HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical Rpt Lots 9-39 5/8/2002")TECHNICAL REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING
LOTS 9 THROUGH 39, TRACT 23066.2
CITY OFTEMECULA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
104 West Grand Avenue; Suite A'
Escondido, California 92025
1
I
L
L
L
I
1
1
H
L
1
L
it PETRA
OFFICES THROUGHOUT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
May 8, 2002
J.N. 188-01
BGR No. 010340
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
104 West Grand Avenue, Suite A
Escondido, California 92025
Attention: Mr. Gary McCoy
Subject: Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 9 through 39,
Tract 23066-2, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California
This report presents a summary of the observation and testing services provided by
Petra Geotechnical, Inc. (Petra) during rough -grading operations to complete the
development of Lots 9 through 39 of Tract 23066-2 located in the Temecula area of
Riverside County, California. Conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the
suitability of the grading for the proposed residential construction are provided herein,
as well as foundation -design recommendations based on the as -graded soil conditions.
Preliminary rough -grading within the golf-course/tract interface was performed within
the subject tract in 1989, 1990, 1997 and 1998 under the purview of Petra. Petra
reported on the interface grading in a report issued in December 2001 (see References).
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
Cuts, removals and recompaction of unsuitable low-density surface soils, lot
overexcavations and placement of compacted fill under the purview of this report have
been completed under the observation and with selective testing by Petra. The
earthwork was performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in
previous geotechnical reports by Petra (see References) and the Grading Code of the
County of Riverside.
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
41640 Corning Place . Suite 107 . Murrieta . CA 92562 . Tel: (909) 600-9271 . Fax: (909) 6CO-9215
X
I
[1
I
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula
May 8, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 2
The completed earthwork has been reviewed and is considered adequate for the
construction now planned. On the basis of our observations, as well as field and
laboratory testing, the recommendations presented in this report were prepared in
conformance with generally accepted professional engineering practices and no further
warranty is implied nor made.
u :: ._• t 1 Y�]lJcl►1_lZtLDC�1rI�ZeISlK�7►Ll7ifL
As -Graded Conditions
Remedial grading during the 1989 and 1990 interface grading generally involved the
removal and recompaction of low-density surficial soils that included alluvial and
colluvial soils subject to hydrocollapse or excessive consolidation, as well as near -
surface weathered bedrock materials. Additional grading performed in 1997 and 1998
resulted in a super pad. Remedial grading of the site at that time consisted of removal
and recompaction of all low-density surficial material, removal of haul roads and loose
end -dumped fill piles. Remedial grading during the recent phase of rough grading
included similar removals plus surficial overexcavation and recompaction, on the order
of up to 12 feet. Remedial grading also included overexcavation of the cut portions
of cut/fill transition lots. The compacted fills range in depth from approximately 12
to 36 feet. A lot -by -lot summary of the compacted fill depths is presented in the
attached Table I. A general description of the soil and bedrock materials underlying
the subject tract is provided below.
• Compacted Engineered Fill (map symbol afc) — The compacted fill soils placed in
1989 through 1998 generally consist of silty sand and sandy silt with variable clay.
The compacted -fill soils placed in 2002 are also comprised of onsite -derived soil
and bedrock materials and generally consist of fine- to coarse-grained sand, silty
sand and clayey sand.
It
3
I
L,
LJ
1
1
1
1
[l
1
J
11
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula
May 8, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 3
Pauba Formation Bedrock QVa) — The Pauba Formation consists of dense, fine-
grained and well -graded sandstones, clayey sandstone and clay beds with
occasional gravel and cobble beds. A cross -bedded, well -graded sand unit is
contained within the Pauba Formation.
SUMMARY OF EARTHWORK
OBSERVATIONS AND DENSITY TESTING
Clearing and Grubbing
At the time of grading, a majority of the tract was covered with a light growth of
grasses and weeds. This light vegetation was removed during overexcavation to
existing grades and mixed with the excavated soils in an acceptable manner (i.e., the
resultant blend contained less than 1 percent organic materials). Heavy vegetation that
existed in local areas, as well as some construction debris, were removed from the site.
Ground Preparation
1989 - 1990 - During the interface grading performed in 1989 and 1990, unsuitable
soils were removed and replaced with compacted fill. Removal of unsuitable soils
was performed to facilitate future grading by eliminating the need to encroach into
the completed golf -course fairways during final rough grading of the subject tract.
Removal of unsuitable soils extended laterally into the golf -course fairways at a 1:1
(horizontal:vertical [h:v]) projection from the proposed toe -of -slopes to the bottom
of the overexcavation in order to provide sufficient lateral support for the
embankment fills. As a result of the removals, the alluvial soils anticipated to be
subject to hydrocollapse or excessive consolidation that existed within the broader
valley areas were removed. In areas to receive compacted fill, all deposits of
existing low-density surficial soils (slopewash and alluvium) were removed to
competent bedrock. In general, removal of unsuitable surficial materials varied
from approximately 3 to 10 feet below the original ground surface. All removals
were also extended into adjacent street areas to receive compacted fill.
1998 — Additional fill placement was performed in 1997 and 1998 under the
observation and testing of Petra. The "super pad" fill was placed within Rhine
Avenue and Lots 9 through 37 as excess material was generated from grading of
Tract 23066-4. All deposits of loose end -dumped 511, undocumented fill within
haul roads and loose/dry surficial soils in areas to receive fill were removed,
Cl
A
' RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 8, 2002
' TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 4
' moisture -conditioned to provide a bond with the new fill materials. In general,
remedial removals varied from 2 to 10 feet.
' 2002 -Prior to placing structural fill, existing low-density surficial soils were first
removed to competent unweathered bedrock, or previously placed compacted fill
materials. Removals throughout the lots varied from approximately 2 to 9 feet.
' Previously compacted -fill materials exposed in removal areas exhibited an in-place
minimum relative compaction of 90 percent.
1
1
n
LJ
[1
rJ
Il
1
Prior to placing fill, exposed bottom surfaces in all removal areas were first observed
and approved by our project geologist or senior soil technician. Following this
approval, the exposed bottom surfaces were scarified to depths of approximately 6 to
8 inches, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve a moisture content equal to or
slightly above optimum moisture content and then recompacted in-place to a minimum
relative compaction of 90 percent.
Lot Overexcavations
To mitigate distress to residential structures related to the potential adverse effects of
excessive differential settlement, the cut portion of cut/fill transition lots were
overexcavated to a minimum depth of 5 feet below finish grade and replaced with
compacted fill.
Fill Placement and Testine
All fill soils were placed in lifts restricted to approximately 6 to 8 inches in maximum
thickness, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve near -optimum moisture
conditions and then compacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90
percent based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Compaction was achieved by wheel -
rolling with an 824 rubber -tired dozer and loaded scrapers. The maximum vertical
depth of fill placed within the subject lots is approximately 34 feet.
5
I
1
[1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula
May 8, 2002
I.N. 188-01
Page 5
Field density and moisture content tests were performed in accordance with nuclear -
gauge test methods ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017, respectively. Occasional
field density tests were also performed in accordance with the sandcone method
(ASTM Test Method D1556). Field density test results for 1989, 1998 and 2002 are
presented on the attached Tables II, III and IV, respectively, and approximate test
locations are shown on the enclosed Geotechnical Map with Density Test Locations
(Plates 1 and 2).
Field density tests were taken at vertical intervals of approximately 1 to 2 feet and the
compacted fills were tested at the time of placement to verify that the specified
moisture content and minimum required relative compaction of 90 percent had been
achieved. At least one in-place density test was taken for each 1,000 cubic yards of fill
placed and/or for each 2 feet in vertical height of compacted fill. The actual number
of tests taken per day varied with the project conditions, such as the number of
earthmovers (scrapers) and availability of support equipment. When field density tests
produced results less than the required minimum relative compaction of 90 percent or
if the soils were found to be excessively above or below optimum moisture content,
the approximate limits of the substandard fill were established. The substandard area
was then either removed or reworked in-place.
Visual classification of earth materials in the field was the basis for determining which
maximum dry density value was applicable for a given density test. Single -point
checks were performed to supplement visual classification.
Fill Slopes
All fill slopes were constructed at a maximum ratio of 2:1 (h:v) and to a maximum
height of approximately 21 feet. All fill slopes were overfilled an average of 4 to 5
feet during construction and then trimmed back to the compacted core.
0
I
1
[l
I
1
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 8, 2002
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 6
LABORATORY TESTING
Maximum Dry Density
Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each change in soil type
observed during grading were determined in our laboratory in accordance with ASTM
Test Method D1557. Pertinent test values for each phase of grading (1989, 1998 and
2002) are summarized in Appendix A.
Expansion Index Tests
Expansion index tests were performed on representative samples of soil existing at or
near finish -pad grade within the subject lots. These tests were performed in
accordance with ASTM Test Method D4829. Test results are also summarized in
Appendix A.
Atterberg Limits
Atterberg limits were determined for selected soil samples per ASTM Test Method
D4318. Test results are presented in Appendix A.
Soluble Sulfate Anal
Soluble sulfate analyses were determined for representative samples of soil existing
' at or near finish grade within the subject lots. These tests were performed in
accordance with California Test Method No. 417. Test results are summarized in
' Appendix A.
1
7
I
J
C
1
[l
1
1
f]
1
1
I
I
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 8, 2002
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 7
Chloride. Resistivity and pH Analyses
Water-soluble chloride concentration, resistivity and pH were determined for selected
samples in accordance with California Test Method Nos. 422 (chloride) and 643
(resistivity and pH). The results of these analyses are summarized in Appendix A.
FOUNDATION -DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundation Types
Based on as -graded soil and geologic conditions, the use of conventional slab -on -
ground foundations is considered feasible for the proposed residential structures.
Recommended design parameters are provided herein.
Allowable Soil -Bearing Capacities
An allowable soil -bearing capacity of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used
for 24 -inch square pad footings and 12 -inch wide continuous footings founded at a
minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. This value may
be increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of width or depth, to a maximum
value of 2,500 psf. Recommended allowable soil -bearing values include both dead
and live loads and may be increased by one-third when designing for short -duration
wind and seismic forces.
Anticipated Settlement
Based on the general settlement characteristics of the compacted fill soils, as well as
the anticipated loading, it has been estimated that the maximum total settlement of
building footings will be less than approximately 0.75 inch. Maximum differential
settlement over a horizontal distance of 30 feet is expected to be about one-half the
Ca
El
I
1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 8, 2002
1 TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 8
1 total settlement. The maximum anticipated differential settlement of 0.38 inch in 30
feet may be expressed as an angular distortion of 1:960.
ILateral Resist
1 A passive earth pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth to a maximum value of 2,500 psf
may be used to determine lateral -bearing resistance for building footings. Where
1 structures such as masonry block walls and retaining walls are planned on or near
descending slopes, the passive earth pressure should be reduced to 150 psf per foot of
1 depth to a maximum value of 1,500 psf In addition a coefficient of friction of 0.40
times the dead -load forces may also be used between concrete and the supporting soils
1 to determine lateral -sliding resistance. An increase of one-third of the above values
may also be used when designing for short -duration wind and seismic forces.
1 The above values are based on footings placed directly against compacted fill. In the
1 case where footing sides are formed, all backfill against the footings should be
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density.
1 Footing Observations
1 All footing trenches should be observed by a representative of Petra to verify that they
have been excavated into competent bearing soils and to the minimum embedments
1 recommended herein. The foundation excavations should be observed prior to the
placement of forms, reinforcement or concrete. The excavations should be trimmed
1 neat, level and square. All loose, sloughed or moisture -softened soil and any
construction debris should be removed prior to placing concrete.
Excavated soils derived from footing and utility trench excavations should not be
1 placed in slab -on -ground areas unless the soils are compacted to a minimum of 90
percent of maximum dry density.
1
1 ;e 3 ( � - -3 It
I
[1
1
11
I
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 8, 2002
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 9
Expansive Soil Considerations
Results of laboratory tests indicate onsite soil and bedrock materials exhibit VERY
LOW, LOW and MEDIUM expansion potentials as classified in accordance with
1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 18 -I -B. A lot -by -lot breakdown for the
different levels of expansion is provided below.
• Very Low Expansion Potential - Lots 9 through 23, 32, 35, 38 and 39
• Low Expansion Potential - Lots 24 through 31, 34, 36 and 37
• Medium Expansion Potential — Lot 33
Design and construction details for the various levels of expansion potential are
provided in the following sections.
Very Low Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 20 or less)
The following recommendations pertain to as -graded lots where the foundation soils
exhibit a VERY LOW expansion potential as classified in accordance with 1997 UBC
Table 18 -I -B. For soils exhibiting expansion indices of less than 20, the design of
slab -on -ground foundations is exempt from the procedures outlined in 1997 UBC
Section 1815. Based on this soil condition, it is recommended that footings and floors
be constructed and reinforced in accordance with the following minimum criteria.
However, additional slab thickness, footing sizes and/or reinforcement should be
provided as required by the project architect or structural engineer.
• Footines
Exterior continuous footings may be founded at the minimum depths indicated
in 1997 UBC Table 184-C (i.e., 12 -inch minimum depth for one-story and 18 -
inch minimum depth for two-story construction). Interior continuous footings
for both one- and two-story construction may be founded at a minimum depth
N ,I
to
I
'
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 8, 2002
'
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 10
of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. All continuous footings should
'
have a minimum width of 12 and 15 inches, for one- and two-story buildings,
respectively and should be reinforced with two No. 4 bars, one top and one
'
bottom.
Exterior pad footings intended for the support of roof overhangs, such as
'
second -story decks, patio covers and similar construction, should be a minimum
of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the
lowest adjacent final grade. No special reinforcement of the pad footings will
'
be required.
• Floor Slabs
'
Living -area concrete -floor slabs should be 4 inches thick and reinforced with
either 6 -inch by 6 -inch, No. 6 by No. 6 welded -wire fabric (6x6-W2.9xW2.9
1
WWF) or with No.3 bars spaced a maximum of 24 inches on center, both ways.
All slab reinforcement should be supported on concrete chairs or bricks to
'
ensure the desired placement near mid -depth.
Living -area concrete -floor slabs should be underlain with a moisture -vapor
'
barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane, such as 6 -mil Visqueen or
equivalent. All laps within the membrane should be sealed and at least 2 inches
of clean sand be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing of the
1
concrete.
Garage -floor slabs should be 4 inches thick and should be reinforced in a similar
manner as living -area floor slabs. Garage -floor slabs should also be placed
separately from adjacent wall footings with a positive separation maintained
with 3/8 -inch -minimum, felt expansion -joint materials and quartered with
'
weakened -plane joints. A 12 -inch -wide grade beam founded at the same depth
as adjacent footings should be provided across garage entrances. The grade
beam should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one
'
bottom.
Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below all concrete slab -on -ground
'
should be prewatered to promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize
the development of shrinkage cracks.
1
L
CRICHMOND
AMERICAN HOMES May 8, 2002
C
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 11
CLow
Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 21 to 50)
The following recommendations pertain to as -graded lots where the foundation soils
Cexhibit
a LOW expansion potential as classified in accordance with 1997 UBC
Table 18 -I -B. The 1997 UBC specifies that slab -on -ground foundations (floor slabs)
Cresting
on soils with an expansion index greater than 20 require special design
considerations in accordance with 1997 UBC Section 1815. The design procedures
Coutlined
in 1997 UBC Section 1815 are based on the thickness and plasticity index of
each different soil type existing within the upper 15 feet of the building site. For final
L
design purposes we have assumed an effective plasticity index of 12 in accordance
with 1997 UBC Section 1815.4.2.
i
J
The design and construction recommendations that follow are based on the above soil
conditions and may be considered for minimizing the effects of slightly (LOW)
expansive soils. These recommendations have been based on the previous experience
of Petra on projects with similar soil conditions. Although construction performed in
accordance with these recommendations has been found to minimize post -construction
rlmovement
and/or cracking, they generally do not positively mitigate all potential
effects of expansive soil action. The owner, architect, design civil engineer, structural
I
L
engineer and contractors must be made aware of the expansive -soil conditions which
exist at the site. Furthermore, it is recommended that additional slab thicknesses,
footing sizes and/or reinforcement more stringent than recommended below be
I I
provided as required or specified by the project architect or structural engineer.
• Footings
—` Exterior continuous footings may be founded at the minimum depths indicated
in 1997 UBC Table 18 -I -C (i.e., 12 -inch minimum depth for one-story and 18 -
inch minimum depth for two-story construction). Interior continuous footings
for both one- and two-story construction may be founded at a minimum depth
of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. All continuous footings should
It
It
I
I
1
11
1
C
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 8, 2002
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 13
Medium Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 51 to 90)
Results of our laboratory tests indicate onsite soils exhibit a MEDIUM expansion
potential as classified in accordance with 1997 UBC Table 18-1-B. The 1997 UBC
specifies that slab -on -ground foundations (floor slabs) on soils with an expansion
index greater than 20 require special design considerations in accordance with 1997
UBC Section 1815. The design procedures outlined in 1997 UBC Section 1815 are
based on a plasticity index of the different soil layers existing within the upper 15 feet
of the building site. Therefore, plasticity indices range from 16 to 17 were determined
for representative soils existing within the upper 15 feet of the site. Based on
subsurface stratigraphy and distribution of the different soil types, we have calculated
an effective plasticity index of 17 in accordance with 1997 UBC Section 1815.4.2.
The design and constriction recommendations that follow are based on the above soil
conditions and may be considered for minimizing the effects of moderately expansive
soils. These recommendations have been based on the previous experience of Petra on
projects with similar soil conditions. Although constriction performed in accordance
with these recommendations has been found to minimize post -constriction movement
and/or cracking, they generally do not positively mitigate all potential effects of highly
expansive soil. The owner, architect, design civil engineer, structural engineer and
contractors must be made aware of the expansive -soil conditions which exist at the
site. Furthermore, it is recommended that additional slab thicknesses, footing sizes
and/or reinforcement more stringent than recommended below be provided as required
or specified by the project architect or structural engineer.
• Footines
- Exterior continuous footings for both one- and two-story construction should be
founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade.
Interior continuous footings may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches
below the lowest adjacent grade for both one- and two-story construction. All
/V
I
' RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 8, 2002
1 TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 14
' continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12 and 15 inches, for one -
and two-story buildings, respectively, and should be reinforced with two No. 4
bars, one top and one bottom.
'
Exterior pad footings intended for the support of roof overhangs, such as second
story decks, patio covers and similar construction, should be a minimum of 24
'
inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest
adjacent final grade. The pad footings should be reinforced with No. 4 bars
spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways, near the bottom one-
third of the footings.
•
Floor Slabs
'
- The project architect or structural engineer should evaluate minimum floor -slab
thickness and reinforcement in accordance with 1997 UBC Section 1815 based
on an effective plasticity index of 20. Unless a more stringent design is
recommended by the architect or the structural engineer, we recommend a
minimum slab thickness of inches for both living -area and garage -floor slabs
and reinforcing consisting of No. 3 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on
centers, both ways. All slab reinforcement should be supported on concrete
'
chairs or bricks to ensure the desired placement near mid -height.
Living -area concrete -floor slabs should be underlain with a moisture -vapor
barrier consisting of a polyvinyl -chloride membrane, such as 6 -mil visqueen or
equivalent. All laps within the membrane should be sealed and at least 2 inches
of clean sand be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing of the
concrete.
Garage -floor slabs should also be placed separately from adjacent wall footings
with a positive separation maintained with 3/8 -inch -minimum, felt expansion -
joint materials and quartered with weakened -plane joints. A 12 -inch -wide grade
beam founded at the same depth as adjacent footings should be provided across
'
garage entrances. The grade beam should be reinforced with a minimum of two
No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom.
Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below all living -area and garage -
floor slabs should be pre -watered to achieve a moisture content that is 5 percent
' or greater than optimum -moisture content. This moisture content should
penetrate to a minimum depth of 18 inches into the subgrade soils.
'/ S
I
I
I
1
I
11
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 8, 2002
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 15
POST -TENSIONED SLABS
In lieu of the preceding recommendations for conventional footings and floor slabs,
post -tensioned slabs may be used. The actual design of post -tensioned slabs is referred
to the project structural engineer who is qualified in post -tensioned slab design, using
sound engineering practices. The post -tensioned slab -on -ground should be designed
in general conformance with the design specification os 1997 UBC Section 1816.
Alternate designs are allowed per 1997 UBC Section 1806.2 that addresses the effects
of expansive soils when present. However, to assist the structural engineer in his
design, the following parameters are recommended.
t'=
'Expanstoo lodea - -
„
y
)'ery Low
and Loe'.
(Oto 50):
(51 to 90)-•
Assumed percent clay
30
50
Clay type
Montmorillonite
Approximate depth of constant suction (feet)
7.0
7fl
Approximate soil suction (pF)
3.6
3.6
Approximate velocity m' moisture flow (inches/month)
0.7
0.7
Thomwaite Index
-20
-20
Average edge
Moisture variation depth, c,
(feet)
Center lift
4.6
5.3
Edge lift
22
25
Anticipated swell, y,,,
(inches)
Center lift
1A
3.2
Hd +cIitt
0A
0.8
• Perimeter footings for either one- or two-story dwellings may be founded at a
minimum depth of 12 inches below the nearest adjacent final -ground surface.
Interior footings may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the top
of the finish -floor slab.
• All dwelling -area floor slabs constructed on -ground should be underlain with a
moisture -vapor barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane, such as 6 -mil
It
��O
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula
May 8, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 16
Visqueen. A minimum of 1 inch of clean sand should be placed over the
membrane to promote uniform curing of the concrete.
• Presaturation of subgrade soils below slabs -on -ground will not be required.
However, subgrade soils should be thoroughly moistened prior to placing concrete.
• The design modulus of subgrade reaction (k) should be 300 tons per cubic foot.
SEISMIC -DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Ground Motions
Structures within the site should be designed and constructed to resist the effects of
seismic ground motions as provided in 1997 UBC Sections 1626 through 1633. The
method of design is dependent on the seismic zoning, site characteristics, occupancy
category, building configuration, type of structural system and on the building height.
For structural design in accordance with the 1997 UBC, a computer program
developed by Thomas F. Blake (UBCSEIS, 1998/1999) was utilized which compiles
fault information for a particular site using a modified version of a data file of
approximately 183 California faults that were digitized by the California Division of
Mines and Geology and the U.S. Geological Survey. This program computes various
information for a particular site including the distance of the site from each of the
faults in the data file, the estimated slip -rate for each fault and the "maximum moment
magnitude" of each fault. The program then selects the closest Type A, Type B and
Type C faults from the site and computes the seismic design coefficients for each of
the fault types. The program then selects the largest of the computed seismic design
coefficients and designates these as the design coefficients for the subject site.
' Based on the computer generated data using UBCSEIS, the Elsinore -Julian (Type A)
segment of the Elsinore fault zone, located approximately 12.1 kilometers from the
' site, could generate severe site ground motions with an anticipated maximum moment
t2
I
LJ
I
I
1
1
L
1
I
I
11
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula
May 8, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 17
magnitude of 7.1 and anticipated slip rate of 5.0 mm/year. However, the closest
Type B fault which is the Elsinore -Temecula fault located 1.3 kilometers to the
southwest of Tract 23066-2 would probably generate the most severe site ground
motions with an anticipated maximum moment magnitude of 6.8 and anticipated slip
rate of 5.0 mm/year. Based on our evaluation using UBCSEIS, the following 1997
UBC seismic design coefficients are recommended for the proposed residential
structures. These criteria are based on the soil profile type as determined by existing
subsurface geologic conditions, on the proximity of the Elsinore -Temecula fault and
on the maximum moment magnitude and slip rate.
SOIL CHEMISTRY
Laboratory test results indicate onsite soils contain negligible soluble -sulfate contents.
As such, concrete in contact with soil may utilize Type I or 1I Portland cement. The
laboratory test data for chloride concentration, resistivity and pH indicate onsite soils
may be slightly to moderately corrosive to buried steel in direct contact with onsite
soils.
N
1997 UBC TABLE
FACTOR
Figure 16-2 Seismic Zone
4
16-1
Seismic Zone Factor Z
0.4
16-U
Seismic Source Type
B
16-J
Soil Profile Type
Sp
16-S
Near -Source Factor N.
1.3
16-T
Near -Source Factor N,
1.6
16-Q
Seismic Coefficient C.
0.44 N. = 0.57
16-R
Seismic Coefficient C
0.64 N = 1.02
SOIL CHEMISTRY
Laboratory test results indicate onsite soils contain negligible soluble -sulfate contents.
As such, concrete in contact with soil may utilize Type I or 1I Portland cement. The
laboratory test data for chloride concentration, resistivity and pH indicate onsite soils
may be slightly to moderately corrosive to buried steel in direct contact with onsite
soils.
N
[_1
1
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 8, 2002
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 18
RETAINING WALLS
Footing Embedments
The base of retaining -wall footings constructed on level ground may be founded at a
minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. Where retaining
walls are proposed on or within 15 feet from the top of any adjacent descending fill
slope, the footings should be deepened such that a minimum horizontal setback of H/3
(one-third the slope height) is maintained between the outside bottom edges of the
footings and the slope face; however, the minimum footing setback should be 5 feet.
The above -recommended minimum footing setbacks are preliminary and may require
revision based on site-specific soil and/or bedrock conditions. All footing trenches
should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant to verify that the footing
trenches have been excavated into competent -bearing soils and/or bedrock and to the
minimum embedments recommended above. These observations should be performed
prior to placing forms or reinforcing steel.
Active and At -Rest Earth Pressures
An active lateral -earth pressure equivalent to a fluid having a density of 45 pounds per
cubic foot (pcf) should tentatively be used for design of cantilevered walls retaining
a drained, level backfill. Where the wall backfill slopes upward at 2:1 (h:v), the above
value should be increased to 75 pcf. All retaining walls should be designed to resist
any surcharge loads imposed by other nearby walls or structures in addition to the
above active earth pressures.
For design of retaining walls that are restrained at the top, an at -rest earth pressure
equivalent to a fluid having density of 68 pcf should tentatively be used for walls
supporting a level backfill. This value should be increased to 110 pcf for an ascending
2:1 (h:v) backfill.
W
I
I
11
I
I
1
[1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 8, 2002
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 19
Drainage
A perforated pipe -and -gravel subdrain should be installed behind all retaining walls
to prevent entrapment of water in the backfill. Perforated pipe should consist of 4 -inch
minimum diameter PVC Schedule 40 or ABS SDR -35, with the perforations laid
down. The pipe should be embedded in 1.5 cubic feet per foot of 0.75- to 1.5 -inch
open -graded gravel wrapped in filter fabric. Filter fabric may consist of Mirafi 140N
or equivalent.
In lieu of a pipe and gravel subdrain, weepholes or open vertical masonry joints may
be considered for retaining walls not exceeding a height of approximately 3 feet.
Weepholes, if used, should be 3 inches minimum diameter and provided at minimum
intervals of 6 feet along the wall. Open vertical masonry joints, if used, should be
provided at 32 -inch minimum intervals. A continuous gravel fill, 12 inches by 12
inches, should be placed behind the weepholes or open masonry joints. The gravel
should be wrapped in filter fabric to prevent infiltration of fines and subsequent
clogging of the gravel. Filter fabric may consist of Mirafi 140N or equivalent.
The backfilled portions of retaining walls should be coated with an approved
waterproofing compound to inhibit infiltration of moisture through the walls.
Temporary Excavations
To facilitate retaining -wall construction, the lower 5 feet of temporary slopes may be
cut vertical and the upper portions exceeding a height of 5 feet should then be cut back
at a maximum gradient of 1:1 (h:v) for the duration of construction. However, all
temporary slopes should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant for any
evidence of potential instability. Depending on the results of these observations, flatter
temporary slopes may be necessary. The potential effects of various parameters such
as weather, heavy equipment travel, storage near the tops of the temporary excavations
Me
ll
Cl
I
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula
May 8, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 20
and construction scheduling should also be considered in the stability of temporary
slopes.
Wall Backfill
All retaining -wall backfill should be placed in 6- to 8 -inch maximum lifts, watered or
air-dried as necessary to achieve near -optimum -moisture conditions and compacted in
place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent.
MASONRY BLOCK WALLS
Construction on or Near the Tops of Descending Slopes
Continuous footings for masonry block walls proposed on or within 7 feet from the top
of any descending slope should be deepened such that a minimum horizontal clearance
of 5 feet is maintained between the outside bottom edge of the footing and the slope
face. The footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top
and one bottom. Plans for any top -of -slope block walls proposing pier and grade -beam
footings should be reviewed by Petra prior to construction.
Construction on Level Ground
Where masonry block walls are proposed on level ground and at least 5 feet from the
tops of descending slopes, the footings for these walls may be founded at a minimum
depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. These footings should also
be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom.
Construction Joints
In order to mitigate the potential for unsightly cracking related to the effects of
differential settlement, positive separations (construction joints) should be provided
in the walls at horizontal intervals of approximately 25 feet and at each corner. The
I
I
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula
May 8, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 21
separations should be provided in the blocks only and not extend through the footings.
The footings should be placed monolithically with continuous rebars to serve as
effective "grade beams" along the full lengths of the walls.
CONCRETE FLATWORK
Thickness and Joint Spacing
To reduce the potential of unsightly cracking, concrete sidewalks and patio -type slabs
should be at least 3.5 inches thick and provided with construction or expansion joints
every 6 feet or less. Concrete driveway slabs should be at least 4 inches thick and
provided with constriction or expansion joints every 10 feet or less.
Subgrade Preparation
As a further measure to minimize cracking of concrete ilatwork, the subgrade soils
below concrete -flat -work areas should first be compacted to a minimum relative density
of 90 percent and then thoroughly wetted to achieve a moisture content that is at least
equal to or slightly greater than optimum moisture content. This moisture should
extend to a depth of 12 inches below subgrade and maintained in the soils during
placement of concrete. Pre -watering of the soils will promote uniform curing of the
concrete and minimize the development of shrinkage cracks. A representative of the
project soils engineer should observe and verify the density and moisture content of
the soils and the depth of moisture penetration prior to placing concrete.
PLANTERS
Area drains should be extended into all planters that are located within 5 feet of
building walls, foundations, retaining walls and masonry block garden walls to
minimize excessive infiltration of water into the adjacent foundation soils. The surface
a�
I
1
h�
I
I
I
1
I
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula
May 8, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 22
of the ground in these areas should also be sloped at a minimum gradient of 2 percent
away from the walls and foundations. Drip -irrigation systems are also recommended
to prevent overwatering and subsequent saturation of the adjacent foundation soils.
UTILITY TRENCHES
All utility -trench backfill within street right-of-ways, utility easements, under
sidewalks, driveways and building -floor slabs, as well as within or in proximity to
slopes should be compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent. Where
onsite soils are utilized as backfill, mechanical compaction will be required. Density
testing, along with probing, should be performed by the project soils engineer or his
representative, to verify proper compaction.
For deep trenches with vertical walls, backfill should be placed in approximately l- to
2 -foot thick maximum lifts and then mechanically compacted with a hydra -hammer,
pneumatic tampers or similar equipment. For deep trenches with sloped -walls, backfill
materials should be placed in approximately 8- to 12 -inch thick maximum lifts and
then compacted by rolling with a sheepsfoot tamper or similar equipment.
As an alternative for shallow trenches where pipe may be damaged by mechanical
compaction equipment, such as under building -floor slabs, imported clean sand having
a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into
place. No specific relative compaction will be required; however, observation, probing
and, if deemed necessary, testing should be performed.
To avoid point -loads and subsequent distress to clay, cement or plastic pipe, imported
sand bedding should be placed at least I foot above all pipe in areas where excavated
trench materials contain significant cobbles. Sand -bedding materials should be
thoroughly jetted prior to placement of backfill.
C? 3
I
IRICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 8, 2002
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 23
Where utility trenches are proposed parallel to any building footing (interior and/or
exterior trenches), the bottom of the trench should not be located within a 1:1 (h:v)
plane projected downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing.
SLOPE LANDSCAPING AND MAINTENANCE
' The engineered slopes within the subject tract are considered grossly and surficially
stable and are expected to remain so under normal conditions provided the slopes are
landscaped and maintained thereafter in accordance with the following minimum
recommendations.
• Compacted -earth berms should be constructed along the tops of the engineered fill
slopes to prevent water from flowing directly onto the slope surfaces.
• The slopes should be landscaped as soon as practical when irrigation water is
available. The landscaping should consist of deep-rooted, drought -tolerant and
maintenance -free plant species. A landscape architect should be consulted to
determine the most suitable groundcover. If landscaping cannot be provided within
a reasonable period of time, jute matting (or equivalent) or a spray -on product
• During construction of any terrace drains, downdrains or earth berms, care must be
taken to avoid placement of loose soil on the slope surfaces.
• A permanent slope -maintenance program should be initiated for major slopes not
maintained by individual homeowners. Proper slope maintenance must include the
Allk
'7y
designed to seal slope surfaces should be considered as a temporary measure to
inhibit surface erosion until such time permanent landscape plants have become
well-established.
Irrigation systems should be installed on the engineered slopes and a watering
program then implemented which maintains a uniform, near -optimum moisture
'
condition in the soils. Overwatering and subsequent saturation of the slope soils
should be avoided. On the other hand, allowing the soils to dry -out is also
'
detrimental to slope performance.
• Irrigation systems should be constructed at the surface only. Construction of
sprinkler tines in trenches is not recommended.
• During construction of any terrace drains, downdrains or earth berms, care must be
taken to avoid placement of loose soil on the slope surfaces.
• A permanent slope -maintenance program should be initiated for major slopes not
maintained by individual homeowners. Proper slope maintenance must include the
Allk
'7y
'
• Building Construction
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 8, 2002
Icompetent
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 24
- Re -observe all footing trenches, if necessary, if trenches are found to be
care of drainage and erosion control provisions, rodent control and repair of leaking
or damaged irrigation systems.
saturated or compressible soils.
• Provided the above recommendations are followed with respect to slope drainage,
maintenance and landscaping, the potential for deep saturation of slope soils is
considered very low.
- Observe all footing trenches when first excavated to verify adequate depth and
• Property owners should be advised of the potential problems that can develop when
drainage on the building pads and adjacent slopes is altered in any way. Drainage
can be altered due to the placement of 511 and construction of garden walls,
retaining walls, walkways, patios, swimming pool, spas and planters.
POST GRADING OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
Petra should be notified at the appropriate times in order that we may provide the
following observation and testing services during the various phases of post grading
construction.
as
• Building Construction
- Observe all footing trenches when first excavated to verify adequate depth and
Icompetent
soil -bearing conditions.
- Re -observe all footing trenches, if necessary, if trenches are found to be
excavated to inadequate depth and/or found to contain significant slough,
saturated or compressible soils.
- Observe pre-soaking of subgrade soils below living -area and garage floor slabs
to verify adequate moisture content and penetration.
• Retaining -Wall Construction
- Observe all footing trenches when first excavated to verify adequate depth and
competent soil -bearing conditions.
- Re -observe all footing trenches, if necessary, if trenches are found to be
excavated to inadequate depth and/or found to contain significant slough,
saturated or compressible soils.
as
I
1
I
1
1
I
11
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula
May 8, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 25
- Observe and verify proper installation of subdrainage systems prior to placing
wall backfill.
- Observe and test placement of all wall backfill to verify adequate compaction.
• Masonry Block -Wall Construction
- Observe all footing trenches when first excavated to verify adequate depth and
competent soil -bearing conditions.
- Re -observe all footing trenches, if necessary, if trenches are found to be
excavated to inadequate depth and/or found to contain significant slough,
saturated or compressible soils.
• Exterior Concrete-Flatwork Construction
- Observe and test subgrade soils below all concrete-flatwork areas to verify
adequate compaction and moisture content.
• Utility -Trench Backfill
- Observe and test placement of all utility -trench backfill to verify adequate
compaction.
• Re-Gradine
Observe and test placement of any fill to be placed above or beyond the grades
shown on the approved grading plans.
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 8, 2002
TR 23066-2 Lots 9-39/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 26
This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions,
please contact this office.
Respectfully submitted,
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
�E L
0Q�?6
LU i- No.1762Sem
U EXP. d
OFC
J
Geologist
/SMP/keb
S phen M. Poole
Senior Associate.
GE 692
Attachments: Table I - Lot -By -Lot Summary of As -Graded Soil Conditions
Table II - Field Density Test Results (1989)
Table III - Field Density Test Results (1997/1998)
Table IV - Field Density Test Results (2002)
References
Plates 1 and 2 - Geotechnical Maps with Density Test Locations
(in pocket)
Appendix A - Laboratory Test Criteria/Laboratory Test Data
Appendix B - Seismic Analysis
Distribution: (6) Addressee
L tAlc
F
No.
6920
CA
�? 7
I
1
I
[1
1
I
[1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
TABLE 1
LOT -BY -LOT SUMMARY OF
AS -GRADED SOIL CONDITIONS
1 PETRA
M
TABLE I Tract 23066-2 Lots 9 through 37
LOT -BY -LOT SUMMARY OF SOIL CONDITIONS
Lot
Number
Maximum
Fill Depth
(ft)
Differential
Fill
Thickness
(ft)
Estimated
Differential
Settlement
Soil
Expansion
Index/
Potential
Post-
Tensioned
Slab
Chloride
Exposure
Sulfate
Exposure
Soil
Condition
Codes*
Remarks
9
16
10
1:960
17/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
10
20
10
1:960
I/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
11
15
10
1:960
1/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
12
15
10
1:960
I/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
13
23
10
1:960
1/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
14
19
10
1:960
I/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
15
10
10
1:960
1/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
16
15
10
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
17
13
5
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
18
12
5
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
19
25.5
10
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
20
17
10
1:960
20/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
21
15
10
1:960
20/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
22
17
10
1:960
20/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
23
28
8
1:960
20/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
24
23
8
1:960
33/Low
Moderate
Negligible
E
25
16
8
1:960 -
33/Low
Moderate
Negligible
E
* per County of Riverside, Building and Safety Department Plan Check Memorandum dated April 5, 2001
Code Definitions (Reference: 1997 UBC):
E Foundations for structures resting on soils with an expansion index greater than 20 (Section 1803.2)
C For corrasion protection, if Table 19-A-2 is applicable
S If exposure of concrete to sulfate -containing solutions is moderate or higher per Table 19-A-4
D Differential deflection in the foundation due to differential settlement exceeds value in Table I8 -III -GG (consider Prefab Roof Trusses) [noted if>1:480]
P If post -tensioned slab system is to be used
Z If none of the above is applicable Plate T -I 1
�D
TABLE I Tract 23066-2 Lots 9 through 37
LOT -BY -LOT SUMMARY OF SOIL CONDITIONS
Lot
Number
Maximum
Fill Depth
(ft)
Differential
Fill
Thickness
(ft)
Estimated
Differential
Settlement
Soil
Expansion
Index/
Potential
Post-
Tensioned
Slab
Chloride
Exposure
Sulfate
Exposure
Soil
Condition
Codes*
Remarks
26
19
5
1:960
33/Low
Moderate
Negligible
E
27
21
2
1:960
33/Low
Moderate
Negligible
E
28
16
2
1:960
29/Low
Moderate
Negligible
E
29
31
2
1:960
29/Low
Moderate
Negligible
E
30
28
2
1:960
29/Low
Moderate
Negligible
E
31
28
2
1:960
29/Low
Moderate
Negligible
E
32
26
5
1:960
5/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
33
28
10
1:960
52/Medium
Moderate
Negligible
E
34
30
5
1:960
24/Low
Moderate
Negligible
E
35
31
5
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
36
34
5
1:960
44/Low
Moderate
Negligible
E
37
36
10
1:960
44/Low
Moderate
Negligible
E
38
26
10
1:960
7/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
39
24
5
L960
7/V Low
Moderate
i Negligible
Z
* per County of Riverside, Building and Safety Department Plan Check Memorandum dated April 5, 2001
Code Definitions (Reference: 1997 UBC):
E Foundations for structures resting on soils with an expansion index greater than 20 (Section 1803.2)
C For corrosion protection, if Table 19-A-2 is applicable
S If exposure of concrete to sulfate -containing solutions is moderate or higher per Table 19-A-4
D Differential deflection in the foundation due to differential settlement exceeds value in Table I8 -111 -GG (consider Prefab Roof Trusses) [noted if>1:4801
P If post -tensioned slab system is to be used
M► Z If none of the above is applicable Plate T-12
Q
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE II
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
(1989)
1 PETRA
a
I
I
i
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
TABLE II
Field Density Test Results
02/13/89
A273
Slope Lot 13
1154.0
14.9
115.3
90
5
02/13/89
A274
Slope Lot 13
1157.0
13.6
115.5
90
5
02/13/89
A275
Slope Lot 12
1159.0
13.6
118.9
91
12
02/13/89
A276
Slope Lot 13
1158.0
14.9
105.7
90
13
02/13/89
A279
Embassy Ave
1143.0
12.4
119.4
93
5
02/13/89
A282
Slope Lot 13
1162.0
12.4
121.7
93
12
02/14/89
A284
Slope Lot 13
1161.0
13.6
115.3
90
5
02/14/89
A285
Slope Lot 12
1164.0
13.6
116.5
91
5
02/14/89
A286
Slope Lot 12
1165.0
11.7
117.5
92
5
02/14/89
A287
Slope Lot 12
1167.0
11.1
117.9
90
12
02/14/89
A288
Slope Lot 12
1168.0
12.4
117.7
90
12
02/14/89
A289
Slope Lot 14
1169.0
12.4
117.7
90
12
02/14/89
A290
Slope Lot 11
1170.0
I L l
121.8
93
12
02/14/89
A291
Slope Lot 13
1172.0
11.1
119.0
93
5
02/14/89
A292
Slope Lot 13
1171.0
10.5
116.2
91
5
02/15/89
A294
Slope Lot 14
1174.0
8.4
115.9
91
1
02/15/89
A295
Slope Lot 11
1176.0
8.0
114.8
91
B
02/15/89
A296
Slope Lot 14
1175.0
10.5
116.6
93
B
02/15/89
A297
Slope Lot 12
1177.0
7.5
119.1
91
B
02/15/89
A298
Slope Lot 13
1178.0
8.4
114.4
91
B
02/15/89
A299
Slope Lot 12
1179.0
9.9
117.4
90
B
02/15/89
A300
Slope Lot 14
1180.0
10.5
113.4
90
B
02/15/89
A301
Slope Lot 12
1181.0
9.9
113.6
90
B
02/16/89
A302
Slope Lot 10
1184.0
11.7
116.9
93
B
02/16/89
A303
Slope Lot 13
1182.0
17.5
105.3
90
U
02/16/89
A304
Slope Lot 15
1181.0
12.4
113.9
90
B
02/16/89
A305
Slope Lot 13
1182.0
11.1
115.9
92
B
02/16/89
A306
Slope Lot 10
1186.0
11.1
115.8
92
B
02/16/89
A307
Slope Lot 12
1183.0
11.7
118.9
92
2
04/13/89
A525
Slope Lot 19
1173.0
10.5
116.7
84
5
04/13/89
A526
RT No. 525
--
12.4
115.8
90
5
04/13/89
A527
Slope Lot 19
1175.0
11.1
116.6
91
5
04/13/89
A528
Slope Lot 19
1177.0
10.5
116.3
91
5
04/13/89
A529
Slope _Lot 20
1180.0
9.9
119.4
91
12
04/13/89
A531
Slope Lot 19
1181.0
11.1
118.6
92
2
04/13/89
A532
Slope Lot 19
1180.0
10.5
117.4
91
2
04/13/89
A533
Slope Lot 18
1183.0
9.9
114.3
90
N
04/13/89
A534
Slope Lot 20
1182.0
10.5
117.0
91
2
04/13/89
A535
Slope Lot 20
1184.0
10.5
116.9
91
2
04/14/89
A536
Slope Lot 20
1184.0
9.9
117.1
92
N
04/14/89
A537
Slope Lot 21
1188.0
9.9
116.8
92
N
04/14/89
A541
Slope Lot 19
1186.0
10.5
107.4
87
E
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TR 23066-2/Lots 9-39
MAY 2002
J. N.
181-01
1989-1999
TABLE -II 1
y1
I
1
I
[1
I
I
I
[1
TABLE 11
Field Density Test Results
03/21/90
A934
Slope Lot 13
1195.0
16.7
104.8
90
20
03/21/90
A935
Lot 13
1196.0
17.6
105.1
90
28
03/21/90
A936
Lot 14
1198.0
11.4
111.6
91
20
03/21/90
A937
Lot 13
1199.0
15.4
108.8
91
22
03/21/90
A938
Slope Lot 12
1197.0
12.2
113.0
92
20
03/21/90
A939
Lot 14
1199.0
11.1
115.8
90
18
03/21/90
A940
Lot 16
1201.0
13.1
116.1
91
18
03/21/90
A941
Slope Lot 16
1202.0
13.5
111.7
91
20
03/22/90
A942
Lot 12
1195.0
18.3
110.5
94
28
03/22/90
A943
Slope Lot 13
1191.0
23.6
100.8
90
8
03/22/90
A944
Slope Lot 15
1202.0
23.3
103.6
93
8
03/22/90
A945
Lot 15
1203.0
19.8
105.6
90
28
03/22/90
A946
Slope Lot 11
1195.0
14.4
116.3
91
18
03/22/90
A947
Lot 12
1198.0
18.2
109.4
94
28
03/22/90
A948
Slope Lot 16
1204.0
11.1
116.0
91
18
03/22/90
A949
Lot 15
1205.0
15.1
110.1
90
20
03/22/90
A950
Lot 19
1200.0
16.1
99.9
83
22
03/22/90
A951
Lot 20
1201.0
13.0
117.8
93
21
03/22/90
A952
RT No. 950
--
19.5
107.5
90
22
03/22/90
A953
Lot 19
1196.0
11.6
114.8
90
18
03/22/90
A954
Slope Lot 19
1198.0
10.8
116.2
91
18
03/22/90
A955
Slope Lot 19
1199.0
15.3
112.1
90
7
03/22/90
A956
Slope Lot 20
1200.0
12.1
112.4
90
7
03/22/90
A957
Slope Lot 19
1201.0
9.2
112.5
90
7
03/22/90
A958
Lot 19
1201.0
10.2
112.5
90
7
03/22/90
A959
Slope Lot 18
102.0
11.5
147.6
92
7
03/23/90
A970
Lot 23
1202.0
10.7
115.3
90
18
03/23/90
A971
Lot 23
1204.0
10.7
120.1
94
18
03/23/90
A972
Slope Lot 22
1200.0
19.6
108.3
90
22
03/23/90
A973
Slope Lot 21
1201.0
15.7
114.3
93
20
03/23/90
A974
Slope Lot 20
1203.0
19.0
106.8
91
28
03/23/90
A975
Slope Lot 18
1204.0
12.7
116.5
95
20
03/23/90
A976
Lot 20
1203.0
19.5
107.7
92
28
03/23/90
A977
Lot 19
1204.0
24.1
101.5
91
8
03/23/90
A978
Lot 23
1206.0
18.0
109.7
94
28
03/23/90
A979
Lot 23
1207.0
17.0
109.6
94
28
03/23/90
A980
Slope Lot 23
1203.0
20.0
104.3
93
8
03/23/90
A981
Slope Lot 22
1204.0
12.2
116.9
93
21
03/23/90
A982
Lot 20
1206.0
18.5
108.4
93
28
03/23/90
A983
Lot 18
1208.0
13.9
117.1
91
5
03/23/90
A984
Lot 24
1208.0
17.8
108.3
93
28
03/23/90
A985
' Lot 22
1210.0
11.4
113.8
93
20
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL,
INC.
TR 23066-2/Lots 9-39
MAY 2002
J.N. 181-01
1989-1999
TABLE -II 3
3v
TABLE II
Field Density Test Results
3S
03/23/90
A986
Slope Lot 21
1207.0
12.1
114.3
93
20
'03/23/90
03/26/90
A987
A988
Slope Lot 19
Lot 21
1209.0
1211.0
9.9
10.6
115.6
113.3
90
92
5
20
03/26/90
A989
Lot 20
1212.0
14.7
112.3
91
20
A990
Slope Lot 18
1210.0
14.5
116.0
91
5
'03/26/90
03/26/90
A991
Slope Lot 17
1208.0
10.6
117.5
92
5
03/26/90
A992
Lot 16
1207.0
12.6
113.9
93
20
03/26/90
A993
Slope Lot 17
1209.0
12.5
118.5
93
5
03/26/90
A994
Lot 19
1210.0
13.7
116.0
91
5
03/26/90
A995
Lot 20
1211.0
14.4
112.5
91
20
03/26/90
A996
Slope Lot 22
1209.0
.9.1
116.0
91
5
03/26/90
A997
Lot 23
1210.0
10.6
115.3
90
5
07/24/90
A1213
Lot 18
1210.0
13.5
110.5
90
20
07/24/90
A1214
Lot 19
1212.0
13.8
116.7
91
14
07/24/90
A1215
Lot 19
1213.0
12.8
108.5
90
22
07/24/90
A1216
Lot 22
1211.0
10.5
114.7
90
14
07/24/90
A 1217
Lot 22
1212.0
9.3
115.1
90
14
07/24/90
A1218
Lot 24
1214.0
13.8
113.6
90
4
07/24/90
A1219
Lot 24
1215.0
12.0
113.2
90
4
07/24/90
A1220
Lot 21
1213.0
12.4
121.2
90
6
07/24/90
A1221
Slope Lot 21
1214.0
22.0
102.5
92
8
07/25/90
A1222
Lot 20
1215.0
15.1
109.3
87
4
07/25/90
A1223
Slope Lot 20
1215.0
13.0
115.3
92
4
07/25/90
A1224
Lot 23
1215.0
13.6
118.6
94
4
'
07/25/90
A1225
Slope Lot 23
1214.0
13.8
113.6
90
4
07/25/90
A1226
RT No. 1222
--
13.8
117.1
91
14
A1227
Lot 21
1216.0
14.7
116.1
91
14
'07/25/90
07/25/90
A1228
Lot 24
1216.0
13.3
117.2
92
14
07/25/90
A1229
Lot 25
1217.0
14.0
109.4
87
4
07/26/90
A 1230
RT No. 1229
--
15.9
111.7
90
7
07/26/90
A1231
Rhine Ave
1218.0
14.3
112.6
90
7
07/26/90
A1232
Rhine Ave
1214.0
15.0
115.0
90
14
07/26/90
A1233
Rhine Ave
1215.0
14.5
111.6
93
7
07/26/90
A1234
Slope Lot 26
1208.0
13.7
111.1
93
22
07/26/90
A1235
Slope Lot 27
1210.0
14.3
111.3
93
22
'07/27/90
A1236
Slope Lot 28
1211.0
16.8
108.5
90
22
07/27/90
A1237
Slope Lot 27
1212.0
15.3
111.7
93
22
07/27/90
A1238
Slope Lot 26
1213.0
13.8
112.3
90
7
'
07/27/90
A1239
Slope Lot 26
1215.0
16.8
107.7
90
22
07/27/90
A1240
Slope Lot 33
1214.0
12.2
106.7
91
13
07/27/90
A1241
Slope Lot 33
1215.0
12.1
107.7
90
22
07/27/90
A1242
Slope Lot 27
1215.0
9.4
112.5
90
7
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TR 23066-2/Lots 9-39
MAY 2002
'
J.N. 181-01
1989-1999
TABLE -II 4
3S
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
' J.N. 181-01
TABLE II
Field Density Test Results
1216.0
16.5
107.1
92
13
1216.0
14.7
110.5
92
22
1217.0
15.4
TEST
PEST
22
1218.0
DATE
NO.
I
'
1219.0
14.0
106.8
91
07/27/90
A1243
Slope Lot 27
'07/27/90
07/27/90
A 1244
A1245
Lot 26
Lot 26
15.9
07/30/90
A1246
Lot 35
A1247
Lot 35
'07/30/90
07/30/90
A1248
Lot 11
07/30/90
A1249
Lot 12
1
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
' J.N. 181-01
TABLE II
Field Density Test Results
1216.0
16.5
107.1
92
13
1216.0
14.7
110.5
92
22
1217.0
15.4
110.7
92
22
1218.0
13.5
114.8
90
14
1219.0
14.0
106.8
91
13
1199.0
8.0
118.8
90
9
1200.0
15.9
107.8
92
13
TR 23066-2/Lots 9-39
1989-1999
MAY 2002
TABLE -II 5
.�6
1
TABLE III
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
(1997/1998)
1
1
'
1 PETRA
37
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
12/02/97
B1
Rhine Ave
1207.0
9.0
116.1
91
6
12/03/97
B2
Lot 25
1213.0
9.7
115.4
90
6
12/03/97
B3
Rhine Ave
1218.0
8.6
116.0
91
6
12/04/97
B4
Lot 21
1209.0
8.6
118.0
91
3
12/04/97
B5
Lot 18
1209.0
8.2.
119.5
92
3
12/04/97
B6
Lot 27
1215.0
9.0
119.3
92
3
12/04/97
137
Lot 23
1215.0
8.1
117.4
90
3
12/05/97
08
Lot 84
1220.0
10.9
110.4
90
2
12/05/97
B9
Lot 37
1220.0
11.6
1 1 1.0
91
2
12/05/97
BIO
Lot 20
1211.0
10.2
109.8
90
2
12/08/97
B11
Rhine Ave
1211.0
9.6
118.5
92
6
12/08/97
B12
Lot 18
1213.0
8.3
120.4
92
4
12/08/97
B13
Lot 22
1213.0
8.0
114.0
87
4
12/08/97
B14
RT No. B-13
8.2
119.3
90
4
12/09/97
B15
Rhine Ave/Lot 20
1215.0
10.8
111.5
90
5
12/09/97
B16
Lot 22
1217.0
10.4
113.4
91
5
12/09/97
617
Lot 23
1219.0
10.5
112.2
90
5
12/11/97
B18
Lot 28
1221.0
9.6
119.2
93
6
12/11/97
B19
Lot 33
1221.0
9.0
118.2
92
6
12/11/97
B20
Lot 26
1223.0
8.4
120.9
92
4
12/11/97
B21
Rhine Ave
1223.0
8.0
120.2
92
4
12/11/97
B22
Lot 29
1225.0
7.8
119.1
91
4
12/11/97
B23
Lot 84
1225.0
9.0
111.0
87
6
12/11/97
B24
RT No. B-23
--
8.8
116.9
91
6
12/11/97
B25
Rhine Ave
1227.0
9.5
118.3
92
6
12/12/97
B26
Lot 33
1227.0
12.7
106.9
91
1
12/12/97
B27
Lot 36
1227.0
12.9
107.2
92
1
12/12/97
B28
Lot 29
1229.0
11.8
107.2
92
1
12/12/97
B29
Lot 32
1229.0
11.5
106.0
90
1
12/12/97
B30
Lot 84
1229.0
10.1
116.9
91
6
12/12/97
B31
Lot 31
1231.0
8.8
119.0
93
6
12/12/97
B32
Lot 84
1231.0
9.5
117.5
92
6
12/12/97
B33
Lot 35
1231.0
12.7
115.6
93
7
12/12/97
B34
Rhine Ave
1233.0
13.6
116.2
94
7
12/12/97
B35
Lot 84
1233.0
12.0
115.3
90
7
12/13/97
B36
Rhine Ave
1233.0
7.7
117.0
90
3
12/13/97
B37
Lot 34
1235.0
8.9
118.6
91
3
12/13/97
B38
Rhine Ave
1235.0
8.0
117.5
90
3
12/13/97
B39
Lot 84
1235.0
8.2
109.8
85
3
12/13/97
B40
RT No. B-39
--
8.1
117.9
91
3
12/13/97
B41
Rhine Ave/Lot 35
1237.0
9.2
116.7
91
6
12/13/97
B42
Lot 84
1237.0
10.7
116.3
91
6
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-2 MAY 2002
' J.N. 188-01 1997-1998 TABLE -III 1
0
12/13/97
12/31/97
01/07/98
01/08/98
01/09/98
02/12/98
02/12/98
t
1
1
1
TABLE 111
Field Density Test Results
B43
Lot 37
1237.0
10.6
112.8
88 6
B44
RT No. B-43
--
9.9
118.3
92 6
B45
Lot 84
1239.0
8.5
121.4
93 3
B46
Lot 36
1239.0
10.7
119.7
92 3
B47
Lot 84
1239.0
11.4
119.4
92 3
B48
Lot 35
1241.6
10.2
117.8
91 3
B49
Lot 37
1243.0
8.8
116.7
91 6
B50
Lot 37
1245.0
8.0
117.1
91 6
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-2 MAY 2002
' J.N. 188-01 1997-1998 TABLE -111 2
3f
I
I
I
I
I TABLE IV
i
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
1
(2002 )
I
I
I
LJ
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 PETRA
yo
I TABLE IV
�
Field Density Test Results
04/02/02
l
\/auv`vtoLxux
1238.0
13.1
118.4
90
l
04/02/02
2
\/xoov/ooLuoo
1239.0
12.3
|lYJ
A]
l
Q�
04/02/02
3
Vaoomcol.uut
1241.0
10.7
128.6
90
2
04/02/0I
4
\/uoowxuLxoo
1242.0
103
1217
91
2
04/02/02
5
\/xuoneuLuoe
1240.0
9.7
125.1
94
3
N�
04/02/02
6
Vuoowe«l.xnx
1239.0
12.7
1170
91
4
04/03/02
7
Lot 34
1242.0
12.7
1148
90
4
04/03/02
8
Lot 35
1243.0
12.4
113.9
89
4
°~
04/03/02
9
Lot 30
1233.0
9.0
115.8
88
l
04/03/02
10
Lot 30
12340
128
112.9
88
4
�
04/03/02
|l
Lot 34
1243.0
8.4
119.0
90
l
04/03/02
12
}(7No. 8
-
11.4
122.1
91
2
04/03/02
13
L"/32
1238.0
12.4
117.1
91
4
N�
w�
04/03/02
14
Lot 33
1239.0
13.6
1118
87
4
04/03/02
15
RTNo. 9
-
11.0
119.2
VA*
3
04/03/02
16
RT No. lV
-
12.1
117.7
92*
4
04/03/02
17
Lot 28
1239.0
12.3
117.7
92*
4
04/03/02
18
Lot 29
1230.0
11.8
119.6
Yl
|
04/03/02
19
Lot 26
1227.0
11.3
115.7
90
4
m�
04/03/02
20
Lot 26
1228.0
140
115.8
90
4
04/03/02
21
Lot 29
1132.0
12.7
1212
91
2
N�
04/03/02
22
RlNo. lJ
-
11.5
1219
Vl
2
�
04/03/02
23
Lot 27
1230.0
11.1
115.0
90
3
04/03/02
24
Lot 28
1232.0
13.5
113J
88
4
N�
04/03/02
25
Lot 31
1235.0
10.8
122-9
93
2
�
04A03/02
26
Lot 25
1226V
10.1
120.9
Vl
2
04/03/02
27
Lot 26
1227.0
11.0
120.7
90
2
04/03/02
28
Lot 31
1230.0
15.2
118.8
90
l
04/03/02
29
8TNo. 24
-
11.7
121.5
91
2
04/03/02
30
87No. l4
-
157
108.0
91
5
�
w�
04/03/02
31
Lot 34
1242.0
15.4
110.1
93
F
04/04/02
32
Lot 24
1221.0
11.4
123.6
93
2
04/04/02
33
Lot 24
1222.0
11.9
118.5
AV
l
m�
04/04/02
34
Lot 28
1233.0
9.1
118.0
40*
l
04/04/02
35
Lot 27
1234.0
11.7
1168
41*
4
04/04/02
36
Lot 22
1218.0
106
120.8
42
l
04/04/02
37
Lot 22
1219.0
8.8
118.4
90
l
�
04/04/02
04/04/02
38
39
Lot 19
Lot 20
1213.0
1214.0
8.9
11.3
123.1
118.6
92
40*
2
l
04/04/02
40
Lot 21
1216.0
10.4
1240
93
2
04/04/02
41
Lot 22
1217.0
11.6
118.5
90
4
�m
04/04/02
42
Lot 23
1224.0
11.9
118.0
92
4
PETRAGEOTECHNICAL,
INC.
l[R|23866^2/Lmts 9~39
MAY 2002
J.N. 188~01
°Sandcom8
TABLE^IV1
Field De noity Te stNesolts
41)
04/04/02
43
Lot 24
1225.0
92
120.3
90
2
04/04/02
44
Lot 19
1216.8
9.9
118.6
90
l
04/04/02
45
Lot 20
1217.0
10.3
1159
88
l
04/04/02
46
Lot 21
1222.0
13.5
108.4
84
4
04/04/02
47
Lot 22
1223.0
11.4
117.3
Vl
4
mm
04/04/02
48
Lot 23
12250
12.4
116.2
Vl
4
04/04/02
49
Lot 24
1226.0
11.1
119.3
91
l
84/08/02
50
\/unowxoLuoo
1245.0
12.6
119.0
90
]
�
04/04/02
51
|}TNo. 45
-
11.5
122.3
93
|
N�
�
04/04/02
84/04/02
52
53
Lot 20
D7`No. 46
1218.0
-
11.5
12.1
121.6
117.2
92
Al
l
4
04/04/02
54
Lot 25
1230.0
15.0
1159
90
4
04/05/02
55
Lot 19
1220.0
90
1130
88
4
0�
04/05/02
56
Lot 19
1229.0
8.3
111.8
82
4
04/05/02
57
Lot 21
1224.0
7.8
116.5
yl
4
04/05/02
58
Lot 17
1215.0
6.4
115.4
89
4
N�
04/05/02
59
Lot 20
1219.0
9.8
/21.6
92
l
04/05/0I
60
l.oL 18
1216.0
10.0
1208
92
l
N�
04/05/02
61
Lot 37
1249.0
10.1
121.3
92
}
�
�=
04/05/02
62
Lot 37
1250.0
100
117.9
92
4
04/05/02
63
Lot 36
1251.0
11.7
120.5
92
l
04/05/02
64
Lot 35
1247.0
11.2
123.6
94
l
--
04/05/02
65
Lot 36
1250.0
9.2
122.7
93
l
N�
�
04/05/02
04/05/02
66
07
Lot 37
Lot 37
125).0
1250.0
8.1
7.4
1122
110.4
87
86
4
4
04/08/02
68
YuoovvooLuno
1248.0
8.5
1250
95
l
04/08/02
69
Vuoov/ool.uoe
1249.0
10.9
121.6
92
l
0�
04/08/02
70
\/uoon/eoLuuo
1248.0
13.2
119.2
91
l
04/08/02
71
RTNo. 60
-
10.2
115.9
90
4
04/08/02
72
81[No. 67
-
9.8
116.7
Al
4
N�
04/08/02
73
\/uoon/cul.xue
12500
12.7
119.4
Vl
l
04/08/02
74
\/aouweol.uoe
1251.0
11.6
120.6
92
l
04/08/02
75
l.nt 38
1232.0
13.5
110.8
91
4
�
04/09/02
76
Lot 2Aslope
1208.0
12.3
121.4
91
2
04/09/02
77
Lot 2lslope
1200.0
11.4
123.2
92
2
04/09/02
78
lot 24 slope
1209.0
5.2
110.0
82
2
--
04/09/02
79
8'[No. 78
-
10.3
120.7
90
2
�
04/09/02
04/09/02
80
81
Lot 36
Lot 38
1251.0
1228.0
12.3
9.8
117.7
121.0
92
93
4
l
04/09/02
82
Lot 38
1226.0
0.8
117.5
92
4
04/09/02
83
Lot 38
1230.0
11.4
113.2
93
D
N�
04/04/02
84
Lot 39
1229.0
11.9
113.2
93
C)
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL,
INC.
TR 23066-2/LNts0^39
MAY 2002
J.N. 188^01
° SaNdCone
TABLE -IV 2
41)
I
[1
1
1
[1
TABLE IV
Field Density Test Results
04/09/02
85
Lot 25 slope
1211.0
11.9
111.1
87 3
04/09/02
86
Lot 25 slope
1212.0
6.7
113.6
89 3
04/09/02
87
Lot 22 slope
1210.0
10.7
116.6
91 4
04/09/02
88
Lot 22 slope
1211.0
8.9
121.9
92 2
04/09/02
89
Lot 39 slope
1233.0
17.2
108.1
89 D
04/09/02
90
Lot 39
1234.0
14.0•
110.9
91 D
04/09/02
91
Lot 39
1233.0
13.9
115.6
90 4
04/09/02
92
Lot 39
1234.0
11.3
116.8
91 4
04/09/02
93
RT No. 85
11.1
114.8
90 3
04/09/02
94
RT NO. 86
12.4
124.8
93 2
04/09/02
95
Lot 37
1252.0
12.0
117.7
92 4
04/09/02
96
Lot 37
1253.0
13.9
116.2
90 4
04/09/02
97
Lot 27 slope
1217.0
16.3
110.4
90 D
04/09/02
98
Lot 27 slope
1218.0
16.1
116.1
91 3
04/09/02
99
Lot 19 slope
1210.0
13.7
115.2
90 3
04/09/02
100
Lot 19 slope
1211.0
14.6
116.3
93 3
04/09/02
101
Lots 36-37
1252.0
6.2
118.1
91 4
04/09/02
102
Lot 37
1253.0
9.4
121.1
95 4
04/09/02
103
RT No. 89
10.5
115.1
90 4
04/09/02
104
Lot 39
1235.0
16.2
111.0
91 D
04/09/02
105
Lot 38 slope
1239.0
13.2
109.2
90* D
04/09/02
106
Lot 38 slope
1240.0
12.3
111.0
91* D
04/10/02
107
Lot 24 slope
1219.0
13.0
115.7
90 4
04/10/02
108
Lot 24 slope
1220.0
13.4
116.9
91 4
04/10/02
109
Lot 20 slope
1211.0
14.7
114.8
90 3
04/10/02
110
Lot 20 slope
1212.0
11.2
119.1
91 1
04/10/02
111
Lot 38
1242.0
14.3
110.2
90 D
04/10/02
112
Lot 38
.1241.0
16.7
109.8
90 D
04/10/02
113
Lot 19
1213.0
9.6
118.3
92* 4
04/10/02
114
Lot 19
1214.0
9.2
119.2
91* l
04/10/02
115
Lot 26 slope
1220.0
13.4
118.5
90 1
04/10/02
116
Lot 26 slope
1221.0
11.1
118.7
90 1
04/10/02
117
RT No. 55
12.6
121.6
91 2
04/10/02
118
RT No. 56
12.6
120.2
90 2
04/10/02
119
RT No. 58
10.8
119.8
91 1
04/10/02
120
Lot 15
1211.0
11.2
120.8
90 2
04/10/02
121
Lot 39
1236.0
13.5
115.0
90 4
04/10/02
122
Lot 39
1238.0
15.5
116.6
91 4
04/10/02
123
Lots 36-37
1254.0
11.4
121.0
93 1
04/10/02
124
Lot 37
1255.0
13.4
117.5
90 1
04/10/02
125
Lot 38
1240.0
11.2
115.4
91 3
04/10/02
126
Lot 39
1241.0
11.2
122.1
92 2
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL,
INC.
TR 23066-2/Lots 9 - 39
MAY 2002
J.N. 188-01
* Sandcone
TABLE -IV 3
711"
' TABLE IV
m>,�m �.,,«.. m^gym Field Density Test Results
'
' rrn iw. ::uv..�a a avi• ay i� ( u Ji(7PI: E 2E7
04/10/02 127 Lot 17 slope 1210.0 1.4 115.9 90 4
04/10/02
128
Lot 17 slope
1211.0
12.6
119.4
91 1
04/10/02
129
Lot 27 slope
1219.0
14.0
120.4
90* 2
04/10/02
130
Lot 27 slope
1220.0
14.6
117.8
92* 4
yy
04/10/02
131
Lot 36
1252.0
10.3
124.3
93 2
04/10/02
132
Lot 36
1253.0
14.2
118.4
90 1
04/10/02
133
Lot 37
1254.0
11.3
119.9
91 1
04/10/02
134
Lot 37
1255.0
11.4
122.7
93 1
04/11/02
135
Lot 17
1213.0
12.3
118.5
90 1
04/11/02
136
Lot 18
1214.0
10.6
121.0
91 2
04/11/02
137
Lot 15
1210.0
12.2
124.0
93 2
04/11/02
138
Lot 16
1212.0
11.8
124.2
93* 2
04/11/02
139
Lot 11
1202.0
8.8
116.1
90 4
04/11/02
142
Lot 15
1211.0
9.7
119.3
91 1
04/11/02
143
Lot 16
1213.0
11.7
120.2
90 2
144
Lot 27 slope
1227.0
14.0
115.2
88 1
'04/11/02
04/11/02
145
Lot 26 slope
1228.0
14.5
115.6
88 1
04/11/02
146
Lot 24 slope
1221.0
14.0
110.8
87 3
04/11/02
147
Lot 24 slope
1221.0
13.8
115.4
91 3
04/11/02
148
Lot 11
1200.0
10.5
114.7
90 3
04/11/02
149
Lot 12
1201.0
10.4
115.8
91 3
04/11/02
150
RT No. 144
11.0
118.8
90 1
04/11/02
151
RT No. 145
10.2
118.7
90 1
152
RT No. 146
11.3
120.0
91 1
'04/11/02
04/11/02
153
Lot 17
1214.0
12.6
118.1
92 4
04/11/02
154
Lot 18
1215.0
13.8
116.2
90 4
157
Lot 14
1203.0
7.1
118.5
90 1
'04/11/02
04/11/02
158
Lot 14
1204.0
10.9
121.2
91 4
04/11/02
159
Lot 22 slope
1221.0
7.7
124.5
93 4
04/11/02
160
Lot 22 slope
1222.0
.9.0
119.9
91 1
04/11/02
161
Lot 30 slope
1232.0
10.0
124.6
91 4
04/11/02
162
Lot 30 slope
1233.0
11.6
124.0
93 4
'04/12/02
166
Lot
1190.0
16.8
116.8
91 4
04/12/02
167
Lot 9
1191.0
15.9
118.1
92 4
04/12/02
168
Lot 19
1219.0
13.7
123.7
92 2
04/12/02
169
Lot 20
1221.0
9.9
118.6
90 1
04/12/02
170
Lot 24
1228.0
8.3
125.3
94 2
04/12/02
171
Lot 23
1227.0
8.4
118.0
92 4
04/12/02
172
Lot 29 slope
1235.0
10.8
122.2
92 2
04/12/02
173
Lot 29 slope
1236.0
10.3
119.9
91 1
04/11/02
04/12/02
163
176
Lots
Lot 10
1175.0
1196.0
14.8
13.8
110.8
91 D
119.8
91 7
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL,
INC.
TR 23066-2/Lots 9 - 39
MAY 2002
'
J.N. 188-01
* Sandcone
TABLE -IV 4
yy
�TABLE IV
Field Density Test Results
04/12/02
177
Lot 11
1198.0
139
121.8
Y|
2
04/12/02
178
Lot 16
1214.0
12.4
121.9
Vi*
2
04/12/02
179
Lot 17
1215.0
119
1210
91*
2
04/12/02
180
Lot 21
1222.0
6.9
122.4
92*
7
04/12/02
181
Lot 21
1223.0
13.0
117.7
92
4
w�
04/12/02
182
Lot
1194.0
14.9
110.7
91
D
04/12/02
183
Lot 10
1197.0
15.3
119.2
93
4
N�
04/12/02
184
Lot 13
1206.0
13.4
114.8
90
3
�
04/15/02
188
Lot 17
1216.0
10.6
115.5
Vi
3
04/15/02
189
Lot 17
1217.0
11.4
114.8
90
3
�
04/15/02
190
Lot 15
1212.0
7.5
120.5
90
3
04/15/02
191
Lot 13
1207.0
14.5
116.5
91
3
04/15/02
192
Lot 13
1208.0
13.5
115.7
Vl
3
N�
04/15/0I
193
Lot 11
1202.0
12.6
116.8
91
4
04/15/02
194
Lot 10
1198.0
15.7
115.3
00
3
04/15/02
195
Lot 9.
1194.0
12.4
115.5
41*
3
04/16/02
219
|.o(37
1256.0
9.1
124.7
93
2
04/16/02
220
Lot J6
1254.0
10.8
124.0
93
2
04/16/02
221
Lot 38slope
1253.0
12.1
121.0
91
2
04/16/02
222
Lot 38slope
1250.0
12.2
123.0
92
2
04/16/02
223
Lot 35slope
1252.0
11.6
121.7
yl
2
04/16/02
224
Lot 35
1248.0
10.6
120.3
90
2
�
04/17/02
205
Lot 38
F(3
8.8
1196
91
l
N�
�
04/17/02
04/17/02
266
267
Lot 39slope
Lot 39
F8
PG
13.1
10.7
120.5
104.8
92
82
l
4
04/17/02
268
Lot 39slope
P{}
10.7
106.8
83
4
04/17/02
269
Lot 9Yslope
RG
13.1
109.6
85
4
04/17/02
270
Lot 39slope
F8
9.5
115.2
90
4
04/17/02
271
Lot 28slope
F8
11.0
117.4
92
l
04/17/02
272
Lot 34
FG
11.4
122.8
93
l
0�
04/17/02
273
Lot 33
PG
10.1
116.3
Vl
4
04/17/02
274
Lot 32
FG
10.9
122.7
91
2
04/17/02
275
Lot 31
FG
10.2
124.8
93
2
w�
04/18/02
276
Lot 28slope
1228.0
12.6
114.6
89
4
04/18/02
277
Lot 26slope
12220
10.2
118.1
91
4
N�
04/18/02
278
Lot 24slope
1215.0
142
113.1
88
4
�
04/18/02
279
Lot 23 slope
1220.0
18.8
108.6
80
C)
�
04/18/02
04/18/02
280
287
Lot 2lslope
RTNo. 267
1221.0
-
12.4
11.6
115.7
116.9
Al
Vl
4
4
04/18/02
288
K7No. 268
-
107
117.6
92
4
04/18/02
289
R7No.'26A
11.8
1174
91
4
N�
04/19/02
305
Cot 30
RG
9.7
123.4
02
2
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL,
INC.
TR 23866~2/Lots9-39
MAY 2082
J.N.
188^01
*Sandoon8
TABLE -IV 5
I
I
TABLE IV
Field Density Test Results
04/19/02
306
Lot 29
FG
8.7
124.6
93
2
04/19/02
307
Lot 28
FG
8.7
118.5
92
4
04/19/02
308
Lot 27
FG
12.3
111.3
92
8
04/19/02
309
Lot 26
FG
11.9
111.9
93
8
04/19/02
310
RT No. 276
10.9
117.9
92
4
04/19/02
311
RT No. 278
11.9
119.9
93
4
04/19/02
312
RT No. 279
12.8
112.1
92
D
04/19/02
325
Lot 22 slope
1120.0
13.5
111.3
91
D
04/22/02
353
Lot 25
FG
10.5
117.5
93
4
04/22/02
354
Lot 24
FG
11.2
121.3
91
2
04/22/02
355
Lot 23
FG
9.4
119.8
90
1
04/22/02
356
Lot 22
FG
10.3
121.7
91
2
04/22/02
357
Lot 21
FG
8.5
129.2
96
2
04/22/02
358
Lot 20
FG
8.8
124.8
93
2
04/22/02
359
Lot 19
FG
11.0
114.4
90
3
04/22/02
360
Lot 18
FG
7.0
114.2
93
D
04/22/02
361
Lot 17
FG
10.2
118.9
90
1
04/22/02
362
Lot 19 finish slope
FG
8.9
115.7
91
3
04/22/02
363
Lot 21 finish slope
FG
10.2
116.0
91
3
04/22/02
364
Lot 22 finish slope
FG
9.9
118.6
92
4
04/23/02
381
Lot 12
FG
13.7
110.8
92
8
04/23/02
382
Lot ll
FG
117
109.6
91
8
04/23/02
383
Lot 10
FG
8.5
112.2
92
D
04/23/02
04/24/02
384
397
Lot 9
Lot 13
FG
FG
8.4
9.6
111.7
112.1
92
93
D
8
04/24/02
398
Lot 14
FG
7.9
111.5
93
8
04/24/02
399
Lot 15
FG
10.0
109.0
90
8
04/24/02
400
Lot 16
FG
8.0
115.2
94
D
04/25/02
431
Lot 84 open space
1236.0
12.8
119.9
91
1
04/25/02
432
Lot 84 open space
1237.0
13.2
121.5
92
1
05/01/02
537
Lot 84 open space slope
1257.0
11.9
121.8
91
2
05/01/02
538
Lot 84 open space slope
1260.0
11.1
121.0
91
2
05/01/02
539
Lot 84 open space slope
1262.0
9.2
120.1
91
2
05/06/02
679
Lot 84 open space fs
1250.0
10.5
120.4
90
2
05/06/02
680
Lot 84 open space fs
1255.0
9.5
121.5
91
2
05/06/02
681
Lot 84 open space fs
1260.0
10.0
123.5
92
2
05/06/02
682
Vanowen Lane
1254.0
11.5
120.2
90
2
05/06/02
683
Vanowen Lane
1255.0
10.5
121.5
91
2
05/06/02
684
Rhine Ave
1247.0
8.8
120.2
90
2
05/06/02
685
Rhine Ave
1248.0
9.8
121.8
91
2
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL,
INC.
TR 23066-2/Lots 9 - 39
MAY 2002
J.N. 188-01
*Sandcone
TABLE
-IV 6
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
REFERENCES
PETRA
y1
I
1
[1
1
I
1
1
REFERENCES
Blake, T.F., 1998/1999, "UBCSEIS" Version 1.03, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Uniform Building Code
Coefficients Using 3-D Fault Sources.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, "Uniform Building Code," Volume 2, Structural Engineering
Design Provisions, dated April 1997.
Earth Research Associates, Inc., 1987, Evaluation of Faulting and Liquefaction Potential, Portion of Wolf Valley
Project, Rancho California, County of Riverside, California, J.N. 298-87, dated November 20, 1987.
, 1988, Preliminary Soils Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation, Red Hawk Project, Rancho
California Area, County of Riverside, California, J.N. 298-87, dated February 2, 1988.
Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County,
California, CDMG Special Report 131.
Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 1989, Supplemental Soils Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation, Portion of
Redhawk Project, Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23064, 23065, 23066 and 23067, Rancho California,
County of Riverside, California, Volumes I and 11, J.N. 298-87, dated May 8, 1989.
, 2001 a, Due -Diligence Geotechnical Assessment of Planned Grading and Site Development, Tracts 23066-1,
23066-2 and 23066-3, Redhawk Development, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01,
dated March 30, 2001.
, 2001b, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Tract 23066-3, Lot 129, Redhawk Development, Temecula
Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April, 18, 2001.
2001e, Response to Riverside County Geotechnical Report Review Sheet Dated April 24, 2001, Tracts
23066-1, 23066-2 and 23066-3, Redhawk Development, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California; for The
Garrett Group LLC, J.N. 188-01, dated December 11, 2001.
, 2001d, Documentation of Previous Interface Grading Adjacent to Golf Course Fairways, Tracts 23066-1,
23066-2 and 23066-3, Temecula Area of Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated December 10, 2001.
, 2001 e, Geotechnical Review of 40 -Scale Rough Grading Plans, Tracts 23066, 23066-1, 23066-2 and 23066-3,
Temecula Area of Riverside County; California, dated December 11, 2001.
2002a, Geotechnical Recommendations Regarding Expansive Soils, Tracts 23066-1, 23066-2, 23066-3 and
30246, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated March 20, 2002.
2002b, Response to Riverside County Building and Safety Department Geotechnical Report Review Sheet,
Dated February 21, 2002 and Grading Plan Review Report, Tract 30246, Temecula Area, Riverside County,
California, BGR No. 020159, J.N. 188-01, dated March 21, 2001
, 2002c, Geotechnical Design Parameters for Medium Expansive Soils, Tracts 23066-1, 23066-2, 23066-3 and
30246, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated March 26, 2002.
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. MAY 2002
J.N. 188-01
1 Y$
I
REFERENCES (Continued)
, 2002d, Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Regarding Expansive Soils, Model Lots, Tract 23066-1,
' Lots 3 through 5, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April 3, 2002.
, 2002e, Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Regarding Expansive Soils, Phase 1, Tract 23066-2,
' Lots 10 through 39, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April 3, 2002.
, 200217, Geotechnical Recommendations, Post -Tensioned Slabs, Tracts 23066-1, 23066-2, 23066-3 and 30246,
Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April 9, 2002.
2002g, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Model Lots I through 8, Tract 23066-2, Temecula Area,
Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April 26, 2002.
P
1
1
1
' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. MAY 2002
J.N. 188-01
APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA
LABORATORY TEST DATA
It PETRA
SD
' APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA
Laboratory Maximum Dry Density
' Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected samples of soil and bedrock
materials in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. Pertinent test values are given on Plates A-1 and A-2.
' Expansion Potential
' Expansion index tests were performed on selected samples of soil and bedrock materials in accordance with ASTM
Test Method D4829. Expansion potential classifications were determined from 1997 UBC Table 18 -I -B on the basis
of the expansion index values. Test results and expansion potentials are presented on Plates A-3 and A-4.
Soil Chemistry
' Chemical analyses were performed on selected samples of onsite soil to determine concentrations of soluble sulfate
and chloride, as well as pH and resistivity. These tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method
Nos. 417 (sulfate), 422 (chloride) and 643 (pH and resistivity). Test results are presented on Plate A-5.
Atterbera Limits
' Atterberg limit tests (Liquid Limit and Plastic Index) were performed on selected samples to verify visual
classifications. These tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4318. Test results are presented
on Plate A-5.
1
' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. MAY 2002
J.N. 188-01
61
LII
[1
11
I
[]
LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
1989
* 1So�l Type
' •'•"i44i r'iMY1�& til a^
�axunum DryXDensity
4:_.?x'f
..=. s Pe� �
Y^, T .1�."sF�j 'is �.
r +�Sa1 TypeMax�mum+Dry
'i �.r'-�*m t ^£f
�+N .,;�.�r r aiE'_ s4�w.
�1; Mv�Ys.•. �Y Jv
Dens,ty
,.t. yrr�. �R
rc� .r �r r" (OH) -'`-s. ,.. e
1
117.0
22
129.0
2
129.0
23
118.0
3
131.5
25
129.5
4
126.0
26
130.5
5
127.5
27
125.5
6
134.0
28
127.5
7
124.5
B
126.0
8
124.5
D
130.5
9
132.0
E
124.5
10
125.0
1
117.5
11
135.5
K
121.0
12
130.0
Q
120.5
13
117.5
W
121.5
14
127.5
AA
128.0
16
132.5
BB
128.5
17
130.0
EE
129.5
18
128.0
GG
128.0
19
124.5
HH
127.5
20
122.5
11
124.5
21
126.0
KK
112.0
' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
1.N. 188-01
MAY 2002
Plate A-1
801
LABORATORY MAXIAIUM DRY DENSITY' (Continued)
1997/199R
"k L 6irx v
••1 1.�,+-
.4Sam le No x
vh*zi*'4 Pi.N&®
r,r }#' m
_M._�
_ �4 xra
•'a f3�E- iii} %-a3nL F 25 ++sb
Soil e a F
n"Typ
.r �' a : a. �,�uk
Optimum
;u ,�. 9p' -�
, Mois[tu a
Maximum
,z.+ry_V s
Dr Denstt
�ys �y'N
I
Light brown, very tine SAND
11.5
117.0
2
Very light brown Silty fine SAND
10.5
122.0
3
Dark brown, coarse Silty SAND
8.0
130.0
4
Dark reddish brown, fine to coarse Silty SAND
8.0
131.0
5
Brown Silty SAND with trace Clay
10.0
124.0
6
Medium brown Silty SAND
8.5
128.0
7
Reddish brown Silty SAND with trace Clay
10.0
124.0
2002
ru, t
z'
'S a�pple
�.'t,�
%fe '.iE
t 1 a. , r
Lkjs^ 3T Y F�-kT'�{ b{"t
l r fi �� SothType r
µ "fie1,s i rnE yfuy �,
'iia, .� �-•' tx e� (�'o-.r..M1' ... e; f;l�. µT-. ....5' .. e�tlCez�.'iL_ .�
Opamum tt
�� l
�o
M isture
h..�' (��/_.T' £
tv Maximum
5 1
Dory Densrty
4�i Tc ilpel)rt'i �.�
I
Dark brown Clayey Silty tine SAND
8.5
131.5
2
Light brown Silty SAND
8.0
133.5
3
Brown Clayey fine SAND
10.5
127.5
4
Light brown Silty, Clayey fine- to medium -grained SAND
10.0
128.5
5
Light brown very fine Sandy SILT
14.0
116.0
6
Light yellowish brown fine SAND
13.0
109.0
7
Yellowish light brown fine to course SAND with Clay and Gravel
8.5
132.0
8
Yellowish light brown fine to medium SAND with trace Clay and Silt
12.5
120.5
9
Light brown Silty SAND with trace Clay
8.5
130.5
D
Light brown Clayey SAND
13.0
122.0
F
Light brown SAND with Silt
13.5
118.0
J
(1) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D1557
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. MAY 2002
1. N. 188-01 Plate A-2
53
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXPANSION INDEX TEST DATA
Rp
, g,07,
01
gi
-Y! r 16
iesellififfi ots
n'3 0
pr
'I ni 1di eL;N-K!"BOU
ffla!s 10
, 'Ole tial'
7
9.
9
17
Very Low
11
10 through 12
1
Very Low
14
13 through 15
1
Very Low
17
16 through 19
0
Very Low
21
20 through 23
20
Very Low
26
24 through 27
33
Low
31
28 through 31
29
Low
32
32
5
Very Low
33
33
52
Medium
34
34
24
Low
35
35
0
Very Low
36
36 and 37
44
Low
39
38 and 39 1
7
Very Low
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. MAY 2002
J. N. 188-01 Plate A-3
-01
I
1
EXPANSION INDEX TEST DATA (Continued)
at
��
��,
Expansion
Expansion -
ROD
I
Dark brown Clayey Silty fine SAND
I I
Very Low
2
Light brown Silty SAND
18
Very Low
3
Brown Clayey fine SAND
81
Medium
4
Light brown Silty, Clayey fine- to medium -grained SAND
75
Medium
5
Light brown very tine Sandy SILT
16
Very Low
6
Light yellowish brown fine SAND
0
Very Low
7
Yellowish light brown fine to course SAND with Clay and Gravel
2
Very Low
8
Yellowish light brown fine to medium SAND with trace Clay and
Silt
3
Very Low
9
Light brown Silty SAND with trace Clay
20
Very Low,
' (2) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D4829
(3) PER 1997 U13C TABLE I8 -1-B
[1
' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. MAY 2002
J.N. 188-01 Plate A-4
1
1
1
1
1
SOLUBLE CHEMISTRY
�- io NO i,
S � '
rS- fafe4:t
�6�',�"•`
�
fit# ChlOilllCS
� ':i'[r�
H ��
H
�'�Res�shvtEg-r`�
�
r
�Corrostnty�Potenftal-
,. "'.�.-' ..�.
di
La.'G'...i(%)
�i Pm)c-�
abt5�',�
_::,(ohm -cmc
^ F
..{p
343 through 39
ND
103
6.8
2,900
concrete: moderate
20 through 23
Silty SAND
32
steel: negligible
22 through 33
0.01
90
6.4
3,000
concrete: moderate
29
Silty SAND
33
15
18
steel: negligible
9 through 21
0.01
85
6.8
3,500
concrete: moderate
27
13
14
31
Silty SAND
steel: negligible
ATTERBERG LIMITS"
s✓ ;tea -`r - Y
' Sample �f
y
q
Plastic y,
Plashcrty
3
Clayey SAND
32
14
18
4
Silty, Clayey SAND
32
15
17
" 'yLk
20 through 23
Silty SAND
32
16
16
26
Clayey SAND
23
15
8
29
Silty SAND
33
15
18
35
Silty SAND
34
15
19
36
Silty SAND
27
13
14
31
Silty SAND
22
1 19
3
33
Silty Clayey SAND
30
1 14
16
(4) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 417
(5) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 422
(6) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 643
(7) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 643
(8) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D4318
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. MAY 2002
J.N. 188-01 Plate A-5
K&
S�
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX B
SEISMIC ANALYSIS
C 32 _3
1 PETRA
57
OUT
* U B C S E I S
* version 1.03
:t
-COMPUTATION OF 1997
I
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
' JOB NUMBER: 188-01
02
'30B NAME: Richmond Redhaw
FAULT -DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT
' SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.4677
' SITE LONGITUDE: 117.0860
UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4
' UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SO
' NEAREST TYPE A FAULT:
NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN
DISTANCE: 12.1 km
' NEAREST TYPE B FAULT:
NAME: ELSINORE-TEMECULA
DISTANCE: 1.3 km
' NEAREST TYPE C FAULT:
NAME:
DISTANCE: 99999.0 km
SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS:
Na: 1.3
' Nv: 1.6
Ca: 0.57
Cv: 1.02
Ts: 0.716
' TO: 0.143
' Page 1
DATE: 04-13-20
S8
OUT
****
* CAUTION: The digitized data points used to model faults are
* limited in number and have been digitized from small
^ scale maps (e.g., 1:750,000 scale). Consequently,
* the estimated fault -site -distances may be in error b
y
*
several kilometers. Therefore, it is important that
* the distances be carefully checked for accuracy and
* adjusted as needed, before they are used in design.
*
' ir?c?rsY*�Y'w•?�?e*?c?r*'k?;k?t?t**?t?t',c*?r it i'r?cic?r•X****:Y?t*'s*?tk*:c iF ?c ?: sY :: *:k �•?r ?r ?t is ?r**iris ?e ?r ?<
'
---------------------------
SUMMARY
OF FAULT
PARAMETERS
'
---------------------------
Page 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I APPROX.ISOURCE
I
MAX. I
SLIP
FAULT
ABBREVIATED
IDISTANCEI
TYPE I
MAG. I
RATE
'
I TYPE
FAULT NAME
I (km) I(A,B,C)1
(Mw) I
(mm/yr)
1(SS,DS,BT)
'
ELSINORE-TEMECULA
I 2.6 I
B 1
6.8 1
5.00
1 SS
'
ELSINORE-JULIAN
I 12.1 I
A I
7.1 1
5.00
I SS
ELSINORE-GLEN IVY
1 SS
I 31.2 I
B I
6.8 I
5.00
SAN JACINTO-ANZA
I 33.3 I
A I
7.2 1
12.00
I SS
'
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY
1 34.1 I
B 1
6.9 I
12.00
1 SS
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore)
1 46.5 I
B 1
6.9 1
1.50
1 SS
'
ROSE CANYON
1 49.0 I
B 1
6.9 1
1.50
1 SS
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK
1 53.6 I
B I
6.8 1
4.00
'
1 SS
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY
1 56.6 I
B i
6.5 I
2.00
Page
2
'
S9
OUT
I SS
CHINO -CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore)
I DS
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO
I SS
SAN ANDREAS - Southern
I SS
ELSINORE-WHITTIER
I SS
PINTO MOUNTAIN
I SS
CORONADO BANK
I SS
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin)
I SS
PALOS VERDES
I SS
BURNT MTN.
SS
CUCAMONGA
I DS
ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN
I SS
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West)
I DS
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO
SS
EUREKA PEAK
I SS
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East)
I DS
SAN JOSE
I DS
CLEGHORN
I SS
SIERRA MADRE (Central)
I DS
LANDERS
I S5
HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT
I SS
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture
I SS
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS
I SS
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT
I DS
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern)
I SS
EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN.
I SS
RAYMOND
I 60.0 I
B
1 6.7 I
1.00
I 62.7 I
B
i 6.7 I
12.00
I 63.0 I
A
I 7.4 I
24.00
I 66.8 I
B
I 6.8 I
2.50
I 73.8 I
B
I 7.0 I
2.50
I 74.1 I
B
I 7.4 I
3.00
I 79.1 I
B
I 6.9 I
1.00
I 81.5 I
B
I 7.1 I
3.00
I 84.6 I
B
I 6.5 1
0.60
1 86.0 I
A
1 7.0 1
5.00
I 87.4 I
B
I 6.8 I
4.00
I 87.8 I
B
1 7.0 1
1.00
I 87.9 I
B
I 6.6 I
4.00
I 89.1 I
B
I 6.5 I
0..60
I 90.4 I
B
1 6.7 I
0.50
I 91.0 I
B
I 6.5 I
0.50
I 91.1 I
B
I 6.5 I
3.00
I 94.8 I
B
1 7.0 I
3.00
I 99.2 1
B.
1 7.3 1
0.60
1 102.4 i
B
I 7.1 1
0.60
I 102.4 I
A
1 7.8 (
34.00
I 107.0 I
B
I 7.3 1
0.60
I 111.1 I
B
I 6.5 I
0.50
I 111.6 I
B
I 6.7 I
0.60
I 112.9 I
B
I 6.9 1
0.60
I 115.4 I
B
1 6.5 I
0.50
Page 3
�0
OUT
'
I DS
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto)
I 120.2 I
B 1
6.6
1 5.00
'
VERDUGOS
j 123.5 I
B I
6.7
1 0.50
I DS
ELMORE RANCH
1 124.2 I
B I
6.6
I 1.00
'
I SS
PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK
1 124.3 1
B 1
7.1 1
0.60
1 SS
CALICOS- HIDALGO
I 125.0 I
B I
7.1 I
0.60
'
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto)
1 126.3 I
B I
6.6 1
4.00
'
1 Ss
HOLLYWOOD
1 128.5 1
B 1
6.5 1
1.00
I DS
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE
I 128.6 1
B 1
6.5 1
25.00
1 SS
ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA
1 138.9 I
B 1
7.0 1
3.50
1 SS
SANTA MONICA
1 140.4 I
B i
6.6 1
1.00
'
I DS
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando)
1 143.8 1
B 1
6.7 1
2.00
'
I DS
---------------------------
SUMMARY
OF FAULT
PARAMETERS
Page 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
I APPROX.ISOURCE
I
MAX. I
SLIP
FAULT
ABBREVIATED
1DISTANCEI
TYPE I
MAG. I
RATE
'
1 TYPE
FAULT NAME
I (km) 1(A,B,C)1
(Mw) I
(mm/yr)
'
_I(SS_DS_BT)___________________
SAN GABRIEL
1 145.6 I
B I
7.0 1
1.00
'
I SS
MALIBU COAST
I 148.1 1
B 1
6.7 1
0.30
1 DS
IMPERIAL
I 153.5 1
A 1
7.0 1
20.00
'
1 SS
GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE
1 157.0 I
B I
6.9 1
0.60
'
ANACAPASDUME
1 159.9 1
B I
7.3 I
3.00
DS
'
Page
4
Ll
1
1
1
1
1
1
OUT
SANTA SUSANA.
1 161.7 I
B
I 6.6 1
5.00
I DS
HOLSERDS
1 170.7 I
B
1 6.5 1
0.40
BLACKWATER
1 173.2 I
B
I 6.9 1
0.60
1 SS
OAK RIDGE (Onshore)
1 181.7 I
B
1 6.9 1
4.00
1 DS
SIMI-SANTA ROSA
I 183.3 I
B
1 6.7 1
1.00
I DS
SAN CAYETANO
I 189.1 1
B
1 6.8 1
6.00
1 DS
amNTA (East)
1 208.3 1
B
1 7.0 I
2.00
SSEZ
GARLOCK (West)
1 213.3 1
A
I 7.1 1
6.00
1 SS
VENTURA - PITAS POINT
1 214.2 1
B
1 6.8 1
1.00
1 DS
GARLOCK (East)
1 219.9 1
A
1 7.3 1
7.00
1 SS
M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA
1 222.8 1
B
I 6.7 1
0.40
1 DS
PLEITO THRUST
1 225.2 1
B
1 6.8 1
2.00
1 DS
RED MOUNTAIN
1 228.5 I
B
1 6.8 1
2.00
1 DS
SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
1 232.7 1
B
1 6.8 1
1.00
1 DS
BIG PINE
1 233.2 1
B
1 6.7 i
0.80
1 SS
OWL LAKE
1 238.6 1
B
1 6.5 1
2.00
1 SS
PANAMINT VALLEY
I 238.9 1
B
1 7.2 1
2.50
1 SS
WHITE WOLF
1 240.0 1
B
1 7.2 I
2.00
1 DS
TANK CANYON
1 242.2 1
B
1 6.5 1
1.00
I DS
SO. SIERRA NEVADA
1 242.6 I
B
I 7.1 1
0.10
I DS
LITTLE LAKE
1 243.9 1
B
I 6.7 I
0.70
1 SS
DEATH VALLEY (South)
1 245.3 I
B
1 6.9 1
4.00
1 SS
SANTA (West)
1 262.0 I
B
1 6.9 1
2.00
SSEZ
SANTA ROSA ISLAND
I 268.8 1
B
I 6.9 1
1.00,
DS
DEATH VALLEY (Graben)
1 288.9 1
B
1 6.9 1
4.00
1 DS
LOS ALAMOS -W. BASELINE
1 305.1 1
B
1 6.8 1
0.70
1 DS
Page 5
Z
OUT
OWENS VALLEY
1 314.0 I
B
1 7.6 1
1.50
I SS
LIONS HEAD
I 322.5 I
B
1 6.6 I
0.02
1 DS
FAULT
SAN JUAN
i 325.6 I
B
1 7.0 I
1.00
SS
DEATH VALLEY (N.
SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin)
i 330.2 I
B
1 7.0 1
0.20
1 DS
ROUND VALLEY (E.
HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY
1 336.2 I
B
1 7.0 1
2.50
1 SS
CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault)
1 339.8 I
B
i 6.5 I
0.25
1 DS
DEATH VALLEY (Northern)
I 342.9 1
A
1 7.2 1
5.00
1 SS
INDEPENDENCE
1 350.0 I
B
I 6.9 1
0.20
1 DS
LOS OSOS
1 359.5 1
B
I 6.8 (
0.50
I DS
HOSGRI
1 368.7 I
B
1 7.3 I
2.50
1 SS
RINCONADA
1 377.7 1
B
I 7.3 1
1.00
I SS
BIRCH CREEK
I 406.9 I
B
1 6.5 I
0.70
1 DS
WHITE MOUNTAINS
1 410.4 1
B
I 7.1 1
1.00
. SS
DEEP SPRINGS
1 428.0 1
B
I 6.6 1
0.80
1 DS
SAN ANDREAS (Creeping)
I 428.1 1'
B
1 5.0 I
34.00
1 ss
---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
Page 3
------------------------------------------------------------
-
Page 6
0
I APPROX.ISOURCE I
MAX. I
SLIP
FAULT
ABBREVIATED
IDISTANCEI TYPE I
MAG. I
RATE
I TYPE
FAULT
NAME
I (km) I(A,B,C)I
(MW) I
(mm/yr)
I(SS,DS,BT)
DEATH VALLEY (N.
of Cucamongo)
1 431.0 1 A I
7.0 I
5.00
SS
ROUND VALLEY (E.
of S.N.Mtns.)
1 443.2 I B 1
6.8 1
1.00
Page 6
0
OUT
I DS
FISH SLOUGH
1 449.6 I
B
1 6.6 I
0.20
1 DS
HILTON CREEK
1 469.5 I
B
I 6.7 1
2.50
DS
HARTLEY SPRINGS
1 494.6 I
B
1 6.6 1
0.50
1 DS
ORTIGALITA
1 509.4 I
B
1 6.9 1
1.00
I SS
CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res)
1 517.1 I
B
1 6.2 1
15.00
I SS
MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS
1 523.1 I
B
1 7.1 1
0.50
1 DS
PALO COLORADO - SUR
I 526.3 1
B
1 7.0 1
3.00
1 SS
QUIEN SAGE
1 529.7 i
B
1 6.5 1
1.00
I SS
MONO LAKE
1 530.8 I
B
1 6.6 1
2.50
1 DS
ZAYANTE-VERGELES
1 549.2 1
B
1 6.8 1
0.10
I SS
-)ARGENT
1 554.0 I
B
1 6.8 1
3.00
I SS
SAN ANDREAS (1906)
1 554.4 1
A
1 7.9 1
24.00
1 SS
ROBINSON CREEK
1 562.3 1
B
1 6.5 1
0.50
1 DS
SAN GREGORIO
1 598.2 1
A
1 7.3 1
5.00
1 SS
GREENVILLE
1 601.0 1
B
1 6.9 1
2.00
1 SS
ANTELOPE VALLEY
1 603.0 1
B
1 6.7 1
0.80
1 DS
HAYWARD (SE Extension)
1 603.1 1
B
1 6.5 1
3.00
1 SS
MONTE VISTA - SHANNON
1 604.1 1
B
1 6.5 1
0.40
1 DS
HAYWARD (Total Length)
1 622.4 (
A
1 7.1 1
9.00
1 SS
CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res)
1 622.4 1
B
1 6.8 1
6.00
1 SS
GENOA
1 629.2 1
B
1 6.9 1
1.00
I DS
CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY
1 668.8 I
B
1 6.9 1
6.00
1 SS
RODGERS CREEK
1 708.1 1
A
1 7.0 1
9.00
1 SS
WEST NAPA
1 708.3 1
B
I 6.5 1
1.00
I Ss
POINT REYES
1 729.3 1
B
1 6.8 1
0.30
1 DS
HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA
1 729.5 I
B
1 6.9 1
6.00
Page 7
bI/
OUT
I SS
MAACAMA (South)
1 770.1 I
B
I 6.9 I
9.00
1 ss
t
COLLAYOMI
1 786.2 1
B
1 6.5 I
0.60
1 55
BARTLETT SPRINGS
1 788.6 I
A
1 7.1 1
6.00 .
'
MAACAMAS(Central)
i 811.7 I
A
i 7.1 1
9.00
1 SS
MAACAMA (North)
I 870.5 I
A
I 7.1 1
9.00
'
1 Ss
ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay)
1 875.3 I
B
I 6.8 1
6.00
'
I 55
BATTLE CREEK
1 892.8 I
B
I 6.5 I
0.50
1 DS
LAKE MOUNTAIN
1 933.6 1
B
1 6.7 i
6.00
ss
GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND
1 951.5 1
B
1 6.9 1
9.00
1 SS
MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE
1 1008.7 1
A
1 7.4 1
35.00
'
1 DS
LITTLE SALMON (Onshore)
1 1013.7 1
A
I 7.0 I
5.00
'
I DS
MAD RIVER
1 1015.4 1
B
1 7.1 1
0.70
1 DS
CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE
1 1023.1 1
A
1 8.3 I
35.00
'
1 DS
MCKINLEYVILLE
1 1026.1 I
B
I 7.0'1
0.60
1 DS
TRINIDAD
1 1027.4 I
B
1 7.3 I
2.50
'
I DS
FICKLE HILL
1 1028.2 1
B
1 6.9 1
0.60
'
I DS
TABLE BLUFF
1 1034.4 1
B
1 7.0 I
0.60
I DS
LITTLE SALMON (Offshore)
1 1047.6 I
B
1 7.1 I
1.00
'
I DS
---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
'
---------------------------
Page 4
--------------------------=------
---------
I APPROX.ISOURCE
I MAX. I
SLIP
'TYPE
1 FAULT
ABBREVIATED
1DISTANCEI TYPE
I MAG. I
RATE
1
Page 8
OUT
FAULT NAME I (km) I(A,B,c)I (Mw) I (mm/yr)
I(SS,DS,BT)
BIG LAGOON - BALD MTN.FLT.ZONE 11063.9 I B I 7.3 I 0.50
':tI*��•�DS,x�**���•n���x��•nx���t��t�x�•����,x��x�•�����:����,r•,r*���:t:t,r�����,r,r�
1
1
1
1
t
1
Page 9
�L
DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
Seismic Zone: 0.4 Soil Profile: SD
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
0
cu 1.50
L
1.25
U
Q 1.00
0.75
U
CL 0.50
0.25
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 . 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Period Seconds
9