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W O. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT: US HOME BOR/NO B-14 SHEET 2 OF 2 Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-21-98 Sample j SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger } _ o Standard Penetration Test L .- Water Seepage into hole i s n 0 Undisturbed, Ring Sample u L N 0 N 0 ❑ + L Y - 3 L U U E d — 7) L 0 E + a 0 C V — N S L o m Description of Material ❑ m J+ (0 50/9' SM 113.3 16.4 95.0 _ PALIBA FORMATION (CONT. @ 30', SILTY SAND, dark orange brown, moist, dense; fine I, -- I to coarse grained. 35 50/9' 116.7 16.2 100.0 — @ 35', SILTY SAND, brown to dark olive brown, moist, j dense. 40 '%5017 SC/ 108.5 14.0 71.0-'; @ 40', CLAYEY SAND AND SAND, light tan to dark olive Sw brown, moist, dense; sand lens well graded. 45 0/10 120.0 5.9 41.0 @ 45', as per 40'. / Total Depth = 46' No groundwater encountered No caving Backfilled 10-21-98 50 55 I GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE B-28 I 1 [1 11 I I J I [1 I I I I I 1 I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 2565 -A -SC i PROJECT.US HOME BOR/NG 6-15 SHEET ? OF 2 I Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-2298 i Sample ! SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger _ C. DX. Standard Penetration Test « o w �-^ L + Water Seepage into hole j I Undisturbed, Ring Sample L N L m o u + a — V L a U E m 7 c – y r L o m C+ a Description of Material ❑ to m J N ❑ L SM/SP ALLUVIUM @ 0', SILTY SAND AND SAND, light brown to light tan, dry, loose. I� 15 SM 112.1 3.5 20.0 - 2', SILTY SAND, brown, damp, medium dense. 5 16 116.4 7.5 47.0 @ 7', SILTY SAND, brown to dark brown, damp, medium dense; fine to medium grained. 10 j/ 12 116.2 10.7 67.0 @ 12', as per 7', fine to coarse grained. 15 46 MIG A 126.8 9.7 84.0 = @ 17', SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown to dark olive = brown, moist, dense, gravel to 1 1/2" in diameter. 20 I i = = %. 0/11 SM/ 115.1 15.3 92.0 PAUBA FORMATION SP @ 22', SILTY SAND AND SAND, dark orange brown, moist, dense; fine to very coarse grained. 25 I 150/9' SP/�— 105.7 7.6 36.0 @ 27', SAND AND SILTY SAND, light orange brown to dark i SM tan, moist, dense; fine to very coarse grained, poorly graded. GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE 8-29 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W. 0. 2565-A-SC PROJECT. US HOME BOR/NG B-15 SHEET 2 OF 2 Redhawk DATE EXCAVATED 10-22-98 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger 3 Standard Penetration Test « o;, w } " L + Aj Water Seepage into hole a — c I N ! Undisturbed, Ring Sample L N W N O D U L Y - 3 d N J d V L O U E Tv + a L U E W c - D � a p L o m Description of Material D SP/S PAUBA FORMATION (CONT.) 0/10'SC/ 117.4 14.3 92.0 @ 32', CLAYEY SILT AND CLAYEY SAND, dark olive brown, ML — moist, dense; fine grained._ 35 115.3 15.4 94.0 J @ 37', as per 32'. j50/9" Total Depth = 38' No groundwater encountered No caving ao Backfilled 10-22-98 45 50 55 ' I I GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE B-30 -T.eo-2-3a7-iea3G�� r— L� I 1 I 1 LJ 1 1 1 I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. Wo. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT: US HOME BORING 8-16 SHEET 1 OF 2 Redhawk DA TE EXCA VA TED 10-22-98 Sample SAMPLEMETHOD: Hollow Stem Auger ^ o Standard Penetration Test I o t•✓ Water Seepage into hole Undisturbed, Rin Sample L N dN o J d + L gam P LL Y ULA 0 U E o m h:! - 0 ti C M Description of Material t 33 SM 96.1 3.9 14.0 `- ALLUVIUM @ 0', SILTY SAND, light brown, dry, medium dense; some organics, rootlets. .i 5- 26 121.3 7.2 152.0 @ 5', SILTY SAND, dark brown to dark orange brown, damp, medium dense; fine to very coarse grained. 10 j' 15 117.0 9.0 57.0. @ 10', SILTY SAND, dark -brown, moist, medium dense. t �I i 15 34 SM 126.0 8.5 172.0 " PAUBA FORMATION @ 15', SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown to dark olive I brown, moist, medium dense; fine to very coarse grained. 20 i' 0/11 121.1 9.9 72.0 @ 20', SILTY SAND, dark olive brown, moist, dense. l z5 41 M/S 1 115.5 5.7 135.0 @ 25', SILTY SAND AND SAND, dark olive brown, moist, ' i I dense; fine to coarse grained. GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE 8-31 I I I 1 I C] L I 1 E I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. i W, O. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT: US HOME BORING B-16 SHEET 2 OF 2 Redhawk DATE EXCA VA TED 10-22-98 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger Standard Penetration Test L Water Seepage into hole o a Undisturbed, Ring Sample 0 0 L a L U E 1 no " w o r Description of Material 36 SP 104.2 2.5 11.0 PAUBA FORMATION (CONT.1 " @ 30', SAND, light tan to dark tan, damp, medium dense; poorly graded. 35 ; 47 102.3 3.1 13.0 @ 35', SAND, light tan, damp, dense; poorly graded. 40 50/8' SM/ 104.7 18.7 85.0. @ 40', SILTY SAND AND SAND, light orange brown, moist, SP dense; fine to coarse grained. 45 120.4 14.1 00.0— @ 45', CLAYEY SILT, dark olive brown, moist, dense; fine grained. 5o 50/9' ML/ 121.6 13.3 98.0 r @ 50', CLAYEY SILT AND CLAYEY SAND, dark orange brown, moist, dense. Total Depth = 51' No groundwater encountered I No caving I Backfilled 10-22-98 5 5' i GeoSoils, Inc. Redhawk PLATE 8-32 I U I H I I 0 0 I I I I I I H I I I 11 P13t.C-, m ®Illift dw O mll� m r:ii a 0 m C O C = == COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKES MAXIMUM CREDIBLE EARTHQUAKES MAXIMUM PROBABLE EARTHQUAKES a x Cn x ^ Z s Z e — O 0 Q Q ` K Ja x � Ld --j a x W U x wx L+1 U x Q 0.1 s x Q 0.1 e x �x J • x c� J e — 5 Z x IZ 0_ O a x Ofx O_ lk 0.01 0.01 x Q e Q e W 0 LJ x a 0.001 01 1 10 100 1000 0.001 01 1 10 100 1000 DISTANCE (mi) DISTANCE (mi) JOB NO.: 2565 -A -SC LATITUDE: 33.4669 N - LONGITUDE: 117.0689 W Plate C-3 LOG N = 3.693 - 0.765M 100 10 z Q w } 1 z w w 0 0.1 Of Li m z > 0.01 g D U 0.001 0.0001 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 MAGNITUDE (M) SEISMIC RECURRENCE CURVE HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES FROM 1800 TO 1998 Redhawk Plate C-3 7-71 Im � r " " wo- wm- �- "w- w � : = = O O C O 1 1CALIFORNIA NEVADA MONTEREY ARIZONA \� \ 0 50 100 D SCALE a (Miles) LOS ANGEL S EXPLANATION 0 p --- O M = 8.0 + DIWO O M = 7 0-7.9 0 M = 6.0-6.9 PACIFIC A M = 5.0-5.9 M = 4.0-4.9 OCEAN SITE LOCATION (+): Latitude — 33.4669 N JOB NO.: 2565—A—SC Longitude — 117.0689 W HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES 1800 TO 1998 � r = m m� � � r_ rl i` rir ■iir � rr IM=rr.. = PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE vs. ACCELERATION 100 90 w 80 U Z Q 70 0 w U 60 x w 1 50 O >- 40 J Fn 30 Q m � 20 0 10 m EXPOSURE PERIODS: 25 years 75 years 50 years 100 years 0.1 0.2 0.3 ACCELERATION (g) JOYNER & BOORE (1982) RND. MEAN JOB No.: 2565—A—SC m m m m m m m m m m= m m= m= m AVERAGE RETURN PERIOD vs. ACCELERATION 10000 e e 4 N x T 1000 e O_ 0_' e W Z P 100 e G' e w 0 Q ry w 2 Q 10 e e a 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 ACCELERATION (g) US Home/Redhawk JOYNER & BOORE (1982) RND. MEAN JOB No.: 2565—A—SC I 1 fl OIL PROFILE NAME: 2565B1 - ------------ '-------------------------- m * * * SOIL PROFILE LOG * * ************************ YER BASE DEPTH SPT FIELD -N LIQUEFACTION WET UNIT FINES D (mm) DEPTH OF # (ft) (blows/ft) SUSCEPTIBILITY WT. (pcf) °s<#200 50 SPT (ft) --- 1 -------- --- 20.0 ----------- 15.0 -------------- --- SUSCEPTIBLE (1) --------- 125.0 - - ---- 30.0 ------ 0.050 -------- 15.25 ---- 2 ---------- 22_5-- ----------- 5.5 ----------------- SUSCEPTIBLE (1) --------- 128_8 ------ 16.5 ------ 0.400 -------- 20.25 1---- ----------- ----------------- ------ ------ -------- 3 27.5 12.5 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 134.9 20.0 0.400 25.25 ----- V4 ---------- 35_0--- ----------- ----------------- SUSCEPTIBLE (1) --------- 135_6-- ------ 50.0 ------ 0.100 -------- 30.25 5 40.0 ---25.0 -- 37.5 ------------ ----- SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 133.4 ------ 50.0 ------ 0.100 -------- 35.25 1 --- 6 ---------- 45.0 ----------- 35.0 ----------------- SUSCEPTIBLE (1) --------- 135.5 ------ 53.5 ------ 0.090 -------- 40.25 ---- 7 ---------- 51.0 ----------- 37.5 ----------------- SUSCEPTIBLE (1) --------- 137.2 ------ 50.0 ------ 0.100 -------- 50.25 ---- I ---------- I ----------- I ----------------- --------- I ------ I ------ -------- a----------------------------------------------------------------------- I 11 1 1 [1 1 1 I 1 RVA C-7 ******************* * L I Q U E F Y 2 * * ' * Version 1.30 * * ******************* ' EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE -INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL tB NUMBER: W.0.2565 -A -SC DATE: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 FB NAME: US HOME .IQUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: B1 FIL-PROFILE NAME: 2565B1 GROUND WATER DEPTH: 10.0 ft SIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 7.00 tTE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.280 g OREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 FPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 N60 CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 J[GNITUDE WEIGHTING FACTOR: 0.842 �IELD SPT N -VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS LI ,OTE: Relative density.values listed below are estimated using equations of Giuliani and Nicoll (1982). f=L*_W:] I ----------------------------- LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY ----------------------------- I' ------------------ CEER [1996] Method ------------------ PAGE 1 '--+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+-----+------+------ 1 0.25 0.016 0.016 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 0.75 0.047 0.047 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t1 1.25 0.078 0.078 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 1.75 0.109 0.109 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 2.25 0.141 0.141 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 2.75 0.172 0.172 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 3.25 0.203 0.203 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 3.75 0.234 0.234 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 4.25 0.266 0.266 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 4.75 0.297 0.297 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 5.25 0.328 0.328 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 5.75 0.359 0.359 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 6.25 0.391 0.391 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '1 6.75 0.422 0.422 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 7.25 0.453 0.453 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 7.75 0.484 0.484 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 8.25 0.516 0.516 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 8.7S 0.547 0.547 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 9.25 0.578 0.578 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '1 9.75 0.609 0.609 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 10.25 0.641 0.633 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.953 0.148 1.56 1 10.75 0.672 0.649 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.951 0.151 1.53 1 11.25 0.703 0.664 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.949 0.154 1.50 '1 11.75 0.734 0.680 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.946 0.157 1.47 1 12.25 0.766 0.695 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.944 0.159 1.45 1 12.75 0.797 0.711 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.942 0.162 1.43 '1 13.25 0.828 0.727 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.939 0.164 1.41 1 13.75 0.859 0.742 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.937 0.166 1.39 1 14.25 0.891 0.758 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.935 0.168 1.37 1 14.75 0.922 0.774 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.933 0.170 1.36 1 15.25 0.953 0.789 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.930 0.172 1.34 1 15.75 0.984 0.805 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.928 0.174 1.33 1 16.25 1.016 0.821 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.926 0.176 1.32 1 16.75 1.047 0.836 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.923 0.177 1.30 1 17.25 1.078 0.852 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.921 0.179 1.29 1 17.75 1.109 0.868 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.919 0.180 1.28 '1 18.25 1.141 0.883 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.917 0.181 1.27 1 18.75 1.172 0.899 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.914 0.183 1.26 Plate C-9 CALC. TOTAL EFF. FIELD Est.D CORR. LIQUE. INDUC. LIQUE. OIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N r C (N1)60 RESIST r STRESS SAFETY NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) (°s) N (B/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR '--+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+-----+------+------ 1 0.25 0.016 0.016 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 0.75 0.047 0.047 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t1 1.25 0.078 0.078 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 1.75 0.109 0.109 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 2.25 0.141 0.141 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 2.75 0.172 0.172 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 3.25 0.203 0.203 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 3.75 0.234 0.234 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 4.25 0.266 0.266 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 4.75 0.297 0.297 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 5.25 0.328 0.328 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 5.75 0.359 0.359 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 6.25 0.391 0.391 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '1 6.75 0.422 0.422 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 7.25 0.453 0.453 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 7.75 0.484 0.484 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 8.25 0.516 0.516 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 8.7S 0.547 0.547 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 9.25 0.578 0.578 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '1 9.75 0.609 0.609 15 61 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 10.25 0.641 0.633 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.953 0.148 1.56 1 10.75 0.672 0.649 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.951 0.151 1.53 1 11.25 0.703 0.664 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.949 0.154 1.50 '1 11.75 0.734 0.680 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.946 0.157 1.47 1 12.25 0.766 0.695 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.944 0.159 1.45 1 12.75 0.797 0.711 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.942 0.162 1.43 '1 13.25 0.828 0.727 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.939 0.164 1.41 1 13.75 0.859 0.742 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.937 0.166 1.39 1 14.25 0.891 0.758 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.935 0.168 1.37 1 14.75 0.922 0.774 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.933 0.170 1.36 1 15.25 0.953 0.789 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.930 0.172 1.34 1 15.75 0.984 0.805 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.928 0.174 1.33 1 16.25 1.016 0.821 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.926 0.176 1.32 1 16.75 1.047 0.836 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.923 0.177 1.30 1 17.25 1.078 0.852 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.921 0.179 1.29 1 17.75 1.109 0.868 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.919 0.180 1.28 '1 18.25 1.141 0.883 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.917 0.181 1.27 1 18.75 1.172 0.899 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.914 0.183 1.26 Plate C-9 ' CALC. TOTAL EFF. FIELD Est.D CORR. LiQUE. INDUC. LIQUE. 1 19.25 1.203 0.915 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.912 0.184 1.26 1 19.75 1.234 0.930 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.910 0.185 1.25 '2 20.25 1.266 0.946 6 35 1.057 7.9 0.089 0.907 0.186 0.48 2 20.75 1.298 0.963 6 35 1.057 7.9 0.089 0.905 0.187 0.48 2 21.25 1.331 0.980 6 35 1.057 7.9 0.089 0.903 0.188 0.47 '3 3 21.75 1.363 0 13 51 0.972 15.1 0.163 0.889 0.192 0.85 '2 2 22.25 1.395 1.013 6 35 1.057 7.9 0.089 0.898 0.190 0.47 3 22.75 1.428 1.030 13 51 0.972 15.1 0.163 0.896 0.190 0.86 'LEER [1996] Method ------------------- PAGE 2 CALC. TOTAL EFF. FIELD Est.D CORR. LiQUE. INDUC. LIQUE. OIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N r C(N1)60 RESIST r STRESS SAFETY NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) (o) N (B/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR ---+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+-----+------+------ 3 23.25 1.462 1.048 13 51 0.972 15.1 0.163 0.894 0.191 0.85 23.75 1.495 1.066 13 51 0.972 15.1 0.163 0.891 0.192 0.85 '3 3 24.25 1.529 1.084 13 51 0.972 15.1 0.163 0.889 0.192 0.85 3 24.75 1.563 1.103 13 51 0.972 15.1 0.163 0.887 0.193 0.85 3 25.25 1.597 1.121 13 51 0.972 15.1 0.163 0.885 0.193 0.85 ' 3 25.75 1.630 1.139 13 51 0.972 15.1 0.163 0.882 0.194 0.84 3 26.25 1.664 1.157 13 51 0.972 15.1 0.163 0.880 0.194 0.84 3 26.75 1.698 1.175 13 51 0.972 15.1 0.163 0.878 0.194 0.84 '3 27.25 1.731 1.193 13 51 0.972 15.1 0.163 0.875 0.195 0.84 4 27.75 1.765 1.211 25 70 0.901 29.5 0.408 0.873 0.195 2.09 4 28.25 1.799 1.230 25 70 0.901 29.5 0.408 0.871 0.195 2.09 4 28.75 1.833 1.248 25 70 0.901 29.5 0.408 0.869 0.196 2.09 4 29.25 1.867 1.266 25 70 0.901 29.5 0.408 0.866 0.196 2.08 4 29.75 1.901 1.285 25 70 0.901 29.5 0.408 0.864 0.196 2.08 4 30.25 1.935 1.303 25 70 0.901 29.5 0.408 0.862 0.196 2.08 4 30.75 1.969 1.321 25 70 0.901 29.5 0.408 0.859 0.196 2.08 4 31.25 -2.003 1.340- 25 70 0.901 29.5 0.408 0.857 0.196 2.08 4 31.75 2.036 1.358 25 70 0.901 29.5 0.408 0.855 0.197 2.07 4 32.25 2.070 1.376 25 70 0.901 29.5 0.408 0.853 0.197 2.07 4 32.75 2.104 1.394 25 70 0.901 29.5 0.408 0.850 0.197 2.07 4 33.25 2.138 1.413 25 70 0.901 29.5 0.408 0.848 0.197 2.07 _ 4 33.75 2.172 1.431 25 70 0.901 29.5 0.408 0.846 0.197 2.07 ' 4 34.25 2.206 1.449 25 70 0.901 29.5 0.408 0.843 0.197 2.07 4 34.75 2.240 1.468 25 70 0.901 29.5 0.408 0.841 0.197 2.07 5 35.25 2.273 1.486 38 83 0.844 38.7 Infin 0.839 0.197 NonLiq 5 35.75 2.307 1.503 38 83 0.844 38.7 Infin 0.837 0.197 NonLiq 5 36.25 2.340 1.521 38 83 0.844 38.7 Infin 0.834 0.197 NonLiq 5 36.75 2.374 1.539 38 83 0.844 38.7 Infin 0.832 0.197 NonLiq 37.25 2.407 1.557 38 83 0.844 38.7 Infin 0.830 0.197 NonLiq '5 5 37.75 2.440 1.574 38 83 0.844 38.7 Infin 0.827 0.197 NonLiq 5 38.25 2.474 1.592 38 83 0.844 38.7 Infin 0.825 0.197 NonLiq 5 38.75 2.507 1.610 38 83 0.844 38.7 Infin 0.823 0.196 NonLiq 5 39.25 2.540 1.628 38 83 0.844 38.7 Infin 0.821 0.196 NonLiq 5 39.75 2.574 1.645 38 83 0.844 38.7 Infin 0.818 0.196 NonLiq 6 40.25 2.607 1.663 35 77 0.798 34.9 Infin 0.816 0.196 NonLiq 6 40.75 2.641 1.682 35 77 0.798 34.9 Infin 0.814 0.196 NonLiq 6 41.25 2.675 1.700 35 77 0.798 34.9 Infin 0.811 0.196 NonLiq 6 41.75 2.709 1.718 35 77 0.798 34.9 Infin 0.809 0.196 NonLiq ' 6 42.25 2.743 1.737 35 77 0.798 34.9 Infin 0.807 0.195 NonLiq agate C-10 �I 42.75 2.777 1.755 35 77 0.798 34.9 Infin 0.805 0.195 NonLiq 43.25 2.810 1.773 35 77 0.798 34.9 Infin 0.802 0.195 NonLiq 43.75 2.844 1.791 35 77 0.798 34.9 Infin 0.800 0.195 NonLiq 44.25 2.878 1.810 35 77 0.798 34.9 Infin 0.798 0.195 NonLiq 44.75 2.912 1.828 35 77 0.798 34.9 Infin 0.795 0.194 NonLiq 45.25 2.946 1.846 38 76 0.721 34.1 Infin 0.793 0.194 NonLiq 45.75 2.981 1.865 38 76 0.721 34.1 Infin 0.791 0.194 NonLiq 46.25 3.015 1.884 38 76 0.721 34.1 Infin 0.789 0.193 NonLiq 46.75 3.049 1.902 38 76 0.721 34.1 Infin 0.786 0.193 NonLiq 47.25 3.083 1.921 38 76 0.721 34.1 Infin 0.784 0.193 NonLiq 47.75 3.118 1.940 38 76 0.721 34.1 Infin 0.782 0.193 NonLiq 48.25 3.152 1.959 38 76 0.721 34.1 Infin 0.779 0.192 NonLiq 48.75 3.186 1.977 38 76 0.721 34.1 Infin 0.777 0.192 NonLiq 49.25 3.221 1.996 38 76 0.721 34.1 Infin 0.775 0.192 NonLiq ------------------- LEER -- [1996] Method ---------------- PAGE 3 1 I 1 ' Pinto C-11 CALC. TOTAL EFF. FIELD Est.D CORR. LIQUE. INDUC. LIQUE. jOIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N r C (N1)60 RESIST r STRESS SAFETY 0. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) (a) N (B/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR ---+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+-----+------+------ 7 49.75 3.255 2.015 38 76 0.721 34.1 Infin 0.773 0.191INonLiq 7 50.25 3.289 2.033 38 76 0.721 34.1 Infin 0.770 0.191 NonLiq 7 V'VY50.75"3.324Yy2.052-"38LLY'y761__0.721"34.1--InfinVVO.768LLO.191Y NonLiq 1 I 1 ' Pinto C-11 11 I I OIL PROFILE NAME: 2565B4 -------------------------- ■ * * * SOIL PROFILE LOG * * ILAYER BASE DEPTH SPT FIELD -N LIQUEFACTION WET UNIT FINES D NO DEPTH OF # (ft) (blows/ft) SUSCEPTIBILITY WT. (pcf) 0#200 50 SPT (ft) -- - 1 --- -------- 20.0 ----------- 15.0 ----------------- SUSCEPTIBLE (1) --------- 125.0 - - 30.0 ------ 0.050 -------- 15.25 ----- 2 ---------- 25.0 ----------- 7.5 ----------------- SUSCEPTIBLE (1) --------- 130.7 ------ 17.4 ------ 0.400 -------- 20.25 ---- ---------- ----------- ----------------- --------- ------ ------ -------- 3 30.5 12.5 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 125.2 17.4 0.400 25.25 ----- 1 4 ---------- -33_0--- ----------- ---75.5 -------------------- -SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 134.7 ------ 50.0 ------ 0.100 -------- 32.25 -___________________________ I 1 1 1 C 1 Plate C-12 1 * L Z Q U E F Y 2 * * ' * Version 1.30 * * ' EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE -INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL 1B NUMBER: W.O.2565-A-SC DATE: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 IB NAME: US HOME IQUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: B4 IIL-PROFILE NAME: 2565B4 GROUND WATER DEPTH: 10.0 ft [SIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 7.00 ITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.280 g OREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 FPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 v60 CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 tGNITUDE WEIGHTING FACTOR: 0.842 IELD SPT N -VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS ITE: Relative density values listed below are estimated using equations of Giuliani and Nicoll (1982). 1 ' 1D 1 - 7�eAg,,�66-s le a3Q�� * L Z Q U E F Y 2 * * ' * Version 1.30 * * ' EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE -INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL 1B NUMBER: W.O.2565-A-SC DATE: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 IB NAME: US HOME IQUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: B4 IIL-PROFILE NAME: 2565B4 GROUND WATER DEPTH: 10.0 ft [SIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 7.00 ITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.280 g OREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 FPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 v60 CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 tGNITUDE WEIGHTING FACTOR: 0.842 IELD SPT N -VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS ITE: Relative density values listed below are estimated using equations of Giuliani and Nicoll (1982). 1 ' 1D 1 - 7�eAg,,�66-s le a3Q�� L I I 11 I------------------ NCEER [1996] Method ----------------- ----------------------------- LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY ----------------------------- PAGE 1 ----+------+------+------+------+------+ CALL. TOTAL EFF. FIELD Est.D 1 CORR. LIQUE. 0.016 INDUC. LIQUE. IL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N r C (Nl)60 RESIST r STRESS SAFETY O. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) (%) N (B/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR ----+------+------+------+------+------+ 1 0.25 0.016 0.016 15 61 1 0.75 0.047 0.047 15 61 1 1.25 0.078 0.078 15 61 1 1.75 0.109 0.109 15 61 1 2.25 0.141 0.141 15 61 1 2.75 0.172 0.172 15 61 1 1 3.25 3.75 0.203 0.234 0.203 0.234 15 15 61 61 1 4.25 0.266 0.266 15 61 1 4.75 0.297 0.297 15 61 t1 5.25 0.328 0.328 15 61 1 5.75 0.359 0.359 15 61 1 6.25 0.391 0.391 15 61 6.75 0.422 0.422 15 61 '1 1 7.25 0.453 0.453 15 61 1 7.75 0.484 0.484 15 61 8.25 0.516 0.516 15 61 '1 1 8.75 0.547 0.547 15 61 1 9.25 0.578 0.578 15 61 1 9.75 0.609 0.609 15 61 1 10.25 0.641 0.633 15 61 1 10.75 0.672 0.649 15 61 1 11.25 0.703 0.664 15 61 1.158 11.75 0.734 0.680 15 61 '1 1 12.25 0.766 0.695 15 61 1 12.75 0.797 0.711 15 61 1 13.25 0.828 0.727 15 61 1 13.75 0.859 0.742 15 61 1 14.25 0.891 0.758 15 61 1 14.75 0.922 0.774 15 61 1 15.25 0.953 0.789 15 61 1 15.75 0.984 0.805 15 61 1 16.25 1.016 0.821 15 61 1 16.75 1.047 0.836 15 61 1 17.25 1.078 0.852 15 61 1 17.75 1.109 0.868 15 61 1 18.25 1.141 0.883 15 61 ' 1 18.75 1.172 0.899 15 61 -----+------+------+-----+------*------ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.953 0.148 1.56 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.951 0.151 1.53 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.949 0.154 1.50 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.946 0.157 1.47 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.944 0.159 1.45 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.'942 0.162 1.43 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.939 0.164 1.41 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.937 0.166 1.39 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.935 0.168 1.37 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.933 0.170 1.36 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.930 0.172 1.34 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.928 0.174 1.33 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.926 0.176 1.32 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.923 0.177 1.30 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.921 0.179 1.29 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.919 0.180 1.28 1.158 21.1• 0.231 0.917 0.181 1.27 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.914 0.183 1.26 Plate C-14 MCEER [19963 Method ------------------- I ----------- -I PAGE 2 CALL. TOTAL EFF. FIELD Est.D CORR. LIQUE. INDUC. 1 19.25 1.203 0.915 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.912 0.184 1.26 1 19.75 1.234 0.930 15 61 1.158 21.1 0.231 0.910 0.185 1.25 2 20.25 1.266 0.947 8 41 1.057 10.0 0.110 0.907 0.186 0.59 2 20.75 1.299 0.964 8 41 1.057 10.0 0.110 0.905 0.187 0.59 2 21.25 1.332 0.981 8 41 1.057 10.0 0.110 0.903 0.188 0.58 i2 21.7S 1.364 0.110 0.889 0.192 0.57 2 24.75 1.560 1.100 8 2 22.25 1.397 0.015 8 41 1.057 10.0 0.110 0.898 0.190 0.58 2 22.75 1.430 1.032 8 41 1.057 10.0 0.110 0.896 0.190 0.58 MCEER [19963 Method ------------------- I ----------- -I PAGE 2 1 I awe au CALL. TOTAL EFF. FIELD Est.D CORR. LIQUE. INDUC. LIQUE. IL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N r C (Nl)60 RESIST r STRESS SAFETY O. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) A) N (B/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR 1 I awe au ---+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+-----+------+------ 2 23.25 1.462 1.049 8 41 1.057 10.0 0.110 0.894 0.191 0.58 '2 23.75 1.495 1.066 8 41 1.057 10.0 0.110 0.891 0.192 0.57 2 24.25 1.528 1.083 8 41 1.057 10.0 0.110 0.889 0.192 0.57 2 24.75 1.560 1.100 8 41 1.057 10.0 0.110 0.887 0.193 0.57 3 25.25 1.592 1.117 13 51 0.973 14.6 0.157 0.885 0.193 0.81 3 25.75 1.624 1.132 13 51 0.973 14.6 0.157 0.882 0.194 0.81 3 26.25 1.655 1.148 13 51 0.973 14.6 0.157 0.880 0.195 0.81 3 26.75 1.686 1.164 13 51 0.973 14.6 0.157 0.878 0.195 0.81 '3 27.25 1.718 1.179 13 51 0.973 14.6 0.157 0.875 0.195 0.80 3 27.75 1.749 1.195 13 51 0.973 14.6 0.157 0.873 0.196 0.30 3 28.25 1.780 1.211 13 51 0.973 14.6 0.157 0.871 0.196 0.80 3 28.75 1.812 1.227 13 51 0.973 14.6 0.157 0.869 0.197 0.80 3 29.25 1.843 1.242 13 51 0.973 14.6 0.157 0.866 0.197 0.80 3 29.75 1.874 1.258 13 51 0.973 14.6 0.157 0.864 0.197 0.80 30.25 1.905 1.274 13 51 0.973 14.6 0.157 0.862 0.198 0.79 '3 4 30.75 1.938 1.291 76 120 0.887 74.0 Infin 0.859 0.198 NonLiq 4 31.25 1.972 1.319 76 120 0.887 74.0 Infin 0.857 0.198 NonLiq 4 31.75 2.005 1.327 76 120 0.887 74.0 Infin 0.855 0.198 NonLiq 4 32.25 2.039 1.345 76 120 0.887 74.0 Infin 0.853 0.198 NonLiq 4 32.75 2.073 1.363 76 120 0.887 74.0 Infin 0.850 0.198 NonLiq 1 I awe au 3 100 90 BG 70 30 20 10 0 SIEVE ANALYSIS 3/4" 3/8" 44 #10 #20 #40#60 #100 0200 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY I coarse I fine lcoarselmedium fine B-01 45.0 ♦ B-02 17.0 • 5-02 32.0 11HIH lil LL -L- • \ i i �I i i ♦ i a. 1 0.01 0.0 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY I coarse I fine lcoarselmedium fine EXPLORATION DEPTH • B-01 20.0 B-01 45.0 ♦ B-02 17.0 • 5-02 32.0 GecSo,ls. Inc. LL PI CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION US HOMES November 1198 W.O.: 2565 -SC Plate: 0-1 E 3.. 100 90 m 70 3 20 10 0 SIEVE ANALYSIS 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40#60 #100 #230 F -T. SILT CLAY I Icoarse I fine coarsemediummedium I fin 8-03 25.0 5-04 12:0 • B-05 15.0 �!ll! IIx 1-17 1-1-11- la 1 0.1 0.01 0.F PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND H SILT CLAY I Icoarse I fine coarsemediummedium I fin EXPLORATION DEPTH B-03 5.0 8-03 25.0 5-04 12:0 • B-05 15.0 GeoSo,ls. Inc. LL Pi CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION US HOMES November 1998 W.O.: 2565 -SC p I ate: 0-2 3.. 100 90 BC 70 30 20 10 0 SIEVE ANALYSIS 3/4" 3/8" a4 #10 #20 #40#60 #100 #200 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL I SANG SILT CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine � 8-06 12:0 • B-06 22.0 Ii II I i I I 1 -[-J I t0 1 0.1 0.01 0.0 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL I SANG SILT CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine EXPLORATION DEPTH B-05 25.0 B-06 7.0 8-06 12:0 • B-06 22.0 GeoSoils, Inc. LL PI CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION US HOMES November 1998 N.O.: 2565 -SC Plate: 0-3 0 3.. 100 92 B¢ 70 30 20 10 0 SIEVE ANALYSIS 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40#60 #100 *200 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SANG SILT CLAY coarse fine I- oarse medium fine B-07 15.0 8-07 25.0 • 8-08 7.0 l i i . f I � la 1 e.l a. 01 B.e PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SANG SILT CLAY coarse fine I- oarse medium fine EXPLORATION DEPTH B-07 5.0 B-07 15.0 8-07 25.0 • 8-08 7.0 GeaSo,is. Inc. LL PI CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION US HOMES November 1998 W.O.. 2565 -SC PI ate: 0-4 0 SIEVE ANALYSIS 3.. 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40#60 #100 #200 1 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY coarse Ifine 1,,arsel medium I fine EXPLORATION DEPTH di 8-08 12.0 m 8-09 10.0 B-12 7.0 • 8-13 10.0 Geoso,ls. Inc. LL PI CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION US HOMES November 1998 LI. 0.: 2565 -SC P ate: 0-5 3" 100 90 B0 70 30 20 10 0 SIEVE ANALYSIS 3i4" 3/8" 44 #10 #20 #40#60 0100 #200 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine B-15 7..0 B-16 10.0 1 ■\ I I I �p 3 0.1 0.01 0.F PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine EXPLORATION DEPTH B-14 5.0 B-15 7..0 B-16 10.0 GeoSoils, Inc. LL PI CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION US HOMES November 1998 u.O.: 2565 -SC Plare:❑-6 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2. 0 2.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 100 2 4 6 1000 2 4 6 10000 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 8-01 Depth: 20.0' Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (Pcf): 116.8 Sample Innundated 0 5500 psf Nater Content (x): 10.4 CONSOLIDATION November 1 GeoSoils. Inc. TEST RESULTS 998 N.O.: 2565 -SC US HOMES Plate: D-7 x m I 2 3 6 7 B 9 100 2 4 6 1000 2 4 6 10000 2 4 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-02 Depth: 17.0' — Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (Pof): 107.2 Sample Innundated 0 5500 Psf Water Content (m): 7.5 CONSOLIDATION November 1996 DeoSaiIs. Inc. TEST RESULTS u. o.: 2565-sc US I+on6s Plate: D$ 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 2 4 6 12 14 161 100 2 4 6 1000 Z O b 10000 z STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 8-03 Depth: 5.0' Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (Pcf): 100.9 Sample Innundated 0 2500 psf Water Content (i): 4.0 CONSOLIDATION November 1998 GeoSoiis. Inc. TEST RESULTS u.o.: 2565-sc US HOMES Plate: 0.8 B I i Dry Density (Pcf): 118.2 Sample Innundated 0 3500 psf Water Content (i): 12.0 i i CONSOLIDATION li I November 1998 6eosoils, Inc. TEST RESULTS • 5998 u.o.: zsss-sc US HOMES 2 i a 6 2 6 r 8 N W U w a 10 12 14 16 100 2 4 6 1000 2 4 6 10000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 8-03 Depth: 15.0' Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (Pcf): 118.2 Sample Innundated 0 3500 psf Water Content (i): 12.0 CONSOLIDATION November 1998 6eosoils, Inc. TEST RESULTS 5998 u.o.: zsss-sc US HOMES Plate: 0-10 2 4 6 e 6 r z w U w a 10 12 14 16 100 2 4 6 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-04 Depth: 12.0' 4 6 10000 Z Undisturbed Ring Sample Ora Densita (pef): 118.3 Sample Innundated 0 3000 psf Water Content (/.): 11.9 CONSOLIDATION November 1998 0eoSoils. Inc. TEST RESULTS u. o.: 2565-sc US HONES plate: QN 2 4 6 12 14 161 I I 100 2 4 6 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 8-04 Oepth: 17.0' Undisturbed Ring Sample Ory 0ensitu (Pcf): 106.5 Sample Innundated 0 3500 psf Nater Content (x): 12.2 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS November 1998 Geo$oils. Inc. N.O.: 2565 -SC US HOMES Plate: x'12 2 3 • I s 4 2 Q a 5 F- N Z W U 6 w a 7 B 9 10 100 2 4 6 1000 2 4 6 10000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-05 Depth: 20.0' Undisturbed Ring Sample Ory Density (Pcf): 112.6 Sample Innundated @ 2500 psf Water Content (x): 10.7 GeoSails, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS US HOMES ' 40 OP -//C d November 1998 11.0.: 2565 -SC Plate: 0.13 1 2 3 4 2 H 6 � 5 H rn z w w ¢ 6 w IL 7 8 9 2 4 6 1000 2 4 5 10000 2 4 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 8-07 Depth: 5.0' Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pcf): 113.2 Sample Innundated 0 3500 psf Water Content (i): 7.1 CONSOLIDATION 998 GeoSoils, Inc. TEST RESULTS November 1998 u. o.: zs6s-sc US NanEs Plate: 0.14 e 4 X 5 z r � i � 6 r N z Z W 7 U K W a 0 9 I • 10 11 12 100 2 4 6 1000 2 4 6 10000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-08 Depth: 7.0' 4 Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pcf): 100.6 Sample Innundated 0 6500 psf Water Content (i): 10.0 CONSOLIDATION 1998 GaoSails, Inc. TEST RESULTS November u.o.: zs6-sc 5990 US tones Plate: 0.15 0 I 2 3 4 x 7 8 9 10 100 2 4 6 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 8-05 Depth: 5.0' 4 b loenn Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (Pcf): 111.5 Sample Znnundated 0 500 psf Water Content (x): 6.4 CONSOLIDATION November 1998 6eoSolls, Inc. TEST RESULTS u. o.: 2563-sc US HOMES Plate: o-16 0 z 4 6 12 14 2 4 6 1000 z 4 5 10000 z STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-09 Depth: 5.0' Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (Pof): 117.6 Sample Innundated 0 6500 psf Water Content (%): 11.1 CONSOLIDATION November 1998 6eoSoils, Inc. TEST RESULTS u. o.: 2565-sc US HOMES Plate: D -O a I -T � I j j I H�h 6 I fA B W U K a 1B I I 12 14 IGH T-1 It 100 2 4 6 1000 2 4 6 10000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-10 Depth: 2.0' Undisturbed Ring Sample Cry Density (Pcf): 105.3 Sample Znnundated @ 5000 psf Water Content (x): 3.7 CONSOLIDATION November 1998 Geosoils, Inc. TEST RESULTS u.o.: 2565 -SC US HOMES plate: 0.18 �� s Ll 3 4 6 12 14 16 100 2 4 6 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-12 Depth: 7.0' 4 6 10000 Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (Pof): 109.8 Sample Znnundated @ 4500 Psf Nater Content (z): 9.6 CONSOLIDATION November 1998 DeoSoiis. Inc. TEST RESULTS u. o.: 2565-sc US HOMES Plate: D}19 2 4 6 x 12 14 161 I I 100 2 4 6 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 5-13 Depth: 10.0' 4 b 1wwww c Undisturbed Ring Sample Ord Density (pcf): 117.3 Sample Innundated @ 3500 psf Water Content (%): 12.1 CONSOLIDATION November 1998 DeoSoils. Inc. TEST RESULTS u. o.: 2565-sc US HOMES Plate: D-20 I 1 [l 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 25 20 0 500 1000 1�ww cern NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration: a-01 Depth (ft): 15.0 Legend: Primary Test Method: Remolded to 90X of 131.0 @ 9.5X Residual Sample Innundated Prior To Testing GeoSo.ls, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS US HOMES 2500 3000 Results: Cohesion (Psf): 426 Friction Angle: 23 Cohesion (psf): 369 Friction Angle: 24 November 1998 W.O.: 2565 -SC Plate: 0.23 00� I I I I I 001 I 00 00 / I I I 00 0 0 500 1000 1�ww cern NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration: a-01 Depth (ft): 15.0 Legend: Primary Test Method: Remolded to 90X of 131.0 @ 9.5X Residual Sample Innundated Prior To Testing GeoSo.ls, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS US HOMES 2500 3000 Results: Cohesion (Psf): 426 Friction Angle: 23 Cohesion (psf): 369 Friction Angle: 24 November 1998 W.O.: 2565 -SC Plate: 0.23 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30 25 20 5 Jd i 1000 I 1500 2000 2500 3000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) 00 (it): 20.0 i I i Legend: 00 i Primary Cohesion (psf): 237 Test Method: ■ / 00 Friction Angle: 32 Undisturbed Ring Residual Cohesion (Psf): 222 Sample Innundated Prior To Testing 00 Friction Angle: 32 DIRECT SHEAR 00 November 999 1998 GecSoils. Inc. TEST 0 I 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-01 Depth (it): 20.0 Legend: Results: Primary Cohesion (psf): 237 Test Method: Friction Angle: 32 Undisturbed Ring Residual Cohesion (Psf): 222 Sample Innundated Prior To Testing Friction Angle: 32 DIRECT SHEAR November 999 1998 GecSoils. Inc. TEST RESULTS U.O.: 2565 -SC US HOMES Plate: 0.24 7000 2500 Ill z w x N 1000 500 0 I I � iI i i i I I i I 0 500 1000 1500 2000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 0-15 Depth (ft): 17.0 Legend: Primary Test Method: Remolded to 90x of 131.0 Pcf @ 9.5x Residual Sample Innundated Prior To Testing GeoSoils. Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS US HOMES 2500 3000 Results: Cohesion (psf): 422 Friction Angle: 27 Cohesion (psf): 380 Friction Angle: 27 November 1998 W.O.: 25GS-SC Plate: a25 3000 2500 2000 x 1500 z w a 1000 500 Exploration: 5-15 500 1000 1500 2000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Depth (ft): 22.0 Legend: Primary Test Method: Undisturbed Ring Residual Sample Innundated Prior To Testing GeoSoils. Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS US HOMES 2500 3000 Results: Cohesion (psf): 647 Friction Angle: 37 Cohesion (psf): 662 Friction Angle: 34 November 1998 u.O.: 2565 -SC Plate: 426 i - i , Exploration: 5-15 500 1000 1500 2000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Depth (ft): 22.0 Legend: Primary Test Method: Undisturbed Ring Residual Sample Innundated Prior To Testing GeoSoils. Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS US HOMES 2500 3000 Results: Cohesion (psf): 647 Friction Angle: 37 Cohesion (psf): 662 Friction Angle: 34 November 1998 u.O.: 2565 -SC Plate: 426 GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES ' General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines and t would supersede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. ' The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant) or their representatives should provide ' observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. IEARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING 1 Geotechnical Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. ' The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All clean -outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be 1 observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior to placing and fill. It is the contractors's responsibility to notify the engineering geologist and soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation. Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D-1557-78: Random field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test ' method ASTM designation D-1556-82, D-2937 or D-2922 and D-3017, at intervals of ■ approximately 2 feet of fill height or every 100 cubic yards of fill placed. These criteria 1 I GeoSoils, Inc. I ' would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Contractor's Responsibility ' All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by geotechnical consultants and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ' ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all major non - earth material considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer. ' It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or agency ordinances, and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock, or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent ' drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. ' SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. Existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable in-place should be removed prior to fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition should be over -excavated down to US Home /� �A+ �j Appendix E File: a 1wp71murr1rc250012565a.sgi ��OW � f` CPR �% O� Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. I I I firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue. Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture conditioned should be re -compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines. Existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches or as directed by the soil engineer. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is grater that 6 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 inches in compacted thickness. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be over - excavated as required in the geotechnical report or by the on-site soils engineer and/or engineering geologist. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable form of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollow, hummocks, or other uneven features which would inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the Geotechnical Consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the Soil Engineer, the minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to 1/2 the height of the slope. Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre -stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness. ' All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toe of fill benches should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until ' design grades (elevations) are attained. ' COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill ' provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed US Home Appendix E File- e:\wp7\murrHc2500\2566a.sgi Page 3 1 GeoSoiis, Inc. I by the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable ' and may require blending with other Soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill ' area and blended with other bedrock derived material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock or other irreducible materials with a maximum ' dimension greater than 12 inches should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer. Oversized material should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations ' of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevation) or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces. ' To facilitate future trenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and/or the developers representative. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be ' utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to determine its physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted ' by the soil engineer as soon as possible. Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal ' layers that when compacted should not exceed 6 inches in thickness. The soil engineer may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate ' compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. ' Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should 46e aerated by scarification or should be blended with drier material. Moisture condition, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at or above optimum moisture. After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM test designation, D-1557-78, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed ' for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. US Home Appendix E ' File: e:1wp71murr\rc2500\2565as9i Page 4 GeoSoiills, Inc. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re -worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the ' soil engineer Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over -building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being ' developed: Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final determination of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, and special grading procedures, may be ' recommended. If an alternative to over -building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, ' then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: 1. An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy short shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. 2. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is ' compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re -rolling. ' 3. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) 2 to 8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. 4. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re -rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. ' Subsequent to testing to verify compaction, the slopes should be grid -rolled to achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to confirm compaction after grid rolling. ' 5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix and re -compact the slope material as necessary to ' achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to verify compaction. US Home Appendix E File, e:\wp7\murr\¢2500\2565a.sgi Page 5 1 GeoSoils, Inc. I ' 6. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer in compliance with ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendation of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. ISUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical ' consultant. The soil engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade and drain material in the field, pending exposed ' conditions. The location of constructed subdrains should be recorded by the project civil engineer. 1 EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering ' geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavations or overexcavation and re -filling of cut areas should be performed and/or remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed. When fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise ' approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the engineering geologist prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. ' The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes and should be notified by the contractor when cut slopes are started. ' If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potential adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate and make recommendations to treat these problems. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in -grading evaluation by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated or not. ' Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling ' governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractors responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. US Home File, e'\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix E Page 6 LJ I COMPLETION ' Observation, testing and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and filled areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. ' After completion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have finished their observations of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review 1 by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. ' All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape ' architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading. JOB SAFETY General At GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is ' the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary ' on each site and that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor and GSI personnel must be maintained. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects: Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractors regularly scheduled and documented safety meetings. ' Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by GSI personnel at all times when they are working in the field. ' Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. US Home Appendix E File: e:1wp71murr\rc250012565asgi Page 7 GeoSoils, Inc. �J I I I 1 �I Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacon, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing. While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location. Orientation and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technicians's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative (dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technicians safety and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away form oncoming traffic, whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non -encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration which typically decreased test results. When taking slope tests the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that, may affect site access and site safety. In the event that the technicians safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractors failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. However, in the US Home File: e:\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a.sgi GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix E Page 8 F, interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill place can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor brings this to his/her attention and notify ' this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors representative and the soils technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan. Trench and Vertical Excavation It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back, 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose ' rock or other debris which could fall into the trench, or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with CAL -OSHA and/or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our ' company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to ' reprocessing and/or removal. If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or ' vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify CAL -OSHA and/or the proper authorities. US Home Appendix E ' File. e:\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565asgi Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. I 1 CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL TYPE A ---------------------------- PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL NATURAL GROUND � COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVI t1 TYPICAL BENCHING _// 1\ ••.,• � lli X11\ ' SEE ALTERNATIVES T TYPE B BEDROCK ' ` PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL '�� ' _\ NATURAL GROUNO i (COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE( /// III BEDROCK TYPICAL BENCHING ' SEE ALTERNATIVES NOTE: ALTERNATIVES, LOCATION AND EXTENT OF SUBORAINS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING. ' -/4:9 10) .3 dlo� �S� PLATE EG -1 CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS J ' ALTERNATE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL ' 12' MINIMUM 6' INIMU FILTER MATERIAL' MINIMUM VOLUME OF 9 FT.' ' /LINEAR FT. 6' 0 ABS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE WITH MINIMUM 8 (1/4' 1 PERFS. MINIMUM LINEAR FT. IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPI ASTM 02751. SOR 35 OR ASTM D1527. SCHD, 40 6• MINIMUM ' A-1 ASTM 03034, SOR 35 OR ASTM 01785 SCHD• 40 FOR CONTINUOUS RUN IN EXCESS OF 5b0 FT. B-1 USE 8' id PIPE ' FILTER MATERIAL. SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 INCH 100 ' 314 INCH 907:100 3/8 INCH 40-100 NO. 4 25-40. ' NO. 8 18-33 NO. 30 b-15 NO. 50 .0-7 NO. 200 0-3 ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED PIPE, GRAVEL AND. FILTER FABRIC 6'MINIMUM OVERLAP —6' MINIMUM COVER -4' MINIMUM BEDDING 6' MINIMUM OVERLAP~►—H 4' MINIMUM BEDDING A-2 GRAVEL -MATERIAL 9 FP/LINEAR FT. B-2 PERFORATED PIPE: SEE ALTERNATE 1 GRAVEL: CLEAN 3/4 INCH ROCK OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE FILTER FABRIC MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE PLATE EG -2 ' TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN \ COMPACTED FILL ' ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE TO BE RESTORED WITH COMPACTED FILL ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE ' BACKCUT\ 1�VVARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS.i � BACKCUT 4N SHOULD BE MADE NO / ' STEEPER THAN:1 OR AS NECESSARY Z!, ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL REMOVAL �' FOR SAFETY �CONSIOERATIONS� DEPTH PER SOIL ENGINEER. PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM T0E OF ' SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO THE RECOMMENDED REMOVAL DEPTH. SLOPE HEIGHT. SITE CONDITIONS AND/OR LOCAL CONDITIONS COULD DICTATE FLATTER PROJECTIONS. 1 REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL COMPACTED FILL LIMITS LINE\ TEMPORARY COMPACTED FILL FOR DRAINAGE ONLY paf Dai pal (T0 BE REMOVED) -EXISTING COMPAICTED FILL) `oF��\��\ LEGEND TO BE REMOVED BEFORE Oaf ARTIFICIAL FILL ' PLACING ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL pal ALLUVIUM PLATE EG -3 DETAIL FOR FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT ON FLAT ALLUVIATED CANYON ' TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN \ COMPACTED FILL ' ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE TO BE RESTORED WITH COMPACTED FILL ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE ' BACKCUT\ 1�VVARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS.i � BACKCUT 4N SHOULD BE MADE NO / ' STEEPER THAN:1 OR AS NECESSARY Z!, ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL REMOVAL �' FOR SAFETY �CONSIOERATIONS� DEPTH PER SOIL ENGINEER. PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM T0E OF ' SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO THE RECOMMENDED REMOVAL DEPTH. SLOPE HEIGHT. SITE CONDITIONS AND/OR LOCAL CONDITIONS COULD DICTATE FLATTER PROJECTIONS. 1 REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL COMPACTED FILL LIMITS LINE\ TEMPORARY COMPACTED FILL FOR DRAINAGE ONLY paf Dai pal (T0 BE REMOVED) -EXISTING COMPAICTED FILL) `oF��\��\ LEGEND TO BE REMOVED BEFORE Oaf ARTIFICIAL FILL ' PLACING ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL pal ALLUVIUM PLATE EG -3 :g TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL OUTLETS TO BE SPACED AT 100'MAXIMUM INTERVALS. AND SHALL EXTEND 12' BEYOND THE FACE OF SLOPE AT TIME OF, ROUGH GRADING COMPLETION. BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED I15* MINIMUM BY THE SOIL ENGINEER DESIGN FINISH SLOPE 10'MINIMUM ---- -- 25'MAXIMU TYPICAL BENCHING BUTTRESS OR SIDEHILL FILL 4' DIAMETER NON -PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE 15' TYPICAL AND BACKDRAIN (SEE ALTERNATIVESI .2% GRADIENT 1-2' CLEA , • � BEDROCK i TOE HEEL 3'MINIMUM KEY DEPTH W=15'MINIMUM OR H/2 TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN DETAIL X z 4' 14INIMUM 2' MINIMUM PIPE 4' MINIMUM PIPE 2'aMIN -0 2' MINIMUM r D m m 0 X FILTER MATERIAL: MINIMUM OF FIVE F1'/LINEAR FI OF PIPF OR FOUR Ft'/LINEAR Ft OF PIPE WHEN PLACED IN SQUARE CUT TRENCH. ALTERNATIVE IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL: GRAVEL MAY BE E9CASED IN APPROVED FILTER FABRIC. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI 140 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12' ON ALL JOINTS. MINIMUM 4' DIAMETER PIPE: ABS -ASTM D-2751, SDR 35 OR ASTM D-1527 SCHEDULE 40 PVC -ASTM D-3034. SPR 35 OR ASTM D-1785 SCHEDULE 40 WITH A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF 1,000 POUNDS MINIMUM, AND A MINIMUM OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS OF BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2% TO OUTLET PIPE. OUTLET PIPE TO BE CONNECTED TO SUBDRAIN PIPE WITH TEE OR ELBOW. NOTE: 1. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLED WITH ON-SITE SOIL. 2. BACKDRAINS AND LATERAL DRAINS SHALL BE LOCATED AT ELEVATION OF EVERY BENCH DRAIN. FIRST DRAIN LOCATED AT ELEVATION JUST ABOVE LOWER LOT GRADE. ADDITIONAL DRAINS MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE OF THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT: SIEVE SIZE PERCENT D 1 INCH 100 f 90-100 3/8 INCH I NO. 4 25-40 N -0 2' MINIMUM r D m m 0 X FILTER MATERIAL: MINIMUM OF FIVE F1'/LINEAR FI OF PIPF OR FOUR Ft'/LINEAR Ft OF PIPE WHEN PLACED IN SQUARE CUT TRENCH. ALTERNATIVE IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL: GRAVEL MAY BE E9CASED IN APPROVED FILTER FABRIC. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI 140 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12' ON ALL JOINTS. MINIMUM 4' DIAMETER PIPE: ABS -ASTM D-2751, SDR 35 OR ASTM D-1527 SCHEDULE 40 PVC -ASTM D-3034. SPR 35 OR ASTM D-1785 SCHEDULE 40 WITH A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF 1,000 POUNDS MINIMUM, AND A MINIMUM OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS OF BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2% TO OUTLET PIPE. OUTLET PIPE TO BE CONNECTED TO SUBDRAIN PIPE WITH TEE OR ELBOW. NOTE: 1. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLED WITH ON-SITE SOIL. 2. BACKDRAINS AND LATERAL DRAINS SHALL BE LOCATED AT ELEVATION OF EVERY BENCH DRAIN. FIRST DRAIN LOCATED AT ELEVATION JUST ABOVE LOWER LOT GRADE. ADDITIONAL DRAINS MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE OF THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT: SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 INCH 100 3/4 INCH 90-100 3/8 INCH 40-100 NO. 4 25-40 NO. 8 18-33 NO. 30 5-15 NO. 50 0-7 NO. 200 0-3 GRAVEL SHALL BE OF THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT: SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 1/2 INCH 100 NO. 4 50 NO. 200 8 SAND EQUIVALENT: MINIMUM OF 50 FILL OVER NATURAL DETAIL SIDEHILL FILL COMPACTED FILL PROPOSEDGRADE MAINTAIN MINIMUM 15' WIDTH TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN SLOPE TO MAINTAIN / PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM DESIGN TOE OF SLOPE TO TOE OF KEY AS SHOWN ON AS BUILT . NATURAL SLOPE TO BE RESTORED WITH COMPACTED FILL r m m G) •,, BACKCUT VARIES / Fi\ AL Oa UNSU\ZAg� MASE 10PSp1\» CO\ \ uVNM JI // aV-0CN � ;;, I BENCH WIDTH MAY VARY 4' MINIMUM T3' MINIMUM E: NOT_ 1. WHERE THE NATURAL SLOPE APPROACHES OR EXCEEDS THE WMINIMUM KEY WIDTH DESIGN SLOPE RATIO, SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE 2'X 3'MINIMUM KEY DEPTH PROVIDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 2. THE NEED FOR AND DISPOSITION OF DRAINS WOULD BE DETERMINED 2* MINIMUM IN BEDROCK OR BY THE SOILS ENGINEER BASED UPON EXPOSED CONDITIONS, APPROVED MATERIAL. FILL OVER CUT DETAIL CUT/FILL CONTACT 1, AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN 77 2. AS SHOWN ON AS BUILT H MAINTAIN MINIMUM 15' FILL SECTION FROM BACKCUT TO FACE OF FINISH SLOPE _ PROPOSED GRADE COMPACTED FILL MINIMUM ORIGINAL TOPOGRAPHY i 2' MINIMUM CUT SLOPE BENCH WIDTH MAY VARY 1- 1 LOWEST BENCH WIDTH 15'MINIMUM OR H/2 BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL NOTE: THE CUT PORTION OF THE SLOPE SHOULD BE EXCAVATED AND f- EVALUATED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING D -I GEOLOGIST PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTING THE FILL PORTION. m m cD al m m = = m = = = r = m = = m = m = m STABILIZATION FILL FOR UNSTABLE MATERIAL EXPOSED IN PORTION OF CUT SLOPE , H2 HI REMOVE: UNSTABLE MATERIAL / NATURAL SLOPE REMOVE: UNSTABLE MATEgIAL 15' MINIMUM / UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL �//// COMPACTED STABILIZATION FILL \� \ 1' MINIMUM TILTED BACK _I W / 1 IF RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING 2III GEOLOGIST, THE REMAINING CUT PORTION OF THE SLOPE MAY REQUIRE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT WITH COMPACTED FILL. D m NOTE: I. SUBDRAINS ARE NOT REQUIRED UNLESS SPECIFIED BY SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST, Fl 2. 'W' SHALL BE EQUIPMENT WIDTH 1151 FOR SLOPE HEIGHTS LESS THAN 25 FEET. FOR SLOPES GREATER' THAN 25 FEET 'W' SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER AND /OR ENGINEERING Co GEOLOGIST. AT NO TIME SHALL 'W' BE LESS THAN H/2. tAl' O P m m 0 Mal SKIN FILL OF NATURAL GROUND 15' MINIMUM TO BE MAINTAINED FROM PROPOSED FINISH SLOPE FACE TO BACKCUT PROPOSED FINISH SLOPE 2' MINIMUM KEY DEPTH 3'MINIMUM KEY DEPTH ORIGINAL SLOPE OSED FINISH GRADE 3' MINIMUM // BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL 15'WNIMUM KEY WIDTH ' / NOTE: 1. THE NEED AND DISPOSITION OF DRAINS WILL GE DETERMINED! BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR / ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST BASED ON FIELD CONDITIONS. 2. PAD OVEREXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IF DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. DAYLIGHT CUT LOT DETAIL i RECONSTRUCT COMPACTED FILL SLOPE AT 2:1 OR FLATTER (MAY INCREASE OR DECREASE PAD AREA). --\ OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT REPLACEMENT FILL AVOID AND/OR CLEAN UP SPILLAGE OF MATERIALS ON THE NATURAL SLOPE NATURAL GRADE / SE�oP ROPOSED FINISH GRADE MINIMUM BLANKET FILL Q-/ (Oe / BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL Vi/jTYPICAL BENCHING 2'MINIMU14�424RA+DIN�T KEY DEPTH �\ �I /1 j -O D NOTE: 1. SUBORAIN AND KEY WIDTH REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DETERMINED BASED ON EXPOSED SUBSURFACE m m CONDITIONS AND THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN. m 2. PAD OVER EXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY 0 THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. CDJ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TRANSITION LOT DETAIL CUT LOT (MATERIAL TYPE TRANSITION) / NATURAL GRAD / 1:5:MINIM M PAD GRADE COMPACTED FILL TYPICAL BENCHING PAD GRADE OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT \ /\\\ /\\ \ //\ /I\\\///\\\% 3'MINIMUM• UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL CUT -FILL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRANSITION) NATURAL GRADE PV /M E 5' M 4UM �-' OR v AND RECOMPACT_ COMPACTED Flll� /�Vy\\�M' /^\ /\\ //\\ /�\ \�/�\\i// 3•MINIMUM* A UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING NOTE: * DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST IN STEEP CUT -FILL TRANSITION AREAS. PLATE EG -11 1 1 1 1 1 1 OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN. VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE BEOR6CIC 6R APPROVED MA PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUM (E) co 15.,:_MINIMUM ) •I - w 00 IF) co co VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE 10' MINIMUM (E) O a 10' MINIMUM, _ ROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL MINIMUM (G) D 10' MINIMUM R E NOTE: (A) ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET. (B) HEIGHT AND WIDTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SIZE AND TYPE OF EQUIPMENT USED. LENGTH OF WINDROW SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 100' MAXIMUM. (C) IF APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERNG GEOLOGIST,, WINDROWS MAY BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMPETENT MATERIALS OR BEDROCK PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION. (01 ORIENTATION OF WINDROWS MAY VARY BUT SHALL BE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER ANO/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. STAGGERING OF WINDROWS IS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENDED. (E) CLEAR AREA FOR UTILITY TRENCHES, FOUNDATIONS AND SWIMMING POOLS. TF) VOIDS IN WINDROW SHALL BE FILLED BY FLOODING GRANULAR SOIL INTO PLACE. GRANULAR SOIL SHALL BE ANY SOIL WHICH HAS A UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSANDTEM (UBC AROUND ROCKI) DESIGNATION OF SM, WINDROW SHALL 80 COMP SW, OR GW. ALL FILL OVER TO 90%RELATIVE 'COMPACTION. (G) AFTER FILL BETWEEN WINDROWS IS PLACED AND COMPACTED WITH THE LIFT OF FILL COVERING WINDROW. WINDROW SHALL BE PROOF ROLLED WITH A 0-9 DOZER OR EQUIVALENT. (H) OVERSIZED ROCK IS DEFINED AS LARGER THAN 12-, AND LESS THAN 4 FEET IN SIZE.' PLATE EG -12 cc H D' M coINIMUM co 00 4INIMUM coo BEOR6CIC 6R APPROVED MA PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUM (E) co 15.,:_MINIMUM ) •I - w 00 IF) co co VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE 10' MINIMUM (E) O a 10' MINIMUM, _ ROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL MINIMUM (G) D 10' MINIMUM R E NOTE: (A) ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET. (B) HEIGHT AND WIDTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SIZE AND TYPE OF EQUIPMENT USED. LENGTH OF WINDROW SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 100' MAXIMUM. (C) IF APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERNG GEOLOGIST,, WINDROWS MAY BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMPETENT MATERIALS OR BEDROCK PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION. (01 ORIENTATION OF WINDROWS MAY VARY BUT SHALL BE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER ANO/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. STAGGERING OF WINDROWS IS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENDED. (E) CLEAR AREA FOR UTILITY TRENCHES, FOUNDATIONS AND SWIMMING POOLS. TF) VOIDS IN WINDROW SHALL BE FILLED BY FLOODING GRANULAR SOIL INTO PLACE. GRANULAR SOIL SHALL BE ANY SOIL WHICH HAS A UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSANDTEM (UBC AROUND ROCKI) DESIGNATION OF SM, WINDROW SHALL 80 COMP SW, OR GW. ALL FILL OVER TO 90%RELATIVE 'COMPACTION. (G) AFTER FILL BETWEEN WINDROWS IS PLACED AND COMPACTED WITH THE LIFT OF FILL COVERING WINDROW. WINDROW SHALL BE PROOF ROLLED WITH A 0-9 DOZER OR EQUIVALENT. (H) OVERSIZED ROCK IS DEFINED AS LARGER THAN 12-, AND LESS THAN 4 FEET IN SIZE.' PLATE EG -12 ROCK DISPOSAL PITS I PLATE EG --13 FILL LIFTS COMPACTED OVER ' ROCK AFTER EMBEDMENT GRANULAR MATERIAL ' I LARGE ROCI( ---� I I COMPACTED FILL � I SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO BE COMMENSURATE I WITH ROCK SIZE. ' I I I I ' I I THAN G FEET IN MAXIMUM SIZE. NOTE: 1. LARGE ROCK IS DEFINED AS ROCK LARGER 2. PIT IS EXCAVATED INTO COMPACTED FILL TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO 112 OF ' ROCK SIZE. 3. GRANULAR SOIL SHOULD BE PUSHED INTO PIT AND DENSIFIED BY FLOODING. ' USE A SHEEPSF00T AROUND ROCK TO AID IN COMPACTION. G. A MINIMUM OF G FEET OF REGULAR COMPACTED FILL SHOULD OVERLIE ' EACH PIT. 5. PITS SHOULD BE SEPARATED BY AT LEAST 15 FEET HORIZONTALLY. ' 6. PITS SHOULD NOT BE PLACED WITHIN 20 FEET OF ANY FILL SLOPE. 7. PITS SHOULD ONLY BE USED IN DEEP FILL AREAS. I PLATE EG --13 I I 1 1 ' 5 1 1 1 II 11 SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER DETAIL 2'X 2'X 1/4' STEEL PLATE STANDARD 3/4' PIPE NIPPLE WELDED TO TOP 3F PLATE. 3/4' X 5* GALVANIZED PIPE, STANDARD PIPE THREADS TOP AND BOTTOM. EXTENSIONS THREADED ON BOTH ENDS AND ADDED IN 5' INCREMENTS. 3 INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE SLEEVE, ADO IN 5'INCREMENTS WITH GLUE JOINTS. FINAL GRADE TI I MAINTAIN 5' CLEARANCE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT. I MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT IN 2 -VERTICAL -r. LIFTS OR ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE TO AND J ACCEPTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 5 5' I I I MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT THE INITIALS' 1 Y VERTICAL WITHIN A 5'RAOIUS OF PLATE BASE. t f � BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1' BEDDING OF COMPACTED SAND NOTE: 1 CRED FALE SETTLEMENT EQU EQUIPMENT SHOULD E CLEARLY MARKED AND READILY VISTO IBLE S. 2. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN CLEARANCE OF A 5' RADIUS OF PLATE BASE AND BWITHIN 5* (VERTICAL) HEAVY EQUIPMENT. FILL WITHIN CLEARANCE AREA E HAND COMPACTEDFOTO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS OR COMPACTED BY ALTERNATTIVED APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 3. AFTER 5'(VERTICAL) OF FILL IS IN PLACE. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN A 5' RADIUS EQUIPMENT CLEARANCE FROM RISER. 4. PLACE AND MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT INITIAL 2' OF FILL PRIOR TO ESTABLISHING THE INITIAL READING. 5. IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE TO THE SETTLEMENT PLATE OR EXTENSION RESULTING FROM EQUIPMENT OPERATING WITHIN THE SPECIFIED CLEARANCE AREA. CONTRACTOR SHOULD IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SOILS FOR RESTORINGENGINEER SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE THE SETTLEMENT PLATES TO WORKING ORDER. 6. AN ALTERNATE DESIGN AND METHOD OF INSTALLATION MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. PLATE EG -14 1 1 1 t 1 1 t 1 1 TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT H GRADE 3,_ 6. 3/8' DIAMETER X 6' LENGTH CARRIAGE BOLT OR EQUIVALENT DIAMETER X 3 1/2' LENGTH HOLE CONCRETE BACKFILL PLATE EG -15 TEST FIT SAFETY DIAGRAM SIDE VIEW ( NOT TO SCALE ) 100 FEET LU LU W LL 50 FET SPOIL 1137 PIT }Ve-vcLE PIS ( NOT TO SCALE ) pLATE EG -16 FLAG w LL CF T—=T PIT (3 ( NOT TO SCALE ) pLATE EG -16 H ' OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL ' VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE ' PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUM (E) ' co 90 00 0o co 15* MINIMUM (A) co 20' MINIMUM (B)(G) w DCIO 5' MINIMUM (.ALOm co coifs '5, MINIMUM (C) ' BE OR APPROVED MATERIAL ' VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE ' PROPOSED FINISH ' 10'MINIMUM (E) 100'MAXIMUM (BLi 15' MINIMUM 3' MINIMUM (G) 15' MINIMUM (F) i 5'MINIMUM (C)�oxo ' FROM CA „ WALL 5 MINIMUM (C) ��1 Z�\\y//\%v��%r//1jBEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL 1 ' NOTE: (A) ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET. MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SIZE AND TYPE OF (B) HEIGHT AND WIDTH AXIMUM. OF NDROW SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 100* (C) EQUIPMENT * ROVED BY THE SOILSLENGTH ENGINEER ANO/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. BE DIRECTLY ON COMPETENT RIAL OR BEDROCK ' IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION. PROVIDED SMAY ADEQUATELACED SPACE BUT SHOULD BE AS RECOMMENDED BY (0) ORIENTATION OF WINDROWS MAY VARY AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. STAGGERING OF ' THE SOILS ENGINEER WINDROWS IS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENDED. TRENCHES, FOUNDATIONS AND SWIMMING POOLS. (E) CLEAR AREA FOR UTILITY OVER AND AROUND ROCK WINDROW SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90% ' (F) ALL FILL RELATIVE COMPACTION OR AS RECOMMENDED. WINDROWS IS PLACED AND COMPACTED WITH THE LIFT OF (G) AFTER FILL BETWEEN FILL COVERING WINDROW, WINDROW SHOULD BE PROOF ROLLED WITH A 0-9 DOZER OR EQUIVALENT. VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROC( SHOULD NOT TOUCH PLATE RD -1 FILLED IN. ' DS SHOULD 4 6 —s � , �6O& 7 I 1 1 11 1 1 Cl I 1 1 1 C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ROCK DISPOSAL PITS VIEWS RDIAGRAMMATIC SYNOT TOUCH SHOULD BE COMPLETELY IN. A DVOIDS L FILL LIFTS COMPACTED OVER ROCK AFTER EMBEDMENT r - - - - - - - - - GRANULAR MATERIAL I - -- LARGE ROCK -------T I I I I COMPACTED FILL 1 SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO BE j COMMENSURATE WITH ROCK SIZE I 1 I � ROCK DISPOSAL LAYERS GRANULAR SOIL TO FILL VOIDS. COMPACTED FILL OENSIFIED BY FLOODING LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH�`''� FILL SLOPE _T -C LEAR ZONE 20'MINIMUM LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH PLATE RD -2 '4OV-2S-9e 14=09 FROM: GSI CARLSBAD ID= 7609310915 PACE 1 1 do ` } Oeo� 1 ,14 Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad. California 92008 • (760)438-3155 • FAX(760)931-0915 1 1 1I I k ■ LAP DATE: November 25,1998 W.O.: 2565 -Al -SC TO: ■ .1 ;.= ATTN: Mr. Paul Huddleston FAX NO.: ''' FROM: John F. Franklin & Albert R. Kleist Pavemenj Design Addendum to uSupplemental Geotechn*cglInvestigation, IncTracts 3066-5 and 23067-2. Redhawk Area. Temecula Region, Riverside County California," W.O. 2565-"C. dated November 12, 1998, b NUMBER OF 1ING COVER SHEET: THIS IS TRANSMITTeNk. PER YOUR REQUEST X PLEASE REVIEW AND RESPOND X FOR YOUR INFORMATION URGENT FOR YOUR FILES X HARD COPY TO FOLLOW COMMENTS: I w\wordp•- "goixt"Im.frm 1 �OV-25-98 14.09 FROM; GSI CARLSBAD ID= 7609310915 PAGE 2 1 s' Geotechnical •Geologic •Environmental ' 24890 Jefferson Ave. • Murrieta, California 92562 • (909) fi77-9651 • FAX (909) 677-9301 ' November 24, 1998 W.O, 2565 -A1 -SC ' US Home Central California Division 4371 Latham Street, Suite 204 ' Riverside, California 92501 Attention: Ms. Tina Mokhtarzadeh, land Development Manager Subject: Pavement Design Addendum to "Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk Area, Temecula Region, Riverside ' County, California," W.O, 2565 -A -SC, dated November 12, 1998, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms. Mokhtarzadeh: ' As discussed, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has prepared preliminary design and construction recommendations for asphalt concrete pavement (ACP) at the subject site. The scope of services provided in preparation of this report Included prior representative sampling at ' anticipated subgrade elevations, previous laboratory testing, and engineering analysis of pavement design. The actual pavement design should be determined at the completion of grading. ' PAVEMENT DESIGN Pavement sections for ACP presented are based on resistance "R" -value data determined from soils exposed at or near anticipated final subgrade elevations within the subject street ' areas, and the minimum standards of the City of Temecula. "R" -value testing was performed in accordance with the latest revisions to the Department of Transportation, State of California, Material & Research Test Method No. 301. "R" -value data is included ' following the text of this report. FOV -2S-99 14:09 A.C. T11dakneee FROM: GSI CARLSBAD ID: 7609310915 PAGE 3 22 3.0(1) 7.0 4.0 6.01'1 55 22 ASPHALT coNGOEM PAVEMENT ' Structural Section The recommended pavement sections are based on the R -value data and the design criteria presented by the City of Temecula. The recommended preliminary pavement sections are presented in the following table: 1 1 Traffic ' Subgrade A.C. T11dakneee Aggregate Base Thickness r�1 Index W -Value inches 5.0 22 3.0(1) 7.0 4.0 6.01'1 55 22 3.001 8.5 4.0 6.5 6.0 22 3.0(1) 10.0 4.0 8.0 5.0 6.0 6.5 22 3.001 12.0 4.0 10.0 $.0 8.0 7.0 22 3.011) 13.0 4.0 11.5 5.0 9.5 7.5 22 3.St11 14.0 4.0 13.0 5.0 11.5 8.0 22 3.5(1) 15.5 4.0 14.5 $.0 12.5 8.5 22 4.0(1) 16.5 5.0 14.5 6.0 13.0 9.0 22 4.0111 175 5.0 16.0 6.0 14.0 (1) City of Temecula minimum (2) Denotes Class 2 Base ftL8, SE > 22 All pavement installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, compaction of base material, and placement and rolling of asphaltic concrete should be done in ' US Home W.O. 2565 -A1 -SC Tracts 230665 and 23067.2, Redhawk November 24, 1998 Filn a ,wp7TmurrVc25000r585a1 pda Page 2 64MISO 9 Inc. �OV-2S-SS 14=10 FROM: CSI CARLSBAD ID: 7609310915 PAGE 4 ' The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. - Respectfully submitted, [1 1 1 H 1I 1 GI 1 GeoSoils, Inc. t-+ 1 P7"tct� I John P. Franklin Manager MMG/JPF/ARK/mo Attachments: Plates 1 and 2 - "R" -Value Data M, 176 i cep, f16-30-01 CcQr `CP. �tgrOF LRl\F�� Albert R. Kleist Geotechnical Engineer, GE 476 Distribution: (2) Addressee (2) Hunsaker & Associates, Riverside - Mr. Paul Huddleston US Home - W.U. 2565 -A1 -SC Tracts 23066-5 rand 23067-2, Redhawk November 24, 1998 File•e'�,WP7',murr1rc250012565uI.Pda Page 4 ' 000sofut Inc. rOV-2S-SB 14:10 FROM: GSI CARLSBAD ID= 7BOS310SIS PAGE 5 ' accordance with the City of Temecula guidelines and under the observation and testing ' of the project geotechnical engineer and/or City of Temecula. ' ; UBGRADE AND BASE PREPARATION Based on the anticipated use and expansion characteristics of site soil, the upper ' 12 inches of subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned to at, or near, the soils optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. If adverse conditions are encountered during preparation of the subgrade ' materials, special construction methods may need to be employed ' PAVEMENT COMRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE The recommended pavement sections are meant as minimums. If thinner or highly t variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair may be needed. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should not be allowed to pond or seep into the ground. If planters or landscaping are adjacent to paved ' areas, measures should be taken to minimize the potential for water to enter the pavement section. If the ADT (average daily traffic) or ADTT (average daily truck traffic) increases beyond that intended, as reflected by the traffic index(s) used for design, increased ' maintenance and repair could be required for the pavement section. ' LIMITATIONS ' The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory study are believed to be representative of the total area. However, variations from the anticipated conditions and actual field conditions should be expected. Test excavations are reflective of the soil and rock materials only at the specific location explored. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. ' Since our study is based on the earth materials obtained in the field onsite, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions based upon those parameters. These opinions have been derived ' in accordance with the current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change in time. Overall, the enclosed results represent our professional opinions and evaluations which were performed within the constraints of a budget. GeoSoiis, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others. US Home W.O. 2565 -A1 -SC Tracts 23066-5 and 23067.2, Redhawk November 24. 1998 ' Filo. o. mpnmwrvc250012555a I.pda f inc. Page 3 FOV -25-96 14=10 FROM. GSI CARLSBAD 1 1 � ' R - VALUE 1 2 ID= 7609310915 PAGE 6 DATA SHEET W.O. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT NUMBFq 25857 BORING NUM6ER: B-3 @ 2-4 ' SAMPLE DFSCRIPTxSN: _ dark Brown Slightly Clayey Silty Sand ...... ..................... ...............I...................... . Item 1 � c $ b Mold Number 1 2 3 Water added, rams 75 85 90 Initial Test Water, % 9.9 10,8 1 1 .2 Com Gage Pressure. 350 250 1 75 Exudation Pressure, psi 495 276 175 Hal M Sample, Inches 2.48 2.45 2.46 Gross Weight Mold, Orams 3257 3250 3251 Tare Weight Mold, grams 2123 2118 2120 Sam la Wet Weight,1134 1 132 1 131 Ex anion, Inc1 --- 0 Stability 2,0008 / 61 46 / 113 56 / 130 Turns Displacement .10 3.80 4.15 R -Value Uncor7 21 12 R -Value Corre7 21 12 D Den51t 26. � t 28.4 125.3 , DESIGN CALCULATION DATA Traffic IndexTAssumed:4.0 4.0 4.0 G.E. b Stabilit0.44 0.61 0.90 G. E. b Ex nsion0.13 0.03 0;00 2 Examined & Checked: 1 1 /21/ 98 Equillbrlum R•Valuy ATVN Q�pFEssrpM' Gf - 1.25 REMARKS: St Marvin, 659 The data above is based upon processing and testing samples as the field. Test procedures in accordance with latest revisions to Department of Transportation, State of California, Materials b Research Test Method No. 301. Plate 1 1 � Plate 1 OV 2S-98 14.11 FROM: GSI CARLSBAD ID: 7609310915 R -VALUE GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION 400 350 300 w N 200 W C a 100 0 r a PAGE 7 Inn L0-1-5 LIQ MOISTURE AT FABRICATION I � a3olo�-s, TIeas o& 02 4.0 3.0 2.0 L. c v PROJECT NO. VJ O, Z57O5-A- ? BORING N0. :�aL-3,�._.�� -.---- ' PAT£ II 21 ' TRAFYIC INDEX L&un�- R -VALUE BY EXUDATIONZ+�-- ' R -VALUE BY EXPANSION ' 800 700 600 500 -400 300 200- 100 400 350 300 w N 200 W C a 100 0 r a PAGE 7 Inn L0-1-5 LIQ MOISTURE AT FABRICATION I � a3olo�-s, TIeas o& 02 4.0 3.0 2.0 L. c v 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Gems `` Is Inc. Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760)438-3155 • FAX(760)931-0915 TRANSMITTAL TO: Hunsaker and Associates DATE: 11/30/98 Attention: Mr. Paul Huddleston W.O. 2565 -A2 -SC FROM: John P. Franklin We are transmitting x Herewith _ Under separate cover -COPIES DATED .:..: DESCR IPTIGN 1 11/30/98 Addendum No. 2 to "Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation,.Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk Area, Temecula Region, Riverside County, California," W.O: 2565 -A -SC, by GeoSoils, Inc. FOR: x Your Use _ Your Approval _ Your Review and Comments x As You Requested REMARKS. _ Other (describe below) I 1 R [1 I 1 • Geotechnical -Geologic* Environmental 24890 Jefferson Ave. • Murrieta, California 92562 • (909) 677-9651 • FAX (909) 677-9301 November 30, 1998 W.O. 2565 -A2 -SC US Home Central California Division 4371 Latham Street, Suite 204 Riverside. California 92501 Attention: Ms. Tina Mokhtarzadeh, Land Development Manager Subject: Addendum No. 2 to "Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Tracts 23066- 5 and 23067-2, Redhawk Area, Temecula Region, Riverside County, California," dated November 12, 1998, W.O. 2565 -A -SC, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms. Mokhtarzadeh: This letter is provided to update the recommendations provided relative to the corrosivity potential of the site soils. Actual laboratory test results are provided as Plate 1 following the text of this addendum. The test results are summarized below: Soluble Sulfates/pH/Resistivity A sample of the site materials was analyzed for soluble sulfate content and corrosion to ferrous metals. The results are as follows: RESISTIVITY -SATURATED. pH (ohms -cm) 6.1 300 Based upon the soluble sulfate test results (UBC range for negligible sulfate exposure is 0 to 150 ppm soluble IS041 in water), Type V concrete is not required; and Type II concrete may be utilized. Per code, 4,000 psi concrete not is required. In addition, pH and resistivity tests were performed, which indicate site soils are slightly acidic and are severely corrosive to ferrous metals. Severely corrosive soils are considered as having a resistivity of less than 2,000 ohms -cm. Consultation with a qualified corrosion engineer is recommended. Additional testing for corrosion should be performed at the conclusion of grading so that final recommendations for corrosion may be provided, if warranted. SOLUBLE LOCATION/ SULFATES DEPTH ft (PPM) B-3 @ 2'-3' non -detect RESISTIVITY -SATURATED. pH (ohms -cm) 6.1 300 Based upon the soluble sulfate test results (UBC range for negligible sulfate exposure is 0 to 150 ppm soluble IS041 in water), Type V concrete is not required; and Type II concrete may be utilized. Per code, 4,000 psi concrete not is required. In addition, pH and resistivity tests were performed, which indicate site soils are slightly acidic and are severely corrosive to ferrous metals. Severely corrosive soils are considered as having a resistivity of less than 2,000 ohms -cm. Consultation with a qualified corrosion engineer is recommended. Additional testing for corrosion should be performed at the conclusion of grading so that final recommendations for corrosion may be provided, if warranted. ' Unless specifically superceded above, the conclusions and recommendations contained in the subject report remain pertinent and applicable, and should be appropriately ' implemented during planning, design, and construction. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions pertaining to this ' report, please contact us at (909) 677-9652. Respectively submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. ' Maung M ng Gy' Staff En neer John P. Franklin C -prat' F�'�oc Albert R. Kleist ' Engineering Geologist, C &$40 4 Geotechnical Engineer, GE 47 10"0 ,gOFE S!p Oar: ed Q`o p Hq MMG/JPF/ARK/mo u'� Er `,,r:r� ,c• \��y0at r<Fi Distribution: Addressee rf�+ CAL, Gr i a No. 476 4 () * Exp. 06-30-01 1 Paul Moote & Associates, Attn: Mr. Paul Moote tt ' (1) Hunsaker and Associates, Attn: Mr. Paul Huddleston \lc�°QF f�N; o 1 C 1 US Home Corrosivity, Redhawk File. e. \wp 7\murr\rc2500\2565 a2.an2 GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A2 -SC November 30, 1998 Page 2 i' 1124/1996 16:42 E.S.BAB000K 8 SONS, INC. 4 17609310915 93 . ,w 2277 Client: GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad,CA 92008 client ,I:D.: B-3 a 2-3 Site: Wog2565-A-SC Description: Matrix; soil-ag Constituent Result .._.....-.�..a a -eta . 6.1 NO. 4513 D02 EmAmnr .nml LaWM:oy COMYkatlon tl 156 6100 Oua6 Valley Caen Rwwside. CA 92507-0704 P.O. Bor 432 RKW%4e, CA 92502.0432 .•• u ' PH (9091 653-'/151 FAX (" 653.1662 @freak e665ale68ad.00m www.ea60atlaaD.9.:mm my Date Reported: 11/24/98 Collected By: Date: 11/12/98 Time: 0000 Submitted By:'Courier Date: 11/12/98 Time: 0845 ND - None detected at RL (Reporting Limit). RL units Same as result. Results reported in pps expressed on air-dried soil basis. CC: Babco k o nc. Plate 1 Date / Method RL Analyst 8-1.10 W.States 0.1 981123/BW _ , BM 2580 1. 981123/BA _ _ y w��tRrfi�2T.!:.--''...«iFs<"'^'V::%<"`•9e�1•`fi'e%Yw-.. BM 25208 0. 981123/BW ND - None detected at RL (Reporting Limit). RL units Same as result. Results reported in pps expressed on air-dried soil basis. CC: Babco k o nc. Plate 1 'NOV-2S-SS 14:09 FROM= CST CARLSBAD ID: 7609310915 -- 1 Ge"o• ' Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental PACE 1 ' 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad. California 92008 • (760)438-3155 • FAX(760)931-0915 MWEX4140,11 1 h 1 1 1 • • 1 1 Aff- i'I 1•5 1 :A:Inf W.O.:2565-A1-SC Pavement : a . 1 AddendUm to uSul2plemental: • 0 1 1 1 - .. Tracts 23066-5 and 230 7-2. Redhawk Area. Temecula Region- Riverside County- California." W.O. Z565 -A -SC. dated November 12, 1998, b GeoSoils. Inc NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: —Z_ THIS IS TRANSMITTt PER YOUR REQUEST X PLEASE REVIEW AND RESPOND X FOR YOUR INFORMATION URGENT FOR YOUR FILES X HARD COPY TO FOLLOW COMMENTS: e:\wordp• -'I k9uhtmImArm OV -25-96 14.09 FROM: GSI CARLSBAD ID: 7609310915 PAGE 2 S9 0 1 Geotechnical •Geologic *Environmental 1 24890 -Jefferson Ave. Murrieta, California 92562 • (909) 677-9651 • FAX(909)677-9301 1 November 24, 1998 W.O. 2565 -A1 -SC US Home Central California Division 4371 Latham Street, Suite 204 1 Riverside, California 92501 Attention: Ms. Tina Mokhtarzadeh, Land Development Manager 1 Subject: Pavement Design Addendum to "Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk Area, Temecula Region, Riverside 1 County, California," W.Q, 2565 -A -SC, dated November 12, 1998, by GeoSoils, Inc. 1 Dear Ms. Mokhtarzadeh: 1 As discussed, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has prepared preliminary design and construction recommendations for asphalt concrete pavement (ACP) at the subject site. The scope of services provided in preparation of this report included prior representative sampling at 1 anticipated subgrade elevations, previous laboratory testing, and engineering analysis of pavement design. The actual pavement design should be determined at the completion of grading. 1 1 Pavement sections for ACP presented are based on resistance "R" -value data determined from soils exposed at or near anticipated final subgrade elevations within the subject street 1 areas, and the minimum standards of the City of Temecula. "R" -value testing was performed in accordance with the latest revisions to the Department of Transportation, State of California. Material & Research Test Method No. 301. "R" -value data is included 1 following the text of this report. 1 1 1 FOV -2S-99 14:09 A.C. Tihl *Mms FROM; GSI CARLSBAD ID: 7609310SIS PACE 3 22 3.0(1) 7.0 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 55 22 ' Structufal Section ' The recommended pavement sections are based on the R -value data and the design criteria presented by the City of Temecula. The recommended preliminary pavement sections are presented in the following table: 1 t Traffic Subgrade A.C. Tihl *Mms Aggregate Base Thickness 121 Index W -Value inches 5,0 22 3.0(1) 7.0 4.0 6.01'1 55 22 3.0(1) 8.5 4.0 6.5 6.0 22 3.0(11 10.0 4.0 8.0 5.0 6.0 6.5 22 3.001 12.0 4.0 10.0 5,0 8.0 7.0 22 3.0111 13-0 4.0 11.5 5.0 9.5 7.5 22 3.50t 14.0 4.0 13.0 5.0 11.5 8.0 22 3.5(1) 15.5 4.0 14.5 5.0 12.5 8.5 22 4.0n1 16.5 5.0 14.5 0.0 13.0 9.0 22 4.0171 17.5 5.0 16.0 8.0 14.0 (1) City of Temecula minimum (2) Denotes Cuss 2 e Base &.76. SE : 22 1 ' All pavement installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, compaction of base material, and placement and roiling of asphaltic concrete should be done in US Home W.O. 2565 -A1 -SC Tracts 23066.5 and 230672. Redhawk November 24, 1998 Filn,m\wpAmurrkc25000)5f,5n1_pda Page 2 ' 60080 s, Inc. rOV-25-BB 14 10 FROM. GSI CARLSBAD ID: 7609310915 PAGE 4 ' The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Respectfully submitted, ;%••" �' F I GeoSoils, Inc. Y hn P. Franklin nager MMG/JPF/ARK/mo Attachments: Plates 1 and 2 - "R" -Value Data No. 176 E.,tp. 06 30-01 Albert R. Kleist �14r'OF 1:AL F9� Geotechnical Engineer, GE 476 Distribution: (2) Addressee (2) Hunsaker & Associates, Riverside - Mr. Paul Huddleston 1 i _7",ea3o��-s, 3plo7 ' US Home W.O. 2565 -A1 -SC Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk November 24, 1990 File'n'�,wpT�murrlrC2' $40�2595u1.pda Paqe 4 O"So trill. INOV-2S-9B 14:10 FROM: CSI CARLSBAD ID= 7609310915 FACE 5 ' accordance with the City of Temecula guidelines and under the observation and testing ' of the project geotechnical engineer and/or City of Temecula. ' SUBGRADE AND BASE PREPARATION Based on the anticipated use and expansion characteristics of site soil, the upper ' 12 inches of subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned to at, or near, the soils optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. If adverse conditions are encountered during preparation of the subgrade ' materials, special construction methods may need to be employed The recommended pavement sections are meant as minimums. If thinner or highly ' variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair may be needed. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should not be allowed to pond or seep into the ground. If planters or landscaping are adjacent to paved ' areas, measures should be taken to minimize the potential for water to enter the pavement section. If the ADT (average daily traffic) or ADTT (average daily truck traffic) increases beyond that intended, as reflected by the traffic index(s) used for design, increased ' maintenance and repair could be required for the pavement section. LIMITATIONS ' The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory study are believed to be representative of the total area. However, variations from the anticipated conditions and actual field conditions should be expected. Test excavations are reflective of the soil and rock materials only at the specific location explored. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. ' Since our study is based on the earth materials obtained in the field onsite, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions based upon those parameters. These opinions have been derived ' in accordance with the current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change in time. Overall, the enclosed results represent our professional opinions and evaluations which were performed within the constraints of a budget. GeoSoiis. Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others. ' US Home W.O. 2565-A1 -SC Tracts 23066-5 and 23067.2, Redhawk November 24. 1998 ' u Filo o-,wp7lmurrVc250012565a Lpda ��p�* Page 3 ■ ' NOV-25-90 14=10 FROM: GSI CARLSBAD ' R - VALUE 1 2 IDS 76OS310SIS DATA SHEET W.O. 2565 -A -SC PRWECT NUMBER 25857 60FIING NUMBER: B-3@ 2-4 ' SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Dark Brown slightly Cla a Sllt . Sand 1 1 1 1 PAGE 6 Item � c a b Mold Number 1 2 3 Water added, grams 75 85 90 Initial Test Water, 9.9 10,8 1 1 .2 Com Ga a Pressure. 350 250 175 Exudation Pressure, si 495 276 175 Hel ht Sam le, inches 2.48 2.45 2.46 Gross Weight Mold, grams, 3257 3250 3251 Tare Wei ht Mold, rams 2123 2118 2120 Sam le Wet Weight, rams 1134 1132 1131 Ex ansion, Inches x 10ex -4 4 1 --- 0 St2,000 lbs 160 i 28 / 61 46 / 113 56 / 130 ' Turns Displacement 3.10 3.8.0 4.15 R -Value Uncorrected 57 21 12 R -Value Corrected 57 21 12 D Density, i 126.1 126.4 125.3 DESIGN CALCULATION DATA Traffic Index Assumed: 4.0 1 4.0 4.0 G.E.-byG.E.-by Stability 0.44 0.81 0.90 G. E. by Expansion 0.13 0.03 0.00 22 Examined 8 Checked: 11 /21/ 9 8 Equilibrium R•Vaiue by EXUDATION Qt pFessrLM 1.25 4e o ��1 t.•�1� ty ,GI __ FWQ r, REM/19KS. St Marvin, 659 The data above is based upon processing and testing samples, as the field. Test procedures in accordance with latest revisions to Department of Transportation, State of califomia, Materials 3 Research Test Method No. 301. Plate 1 OV -25-98 14-11 FROM: GSI CARLSBAD ID: 7SO9310SIS -VALUE GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION air$ 360 300 W OG 200 100, 0 A PAGE 7 InP L015 LLQ MOISTURE AT FABRICATION EWA 3.0 2.0 J.c i UONS 0NI ff R 9 aggiff 'go MR-Evz5gaNsm ggoM ��5FF OFr It =! _ti r, a 5 19 4-10E, gapra-",LO aj4 air$ 360 300 W OG 200 100, 0 A PAGE 7 InP L015 LLQ MOISTURE AT FABRICATION EWA 3.0 2.0 J.c i Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760)438-3155 • FAX(760)931-0915 TRANSMITTAL TO: Hunsaker and Associates DATE: 11/30/98 Attention: Mr. Paul Huddleston W.O. 2565 -A2 -SC FROM: John P. Franklin We are transmitting x Herewith _ Under separate cover COPIES DATED DESCRIPTION 1 11/30/98 Addendum No. 2 to "Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk Area, Temecula Region, Riverside County, California," W.O. 2565 -A -SC, by GeoSoils, Inc. FOR: x Your Use _ Your Approval Your Review and Comments x As You Requested Other (describe below) REMARKS s::.. I 1 I U 1 24890 Jefferson Ave. • Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental Murneta, California 92562 • (909) 677-9651 • FAX (909) 677-9301 November 30, 1998 W.O. 2565 -A2 -SC US Home Central California Division 4371 Latham Street, Suite 204 Riverside. California 92501 Attention: Ms. Tina Mokhtarzadeh, Land Development Manager Subject: Addendum No. 2 to "Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Tracts 23066- 5 and 23067-2, Redhawk Area, Temecula Region, Riverside County, California," dated November 12, 1998, W.O. 2565 -A -SC, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms. Mokhtarzadeh: This letter is provided to update the recommendations provided relative to the corrosivity potential of the site soils. Actual laboratory test results are provided as Plate 1 following the text of this addendum. The test results are summarized below: Soluble Sulfates/pH/Resistivity A sample of the site materials was analyzed for soluble sulfate content and corrosion to ferrous metals. The results are as follows: Based upon the soluble sulfate test results (UBC range for negligible sulfate exposure is 0 to 150 ppm soluble [SOJ in water), Type V concrete is not required; and Type 11 concrete may be utilized. Per code, 4,000 psi concrete not is required. In addition, pH and resistivity tests were performed, which indicate site soils are slightly acidic and are severely corrosive to ferrous metals. Severely corrosive soils are considered as having a resistivity of less than 2,000 ohms -cm. Consultation with a qualified corrosion engineer is recommended. Additional testing for corrosion should be performed at the conclusion of grading so that final recommendations for corrosion may be provided, if warranted. SOLUBLE LOCATION/ SULFATES RESISTIVITY -SATURATED DEPTH ft (PPM) pH (ohms -cm) non -detect 6.1 300 Based upon the soluble sulfate test results (UBC range for negligible sulfate exposure is 0 to 150 ppm soluble [SOJ in water), Type V concrete is not required; and Type 11 concrete may be utilized. Per code, 4,000 psi concrete not is required. In addition, pH and resistivity tests were performed, which indicate site soils are slightly acidic and are severely corrosive to ferrous metals. Severely corrosive soils are considered as having a resistivity of less than 2,000 ohms -cm. Consultation with a qualified corrosion engineer is recommended. Additional testing for corrosion should be performed at the conclusion of grading so that final recommendations for corrosion may be provided, if warranted. ' Unless specifically superceded above, the conclusions and recommendations contained in the subject report remain pertinent and applicable, and should be appropriately ' implemented during planning, design, and construction. t We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions pertaining to this report, please contact us at (909) 677-9652. Respectively submitted, GeoSoils, inc. Maung M ng Gy' Staff En neer YE n P. Franklin ineering Geologist, MMG/JPF/ARK/mo 1 1 11 c rao.1� o Carivd N� Er,;'a,;ct:rg q�, G-xioy+irl rr Albert R. Kleist Geotechnical Engineer, GE 4 Distribution: (4) Addressee Or c�ti1E (1) Paul Moote & Associates, Attn: Mr. Paul Moote (1) Hunsaker and Associates, Attn: Mr. Paul Huddleston R. No. 476 Exp. 06-30-01 P US Home W.O 2565 -A2 -SC Corrosivlty, Redhawk November 30, 1998 File:e \wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a2.an2 Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. 7 11124i1g98 16:42 E.S.BAB000K 8 SONS, INC. 4 17609310915 2277 Client: NO. 459 G02 EMAMrc ntal lsb0MWfy Cert k2Wn!1156 8100 Quail Valley Court Rirarsde. CA 925107-0704 P.O. BU 432 RNVFS4e. CA 92502-0432 ••• ••.. . • �• PM (9091 653.1351 FAX (009) 553.1662 �. e•+nelt ssbsalas eaol.00m W".nebmuaea9.mm GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad,CA 92008 Client,S,D.: B-3 a 2-3 Site: Wo#2565-A-SC Description: Matrix; soil-ag Constituent Result Saturated Paste PH "F4 �6.1� ��u;�...�'^•,..-��.. 23 Redox Potential 230 .. p, .';a»4'."+R �UIzssi R+ Saturated Resistivity 300 my Date Reported: 11/24/98 Collected By: Date: 11/12/98 Time: 0000 Submitted By -'Courter Date: 11/12/98 Time: 0845 ND a None detected at RL (Reporting Limit). RL units same as result. Results reported in ppm expressed on air-dried soil basis. CC: . eabco k o nc. Plate 1 Date / Method RL Analyst 9-1.10 W.States 0.1 981123/SW %R f I BS.. _ .; BM 25130 1. 991123/sW sM 25208 0. 981123/8W ND a None detected at RL (Reporting Limit). RL units same as result. Results reported in ppm expressed on air-dried soil basis. CC: . eabco k o nc. Plate 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 eoS-a%is .Inc. Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760)438-3155 • FAX(760)931-0915 TRANSMITTAL TO: Hunsaker & Associates, Riverside DATE: November 25, 1998 Attention: Mr. Paul Huddleston FROM: John P. Franklin & Albert R. Kleist We are transmitting x Herewith _ Under separate cover W.O. 2565 -A1 -SC COPIES, DATED DESCRIPTION.. , 2 November 24, Pavement Design Addendum to "Supplemental 1998 Geotechnical Investigation, Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk Area, Temecula Region, Riverside County, California," W.O. 2565 -A -SC, dated November 12, 1998, by GeoSoils, Inc. FOR: x Your Use _ Your Approval _ Your Review and Comments )L As You Requested Other (describe below) mss;.".' - REMARKS `' :v- a '. � 4�_aa�<_... .dal.'.�.�.z._v:.ay..d4 c - ±9 issrse-+v :..::.o.__�.`_�c ....•z.._..� �-`.:,i-�=� - a3ol '�� a ola(v�s, 7'i2o7 11 I I I ILS Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental 24890 Jefferson Ave. • Murneta, California 92562 • (909) 677-9651 • FAX (909) 677-9301 November 24. 1998 W.O. 2565 -A1 -SC US Home Central California Division 4371 Latham Street, Suite 204 Riverside, California 92501 Attention: Ms. Tina Mokhtarzadeh, Land Development Manager Subject: Pavement Design Addendum to "Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk Area, Temecula Region, Riverside County, California," W.O. 2565 -A -SC, dated November 12, 1998, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms. Mokhtarzadeh: ' As discussed, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has prepared preliminary design and construction recommendations for asphalt concrete pavement (ACP) at the subject site. The scope of services provided in preparation of this report included prior representative sampling at ' anticipated subgrade elevations, previous laboratory testing, and engineering analysis of pavement design. The actual pavement design should be determined at the completion of grading. PAVEMENT DESIGN Pavement sections for ACP presented are based on resistance "R" -value data determined from soils exposed at or near anticipated final subgrade elevations within the subject street ' areas, and the minimum standards of the City of Temecula. "R" -value testing was performed in accordance with the latest revisions to the Department of Transportation, State of California, Material & Research Test Method No. 301. "R" -value data is included following the text of this report. 11 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT Structural Section The recommended pavement sections are based on the R -value data and the design criteria presented by the City of Temecula. The recommended preliminary pavement sections are presented in the following table: Traffic Subgrade A.C. Thickness Aggregate Base Thickness 1:1 Index "R" -Value inches inches 5.0 22 3.0011 7.0 4.0 6.0111 5.5 22 3.011 8.5 4.0 6.5 6.0 22 3.0(1) 10.0 4.0 8.0 5.0 6.0 6.5 22 3.011 12.0 4.0 10.0 5.0 8.0 7.0 22 3.0(1) 13.0 4.0 11.5 5.0 9.5 7.5 22 3.511 14.0 4.0 13.0 5.0 11.5 8.0 22 3.501 15.5 4.0 14.5 5.0 12.5 8.5 22 4.0(1) 16.5 5.0 14.5 6.0 13.0 9.0 22 4.0(1 17.5 5.0 16.0 6.0 14.0 (1) Cl of Temecula minimum 2 Denotes Class 2 Aggregate Base R> 78, SE >.-22) All pavement installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, compaction of base material, and placement and rolling of asphaltic concrete should be done in US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk File a \wp7\murrVc2500\2565a1 pda GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -Al -SC November 24, 1998 Page 2 ' The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils,7,�,&,' Innc. LLQP John P. Franklin Manager MMG/JPF/ARK/mo Attachments: Plates 1 and 2 - "R" -Value Data Albert R. Kleist Geotechnical Engineer, GE 476 Distribution: (2) Addressee (2) Hunsaker & Associates, Riverside - Mr. Paul Huddleston US Home W.O. 2565 -A1 -SC Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk November 24, 1998 File:e:\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565at.pda Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. ' accordance with the City of Temecula guidelines and under the observation and testing of the project geotechnical engineer and/or City of Temecula. SUBGRADE AND BASE PREPARATION ' Based on the anticipated use and expansion characteristics of site soil, the upper ' 12 inches of subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned to at, or near, the soils optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. If adverse conditions are encountered during preparation of the subgrade ' materials, special construction methods may need to be employed. ' PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE The recommended pavement sections are meant as minimums. If thinner or highly ' variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair may be needed. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should not be allowed to pond or seep into the ground. If planters or landscaping are adjacent to paved ' areas, measures should be taken to minimize the potential for water to enter the pavement section. If the ADT (average daily traffic) or ADTT (average daily truck traffic) increases beyond that intended, as reflected by the traffic index(s) used for design, increased ' maintenance and repair could be required for the pavement section ' LIMITATIONS ' The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory study are believed to be representative of the total area. However, variations from the anticipated conditions and actual field conditions should be expected. Test excavations are reflective ' of the soil and rock materials only at the specific location explored. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Since our study is based on the earth materials obtained in the field onsite, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions based upon those parameters. These opinions have been derived t in accordance with the current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change in time. Overall, the enclosed results represent our professional opinions and evaluations which were performed within the ' constraints of a budget. GeoSoils, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others. 1 US Home Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk File:e:\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565a 1.pda GeO.SAfjs, Inc. W.0.2565 -A1 -SC November 24, 1998 Page 3 R -VALUE DATA SHEET W.O. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT NUMBER 25857 BORING NUMBER: B-3 @ 2 -4 - SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Dark Brown Slightly Clayey Silty Sand ............................ Item 'r"uNIZ114 a b c Mold Number 1 2 3 Water added, grams 75 85 90 Initial Test Water, % 9.9 10.8 11 .2 Com act Gage Pressure, si 350 250 1 75 Exudation Pressure, i 495 276 175 He! M Semple. Inches 2.48 2.45 2.46 Gross Weight Mold, rams. 3250 3251 Tare eight Mold, rams 1 23 2123 2 2118 2120 Sam le Wet Weight, grams 1134 1132 1131 Ex ansion, Inches x t 0ex -4 4 1 1 0 Stabilit 2,000 lbs 160 si 28 / 61 46 / 113 56 _ / 130 " Turns Dis lacement 3.10 3.80 4.15 R -Value Uncorrected 57 21 12 R -Value Corrected 57 21 12 D Densit f 126.1 129.4 125.3 DESIGN CALCULATION DATA Traffic Index Assumed: 4.0 4.0 4.0 G.E. b Stability0.44 0.81 0.90 G. E. by Expansion 0.13 1 0.03 0.00 22 Examined & Checked: 11 /21/ 9 8 Equillbrlum R -Value i by EXUDATION Q�pFES.5704,9 Gf i = 1.25 �Q, ��N Fl..tc, % + �; 1 REMARKS: Ste Marvin, 659 The data above is based upon processing and testing samples as iS the field. Test in accordance with latest revisions to Department of procedures Transportation, State of California. Materials & Research Test Method No. 301. Lt= • 1��i11'�`�11 Plate 1 R -VALUE GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION e.... ,nn tnn 500 -400 300 200. 100 COVER TMIC32WS BY EXPANSION. FT. REMARKS 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 O .0 MOISTURE AT FABRICATION Igo 10-45r 11,E S MOISTURE g ve. EXUD. PRES. T by EXUDATION T va. EXPAN. 7 T by EXPANSION 1, lk% ! o ixurvoi TO/!!lpMPL I/1ylMFM lMdNlE1lMO Plate 2 4.0 3.0 2.0 Lc 400 PROSECT NO. 25b5 -A" m 350 BORING N0. ,0, 300 11 2� N 200 DATE a 100 TRAFFIC INDEX o R -VALUE BY EXUDATION r s 0 f CD R—VALUE BY EXPANSION �— e.... ,nn tnn 500 -400 300 200. 100 COVER TMIC32WS BY EXPANSION. FT. REMARKS 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 O .0 MOISTURE AT FABRICATION Igo 10-45r 11,E S MOISTURE g ve. EXUD. PRES. T by EXUDATION T va. EXPAN. 7 T by EXPANSION 1, lk% ! o ixurvoi TO/!!lpMPL I/1ylMFM lMdNlE1lMO Plate 2 4.0 3.0 2.0 Lc L • Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental 24890 Jefferson Ave. • Murrieta, California 92562 • (909) 677-9651 • FAX (909) 677-9301 November 24, 1998 W.O. 2565 -A1 -SC US Home Central California Division 4371 Latham Street, Suite 204 Riverside, California 92501 Attention: Ms. Tina Mokhtarzadeh, Land Development Manager Subject: Pavement Design Addendum to "Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk Area, Temecula Region, Riverside County, California," W.O. 2565 -A -SC, dated November 12, 1998, by GeoSoils, Inc. ' Dear Ms. Mokhtarzadeh: As discussed, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has prepared preliminary design and construction ' recommendations for asphalt concrete pavement (ACP) at the subject site. The scope of services provided in preparation of this report included prior representative sampling at ' anticipated subgrade elevations, previous laboratory testing, and engineering analysis of pavement design. The actual pavement design should be determined at the completion of grading. ' PAVEMENT DESIGN ' Pavement sections for ACP presented are based on resistance "R" -value data determined from soils exposed at or near anticipated final subgrade elevations within the subject street ' areas, and the minimum standards of the City of Temecula. "R" -value testing was performed in accordance with the latest revisions to the Department of Transportation, State of California, Material & Research Test Method No. 301. "R" -value data is included ' following the text of this report. 11 ' ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT ' Structural Section The recommended pavement sections are based on the R -value data and the design ' criteria presented by the City of Temecula. The recommended preliminary pavement sections are presented in the following table: 1 1 I I Traffic Subgrade A.C. Thickness Aggregate Base Thickness tat Index "R' -Value inches inches 5.0 22 3.00) 7.0 4.0 6.0111 5.5 22 3.0(1) 8.5 4.0 6.5 6.0 22-. 3.0(1) 10.0 4.0 8.0 5.0 6.0 6.5 22 3.0(1) 12.0 4.0 10.0 5.0 8.0 7.0 22 3.0(1) 13.0 4.0 11.5 5.0 9.5 7.5 22 3.5(1) 14.0 4.0 13.0 5.0 11.5 8.0 22 3.5i1I 15.5 4.0 14.5 5.0 12.5 8.5 22 4.0(1) 16.5 5.0 14.5 6.0 13.0 9.0 22 4.0(1) 17.5 5.0 16.0 6.0 1 14.0 (1) City of Temecula minimum 2 Denotes Class 2 Aggregate Base R 78, SE >_22) ' All pavement installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, compaction of base material, and placement and rolling of asphaltic concrete should be done in 4�7 - -TT� a3olo 7 US Home W.O. 2565 -A1 -SC Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk November 24, 1998 ' File, 0:IWP71murr\rC2500\2565a1,Pda Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. ' The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. ' Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. ; y! Nu. S75 n t; Epp. 06-30-01 John P. Franklin Albert R. Kleist ^l4 eQCCp FO Manager Geotechnical Engineer, GE 476 ' MMG/JPF/ARK/mo ' Attachments: Plates 1 and 2 - "R" -Value Data Distribution: (2) Addressee (2) Hunsaker & Associates, Riverside - Mr. Paul Huddleston 1 ' US Home W. 0. 2565 -A1 -SC Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk November 24, 1998 File:e:\wp7\murr\rc250012565a1.pda Page 4 ' GeoSoils, Inc. accordance with the City of Temecula guidelines and under the observation and testing of the project geotechnical engineer and/or City of Temecula. SUBGRADE AND BASE PREPARATION Based on the anticipated use and expansion characteristics of site soil, the upper 12 inches of subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned to at, or near, the soils optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. If adverse conditions are encountered during preparation of the subgrade materials, special construction methods may need to be employed. PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE The recommended pavement sections are meant as minimums. If thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair may be needed. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should not be allowed to pond or seep into the ground. If planters or landscaping are adjacent to paved areas, measures should be taken to minimize the potential for water to enter the pavement section. If the ADT (average daily traffic) or ADTT (average daily truck traffic) increases beyond that intended, as reflected by the traffic index(s) used for design, increased maintenance and repair could be required for the pavement section. LIMITATIONS ' The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory study are believed to be representative of the total area. However, variations from the anticipated conditions and actual field conditions should be expected. Test excavations are reflective ' of the soil and rock materials only at the specific location explored. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. ' Since our study is based on the earth materials obtained in the field onsite, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions based upon those parameters. These opinions have been derived ' in accordance with the current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change in time. Overall, the enclosed results represent our professional opinions and evaluations which were performed within the ' constraints of a budget. GeoSoils, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others. ' Tracts 23066-5 and 23067-2, Redhawk File: e:\wp7\murr\rc2500\2565at .pda GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2565 -A1 -SC November 24, 1998 Page 3 R -VALUE DATA SHEET W.O. 2565 -A -SC PROJECT NUMBER 25857 BORING NUMBER: B-3 @ 2-4' SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Dark Brown Slightly Clayey Silty Sand ...................................................................i Item a b c Mold Number 1 2 3 Water added, grams 75 85 90 Initial Test Water, %9.9 10.8 11.2350 Com act Gage Pressure, sl 350 250 1 75 495 2.4 1 75 Exudation Pressure, i Nei ht Sam le, Inches 2.48 2.45 Gross Weight Mold, rams 3257 3250 Tare Weight Mold, rams 2123 2118 muo- Sam le Wet Weight, rams 1134 1132Ex anion. Inches x 10ex -4 4 28 / 61 1 46 / 113 56 / 130 Stability2,000 lbs 160 si Turns Displacement 3.10 3.80 4.15 R -Value Uncorrected 57 21 12 R -Value Corrected 57 21 12 D DenSlt f 126.1 126.4 125.3 , DESIGN CALCULATION DATA Traffic Index Assumed: 4.0 4.0 1 4.0 G.E. by Stability - 0.44 0.81 0.90 G. E. by Expansion 0.13 0.03 1 0.00 22 Examined & Checked: 11 /21/ 9 8 Equillbrlum R -Value iby EXUDATION Q�pFESSlp4,9 Gf I 1.25 Qn N H• .1� .�. REMARKS: Ste Marvin, 659 The data above is based upon processing and testing samples as i the field. Test procedures in accordance with latest revisions to Department of Transportation. State of California, Materials & Research Test Method No. 301. I liIL 4811IC& 0 INi1M11 Plate 1 �l I 1 1 1 1 R -VALUE GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION *nn -inn 600 500 -400 300 200_.100 REMARKS .00 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 .0 E NI IoL IjQ,5- L1 _O MOISTURE AT FABRICATION 10 10-15, /iLo % MOISTURE E vs. EXUD. PRE$. T by EXUDATION T T vs. EXPAN. i by EXPANSION �N�/.L ►AVEMENT EM01NlEpNO �'llll� Plate 2 400 PROSECT NO. m 350 BORING 40. �o 21 -'�� 300 1i121�9� N 200 DATE W I00 TRAFFIC INDEX c R -VALUE BY EXUDATION d 0 E R -VALUE BY EXPANSION �— o *nn -inn 600 500 -400 300 200_.100 REMARKS .00 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 .0 E NI IoL IjQ,5- L1 _O MOISTURE AT FABRICATION 10 10-15, /iLo % MOISTURE E vs. EXUD. PRE$. T by EXUDATION T T vs. EXPAN. i by EXPANSION �N�/.L ►AVEMENT EM01NlEpNO �'llll� Plate 2