HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3752 Lot 43 Geotechnical Investigation GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED GUPTA RESIDENCE
LA CRESTA
GEOTECHNICAL
INCORPORATED 2.49 ACRE SITE
GEOTECHNICAL APN 959-030-013
CONSULTANTS 30205 DE PORTOLA ROAD PROPERTY
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
�✓X��ff.f e,l�„'�5�1'Y 5m�3 X"."h'Yr,t'z�t���'§'�':.i.r.."�-'.
-moi " /•-4t « 10
PREPARED FOR
f ANIL GUPTA
'
MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA
�„b�wv6F'Lfi�rw.
OCTOBER 25, 2016
LA CRESTA GEOTECHNICAL
Project No. 1609-21-01
October 25, 2016
Anil Gupta
35454 Summerholly Lane
Murrieta, California 92563
Attention: Anil Gupta:
Subject: 30205 DE PORTOLA ROAD PROPERTY
APN NO. 959-030-013
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Gentlemen:
bn accordance with your authorization, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for a
proposed barn, at the subject property located at 30205 De Portola Road, APN 959-030-013, in the
Temecula area, in Riverside County, California. The accompanying report presents the results of our
study and includes our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of
developing the property as presently proposed. It is our opinion that development of the site is
feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided that the recommendations of this report are
followed.
Should you have questions regarding this report or if we may be of further service, please contact the
undersigned at your convenience.
Sincerely,
LA CRESTA GEOTECHNICAL INCORPORATED
.."' l'r----1"-:--,7-- - ,,,f;$7..,-6-617,-;"--,
{
Mark A. Sweeney . ��
� y � �, � �,� �, Ryan Rabbon
CEG 2339 8 I '4 r RCE 66111
MAS/RR -..--4,.'
(3) Addressee `° r X-- '
44055 TORTUGA ROAD ® TEMECULA,CA 92590 ® (951) 699-1494 , FAX(951) 699-1736 ® MOBIL(951) 704-8333 ® E-MAIL: lacrestageo aoi.corrt
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 2
3.1 Topsoil (not mapped) 2
3.2 Pauba Formation(Qp) 2
4. GROUNDWATER 2
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 2
5.1 Faulting and Seismicity 2
5.2 Strong Ground Motion and Surface Rupture 3
5.3 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement 3
5.4 Lateral Spreading 3
5.5 Soil Subsidence and Collapse 4
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5
6.1 General 5
6.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics 6
6.3 Grading6
6.4 Bulking and Shrinkage Factors 8
6.5 Foundations 9
6.6 California Building Code (CBC) Seismic Design Criteria 12
6.7 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads 13
6.8 Flexible Pavement Design 14
6.9 Portland Cement Concrete Pavements 15
6.10 Slopes 15
6.11 Slope Maintenance 16
6.12 Drainage 16
6.13 Plan Review 17
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 18
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1,Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Geologic Map
APPENDIX A—REFERENCES
APPENDIX B—FIELD EXPLORATION
Figures T-1 —T-2, Logs of Exploration Trenches
APPENDIX C—LABORATORY TESTING
APPENDIX D—RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
APPENDIX E—SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the findings of a geotechnical investigation for a 2.49-acre sized lot located at
30205 De Portola Road, in the Temecula area, in Riverside County, California, Assessor's Parcel No.
959-030-013, (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the site
geologic conditions sample and observe the prevailing soil conditions and, based on the conditions
encountered, provide recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of developing the project as
presently proposed.
The scope of the investigation included a site reconnaissance,review of aerial photographs and pertinent
geologic literature (see Appendix A), and the excavation of four exploratory trenches. The subsurface
conditions encountered in the field explorations are summarized in Appendix B. The approximate
locations of the explorations are depicted on the Geologic Map, Figure 2.
The base map used to depict the site soil and geologic conditions consist of a Site Plan, prepared by
measurements taken at the site, (see Geologic Map, Figure 2). The Geologic Map depicts the property
boundary, the approximate locations of mapped geologic contacts, features and the exploratory
excavations.
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site consists of an approximate 2.49-acre sized lot located at 30205 De Portola Road, in Temecula
within the County of Riverside, California, Assessor's Parcel No. 959-030-013. The property is
undeveloped. Topographically the site slopes very gently to the south.
We understand that the site is to be developed with a new custom home. Grading is anticipated to be
minimal to develop a level pad for the new home with cut and fills on the order of 5 feet or less.
The descriptions of the site and proposed development are based on a site reconnaissance, observations
during the field investigation, information obtained from the owner and select geologic publications. If
project details differ significantly from those described, La Cresta Geotechnical Incorporated should be
contacted for review and possible revision to this report.
Project No. 1609-21-01 - 1 - October 25,2016
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The property is mantled by approximately 36-40-inches of Topsoil. P'uba Formation underlies the
Topsoil. The Topsoil and the Pauba Formation are discussed below. The approximate lateral extent of
the materials is depicted on the Geologic Map.
3.1 Topsoil (not mapped)
Topsoil was evident in the exploratory trenches and at the surface. Where encountered, the Topsoil was
observed to be approximately 36-40-inches thick and is characterized as loose, dry, medium brown, fine
to medium silty sand, some clay (Unified Soil Classification symbol: SM). The Topsoil is considered
compressible and unsuitable in its natural state to support structures or additional fill.
3.2 Pauba Formation (Qp)
The Pauba Formation was evident in all the exploratory excavations below the Topsoil. The Pauba
Formation appears dense, slightly cemented fine to coarse grained, yellow brown, damp, friable
Sandstone. The Pauba Formation is considered suitable for support of fill or structures.
4. GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was not observed within the exploratory excavations. Therefore, groundwater related
problems are not expected. Groundwater conditions may vary in the future from those observed in the
field explorations due to rainfall, surface flows or irrigation.
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
5.1 Faulting and Seismicity
The site, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismically active region near the active
margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The principal source of seismic activity
is movement along the northwest-trending regional faults such as the San Andreas, San Jacinto and
Elsinore fault zones.These fault systems are estimated to produce up to approximately 55 millimeters of
slip per year between the plates.
Project No. 1609-21-01 -2- October 25,2016
By definition of the State Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is one, which has had surface
displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). This definition is used in
delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of
1972 and as revised in 1994 and 1997 as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and
Earthquake Fault Zones. The intent of the act is to require fault investigations on sites located within
Special Studies Zones to preclude new construction of certain habitable structures across the trace of
active faults.
Based on our review of the referenced literature, the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault
Hazard Zone. The site could, however, be subjected to significant shaking in the event of a major
earthquake on nearby or regional faults. The nearest known active fault is the Lake Elsinore Fault,
(Temecula Segment), a Type B Fault, located approximately 3 kilometer west of the site.
5.2 Strong Ground Motion and Surface Rupture
The principal seismic considerations for most structures in Southern California are surface rupturing of
fault traces and damage caused by ground shaking or seismically induced ground movement. The
possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low due to the absence of active or potentially
active faults underlying the site or projecting toward the site. Lurching or cracking of the ground surface
due to nearby or distant seismic events is not considered a significant hazard at the site, although it is a
possibility throughout Southern California.
5.3 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear
strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include intensity and
duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in-situ stress conditions and
the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the liquefied layers due
to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake accelerations. Due to the dense
formational material, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction at this site is low. Settlement
due to dynamic densification of the subsurface soils is not considered a significant hazard at the site due
to the occurrence of shallow formation.
5.4 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading refers to landslides that commonly occur on gentle slopes and that have rapid, fluid-
like, flow movement (USGS, 2006). Liquefaction induced lateral spreads are further characterized as
blocks of mostly intact, surficial soils that are displaced downslope or toward a free face along a shear
zone that has formed within a liquefied sediment (Bartlett and Youd, 1995). Lateral spreads commonly
occur in loose sands and silty sands with shallow groundwater and in proximity to a free face or in
Project No. 1609-21-01 -3 - October 25,2016
sloping terrain and that are subject to strong ground shaking. The potential for liquefaction induced
lateral spreading to occur at the site is considered low because the formational soils and compacted fill
soils are not considered susceptible to liquefaction.
5.5 Soil Subsidence and Collapse
Subsidence can result from the extraction of gases or fluids from the subsurface materials or the
oxidation of near-surface organic materials. The potential for subsidence due to gas or petroleum
extraction is considered remote due to the absence of this practice in the vicinity of the site. The soils at
the site do not have a high organic content and are not susceptible to subsidence due to oxidation of
organic materials. Subsidence induced by groundwater extraction is not considered a significant hazard
at the site nor is it known to have caused related distress in the vicinity of the site.
Settlement due to soil collapse, which is also referred to as hydro collapse or hydro compaction, results
from the collapse of the soil structure due to increased loading and subsequent wetting of moisture
deficient, low-density soils or the dissolution of cementing compounds such as calcium carbonate. The
collapse potential of soils generally decreases with increasing dry density
The Topsoil is considered to have a high collapse potential based on our experience with these materials
in the vicinity of the site. Recommendations for remedial grading of the Topsoil to mitigate the collapse
potential are presented in this report. The collapse potential of the Pauba Formation is considered
negligible.
Project No. 1609-21-01 -4• October 25,2016
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General
6.1.1 No soil or geologic conditions were encountered at the site that would preclude the
development of the property as currently proposed provided that the recommendations of this
report and appropriate construction practices are followed.
6.1.2 The site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone. The site could, however, be
subjected to significant shaking in the event of a major earthquake on the Elsinore Fault Zone,
San Jacinto Fault Zone, or other regional faults. Structures for the site should be constructed
in accordance with current CBC seismic codes and local ordinances.
6.1.3 The Topsoil is considered unsuitable in its present condition for support of settlement
sensitive structures or new fill for building pads and will require removal, moisture
conditioning, and compaction. Removals on the order of 36-inches is anticipated to remove
the Topsoil in the area of the future building pad. The removed materials, less any organic or
deleterious materials, and oversize greater than 1 foot,may be used in compacted fill.
6.1.4 The potential for liquefaction at this site is considered low based on the absence of shallow
groundwater and the presence of shallow formation.
6.1.5 Groundwater was not encountered in the field explorations performed at this site. Therefore,
groundwater related problems are not expected during site development. If shallow perched
groundwater is encountered during construction, it is our opinion that it can be managed with
the use of sump pumps placed in the bottoms of excavations.
6.1.6 The on-site soils generally possess low expansion potentials based on California Building
Code (CBC) criteria and laboratory test results. The on-site soils, as observed, are considered
suitable for use as fill and for the support of structure foundations and slabs. Materials with
expansion potentials greater than very low (if encountered) should be selectively placed as
recommended in this report.
Project No. 1609-21-01 -5- October 25,2016
6.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics
6.2.1 In our opinion the Topsoil and the Pauba Formation are considered rippable with
conventional grading equipment that is in good working condition with experienced
operators.
6.2.2 All excavations should be performed in conformance with OSHA requirements. Excavations
made adjacent to property lines or the existing improvements should not be left open during
hours when construction is not being performed.
6.2.3 Laboratory testing was performed on soil samples obtained from the exploratory excavations
to determine the expansion characteristics. The results of Expansion Index tests are presented
in Appendix C. The on-site soils generally have a very low expansion potential (Expansion
Index of 20 or less) as defined by California Building Code (CBC). Laboratory Expansion
Index testing should be performed on soils exposed at finish grade subsequent to the
completion of grading to assess the expansion characteristics of the finish-grade soils.
6.2.4 Laboratory testing for water-soluble sulfate contents should be performed at finish grade
(materials within 3 feet of pad grade elevations) to determine the degree of sulfate exposure
of concrete in contact with soil using guidelines of the California Building Code (CBC). The
results of sulfate content testing should be used to design a suitable concrete mix to be used
for foundations and slabs.
6.2.5 La Cresta Geotechnical Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering.
Therefore, if improvements that could be susceptible to corrosion are planned, it is
recommended that further evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed. The
recommendations from the corrosion engineer should be reviewed by the appropriate design
team members (i.e. project architect, engineer, etc.) and incorporated into the plans and
implemented during construction.
6.3 Grading
6.3.1 A qualified geotechnical consultant should observe foundation excavation and site grading.
During grading, the geotechnical consultant should provide observation and testing services
continuously. Such observations are considered essential to identify field conditions that
differ from those anticipated from the geotechnical investigation, to adjust designs to actual
field conditions, and to determine that the grading is accomplished in general conformance
with the geotechnical recommendations. The geotechnical consultant should perform
sufficient testing of fill during grading to support their professional opinion as to compliance
with compaction recommendations.
Project No. 1609-21-01 -6- October 25,2016
Recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon La Cresta Geotechnical
Incorporated performing such construction observation, or at a minimum, providing oversight
and review of the field testing during the grading operation. Sufficient testing of fill should be
performed during grading, as recommended herein, to support our professional opinion in
regard to compliance with compaction recommendations
6.3.2 All grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading
Specifications contained in Appendix D and the requirements of the County of Riverside.
Where the recommendations of this section conflict with those of Appendix D the
recommendations of this section take precedence.
6.3.3 Prior to grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with the owner or
developer, grading contractor, civil engineer and geotechnical engineer in attendance. Special
soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time.
6.3.4 Site preparation should begin with the demolition and the removal of deleterious material,
underground utilities, construction debris and vegetation. The depth of removal should be
such that material exposed in cut areas or soils to be used as fill or for the support of fill are
relatively free of organic matter. Removal of trees should also include the removal of stumps
and root balls that can extend to well below grade. Material generated during stripping and/or
site demolition should be exported from the site.
6.3.5 The Topsoil should be removed to expose dense Pauba Formation in areas to receive fill and
for the support of settlement sensitive structures, or where exposed in cut areas within the
building pads. Removals on the order of 36-inches is anticipated to remove the Topsoil. The
geotechnical consultant should determine the actual removal depths during grading based on
the subsurface conditions encountered.
6.3.6 During remedial grading, temporary slopes in the Topsoil and Pauba Formation should be
planned for an inclination no steeper than 1'/2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Temporary slopes in
medium dense to dense Pauba Formation may be inclined at 1:1. Grading should be scheduled
to backfill against these slopes as soon as practical. Removals along the edge of grading
should include excavation of unsuitable soils that would adversely affect the performance of
the planned fill, i.e., extend removals within a zone defined by a plane projected down and out
at an inclination of 1:1 from the limit of grading(where possible) to intersect with competent
soils.
Project No. 1609-21-01 -7- October 25,2016
6.3.7 After removal of surficial soils, the exposed ground surface should be scarified, moisture
conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture content, and compacted. Fill soils may then
be placed and compacted in layers to the design finish grade elevations. All fill, including
backfill and scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
laboratory maximum dry density and at or above optimum moisture content, as determined by
ASTM Test Procedure D1557-91.
6.3.8. Building pads that contain a transition between cut in bedrock materials and compacted fill
will require over-excavation to reduce the potential for differential settlement. In general, the
cut portion of the pad should be undercut at least 3 feet, or 1/2 of the maximum fill thickness,
whichever is greater, and replaced with compacted fill. The bottom of the undercut portion
should be sloped at a minimum of 1 percent towards the fill portion. The over-excavation
should extend laterally from the building footprint a distance equal to the depth of removal
below foundation grade or a minimum of five feet, whichever is greater. The lateral extent of
removals need not exceed eight feet measured horizontally from the building footprint.
6.4 Bulking and Shrinkage Factors
6.4.1 Estimates of bulking and shrinkage factors of the on site materials are based on comparing
laboratory compaction tests with the density of the material in its natural state as encountered
in the exploratory excavations. It should be emphasized that variations in natural soil density,
as well as in compacted fill density,render shrinkage value estimates very approximate. As an
example, the contractor can compact the fill soils to any relative compaction of 90 percent or
higher of the maximum laboratory density. Therefore, it is our opinion that the following
shrinkage and bulking factors can be used as a guideline for estimating the shrink or swell
(bulk) potential of the on-site soils when excavated from their natural state and placed as
compacted fi11s.
TABLE 6.4.1
SHRINK/BULK FACTORS
Soil Unit Shrink/Bulk Factor
Topsoil 8 to 10 percent shrink
Pauba Formation 0-2 percent bulk
Project No. 1609-21-01 -8- October 25,2016
6.5 Foundations
6.5.1 Foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with the structural considerations,
the seismic parameters provided in this report and the recommendations presented in Table
6.5.1, (minimum foundation slab design recommendations). These recommendations are
generally consistent with methods typically used in Southern California. Other alternatives
may be available. These recommendations are based on geotechnical considerations and are
not intended to preclude more restrictive criteria of governing agencies or the structural
engineer.
Foundation recommendations are provided below for structure foundations bearing on
compacted fill placed in accordance with the grading recommendations of this report or
medium dense to dense formational materials. Foundation Category I is considered applicable
for the proposed development. Continuous or isolated spread footings may be dimensioned
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 psf (dead plus live loads). This bearing
pressure may be increased by one-third for transient loads such as wind or seismic forces.
For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid density
of 350 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted
granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure assumes a
horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet or three times the surface generating the passive
pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or
pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. An allowable friction
coefficient of 0.30 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and concrete. This
friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth pressure when
determining resistance to lateral loads.
Category I, foundations may be designed for'/2-inch settlement. Differential settlement over a
span of 40 feet may be taken as one-half of the estimated total settlement.
Based on the results of our laboratory testing, it is anticipated that the majority of the
buildings at this site can be designed for a low expansion potential
(20 <EI<50). We recommend that as grading progresses, each building pad be evaluated for
its expansion potential. Should soils with a medium expansion potential (50 < El < 90) be
encountered during grading, these materials should be placed deeper than 3 feet below
foundation grade. Foundation and slab design for each structure should be performed by the
structural engineer based on the as-graded conditions of the building pads.
Project No. 1609-21-01 -9- October 25,2016
TABLE 6.5.1
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY
Foundation Minimum Continuous Footing Interior Slab
Category Footing Depth Reinforcement Reinforcement
(inches)
Two No.4 bars 6 x 6- 10/10 welded wire
I 12 One top and bottom fabric or No.3 bars at 18
inches on center,each way
CATEGORY CRITERIA
Category I: Maximum fill thickness is less than 20 feet or differential fill thickness is less than 10 feet
across any one building.
Notes:
1. All footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches.
2. Footing depth is measured from lowest adjacent compacted soil grade. These depths apply to both
exterior and interior footings.
3. All interior living area and garage concrete slabs-on-grade should be at least 5 inches thick. All slab
reinforcement shall be placed at slab mid-depth and maintained during concrete placement.
4. All interior concrete slabs should be underlain by at least 4 inches of clean sand.
5. All slabs expected to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture sensitive
materials should be underlain by a 10-mil vapor barrier covered with at least 2 inches of the clean
sand recommended in No.4 above.
6. Exterior slabs and flatwork not subjected to vehicle traffic may be 4 inches thick and reinforced with
W6 x W6- 10/10 welded wire mesh at slab mid-depth.
6.5.2. In addition, consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs, which exceed 5 feet in
width,to the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur.
6.5.3. No special subgrade preparation is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete, however, the
exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be sprinkled, as necessary, to maintain a
moist soil condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement. However, where
drying of subgrade soils has occurred, reconditioning of surficial soils will be required prior
to foundation excavation. This recommendation applies to foundations as well as exterior
concrete flatwork.
6.5.4. Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1
(horizontal:vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are recommended due
to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur.
Project No. 1609-21-01 - 10- October 25,2016
• For fill slopes less than 20 feet high, building and wall footings should be deepened
such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the
face of the slope.
• For cut slopes in dense formational materials, or fill slopes inclined at 3:1
(horizontal:vertical) or flatter, the bottom outside edge of building and wall footings
should be at least 5 feet horizontally from the face of the slope, regardless of slope
height.
• Swimming pools located within 7 feet of the top of cut or fill slopes are not
recommended. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, it is recommended that the
portion of the swimming pool wall within 7 feet of the slope face be designed
assuming that the adjacent soil provides no lateral support. This recommendation
applies to fill slopes up to 30 feet in height, and cut slopes regardless of height.
• Although other improvements, which are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete
flatwork or masonry walls, may experience some distress if located near the top of a
slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible,
however, to incorporate design measures that would permit some lateral soil
movement without causing extensive distress. La Cresta Geotechnical Incorporated
should be consulted for specific recommendations.
6.5.5. For foundations constructed on soils with an Expansion Index (EI) greater than 20, design
should be in conformance with Chapter 18 of the CBC. Typically, this design consists of a
post-tension foundation-slab design. Other alternatives are available. Post-tension design
parameters are provided in the following Table 6.5.2. The post-tensioned systems should be
designed by a structural engineer experienced in post-tensioned slab design and the design
criteria of the Post-Tensioning Institute. Although this procedure was developed for expansive
soils, it is understood that it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress
due to differential settlement. It is recommended that post-tensioned slabs have a minimum
thickness of 5 inches. The recommended allowable soil bearing pressures presented in Section
6.5.1 may be applied at slab subgrade of post-tensioned foundations.
Project No. 1609-21-01 - 11 - October 25,2016
TABLE 6.5.2
POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute(PTI) Foundation Category
Design Parameters I(EI<50) II(EI<90) III(EI<130)
I. Thornthwaite Index -20 -20 -20
2. Clay Type-Montmorillonite Yes Yes Yes
3. Clay Portion(Maximum) 30% 50% 70%
4. Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7.0 ft. 7.0 ft. 7.0 ft.
5. Soil Suction 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft.
6. Moisture Velocity 0.7 in./mo. 0.7 in./mo. 0.7 in./mo.
7. Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft.
8. Edge Lift 0.4 in. 0.8 in. 1.2 in.
9. Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance 5.3 ft. 5.3 ft. 5.3 ft.
10. Center Lift 2.1 in. 3.2 in. 4.7 in.
6.5.6. The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs
due to expansive soils and differential settlement of fills or materials of varying thickness.
However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations,
stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit some cracking
due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is
independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or
controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and
by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entry slab
corners occur.
6.6 California Building Code (CBC), Seismic Design Parameters
The following table summarizes seismic design parameters obtained from the 2013 California Building
Code (CBC) for Soil Profile Type Sc which applies for this site. The closest known active fault is the
Lake Elsinore Fault (Temecula Segment) located approximately 3 kilometer west of the site. The
seismic parameters listed in the following tables should be used for seismic design.
Project No. 1609-21-01 -12- October 25,2016
CBC Seismic Design Parameters
The following 2013 CBC seismic parameters may be used for structural design.
Site Class: C
Site Coefficients: Fa: 1.000
Fv: 1.300
Mapped Spectral Accelerations: Ss: 1.884
0.769
Adjusted Spectral Accelerations: SMs: 1.884
SM,: 0.999
Design Spectral Accelerations, SDS: 1.256
SD!: 0.666
6.7 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads
6.7.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be
designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of 35
pounds per cubic foot (pct). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2.0 to 1.0
(horizontal to vertical), an active soil pressure of 55 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures
assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane
extending upward from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index of less than 50. For
those lots with finish grade soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 and/or where
backfill materials do not conform to the above criteria, La Cresta Geotechnical Incorporated,
should be consulted for additional recommendations.
6.7.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H(where H equals the
height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet) at the top of the wall. Where walls are
restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 7H psf should be
added to the above active soil pressure.
6.7.3 All retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup
of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The use
of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes, etc.) is not recommended
where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely impact the property adjacent to
the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular
(Expansion Index less than 50) backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed
surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are anticipated, or if specific
drainage details are desired, La Cresta Geotechnical Incorporated should be contacted for
additional recommendations.
Project No. 1609-21-01 -13- October 25,2016
6.7.4 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of one foot may be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet below the
base of the wall has an Expansion Index of less Ulan 50. The proximity of the foundation to
the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore,
La Cresta Geotechnical Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is
anticipated.
6,7.5 The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete
or masonry retaining w-d's hav;qg Pl"Hiffitini height of o feet. In the event that walls higher
than 8 feet or other types of walls are planned, such as modular block or crib-type walls, La
Cresta Geotechnical Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
6J4 FlexibIP Pavement Design
6.8.1 The following pavement sections are based on presumptive strength parameters and are
intended for planning purposes only. Final pavement design sections should be determined
once subgrade elevations have been attained and R-V alue testing on subgrade soils is
performed. These preliminary pavement structural sections were determined using
procedures outlined in the California Highway Design Manual(Caltrans) and are based on an
assumed R-Value of 30 for the on-site sands.
TABLE 6.8
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN SECTIONS
Location Estimated Asphalt Concrete Class 2 Base
Traffic Index (TI) (inches) (inches)
Driveway 4.5 46
Note: Traffic index and minimum pavement section may be determinep by the local governing agency.
0 •-)
LU ute ,flatictuf“ opec:iiicciiiuti3 jut
Works Construction (Green Book). Class 2 aggregate base materials should conform to
Section 26-1.02A (3/4-inch maximum) of the Standard Specifications of the State of
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
6.8.3 Prior to placing base material, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of at least 12
inches, moisture condoned apA C-Gmpacted to a minhnum of 95 percent relative compaction
per ASTM D-1557. The base materials should also be compacted to at least 95 percent
relative compaction. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of
the Hveem
Project No. 1609-21-01 - 14- October 25,2016
6.8.4 The performance of pavements is highly dependent upon providing positive surface drainage
away from the edge of pavements. Ponding of water on or adjacent to pavements will likely
result in saturation of the subgrade and subsequent pavement distress.
6.9 Portland Cement Concrete Pavements
6.9.1 Portland cement concrete pavements shall conform to Riverside County Transportation
Department Improvement Standards and Specifications. PCC pavements subjected to truck
traffic should consist of at least 6-inch thick, 600 psi flexural strength Portland cement
concrete reinforced with No. 3 bars at 18 inches on-center, each way. The concrete should be
placed over 6 inches of Class 2 aggregate base conforming to Caltrans Specification 26-1.02A
(3/4-inch maximum) compacted to 95 percent relative compaction based on ASTM test
method D1557. The upper one-foot of subgrade soils shall also be compacted to 95 percent
relative compaction.
6.9.2 Residential driveways may consist of 5-inch thick Portland cement concrete reinforced with
6 x 6 — 10/10 welded wire fabric placed at mid-depth of the slab, and placed on native
subgrade compacted to 95 percent relative compaction in the upper one-foot(ASTM D1557).
Concrete mix designs for slabs-on-grade shall conform to the requirements CBC, and shall be
based on sulfate content test results of the finish subgrade soils.
6.10 Slopes
6.10.1 Based on the topography depicted on the referenced Grading Plan, it appears that the cut and
fill slopes proposed will be approximately 5 feet or less in height. Slopes will be inclined at
2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter. Based on our experience with similar slope configurations
and soil conditions, the proposed cut slope within the Pauba Formation is considered stable
with regard to deep-seated slope failure. The geotechnical consultant should be offered the
opportunity to review any changes in the configurations of the proposed slopes from those
described herein.
6.10.2 The construction of the proposed slopes should be observed by the geotechnical consultant
continuously to evaluate the exposed conditions for conformance with anticipated conditions.
Should unanticipated planes or zones of weakness be encountered during grading, they should
be re-evaluated for stability and, if needed,recommendations for remedial measures made.
6.10.3 All fill slopes should be overbuilt at least 2 feet horizontally and then cut to finish grade. As
an alternative, fill slopes may be compacted by backrolling with a sheepsfoot compactor at
vertical intervals not to exceed 4 feet and then track-walked with a D-8 bulldozer, or
Project No. 1609-21-01 - 15- October 25,2016
equivalent, such that the soils are uniformly compacted to at least 90 percent to the face of the
finished slope.
6.10.4 Although the proposed slopes are considered stable with regard to deep-seated failure, they
may be susceptible to erosion and spalling. Providing proper site drainage may enhance
surficial slope stability. The site should be graded so that from the surrounding areas is not
permitted to flow over the top of the slope. Diversion structures should be provided where
necessary. Surface runoff should be confined to gunite-lined swales or other appropriate
devices to reduce the potential for erosion. It is recommended that slopes be planted with
ground cover. All plants should be adapted for growth in semi-arid climates with little or no
irrigation. A landscape architect should be consulted in order to develop a specific planting
plan for slope stabilization. Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum necessary to
sustain landscaping plants. The proposed slopes should be landscaped soon after completion
to reduce the potential for surficial erosion.
6.11 Slope Maintenance
6.11.1 Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) may, under conditions that are both
difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope instability. The
instability is typically limited to the outer three feet of a portion of the slope and usually does
not directly impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the slope. The
occurrence of surficial instability is more prevalent on fill slopes and is generally preceded by
a period of heavy rainfall, excessive irrigation, or the migration of subsurface seepage. The
disturbance and/or loosening of the surficial soils, as might result from root growth, soil
expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may also be a significant
contributing factor to surficial instability. It is, therefore, recommended that, to the maximum
extent practical: (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils be either removed or properly
recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be periodically inspected and maintained to eliminate
leaks and excessive irrigation, and (c) surface drains on and adjacent to slopes be periodically
maintained to preclude ponding or erosion. Although the incorporation of the above
recommendations should reduce the potential for surficial slope instability, it will not
eliminate the possibility, and, therefore, it may be necessary to rebuild or repair portions of
the slopes in the future.
6.12 Drainage
6.12.1 Adequate drainage provisions are imperative. Under no circumstances should water be
allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The building pads should be properly finish graded after
the buildings and other improvements are in place so that drainage water is directed away
from foundations, pavements, concrete slabs, and slope tops to controlled drainage devices.
Project No. 1609-21-01 - 16- October 25,2016
6.13 Plan Review
6.13.1 The soil engineer and engineering geologist should review the grading plans to verify
substantial conformance with the recommendations of this report and to determine the need
for additional analyses and/or recommendations. Should a post-tensioned foundation system
be selected for the project, the soils engineer should be provided the opportunity to review the
structural foundation plans prior to finalizing to verify substantial conformance with the
recommendations of this report.
Project No. 1609-21-01 - 17- October 25,2016
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the
assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any
variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction
will differ from that anticipated herein, La Cresta Geotechnical Incorporated, should be notified so that
supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence
of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by La Cresta
Geotechnical hlcorporated.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the
attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary
steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a
property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of
man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may
occur,whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly,the findings of
this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report
is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
Project No. 1609-21-01 - 18- February H.2014
Search Results for "3o2og De Portola
Road Temecula, Ca"
page 1 of 1
O 1. 30205 De Portola Rd
30205 De Portola Rd,
Temecula, CA 92592
r-
"..." a°60 xr t . 't..
a
:
5'niY 7n4r M b
ry
c _,
..... '?.'did
t¢ � ._ 30205
� r' P� to#e�"Rd.
ra art : r;�a ().rS
.�.'•- 't a,,,,,ti*" ''
36 ',' „n
v.
x
w
egg
.wit
Page 1 of 1
. „..
.-,,r1,k);„,,:-„,,
„, ---,,,A,'-4.A--,‘, .--„:•'.i '[--„,-,- .Figk:m.#,*t:',„,,,,_,;:wW.1„,; -.:„:::---,,f;: :',..i.:,,.. ,-.„:'
rill
, ,„,,,., :,,•:..„:„..,,,...„,...•, ,, ,_ ,
' :','",.41*.t,, :';';,. •-,::-..•;.j.::::::: ::::t",:: : ,-?,,,,,,;,,,;., 2,,,r,--„,,, .„..,;:fi,
7174. H-",'" • Qp ::-.: :,:,. . .: T3
.—,. .-,...,„,::::,..,
„.......,,,,„,..,,„
;, ,i,'""1:
',...- :',-ifiqk=",
$,".", ,....::: ', .:
' " ,,,,,,:;: ,,•'..,:::,,:f„:
, e.:•, QP
,„,,„::,:,::
o0, . .0.,I, .,i, ,,:,:, , i
v.m.4,,,,,..1t..4,„:„:„,,,,,,-„:„„,,, „,.. y -
,
i ri,, Z(.1.? ''Pre;K,
LA CRESTA GEOTECHNICAL
LEGEND
QP PAUBA FORMATION
T-4 LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
•
GUPTA PROPERTY FIGURE GEOLOGIC MAP2
30205 DE PORTOLA ROAD
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. G.,Synthesis of Seismicity and Geologic Data in California, U.S. Geologic Survey
Open-File Report 84-424, 1984, pp. 1-186.
Bartlett, S.F., and Youd, T.L. "Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread,"
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,Vol. 121, No. 4,April 1995.
California Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications, May 2006.
California State Mining and Geology Board/California Geological Survey, Special Publication 117,
"Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,"adopted March 13,
1997.
Dunn, LS., Anderson, L.R., Kiefer,F.W., 1980, "Fundamentals of Geotechnical Analysis, "
Department of Civil Engineering,Utah State University, John Wiley and Sons,New York.
Jennings, C. W.,Preliminary Fault Activity Map of California, California Division of Mines and
Geology, Open File Report 92-03, 1992, and revised map dated 1994.
Kramer, S. L., 1996.. "Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering,"Prentice-Hall, Inc.,Upper Saddle
River,NJ 07458.
Larsen,E. S.,Jr., Batholith and Associated Rocks of Corona, Elsinore, and San Luis Rey
Quadrangles, Southern California, Geologic Society of America, Memoir 29, dated 1948.
Peck,R.B., Hanson,W.E., Thornburn, T.H.,"Foundation Engineering," 2nd ed., John Wiley& Sons,
NY.
United States Geological Survey. USGS glossary: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/glossary.php,
last modified: November 13, 2006.
United States Geological Survey/California Geological Survey(2003). Seismic Shaking Hazards in
California,based on the USGS/CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment(PSHA)Model,
2002 (revised April 2003).
United States Geological Survey. Geologic Map of the Elsinore Fault Zone, Southern Riverside
County, California, dated 1977.
Project No. 1609-21-01 A-1 February 11. 2014
APPENDIX B
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field explorations were performed on October 6, 2016 and consisted of a site reconnaissance, review
of aerial photos and the excavation of 4 exploratory trenches. Bulk and chunk samples were collected
from the exploratory excavations for laboratory evaluation.
The soil conditions encountered in the excavations were visually classified and logged in general
accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) practice for Description and
Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D2488). Logs of the exploratory trenches are presented
on the following figures T-1 through T-2. The trench logs depict the soil and geologic conditions
encountered and the depth at which samples were obtained. The approximate locations of the exploratory
excavations are shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 2.
The field explorations were approximately located by taping distances in the field from landmarks or
topographic features shown on the referenced plans provided. The locations should not be considered
more accurate than is implied by the method of measurement used. The lines designating the interface
between soil types on the exploration logs are determined by interpolation and are therefore
approximations. The transition between the materials may be abrupt or gradual. Further, soil conditions
at locations between the explorations may be substantially different from those at the specific locations
explored. The passage of time can result in changes in the subsurface conditions reported in the logs.
Project No. 1609-21-01 B-1 October 25,2016
LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT NO. T-1
Logged by: MAS Date Excavated: 10/8/2016
Equipment Used: New Holland backhoe with 24-inch bucket Elevation: Apx. Pad Grade
a LABORATORY
LI v a DESCRIPTION TESTS
_ 1 Topsoil Maximum Density
_ Silty, SAND, (Sm). Fine to coarse, loose,dry, medium brown,trace clay. Corrosion
- 2 Expansion Index
- 3
— 4
_ Pauba Formation(Qp) In-Place Dry Density
5 Dense,yellow brown,damp,fine to coarse grained,slightly cemented SANDSTONE 124.5 pcf
— 6
— 7
— 8
— g
_ Total depth excavated: 6 feet.
- 10 No groundwater encountered.
— 11
— 12
LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT NO. T-2
Logged by: MAS Date Excavated: 10/8/2016
Equipment Used: New holland backhoe with 24-inch bucket Elevation: Apx. Pad Grade
-- Y LABORATORY
0_ 1- DESCRIPTION TESTS
° m
- 1 Topsoil
Silty, SAND, (Sm). Fine to coarse, loose,dry, medium brown,trace clay.
— 2
— 3
— 4
_ Pauba Formation(Qp)
- 5 Dense,yellow brown,damp,fine to coarse grained,slightly cemented SANDSTONE
— 6
— 7
- 8 Total depth excavated: 5.5 feet.
No groundwater encountered.
PROJECT NO.1609-21-01 LA CRESTA GEOTECHNICAL INC. FIGURE T-1
LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT NO. T-3
Logged by: MAS Date Excavated: 10/8/2016
Equipment Used: New Holland backhoe with 24-inch bucket Elevation: Apx. Pad Grade
a LABORATORY
w a DESCRIPTION TESTS
o w
Topsoil
1 Silty,SAND, (Sm). Fine to coarse, loose,dry, medium brown,trace clay— .
— 2
- 3
4 Pauba Formation(Qp) In-Place Dry Density
Dense,yellow brown,damp,fine to coarse grained,slightly cemented SANDSTONE 125.2 pcf
— 5
— 6
— 7
— 8
- 9 Total depth excavated: 5 feet.
No groundwater encountered.
— 10
LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT NO. T-4
Logged by: MAS Date Excavated: 10/8/2016
Equipment Used: New Holland backhoe with 24-inch bucket Elevation: Apx. Pad Grade
w = g DESCRIPTION
LABORATORY
o m ¢ TESTS
_ Topsoil
- 1 Silty, SAND, (Sm). Fine to coarse, loose,dry, medium brown,trace clay.
— 2
— 3
— 4
_ Pauba Formation(Qp)
- 5 Dense, yellow brown,damp,fine to coarse grained,slightly cemented SANDSTONE
— 6
_ Total depth excavated:6 feet.
- 8 No groundwater encountered.
— 10
— 12
— 14
PROJECT NO. 1609-21-01 LA CRESTA GEOTECHNICAL INC. FIGURE T-2
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected samples were tested
for in-place dry density and moisture content, grain size characteristics, and expansion potential
characteristics. Results of the laboratory tests are summarized herein.
TABLE C-I
SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557-00
Maximum Optimum
Boring No. & Moisture
Sample Depth Description ensity Content
(%)
T1-1 Yellow brown,fine to coarse,silty,clayey SAND(SM). 129.2 10.2
TABLE C-II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829-95
Boring No. & Expansion Index Expansion Potential
Sample Depth
T-1@ 0-3' 34 Low
Project No. 1609-21-01 B-2 October 25,2016
APPENDIX D
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
RECOMMENDED GRADINP_SPECIFICATIONS
1. GENERAL
I.1. These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the
Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by La Cresta Geotechnical .• The recom-
mendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and
grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case
of conflict.
1.2. Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be
employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for
substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these
specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and
observation services so that he may determine that, in his opinion, the work was performed
in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the
Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes
so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly.
1.3. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency
ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compaction,adverse weather, and so forth,result in a quality of work
not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject
the work and recommend to the Owner that construction be stopped until the unacceptable
conditions are corrected.
2. DEFINITIONS
7.1. Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading
work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading
perfoi med.
Z.Z. Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.
2.+. Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer
or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying
as-graded topography.
2.4, Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm
retained to provide geotechnical services for the project.
2.5. Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner,
who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be
responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's
work for confoiinance with these specifications.
2.6. Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained
by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site
grading.
2.7. Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include
a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the
development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are
intended to apply.
3. MATERIALS
3.1. Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or
imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction
of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills,soil-rock fills or rock fills, as
defined below.
3.1.1. Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12
inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of
material smaller than 3/4 inch in size.
3.1.2. Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4
feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow
for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as
specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12
inches.
3.1.3. Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet
in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as
material smaller than 3/4 inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall
be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity.
3.2. Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the
Consultant shall not be used in fills.
3.3. Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as
defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9
and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall
not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous
materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to
suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner
the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading
operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the
suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.
3.4. The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally,-should be composed of
properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to
the slope face,provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil
layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes.
This procedure may be utilized, provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner
and Consultant.
3.5. Representative samples of soil materials to be used for fill shall be tested in the laboratory
by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and,
where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil.
3.6. During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the
Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be
notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition
4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED
4.1. Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of
complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made
structures and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried
logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and
other projections exceeding 1-1/2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet
below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to
provide suitable fill materials.
4.2. Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly
disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments which are free of reinforcing
steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3
of this document.
4.3. After clearing and grubbing of organic matter or other unsuitable material, loose or porous
soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of
removal and compaction shall be observed and approved by a representative of the
Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of
6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent
unifolui compaction by the equipment to be used,
4.4. Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6:1 (horizontal:vertical), or
where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in
accordance with the following illustration.
TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
Finish-Grade Original Ground
2
1
- I Finish Slope Surface
Remove All
1111,1161:20p,,1 rir. ,
Unsuitable Material
As Recommended By
Soil Engineer
Slope To Be Such That ,
Sloughing Or Sliding
Does Not Occur Varies
` see
Note
• 'q., ,
See Note 2
Competent Bottom
DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minifium of 11il feet wide, or sufficiently wide to
permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the
key should be graded horizontal,or inclined slightly into the natural slope.
(2) The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial
material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is
exposed in the bottom of the key,the depth and configuration of the key may be
modified as approved by the Consultant.
v
4.5. After areas to receive fill have been cleared, plowed or scarified, the surface should be
disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods. The area
should then be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted
as recommended in Section 6.0 of these specifications.
5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
5.1. Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel
wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of
acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be
capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the
specified moisture content.
5.2. Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.
6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL
6.1. Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.1.1. Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should
generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be
thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture
in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts.
Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in
accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications.
6.1.2. In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the
optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557-91,
6.1.3. When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant,
water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range
specified.
6.1.4. When the moisture content of the .soil fill is above the range specified by the
Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by
the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture
content is within the range specified.
6.1.5. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly
compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.
Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place
dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as
determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-91. Compaction shall be continuous
over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that
the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the
entire fill.
6.1.6. Soils having an Expansion Index of greater than 50 may be used in fills if placed at
least 5 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content
generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material.
6.1.7. Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To
achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at
least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered
preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.
6.1.8. As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a
heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height
intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer
or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least
twice.
6.2. Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance
with the following recommendations:
6.2.1. Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be
incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured
15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and i 0feet below finish grade or
3 feet below the deepest utility,whichever is deeper.
6.2.2. Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be
individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions,rocks or rock
fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar
methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in
maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and
shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.
6.2.3. For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow
for passage of compaction equipment.
6.2.4. For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in
properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4
feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be
filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and
should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an
"open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should
first be approved by the Consultant,
6.2.5. Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either
parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site
geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet
center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next
overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall
be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher
windrow.
6.2.6. All rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the
windrows must be continuously observed by the Consultant or his representative.
6.3. Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3., shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.3.1. The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2
percent, maximum slope of 5 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable
subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during
construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The
subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to
control post-construction infiltration of water.
6.3.2. Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock
trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently
placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the
rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall
consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying
water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with
compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory
roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the
required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be
utilized. The number of passes to be made will be determined as described in
Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional
rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill.
6.3.3. Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D1196-64, may be performed in
both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the number of
passes of the compaction equipment to be performed. If performed, a minimum of
three plate bearing tests shall be performed in the properly compacted soil fill
(minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be
performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the
compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock
fill shall be detei wined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the
soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection variation with number of
passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be
performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than
that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required
number of passes be less than two.
6.3.4. A representative of the Consultant shall be present during rock fill operations to
verify that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is
being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The
actual number of plate bearing tests will be deteiiuined by the Consultant during
grading. In general, at least one test should be performed for each approximately
5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of rock fill placed.
6.3.5. Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that,
in his opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are
properly filled with smaller rock material. hi-place density testing will not be
required in the rock fills.
6.3.6. To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil
fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the
uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock
should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The
gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is
being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the
Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the
commencement of rock fill placement.
6.3.7. All rock fill placement shall be continuously observed during placement by
representatives of the Consultant.
7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
7.1. The Consultant shall be the Owners representative to observe and perform tests during
clearing, grubbing, filling and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in
vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill shall be placed without at least one field density
test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test
shall be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and
compacted.
7.2. The Consultant shall perform random field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock
fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fill material is compacted
as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any
disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion
thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be
reworked until the specified density has been achieved.
7.3. During placement of rock fill, the Consultant shall verify that the minimum number of
passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant shall
request the excavation of observation pits and may perfoini plate bearing tests on the
placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing
an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been
applied to the material. If performed, plate bearing tests will be performed randomly on
the surface of the most-recently placed lift. Plate bearing tests will be performed to provide
a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is adequately seated. The
maximum deflection in the rock fill determined in Section 6.3.3 shall be less than the
maximum deflection of the properly compacted soil fill, When any of the above criteria
indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected
layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient
moisture applied.
A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of
rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as
recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project
Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed
during grading.
7.5. The Consultant shall observe the placement of suhdrains, to verify that the drainage devices
have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications.
7.6. Testing procedures shall confoini to the following Standards as appropriate:
7.6.1. Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:
7.6.1.1. Field Density Test, ASTM D1556-82, Density of Soil In-Place By the
Sand-Cone Method.
7.6.1.2. Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D2922-81,Density of Soil and
Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).
7.6.1.3. Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D1557-91, Moisture-Density
Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer
and 18-Inch Drop.
7.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, Uniform Building Code Standard 29-2, Expansion
Index Test,
7.6.2. Rock Fills
7.6.2.1. Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM D1196-64 (Reapproved 1977) Standard
Method for Nonrepresentative Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible
Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and
Highway Pavements,
8. PROTECTION OF WORK
8.1. During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide
positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be
controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The
Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until
such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas
subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the
Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.
8.2. After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further
excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the
Consultant.
9. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS
9.1, Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil
Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of
elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes.are within 0.5 foo4:.
horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of
subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan
of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the
subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions,
9.2. The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and ecologic report
satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies, The as-graded report
should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in
geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating
that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance
with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications.
APPENDIX E
SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA
11/3/2016 Design Maps Summary Report
Design Maps Summary Report
User-Specified Input
Report Title GUPTA PROPERTY
Thu November 3,2016 1.5:23:10 UTC
Building Code Reference Document ASCE 7 10 Standard
(which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008)
Site Coordinates 33.4782°N, 117.1191°W
Site Soil Classification Site Class C - "Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock"
Risk Category:/II/;:1
i 1e.
$�d34 d84!! , ,.q,,,:,i:A!,A.
;-.V,tP-.,.4t.M.,,p',',':-.s-'s.,,':i.:,'t11:;„.K
4 #
, E
$11ti
Ihl".itjlt:"li:l:ijflrg,t'tlgrtt!::i:;?ai-vWHtiiliieilt':'ir 4:11!;:::'''''it'-'::i:1;;11171s?H:::, ,'''3isss''''''',H.'i'::::'':7:'lliillill1;154:Z*114i7,!,iffP;44i!tiss.:.',,',.i.t:1771.",p * ' rte: '
USGS-Provided Output
SS = 1.884 g SMS = 1.884 g Sps = 1.256 g
S1 = 0.769g SM1 = 0.9998 SD1 = 0.6668
For information on how the SS and Si values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk targeted) and
deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and
select the"2009 NEHRP" building code reference document.
MCERResponse Spectrum Design Response Spectrum
1.43
1.50 1.30
1.71 1.17
1.52 1.04
1.33 0.51
1.14 0.79
0.55 0.05 1,
0.70
0.52
ul
0.57 0.39
0.38 0.26 0.15 0.13
0.00 0.00
0.04 0.20 0.40 0.00 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.00 1.80 2.00 0.00 0.20 0.50 0.60 0.90 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.00 1.90 2.00
Period, T(sec) Period, T(sec}
For PGA,, T�, CRS, and CRi values, please view the detailed report.
Although this information is a product of the U.S.Geological Survey,we provide no warranty,expressed or implied,as to the
accuracy of the d<ta contained therein.This toot is not a substitute for technical subject matter knowledge.
http://ehp2-earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/summary.php?template=minimal&latitude=33.4782&longitude= 117.1191&siteclass=2&riskcategory=0&editi... 1/1
11/3/206 Design Maps Detailed Report
Design Maps Detailed Report
ASCE 7-10 Standard (33.4782»N, 117.1191°W)
Site Class C - "Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock", Risk Category I/II/III
Section 11.4.1 — Mapped Acceleration Parameters
Note: Ground motion values provided below are for the direction of maximum horizontal
spectral response acceleration. They have been converted from corresponding geometric
mean ground motions computed by the USGS by applying factors of 1.1 (to obtain S,) and
1.3 (to obtain Si). Maps in the 2010 ASCE-7 Standard are provided for Site Class B.
Adjustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, in Section 11.4.3.
From Figure 22-1 [13 Ss = 1.884 g
From Figure 22-2[21 S1 = 0.769 g
Section 11.4.2 — Site Class
The authority having jurisdiction (not the USGS), site-specific geotechnical data, and/or the
default has classified the site as Site Class C, based on the site soil properties in accordance
with Chapter 20.
Table 20.3-1 Site Classification
Site C|asa Tv —
x� Or s,
A. Hard Rock >5,000 ft/s N/A N/A
B. Rock 2,500 to 5,000 ft/s N/A N/A
C. Very dense soil and soft rock 1,200 to 2,500 ft/s >50 ^2,000 psf
D. Stiff Soil 600 to 1,200 ft/s 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf
E. Soft clay soil <600 ft/s <15 <1,000 psf
Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the
characteristics:
• Plasticity index P1 > 20,
• Moisture content w 40%, and
• Undrained shear strength s < 500 psf
F. Soils requiring site response See Section 20.3.1
analysis in accordance with Section
21.1
For SI: 1ft/s = 0.3 048 m/s 11b/ft2 = 0.0479 kN/mz
11/3/200 Design Maps Detailed Report
Section 11.4.3 - Site Coefficients and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER)
Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters
Table 114-1: Site Coefficient F,
Site Class Mapped MCE ^ Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period
Ss 5_ 0.25 Ss = 0.50 Ss = 0J5 Ss = 1.00 Ss 1.25
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0
E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9
F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7
Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values ofSs
For Site Class = C and Ss = 1.884 g, F. = 1'000
Table 11.4-2: Site Coefficient F,
Site Class Mapped MCE x Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period
Si 5_ 0.10 Si = 0.20 S/ = 0.30 S, = 0.40 Si � 0.50
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3
D 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5
E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4
F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7
Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S,
For Site Class = C and S^ = 0.769 g, *� = 1.300
cua8 .gmmleoignmapnmsxeport.php?mmplute~minimal&laUtuue=aa478u&longimde=-11r1181&s|tec|ass=2&risxoauegmy~O&odiUnn... 2/6
11/3/2016 Design Maps Detailed Report
Equation (11.4-1): SMS = FaSs = 1.000 x 1.884 = 1.884 g
Equation (11.4-2): SM1 = F„S1 = 1.300 x 0.769 = 0.999 g
Section 11.4.4 — Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters
Equation (11.4-3): SDS = 2/3 SMs = 2/3 x 1.884 = 1.256 g
Equation (11.4-4): SD1 = A SM1 = 2/ x 0.999 = 0.666 g
Section 11.4.5 — Design Response Spectrum
From Figure 22-12[31 T, = 8 seconds
Figure 11.4-1: Design Response Spectrum
T<To S.=Sm(O.4+0.6T/Tfl)
S r=1.266 _ To5TST�:S `5,
I>11:S `S ,Tt/T
`a
V i i
E f
H
G
C
I i
I 1 r
17.j { i
0.
ur
a ,
T =0.106 T;=0.530 1.000
Period,T(sec)
http://ehp2-earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?tem plate=minimal&latitude=33.4782&longitude=-117.1191&siteclass=2&riskcategory=0&edition... 3/6
11/3/2016 Design Maps Detailed Report
Section 11.4.6 — Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Response Spectrum
The MCER Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above
by 1.5.
5 .,=1.884
re
0
a
u � �
u
o
0.
L I I
0 I
y
9 I i
r i
I 1
f i "
" 7
T =0.106 T;=0.530 1.000
Period,T(sec)
http://ehp2-earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designm aps/us/report.php'?tem plate=mini mal&I atitude=33.4782&longitude=-117.1191&siteclass=2&riskcategory=0&edition... 4/6
11/3/2016 Design Maps Detailed Report
Section 11.8.3 - Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic Design
Categories D through F
From Figure 22-7[4] PGA = 0.777
Equation (11.8-1): PGAM = FPGAPGA = 1.000 x 0.777 = 0.777 g
Table 11.8-1: Site Coefficient FPGA
Site Mapped MCE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA
Class
PGA <_ 0.10 PGA = 0.20 PGA = 0.30 PGA = 0.40 PGA >_ 0.50
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0
E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9
F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7
Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA
For Site Class = C and PGA = 0.777 g, FPGA = 1.000
Section 21.2.1.1 - Method 1 (from Chapter 21 - Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures for
Seismic Design)
From Figure 22-17 [5] CRS = 0.902
From Figure 22-18[6] CR1 = 0.886
http://ehp2-earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designm aps/us/report.php?tem pl ate=m i nim al&l atitude=33.4782&longitude=-117.1191&siteclass=2&ri skcategory=0&edition... 5/6
11/3/2016 Design Maps Detailed Report
Section 11.6 — Seismic Design Category
Table 11.6-1 Seismic Design Category Based on Short Period Response Acceleration Parameter
RISK CATEGORY
VALUE OF SDs
I or II III IV
Sps < 0.167g A A A
0.167g5. SDSe0.33g B B C
0.33g S SDS < 0.50g C C D
0.50g <_ SDS D D D
For Risk Category = I and SDs = 1.256 g, Seismic Design Category = D
Table 11.6-2 Seismic Design Category Based on 1-S Period Response Acceleration Parameter
RISK CATEGORY
VALUE OF SD1
I or II III IV
SD1 < 0.067g A A A
0.067g <_ SD1 < 0.133g B B C
0.133g _< SDI < 0.20g C C D
0.20g <_ SDI D D D
For Risk Category = I and SD, = 0.666 g, Seismic Design Category = D
Note: When S1 is greater than or equal to 0.75g, the Seismic Design Category is E for
buildings in Risk Categories I, II, and III, and F for those in Risk Category IV, irrespective of
the above.
Seismic Design Category = "the more severe design category in accordance with
Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2" = E
Note: See Section 11.6 for alternative approaches to calculating Seismic Design Category.
References
1. Figure 22-1: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-1.pdf
2. Figure 22-2: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-2.pdf
3. Figure 22-12: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-12.pdf
4. Figure 22-7: http://earthquake.0 sgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-7.pdf
5. Figure 22-17: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-17.pdf
6. Figure 22-18: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-18.pdf
http://ehp2-earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?tem plate=minimal&latitude=33.4782&longitude=-117.1191&siteclass=2&riskcategory=0&edition... 6/6