HomeMy WebLinkAbout Parcel Map 32924 Parcel 12 Prelim Geotechnical InvestigationI
I
I
I
[1
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
[J
I
I
I
�aq'10
PRELIMINARY GEOT` ECHNICAL_INVESTIGATION
'T.RAC-T3334,-L-OT 12--�
(ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 921-300-013)
YNEZ ROAD AT PARK PLAZA LANE
CITY OF TEMECULA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For:
SELBY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
853 East Valley Boulevard, Suite 200
San Gabrial, California 91776
Project No. 600654-001
December 21, 2004
n
Leighton Consulting, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
n
Leighton Consulting, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
December 21, 2004
To: Selby Development Corporation
853 East Valley Boulevard, Suite 200
San Gabrial, California 91776
Attention: Mr. Issac Lee
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation,
Number 921-300-013), Ynez Road at
Riverside County, California
Project No. 600654-001
Tract 3334, Lot 12, (Assessor Parcel
Park Plaza Lane, City of Temecula,
In accordance with your request, Leighton Consulting, Inc. (LCI) has completed a preliminary
geotechnical investigation for Lot 12, Tract 3334 (Assessor Parcel Number 921-300-013), located
in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California (see Figure 1). Based on our preliminary
geotechnical investigation and review of previous studies performed at this site, the subject
property is considered suitable for the intended development provided the recommendations herein
are incorporated into the design and construction of this project. This report summarizes our
findings, conclusions, and preliminary recommendations regarding the geotechnical conditions
within the subject site.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact this office at your convenience. We
appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you on this project and look forward to working with
Selby Development Corporation in the future.
' Respectfully submitted, 60-1 FFDi..
LEIGHTON CONS I r A so% o ?V0.OFESS�
�Q,�Pa51NOgq,�fFy
.1905 R58 � o -C 9s z
~ 't EXP. 04
Warham Stejer, CEG 1 !PA oo a� oo ��@ Ar/aninganayah RCE CIVIL d�
Associate Geologist q)�-pp CAL\FAQ Senior Staff Engineer CAl1F�
600654-001/finaVCe =h Invest
Distribution: (6) Addressee
41715 Enterprise Circle N., Suite 103 ■ Temecula, CA 92590-5661
909.296.0530 111 Fax 909.296.0534 111 www.leightangeo.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
600654-001
December 17, 2004
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose and Scope........................................................................................................1
1.2 Site Location and Description.........................................................................................1
1.3 Proposed Development..................................................................................................2
1.4 Previous Geotechnical and Geological Studies..................................................................2
2.0 EXPLORATION..............................................................................................................3
2.1 Subsurface Exploration..................................................................................................3
2.2 Laboratory Testing........................................................................................................3
3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS.......................................................................4
3.1 Regional Geology..........................................................................................................4
3.2 Site Geologic Units.........................................................................................................4
3.2.1 Earth Materials..................................................................................................4
3.2.2 Artificial Fill -Undocumented (Map Symbol Afu)......................................................5
3.2.3 Quatemary-Aged Alluvium (Map Symbol Qal)........................................................5
3.2.4 Quaternary -Aged Pauba Formation (Map Symbol QP) ............................................5
3.3 Faulting and Seismicity ..................................................................................................6
3.3.1 Regional Faulting...............................................................................................6
3.3.2 Site Specific Faulting...........................................................................................6
3.3.3 Seismic Considerations.......................................................................................7
3.4 Groundwater.................................................................................................................8
3.5 Secondary Seismic Hazards............................................................................................9
3.5.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement.................................................................9
3.5.2 Landslides and Slope Deformation....................................................................10
3.6 Tsunamis, Seiches and Flooding...................................................................................10
4.0 CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................12
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................14
Leighton
3.3.3.1
Site Seismic Considerations.............................................................................7
3.3.3.2
Ground Rupture..............................................................................................8
3.3.3.3
Fault Setback Considerations...........................................................................8
3.4 Groundwater.................................................................................................................8
3.5 Secondary Seismic Hazards............................................................................................9
3.5.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement.................................................................9
3.5.2 Landslides and Slope Deformation....................................................................10
3.6 Tsunamis, Seiches and Flooding...................................................................................10
4.0 CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................12
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................14
Leighton
600654-001
December 17, 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
5.1 General.......................................................................................................................14
5.2 Earthwork...................................................................................................................14
5.2.1 Preliminary Removal and Site Preparation...........................................................14
5.2.2 Structural Fills and Oversize Materials.................................................................16
5.2.3 Subdrainage...................................................................................................16
5.2.4 Utility Trenches................................................................................................17
5.2.4.1 Underground Utilities/Disaster Preparedness..................................................17
5.2.5 Shrinkage and Bulking......................................................................................17
5.2.6 Preliminary Pavement Design Parameters...........................................................18
5.3 Cut and Fill Slopes.......................................................................................................18
5.4 Drainage.....................................................................................................................19
5.5 Preliminary Foundation Design.....................................................................................19
5.6 Settlement ............................................................................................................. 20
5.7 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures......................................................................21
5.8 Footing Setback..........................................................................................................22
5.9 Corrosion....................................................................................................................22
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW..............................................................................................23
6.1 Plans and Specifications...............................................................................................23
6.2 Construction Review....................................................................................................23
7.0 LIMITATIONS.............................................................................................................24
Accompanying Figures, Tables, Plates and Appendices
Figures
Figure 1— Site Location Map Rear of Text
Tables
Table 1— Earthwork Shrinkage and Bulking Estimates Rear of Text
Table 2 — Preliminary Pavement Design Rear of Text
Table 3 — Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (psf/ft) Rear of Text
Table 4 — Minimum Setback Distance for Structural Improvements Rear of Text
Leighton
600654-001
December 17, 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Plate
Plate 1— Geotechnical Map In Pocket
Appendices
Appendix A — References
Appendix B — Geotechnical Boring Logs (This and Previous Investigations)
Appendix C — Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D — General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
Appendix E — Summary of Liquefaction and Settlement Analysis
Appendix F — Review Letters Pertinent to the Site
-iii-
Leighton
1.0 INTRODUCTION
' 1.1 Purpose and Scone
600654-001
December 21, 2004
' The purpose of our preliminary investigation was to summarize the pertinent, readily
available geologic and geotechnical data, obtain additional site-specific data, and evaluate
this data with respect to the proposed development of the subject site.
The Scope of our services performed by Leighton Consulting, Inc. (LCI) under the current
phase of this investigation included the following items:
' • Review of available information including review and collection of geotechnical and
geological data from previous investigations performed on this property by Leighton and
Associates (1987a and 1985) and letters and other reports pertinent to this site (Appendix
A).
• Excavation, sampling and logging of 6 small -diameter (8 -inch) hollow -stem auger borings
advanced to a maximum depth of 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface, to determine
the general engineering characteristics of the subsurface conditions, collect soil samples for
' laboratory testing, and measure depth to groundwater (if encountered). Approximate
locations of current and previous borings, and fault trenches are depicted on the
Geotechnical Map, Plate 1 (located in the map pocket at the rear of text).
• Laboratory testing of selected soil samples to determine in-situ moisture and density, grain
size, shear strength, hydrocollapse potential, maximum dry density and optimum moisture
' content, corrosion potential and other engineering parameters of the on site materials.
• Geotechnical analysis and review for liquefaction, static and seismic induced settlements,
soil bearing pressure and evaluation of geologic constraints and materials at the site.
' • Preparation of this report, presenting our preliminary conclusions and recommendations
with regards to current site conditions, onsite soil types, seismic design parameters,
' remedial earthwork, commercial structural foundation design and pavement design
parameters as needed.
' 1.2 Site Location and Description
' The subject site is located on the east side of Ynez Road, and approximately 1700 feet north
of Rancho Califomia Road. The property is bounded by Rancho California Town Center on
the south, a commercial office and retail shopping complex on the north and residential
buildings on the east side. The approximate limits of the site are shown on the Site Location
Map (Figure 1). Based on existing surficial site conditions and a comparison of recent
topographic map prepared by RBF (2004) with previous maps (prepared by "To -Mac
' Engineering", obtained before 1985), we believe the southwest portion of the site had been
partially graded or soil had been exported from this site some time after 1985.
-1-
' Leighton
600654-001
December 21, 2004
In general, the subject site is a trapezoidal shaped parcel of land with rolling hills and incised
drainage. A southwest trending drainage swale runs along the northwest end of the site. This
drainage was dry at the time of this investigation. There were no structures or other
improvements on the site, at the time of this investigation. The surface vegetation within the
site consists of perennial grasses and weeds.
1.3 Proposed Development
No site improvement plans were available as the date of this report. A rough grading plan,
referring to this site as a borrow site, was prepared by RBF Consulting (2004) and provided
for our review. We understand that the site will be utilized for construction of small
commercial structures with associated landscaping, driveways and parking areas.
Based on our understanding of the site, we anticipate that conventional cut and fill grading
techniques will be proposed to achieve finished grades. Based on our review of existing
topography, we anticipate that grading may generate cut and fills higher than 10 feet.
Remedial grading in existing swales is anticipated to locally increase the proposed fill
thickness by approximately 5 to 10± feet.
1.4 Previous Geotechnical and Geological Studies
A preliminary geotechnical investigation/liquefaction study and fault investigation was
performed by Leighton and Associates (Leighton) in December 1985 and May 1987,
respectively. The geotechnical investigation/liquefaction study included depth to water
liquefaction potential, and recommendations for grading. The western portion of the site is in
a California Fault -Rupture Hazard Zone. In Leighton 1987 fault investigation the_Wildomar
Fault was found crossing the southwestern portion of the site. A building set back zone was
established for structures designed for human occupancy of 2000 person hours or higher per
year. Structural seismic design parameters and secondary seismic hazards were also discussed
in the 1987 report. Logs of previous exploratory borings and fault trenches are included in
Appendix B. Approximate locations of previous soil borings and fault trenches are also
shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1) in this report.
-2 4
-
Leighton
I
2.1 Subsurface Exploration
2.0 EXPLORATION
600654-001
December 21, 2004
' On November 19, 2004, LCI conducted a field exploration of the subject site using a CME -
75 truck -mounted, 8 -inch diameter hollow -stem auger drill rig. Our subsurface exploration
consisted of the excavation, sampling and logging of six (6) exploratory borings. The
' borings were advanced to depths of approximately 21.5 to 51.5 feet below the existing
ground surface. Approximate locations of the borings are depicted on the Geotechnical Map
(Plate 1).
The exploratory borings were sampled utilizing an automatic safety hammer for driving the
samplers. During the drilling operation, bulk and relatively undisturbed samples were
obtained from the borings for laboratory testing and evaluation. The relatively undisturbed
samples were obtained utilizing a modified California drive sampler (2% -inch inside
diameter and 3 -inch outside diameter) driven 18 -inches where possible in general
accordance with ASTM Test Method D3550. In addition, standard penetration tests (SPT)
were performed using a 2 -inch outside diameter (1% -inch inside diameter) sampler driven
18 -inches where possible in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D1586. All drive
samples and SPTs were advanced with a 140 -pound automatic hammer dropping 30 -inches.
The number of blows to achieve the last 12 -inches of penetration, or number of blows and
sampling penetration depth was recorded on the boring logs (Appendix B).
Sampling and logging of the borings was conducted by a LCI Staff Geologist. Soil
materials were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System and
further classified in the laboratory. Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix B. After
logging and sampling, the excavations were backfilled with spoils generated during
excavation. Samples were transported to our laboratory for testing.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples to evaluate insitu moisture and
density, grain size distribution, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content,
hydrocollapse potential, soil shear strength, soluble sulfate content, pH, and minimum
resistivity. A brief discussion of the laboratory test methods performed, and the laboratory
test data sheets are presented in Appendix C. The in-situ moisture and density
determinations are shown on the boring logs (Appendix B).
-3 4
-
Leighton
600654-001
December 21, 2004
3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS
' 3.1 RegionalGeology
t The subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in
southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. It is characterized by steep,
elongated ranges and valleys that generally trend northwestward. The most common rock
' types found in the Peninsular Ranges consist of early Cretaceous age (140 to 105 million -year
old) formations including the metasedimentary Bedford Canyon Formation and Santiago Peak
Volcanics (Silver and Chappel, 1988). These formations were intruded by granodiorite,
quartz monzonite and other granitics of the Southern California Batholith during the
Cretaceous period (Kennedy, 1977). Tectonic activity along the numerous faults in the region
has created the geomorphology present today.
' Specifically, the site is situated in the southern portion of the Perris Block, an eroded mass of
Cretaceous and older crystalline and metamorphic rock. Thin sedimentary, metamorphic and
' volcanic units locally mantle the bedrock with alluvial deposits filling in the lower valleys and
drainages. The Perris Block is bounded by the San Jacinto Fault zone to the northeast, the
Elsinore Fault zone to the southwest, the Cucamonga fault zone to the northwest and to the
southeast by the poorly defined Temecula basin.
' The Perris Block in the Temecula Valley region had a complex history, apparently undergoing
relative vertical movements of several thousand feet in response to movement on the Elsinore
and San Jacinto Fault zones. These movements, in conjunction with the semi -and climate and
' the resistance of the rock to weathering, are responsible for the formation and preservation of
ancient, generally flat -lying erosion surfaces now present at various elevations. These surfaces
give the Perris Block its unique geologic character. The sedimentary units.of the subject site
' were deposited on these erosion surfaces. Alluvial deposits (recent and older Pleistocene -aged)
and Pauba Formation sedimentary materials fill in the lower valley and drainage areas.
t3.2 Site Geologic Units
3.2.1 Earth Materials
' The earth materials encountered on site during this investigation consisted of
undocumented artificial fill, alluvium, and the Quatemary-aged Pauba Formation.
t. These units are discussed in the following sections in order of increasing age.
Anticipated remedial removal depths within each of these units (when known) have
also been provided in this section for ease of reference. General earthwork and
' remedial removals are discussed in Section 5.2.1 of this report.
-4- if
' Leighton
600654-001
December 21, 2004
3.2.2 Artificial Fill -Undocumented (Mao Symbol Afu)
Undocumented fill soils were observed at various locations within the subject site
(Plate 1). The majority of the undocumented fill is associated with the previous
grading activities along Ynez Road. Based on our review of recent topographical map
(surveyed after the previous grading) with the previous maps (surveyed before the
grading), we anticipate the undocumented artificial fill will generally be less than 10
feet in thickness. Undocumented fills appear to be composed of locally derived
materials and typically consist of clayey to silty sands (unified soil classifications -
SM, SQ. This material will likely have an expansion potential that generally vanes
from low to medium with localized areas of highly expansive materials possible. The
undocumented fills are considered unsuitable for support of additional fill and/or
structural improvements in their current condition. We recommend that this material
be completely removed during rough -grading operations. The clean undocumented
fill soils may be reused as compacted fill provided they are placed in general
accordance with the recommendations provided in Appendix D.
3.2.3 Quaternary -Aged Alluvium (Mao Symbol Qal)
Quatemary-aged alluvium was encountered in the drainage swales at the site (see Plate
1). Its composition varies slightly across the site but it is generally a light brown, dry
to slightly damp, loose, clayey to silty, fine to very coarse sand with scattered pebbles.
The amount of clay does vary within this unit; however, it was not observed to be a
dominant fraction. This material will likely have a low to medium potential for
expansion. However, highly expansive areas of clayey materials may be locally
encountered within this unit. We recommend that this material be removed during
rough -grading. Alluvial materials cleared of debris and organic material are suitable
for reuse as compacted fills, provided they are placed in general accordance with the
recommendations provided in Appendix D.
3.2.4 Quaternary -Aged Pauba Formation (Mai) Symbol Qp)
The Quatemary-aged Pauba Formation was encountered throughout the subject site on
the ground surface and underlying the above outlined materials. As encountered, this
unit generally consisted of olive brown to yellow-brown to red- brown, moist, medium
dense to dense, moderately indurated, clayey to slightly silty, very fine to locally coarse
sand. Relatively unweathered, non porous Pauba Formation should be considered
suitable for support of additional fill and/or structural improvements provided no
adverse geologic conditions (out of slope bedding or jointing) are encountered during
rough -grading. A geologist from this firm should observe and document the actual
removal bottom conditions in the field. The Pauba Formational materials cleared of
debris and organic material are suitable for reuse as compacted fills, provided they are
placed in general accordance with the recommendations provided in Appendix D.
-5 4
-
Leighton
600654-001
December 21, 2004
3.3 Faulting and Seismicity
3.3.1 Regional Faulting
The subject site, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismically
active region as a result of being located near the active margin between the North
American and Pacific tectonic plates. The principal source of seismic activity is
movement along northwest -trending regional faults such as the San Andreas, San
Jacinto and Elsinore Fault zones. These fault systems produce up to approximately 45
millimeters (1.8 inches) per year of slip, which is the majority of the relative motion
between the plates. Within the San Andreas Fault System, the Elsinore Fault zone is
the closest to the site capable of producing a major quake. This fault zone is estimated
to accommodate 10 to 15 percent of the plate boundary motion, and is estimated to
-have a slip rate of 4 to 5 millimeters (0.16 to 0.2 inches) per year (WGCEP, 1995).
The nearest zoned "active faults" (other than the on-site Wildomar Fault) are the
Elsinore -Temecula Fault, located approximately 1.1 miles (1.8 km) southwest ofthe
site, the Elsinore -Julian Fault located 11.9 miles (19.2 km) to the southeast, and the
Elsinore -Glen Ivy Fault, 14.8miles (23.8 km) northwest of the site (Blake, 2000c).
As defined by the California Geological Survey (CGS), an active fault is one that has
had surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch (last 11,000 years). The CGS
has defined a potentially active fault as any fault which has been active during the
Quaternary Period (last 1,600,000 years). These definitions are used in delineating
earthquake fault zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones
Act of 1972 and as subsequently revised in 1994, 1997, and 1999 (Hart, 1999), as
the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and Earthquake Fault Zones. The
'intent of the act is to require fault investigations on sites located within earthquake
fault zones to preclude new construction of certain inhabited structures across the
trace of active faults. An Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone crosses the southwest
corner of the site. The limits of the earthquake fault zones are shown on the
accompanying Geotechnical Map (Plate 1).
3.3.2 Site Specific Faulting
The on-site segment of the Wildomar Fault, as documented during previous
investigations (Leighton, 1987a) and other published state and federal reports, is
considered to be an active fault which has evidence of displacement of Holocene -aged
soils. The subject site is included within an earthquake fault zone as created by the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Hart, 1999). The Wildomar Fault, which
traverses the subject study area is an active fault as defined by the State of California
(fault has had surface displacement during the past 11,000 years).
-6 4;
-
Leighton
' Our evaluation of the regional seismicity included a deterministic analysis
utilizing EQFAULT and EQSEARCH, (Blake, 2000a and 2000b) and
probabilistic analysis utilizing FRISKSP, (Blake, 2000c). The nearest
known active fault and source of the design earthquake is the Temecula
Segment (known locally as the Wildomar Fault), of the Elsinore Fault
Zone (Blake, 2000b). A portion of the Wildomar Fault traverses through
a southwest comer of the site. The maximum moment magnitude earthquake
of this fault is estimated to be magnitude 6.8 Mw.
O The Uniform Building Code (UBC) established Seismic Zones (often
accepted as minimum standards) based on maps showing ground motion
with a 475 -year return period or a 10% probability of exceedance in 50
ayears. Our analysis indicates a 10% probability that a peak ground
acceleration of 0.73g could be exceeded in 50 years. The design
earthquake therefore, is considered a magnitude 6.8Mw event on the
Temecula-Wildomar segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone that would
generate a probabilistic peak ground acceleration of 0.738 (Blake, 2000c).
The effect of seismic shaking may be minimized by adhering to the 2001
Uniform Building Code (UBC) and seismic design parameters suggested
-7- 41
Leighton
600654-001
December 21, 2004
'
Previous investigations (Leighton, 1987a) have identified active and non-active
faults within the subject property. A qualitative risk assessment for surface rupture
'
on the active fault (Leighton, 1987a), recommended 50 foot horizontal setbacks on
both sides of this fault for human occupancy structures. Our previous fault
investigation report (Leighton, 1987a) was reviewed by Riverside County Planning
Department (County Geologist Report No. 413). Subsequent letters by Leighton and
Associates (Leighton, 1987b) and county review comments (Riverside County,
'
1987) are included in Appendix F of this report.
Fault locations were field staked by Leighton at the time of our 1987 investigation
'
and surveyed by the previous project civil engineering firm. These surveyed fault
locations were transferred to the current topographic map prepared by RBF in 2004
and are presented on the enclosed Geotechnical Map, Plate 1.
'
3.3.3 Seismic Considerations
'
Our evaluation of the regional seismicity included a deterministic analysis utilizing
EQFAULT and EQSEARCH, (Blake, 2000a & b) and UBCSEIS (Blake, 2000d). The
nearest known "zoned" active fault and source of the design earthquake is the Elsinore
Fault Zone (Wildomar Segment), traverses along the western portion of the subject
site.
3.3.3.1 Site Seismic Considerations
' Our evaluation of the regional seismicity included a deterministic analysis
utilizing EQFAULT and EQSEARCH, (Blake, 2000a and 2000b) and
probabilistic analysis utilizing FRISKSP, (Blake, 2000c). The nearest
known active fault and source of the design earthquake is the Temecula
Segment (known locally as the Wildomar Fault), of the Elsinore Fault
Zone (Blake, 2000b). A portion of the Wildomar Fault traverses through
a southwest comer of the site. The maximum moment magnitude earthquake
of this fault is estimated to be magnitude 6.8 Mw.
O The Uniform Building Code (UBC) established Seismic Zones (often
accepted as minimum standards) based on maps showing ground motion
with a 475 -year return period or a 10% probability of exceedance in 50
ayears. Our analysis indicates a 10% probability that a peak ground
acceleration of 0.73g could be exceeded in 50 years. The design
earthquake therefore, is considered a magnitude 6.8Mw event on the
Temecula-Wildomar segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone that would
generate a probabilistic peak ground acceleration of 0.738 (Blake, 2000c).
The effect of seismic shaking may be minimized by adhering to the 2001
Uniform Building Code (UBC) and seismic design parameters suggested
-7- 41
Leighton
' 600654-001
December 21, 2004
by the Structural Engineers Association of California. This site is located
' within Seismic Zone 4. Seismic design parameters are presented below:
Seismic Design Coefficients
Seismic Zone UBC (Figure 16-2) = 4
Seismic Source Type UBC (Table 16-U) = B
' Near Source Factor, Na UBC (Table 16-S) 1.3
Near Source Factor, N. UBC (Table 16-T) 1.6
Soil Profile Type UBC (Table 16J) = Sd
' 50 year Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration = 0.73g
(10% probability of exceedance in 50 years)
t3.3.3.2 Ground Rupture
The two principal seismic considerations for most properties in southern
' California are surface rupturing of earth materials along fault traces and
damage to structures due to seismically induced ground shaking.
Ground rupture commonly occurs along pre-existing active faults, initiated
during a seismic event. Geologic evidence of active faulting was observed
at the site during our 1987 investigation. The potential for ground rupture
within this zone is characterized as high. Geologic mapping should be
conducted during rough grading in order to document the location and
extent of site faulting, in addition to other geologic conditions underlying
the site.
3.3.3.3 Fault Setback Considerations
As indicated in our previous reports, slabs and foundations supporting
commercial or public use facilities on this site should conform to the
applicable sections of the Uniform Building Code (1997 edition or current
and adopted). Previously, Leighton recommended that in accordance with
Q the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Revised 1999), set back
zones for habitable structures be included in the design.
D3.4 Groundwater
No groundwater was encountered in any of the soil boring advanced for this investigation
(see Appendix B). However, groundwater was reported at a depth of 31f feet in boring B-
3 during our 1985 investigation. Depending on seasonal rainfall, perched groundwater may
be encountered along the northern margins due to seepage from the existing drainage
swale. Groundwater is not considered a significantly constraint in most part of the proposed
-8-
Leighton
' 600654-001
December 21, 2004
tsite development. Should regional groundwater elevations change significant or perched
' groundwater be encountered during grading, recommendations can be provided to mitigate
those conditions during grading operations.
' 3.5 Secondary Seismic Hazards
Secondary effects associated with severe ground shaking following a relatively large
earthquake on a regional fault which may affect the site include ground lurching, soil
liquefaction and dynamic settlement. These secondary effects of seismic shaking for this
site are discussed below in the following sections.
3.5.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement
' Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion during
earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils below a
' near surface groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the
seismic stability of most clays, silty clays below a regional or perched groundwater
table are less susceptible. Liquefaction is characterized by an increase in pore water
' pressure and loss of shear strength in the affected soil layers, thereby causing the
soil to "flow as a liquid". This effect may be manifested at the ground surface by
settlement, sand boils or lateral spreading. In order for the potential effects of
' liquefaction to be manifested at the ground surface, the soils generally have to be
granular, loose to medium dense, saturated relatively near the ground surface and
must be subjected to a sufficient magnitude and duration of ground shaking.
' The subject site is in an area designated highly susceptible to liquefaction by the
County of Riverside (Riverside County, 2003). Based on our recent and previous
' subsurface exploration and analysis on this property, the site contains localized
strata of liquefiable soils if shallow groundwater conditions exist during an
earthquake event. During this phase of our subsurface exploration groundwater was
not encountered in the upper 50 feet below ground surface. A groundwater depth of
31 feet was reported in soil boring B-3 in our 1987 geotechnical report. Depending
on rainfall, the groundwater will fluctuate seasonally. Based on highest
' groundwater elevations reported in nearby wells (DWR, 2004), we have used an
estimated high groundwater depth of 27 -feet below existing ground elevation for
this site. The occurrence of liquefaction and related settlement, as analyzed,
requires that the design earthquake occurs simultaneously with a groundwater level
of 27 feet below existing ground surface elevation.
' Most part of the subject site is underlain by medium dense to dense Pauba
Formational material. Our analysis indicated that liquefaction susceptibility is
' limited to generally thin silty sand layers encountered at depths of 31 feet or deeper
assuming a groundwater table of 27 feet below ground surface. Comparing the
' -9- 49
' Leighton
600654-001
December 21, 2004
thickness of non liquifiable surface layers with the potential liquifiable layers
(below assumed highest groundwater level), the surface manifestation of
liquefaction related distress to the structural improvements are considered very low
(Ishihara, 1985).
Uncompacted fill soils and in-situ soils that are primarily granular in nature, may
be susceptible to dynamic settlement or densification above and below the water
table if subjected to the design level earthquake. Assuming all surfacial soils,
alluvial soils in the drainage swales and all existing undocumented fills if
encountered within any structural improvement areas, will be removed and
recompacted during rough grading, the potential total seismic densification due to
liquefaction and dry sand settlement, calculated in accordance with Tokimatsu and
Seed (1987) are on the order of 1.5 to 2.0 inches. The potential differential seismic
densification (from liquefaction and dry sand settlement) may be on the order of 1.0
to 1.5 inches in a 40 feet horizontal distance. A summary of the liquefaction and
settlement analysis performed on this property is presented in Appendix E of this
report.
3.5.2 Landslides and Slone Deformation
The hazard from seismically induced landslides is considered low. The slopes
that will exist on the subject site will be assumed to have been constructed with
engineered fill during rough grading to meet the minimum static and pseudo static
factors of safety for slopes. In addition, no pre-existing landslides were mapped
or discovered during exploration and evaluation of the site in previous reports.
This does not preclude fill soil cracks and ruptures due to underlying fault
movement. This disruption of fill following a local seismic event may be
accompanied by varying amounts of lateral deformation. We anticipate the
existing drainage channel along the northern boundary will be designed with
subsurface drainage devices such as stormdrains. If it is decided to keep the
existing surface drainage as an open channel then the adjacent slopes should be
evaluated for lateral spreading and a set back distance to any structural
improvements may required based on actual slope configurations.
Slopes that are crossed by active or potentially active faults on this site will likely
exhibit significant primary, as well as, secondary seismic effects (densification as
well as lateral deformation of slope profile(s) in the event of onsite ground
rupture.
3.6 Tsunamis, Seiches and Flooding
Hazard from tsunamis is not present as the site is located away from the immediate coastal
area. No ponds, lakes or other large man-made open water retention features are known
-10 41
-
Leighton
' 600654-001
December 21, 2004
' to exist on, or immediately adjacent to the site and the possibility of seiches is considered
' low.
LJ
1
I
1
1
1
1
' -11-
' Leighton
600654-001
December 21, 2004
' 4.0 CONCLUSIONS
' Based on our preliminary geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed
development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The following is a summary of the
' geotechnical factors that may affect development of the site.
• The existing onsite artificial soils, alluvium and Pauba Formation soils appear to be suitable
for re -use as engineered fill during future grading provided they are free of organic and other
deleterious material.
' • Top soil, alluvium encountered in the drainage swales and undocumented fill are considered
compressible in their present condition. The upper 2 to 6 feet of Pauba Formation is
' considered to be potentially compressible and/or possess a hydro -collapse potential. These
materials should be removed and recompacted.
' • Based on our review of our previously completed geotechnical reports on this site and our
current subsurface exploration, it is our opinion that the on-site earth materials may be
excavated with conventional heavy-duty grading equipment.
' • Evidence of active faulting was identified along the southwestern portion of the subject site.
Structural setbacks from active or potentially active faults are required based on the location
' of the fault. The documented fault location and structural set back zones should be reviewed
and refined based on future findings during rough grading.
' • The design ground motion having a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years is
expected to produce a peak horizontal ground surface acceleration at the site of up to
approximately 0.73g.
• The subject site has a low potential for liquefaction due to the dense physical characteristics
of the underlying soils. Surface manifestation of liquefaction related distress to structural
improvements are considered low. Dynamic settlement is anticipated to be less than the
Riverside County guidelines, provided the recommendations contained herein are
incorporated into the design and construction of the site.
' • Groundwater was not encountered during our current investigation. Shallow groundwater is
not expected to be a factor during site excavation and construction. Perched water may
' develop in areas of soils with low permeabilities, possibly resulting in saturated fills or
seepage from slopes.
' Based on limited laboratory testing (Appendix Q and visual classification, onsite earth
materials are expected to possess a low expansion potential. Additional testing should be
performed during site grading to verify these observations and limited laboratory data.
t
' 1
2
' Leighton
600654-001
December 21, 2004
• Limited laboratory testing (Appendix Q indicates that the on-site soils present a negligible
concentration of sulfate exposure to concrete and a low potential (mildly corrosive) for
corrosion of buried metal improvements. Additional laboratory soil testing should be
performed during site grading to verify these observations and limited laboratory data.
• Based on existing topography and our understanding of the conceptual development of the
site, fill and cut slopes are anticipated to be on the order of 10 feet in height. When 40 -scale
rough grading plans are available, proposed cut, fill and fill over cult slopes should be
evaluated for general and surficial slope stability for static and pseudostatic cases.
• Due to the granular nature of site soils, unprotected pads and slope faces will be susceptible
to erosion if exposed to rain or excessive irrigation. This risk is increased if granular
materials are placed at pad grade or on slope faces. This risk can be reduced by planting the
slopes as soon as possible after grading, and by maintaining proper erosion control measures.
Leighton
7
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
' 5.1 General
600654-001
December 21, 2004
' Based on our geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed conceptual
development of the site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint and may be constructed
provided the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction of
this project. The following sections discuss the principal design recommendations and are
based on subsurface soil conditions encountered during our investigation. A review of the
final rough grading plans, structural improvement plans, foundation plans and utility drawings
' should be made by Leighton Consulting, Inc. before they are put out to bid or submitted to the
city/county for permits.
' The fault trenches excavated during our 1987 investigation were loosely back filled with
spoils. These trenches should be reopened during future rough -grading operations at the site
' and back filled with engineered fill compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction
per ASTM test method D1557.
'5.2 Earthwork
Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading
Specifications in Appendix D and the recommendations presented in the following sections.
The recommendations contained in Appendix D are general grading specifications provided
for typical grading projects and some of the recommendations may not be applicable to this
' project. The specific recommendations contained in the text of this report and recommended
future studies may supersede the general recommendations in Appendix D. The contract
between the developer and earthwork contractor should be worded such that it is the
' responsibility of the contractor to place the fill in accordance with the recommendations of
this report, the specifications in Appendix D, and the requirements of the City of Temecula
notwithstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant.
' 5.2.1 Preliminary Removal and Site Preparation
Prior to grading, the proposed structural improvement areas (i.e. all structural fill areas,
pavement areas, buildings, etc.) of the site should be cleared of surface and subsurface
' obstructions, heavy vegetation, roots and debris which should be disposed of offsite.
Septic tanks, cesspool, and water wells, if encountered, should be removed or
abandoned in accordance with the Riverside County Department of Health Services
' guidelines. The site currently contains no visible improvements or drainage conduits. If
buried improvements are encountered on-site they should be removed, under the
supervision of the geotechnical engineer.
' -14 4;
-
' Leighton
600654-001
December 21, 2004
Removal of unsuitable compressible materials should be anticipated in all proposed fill
areas and some cut areas where these materials extend below proposed grades. The
unsuitable materials include undocumented fill, topsoil, alluvium and upper 2 to 6 feet
of Pauba Formation. The removal depths of these unsuitable materials will vary with
location. We anticipate that removals will primarily be from 2 to 6 feet below existing
grades, but localized deeper areas of unsuitable material may be encountered. All
undocumented fill, topsoil, and alluvium should be removed until moderately dense (85
percent relative compaction per ASTM test method D1557), relatively non -porous
Pauba Formation materials are encountered. Based on our laboratory testing we
anticipate in some local areas, moderately porous collapsible soils will be encountered
during grading. We recommend a geologist should be onsite during rough grading to
verify the suitability of the removal bottoms. If porous, potentially collapsible soils are
encountered, the removals should be further deepened until moderately dense (85
percent relative compaction per ASTM test method D1557), relatively non -porous
Pauba Formation materials are encountered.
For planning purposes, the minimum removal depths for building pads should be 3 feet
below existing grade or 3 feet below bottom of the deepest footings, whichever is
deeper for uniform support. Removals up to 6 feet deep, from existing ground surfaces
are recommended under building footprints, if porous unsuitable soil conditions are
encountered. For roadways, driveways and parking areas, the minimum removal depths
should be 2 feet below existing grade, or 12 inches below finish sub -grade elevation,
whichever is deeper.
The lateral extent of the removals should include the area 10 feet beyond the outermost
foundation elements for a given structure or established by a 1:1 projection from the
outside edge of fill soils supporting settlement -sensitive structures downward and
outward to competent material identified by the geotechnical consultant. A structural
setback will be required where complete removals are not made. Removals may
require benching into competent earth materials in general accordance with Appendix
D of this report. The approved excavation bottoms should be scarified and moisture
conditioned prior to placement of fill soils.
Temporary cuts to achieve removals should be performed in accordance with OSHA
guidelines and the gradient should be 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. For
backcuts in excess of 15 feet in height or inclinations steeper than 1:1, specific
recommendations by the geotechnical consultant should be requested. Prolonged
exposure of temporary cuts should not be allowed.
' Keyways will be necessary for fill slopes over 6 feet in height. Keyways should be
located at the toe of the proposed fill slopes. Keyways are also required at a fill over cut
contact. Please review Appendix D for schematics of these keyways. Keyways should
' be excavated into dense material as depicted in Appendix D. Continuous benching should
-15- 4i
Leighton
' 600654-001
December 21, 2004
be continued into dense material as the fill placement proceeds. Benching and keying
' should be of sufficient depth to remove all loose material as shown in Appendix D. A
minimum bench height of 2 feet into approved removal bottom material should be
maintained at all times. For fill over cut slopes, a keyway should be excavated at the
' interface of the cut to fill transition (after removal of unsuitable surficial soils). The fill
over cut keyways should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and inclined into the slope at
least 2 percent. The cut portions of slopes and keyway excavations should be
' geologically mapped by a geologist prior to fill placement. Please refer to Appendix D
for our general grading and earthwork recommendations.
Rough grading plans for the actual design grades were not available at the time of this
report. Based on our review of existing topography we anticipate some building pads
may be located on cut fill transition zone. The cut portion of cut fill transition pad
should be over excavated 3 feet below the lowest footing elevation. This over excavation
does not include scarification or pre-processing prior to fill placement. The over
excavation can be limited to approximately 10 feet beyond the proposed building
"footprints". Fill thicknesses differential under buildings footprint should not vary more
than 15 feet. In order to achieve this maximum thickness differential, additional over
excavation may be necessary based on actual remedial removal depths performed.
After completion of the recommended removal of unsuitable soils, and overdxcavation
of transition pads, the approved surface should be scarified a minimum depth of 8 -
inches, moisture conditioned as necessary to near optimum and compacted to a
minimum 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557.
5.2.2 Structural Fills and Oversize Materials
The native onsite soils are suitable for use as compacted fill, provided they are
relatively free of organic materials and debris. Generally, rocks greater than 12 inches
should not be placed within 10 feet of finished grade, within 10 feet of finished slope
faces or within utility trench areas. Local water district requirements may limit use of
rocks greater than 6 inches in trenching. Leighton Consulting, Inc. does not anticipate
significant amounts of oversize earth materials to be generated during grading:
5.2.3 Subdrainaae
Based on the results of our subsurface investigation, canyon subdrainage may be
needed based on localized conditions exposed during grading. The fills will generally
saturate at or near the cut/fill contact with relatively impermeable bedrock. Excess
subsurface water will be directed away from building pad overexcavation areas by
sloping the overexcavation bottoms towards the deeper adjacent fill areas. Subdrains in
fill slopes or fill over cut slopes are recommended in general accordance with the
schematic sections and recommendations in Appendix D.
4
16 -
Leighton
600654-001
Deoember 21, 2004
5.2.4 UtilityTrenches
The onsite soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided they are screened
of rocks over 6 inches in diameter and organic matter. Trench backfill should be
compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness) by
mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM Test Method
D1557).
Excavation of utility trenches should be performed in accordance with the project
plans, specifications, and all applicable OSHA requirements. The contractor should be
responsible for providing the "competent person" required by OSHA standards.
Contractors should be advised that sandy soils (such as fills generated from the onsite
alluvium) can make excavations particularly unsafe if all safety precautions are not
taken. In addition, excavations at or near the toe of slopes and/or parallel to slopes may
be highly unstable due to the increased driving force and load on the trench wall: Spoil
piles from the excavation(s) and construction equipment should be kept away from the
sides of the trenches. Leighton Consulting, Inc. does not consult in the area of safety
engineering.
5.2.4.1 Underground Utilities/Disaster Preparedness
' Underground utilities such as storm, sewer, gas and water systems may be
constructed across fault traces at the sites. Disaster preparedness emergency
plans should be formulated in case these services are lost during an
' earthquake event. Loss of services would likely be citywide during a
maximum event, and probably not the direct result of onsite rupture. Utilities
that cross fault zones on this site should be reviewed by the civil consultant
' and consideration for orienting significant utilities with respect to the fault
zone should be made. Utility cut off devices for conduits crossing faults
should be considered.
5.2.5 Shrinkage and Bulking
' The volume change of excavated onsite materials upon recompaction is expected to
vary with materials, density, insitu moisture content, location, and compaction effort.
The in-place and compacted densities of soil materials vary and accurate overall
' determination of shrinkage and bulking cannot be made. Therefore, we recommend
site grading include, if possible, a balance area or ability to adjust grades slightly to
' accommodate some variation. Based on our experience with similar materials, in-situ
and maximum dry density test results of representative samples, the shrinkage/bulking
parameters for on-site soils are proved in Table 1 (rear of the text).
1
-17-
4W
' Leighton
600654-001
December 21, 2004
5.2.6 Preliminary Pavement Design Parameters
Preliminary pavement thickness recommendation presented in Table 2 (rear of text) is
based on the Caltrans Highway Design Manual using an R -value = 30. For planning
and estimating purposes, a range of Traffic Indexes (TI's) had been provided for
preliminary pavement recommendations. Final pavement sections should be selected
by the project civil engineer or traffic engineer consultant with the appropriate TI and
R -value data and should be in general accordance with City Temecula minimum
standards.
Representative samples of the actual subgrade materials should be obtained and tested
for R -Value during rough grading as the basis for the final pavement design.
The subgrade soils in the upper 12 inches of the street and parking areas should be
properly compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557) and
should be moisture -conditioned to near optimum and kept in this condition until the
pavement section is constructed.
Minimum relative, compaction requirements for aggregate base should be 95 percent of
the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557. Base rock should
conform to the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" (green book)
current edition or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base having a minimum R -value of 78. .
The preliminary pavement sections provided in this section are meant as minimum
value, if thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased
maintenance and repair may be needed.
If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, some deterioration
of the subgrade load bearing capacity may result. We recommend some measures of
moisture control (such as deepened curbs or other moisture barrier materials) be
provided to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming saturated.
Additional pavement recommendations, including concrete paving, parking lots, truck
loading docks and entry ramps will be provided when further information regarding the
proposed development is available.
' 5.3 Cut and Fill Slopes
' Rough grading plans were not available for our review for this investigation. Based on our
review of existing topographical map, we anticipate cut and fill slopes on the order of 10 feet
may be required to construct the building pads. Based on our experience with similar
' materials, cut and properly compacted fill slopes constructed at 2:1 (horizontal to vertical)
-18-
' Leighton
' 600654-001
December 21, 2004
inclinations and flatter with heights up to approximately 25 feet, will be grossly and surficially
' stable, provided cut slopes are free from adverse geological conditions, such as, out -of -slope
bedding, faulting or jointing. The geotechnical consultant should review all proposed slopes
within the site, when 40 -rough grading plans are available for this development. All cut and
' fill slopes should be examined during grading by the project geologist or geotechnical
engineer.
5.4 Drainage
Over -the -slope drainage should not be permitted. All drainage should be directed away from
' slopes and structures by means of approved permanent drainage devices. Adequate storm
drainage of any proposed super pads should be provided to avoid siltation of temporary
construction catch basins. Linear sandbagging of the super pads tangential to flow directions
' in periodic intervals, should reduce erosion potential of runoff over these pads. Subdrains are
not anticipated at this time. However, this is subject to change based on the conditions
' exposed during construction and the final design of the project. Drainage directed into non-
erosive devices (concrete gutters or pipes) should be designed for the effects of anticipated
settlement.
' 5.5 Preliminary Foundation Design
' We recommend that the proposed structures be founded on post -tensioned or conventional
foundation systems. Additional recommendations can be provided once 40 -scale rough -
grading plans, building loads and building footprints are prepared. The proposed foundations
' and slabs should be designed in accordance with the structural consultants' design, the
minimum geotechnical recommendations presented herein, and the 1997 UBC. In utilizing the
minimum geotechnical foundation recommendations, the structural consultant should design
' the foundation system to accept deflection criteria as determined by the structural engineer and
architect. Foundation footings may be designed with the following parameters:
Allowable Bearing Capacity: 2000 psf at a minimum depth of embedment of 12 inches
(minimum width of 12 inches), plus an additional 250 psf per
6 inches of additional embedment to a maximum of 2500 psf.
t Note that two story buildings should follow UBC requirements
for minimum embedment. (per 1997 UBC, capacities may be
increased by 1/3 for short-term loading conditions, i.e., wind,
' seismic)
tSliding Coefficient: 0.35
The under -slab moisture control should consist of 2 inches of sand (S.E. > 30) over 10 mil
' visqueen over an additional 2 inches of sand (a total of 4 inches of sand). The recommended
vapor retarder should be sealed at all penetrations and laps. Moisture vapor transmission may
-19 49
-
Leighton
' 600654-001
December 21, 2004
be additionally reduced by use of concrete additives. Moisture vapor retarders may reduce but
' not eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slabs. A
slipsheet or equivalent should be utilized above the concrete slab if crack -sensitive floor
coverings (such as ceramic tiles, etc.) are to be placed directly on the concrete slab.
Our experience indicates that use of reinforcement in slabs and foundations will generally
reduce the potential for drying and shrinkage cracking. However, some cracking should be
expected as the concrete cures. Minor cracking is considered normal; however, it is often
aggravated by a high water/cement ratio, high concrete temperatures at the time of placement,
small nominal aggregate size and rapid moisture loss due to hot, dry and/or windy weather
conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature .and moisture
fluctuations can also be expected. The use of low slump concrete (not exceeding 4 to 5 inches
at the time of placement) can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking.
Future owner (s) of this development should be made aware of the importance of maintaining
a constant level of soil moisture. Future property owners should be made aware of the
potential negative consequences of both excessive watering, as well as allowing soils to
become too dry. Improperly designed, constructed, or maintained planters often:pond water
and cause deep moisture penetration and soil moisture change. Since deep and repeated soil
moisture change can damage the adjacent structure, placement of planters adjacent to
foundations or other sensitive hardscape, such as pools and spas, should be discouraged if
adequate and proper maintenance can not be assured. Our recommendations: assume a
reasonable degree of property owner's responsibility, if the property owners do not adequately
maintain correct irrigation and drainage, some degree of foundation movement . should be
expected. However, this movement typically does not cause structural damage, but will cause
such things as stucco cracking and dry wall separation.
' The slab subgrade soils should be presoaked prior to placement of the moisture barrier and
foundation concrete. The depth of presoak and moisture needed should be determined during
grading based on expansion potential testing of the finish grade soils.
'5.6 Settlement
Total settlement estimates are typically developed from short-term and long-term
estimations of settlement. Short term or elastic settlement occurs relatively rapidly in
' granular soils as a result of application of subsequent layers of fill soils or application of the
foundation loading. However, our experience has shown that long-term settlement that
occurs as a result of the introduction of water into the compacted fill soil and may gradually
' occur over the life of the fill. The degree of landscape irrigation, possible water or irrigation
line breaks poorly designed or "leaky" drainage facilities, and seasonal rainfall influences
are contributing factors that effect the cycle of wetting and thus, the rate and magnitude of
long-term settlement over the life of the fill. Settlements also occurs from hydro
compression of subsurface porous soils due to additional fill placed over existing ground
'
-20-
Leighton
600654-001
December 21, 2004
surface or foundation loading. Our laboratory test results show that the Pauba Formation in
the upper 10 feet is moderately collapsible if inundated with water. We assume porous
collapsible soils if encountered in the upper 6 feet (the building foundation pressure
influence zone) will be removed and recompacted in accordance with Section 5.2.1. Thus,
settlements resulting from hydrocollapse due to foundation loads will be reduced. The actual
settlement resulting from proposed fill soil should be evaluated when actual design plans are
available.
Based on the findings of this limited exploration and analysis, we recommend that the
planned development be designed in anticipation of approximately 1 to 1.5 inch of total
static settlement with 1 inch of static differential settlement across a lateral distance of 40
feet. This estimate of settlement includes the settlements resulting from hydrocollapse from
the subsurface from 6 feet to 10 feet below ground surface; and compression of near surface
soils and fills, due to surcharge loads resulting from additional fills and foundation loads (a
maximum fill thickness of 20 feet above existing ground surface was assumed in our
analysis). A portion of the static settlement associated with the building loads (elastic
compression) is anticipated to occur during construction as the load is applied. When actual
design grades (40 scale rough grading plan) and building improvement plans are available the
settlement magnitude presented in this report should be reviewed and refined.
Total differential earthquake -induced settlements may be on the order of approximately 1 to 1.5
inches following completion of the recommended remedial grading removals.
5.7 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures
Due to the presence of an active fault and potential strong ground motion retaining walls
should be kept at heights of 5 feet (exposed) or less and no closer than 5 feet to structural
foundations. If, walls in excess of 5 feet in height are planned, alternative wall designs that
tolerate the anticipated static and dynamic vertical deformations and design ground
acceleration should be used. Geotechnical design parameters may be provided on a case-by-
case basis for walls greater than 5 feet. All proposed wall design should be made available for
the geotechnical engineer to analyze for overturning, sliding and bearing capacity.
For preliminary design purposes, the lateral earth pressure values presented in Table 3 (rear of
text) for level or sloping backfill are recommended for wall backfilled with onsite and/or
import soils with very low expansion potential (expansion potential less than 21 per ASTM
Test Method D4829).
The wall pressures assume walls are backfilled with free draining materials and water is not
allowed to accumulate behind the walls. A typical wall drainage design is presented in
Appendix D. Wall backfill should be brought to at or above the optimum moisture content and
compacted by mechanical methods to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM
D1557). Wall footings should be designed in accordance with the foundation design
21 4
-
Leighton
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
600654-001
December 21, 2004
recommendations and reinforced in accordance with structural considerations. For all
retaining walls, we recommend a minimum horizontal distance of 10 feet from the outside
base of the footing to face of slopes.
Lateral soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be obtained from the
passive pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding resistance, the friction coefficient
of 0.40 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. These values may be increased by one-
third when considering loads of short duration including wind or seismic loads. The total
resistance may be taken as the sum of the frictional and passive resistance provided that the
passive portion does not exceed two-thirds of the total resistance.
5.8 Footing Setback
We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance (Table 4, rear of text) from the face of
slopes for all structural footings and settlement -sensitive structures (i.e. fences, perimeter
walls, signs, etc.). This distance is measured form the lowest outside edge of the footing,
horizontally to the slope face (or to the back of a retaining wall).
The soils within the slope setback areas, posses poor long term lateral stability, and
improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavement, underground utilities,
etc.) constructed within this setback area, may be subject to lateral to lateral movement and/or
differential settlement.
5.9 Corrosion
Laboratory tests indicate a negligible concentration of soluble sulfates (less than 150 ppm or
0.015%) in the onsite soils (Appendix Q. Minimum resistivity and pH tests were also
performed on representative soil samples (Appendix Q. Limited test results indicate the
onsite soils have a low corrosive potential with respect to buried uncoated metal and concrete
improvements. Table 19-A-4 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) should be followed for
sulfate contusion requirements. Other pertinent tables in Chapter 19 of the UBC should be
followed by the foundation and utility designers on this project. It is recommended that
additional sulfate and other corrosion testing be performed on representative finish building
pads during rough grading to verify the results presented herein. Consideration should be
given to review of the project plans and corrosion test results by a qualified corrosion engineer
if corrosion sensitive improvements are to be constructed below grade in contact with site
soils.
The use of certain fertilizers in the landscape plantings may have the potential to alter the soil
chemistry. The review of the fertilizer or soil amendments by the design team and/or
corrosive consultant should be considered.
-22-
Leighton
' 600654-001
December 21, 2004
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
' Geotechnical review is of paramount importance in engineering practice. The poor performances
of many foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to inadequate construction review.
' We recommend that Leighton Consulting, Inc. be provided the opportunity to review the following
items.
' 6.1 Plans and Specifications
The geotechnical engineer should review the project rough grading, drainage and foundation
plans and specifications prior to release for bidding and construction. Such review is
necessary to determine whether the geotechnical recommendations have been effectively
implemented. Additional laboratory testing may be warranted based on these reviews.
Review findings should be reported in writing by the geotechnical engineer.
' 6.2 Construction Review
Observation and testing should be performed by Leighton Consulting, Inc., representatives
' during construction. It should be anticipated that the geologic conditions and materials
exposed during construction may vary from that encountered in the soil borings. Reasonably
continuous construction observation and review during site grading and foundation installation
' allows for evaluation of the actual soil conditions and the ability to provide appropriate
revisions where required during construction.
Site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils, approval of imported earth materials, fill
placement, foundation installation and other site geotechnically-related operations should be
observed, tested and documented by representatives of Leighton Consulting, Inc.
-23 49
-
Leighton
600654-001
December 21, 2004
7.0 LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared for Selby Development Corporation, based on Selby Development
Corporation's needs, directions, and requirements at the time this investigation was made.
This report was necessarily based in part upon data obtained from a limited number of
observances, site visits, soil and/or samples, tests, analyses, histories of occurrences, spaced
subsurface explorations and limited information on historical events and observations. Such
information is necessarily incomplete. It is understood that additional subsurface geotechnical data
may be necessary for the completion of the geotechnical evaluation of this property based on
review of the project rough -grading, foundation and drainage plans. The nature of many sites is
such that differing characteristics can be experienced within small distances. and under various
climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can, and do, occur over time.
This report is not authorized for use by, and is not to be relied upon by any party except Selby
Development Corporation, its successors and assigns as owner of the property, with whom
Leighton Consulting, Inc. has contracted for the work. Use of or reliance on this report by any
other party is at that party's risk. Unauthorized use of or reliance on this report constitutes an
agreement to defend and indemnify Leighton Consulting, Inc. from and against any liability which
may arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless of any fault, negligence, or strict liability of
Leighton Consulting, Inc.
-24 4
-
Leighton
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
REST
WESTERN
C0( NTRY
INN
O�
1pf0
DR
o
CL
*w
CTE CASTiLLE
c%
j /
i
7 �4
CALLE
/ AYENIDA CIWA
APPROXIMATE � o DEL 10L
SITE LOCATION j
W
RD
�jo a
h��1
iTEAEC'&4
7vw
po CEA9FB
rOMER CC • O
PLAZA
CENTER ��1P `
4�O r£MECULA
DUCK
VP PDND
or ■ r,
EAMSSY ;
utTtS /
519
L ftp
Base Map. The Thomas Guide Digital Edition San Bernardino and Riverside. 2004, Not To Scale
Preliminary Geotechnical Project No.
Investigation, Tract 3334, Lot 12 SITE LOCATION 600654-001
Selby Development Corporation MAP Date ,
Riverside County, California December 2004 Figure No 1
r
I
1
II
[I
600654-001
December 21, 2004
Table 1
Earthwork Shrinkage and Bulking Estimates
Geologic Unit
Estimated Shrinkage/Bulking
Topsoil/Alluvium/Undocumented Fill
10 to 15 percent shrinkage
Pauba Formation (upper 0 to 6 feet)*
5 to 8 percent Shrinkage
'Pauba Formation Below 6 feet from ground surface will likely posses a bullring behavior. :
Table 2
Preliminary Pavement Design
Slope Height
Asphaltic -Concrete (AC)
2:1 SlopeActive
5 feet minimum
5-15 feet
Class 2 Aggregate Base (AB)
TI
Thickness (inches)
65Passive
Ma
Rock (R=78) Thickness (inches)
(Subgrade R=30)
5
3
6.0
6
3.5
8.0
7
4.0
10.0
8
4.5
12.0
Static EquivalentConditions
Slope Height
Recommended Footing Setback
2:1 SlopeActive
5 feet minimum
5-15 feet
=5htsf
55At-Rest
> 15 feet
H/2, where H is the slope height, not to
exceed 10 feet for 2:1 slo es
65Passive
Ma
Table 4
Minimum Setback Distance for Structural Improvements
Slope Height
Recommended Footing Setback
< 5 feet
5 feet minimum
5-15 feet
7 feet minimum
> 15 feet
H/2, where H is the slope height, not to
exceed 10 feet for 2:1 slo es
600654-001
December 21, 2004
APPENDIX A
References
American Concrete Institute, ACI, 1985, Manual of Concrete Practice Part 3, Use of Concrete in
Buildings — Design, Specifications and Related to pics.
Albee, A.L., and Smith, J.L., 1996, Earthquake Characteristics and Fault Activity in Southern
California, in Lung, R., and Proctor, R., ed., Engineering Geology in Southern
California, Association of Engineering Geologists, Special Publication, dated
October 1966.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 1994, Settlement Analysis, Technical Engineering
and Design Guides as Adapted from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No.
9, ASCE Press, 1994.
' Blake, T.F., 2000a, EQSEARCH, Version 3.00a, A Computer Program for the Estimation of
Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Southern California Historical
Earthquake Catalogs, Users Manual, 94pp.
' Blake, T. F., 2000b, EQFAULT, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program, for the Deterministic
Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults,
User's Manual, 77pp. with update data, 2004.
Blake, T. F., 2000c, FRISKSP, Version 4.00 Computer Program, for Determining the
' Probabilistic Horizontal Acceleration, User's Manual, 99pp. with update
data, 2004.
Blake, T. F., 2000d, UBCSEIS, Version 1.03, User's Manual for Evaluating the Seismic
Parameters in accordance with the 1997 UBC, 53 pp.
California, State of, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1990, Special
Study Zones, Murrieta Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2004, Historic Ground Water Well Data,
Online Data, http://well.water.ca.gov/gw/admirt/main—menu__gw.asp, updated
2004.
Hart, E.W., Bryant, W. A., 1999, Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning with Index to Earthquake Zones Maps:
Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special
Publication 42. Revised 1997, Supplements 1 and 2 added 1999.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code, Volumes 1-3.
A-1 4V
Leighton
600654-001
December 21, 2004
References (cont'd.)
International Conference of Building Officials, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near — Source
Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada.
Jahns, R.H., 1954, Geology of the Peninsular Ranges Province, southern California and Baja
California, in Jahns, R.H. editor, Geology of southern California: California
Div. of Mines Bull. 170, chapter 2, p. 29-52.
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division of
Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map Series, No. 6, Scale 1:750,000.
Kennedy, 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern
Riverside County, California, CDMG Special Report 131.
Kramer, Steven, L., 1996, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, 1996.
Krinitzsky, E.L., Gould, J.P., Edinger, P.H., 1993, Fundamentals of Earthquake Resistant
Construction, J. Wiley & Sons
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1985, Preliminary Soil Investigation/Liquefaction Study, Lot 12,
Tract 3334, Ynez Road, Rancho California, California, dated December 18,
1985.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1987x, Fault Investigation, Tract 3334, Lot 12, Ynez Road, Rancho
California, Riverside County, California, Project No. 6870585-01, dated May
22, 1987
' Leighton and Associates, Inc., 19876, Response to County Review Letter, County Geologic Report
No. 413, Plot Plan 9770, Rancho California, California, Project No. 6870585-
01, dated June 16, 1987
Mann, John F., 1955, Geology of a Portion of the Elsinore Fault Zone, California Division of
Mines and Geology, Special Report 43, dated October, 1955.
Morton, D.M., 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' X 60' Quadrangle,
Southern California, Version 1.0, United States Geological Survey, Open File
Report OFR 99-172.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1986a, Soil mechanics design manual 7.01, Change 1:
U.S. Navy, September, 1986.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1986b, Foundations and earth structures, design manual
7.02, Changes 1: U.S. Navy, September, 1986.
A-2 49
Leighton
600654-001
December 21, 2004
References (cont d.)
Riverside, County of, 2003, General Plan Safety Element and Appendix H - Geotechinal Report
(Technical Background Document), Adopted October 7, 2003.
Riverside County, 1987, Riverside County Planning Department Review Comments of County
Geologic Report Number 413 (Leighton Report Project Number 6870587-
01), dated July 6, 1987.
Silver, L. T., and Chappel, B. W., The Peninsular Ranges Batholith: An Insight into the
Evolution of the Cordilleran Batholiths of Southwestern North America,
Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences, 79, 105-
121,1988.
Special Studies Zones, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map, State of California, Murrieta
7.5 Minute Quadrangle, January 1, 1990.
Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands due to Earthquake
Shaking, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, vol. 113, No. 8.
To -Mac Engineering, Rough Grading Plan of Lot 12, Tract 3334, Prepared for Stonewood
Development Company and Ranch Village Association, not dated.
WCDS, Inc., 2001, "NEC Benton Road and Highway 79/Winchester Road, French Valley,
California, ALTA/ACSM Boundary Topographic Survey, Sheets S1 through
S4 (4 Sheets) dated August 28, 2001, Scale 1"=80 feet.
WGCEP - Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1995, Seismic Hazards in
' Southern California: Probable Earthquake Probabilities, Bull. Seismol. Sec.
Amer., Vol. 85, No. 2, pp 379-439.
♦
4
A-3 v
' Leighton
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1
Date 11-19-04
Project
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter 8"
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 1098'
Sheet 1 of 2
Iby- Lot 12 Ynez Road Project No. 600654-001
Redman Type of Rig CME -75
Drive Weight 140 lbs Drop 30"
Location See Map
o
0
—
m'
�u
DESCRIPTION
d
ilia
-00
«
z°
3°
�w
N
R j
0q
U.
0LL
-
`
'at
wFm
W
7
z
om`
0.
V_N>
�Logged
By PC
t00.)
cmy
T
Sampled By PC
F-
0
PAUBA FORMATION (Ool
'
Bulk 1 @
-200, MD,
OS'
RDS, El,
CS
1095
R2
30
SM/SP
@ Dark most, medium dense, silty, fine to medium
120.5
9.4
SA with few eb
SAND with few pebbles <5 mm in diameter, nucaceous
5—
R3
49
@ 5': Light brown, moisL medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND
119.6
5.6
with ew pebbles <5 nun in diameter, micaceous
1090
R4
47
SP
@ 7.5': Red -brown, damp, medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND
with gravel
]0
�• '
R5
53
SM
@ l0' Light red -brown, naisL medium dense, silty, fine to medium
120.3
9.8
SAND; micaceous, few rootlets, few subrounded pebbles <4 mm in
diameter
1085
S
R6
63
@ 15': Dark brown, mist, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND with
iron oxide staining
1080
20—
S7
1920':
Brown, d
@ amp to moist medium dense, silty, fine to medium
SAND; micaceous, very well sorted
1075
25
R8
46
SP
@ 25' Light brown, damp, medium dense, silty, medium to coarse
'
SAND and gravel, micaceous, well sorted, poorly graded
1070
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
HCO HYDROCOLLAPSE CS CORROSION SUITE
S SPT G GRAB SAMPLE SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER MC
SANDEMOISTUREEQUIVALENT DS DIRECT SHEAR
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT
B BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL pTTERBERG LIMITS •200 200 WASH
T TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX RDS Remolded DS
CR CORROSION RV R -VALUE
LEIGHTON
5
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1
Date 11-19-04
Project
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter 8 -
Elevation Top of Hole +/_ 1098'
Lot 12 Ynez Road
Redman
Sheet 2
Project No.
Type of Rig
of 2
600654-001
CME -75
Drive Weight 140 lbs Drop 30"
Location See Map
.-
-
C.
„�
DESCRIPTION
d
z°
196ro
Uy
mLL
1 .
A.
z0
E
m`m
�a
oc
w
t7
o
o
2V
N�
Logged By PC
a
in
Sampled By PC
30
S9
21
SM30':
Light brown, d
@ medium dense, silty, fine to medium
SAND nucaccous
1065
35
Total Depth 31.5'
No Goundwater Encountered
Backfilled with Spoils 11/19/04
1060
40-
1055
45-
1050
50-
1045
55-
1040
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: HCO HYDROCOLLAPSE CS CORROSION SUITE
S SPT G GRAB SAMPLE SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER MC MOISTURE CONTENT
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT
B BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS •200 200 WASH
T TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX RDS Remolded DS
CR CORROSION RV R•VALUE
LEIGHTON
D
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
Date 11-19-04
Project Selby- Lot 12 Ynez Road
Drilling Co. Redman
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 lbs
Sheet 1 of 1
Project No. 600654-001
Type of Rig CME -75
Drop 30"
. Elevation Top of Hole +/. 1062' Location See Map
C
0�y
DESCRIPTION
F
i
yp1
c
m
D.2Z
O
VUl
114.GLL
oo
W
0
C
2 0
Logged By PC
$•
N
tO7
Sampled By PC
°
son.
PAUBA FORMATION (Oo)
Bulk I @
-200
1060
0-5'
R2
50
SM/SP
@ 23: Brown, moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; rootlets, few
NCO
122.2
6.7
subrounded gravel <20 mm in diameter
5
"'
----
--
R3
--
43
--
--
--
SM
----------------------------
@ 5': Red -brown, mist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND;
NCO
120.6
5.4
micaceous, (ew pebbles <4 mm in diameter
1055
R4
19
@ 7.5': Light brown, damp, medium dense, silty, fine to medium
106.4
2.8
SAND; micaceous
10
R5
55
@ 10': Red -brown, moist, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND;
NCO
124.8
10.1
rrucaceous, iron oxide staining
1050
15
R6
15
@ 15': Light brown, damp to mist, loose, silty, fine to medium SAND;
trcaceous
1045
20
S7
16
@ 20': Light brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty, fine to
medium SAND; micaceous
1040
25
Total Depth 21.5'
No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled with Spoils 11/19/04
1035
Aft
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: NCO HYDROCOLLAPSE CS CORROSION SUITE
SUIT NT
S SPT G GRAB SAMPLE SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER MC MOISTURE CONTENT
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT
B BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS -200 200 WASH
T TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX RDS Remolded DS
CR CORROSION RV R -VALUE
LEIGHTON
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3
Date 11-19-04
Project Selby- Lot 12 Ynez Road
Drilling Co. Redman
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 lbs
Elevation Top of Hole +/. 1050' Location IC
Sheet 1 of 2
Project No. 600654-001
Type of Rig CME -75
Drop 30"
Z
w
m«
av1
DESCRIPTION
m
0
_o
t
NC
; O
C...
F, C
�U
w
��
mLL
o
CL
oa
cc
UN
o
CU.
t9
Z
A
ma
Z
2 0
o�
Logged By PC
o,
rn
Sampled By PC
~
1050
0
r
, ,
I
PAUBA FORMATION (Ool
• •
Bulk I @
SA, MD
'� •
0-5'
R2
13
SM
@ 2.5': Dark brown, moist, loose, silty, fine to medium SAND; few
HCO
118.3
8.8
rootlets
1045
5—.*-:.*,**
R3
0 91/10"
106.0
5.2
@ 5': Litdtt brown, moist, very dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; few
HCO
pebb es <2 mm in diameter
.
Bulk 4 @
"
5-10'
R5
29
@ 7.5': Red -brown, mist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND;
117.2
5.1
slightly micaceous, pinhole pores
1040
10
R6
30
@ 19: Light brown, mist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium
HCO
99,7
7.4
SAND; few rounded gravel <20 mm in diameter, slightly micaceous
Bulk 7 @
•
10.15'
1035
15
S8
10
@ 15': Light brown, damp to moist, loose, silty, fine to medium SAND;
micaceous
1030
20
____
__
R9
__
29
__
__
__
SM/SP
------------------------------
— _____________________—_—__R9
@ 20': Brown, mist, medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND;
121.7
8.3
micaceous
1025
25
S10
23
@ 25': Light brown, mist, medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND;
Iflin,
Ifti.
very micaceous
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: NCO HYDROCOLLAPSE CS CORROSION SUITE
S SPT G GRAB SAMPLE SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER MC MOISTURE CONTENT
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT
B BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS •200 200 WASH
T TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX RDS Remolded DS
CR CORROSION RV R -VALUE
LEIGHTON
a
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3
Date 11-19-04
Project
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter 8"
Elevation Top of Hole +/. 1050'
Lot 12 Ynez Road
Redman
Drive Weight
Location
Sheet 2
Project No.
Type of Rig
of 2
600654-001
CME -75
Drop 30"
`o�
DESCRIPTION
r,.
r�w
z°
�o
01
CIO
.�
10
mm
0-0
C
6
06
ym
VV
O
LL
w
t7
Z
m
Z
OC
or
20
_y
06
Logged By PC
o
rn
U
rn—
Sampled By PC
1020
30
RI I
35
SM
@ 39: Brown, very moist, medium dense, silty, fine SAND; very
micaceous
1015
35—
S12
13
@ 35': Brown, very mist, medium dense, silty, very fine SAND; very
micaceous
101O
40
R13
5349:
Dark
@ gray, very moist, dense, silty, fine SAND; very micaceous
1005
45—:'.S14
14
@ 45': Dark brown, very moist, medium dense, silty, very fine SAND;
very micaceous
1000
R15
44
@ 50': Light brown, very moist, medium dense, silty, very fine SAND;
very nucaccous
995
55
Total Depth 51.5'
No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled with Spoils 11/19/04
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: HCO HYDROCOLLAPSE CS CORROSION SUITE
S SPT G GRAB SAMPLE SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER MC MOISTURE CONTENT
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT
WE
B BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS .200 200 WASH
T TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX RDS Remolded DS
CR CORROSION RV R•VALUE
LEIGHTON
' GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4
Date 11-19-04
'Project
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter 8"
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 1059'
Sheet 1 of 1
Iby- Lot 12 Ynez Road Project No. 600654-001
Redman Type of Rig CME -75
Drive Weight 140 lbs Drop 30"
Location See Map
z
.-
��
DESCRIPTION
m
O..
Lw
t
rA
MO
Cw
��
O.;
tay
F
>m
�O
G
m
g2
ch
Nm
0.
w
mLL
yd0
GLL
�J
Z
E
mm
OG
OC
—y
`oma
m
w
t7
A
a
o
Logged By PC
a
U)
U
y--
Sampled By PC
0
IL
PAUBA FORMATION (OD)
Rt
39
SM
@ 2.5': Dark red -brown; moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium
SAND with few pebbles <3 mm in diameter, micaceous
1055
5
R2
51
@ 5': Brown, mist, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; few pebbles
<2 mm in diameter
R3
37
@ 7.5': Light brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium
SAND; micaceous
1050
10
-- ••----
--
R4
--
39
----------------------------------------
SP
@ 10': Red -brown, damp to moist, medium dense, fine to coarse
SAND; micaceous
1045
15-____
__
S5
__
16
__
__
__
SM
--- __________________________
@ 15': Brown, mist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND;
micaceous
1040
20—
---------
R6
45
— —
— —
---------------------
SM/SP
20' Light brown, d — — — — — — —
@ gh amp, medium dense, silty, fine ro coarse SAND;
micaceous
1035
25
Total Depth 21.5'
No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled with Spoils 11/19/04
1030
SAMPLE TYPES; TYPE OF TESTS: HCO HYDROCOLLAPSE CS CORROSION SUITE
S SPT G GRAB SAMPLE SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER MC MOISTURE CONTENT
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS BE SAND EQUIVALENT
B BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS -200 200 WASH
T TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX RDS Remitted DS
CR CORROSION RV R -VALUE
LEIGHTON
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5
Date 11-19-04
Project Selby- Lot 12 Ynez Road
Drilling Co. Redman
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 lbs
Sheet 1
Project No.
Type of Rig
0 Elevation Top of Hole +/. 1084' Location See Map
of 2
600654-001
CME -75
Drop 30"
'—T'
m=
y-•
DESCRIPTION
O«
L„
t
N
Z
j0
O`
Cot
�N
F
>LL
daLL
J
O
d
0 Q.
�.m.
VfN
O
OU.
(7
Z
to
tna
M o
o=;
Logged By PC
CL
rn
U
U)—
Sampled By PC
0 -
Sm
PAUBA FORMATION (Ov)
• •
Bulk I @
-200
R2
27
@ 2.5': Light brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium
SAND; slightly micaceous, light biown/light red -brown mottling
1080
5
R3
37
@ 5': Light brown, mist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND;
slightly micaceous, light brown/red-brown mottling
R4
28
@ 7.5': Brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium
SAND; very micaceous
1075
]0
R5
40
@ 10: Light brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium
120.9
9.3
SAND; non oxide staining
1070
15
S6
I 1
@ 15': Light brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium
SAND; micaceous
1065
20
R7
49
@ 201: Light brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium
118.2
5.2
SAND; micaceous, iron oxide staining
1060
25
S8
28
@ 25': Light brown, mist, medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND;
micaceous
1055
: ,•
'.:
:.
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: NCO HYDROCOLLAPSE CS CORROSION SURE
S SPT G GRAB SAMPLE SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER MC MOISTURE CONTENT
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT
B BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS -200 200 WASH
T TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX RDS Remitted DS
CR CORROSION RV R -VALUE
LEIGHTON
'
GEOTECHNICAL BORING
LOG B-5
Date 11-19-04
F
Sheet 2 of 2
r�
�• D/
Project
Selby- Lot 12 Ynez Road
Project No. 600654-001
Wo
Drilling Co.
Redman
Type of Rig CME -75
Hole Diameter 8"
Drive Weight
140 lbs Drop 30"
.
Elevation Top of Hole +/-
1084' Location
See Map
DESCRIPTION
F
;�
�
r�
�• D/
L Ol
N
z°
Wo
Z
'AN
91.1.
(DLL
111F
O
C.OLL`
Do
GC
VU)
o
w
r,
Z
A
ma
M o
o�
Logged By PC
o -
y
U
uJ—
Sampled By PC
30
R9
48
ML
@ 30': Light brown, wet, very stiff, fine to medium sandy SILT;
micaceous
1050
35
Total Depth 31.5'
No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled with Spoils 11/19/04
1045
40-
1040
45-
1035
50-
1030
55-
51025SAMPLE
1025-
SAMPLETYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: HCO HYDROCOLLAPSE CS CORROSION SUITE
S SPT G GRAB SAMPLE SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER MC MOISTURE CONTENT
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT
B BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS -200 200 WASH
T TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX RDS Remolded DS
CR CORROSION RV R -VALUE
LEIGHTON
' GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6
Date 11-19-04 Sheet 1
Project Selby- Lot 12 Ynez Road Project No.
Drilling Co. Redman Type of Rig
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 ibs
Of 1
600654-001
CME -75
Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Hole +/. 1059' Location See Map
Z
N
m�
y�;
DESCRIPTION
m
g
m
am
m
m
yo
Av
w
cO1
O
6
m u
•'
y«
vy
O
ILL
mLL
`O
Z
ma
Gd
o
w
t,
Z
M
o=;
Logged By PC
c.
rn
U
yv
Sampled By PC
0
PAUBA FORMATION (Ool
RI
29
SM
@ 2.5': Red -brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND;
very micaceous
1055
5
R2
29Li
t brown, d
@ 5': Light amp, medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND
.
Bulk 3 @
-200
"-
5-10'
Rt,
29
@ 7.5': Red -brown, damp to moist, silty, fine to medium SAND;
113.5
7.9
mottled, iron oxide staining, micaceous
1050
10
R5
89/11"
@ 10': Light brown, damp to moist, very dense, silty, fine to medium
] 19.0
10.0
SAND; extensive iron oxide staining
1045
15
R6
89/10"
@ 15': Brown, moist, very dense, silty, fine to medium SAND;
123.2
12.0
manganese deposits
1040
20,
S7
36
@ 20': Brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine SAND
1': Light brown, damp to moist, dense, silty, fine to medium
1035
25
Total Depth 21.5'
No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled with Spoils 11/19/04
1030
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: MCO FttDROCOLLAPSE CS CORROSION SUITE
S SPT G GRAB SAMPLE SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER MC MOISTSIONCo
S TENT
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE 0.S DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND) EQUIVALENT
B BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS -200 200 WASH
T TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX RDS Remolded DS
CR CORROSION RV R -VALUE
LEIGHTON
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
' Date 12-6-85 Drill Hole No. B-1 0 9 85) Sheet I of 2
Project To -Mac - Tract 3334 Job No. 6851889-01
' Drilling Co. United Type of Rig
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 lbs.
■ Elevation Top of Hole 1110±' Ref. or Datum Grading Plan
CME -55
Drop 30 in.
4. v+
O. al
n
m
•L
4J
L M
,L E
o
a) W
d a)
t-
O
z
r
a) E
-a 'a
F N
l0
3 L
O al
ca
4J
+1
M
YN
•N
a)
w
>, U
o a
m �;
7 a)
a
O
'
� �
_
U N
H v
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged BY DS
Sampled By DS
i
SM
SILTY SAND: Dark brown, damp, fine -medium
r
0
grained, moderately cohesive, micaceous,
'
0
trace of clay
50 for
SM
INTERBEDDED SANDSTONE, SILTSTONE AND CLAY -
4
116
6
STONE: Sandstone varies from clean to a
bag 252 f, or
bag
silty sandstone, medium brown -gray brown -
_i
brown, slightly damp, non -slightly
cohesive, micaceous, occasional gravelly
lenses encountered, very dense
Siltstone varies with occasional layers
of sandy siltstone, gray -medium brown -
gray -brown -orange brown, trace of clay,
11
fine grained, moderately cohesive, mica-
�)
ceous, slightly damp
—
(
Claystone - gray, slightly silty with
trace of fine sand, moderately damp,
cohesive, micaceous
14
dense
18
J
20
, o
I
Ia
J b
20
@ 18' very hard drilling
'
28
dense
I
20J
11
112
16
SM
medium dense
18
2
i
3�
--
' Date _
Project
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
12-6-85 Drill Hole No. B-1 L F 985)
To -Mac - Tract 3334 Job No
Sheet 2 of 2
6851889-01
' Drilling Co. United Type of Rig CME -55
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 lbs Drop 30 in.
nElevatiun Top of Hole 1110±' Ref. or Datum Grading Plan
-�-
�
--
----
o
Z
T
^
N N
N
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
U) 4
.% U
t 4J
S-
°
O
4J
r
E
l0
3
N
= Ol
c
U N
By DS
Y (D
d N
i ro
v
d O)
a) w
ro
i
O a)7•,
U
.4.
•r O
.— =DLogged
DS
LL
w
F—
!
N
m a-
o o
� L.)
F0
Sampled By
Claystone-gray, slightly silty with
trace of fine sand, moderately damp,
cohesive, micaceous
J
0
Or
-JI
! 4�°
E
-
GS
SE=13
13
18
9
SM
Passing No. 200 Sieve = 28%
dense
ro
ro
tTOTAL
DEPTH 40'
!
I
NO GROUND WATER
' J
MODERATE DRILLING TO 18'
—
' !
BELOW 18' VERY HARD DRILLING
HOLE BACKFILLED
(GS) Indicates Grain Size Analysis
(SE) Indicates Sand Equivalent Test
'
® Indicates Standard Penetration Test
GLOIECHNICAL BORING LOG
,Date 12-6-85 Drill Hole No. B-2 ( t 9Bs ) Sheet 1 of 1
Project To -Mac - Tract 3334 Job No. 6851889-01
' Drilling Co. United Type of Rig CME -55
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 lbs Drop 30 in.
- levatiun Top of Hole 1106±' Ref. or Datum Grading Plan —
>1 �
V1 O Y 4 N
z -GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
q N a)+ OU
L o r %D Y N :3a) U N
4. a 4L 4° a) a) E 3 L U w c Logged By D$
O_ a) L to L a) M N O a) >, U •� O
w >1~ ~ `� m n. - o n f c- �n v Sampled By DS
N
o'ol SM SILTY SAND: Medium brown, damp, fine-
' medium grained, moderately cohesive,
micaceous, trace of clay
INTERBEDDED SILTSTONE, SANDSTONE AND
CLAYSTONE:. Sandstone varies from clean
to a silty sandstone, medium brown -gray
i brown -orange brown, slightly damp, non -
slightly cohesive, micaceous, occasional
—{I gravelly lenses encountered, very dense
— Siltstone varies with occasional layers
J I of sandy siltstone, gray -medium
brown -31 gray -brown -orange brown, trace of clay,
50 fine grained, moderately cohesive, mica-
ceous, slightly damp, very dense
Claystone - gray, slightly silty with
trace of fine sand, moderately damp,
cohesive, micaceous
I
C
2
� � I
1 —I €
I
5
d 9 medium dense
Passing No. 200 Sieve = 9%
dense
TOTAL DEPTH, 304
2 NO GROUND WATER
MODERATELY HARD DRILLING
HOLE BACKFILLED
(GS) Indicates Grain Size Analysis
GS 14
SE 43 17 I 7 SP- (SE) Indicates Sand Equivalent Test
�� 15 1 SM 0 Indicates Standard Penetration Test
' Date 12-6-85
Project To -Mac
GLOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Drill Hole No. B-3 (19 8 5� Sheet 1 of 2
Tract 3334 Job No. 6851889-01
' Drilling Co. United Type of Rig
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 lbs
■ Elevatiun Too of Hole 1052±' Ref. or Datum Grading Plan
CME -55
Drop 30
in.
N
O
z
n N
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
b
r
N
N
j;
v
L
Y +
o
E
to
s
.r
"
= N
U N
Logged By DS
+J
CL N
L rO
v
d N
-0 e0
s_
O N
-
4-
i U
_
•O 0
•O ....
"
w
~
H "'
m
o
r
o
N
Sampled By DS
r
SM
ine-
SILTY SAND: Medium brown, damp, fine-
0'N
0
medium grained, moderately cohesive,
micaceous.
GS
M
INTERBEDDED SILTSTONE, SANDSTONE AND
CP
CLAYSTONE: Sandstone varies from clean to
J
5E=31
bag
t2�
f1247
a silty sandstone, medium brown -gray brown
orange brown, slightly damp, non -slightly
8
cohesive, micaceous, occasional gravelly
lenses encountered, dense
Passing No. 200 Sieve = 23%
Medium dense
'SM
J
Siltstone varies with occasional layers
I 18
13
of sandy siltstone, gray -medium brown -
gray -brown -orange brown, trace of clay,
�I
fine grained, moderately cohesive, mica-
—i
I
ceous, slightly damp,
I
medium dense
—
I
4
medium dense
6
Claystone - gray, slightly silty with
7
trace of fine sand, moderately damp,
� o
I
cohesive, micaceous
J o
below 15' harder drilling
J a
7
medium dense
'
12
20J
16
20
dense
16
I
t I
4
I
9
medium dense
12 I
GLOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
'Date 12-6-85 Drill Hole No. B-3 (1285) Sheet 2 of 2
Project To -Mac - Tract 3334 Job No. 6851889-01
tDrilling Co. United
Hole Diameter 811 Drive Weight 140 lbs
■ Elevation Top of Hole 1052±' Ref. or Datum
Type of Rig CME -55
Grading,Plan
Drop 30 in.
4N W
na
In
b
L•
4r Q
to
w �
o
a,
as
�
O
°/
v E
-0ro
U:)
3 S-
o
4J
a
v-
>,u
S- a
a
�n c
.10
0 L.)N
0N
b c�
U N
— =DLogged
v
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
By DS
Sampled By DS
-"
lelev.
Claystone - gray, slightly silty with
'
1021±'
trace of fine sand, moderately damp,
cohesive, micaceous
t
4
SM
dense
12
medium
3
o
b
.a
I o
13
dense
20
t
I
8
g
medium dense
10
TOTAL DEPTH 45'
J
GROUND WATER @ 31'
'
MODERATELY HARD DRILLING
'
HOLE BACKFILLED
(GS) Indicates Grain Size Analysis
(CP) Indicates Compaction Test
(SE) Indicates Sand Equivalent Test
'
t
Indicates Standard Penetration Test
I
' 600654-001
December 21, 2004
' APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
' Classification or Grain Size Tests: Typical materials were subjected to mechanical, grain -size
analysis by sieving from U.S. Standard brass screens (ASTM Test Method D422). Hydrometer
' analyses were performed where appreciable quantities of fines were encountered. The data was
evaluated in determining the classification of the materials. The grain -size distribution curves are
presented in the test data sheet and the Unified Soil Classification (USCS) is presented in both the
test data and the boring and/or trench logs.
Grain Size Test: Percent Passing a No. 200 Sieve: Percent soil particle finer than 0.075 mm was
' evaluated for subgrade soils in general accordance with ASTM 1140. The results of these tests are
presented in the attached lab test data sheet.
' Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests were performed on selected remolded and/or undisturbed
samples which were soaked for a minimum.of 24 hours under a surcharge equal to the applied
normal force during testing. After transfer of the sample to the shear box;- and reloading the
' sample, pore pressures set up in the sample due to the transfer were allowed to dissipate for a
period of approximately 1 -hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples were tested
under various normal loads, a motor -driven, strain controlled, direct -shear testing apparatus at a
t strain rate of less than 0.001 to 0.5 inches per minute (depending upon the soil type). The test
results are presented in the attached lab data sheet.
Chloride Content, Sulfate Content, Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Chloride content, Sulfate
Content, Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with California
Test Method 422, 417, 532 and 643. The results are presented in the attached lab data sheet.
' Hvdrocollaase Tests: Hydrocollapse tests were performed on selected, relatively undisturbed ring
samples. Samples were placed in a consolidometer and loads were applied in .geometric
' progression. The percent hydrocollapse for each load cycle was recorded as the ratio of the
amount of vertical compression to the original 1 -inch height. The hydrocollapse pressure curves
are presented in the test data sheet.
Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the
' Expansion Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 29-2. Specimens are molded under a given
compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent
saturation or approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared 1 -inch thick by 4 -inch
diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water
until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the attached lab
data sheet.
' C-1
1
1
1
1
1
600654-001
December 21, 2004
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results (Continued)
Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical soil
materials encountered in the exploratory borings were determined in accordance with ASTM Test
Method D1557. The results of these tests are presented in the attached lab data sheet.
C-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
sei B$5-1
60
GR:SA:FI
B-3
B-1
0-5
SM
0:64: 36
For classification of fine
50
pleined sods and fine-or,+neA
fraction of worse yiained sods
"H '>i
a
K 40
A" Line
9
30
U
n 20
IL
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
(LL)
GRAVEL SAND FINES
COARSE I FINE CRSE I MEDIUM I FINE SILT CLAY
U.S STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
3.0"
11/2" 3/4" 3/8" 94 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #20
100
I
.
j
Ii
i1
807060
rI
I
to
50
-
I
40
,-
-;
F--1- --•
Lu
IYUJI
-
a20
=
I
— - — —-
i
---{-----
-------
-- --
-
— --
II10
I
'
i
i
i
o
I�;I
100.000
10 000 1.000 0.100 0.010
PARTICLE • SIZE (mm)
Boring No.:
Sample Ni
Depth (ft.):
Soil Type
LL,PL,PI
Project No 600654-001
SELBY/YNEZ
Visual
Sample Description:
SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
ATTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE - SIZE CURVE
Ak
Ira.
ASTM D 4318, D 422
cF Leighton Consulting, Inc.
Rev 08-04
sei B$5-1
GR:SA:FI
B-3
B-1
0-5
SM
0:64: 36
N/A
sei B$5-1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
400 Leighton Consulting, Inc.
Project Name:
Project No.
Boring No.:
Sample No.
Sample Description.
EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
ASTM D 4829
SELBY / YNEZ Tested By: RGO Date: 12/7/04
600654-001 Checked By, PRC Date: 12/8/04
B-1 Depth (ft.) 0-5
B-1 Location:
SM. BROWN SILTY SAND
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
19261:0
Wt. of Container No. (gm.)
0.0
Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.)
19261.0
Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve
x61.2
Percent Passing # 4
99.7
MOLDED SPECIMEN
Before Test
After Test
Specimen Diameter in.
4.01
4.01
Specimen Height in.
0
20
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold m.
612.8
• x' 637
Wt. of Mold m.
199.7
199.7
Specific Gravity (Assumed)
2.70
2.70
Container No.
E-12
E-12'
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. m.
311.9
637.3
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. m.
289.4
382.1
Wt. of Container (m.)
11.9
199.7
Moisture Content %
8.1
14.5
Wet Density c
124.6
131.8
Dry Density c
115.3
115.1
Void Ratio
0.462
0.465
Total Porosity
0 316
0.318
Pore Volume cc
65.5
65.9
Degree of Saturation % S meas
47.3
84.2
SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h.
Date
Time
Pressure
(psi)
Elapsed Time
(min.)
Dial Readings
(in.)
2
12/7/04 - _ 12.37 = 10
0
1.0000
12/7/04 12:47 1 0
10
0:4993 - -
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
12/8/04 _ _-- 7:30 - _
1.0 1123 . ° . 0.5020
12/8/04 8:30
1.0 1183 0.5020
Expansion Index (EI meas) _
((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000
2.7
Expansion Index ( EI )50 =
EI meas - (50 -S meas)x((65+EI meas) / (220-S meas))
2
Rev 08-04
1
1
1
1
t
1
_41'4 Leighton Consulting, Inc.
Project Name: SELBY / YNEZ
Project No.: 600654-001
Boring No.: B_1
Sample No.: BB=1
Visual Soil Identification: SM
Initial Moisture Content 1%)
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont.
(g)
200.00
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont.
(g)
180.00
Wt. of Container
(g)
1000
Moisture Content (%)
(MCi)
11.76
SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST
DOT CA TEST 532 / 643
Tested By
RGO/AJP Date. 12/8104
Data Input By:
PRC Date. -12/8/04
Checked By:
PRC Date: 12/8/04,
Depth (ft.) .
00=5
Initial Soil Weight (gm)(Wt - 1300.0
Box Constant. 6.75=
MC=(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100
Remolded Specimen
Moisture Adjustments
Water Added (ml) (Wa)
00,
150
.200:,'
250
300
Adj. Moisture Content (%) (MC
20.36
24.66
28.96
33.26
37.56
Resistance Rdg. (ohm)
I x2000` °
1600
1400 '
`1300:
1300
Soil Resistivity (ohm -cm)
13492
10794
9444
8770
8770
14000
12000
10000
E
0
0
a000
a
N
'y 6000
m
N 4000
2000
0.0 50 100 15.0 200 250 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
Moisture Content I%)
Minimum Resistivity
Moisture Content % Sulfate Content
( ) (ppm)
Chloride Content (ppm
Soil pH
(ohm -cm)
DOT CA Test 5321643 DOT LA Test 417 Part 11
DOT CA Test 422
Doi cA Test 53u 3
8776.'-33.3
1 450
113
7.02
Rev 11-00
1
i
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
Leighton Consulting, Inc.
One -Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546)
Project Name SELBY / YNEZ
125.9
Project No.: 600654-001
13.1
Boring No.: B-2
0.3799
Sample No.: R-2
2.70
Sample Description: SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Initial Dry Density (pcf):
1222
Initial Moisture (%):
6.7
Pressure (p)
Initial Length (in.)
1.0000
Initial Dial Reading:
0.0500
Diameter in :
2.416
Thickness
Compliance
Settlement
Tested By: JMD
Checked By: PRC
Sample Type. IN SITU
Depth (ft.) 2.5
Date: 12/8/04
Date: 12/8/04
Final Dry Density (pcf):
125.9
Final Moisture (%) :
13.1
Initial Void ratio:
0.3799
Specific Gravity(assumed):
2.70
Initial Saturation %
47.4
Load
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation = 1.55
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
0.3700
03600
M
o:
0.3500
0.3400
0.3300 4---
0.010
Inundate with
water
0.100 1.000
Log Pressure (ksf)
10.000
Rev 08-04
xCollapse-Swell B -2,F-2
Swell (+)
Apparent
Load
Corrected
Pressure (p)
Final Reading
(-)
Thickness
Compliance
Settlement
Void Ratio
Deformation
(ksf)
(in)
/o of Sample
(in)
( % )
%
( )
Thickness
0:800
0.0564
0.9936
0.00
-0.64
0.3710
-0.64
"'.1.600
0.0642
0.9858
0.00
-1.42
0.3603
-1.42
H2O
0.0795
1 0.9705
0.00
-2.95
0.3392
1 -2.95
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation = 1.55
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
0.3700
03600
M
o:
0.3500
0.3400
0.3300 4---
0.010
Inundate with
water
0.100 1.000
Log Pressure (ksf)
10.000
Rev 08-04
xCollapse-Swell B -2,F-2
41
1
t
01 Leighton Consulting, Inc.
Project Name: SELBY / YNEZ
One -Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(A rel I) 4;46)
Project No.: 600654-001
Boring No.: B-2
Final Moisture (%) :
Sample No.: R-3
Initial Void ratio:
Sample Description:
SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
2.70
Initial Saturation %
36.9
Initial Dry Density (pcf):
120.6
Corrected
Initial Moisture (%):
Final Reading
5.4
Initial Length (in.):
1.0000
Initial Dial Reading:
Thickness
0.0500
Diameter in :
Deformation
2 416
(in)
Tested By: JMD
Checked By: PRC
Sample Type: IN SITU
Depth (ft.) 5
Date: 12/8/04
Date .12/8/04 -
Final Dry Density (pco:
124.5
Final Moisture (%) :
13.8
Initial Void ratio:
0.3979
Specific Gravity(assumed):
2.70
Initial Saturation %
36.9
Load
Percent Swell I Settlement After Inundation
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
0.3900
0.3800
0.3700
0
0.3600
03500 4--
0.010
Inundate with
water
0.100 1.000
Log Pressure (ksf)
1u.uuu
Rav 08-04
xCollape-Swell 6$R-3
Swell (+)
Apparent
Load
Corrected
Pressure (p)
Final Reading
Settlement (-)
Thickness
Compliance
Void Ratio
Deformation
(ksf)
(in)
a /o of Sample
in
( )
%
( )
( )
Thickness
:'0001" '!'
`°'0.0615
0.9885
0.00
-1.15
0.3819
-1.15
'p210001',
: 0:0695
0.9805
0.00
-1.95
0.3707
-1.95
H2O
0:0813
1 0.9687
0.00 1
-313 1
0.3542
1 -3.13
Percent Swell I Settlement After Inundation
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
0.3900
0.3800
0.3700
0
0.3600
03500 4--
0.010
Inundate with
water
0.100 1.000
Log Pressure (ksf)
1u.uuu
Rav 08-04
xCollape-Swell 6$R-3
1 �
Leighton Consulting, Inc.
One -Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(AST\'I 1) 4546)
' Project Name: SELBY / YNEZ
Tested By:
JMD Date: 12/8/04
Project No.: 600654-001
Checked By::
PRC., Date.'-- 12/8/04;
Boring No.: B-2
Sample Type:
IN SITU
' Sample No.: R-5
Depth (ft.)
10
Sample Description: SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Corrected
2.416
I
Initial Dry Density (pcf):
127.8
124.8
Initial Moisture (%):
Initial Void ratio
10.1
Initial Length (in.):
2.70
1.0000
Initial Dial Reading:
Load
0.0500
Diameter in :
Corrected
2.416
Final Dry Density (pcf):
127.8
Final Moisture (%) :
11.5
Initial Void ratio
0.3505
Specific Gravity(assumed):
2.70
Initial Saturation %
77.4
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =
0
0
0.3400
0.3300
0.3200
0.3100 4-
0.010
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
0.100
Inundate with
water
Log Pressure (ksf)
1 000
10.000
Rev M -N
a Ci°IIOM-Sue II 6.2,8.5
Swell (+)
Pressure (p)
Final Reading
Apparent
Load
(-)
Corrected
(kso
(in)
Thickness
Compliance
Settlement
/o of Sample
Void Ratio
Deformation
(in)
(%
°
(/0)
Thickness
1.300awv;:U633,:
)",
0.9867
0.00
-1.33
0.3325
-1.33
2.6 000.9800 ,.;;!
Oi0700;,i
0.9800
000
-2.00
0.3235
-2.00
H2O
0.OZ33„ ;`
0.9767
1 0.00
1 -2.33 1
0.3190
1 -2.33
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =
0
0
0.3400
0.3300
0.3200
0.3100 4-
0.010
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
0.100
Inundate with
water
Log Pressure (ksf)
1 000
10.000
Rev M -N
a Ci°IIOM-Sue II 6.2,8.5
I
1
rJ
1
I
I
0f Leighton Consulting, Inc.
Project Name. SELBY / YNEZ
One-Dinlensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of C'ollesive Soils
(ASTNI D 4s46)
Project No.: 600654-001
Boring No.: B-3
Checked By:-
Sample No.: R-2
Sample Type:
Sample Description:
SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
2.5
Initial Saturation %
56.3
Initial Dry Density (pcf):
118.3
Corrected
Initial Moisture (%):
Final Reading
8.8
Initial Length (in.):
1.0000
Initial Dial Reading:
Thickness
0.0500
Diameter in :
Deformation
2.416
(in)
Tested By:
,1MD Date: 12/8/04
Checked By:-
-PRC Date: 12/8/04
Sample Type:
IN SITU
Depth (ft.)
2.5
Final Dry Density (pcf):
121.2
Final Moisture (%) :
12.6
Initial Void ratio:
0.4244
Specific Gravity(assumed):
2.70
Initial Saturation %
56.3
Load
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =F ---O-.70--]
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
0
K
0
a
0.4190
0.4090
0.3990
03890 4-
0.010
Inundate with
water
0 100 1 000
Log Pressure (ksf)
10.000
Rev BB -o4
xShcapse-Swell B -3,R-2
Swell (+)
Apparent
Load
Corrected
Pressure (p)
Final Reading
Settlement (-)
Thickness
Compliance
Void Ratio
Deformation
(ksf)
(in)
p of Sample
/o
(in) )
( o/p )
e
( /0)
Thickness
01800' 'r '
'` . -0.0580 -
0.9920
0.00
-0.80
0.4131
-0.80
-7-41160b-,'"_
.':+'i'0.0669=_= =
0.9831
0.00
1.69
0.4004
1.69
H2O
.._--0-0738,- -_`=
0.9762
1 0.00 1
-238
1 0.3905 1
-2.38
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =F ---O-.70--]
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
0
K
0
a
0.4190
0.4090
0.3990
03890 4-
0.010
Inundate with
water
0 100 1 000
Log Pressure (ksf)
10.000
Rev BB -o4
xShcapse-Swell B -3,R-2
L
1
11
1
1
I
1
03 e% One -Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Leighton Consulting, Inc. potential of Cohesive Soils
(As rm D 4x46)
Project Name: SELBY / YNEZ
Tested By:
JMD Date: 12/8/04
Project No.: 600654-001
Checked By:
= PRC Date:: - 12/8/04:.
Boring No.: B-3
Sample Type:
IN SITU
Sample No.: R-3
Depth (ft.)
5
Sample Description: SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Corrected
2.416
Initial Dry Density (pcf):
117.2
106.0
Initial Moisture (%):
Initial Void ratio:
5.2
Initial Length (in.):
2.70
1.0000
Initial Dial Reading:
Load
0.0500
Diameter in :
Corrected
2.416
Final Reading
Final Dry Density (pcf)
117.2
Final Moisture (%p) :
14.8
Initial Void ratio:
0.5897
Specific Gravity(assumed):
2.70
Initial Saturation %
23.7
Load
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =
0.6000
0.5900
0.5800
0.5700
0.5600
0.5500
0.5400
o 0.5300
cu 0.5200
a 05100
0
> 0.5000
0.4900
0.4800
04700
04600
04500
0.4400
0.4300
0.010
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
0.100
Inundate with
water
Log Pressure (ksf)
1 000
10.000
Rev 08-04
xCollapse-Swell 6- ,R -J
Swell (+)
Apparent
Load
Corrected
Pressure (p)
Final Reading
Settlement (-)
Thickness
Compliance
Void Ratio
Deformation
(ksf)
(in)
%o of Sample
(in)
N
( /0)
Thickness
-,'-1-.000;
=0.0608",-i:.'.
0.9892
0.00
-1.08
0.5725
-1.08
-2:000* _-.- _-
= V"::0'0743, -_€ _;
0.9757
0.00
-2.43
0.5510
-2.43
H2O
°=_:01951_-=_.,;.
0.9049
1 0.00
1 -9.51
1 0.4385
1 -9.51
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =
0.6000
0.5900
0.5800
0.5700
0.5600
0.5500
0.5400
o 0.5300
cu 0.5200
a 05100
0
> 0.5000
0.4900
0.4800
04700
04600
04500
0.4400
0.4300
0.010
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
0.100
Inundate with
water
Log Pressure (ksf)
1 000
10.000
Rev 08-04
xCollapse-Swell 6- ,R -J
v
' 00 Leighton Consulting, Inc.
One -Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTa1 u 4:46)
'
'
Project Name. SELBY / YNEZ
Project No.: 600654-001
Boring No.: B-3
Sample No.: R-6
Sample Description: SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
'
Initial Dry Density (pcf):
Initial Moisture (%).
Initial Length (in.):
Initial Dial Reading:
Diameter in :
99.7
IN SITU
7.4
1.0000
0.0500
2.416
Load
Corrected
1
Tested By:
JMD Date: 12/8/04
Checked By:
- PRC Date: 12/8/04
Sample Type:
IN SITU
Depth (ft.)
10
Final Dry Density (pco:
105.7
Final Moisture (%) :
18.9
Initial Void ratio:
06903
Specific Gravity(assumed)
2.70
Initial Saturation %
29.0
Load
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
0.6600
06500
0.6400
0.6300
m
K _
-o
j 0.6200
0.6100
0.6000
0.5900
0.010
0 100
Inundate with
water
Log Pressure (ksf)
1.000
10.000
Rev 08-N
xCollapw-Swell B -3,R-6
Swell (+)
Apparent
Load
Corrected
Pressure (p)
Final Reading
Settlement
nt
Thickness
Compliance
Void Ratio
Deformation
(ksf)
(in)
le
Sample
/o of Sample
a
(in)
%
( )
( /0)
Thickness
`'-'
=;0'0685
0.9815
0.00
-1.85
0.6591
-1.85
2:600
0.0792
0.9708
0.00
-2.92
0.6410
-2.92
H2O
01069
0.9431
1 0.00
1 -5.69
1 0.5942
1 -5.69
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
0.6600
06500
0.6400
0.6300
m
K _
-o
j 0.6200
0.6100
0.6000
0.5900
0.010
0 100
Inundate with
water
Log Pressure (ksf)
1.000
10.000
Rev 08-N
xCollapw-Swell B -3,R-6
Boring No.
B-1
B-2
B-6
B-5
Sample No.
B-1
B-1
B-3
B-1
Depth ft.
0-5
0-5
5-10
0-5
Sample Type
RING
RING
RING
RING
Visual Soil Classification
SM
SM
s(ML)
SM
rwMoistureCorrection ::.' '.,:;'.'• `''` '
Wet Weight of Soil + Container (gm.)
290.0.
274.0 .;
';'' '287!4, ',,
, 289.4
-
Dry Weight of Soil + Container (gm.)
274.8
261.7,
269 & I"
'; ,:277.9
Weight of Container (m)
81.5
82.6r'(
,','.'; 84'.6"1
,86.1
Moisture Content (%)
7.9
6.8
15.0
6.0
Container No.:
E
A„I °
p'';' 'll';:r:
°:. P
Sample Dry.'Weight Determination
Weight of Sample + Container (gm.)
290.0
274.0
287.4
289.4
Weight of Container (gm)
81.5
82.0
84.6
86.1
Weight of Dry Sample (gm.)
193.3
179.7
176.4
191.8
Container No.:
E
A
D
P
Afte�,:Wasl i d
Dry Weight of Sample + Container (m)
193.4 -
188.3
1 50: 6•' ,
-" M.61'
Weight of Container (gm)
81.5
82.0
84.6
86.1
Dry Wei ht of Sample m
111.9
106.3
66.0
126.5
Passing No. 200 Sieve
42
41
63
34
% Retained No. 200 Sieve
58
59
37
66
PERCENT PASSING No. 200 SIEVE
ASTM D 1140
Leighton Consulting, Inc.
Project Name: SELBY/YNEZ
Project No.: 600654-001
Client Name
Tested By. JMD Date: 12/7/04
Rev 08-N
200 Wash
I
I
r4 0 COMPACTION TEST
�F�0 Leighton Consulting, Inc. ASTM D 1557
Project Name: SELBY / YNEZ Tested By: AJP Date: 12/6/04
Project No.: 600654-001 Calculated By : PRC Date: 12/8/04
Boring No: B-1 Depth (ft.): 0-5
Sample No.: B-1
Sample Description SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Preparation Method Moist X Mechanical Ram
RX Dry Manual Ram
Mold Volume (ft 3) 0.03344 Ram Weight 10 LBS Drop 16 inches
Moisture Added
' I 0'
-50
50
100
Atterberg Limits:
TEST NO.
Soil Passing No 4 (4.75 mm) Siem
1
2
3
4
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold
(m.
„5733'
5570
5730 -
- -5673
May be used if No. 4 retained <20%
Wt. of Mold
m.)
3586; :
3586
3586
3586
AS
Net Wt. of Soil
gm.)
2147
1984
2144
2087
RECD
Wet W. of Soil + Cont.
(m.
'121.3;-== .
;130 1 _ °
_==122:7___
_ °= 128:5 ==
5121.3_
Dry Wt. of Soil +Cont.
(m.)
::1,,13-1-'-.e
-123.2 - -'-`1.1235.
_
116.0:
--
1;13_=1=;=
Wt. of Container
(m.)
1
Layers: 5 (Five
1.1:9
'
. . - - --
Moisture Content
-
%
8.1
-
6.2
-
10.1
- - -
12.0
8.1
Wet Density
(pc
141.5
130.8
141.3
137.6
Dry Density
c
130.9
123.2
128.3
122.8
Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 132.6 Optimum Moisture Content
PROCEDURE USED
'
Particle -Size Distribution:
145.0
0
GR:SA:FI
FX_J A
Atterberg Limits:
Soil Passing No 4 (4.75 mm) Siem
1
Mold: 4 in. (101.6 mm) diamete
Layers: 5 (Five
140,0
Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five
'
May be used if No. 4 retained <20%
n Procedure B
135.0
Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Siew
Mold4 in (101.6 mm) diamete
=1
'
Layers 5 (Five
p,
"'130.0
Blows per layer 25 (twenty-five
Use if+ No. 4 >20% and +3/8 in. <20%
.y
c
❑ Procedure C
725.0
Soil Passing 3/4 in (19.0 mm) Siew
Z
Mold 6 in (152.4 mm) diamete
0
Layers: 5 (Five
'
Blows per layer. 56 (fifty-six
1200
Use if+3/8 in. >20% and +_/, in <30%.
'
Particle -Size Distribution:
0
GR:SA:FI
'
Atterberg Limits:
LL,PL,PI
1
11161117
0 0 4-
0.0
5.0 1 .0 15.0 20 0
Moisture G�ontent (%)
Rev 06-04
' c°mpamned,Ba
I
1
1
1
011
Leighton Consulting, Inc.
COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D1557
Project Name:
SELBY / YNEZ
Tested By:
AJP Date' 12/6/04
Project No.:
600654-001
Calculated By:
PRC Date: 12/8/04
Boring No.:
B-3
Depth ft):
0-5
Sample No.:
B-1
m.
5714-
Sample Description
SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
5699 _
Mold. 4 in. (101.6 mm) diamete
Preparation Method
Moist
X
Mechanical Ram
3586
X Dry
AS
Manual Ram
(gm.)
Mold Volume (ft') F0.033447I
Ram Weioht 10 LBS DroD 18 inches
Moisture Added
„0
50
-50
100'
Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Siev,
TEST NO.
Mold. 4 in. (101.6 mm) diamete
1
2
3
4
'
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold
m.
5714-
5754
5540 -
5699 _
Mold. 4 in. (101.6 mm) diamete
Wt. of Mold
(m.)
3586-' _-
3586
3586
3586
AS
Net Wt. of Soil
(gm.)
2128
2168
1954
2113
RECD
Wet Wt. of Soil +Cont.
m.
138:9,: _
___>141E=7_=-
_; __122:5=
==127r3;..>
138:9 .'
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont.
(m.)
Atterber Limits:
LL,PL,PI
Wt. of Container
(gm.)
-
Moisture Content
%
8.0
9.9
6.1
12.0
8.0
Wet Density
(pcf)
140.3
142.9
128.8
139.3
Dry Density
c
129.9
130.0
121.4
124.3
Maximum Dry Density (pcf) ;1:31.5 Optimum Moisture Content
1450
1400
135.0
U
n
1200
1150
110.0 4-
0.0
SP. GR. = 2.70
SP. GR. = 2.75
SP. GR. = 2.80
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Moisture Content (%)
Rev 08-04
' compad'on 5-3,Bd
PROCEDURE USED
Procedure A
'
Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Siev,
Mold. 4 in. (101.6 mm) diamete
Layers 5 (Five
Blows per layer 25 (twenty-five
'
May be used if No 4 retained <20%
❑ Procedure B
Soil Passing 3/8 in (9 5 mm) Sieve
Mold. 4 in. (101.6 mm) diamete
Layers. 5 (Five
Blows per layer 25 (twenty-five
Use if+ No. 4>20% and +3/8 in. <201/
SProcedure C
oil Passing 3/4 in. (19 0 mm) Siew
Mold: 6 in. (152.4 mm) diacoele
Layers: 5 (Five
'
Blows per layer: 56 (fifty-six
Use if +3/8 in. >20% and +% in. <30%
'
Particle -Size Distribution:
GR:SA:FI
'
Atterber Limits:
LL,PL,PI
1450
1400
135.0
U
n
1200
1150
110.0 4-
0.0
SP. GR. = 2.70
SP. GR. = 2.75
SP. GR. = 2.80
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Moisture Content (%)
Rev 08-04
' compad'on 5-3,Bd
5000
4000
o. 3000
1/1/1111
11
1000 2000 3000
Vertical Stress (pso
Boring Location
Sample Depth (feet)
Sample Description
Sample Method
Initial Average Dry Density
—�— Ultimate
—�— Peak
4000 5000
0-5
SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Remolded to 90 percent compaction
118.8 pcf
Average Strength Parameters
Friction Angle, O'peak (deg) 32
Cohesion, c'p.,k (psf) 400
Friction Angle, (deg) 32
Cohesion, c',i, (psf) 400
DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY
Project No.
600654-001
1�1
90
Project Name
Selby
Date
December 8, 2004.'®
LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING
1.0 General
1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and
earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical
report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the
' geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the
geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the
earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result
' in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
'
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall
employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). . The.
Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical
report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions,
'
and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work
'
plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel
to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.
'
During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe,
map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design
assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the
interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform
'
the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed
conditions, and notify. the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be
geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground
'
after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial
removal' areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture -conditioning and processing of the
subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the
'
attained level of compaction.. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to
the the Contractor frequent basis.
owner and on a routine and
' 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified,
experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of
' ground to receive fill, moisture -conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill.
The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these
Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely
t responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications.
The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a
work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of
' 3030.1094
Leighton Consulting, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 2 of 6
work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to
commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical
Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in
advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and
accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware
of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and
agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved
geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical
Consultant, unsatisfactory. conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition,
inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in
a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant
shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until
the conditions are rectified.
2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious
material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to
the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on
specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic
materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter.
Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the
affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper
evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area.
As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline,
diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered
to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto
the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and
shall not be allowed.
3030.1094
Leighton Consulting, Inc.
' GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 3 of 6
' 2.2 Processine:. Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the
Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing
ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section.
' Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or
clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that
would inhibit uniform compaction.
' 2.3 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the
approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy,
' organic -rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to
competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.
2.4 Benchine:. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal
to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details
for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and
' at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as
otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping
' flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade
for the fill.
' 2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and
processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded,
and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive
fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant
prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for
determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.
3.0 Fill Material
' 3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall he essentially free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to
placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high
expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical
Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.
3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum
dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location,
materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant.
' Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and
such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill.
Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet
' of future utilities or underground construction.
3.3 Import:. If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall
' 3030.1094
I
Leighton Consulting, Inc.
' GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 4 of 6
' meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the
Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that
its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. Import fill should be free
' of all deleterious material and hazardous waste. Testing for hazardous waste typically takes
between 7 and 14 working days.
' 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
' 4.1 Fill Lavers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per
Section 3.0) in near -horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The
Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading
' procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly
and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.
' 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed,
as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum:
Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in
' accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method
D1557-91).
' 4.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture -conditioned, mixed, and evenly
spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density
(ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be
either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently
achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.
4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above,
compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot
rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing
satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of
' grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of
maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557-91.
' 4.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill
soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests
shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered.. Compaction
' test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be
selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to
inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).
3030.1094
1
' Leighton Consulting, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 5 of 6
1
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testine: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in
' vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. hi addition, as a
guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope
face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill
' construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical
Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these
minimum standards are not met.
'
4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate
elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate
'
with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the
Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a
minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than
5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided.
5.0 Subdrain Installation
1 Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the
grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional
' subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions
encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for
line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the
' Contractor for these surveys
' 6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over -excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the
' Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans
are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical
Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill -over -cut
' slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the
slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
7.0 Trench Backfills
' 7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench
excavations.
Il
' 3030.1094
1
' Leighton Consulting, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 6 of 6
7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable
' provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material
shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>3O). The bedding shall be placed to 1
foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and
' densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit
to the surface.
' 7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least
one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.
1
1
1
I
11
1
' 3030.1094
11
7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard
Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the
Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative
compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
PROJECTED PLANE
1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM TOE
OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND
NATURAL \
GROUND -�,
7 MIN.—
KEY DEPTH
LOWEST BENCH
oc"
NATURAL
GROUND
1F
— Y MIN.
KEY DEPTH
OVERBUILT AND
TRIM BACK\
ISLOPE
M6W-S
KEY DEPTH LOWEST BI
VYING AND BENCHING
4' TYPICAL
BENCH
HEIGHT
REMOVE
INSUrrABL
MATERIAL
14—E7
T
REMOVE
iNSUMABLE
MATERIAL
CUT FACE
TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRKXR
TO SLL PLACEMENT
NATURAL /
GROUND
4' TYPICAL
REMOVE
INSUTTABL
MATERIAL
HEIGHT
FILL SLOPE
FILL -OVER -CUT
SLOPE
CUT -OVER -FILL
SLOPE
For Subdrains See
Standard Detail C
BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPES
ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1
MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FET
MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS A
1
PROJECTED PLANE
TO t MAbMUM FROM
'1
TOE OF. SLOPE TO
APPROVED GROUND
OVERBUILT AND
TRIM BACK\
ISLOPE
M6W-S
KEY DEPTH LOWEST BI
VYING AND BENCHING
4' TYPICAL
BENCH
HEIGHT
REMOVE
INSUrrABL
MATERIAL
14—E7
T
REMOVE
iNSUMABLE
MATERIAL
CUT FACE
TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRKXR
TO SLL PLACEMENT
NATURAL /
GROUND
4' TYPICAL
REMOVE
INSUTTABL
MATERIAL
HEIGHT
FILL SLOPE
FILL -OVER -CUT
SLOPE
CUT -OVER -FILL
SLOPE
For Subdrains See
Standard Detail C
BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPES
ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1
MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FET
MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS A
i
I
I
I
I
FINISH GRADE
7-
-7— H
— — — — — — - 10'—_—_ — —
— — — — — — — -- — —COMPACTED FILL
SLOPE FACE — — — — — MIN -- — — — — — — — — — — — —_— —
— — — — — — — — — — — -
SLOPE FACE
Z-- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — — ------
7;'— — — — — — —
_ —to._
----------- ;t_
_MIN.
7 . . .
— —_-
-- — — —MIN' — — 15' MIN, .00
OVERSUE -- — — — — — — — —
WINDROW
-------------- JETTED OR FLOODED
APPROVED SOIL
• Oversize rock Is larger than 8 inches
In largest dimension.
0 BacMI with approved soil jetted or
flooded In place to fill all the voids.
• Do not bury rock within 10 fed of
finish grade.
• Windrow of buried rock shall be
parallel to the finished slope lace.
PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
SECTION A -A'
-----------------------------------
-------------------—---------------
-- -------------
--------------- A
- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — = — — — — — — — _-
JETTED
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 9__ — ---- — — — — — — I
JE17ED OR FLOODED
APPROVED SOIL
OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS B
NATURAL
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — COMPACTED_ — — — — — \�
— — — — — — —— _— — — — —_
— —
\A — — ! _ — - —
TYPICAL _ _ _ _ _ _
BENCHING — — — — — — — —_ — — — — REMOVE
UNSUITABLE MATERIAL
SUBDRAIN
(See Alternates A and B)
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A PERFOPATEDPIPE SLRROLNDED
WITH FILTER MATERIAL
FILTER MATERIAL(9FT JFT)
r'�■
W6
S
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A-1
6"0 MIN.
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B
FILTER MATERIAL
FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIALPERSTATE OF
CALIFORNIA STANDARD SPECIFICATION, OR APPROVED ALTERNATE
CIAO 2 GRADING AS FOLLOWS
Slaw Ste PacerR PmgM
1" 100
3/4" 90.100
3/8' 40-100
No.4 25-4D
No.8 1833
No. 30 5.15
No. 50 0-7
No. 200 0-3
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A-2-
6"0
-2
F
GRAVEL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC `
12" MIN. OVERLAP /1\/
FILTER FABRIC
7� (MIRAFI 14ONC OR
yI APPROVED EQUIVALEIM
Ki �-� V • Y .
ALTERNATE B-1 3/4" MAX• GRAVELOt ALTERNATE B-2
APPROVED EQUIVA-34T
(9FT1/Fn
O PERFORATED PIPE IS OPTIONAL PER
GOVERNING AGENCYS REQUIREMENTS
DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINAL
o
Fm6HMXm GRmE
IS Mm. —
� na-A3uauim
CANYON GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SUBDRAIN SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS C
FLMRiAO+S
w Mm. Lmou
P81 mm —I W(m GmO oUQ
"Mm. ORM WEDEWWV
r7
j
I
1
1
1
OUTLET PIPES
44 NON -PERFORATED PIPE,
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY
30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY
15 MIN.
LZZ20/b Mm. BACKCUT
if=_ =—____
2%MAL-�' -- -
-------------- -
------------------
- —=a_–==�%MIN. —__-- --
15 MIN.
KEY DEPTH KEY WIDTH
2' MIN.
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE POSITIVE SEAL SHOULD BE
PROVIDED AT THE JOINT
WA
BENCHING
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B
MIN. 12" OVERLAP FROM THE TOP
. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain collector pipe shall be installed with perforations down or,
unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant Outlet pipes shall be non -perforated
pipe. The subdrain pipe shall have at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot Perforation shall
be 1/4" to 1/2" If drilled holes are used. All subdrain pipes shall have a gradient at least 2 % towards the
outlet
SUBDRAIN PIPE - Subdrain pipe shall be ASTM D2751, ASTM D1527 (Schedule 40) or SDR 23.5 ABS pipe
or ASTM D3034 (Schedule 40) or SDR 23.5 PVC pipe.
• All outlet pipe shall be placed in a trench and, after fill is placed above it, rodded to verify integrity.
BUTTRESS OR
REPLACEMENT FILL
SUBDRAINS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS D
CALTRANS CLASS 2
FILTER MATERIAL(3FT?/FT)
(NON-PERF�OR.ATPIPE
®�
OUTLET PIPE
(NON-PERFOPATED)
\
T" MIN.
_--l��l--_"
_
3/4• ROa (3Fi'.3/M
WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC
\ly /
/
_T MIN.
J_
T- CNNECFION FROM
COLLECTION PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE
WA
BENCHING
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B
MIN. 12" OVERLAP FROM THE TOP
. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain collector pipe shall be installed with perforations down or,
unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant Outlet pipes shall be non -perforated
pipe. The subdrain pipe shall have at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot Perforation shall
be 1/4" to 1/2" If drilled holes are used. All subdrain pipes shall have a gradient at least 2 % towards the
outlet
SUBDRAIN PIPE - Subdrain pipe shall be ASTM D2751, ASTM D1527 (Schedule 40) or SDR 23.5 ABS pipe
or ASTM D3034 (Schedule 40) or SDR 23.5 PVC pipe.
• All outlet pipe shall be placed in a trench and, after fill is placed above it, rodded to verify integrity.
BUTTRESS OR
REPLACEMENT FILL
SUBDRAINS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS D
CUT -FILL TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION
1
'
REMO+E
UNSUITABLE
GROUND /
MIN.
!--
- -COMPACTED- - - --- f
4'MIN.
'
-- -
- - --
-- - 7 --
- - - - - - - - R
\
OVEREXCAVATE
AND RKOMPACf
- --
TYPICAL
BENCHING � BENCHING
�-
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK
OR MATERIAL APPROVED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
SIDE HILL FILL FOR CUT PAD NATURAL
GILOUND
/
RESTRICTED USEARFA
OVEREXCAVATE /
AND RKCMPACi FINISHED CUT PPD
(REPLACEMENTFIM /
' OVERBURDEN _ _ - - - �/- - •
OR UNSUITABLE _ �.
MATERIAL - - - -
- PAD OVEREXCAVATION AND REODWACTION
SHALL BE PERFORMED IF SPEOFTED
TYPICAL BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
% 1 _ BENCHING
2%�IlN-
SEE STANDARD DETAIL FOR SUBDRAINS
WHEN REQUIRED BY GEOTECHNICAL. CONSULTANT
9' MIN.
2' MIN.
IKEY
DEPTH UNWEATHEREDBmR�IXMATERIAL APPROVED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
1
TRANSITION LOT FILLS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
AND SIDE HILL FILLS STANDARD DETAILS E
SUBDRAIN OPTIONS AND BACKFILL WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF S50
Class 2 Filter Permeable Material Gradation
OPTION 1: PIPE SURROUNDED WITH
Sieve Size
Percent Passing
1"
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
3/4"
OPTION 2: GRAVEL WRAPPED
3/8"
40-100
No.4
IN FILTER FABRIC
No. 8
WITH PROPER
No. 30
WITH PROPER
No. 50
SURFACrE
No. 200
SURFACE DRAINAGE
SLOPE
SLOPE
OR LEVEL
OR LEVEL
12"
12"
NATIVE
WATERPROOFING
(SEE GENERAL NOTES)
WATERPROOFING(SEE
GENERAL NOTES)FILTER
FABRIC
UM
(SEE NOTE 4)
ERMEABLE
y 12' MINIMUM
WEEP HOLEATERIAL
NOTE 5)DATION)(SEE
WEEP HOLE(SEE
NOTE 5)vs
ro 1Vi INa SIIE
GRAVEL WRAPPED II FILTER
INCH DIAMETER
�FABRIC
LEVEL ORERFORATED
PIPE
LEVEL'R
SLOPE
(SEE NOTE 3)
SLOPE
Class 2 Filter Permeable Material Gradation
Per Caltrans Specifications
Sieve Size
Percent Passing
1"
100
3/4"
go -too
3/8"
40-100
No.4
25-40
No. 8
I8-33
No. 30
5-15
No. 50
0-7
No. 200
0-3
GENERAL NOTES:
* Waterproofing should be provided where moisture nuisance pfoblem through the wall is undesirable.
* Water proofing of the walls is not under purview of the geotechnical engineer
* All drains Mould have a gradient of 1 percent minimum
*Outlet portion of the subdrain should have a 4 -Inch diameter solid pipe discharged into a suitable disposal area designed by the project
engineer. The subdraln pipe should be accessible for maintenance (rodding)
*Other subdrain backfill options are subject to the review by the geotechnical engineer and modification of design parameters.
Notes
1) Sand should have a sand equivalent of 30 or greater and may be densified by water jetting.
)1 Cu. ft. per ft. of 1/4- to 1 1/2 -Inch size gravel wrapped in filter fabric
Pipe type should be ASTM D1527 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) SDR35 or ASTM D1785 Polyvinyl Chloride plastic (PVC), Schedule
40, Arco A2000 PVC, or approved equivalent. Pipe should be installed with perforations down. Perforatlons should be 3/8 inch In
lameter placed at the ends of a 120 -degree arc In two rows at 3 -Inch on center (staggered)
Filter fabric should be Mirafi 140NC or approved equivalent.
Weephole should be 3 -inch minimum diameter and provided at 10 -foot maximum intervals. If exposure Is permitted, weepholes should
be located 12 Inches above finished grade. If exposure is not permitted such as fora wall adjacent to a sidewalk/curb, a pipe under the
dewalk to be discharged through the curb face or equivalent should be provided. For a basement -type wall, a proper subdrain outlet
m should be provided.
Retaining wall plans should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer.
�) Walls over six feet in height are subject to a special review by the geotechnical engineer and modifications to the above requirements.
RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL
FOR WALLS 6 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT
WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF <50
Figure No.
' rtrt##A#.Atr#rtk..A##A##A##hk.A###fr>A>Art-k*k***R#hkArtA*kfr*#ARRA*krtkkRhkrt#*rthrthrthk#G*AAf:d A{rA*kfrkhrt*#krtrthrtrtrt#k
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CALCULATION SHEET
version 3
' copyrightby civilTech software
www. civiltech.com
(425) 453-6488 Fax (425) 453-5848
h###tr4rtrt##rtrt###rtlrrt*rtrt*{r##rthrthk*h#rth*rthrt#L##fr#rt#hh#iert brt**h#krtrtrt#Yrk{r##rt#rtrt#rtkk*Yrk 1r#k>1r***kfr*irhk#hrtrtrtrtrt#k#
Licensed to arasan, leighton and associates 12/14/2004 2:11:47 PM
' Input File Name: P:\Leighton Consulting\600500-600999\600654-001 Selby Lot 12 Prelim\Eng\B-3.liq
Title: Shelbe Temecula
subtitle: 600654-001
Input Data:
Surface Elev,1050
Hole No.=B-3
Depth of Hole=50.0 ft
' Depth of water Table=30.0 ft
Max. Acceleration -0.73 gg
Earthquake Magnitude=6.8
Hammer Energy Ratio, ce=1.4
Borehole Diameter, Cb=1
sampeling Method, Cs -1
SPT Fines correction Method: Idriss / Seed et al.
settlement Analysis Method: Tokimatsu / Seed
calculate settlement in Entire Depth
Depth SPT Gamma Fines
A pcf %
0.0 8.6 128.7 36.0
' hs- 8.6 128.7 36.0
5.0 50.0 111.5 36.0
7.5 19.4 123.2 36.0
10.0 20.0 107.1 36.0
15.0 10.0 120.0 25.0
20.0 19.4 131.8 15.0
25.0 23.0 132.0 15.0
30.0 23.5 132.0 35.0
35.0 13.0 132.0 35.0
40.0 35.5 132.0 35.0
' 45.0 14.0 132.0 35.0
50.0 29.5 132.0 35.0
Output Results: (Interval = 1.00 ft)
' CSR Calculation:
Depth gamma sigma gammasigma' rd CSR fs CSR
A pcf is pcf is (user) w/fs
I
0.00
128.7
0.000
128.7
0.000
1.00
0.47
1.0
0.47
'
1.00
128.7
0.064
128.7
0.064
1.00
0.47
1.0
0.47
2.00
128.7
0.129
128.7
0.129
1.00
0.47
1.0
0.47
3.00
125.3
0.193
125.3
0.193
0.99
0.47
1.0
0.47
4.00
118.4
0.254
118.4
0.254
0.99
0.47
1.0
0.47
'
5.00
6.00
111.5
116.2
0.311
0.368
111.5
116.2
0.311
0.368
0.99
0.99
0.47
0.47
1.0
1.0
0.47
0.47
7.00
120.9
0.427
120.9
0.427
0.98
0.47
1.0
0.47
8.00
120.0
0.488
120.0
0.488
0.98
0.47
1.0
0.47
9.00
113.5
0.547
113.5
0.547
0.98
0.46
1.0
0.46
10.00
11.00
107.1
109.7
0.602
0.656
107.1
109.7
0.602
0.656
0.98
0.97
0.46
0.46
1.0
1.0
0.46
0.46
'
12.00
112.3
0.712
112.3
0.712
0.97
0.46
1.0
0.46
13.00
114.8
0.768
114.8
0.768
0.97
0.46
1.0
0.46
14.00
117.4
0.826
117.4
0.826
0.97
0.46
1.0
0.46
15.00
16.00
120.0
122.4
0.886
0.946
120.0
122.4
0.886
0.946
0.97
0.96
0.46
0.46
1.0
1.0
0.46
0.46
'
17.00
124.7
1.008
124.7
1.008
0.96
0.46
1.0
0.46
18.00
127.1
1.071
127.1
1.071
0.96
0.45
1.0
0.45
19.00
129.4
1.135
129.4
1.135
0.96
0.45
1.0
0.45
20.00
131.8
1.200
131.8
1.200
0.95
0.45
1.0
0.45
21.00
131.8
1.266
131.8
1.266
0.95
0.45
1.0
0.45
'
22.00
131.9
1.332
131.9
1.332
0.95
0.45
1.0
0.45
23.00
131.9
1.398
131.9
1.398
0.95
0.45
1.0
0.45
24.00
132.0
1.464
132.0
1.464
0.94
0.45
1.0
0.45
25.00
132.0
1.530
132.0
1.530
0.94
0.45
1.0
0.45
26.00
132.0
1.596
132.0
1.596
0.94
0.45
1.0
0.45
'
27.00
132.0
1.662
132.0
1.662
0.94
0.44
1.0
0.44
28.00
132.0
1.728
132.0
1.728
0.93
0.44
1.0
0.44
29.00
132.0
1.794
132.0
1.794
0.93
0.44
1.0
0.44
30.00
132.0
1.860
132.0
1.860
0.93
0.44
1.0
0.44
31.00
132.0
1.926
69.6
1.896
0.92
0.44
1.0
0.44
'
32.00
132.0
1.992
69.6
1.931
0.91
0.45
1.0
0.45
33.00
132.0
2.058
69.6
1.966
0.91
0.45
1.0
0.45
34.00
132.0
2.124
69.6
2.001
0.90
0.45
1.0
0.45
35.00
132.0
2.190
69.6
2.036
0.89
0.45
1.0
0.45
I
1.1
I
I
1
I
11
36.00
132.0
2.256
69.6
2.070
0.88
0.46
1.0
0.46
0.00
37.00
132.0
2.322
69.6
2.105
0.87
0.46
1.0
0.46
0.37
38.00
132.0
2.388
69.6
2.140
0.86
0.46
1.0
0.46
0.47
39.00
132.0
2.454
69.6
2.175
0.86
0.46
1.0
0.46
40.00
132.0
2.520
69.6
2.210
0.85
0.46
1.0
0.46
0.13
41.00
132.0
2.586
69.6
2.244
0.84
0.46
1.0
0.46
42.00
132.0
2.652
69.6
2.279
0.83
0.46
1.0
0.46
43.00
132.0
2.718
69.6
2.314
0.82
0.46
1.0
0.46
2.00
44.00
132.0
2.784
69.6
2.349
0.82
0.46
1.0
0.46
45.00
132.0
2.850
69.6
2.384
0.81
0.46
1.0
0.46
5.00
46.00
132.0
2.916
69.6
2.418
0.80
0.46
1.0
0.46
1.28
47.00
132.0
2.982
69.6
2.453
0.79
0.46
1.0
0.46
48.00
132.0
3.048
69.6
2.488
0.78
0.46
1.0
0.46
1.00
49.00
132.0
3.114
69.6
2.523
0.78
0.45
1.0
0.45
10.00
50.00
132.0
3.180
69.6
2.558
0.77
0.45
1.0
0.45
0.36
CRR Calculation
5.00
from SPT
or BPT
data:
1.00
2.00
0.46
Depth
SPT
Cebs
Cr
Cn
(N1)60
Fines
d(N1)60
(N1)60cs
ft
2.00
0.46
1.28
%
5.00
13.00
0.00
8.60
1.40
0.75
2.00
18.06
36.00
8.61
26.67
0.31
1.00
8.60
1.40
0.75
2.00
18.06
36.00
8.61
26.67
0.31
2.00
8.60
1.40
0.75
2.00
18.06
36.00
8.61
26.67
0.31
3.00
16.88
1.40
0.75
2.00
35.45
36.00
12.09
47.54
2.00
4.00
33.44
1.40
0.75
1.99
69.71
36.00
18.94
88.66
2.00
5.00
50.00
1.40
0.75
1.79
94.11
36.00
23.82
117.93
2.00
6.00
37.76
1.40
0.75
1.65
65.35
36.00
18.07
83.42
2.00
7.00
25.52
1.40
0.75
1.53
40.99
36.00
13.20
54.19
2.00
8.00
19.52
1.40
0.75
1.43
29.33
36.00
10.87
40.20
2.00
9.00
19.76
1.40
0.85
1.35
31.80
36.00
11.36
43.16
2.00
10.00
20.00
1.40
0.85
1.29
30.68
36.00
11.14
41.81
2.00
11.00
18.00
1.40
0.85
1.23
26.45
33.80
9.85
36.30
2.00
12.00
16.00
1.40
0.85
1.19
22.57
31.60
8.59
31.16
2.00
13.00
14.00
1.40
0.85
1.14
19.01
29.40
7.S1
26.51
0.31
14.00
12.00
1.40
0.85
1.10
15.71
27.20
6.57
22.28
0.24
15.00
10.00
1.40
0.95
1.06
14.13
25.00
5.91
20.05
0.22
16.00
11.88
1.40
0.95
1.03
16.24
23.00
5.69
21.93
0.24
17.00
13.76
1.40
0.95
1.00
18.23
21.00
5.35
23.58
0.26
18.00
15.64
1.40
0.95
0.97
20.10
19.00
4.90
25.00
0.28
19.00
17.52
1.40
0.95
0.94
21.87
17.00
4.33
26.20
0.30
20.00
19.40
1.40
0.95
0.91
23.55
15.00
3.63
27.18
0.32
21.00
20.12
1.40
0.95
0.89
23.78
15.00
3.64
27.42
0.33
22.00
20.84
1.40
0.95
0.87
24.02
15.00
3.65
27.67
0.33
23.00
21.56
1.40
0.95
0.85
24.25
15.00
3.66
27.92
0.34
24.00
22.28
1.40
0.95
0.83
24.49
15.00
3.68
28.17
0.35
25.00
23.00
1.40
0.95
0.81
24.73
15.00
3.69
28.42
0.35
26.00
23.10
1.40
0.95
0.79
24.32
19.00
5.20
29.52
0.40
27.00
23.20
1.40
0.95
0.78
23.93
23.00
6.46
30.39
2.00
28.00
23.30
1.40
1.00
0.76
24.82
27.00
7.71
32.53
2.00
29.00
23.40
1.40
1.00
0.75
24.46
31.00
8.75
33.21
2.00
30.00
23.50
1.40
1.00
0.73
24.12
35.00
9.73
33.85
2.00
31.00
21.40
1.40
1.00
0.73
21.76
35.00
9.35
31.11
2.00
32.00
19.30
1.40
1.00
0.72
19.44
35.00
8.89
28.33
0.35
33.00
17.20
1.40
1.00
0.71
17.17
35.00
8.43
25.61
0.29
34.00
15.10
1.40
1.00
0.71
14.95
35.00
7.99
22.94
0.25
35.00
13.00
1.40
1.00
0.70
12.76
35.00
7.55
20.31
0.22
36.00
17.50
1.40
1.00
0.69
17.03
35.00
8.41
25.43
0.29
37.00
22.00
1.40
1.00
0.69
21.23
35.00
9.25
30.47
2.00
38.00
26.50
1.40
1.00
0.68
25.36
35.00
10.07
35.43
2.00
39.00
31.00
1.40
1.00
0.68
29.43
35.00
10.89
40.31
2.00
40.00
35.50
1.40
1.00
0.67
33.43
35.00
11.69
45.12
2.00
41.00
31.20
1.40
1.00
0.67
29.16
35.00
10.83
39.99
2.00
42.00
26.90
1.40
1.00
0.66
24.95
35.00
9.99
34.94
2.00
43.00
22.60
1.40
1.00
0.66
20.80
35.00
9.16
29.96
0.45
44.00
18.30
1.40
1.00
0.65
16.72
35.00
8.34
25.06
0.28
45.00
14.00
1.40
1.00
0.65
12.70
35.00
7.54
20.24
0.22
46.00
17.10
1.40
1.00
0.64
15.39
35.00
8.08
23.47
0.26
47.00
20.20
1.40
1.00
0.64
18.05
35.00
8.61
26.67
0.31
48.00
23.30
1.40
1.00
0.63
20.68
35.00
9.14
29.82
0.43
49.00
26.40
1.40
1.00
0.63
23.27
35.00
9.65
32.92
2.00
50.00
29.50
1.40
1.00
0.63
25.82
35.00
10.16
35.99
2.00
Factor of safety at Earthquake Magnitude= 6.8
Depth
ft
Si
tsg
C.
Ksigma
CRR
CSR
w/fs
MSF
CSRm
w/fs
F.S.=CRR/CSRM
w/fs
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.31
0.47
1.28
0.37
5.00
1.00
0.04
1.00
0.31
0.47
1.28
0.37
5.00
2.00
0.08
1.00
0.31
0.47
1.28
0.37
5.00
3.00
0.13
1.00
2.00
0.47
1.28
0.37
5.00
4.00
0.16
1.00
2.00
0.47
1.28
0.37
5.00
5.00
0.20
1.00
2.00
0.47
1.28
0.37
5.00
6.00
0.24
1.00
2.00
0.47
1.28
0.36
5.00
7.00
0.28
1.00
2.00
0.47
1.28
0.36
5.00
8.00
0.32
1.00
2.00
0.47
1.28
0.36
5.00
9.00
0.36
1.00
2.00
0.46
1.28
0.36
5.00
10.00
0.39
1.00
2.00
0.46
1.28
0.36
5.00
11.00
0.43
1.00
2.00
0.46
1.28
0.36
5.00
12.00
0.46
1.00
2.00
0.46
1.28
0.36
5.00
13.00
0.50
1.00
0.31
0.46
1.28
0.36
5.00
CRRraW
'
14.00
1.21
0.54
0.44
1.00
5.2E-4
0.24
0.1144
0.46
1.28
0.36
0.002
5.00
1.79
1.16
15.00
0.44
0.58
5.1E-4
1.00
0.1147
0.22
0.0998
0.46
1.28
0.36
1.72
5.00
32.49
0.44
16.00
5.1E-4
0.62
0.1151
1.00
0.1001
0.24
0.050
0.46
1.28
0.36
30.35
5.00
1446.9
5.1E-4
17.00
0.1312
0.66
0.1141
1.00
0.077
0.26
1.59
0.46
1.28
0.35
1404.0
5.00
0.2282
'
18.00
0.1160
0.70
0.105
1.00
1.53
0.28
28.41
0.45
1.28
0.35
0.2232
5.00
0.87
0.1198
19.00
0.133
0.74
1.46
1.00
28.15
0.30
1324.2
0.45
1.28
0.35
0.87
5.00
1.4E-3
0.161
20.00
1.39
0.78
27.90
1.00
1290.1
0.32
0.1987
0.45
1.28
0.35
1.3E-3
5.00
21.95
1.33
21.00
27.66
0.82
1255.5
1.00
0.1869
0.33
0.87
0.45
1.28
0.35
20.95
5.00
0.82
27.41
22.00
1220.3
0.87
0.1754
1.00
0.87
0.33
1.2E-3
0.45
1.28
0.35
0.78
5.00
0.45
t
23.00
0.1643
0.91
0.87
1.00
1.1E-3
0.34
18.95
0.45
1.28
0.35
0.45
5.00
4.5E-4
0.5425
24.00
0.87
0.95
3.9E-3
1.00
17.95
0.35
0.69
0.45
1.28
0.35
4.5E-4
5.00
0.3756
0.87
25.00
3.9E-3
0.99
16.95
1.00
0.65
0.35
0.46
0.45
1.28
0.35
0.3873
5.00
0.3368
4.0E-3
26.00
15.95
1.04
0.61
1.00
0.46
0.40
4.4E-4
0.45
1.28
0.35
0.3604
S.00
0.545
'
27.00
28.00
0.57
1.08
1.12
0.46
0.99
0.99
4.4E-4
1.99
1.97
0.4428
0.44
0.44
1.28
1.28
0.35
0.35
0.636
5.00
5.00
0.82
0.54
29.00
0.46
1.17
4.1E-4
0.98
0.2692
1.96
0.2341
0.44
1.28
0.34
5.00
30.00
1.21
0.97
1.95
0.44
1.28
0.34
5.00
31.00
1.23
0.97
1.94
0.44
1.28
0.35
5.00
32.00
33.00
1.26
1.28
0.97
0.96
0.34
0.28
0.45
0.45
1.28
1.28
0.35
0.35
0.98
0.81
*
*
'
34.00
1.30
0.96
0.24
0.45
1.28
0.35
0.69
*
35.00
1.32
0.96
0.21
0.45
1.28
0.35
0.60
*
36.00
1.35
0.95
0.28
0.46
1.28
0.35
0.78
*
37.00
1.37
0.95
1.90
0.46
1.28
0.36
5.00
38.00
1.39
0.95
1.90
0.46
1.28
0.36
5.00
'
39.00
1.41
0.94
1.89
0.46
1.28
0.36
5.00
40.00
1.44
0.94
1.88
0.46
1.28
0.36
5.00
41.00
1.46
0.94
1.88
0.46
1.28
0.36
5.00
42.00
1.48
0.94
1.87
0.46
1.28
0.36
5.00
43.00
1.50
0.93
0.42
0.46
1.28
0.36
1.18
44.00
1.53
0.93
0.26
0.46
1.28
0.36
0.74
*
45.00
1.55
0.93
0.20
0.46
1.28
0.36
0.57
*
46.00
1.57
0.92
0.24
0.46
1.28
0.36
0.67
*
47.00
1.59
0.92
0.29
0.46
1.28
0.36
0.81
*
48.00
1.62
0.92
0.39
0.46
1.28
0.35
1.11
'
49.00
1.64
0.91
1.83
0.45
1.28
0.35
5.00
50.00
1.66
0.91
1.82
0.45
1.28
0.35
5.00
* F.s.<1,
Liquefaction
Potential
zone.
Above
water table:
F.S.=5
'
(F.S.
is limited
to 5,
CRR
is
limited
to 2,
CSR is
limited to 2)
settlement
of
saturated
sands:
Depth
CSRm
F.s.
(N1)60cs
Dr
ec
ds/dz settlement
ft
w/fs
w/fs
%
%
in.
in.
'
49.9
0.35
5.00
35.84
105.02
0.000
0.000
0.000
48.9
0.35
5.00
32.77
96.68
0.000
0.000
0.000
47.9
0.35
1.07
29.66
89.29
0.199
0.001
0.014
46.9
0.36
0.80
26.51
82.66
0.965
0.006
0.090
45.9
0.36
0.67
23.31
76.55
1.225
0.007
0.223
44.9
0.36
0.58
20.48
71.39
1.434
0.009
0.385
43.9
0.36
0.75
25.31
80.31
1.079
0.006
0.535
42.9
0.36
5.00
30.21
90.53
0.181
0.001
0.615
41.9
0.36
5.00
35.19
103.16
0.000
0.000
0.621
40.9
0.36
5.00
40.24
119.22
0.000
0.000
0.621
t
39.9
0.36
5.00
44.88
137.47
0.000
0.000
0.621
38.9
0.36
5.00
40.07
118.61
0.000
0.000
0.621
37.9
0.36
5.00
35.19
103.15
0.000
0.000
0.621
36.9
0.36
5.00
30.22
90.56
0.177
0.001
0.628
35.9
0.35
0.77
25.18
80.06
1.084
0.007
0.712
'
34.9
0.35
0.60
20.44
71.33
1.434
0.009
0.866
33.9
0.35
0.69
23.07
76.10
1.237
0.007
1.025
32.9
0.35
0.81
25.74
81.16
1.034
0.006
1.161
31.9
0.35
0.99
28.47
86.70
0.476
0.003
1.254
30.9
0.35
5.00
31.25
92.95
0.113
0.001
1.278
'
settlement
of
saturated
sands=1.279
in.
settlement of Dry sands:
Depth sigma' sigc' (N1)60cs CSR Gmax g*Ge/Gm g_eff ec7.5 Cec ec
lettlement
ft tsf tsf w/fs tsf % % % in. in.
I
ds
29.95
1.86
1.21
33.82
0.44
1587.0
5.2E-4
0.2458
0.1144
0.87
0.0995
1.2E-3
0.002
28.95
1.79
1.16
33.17
0.44
1548.5
5.1E-4
0.2379
0.1147
0.87
0.0998
1.2E-3
0.026
27.95
1.72
1.12
32.49
0.44
1509.2
5.1E-4
0.2301
0.1151
0.87
0.1001
1.2E-3
0.050
26.95
1.66
1.08
30.35
0.44
1446.9
5.1E-4
0.2347
0.1312
0.87
0.1141
1.4E-3
0.077
25.95
1.59
1.04
29.48
0.45
1404.0
5.1E-4
0.2282
0.1334
0.87
0.1160
1.4E-3
0.105
24.95
1.53
0.99
28.41
0.45
1357.8
5.0E-4
0.2232
0.1377
0.87
0.1198
1.4E-3
0.133
23.95
1.46
0.95
28.15
0.45
1324.2
4.9E-4
0.2108
0.1317
0.87
0.1146
1.4E-3
0.161
22.95
1.39
0.91
27.90
0.45
1290.1
4.9E-4
0.1987
0.1258
0.87
0.1094
1.3E-3
0.188
21.95
1.33
0.86
27.66
0.45
1255.5
4.8E-4
0.1869
0.1198
0.87
0.1042
1.3E-3
0.214
20.95
1.26
0.82
27.41
0.45
1220.3
4.7E-4
0.1754
0.1138
0.87
0.0990
1.2E-3
0.238
19.95
1.20
0.78
27.14
0.45
1184.1
4.6E-4
0.1643
0.1081
0.87
0.0940
1.1E-3
0.261
18.95
1.13
0.74
26.14
0.45
1137.2
4.5E-4
0.5425
0.3757
0.87
0.3267
3.9E-3
0.304
17.95
1.07
0.69
24.93
0.45
1087.2
4.5E-4
0.5089
0.3756
0.87
0.3267
3.9E-3
0.382
16.95
1.00
0.65
23.50
0.46
1034.2
4.4E-4
0.4853
0.3873
0.87
0.3368
4.0E-3
0.461
15.95
0.94
0.61
21.84
0.46
977.8
4.4E-4
0.4719
0.4144
0.87
0.3604
4.3E-3
0.545
14.95
0.88
0.57
20.25
0.46
922.4
4.4E-4
0.4572
0.4428
0.87
0.3851
4.6E-3
0.636
13.95
0.82
0.54
22.48
0.46
922.4
4.1E-4
0.3182
0.2692
0.87
0.2341
2.8E-3
0.714
I
1
1
L
I
12.95 0.77 0.50 26.73 0.46 942.2 3.7E-4 0.2043 0.1373 0.87 0.1194 1.4E-3 0.754
11.95 0.71 0.46 31.41 0.46 956.6 3.4E-4 0.1399 0.0741 0.87 0.0644 7.7E-4 0.775
10.95 0.65 0.42 36.57 0.46 966.2 3.1E-4 0.1008 0.0400 0.87 0.0348 4.2E-4 0.787
9.95 0.60 0.39 41.87 0.46 968.0 2.9E-4 0.0764 0.0241 0.87 0.0210 2.5E-4 0.793
8.95 0.54 0.35 43.24 0.46 932.1 2.7E-4 0.0648 0.0205 0.87 0.0178 2.1E-4 0.797
7.95 0.49 0.32 40.29 0.47 859.9 2.6E-4 0.1012 0.0320 0.87 0.0278 3.3E-4 0.804
6.95 0.42 0.28 55.55 0.47 894.9 2.2E-4 0.0472 0.0149 0.87 0.0130 1.6E-4 0.809
5.95 0.37 0.24 85.01 0.47 956.6 1.8E-4 0.0336 0.0106 0.87 0.0092 1.1E-4 0.812
4.95 0.31 0.20 116.56 0.47 976.6 1.5E-4 0.0261 0.0082 0.87 0.0072 8.6E-5 0.814
3.95 0.25 0.16 87.07 0.47 799.0 1.5E-4 0.0259 0.0082 0.87 0.0071 8.6E-5 0.815
2.95 0.19 0.12 45.45 0.47 559.5 1.6E-4 0.0328 0.0104 0.87 0.0090 1.1E-4 0.817
1.95 0.13 0.08 26.67 0.47 381.2 1.6E-4 0.0312 0.0210 0.87 0.0183 2.2E-4 0.822
0.95 0.06 0.04 26.67 0.47 266.1 1.1E-4 0.0227 0.0153 0.87 0.0133 1.6E-4 0.825
0.00 0.00 0.00 26.67 0.47 3.4 1.4E-6 0.0010 0.0007 0.87 0.0006 7.1E-6 0.827
settlement of Dry Sands -0.827 in.
Total Settlement of Saturated and Dry Sands=2.106 in.
Units Depth = ft, Stress or Pressure = tsf (atm), unit weight = pcf, Settlement = in.
SPT
Field data from standard Penetration Test (SPT)
BPT
Field data from Becker Penetration Test (BPT)
Field data from cone Penetration Test (CPT)
K
Friction from CPT testing
Gamma
Total unit weight of soil
Gamma'
Effective unit weight of soil
Fines
Fines content [%]
050
Mean grain size
or
Relative Density
sigma
Total vertical stress [tsf]
sigma'
Effective vertical stress [tsf]
sigc'
Effective confining pressure [tsf]
rd
Stress reduction coefficient
CSR
Cyclic stress ratio induced by earthquake
MSF
Magnitude scaling factor for CSR
CSRm
After magnitude scaling correction CSRm=CSR * MSF
fs
user request factor of safety, apply to CSR
w/fs
with user request factor of safety inside (for CSR, CSRm, and F.S.)
F.S.
Factor of Safety against liquefaction F.S.=CRR/CSRm w/fs
cebs
Energy Ratio, Borehole Dia., and sample Method corrections
Cr
Rod Length Corrections
Cn
overburden Pressure correction
(N1)60
SPT after corrections, (N1)60=SPT * Cr * Cn * Cebs
d(N1)60
Fines correction of SPT
(N1)60cs
(N1)60 after fines corrections, (N1)60cs=(N1)60 + d(N1)60
Cq
Overburden stress correction factor
qcl
CPT after overburden stress correction in Suzuki's and seed's methods, qci= cq * qc
qca
Adjusted tip resistance in Suzuki's method, qca-f(ic) * qcl
gcln
CPT after overburden stress correction in Robertson's method
qcl
Fines correction of CPT, in seed's methods,
gcics
CPT after Fines and overburden correction, gcics=qcl + dqcl
Kc
Fine Correction factor in Robertson's Method
IC
soil type index in Suzuki's and Robertson's Methods
Ksigma
overburden stress correction factor for CRR
CRRraw
Before overburden stress correction
CRR
cyclic resistance ratio, CRR=CRRraw*Ksigma
ec
volumetric strain for saturated sands
ds
Settlement in each Segment dz
dz
segment for calculation, dz=0.050 ft
Gmax
shear Modulus at low strain
g_eff
gamma_eff, Effective shear Strain
9-Ge/GM
gamma_eff TM G_eff/G_max, Strain -modulus ratio
ec7.5
Volumetric Strain for magnitude=7.5
Cec
magnitude correction factor for any magnitude
ec
volumetric strain for dry sands, ec=Cec * ec7.5
References:
NCEER workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. voud, T.L., and Idriss,
port NCEER 97-0022.
SP117. Southern California Earthquake Center. Recommended Procedures for implementation of
blication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and mitigating Liquefaction in California. university of
rch 1999.
I.M., eds., Technical
DMG Special
Southern California.
' LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES
/nl INCORVORATED
Nsh,
' *SOIL ENGINEERING 'GEOLOGY eGEOPHYSICS eGROUND WATER vMATERIALS TESTING •HAZARDOUS WASTE ASSESSMENT
' June 16, 1987
IProject No. 6870585-01
' TO: Lore Corporation
42066 Avenida Alvarado, Suite S
'Temecula, California 92390
ATTENTION: Mr. Doug Keup
' SUBJECT: Response to County Review Letter, County Geologic Report No. 413,
Plot Plan 9770, Rancho California, Riverside County, California
' As outlined vii cne County Review Letterland as discussed with Mr. Steve
1Cupferman (June 4, 1987) regarding our—report: "Fault Investigation, Tract
'3334, Lot 12, Ynez Road, Rancho California, Riverside County, California,"
Project No. 6870585-01, the responses are as follows:
1. The joint attitude is graphically shown on the log as attached, Plate 1.
' 2. The fault attitude is located on the attached, Plate 2.
' 3. Logs of the "check" trenches were not prepared as they were for survey
purposes only to accurately locate the setback zone. The recency of
movement had already been established in Trench 1.
' 4. The potholes, as discussed with Mr. Steve Kupferman, were used to trace a
fault that was observed in the cut slope. No evidence of recency and only
18 to 24 inches of offset was observed. This fault was found to be
noncontinuous toward the south. No setbacks were required, hence detailed
logs were not needed for expediency of the project.
'
S. Any structures for human occupancy located on secondary fault splays should
have foundations structurally strengthened. Use of thickened slabs,
increased number and/or size of steel reinforcement, and use of continuous
tied footings should be considered. Column loads should be avoided.
' Specific foundation design should be performed during grading and foundation
plan review by this office.
I1989 ATLANTA AVENUE, SUITE I. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 (714)758-5800
TELEX 249208 LAGEO UR
REGIONAL OFFICES SERVING 7HE. COUNTIES OF ORANGE. LOS ANGELES. VLNI UF!A. SAN DIE00. RIVFRSI DL'.ISAN GERNARDINO
AND THE COACHEL I A AND SANTA CLARITA VALLEY AREAS
6870585-01
' LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
&Yt 4�qDonn Schwart
Senior Geologist
' OS1jh
Distribution: (2) Addressee
' (1) Riverside County Planning Department
Attention: Mr. Steve Kupferman
Attachment: Appendix A - Trench Logs
I
1
C
- 2 -
•
ft
LEIuGHTON and ASSOCIATES
INGORPONATEO
6. At
the time of
the Leighton and Associates, Inc. investigation in 1978 on
'
the
property to
the south, the Alquist-Priolo zone for fault rupture hazard
did
not exist.
Thus, trenching was not necessary across the property and no
trench coverage
of the extension of the newly found fault exists.
If you
have any questions
regarding these responses, please do not hesitate to
'
contact
our office.
Respectfully submitted,
' LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
&Yt 4�qDonn Schwart
Senior Geologist
' OS1jh
Distribution: (2) Addressee
' (1) Riverside County Planning Department
Attention: Mr. Steve Kupferman
Attachment: Appendix A - Trench Logs
I
1
C
- 2 -
•
ft
LEIuGHTON and ASSOCIATES
INGORPONATEO
w
Project Name: LoLogged By: QS /GIC
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
.�-
Project Number: 687c�-T85-o/ Elevation: TRENCH NO. 1�
p
Equipment: c-A5X- 580-4:r, Location:S Aad: - cF 7
v+
o
40 m
" OA
C 1
y
W
v C
C*
GEOLOGIC
GEOUN TIC
V
ATTFTODES
DATE: = 6`111187 DESCRIPTION:
v
®rte; 54XV5A4400 6eAYA54 bra[✓ 49 -Sy bfi� F.Ae- crrrse
U1 J014t
frow,:7a%V, r0011,0,0101 ^eojs, dry, ts4cp4cifYL Ja row✓Gar_ firzY4A5.
PA,b0.,
N11WAD
,floG�y 3o:L 37roctJrt, Poor�y Sorfcc/, yrq[e o? fle4J�l Behr
�o�n.c��o
® HA,fOoAa! : C1*YeyA9-Y5A-40. &OLA -5 C1PYOaI{1) piAC-
!Pta.4ed, �P!•P 5, br.409de so;(, 3fiv'i1J'e, .rl.935"K, M"A"044
!•aTacts, r••nys.r+ed, ,r•d cwJ4ivL, rdao"
Q scrYSAa�OtSra�NG: oA,ery«+s4br«dN(�nyry/v) F,Ae-e�..s�
gra/4C-V'. "ASSfPt, 000e AY Srrwvd r,4,19 oir y, rfCd SC .i/.LONssArL
3h,yh:+fF /oroas, Ars6ry sueAnr.YsP, da...p, Gr.adly bad•rled
r
'-
`L
.T.rrY SwAOSR+AC AOOS: L,JhT yi//•w%SS b(•wN ZrZ.$ % ,y� F, A6gVrolAe�
OQ
P'
KL /-1ia%i.�'(Pi, /11442104, cfAq, AO? LP tf+,s..c., pJtGAFLCOau
re0
0
�i Gl1AcAGC 59..�o,ym+E: r9-►riBe�sfoaiS.try S.wOs onwr SP.�dt
�„
D
7rACi o{ C/P%t �P•/PlrA,, F,AG yM.ne d- erorSe a•rv.A+✓ LoytrC
.
m
Aear N•ra[so•Ia!„ti oast rbN +�o.�, (n ed Grosc, nDA-d!, c.rlwi•Je+
0
n
v
GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SE WA1t SCALE: 1” _ $ SURFACE SLOPE: TREND: N ZE
m
N-
�-.i�•dDLaA.i whOW
:-ter. �_- '-��.T.+• �'' � �: . �� ��•^ . _�.�1_+ _ ..,'' ♦ . .•f ti^1
0110
emu__MEL�, m-
G.MMIM M MEN MEN
w Project Name: LDeG/i»Ae0r04AM Logged By: As 14
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
OuUL . •-- - ............. ___.... .--------
a Project Number: oSBS-01 Elevation: TRENCH NO. T•/
Equipment: CASE S 80 •G Location: Sp/ r? e f 7
�'
in
W
z
a
1D
O n W
"~' 7
V ra ~•
w GEOLOGIC
GEOLOGIC
v ATTITUDES
DATE: S//�/87 DESCRIPTION:
UNIT
OH82w/"155
�NJ /'y7E<i1 ra L°'d U0.Y.4 6 ,S�t7S7�1E .Ad Sha��t' Ce�•t r f
ci P
Zk-
yhR.46/e � i/etfer `IAe-CsecSa �r•..r. d, ep�MP ovar•4L[ i7
{'S' S ._
rr•.i Co./efYyt
re j.y�t:
• �YYoLy� ��L'�� . 4
/��r.f��iiyli'�r•
M
OCHA.OAEL $AJO QiAkV'tV : yltb•.J B/eV.r (IO%R `•{fid) pert 6,.Ora
/.O•ACLLA 84"eej `rqt- 9aw,$C BrA.AeO Od. ar AV.•i, LLT
/f f"Me/ p+o�/Lepft- ,f/. Ce�ew�t, 0 c sfer.0~e fan d!
uPDk' 10 a .,"tw Qr eJ u/",* of C AM r
® C."",Te SAWAayo.s.7s: B,"LArJ(1oYR 5/1) •ae arAr.r../
eewse ;A A(..il VwerPt of eAs e, 8/ cv-M em it'al .T /• •9/4r.'D/r *on
Cn.4.SrJe0 &a.ry Sat -ft -a! T.e[a of _I,A✓•/, Cf-Wr J*cldeca
,"?Arty /%•l.2•444` 9.40-s .r Se 4 $t/r+CfJrlr /rA ce A -F LaG7S
cuacnrn cinDQ
TDFu11• • NSzE
GRAPHIC xErxEStN[-A-i-lunSEwAc.
OuUL . •-- - ............. ___.... .--------
Zk-
{'S' S ._
re j.y�t:
• �YYoLy� ��L'�� . 4
/��r.f��iiyli'�r•
p•
H.0 S►arws.mc• "
3•iL 1.1Y7N•
Cw3,fi&euf
`
♦
•
AcrM! TA•Lwe
'iii' ur..ftt:•
.'
' :•tiw.r::
...YT.FtF--L CA.. lit Rrtd
u._ •'
cfArfs..e
StrsT.
•• err
pop%
Ped
M LLLLLLL� L�
o
IT f 61
:tivn.Nor: coumv
- mw PLannine i)rc?a:u:nrcnc
JuIl. -(y I0,J11
' L,i,u�iION &ASSOC:fl July 6, 1987
Leighton and Associates
1989 Atlanta Avenue, Suite 1
' Riverside, CA 92507
Attention: Mr. Donn Schwartzkopf
' Mr. John F. Hoefferle
SUBJECT: Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone
' Plot Plan 9770
Project No.--67q%IB
County Geologic Report No. 413
Rancho California Area
' Gentlemen:
' We have reviewed: your report,entitled, "Fault Investigation, Tract 3334, Lot
12, Ynez Road, Rancho California, Riverside County, CA," dated May 22, 1987,
ter dat ,June 16, 1987. h�
Your yre ort determined an our res onse et �ed
p iined,that.i�l:i-:(,�5=
1. Active faultinss`oc,,, Ited with the Wildomar.,ILurl.t exists within the
'
southwestern '?pdr,t�ionkof`the site trending-,
rnerallyR+s�.)
utheasF91.
2. The area of active•„.faulting-requires a setback zone for human occupancy
' structures. The setback --zone is shown on the Geotechnical Map in the
report. �J
' 3. The maximum probable "design earthquake” for the site has been
estimated as a 6.0 Richter magnitude event located at the site.
' 4. Peak ground accelerations at the site are estimated to be .44g.
Repeatable maximum ground accelerations are 0.29g.
5. The predominant period of bedrock acceleration is estimated to be 0.35
seconds or more.
6. The site could be subjected to up to 18 seconds of strong ground
' shaking.
7. Other faulting was observed in the borrow area beyond the Special
' Studies Zone, which is discontinuous and displays no evidence of recent
activity. Other faults of a similar nature could be present elsewhere
in the site.
'4080 LEMON STREET, 9T" FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(714) 787-6181 (619) 342-8277
1
' Leighton and Associates - 2 - July 6, 1987
8. Secondary or sympathetic movement of associated faults could occur
' during a major event centered on the Wildomar fault zone, but is
considered low.
4. The setback zones shown on the Geotechnical Map are for design purposes
only. Since these faults have a dipping component, cut or fill grading
will shift their location. Once a final grading plan has been
prepared, we should review them and relocate the setback zone with
respect to the proposed grades.
5. Geologic inspections should be performed by the project geologist
during site grading. Additional faults encountered should be
evaluated.
6. Any structures for human occupancy located on secondary fault splays
should have foundations structurally strengthened. Use of thickened
slabs, increased number and/or size of steel reinforcement, and use of
continuous tied footings should be considered. Column loads should be
avoided. Specific foundation design and plans should be reviewed by
the geotechnical engineer.
It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent manner consistent
with the present "state-of-the-art" and satisfies the requirements of the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act and the associated Riverside County
Ordinance No. 547. Final approval of the report is hereby given.
9.
Secondary seismic hazards such as liquefaction, seiches, flooding,
'
landsliding and rock falls are considered nil. The possibility for
seismically induced settlement within the alluvium will be mitigated by
removals during grading operation.
tYour
that:
report
recommended
'
1.
No structures designed for human occupancy (2,000 person hours per
year) are allowed within the building setback zones designated on the
Geotechnical Map in the report.
'
2.
A potential for settlement of the fault trench backfills exist at the
site and should be mitigated during rough grading by either removal
and/or compaction.
'
3.
Structures should be designed in accordance with the requirements of
the governing jurisdictions and standard practices of the Structural
Engineers Association of California.
4. The setback zones shown on the Geotechnical Map are for design purposes
only. Since these faults have a dipping component, cut or fill grading
will shift their location. Once a final grading plan has been
prepared, we should review them and relocate the setback zone with
respect to the proposed grades.
5. Geologic inspections should be performed by the project geologist
during site grading. Additional faults encountered should be
evaluated.
6. Any structures for human occupancy located on secondary fault splays
should have foundations structurally strengthened. Use of thickened
slabs, increased number and/or size of steel reinforcement, and use of
continuous tied footings should be considered. Column loads should be
avoided. Specific foundation design and plans should be reviewed by
the geotechnical engineer.
It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent manner consistent
with the present "state-of-the-art" and satisfies the requirements of the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act and the associated Riverside County
Ordinance No. 547. Final approval of the report is hereby given.
I
' Leighton and Associates - 3 - July 6, 1987
1
1
1
1
ll
We recommend that the following conditions be satisfied before issuance of the
appropriate permits associated with -this project:
1. When a final grading plan is prepared, the project geologist shall
review and relocate the fault setback zone. This review shall be
submitted to the Planning Department Engineering Geologist for review
and approval.
2. Changes made to the fault setback zone during site grading shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Department Engineering Geologist.
3. The uncompacted trench backfill should be compacted and approved in
accordance with County policy if any structures are contemplated for
construction over any portions of the trenches.
It should be noted that County Geologic Report No. 415 has been recently
prepared for the 50 acre parcel immediately south of this project. The
consultant excavated trenches to explore the southeasterly extension of the
fault identified in your report. A trench excavated adjacent to the common
property line indicated that the fault in this area is a pre -Holocene feature.
The fault was not observed in another trench located approximately 130 feet
south of the common property line, and therefore must die out somewhere between
these two trenches.
SAK:rd
c.c. Lore Corp. -Applicant
Markham & Assoc.
Norm Lostbom-Bldg. & Safety (2)
Earl Hart-CDMG
Planning Team 1 -Kevin Kish
Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Roger S. Streeter - Plannyng Director
Steven A./Kupter n
Engineering Geol gis
CEG 1205
2.o Z U
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE nEUKMEMN, re e
' 1)fPARTMENr OF CONSERVATION
DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
' BAY AREA REGIONAL OFFICE w<
380 CMC ORME. SUITE 100
PLEASANT HILI., CA 94323-1997
PHONE: (415) 671-4920
' July 22, 1987
1
1
1
1
Mr. Steven A. Kupferman
Engineering Geologist
Riverside County
Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
Dear Steve:
We are placing on open file the following reports, reviewed and approved
by the County of Riverside in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zones Act:
Fault investigation, Tract 3334, Lot 12, Yrlez Road, rancho
California, Riverside County, CA; by Leighton and Associates;
May 22, 1987, with response letter of June 16, 1987 (County
Geologic Report No. 413)•
Fault investigation and updated geotechnical investigation,
Rancho California Town Center (Tract 3334, Lots 17 and 18),
Rancho California, Riverside County, CA; by Robert J. Dowlen,
May 21, 1987; with addendum of June.22, 1987 (County Geologic
Report No. 415).
Also received was the Alquist-Priolo Geutechnical Study for proposed WECS
25 near Painted Bill (Soil and Testing Engineers, Sept. 23, 1986), which
will be placed in our informal C -file. _
EWB:rfq
cc: A -P file (3)
Sincerely yours,
6Galt-
Earl W. Hart, CEG 935
Senior Geologist E
Program Manager