Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical Rpt Lots 122-129 pse 10 10/24/2003R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a "�'r RECEIVED 'r ,'- Coling of RiJemide ` Build, nn, �• Saf2ty y f 2003 ' � • OCT 2 7 RIVERSIDE, . ,° Z PETRA OFFICES IN THE COUNTIES OF ORANGE • SAN DIEGO • RIVERSIDE • LOS ANGELES • SAN BERNARDINO October 24, 2003 J.N. 188-01 BGR No. 010340 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES 100 East San Marcos Boulevard, Suite 100 San Marcos, California 92069 Attention: Mr. Gary McCoy Subject: Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 122 through 129 (Phase 10), Tract 23066-3, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California This report presents a summary of the observation and testing services provided by Petra Geotechnical, Inc. (Petra) during rough -grading of Lots 122 through 129 (Phase 10) within Tract 23066-3 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. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE Cuts, removals and compaction of unsuitable low-density surface soils, transition -lot overexcavations and capping 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. 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 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 41640 Corning Place . Suite 107 . Murrieta . CA 92562 . Tel: (909) 600-9271 . Fax: (909) 600-9215 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES October 24, 2003 TR 23066-3 Lots 122-129 Phase 10/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01 Page 2 laboratory testing, the recommendations presented in this report were prepared in conformance with generally accepted professional engineering practices in the area and no further warranty is implied nor made. SUMMARY OF AS -GRADED SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS As -Graded Conditions and Remedial Grading Remedial grading included surficial overexcavations on the order of 3 to 22 feet deep and the overexcavation and fill placement within the cut portions of cut/fill transition lots. The compacted fills ranged in thickness from approximately 3 to 45 feet. A lot - by -lot summary of the compacted -fill depths and a summary of soil conditions is presented in the attached Table I. A general description of the as -graded soil and bedrock materials underlying the subject lots is provided below and are shown on the attached Geotechnical Map with Density Test Locations (Figure 1). • Artificial Fill - Compacted (map symbol afc) — Compacted -fill soils were comprised of onsite -derived and imported soil and bedrock materials and consisted generally of fine to coarse sand, silty sand and clayey sand. Imported materials were generated from adjacent properties. • Pauba Formation Bedrock (Ons) — In general, the Pauba Formation consisted of dense, fine-grained and well -graded sandstones, clayey sandstone and clay beds with occasional gravel and cobble beds. A cross -bedded, well -graded, friable sand unit was also observed within the bedrock. SUMMARY OF EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND DENSITY TESTING Clearing and Grubbing Heavy vegetation that existed in localized areas, as well as some construction debris, were removed from the site. RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES October 24, 2003 TR 23066-3 Lots 122-129 Phase 10/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01 Page 3 Ground Preparation Prior to placing structural fill, existing low-density surficial soils or weathered bedrock were first removed to competent undisturbed bedrock. Overexcavations varied from approximately 3 to 22 feet. Prior to placing fill, exposed bottom surfaces in removal areas were observed by a Petra representative. Following this observation, 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 compacted by rolling with large self-propelled compactors and loaded scrapers. Subdrain A subdrain system consisting of 6 -inch diameter perforated pipe and gravel enclosed with filter fabric was installed adjacent to the westerly side of an existing canyon. The approximate location of the subdrain is shown on the attached Figure 1. Cut/Fill Transition Lots To reduce the potential for distress to residential structures related to the differential settlement, the cut portions of cut/fill transition Lots 122, 123, 128 and 129 were overexcavated to a depth of approximately 3 to 10 feet below finish grade and capped with compacted fill derived from onsite materials. Fill Placement and Testine Fill soils were placed in thin lifts, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve near - optimum moisture conditions and then compacted in-place. Compaction was achieved by wheel -rolling with an 824 rubber -tired loader and loaded scrapers. The deepest fill placed within the subject lots was approximately 45 feet on Lot 125. RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES October 24, 2003 TR 23066-3 Lots 122-129 Phase 10/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01 ' Page 4 Field density and moisture content tests were performed in accordance with nuclear - gauge test methods (ASTM D2922 and D3017). Occasional field density tests were also performed in accordance with the sand -cone method (ASTM D1556). Field ' density test results are presented in the attached Table U and approximate test locations ' are shown on Figure 1. Field density tests were taken at vertical intervals of approximately 1 to 2 feet. The ' compacted fills were tested at the time of placement to document that the specified moisture content and relative compaction had been achieved. One in-place density test was taken for approximately each 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed and/or for each approximately 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 specified relative compaction of 90 percent or if the soils were ' found to be above or below a recommended 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 dry density value was applicable for a given density test. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory Maximum Dry Density ' Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for changes in soil types observed during grading were determined in our laboratory in accordance with ' ASTM D1557. Pertinent test values are summarized in Appendix A. RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES October 24, 2003 TR 23066-3 Lots 122-129 Phase 10/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01 ' Page 5 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 D4829. Test results indicated soils near pad grade have a ' VERY LOW expansion potential and are summarized in Appendix A. ' Soluble Sulfate Analyses Soluble sulfate contents were determined for a representative sample of soil existing ' at or near finish grade within the subject lots. These tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method (CTM) No. 417. Test results are provided in ' Appendix A. Test results indicated that soluble -sulfate contents were negligible. Therefore, according to 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 19-A-4, no special ' cement is specified for concrete to be placed in contact with onsite soils. However, we recommend that Type H cement be used for concrete. For concrete in contact with the ' soil, we recommend that 3 inches or more of concrete be placed over reinforcing steel. Chloride Resistivity and pH Analyses Water-soluble chloride concentration, resistivity and pH values were determined for selected samples in accordance with CTM Nos. 422 (chloride) and 643 (resistivity and ' pH). The results of these analyses are provided in Appendix A. Test results indicated that soils were moderately corrosive to ferrous metal. Ferrous metal pipe, if used, ' should be corrosion -protected or an alternative piping that is not subject to corrosion, such as plastic pipe, should be used. RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES October 24, 2003 TR 23066-3 Lots 122-129 Phase 10/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01 Page 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Foundation -Design Recommendations ' Foundation Types ' Based on as -graded soil and geologic conditions, the use of conventional spread footings with slab -on -grade foundations is considered feasible for the subject lots. ' 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 depth of 12 inches or more below the lowest adjacent final grade or top -of -slab. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of depth, to a 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 total settlement of building footings.is anticipated to be less than approximately 3/4 inch. Differential settlement ' over a horizontal distance of 30 feet is expected to be about one-half the total settlement. The anticipated differential settlement may be expressed as an angular distortion of 1:960. ' Lateral Resistance ' A passive earth pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth to a value of up to 2,500 psf may be used to determine lateral -bearing resistance for building footings. Where structures ' such as masonry block walls and retaining walls are planned on or near descending I 17 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES October 24, 2003 TR 23066-3 Lots 122-129 Phase 10/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01 Page 7 slopes, the passive earth pressure should be reduced to 150 psf per foot of depth to a ' value of up to 1,500 psf. An increase of one-third of the above values may also be used when designing for short -duration wind and seismic forces. In addition, a ' coefficient of friction of 0.35 times the dead -load forces may also be used between concrete and the supporting soils to determine lateral -sliding resistance. The above values are based on footings placed directly against compacted fill or Pauba ' Formation sandstone. In the case where footing sides are formed, backfill against the footings should be compacted to 90 percent or more of the maximum dry density. Footing Observations ' Footing trenches should be observed by a representative of Petra to document that they ' have been excavated into competent -bearing soils and to the recommended embedments. The foundation excavations should be observed prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement or concrete. The excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square. Loose, sloughed or moisture -softened soil and construction debris should be removed prior to placing concrete. Excavated soils derived from footing excavations should not be placed within slab -on -grade areas. IExpansive Soil Considerations Laboratory testing of soils within the site indicate soils exhibit VERY LOW expansion potential as classified in accordance with 1997 UBC Table 18 -I -B. ' Very Low Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 20 or less) ' The results of our laboratory tests indicate that onsite soils of the subject lots exhibit VERY LOW expansion potential as classified in accordance with 1997 UBC Table 18 -I -B. For this condition, it is recommended that footings and floors be constructed and reinforced in accordance with the following criteria. However, I I• RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES October 24, 2003 TR 23066-3 Lots 122-129 Phase 10/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01 ' Page 8 additional slab thickness, footing sizes and/or reinforcement may be required by the iproject architect or structural engineer. • FootinQs - Standard depth footings may be used with respect to building code requirements for the planned construction (i.e., 12 inches deep for one-story construction and 18 inches deep for two stories). Interior continuous footings for one- or two- story construction may be founded at a depth of 12 inches or greater below the top -of -slab. - Continuous footings should be reinforced with two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom and as recommended by the structural engineer. Isolated pad footings should be 24 inches or more square and founded at a depth of 12 inches or more below the lowest adjacent final grade or top -of -slab and reinforced in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. IFloor Slabs Living -area concrete -floor slabs should be 4 inches or more thick and reinforced with either 6x6 -W 1.4xW 1.4 welded -wire mesh or with No. 3 bars spaced 24 inches on -centers, both ways. Slab reinforcement should be properly supported so that placement is mid -depth. - Living -area concrete floors should be underlain with a moisture -vapor retardant consisting of 6 -mil thick polyethylene membrane or equivalent. Two inches or more of clean sand should be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing of the concrete. - Garage -floor slabs should be 4 inches or more thick and placed separately from ' adjacent wall footings with a positive separation maintained with 3/8 inch 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 two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom and in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES October 24, 2003 TR 23066-3 Lots 122-129 Phase 10/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01 ' Page 9 Prior to placing concrete, subgrade soils should be thoroughly moistened to ' promote uniform curing of the concrete and reduce the development of shrinkage cracks. SEISMIC -DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS rGround 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 150 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 west of the site, could generate severe site ground motions with an anticipated maximum moment tmagnitude of 7.1 and anticipated slip rate of 5.0 mm/year. However, the closest Type B fault, which is the Elsinore -Temecula located approximately 1.3 kilometers to /d I 1 [1 I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-3 Lots 122-129 Phase 10/Temecula Area October 24, 2003 J.N. 188-01 Page 10 the southwest of Tract 23066-3, 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. RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls are not currently proposed within the subject site. The following retaining and masonry wall information is being provided to assist the future homeowners in the event they construct retaining walls within their lots. Footing Embedments The base of retaining -wall footings constructed on level ground may be founded at a depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. Where retaining walls are constructed on or within 15 feet from the top of adjacent descending fill slope, the footings should be deepened such that a horizontal setback of H/3 (one-third the slope q 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 RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls are not currently proposed within the subject site. The following retaining and masonry wall information is being provided to assist the future homeowners in the event they construct retaining walls within their lots. Footing Embedments The base of retaining -wall footings constructed on level ground may be founded at a depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. Where retaining walls are constructed on or within 15 feet from the top of adjacent descending fill slope, the footings should be deepened such that a horizontal setback of H/3 (one-third the slope q RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES October 24, 2003 TR 23066-3 Lots 122-129 Phase 10/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01 Page 11 height) is maintained between the outside bottom edges of the footings and the slope face; however, the footing setback should be 5 feet or more. The above -recommended footing setbacks are preliminary and may require revision based on site-specific soil and/or bedrock conditions. Footing excavations should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant to document that they have been excavated into competent - bearing soils and/or bedrock and to the embedments recommended above. These observations should be performed prior to placing forms or reinforcing steel. Active Earth Pressures An active lateral -earth pressure equivalent to a fluid having a density of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) may be used for design of cantilevered walls retaining a drained, level granular backfill. Where the wall backfill slopes upward at 2:1 (h:v), the above value should be increased to 63 pcf. Retaining walls should be designed to resist surcharge loads imposed by other nearby walls or structures in addition to the above active earth pressures. Drainage A perforated pipe -and -gravel subdrain should be installed behind retaining walls up to 6 feet in height to reduce the likelihood of entrapment of water in the backfill. Perforated pipe should consist of 4 -inch diameter or larger 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 or more in diameter and provided at intervals of 6 feet or less along the wall. Open vertical masonry joints, if used, should be /)L I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES October 24, 2003 TR 23066-3 Lots 122-129 Phase 10/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01 Page 12 provided at no more than 32 -inch 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 reduce the likelihood of infiltration of fines and subsequent clogging of the gravel. Filter fabric may consist of Mirafi 140N or ' equivalent. Retaining walls greater than 6 feet high should be provided with a continuous ' backdrain for the full height of the wall. This drain could consist of a geosynthetic drainage composite, such as Miradrain 6000 or equivalent or a permeable drain material, placed against the entire backside of the wall. If a permeable drain material ' is used, the backdrain should be 1 or more feet thick. Caltrans Class H permeable material or open -graded gravel or crushed stone (described above) may be used as permeable drain material. If gravel or crushed stone is used, it should have less than 5 percent material passing the No. 200 sieve. The drain should be separated from the ' backfill with a geofabric. The upper 1 foot of the backdrain should be covered with compacted -fill. A drainage pipe consisting of 4 -inch diameter perforated pipe (described above) should be provided along the back of the wall. The pipe should be placed with perforations down. The drain and pipe should be sloped at 2 percent or ' more and discharge to an appropriate outlet through a solid pipe. If a geosynthetic drainage composite is used, the perforated pipe should be surrounded by I cubic foot ' per foot of gravel or crushed rock wrapped in a filter fabric. The pipe should outlet away from structures and slopes and the wall should be appropriately waterproofed. The backfilled portions of retaining walls should be coated with an approved waterproofing compound to inhibit migration of moisture through the walls. ' Temporary Excavations ' To facilitate retaining -wall construction, temporary excavations greater than 5 feet should be cut back at a gradient of 1:1 (h:v) or flatter for the duration of construction. 1 /T 13 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES October 24, 2003 TR 23066-3 Lots 122-129 Phase l0/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01 Page 13 However, temporary slopes should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant for evidence of potential instability. Depending on the results of these observations, flatter temporary slopes may be recommended. The potential effectsof various parameters, such as weather, heavy equipment travel, storage near the tops of the temporary excavations and construction scheduling should also be considered in the stability of temporary slopes. Wall BackSll Retaining -wall backfill should be placed in 6- to 8 -inch loose lifts, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve near -optimum -moisture conditions and compacted in place to a relative compaction of 90 percent or more as evaluated by ASTM D1557. 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 descending slopes should be deepened such that a 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 two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom for Very Low expansion soils and in accordance with the recommendations provided by structural engineer. Plans for 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 5 feet or more from the tops of descending slopes, the footings for these walls may be founded at depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. These footings should also be reinforced Iq RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES October 24, 2003 TR 23066-3 Lots 122-129 Phase 10/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01 ' Page 14 with two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom for Very Low expansion soils and in ' accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. 1 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 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 Concrete sidewalks and patio -type slabs should be 4 inches or more thick and provided with construction joints every 6 feet or less. Concrete -driveway slabs should be 4 inches or more thick and provided with construction joints quartering the slab, but no more than 10 feet apart. Subg_rade Preparation ' As a further measure to reduce cracking of concrete flatwork, the subgrade soils below concrete- fl atwork areas should first be compacted to a relative density of 90 percent or more, as evaluated by ASTM D1557, and then wetted to achieve a moisture content ' that is 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 reduce the development of shrinkage cracks. A representative of I ' RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES October 24, 2003 TR 23066-3 Lots 122-129 Phase 10/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01 ' Page 15 the project soils engineer should observe and document 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 planters that are located within 5 feet of building walls, foundations, retaining walls and masonry block garden walls to reduce infiltration of water into the adjacent foundation soils. The surface of the ground in these areas should also be sloped at a gradient of 2 percent or more away from the walls and foundations. Drip -irrigation systems are also recommended to reduce the likelihood of overwatering and subsequent saturation of the adjacent foundation soils. ' UTILITY TRENCHES 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 relative density of 90 percent or more as evaluated by ASTM ' D1557. Soils utilized as backfill should be mechanically compacted. Density testing, ' along with probing, should be performed by the project soils engineer or his representative, to document proper compaction. ' For trenches with vertical walls, backfill should be placed in approximately 1- to 2 - foot thick loose lifts and then mechanically compacted with a hydra -hammer, pneumatic tampers or similar equipment. For trenches with sloped -walls, backfill materials should be placed in approximately 8- to 12 -inch thick loose lifts and then ' compacted by rolling with a sheepsfoot tamper or similar equipment. ' To avoid point -loads and subsequent distress to clay, cement or plastic pipe, imported sand bedding should be placed 1 foot or more above pipe in areas where excavated ' RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES October 24, 2003 TR 23066-3 Lots 122-129 Phase 10/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01 ' Page 16 trench materials contain significant cobbles. Bedding materials should be mechanically compacted to 90 percent or more relative compaction as evaluated by ASTM D1557 and tested. Flooding of sand bedding should not be allowed. Where utility trenches are proposed parallel to building footings (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 ' recommendations. • Compacted -earth berms should be constructed along the tops of the engineered fill slopes, as well as natural slopes, to reduce the likelihood of water from flowing directly onto the slope surfaces. The engineered cut and fill 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 suitable groundcover. If landscaping cannot be provided ' within a reasonable period of time, jute matting (or equivalent) or a spray -on product designed to seal slope surfaces should be considered as a temporary measure to reduce surface erosion until such a time that permanent landscape plants have become well-established. • Irrigation systems should be installed on the engineered slopes and a watering t 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. ' RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES October 24, 2003 TR 23066-3 Lots 122-129 Phase 10/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01 Page 17 • Irrigation systems should be constructed at the surface only. Construction of sprinkler lines in trenches is not recommended. • During construction of terrace drains, downdrains or earth berms, care should 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 should include the care of drainage and erosion -control provisions, rodent control and repair of ' leaking or damaged irrigation systems. • Provided the above recommendations are followed with respect to slope drainage, ' maintenance and landscaping, the potential for deep saturation of slope soils is considered low. ' Property owners should be advised of the potential problems that can develop when drainage on the building pads and adjacent slopes are altered. Drainage can be altered due to the placement of fill and construction of garden walls, retaining walls, walkways, patios, swimming pools, 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. • Building Construction ' - Observe footing trenches when first excavated to document specified depth and competent soil -bearing conditions. - Observe moisture conditioning of subgrade soils below living -area and garage floor slabs to document moisture content and penetration. • Retaining -Wall Construction ' Observe footing trenches when first excavated to document specified depth and competent soil -bearing conditions. at RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES October 24, 2003 TR 23066-3 Lots 122-129 Phase 10/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01 Page 18 - Observe and document proper installation of backdrain systems prior to placing wall backfill. - Observe and test placement of wall backfill to document specified compaction. • Masonry Block -Wall Construction - Observe footing trenches when first excavated to document depth and presence of competent soil -bearing conditions. • Exterior Concrete-Flatwork Construction - Observe and test subgrade soils below concrete- fl atwork areas to document compaction and moisture content. • Utility -Trench Backfill Observe and test placement of utility -trench backfill to document specified compaction. • Re -Grading - Observe and test placement of fill to be placed above or beyond the grades shown on the approved grading plans. I 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES October 24, 2003 TR 23066-3 Lots 122-129 Phase 10/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01 Page 19 This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have questions, please contact this office. Respectfully submitted, PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. v/�5Q No. 1257 �� t Geologi t � EfJGINEERING rcni MI4T W C/RLG/CAC/keb Chffo�raft G Principal Engineer Quo Attachments: Table I - Lot -By -Lot Summary of As -Graded Soil Condill r Table II - Field Density Test Results References Figure 1 - Geotechnical Map with Density Test Locations Appendix A - Laboratory Test Criteria/Laboratory Test Data ppy "«N FmZ n No. GE000243 � m Expl' Q6 c0>I CHIA'f'P * OF CAU a?410 Distribution: (1) Addressee ' (3) Richmond American Homes Attention: Ms. Theresa Johnson (1) Richmond American Homes - Field Office Attention: Mr. Craig Peters (2) Riverside County Building and Safety Attention: Mr. Mack Hakakian (1) Hunsaker & Associates Attention: Mr. Dan Hosseninvadeh (1) Option One Consulting Attention: Mr. Ross Kuster ' G�9�OC%�/ V > ppy "«N FmZ n No. GE000243 � m Expl' Q6 c0>I CHIA'f'P * OF CAU a?410 EXPLANATION (LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE) REFERENCE: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, TRACT NUMBERS 23066-0, 23066-2, 23066-3, AND 23066, ROUGH GRADING PLAN, SHEETS 10 OF 13 AND 12 OF 13. Nocd` Scale 0 40 Feet afcC7777:30000"Q ARTIFICIAL FILL COMPACTED ^ ps QUATERNARY PAUBA FORMATION SANDSTONE GEOTECHNICAL MAP WITH DENSITY TEST LOCATIONS GEOLOGIC CONTACT .LOTS 122 THROUGH 130 p 2185 TRACT 23066-03 (PHASE 10) DENSITY TEST LOCATION 12 u INDICATES REMOVAL DEPTH ELEVATION IN FEET ItPETRA GEOTECHNICAL ■mv=nmmmmmmm SUBDRAIN of TABLE I Tract 23066-3 Lots 122 through 129 LOT -BY -LOT SUMMARY OF SOIL CONDITIONS Lot Number Maximum Fill Depth (ft) Minimum Fill Thickness ft) Estimated Differential Settlement Soil Expansion Index/Potential Post -Tensioned Slab Soil Condition Codes* Remarks 122 3 3 1:960 2/V Low NA Z 123 27 10 1:960 2/V Low NA Z 124 46 27 1:960 6/V Low NA Z 125 47 30 1:960 6/V Low NA Z - 126 47 30 1:960 6/V Low NA Z 127 -26 15 1:960 2/V Low NA Z 128 17 9 1:960 2/V Low NA Z 129 10 5 1:960 2/V Low NA Z * per County of Riverside, Building and Safety Department Plan Check Memorandum dated April 5, 2001 Code Definitions (Reference: 1997 UBQ. 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 18 -III -GG (consider Prefab Roof Trusses) [noted if>1: 480] P If post -tensioned slab system is to be used If none of the above is applicable Plate T-1 1 TABLE 11 Field Density Test Results 06/13/02 1551 Lot 125 1160.0 11.8 117.5 90 9 N� 06/13/02 1552 Lot 126 1160.0 119 1184 91 9 ~� 06/14/02 1611 Lot l25slope 1164.0 15.4 114.3 90 12 06/17/02 1641 Lot l25slope 11668 106 112.8 Yl* 10 N� 06/17/02 1642 Lot l25slope 1169.0 12.1 116.5 90 4 06/17/02 1643 Lot l26slope 1169O 13.5 115J YO 4 06/18/02 1661 Lot l25slope 1162.0 11.1 112.1 90 lA N� 06/18/02 1662 Lot 125 1165.0 13.8 112.8 91 10 07/38/02 1950 Lot 125 11710 8.4 116j 91* 4 08/01/02 1951 Lot l26slope 1178.0 124 126.4 95* ll N� 08/01/02 1953 Lot 126 1180.0 10.5 117.0 91* 4 08/01/02 1954 Lot l27slope 1178.0 124 123j 93* }l N� � 02/05x02 1967 Lot 125 1181.0 86 118.0 90 9 wm 02/05/03 1968 Lot l26slope 1181.0 84 1176 VA 9 02/05/03 1969 Lot l26slope 1182.0 9.3 120.1 92 9 0� � 02/05/03 1970 Lot l27slope 1183.0 10.1 120.6 93 9 02/05/03 1971 Lot l%7slope 1184.0 8.7 117.6 90 9 02/05/03 1972 Lot 126 slope 1186.0 llj 122.2 94 9 N� 02/05/03 1973 Lot l26slope 1187.0 13.9 109.9 95 5 02/06/03 1974 Lot l26slope 1187.0 12.4 111.1 96 5 02/10/03 1975 Lot l25slope 1188.0 136 1168 92 3 02/10/03 1976 Lot l24slope 11810 10.1 115.9 91 3 02/10/03 1977 Lot 126 1189.0 10.3 1169 92 8 02/10/03 1978 Lot 125 1192.0 10.6 116.5 Vl 3 02/10/03 1979 Lot 126 1191.0 103 118.0 93 3 02/20/03 1980 Lot 127 1192 .0 12.8 113 .6 91 10 � 02/20/03 lY&l Lot 124 1143.0 12,5 11I2 91 10 ~� 02/20/03 1982 Lot 126 1194.0 11.8 110.5 91 3 02/20/02 1983 Lot l28slope 1193.0 11.4 115.1 90 3 � 02/21/03 1984 Lot 127 1194.0 12.1 114J 90 3 02/21/03 1985 Lot l%3slope 1190.0 119 115.5 Yl 3 02/21/03 1986 Lot 124 1193.0 124 1127 VA 10 N� 02/21/03 1987 Lot l28slope 1196.0 126 112.8 90 10 03/04/03 1988 Lot 127 1197.0 132 1133 Yl lo 03/06/03 1989 Lot l24slope 1195.0 12.8 112.8 91 10 03/06/03 lVVA Lot 125 11968 13.1 112.2 90 10 03/06/03 lVVl Lot 128 1196.0 12.6 113.3 91 lA 03/06/03 1992 Lot l25slope 1197.0 112 115A 90 3 m� 03/07/03 1993 Lot 124 1198.0 10.8 1162 91* 3 03/10/03 2011 Lot l27slope 1194.0 11.4 1152 90 ] N� 03/10/03 2013 Lot 124 1199.0 11.0 116.3 91 3 03/24/03 2062 Lot 128 1198.0 11.8 115.2 90 3 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066^3/Lots 122^129 OCTOBER 2003 N� J.N. 188^01 +Sanduome TABLE -11 1 �� �. TABLE II Field Density Test Results )y 2097 Lot 130 common slope 1204.0 11.0 120.5 (M TY i '04/01/03 04/01/03 2098 2063 Lot 125 1199.0 12.2 114.8 90 3 '03/24/03 04/01/03 2095 Lot 124 1202.0 11.1 119.9 90 13 04/03/03 04/01/03 2096 Lot 127 1201.0 10.2 122.2 92 13 )y 2097 Lot 130 common slope 1204.0 11.0 120.5 91 13 '04/01/03 04/01/03 2098 Lot 130 common slope 1206.0 10.4 121.2 91 13 04/01/03 2099 Lot 128 1207.0 10.7 121.0 91 13 )y 2100 Lot 126 1206.0 11.1 119.8 90 13 '04/01/03 04/03/03 2104 Lot 130 common slope 1208.0 11.1 119.9 91 13 04/03/03 2105 Lot 124 1209.0 10.8 120.0 91 13 04/03/03 2106 Lot 128 1209.0 10.5 121.1 92 13 04/03/03 2107 Lot 130 common slope 1211.0 11.3 119.5 90 13 2108 Lot 125 1210.0 10.6 119.9 91 13 t04/03/03 04/04/03 2109 Lot 129 1210.0 11.1 119.9 91 13 04/04/03 2110 Lot 129 1213.0 10.9 121.3 92 13 04/04/03 2111 Lot 130 common slope 1212.0 10.5 119.6 91 13 04/04/03 2112 Lot 127 1214.0 10.1 120.9 92 13 04/04/03 2113 Lot 126 slope 1215.0 10.0 121.1 92 13 04/07/03 2116 Lot 130 finish common slope 1185.0 8.5 120.2 91 14 04/07/03 2117 Lot 130 finish common slope 1195.0 9.2 118.8 90 14 04/07/03 2118 Lot 130 finish common slope 1200.0 8.7 119.0 90 14 2119 Lot 130 finish common slope 1210.0 8.3 120.6 91 14 '04/07/03 04/07/03 2120 Lot 130 finish common slope 1215.0 9.0 119.1 90 14 07/31/03 2122 Lot 125 1203.0 9.4 118.7 93 15 '07/31/03 2123B Lot 127 1203.0 10.5 115.8 91 15 07/31/03 2124 Lot 124 1205.0 13.1 117.8 92 15 07/31/03 2125 Lot 125 1207.0 11.5 121.9 96 15 07/31/03 1 2126 Lot 126 1207.0 11.6 122.0 96 15 07/31/03 2127 Lot 128 1207.0 14.1 11j.9 89 15 07/31/03 2128 stonn-drain easement adj Lot 129 1210.8 11.7 115.6 91 15 08/01/03 2129 Lot 125 1209.0 14.0 112.2 91 16 08/01/03 2130 Lot 127 1209.0 15.1 111.9 90 16 08/01/03 2131 Lot 124 1211.0 14.5 114.4 93 16 08/01/03 2132 Lot 126 1211.0 10.6 121.6 95 15 09/22/03 2160 Lot 126 1212.0 9.6 115.1 90 3 '09/22/03 2161 Lot 125 1210.0 11.6 112.3 91 10 09/22/03 2162 Lot 126 1207.0 10.1 117.9 92 3 09/22/03 2163 Lot 127 1210.0 10.8 117.8 92 3 ' 09/23/03 2164 Lot 125 1210.0 11.1 119.9 91 11 09/23/03 2165 Lot 124 1209.0 9.6 119.1 90 11 09/23/03 2166 Lot 128 _ 1209.0 10.5 118.7 93 3 09/23/03 2167 Lot 127 1210.0 10.6 116.6 91 3 09/23/03 2168 Lot 126 1210.5 10.3 122.3 92 13 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-3/Lots 122-129 OCTOBER 2003 ' J.N. 188-01 ' Sandcone TABLE -II 2 )y 09/23/03 09/23/03 09/23/03 '09/24/03 09/24/03 09/24/03 '09/24/03 09/24/03 09/24/03 09/26/03 09/26/03 09/26/03. ' 09/26/03 09/26/03 '09/26/03 09/26/03 09/26/03 1 1 t TABLE II Field Density Test Results 2169 Lot 125 1211.0 12.0 112.4 90 10 2170 Lot 126 1210.0 10.8 122.7 92 13 2171 Lot 127 1212.0 11.1 118.7 93 3 2172 Lot 122 1210.0 9.3 125.2 94 13 2173 Lot 123 1211.0 8.9 123.6 93 13 2174 Lot 124 1212.0 9.0 122.7 93 13 2175 Lot 125 1212.5 9.8 113.3 91 10 2176 Lot 126 1211.5 9.9 122.5 92 13 2177 Lot 128 1212.0 10.0 118.4 92 3 2178 Lot 129 FG 7.9 130.2 98 11 2179 Lot 128 FG 7.5 121.8 91 11 2180 Lot 127 FG 8.7 120.9 91 11 2181 Lot 126 FG 7.3 118.6 91 9 2182 Lot 125 FG 8.9 123.2 92 11 2183 Lot 124 FG 8.1 121.3 91 11 2184 Lot 123 FG 7.5 119.9 90 11 2185 Lot 122 FG 7.7 127.7 96 11 ' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-3/Lots 122-129 OCTOBER 2003 J.N. 188-01 * Sandcone TABLE -II 3 ,�1S ' 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. ' 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. 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. 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 Il, J.N. 298-87, dated May 8. , 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. ' ,2001b, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Tract 23066-3, Lot 129, Redhawk Development, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April, 18. ' 2001c, 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. 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 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. , 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. , 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. ' , 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. ' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. OCTOBER 2003 ' J.N. 188-01 (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. , 2002e, Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Regarding Expansive Soils, Phase I, Tract 23066-2, Lots 10 through 39, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April 3. , 2002f, 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. , 2002g, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Model Lots 1 through 8, Tract 23066-2, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April 26. , 2002h, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 9 through 39, Tract 23066-2, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated May 8. , 2002i, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Model Lots 92 through 95, Tract 23066-1, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated May 30. , 2002j, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 54 through 77 and 115, Tract 23066-1, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated June 20. 2002k, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 40 through 82, Tract 23066-2, City. of Temecula, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated August 13. , 20021, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 39 through 95, Tract 23066-2, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated August 27. , 2003a, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 27 through 38, Tract 23066-3, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01; dated April 15. 2003b, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 18 through 26 and 96 through 98, Tract 23066-3, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated June 25. , 2003c, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 16, 17, 99 through 101 and 115 through 121, Tract 23066-3, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated August 25. . PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. OCTOBER 2003 J.N. 188-01 IR9 APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA LABORATORY TEST DATA PETRA X81 I 1 APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA Laboratory Maximum Dry Density Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected samples of soil in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. Pertinent test values are presented on Plate A -l. Expansion Index Expansion index tests were performed on selected samples of soil 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 Plate A-1. Corrosion Tests 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 included on Plate A-1. Soluble Sulfate Chemical analysis was performed on a selected sample of onsite soil to determine concentrations of soluble sulfate. This test was performed in accordance with California Test Method No. 417. The test result is included on Plate A-2. PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. OCTOBER 2003 J. N. 188-01 M LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY NO I 50"39 fjFi a ar Soilu.N.. -,- , v'ia �`x''�4`^p F a i+f W �"•�s-,y. xa-N2^ v+tF§71�?.:'n'�5i+ ��T#��hrt+. �1 e•adi R a3 _ � 3 k ° Lit " w 6 ,a ?, ds Y&OM-*prLotYrn'[sntSuuli.r.hmfe$. Y, ti mt- �-.s-i r, .5 %� k Dentuk+se m1°"^ r1dDnray rt�.iyv t�, "+.3 ��,., �'y� <i Y� e�, r 1 Dark brown Clayey Silty fine 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 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 10 Medium brown Clayey SILT 11.5 124.5 11 Medium brown Clayey medium to coarse SAND with cobbles 8.0 133.5 12 Light brown Silty to Clayey fine SAND 10.5 126.5 13 Brown Silty SAND 10.0 132.0 14 Brown Silty SAND 8.0 132.0 15 Red brown Clayey SAND 9.5 127.0 16 Brown Silty SAND with Gravel 1 13.0 123.0 EXPANSION INDEX TEST DATA +r.TF�ys:T� tSam le Lot No p a='3cfFT+b �„� tRe resentahvelLots� , ,t 1,.txf` r5 vet t.x' tExpansron e.x!'nm.e, Ex anston'1 .� t'1 YCJ3'. t`"Y Pik+ Hm ".P Y •: mS r1. " tt+� 14'W' fi �..ka, i5 a s„nwm� .uz�Index, xPotenhal,.�,� 122 121 through 123 2 Very Low 125 124 through 126 6 Very Low 128 127 through 129 2 Very Low (1) PER ASTM D1557 • (2) PER ASTM D4829 (3) PER 1997 UBC TABLE 18-1-B PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC OCTOBER 2003 J.N. 188-01 Plate A-1 I 1 CORROSION TESTS (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 1 1 ' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. OCTOBER 2003 J.N. 188-01 Plate A-2 1 1 31 �6k. -N�:bux5. '.' T r -mrr� � iRr m 125 0.0041 135 7.2 2,000 concrete: negligible steel: moderate (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 1 1 ' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. OCTOBER 2003 J.N. 188-01 Plate A-2 1 1 31