The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTract Map 9833-1 Lot 27 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation . '. . . . . . . I I I . I . I . I I J It:-.~,\,'~-. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RESIDENCE 31705 PIO PICO TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA /7? qf33-/ LtJT 0(7 PREPARED FOR: STK ARCHITECTURE, INC. 2575 San Jacinto Avenue San Jacinto, California 92583 PREPARED BY: INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. 1310 South Santa Fe Avenue San Jacinto, California 92583 January 22, 2001 . I I I I . I I I . . . I . I . . . "~I h- INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 1310 South Santa Fe Avenue San Jacinto, California 92583-4638 (909) 654-1555 FAX (909) 654-0551 January 22, 2001 Project No, S168-064 STK ARCHITECTURE, INC. 2575 San Jacinto Avenue San Jacinto, California 92583 Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residence 31705 Pio Pico Temecula, California Gentlemen: We are pleased to submit the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation conducted for the referenced project. The site is located southeast of and adjacent to Pio Pico southwest of Margarita Road in the City of Temecula, California. Our investigation indicates that the proposed development is feasible from a Geotechnical Engineering standpoint. Our report includes design recommendations along with the field and laboratory data, We have also included recommendations for site grading, We appreciate the opportunity of being of service to you on this project. If there are any questions, please contact our office. Respectfully, INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. MJS:LES:jg Distribution: Addressee (3) &";;;1 Ii a-a I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I .,- "'""..,..- TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES ..........................................................................;........................1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................3 GEOLOGIC SETTING..................................................................................................... 5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS......................................................................................... 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................ ................8 Foundation Design................................................................................................ 8 Lateral Design....................................................................................................... 9 Liquefaction Mitigation .......................................................................................... 9 Trench Wall Stability............................................................................................. 9 Retaining Walls................................................................................................... 10 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade................................................................................... 11 Expansive Soils .................................................................................................. 11 Shrinkage and Subsidence .................................... .............................................11 General Site Grading ....... ...................................... ............................................. 11 GENERAL....................................................................................................,................ 14 APPENDICES APPENDIX A - Field Exploration ................................:........................................A-1 - A-7 Exploratory Borings ................................................................................ A-2 & A-6 Plot Plan........................................................................................................... A-7 APPENDIX B - Laboratory & Soil Mechanic's Testing.........................................B-1 - B-6 Unit Weight & Moisture Content Determinations........................................A-2 A-6 Maximum Density-Optimum Moisture Determinations...................................... B-3 Classification Testing........................................................................................ B-4 Direct Shear Testing ....................................................,..............,..................... B-5 Expansion Testing.... .............. ... ....................................................................... B-6 ANALYTICAL TESTING - Soluble Sulfate................................................................... B-2 GENERAL.............. ..................................................................................................... B-3 APPENDIX C- International Conference of Bldg. Officials Maps of Known Active Fault near-source zones ............................................... C-1 APPENDIX D - Liquefy 2 Results \ I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I ...1 ....~._ -.~'-';:';:"'<-;!,' ,-.~.- INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical investigation conducted at the site of a proposed single-family residence. The proposed structure is to be located at 31705 Pio Pico in the City of Temecula, California. A copy of a site plan prepared by STK Architecture, Inc. was used as a reference during our investigation. This report will provide preliminary design parameters that may be applied to the proposed development on the site. SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to provide geotechnical parameters for design and construction of the proposed project. The scope of the geotechnical investigation included: . A review of the general geologic conditions and specific subsurface conditions of the project site. . An evaluation of the engineering and geologic data collected for the project. . Preparation of a formal report providing geotechnical conclusions and recommendations for design and construction. The tasks performed in order to achieve these objectives included: . The collection and review of data in order to develop an exploration program. . Subsurface exploration to determine the nature and stratigraphy of the subsurface soils, and to obtain representative samples for laboratory testing. . A visual reconnaissance of the site and surrounding area to ascertain the existence of any unstable or adverse geologic conditions. . Laboratory testing of representative samples in order to establish the classification and engineering properties of the soils. . Analysis of the data collected and the preparation of this report presenting our geotechnical conclusions and recommendations. Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Residence Temecula - Project 8168-064 - January 2001 1 In/anti Foum/ation Engineering, Inc. 2. I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I ~J "#~-,';':i-~~;~;";c;:~~.: :.2 Evaluation of seismic/geologic hazards and hazardous wastes was not within the scope of services provided. The information in this report represents professional opinions that have been developed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Residence Temecula - Project 8168-064 - January 2001 2 ""'-->;:'7,';', Inland Founclation Engineering, Inc. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Legal Assessor's Parcel No. for the site is 950-030-027. The site rests in Section 17, Township 8 South, Range 2 West, S.B.B.&M. The subject site rests east of and adjacent to Pio Pico south of Margarita Road in the City of Temecula, California. The site is located in a residential area of Temecula. The site consists of approximately 2.6 acres and is bounded by vacant fields on the northeast, southwest and southeast sides. Residences are located on the northwest side of the site along Pio Pico. Vicinity Map At the present time, the site is vacant with scattered clusters of trees. The surface appears to have been recently disked. The topography may be described as sloping gently in a southwestern direction. A seasonal drainage ravine is located on the southeast portion of the site. There is a 110-foot drainage easement for this ravine. Another drainage ravine borders the northeast side of the site. These ravines are up to ten feet in depth and have very steep sides. There are many trees in the ravine crossing the site and a small amount of water was flowing at the time of our investigation due to recent rains. Pio Pico is paved and has an asphalt curb and gutter. Geotechnical Investigation ~ Proposed Residence Temecula~ Project 8168,064 - January 2001 Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. "\ 3 -_._.~",::-,,~~. . ~I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 ,"I~ The proposed construction is to consist of a single-family residence. It is our understanding that the proposed structure is to be supported by a combination of isolated square and continuous wall type foundations. We have not been provided with specific foundation loads. We anticipate however, that continuous wall loads will not exceed 2500 pounds per linear foot. Isolated column loads of up to 20 kips have been considered in the generation of our geotechnical design parameters. A detached garage and swimming pool are also indicated on the site plans. A tennis court is proposed on a separate pad to be constructed adjacent to the drainage easement. Grading will be required to establish level building pads for the proposed site improvements. A relatively large pad will be created for the residence, garage and swimming pool. This will consist of cutting and filling to depths of up to four feet. Within the actual building areas for the residence and garage, fill depths will not exceed two feet. Fill slopes will be inclined at gradients of 2.5: 1 (H:V) or flatter. The tennis court pad will be primarily in "cut". Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Residence Temecula - Project 8168-064 - January 2001 4 Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. $" I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I -I GEOLOGIC SETTING The site is located in a seismically active area, typical for Southern California. According to maps compiled by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) the major faults influencing the site, distances and maximum earthquake magnitudes are as follows: ,.,-.-:-;.-.;.;.:.;.,.;.:.;.-.,.;.,-,-;-..;-'.,.....,-..;.,.,.,.:....,'...;.:.../.:.;.:.:.:.:.;.:.;.;.:. litl"IIJ 6.8 5.0 7.1 5.0 7.2 12.0 In our opinion, the primary geologic hazard affecting the project is that of ground shaking. Deterministic site parameters developed using EQFAUL T (Blake, 1993) indicate that the maximum probable site acceleration for the subject site is 0.945g corresponding to a Magnitude 6.75 seismic event on th~ Elsinore Fault, a right-lateral strike-slip fault located approximately 3 km to the southwest. Using the criteria set forth by the Uniform BuildinQ Code, the applicable seismic design criteria are based upon the Elsinore Fault, a Type B Fault. Our exploratory borings were advanced to depths of up to 50 feet. On the basis of Standard Penetration Testing (SPT), it is our opinion that the Soil Profile Type may be assumed to be So for the purpose of developing seismic design criteria in accordance with the Uniform Buildino Code. On the bases of the subsurface conditions and local fault characteristics, the Uniform Buildino Code provides the following seismic design parameters: :~~~t~!!~~!~~ ..........\............ tttttif ...............................................................\...........III......... ............................>...................................................................................................... .. ..........\.........................~.".B'?E..ury......ItIS........E.........J..S......M.......I..C........6i;;,:iM..........E#iR................<............................R.................E............C................"".................M...................M..................E............K.........,......D...........E.............o....................w..................'.."...............~.................~........,......E..............:.... ::::::'::::::':::;:::;::':;':::::::::::::;::':::-':~..,.:~".::J)1!~:~:,: ;.::':::::"::::;::::::'::;:"::::::;:; :"::':::':"...._..::... _ ...__:.-:::J?~~....:.:..:::::F..,.:._::-,:::::::: .. V I~ .. . ,::V:Io.\Li;U. 16-1 Seismic Zone Factor Z 040 16-J Soil Profile Type So 16-Q SeismiC Coefficient (C.) 053 16-R Seismic Coefficient (Cv) 094 16-S Near Source Factor N. 1 2 16-T Near Source Factor Nv 1 5 16-U Seismic Source Type B Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Residence Temecula - Project 8168-064 - January 2001 5 Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. '" ~'-c_~' '~,._'__.-, I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I It should be noted that these provisions are intended to be the minimum design condition and are often used as the maximum level to which structures are designed. The minimum code criteria are designed to allow occupants to safely evacuate a structure after an earthquake. The structure may no longer be safe for inhabitants and may ultimately have to be demolished. Geologic maps compiled by the County of Riverside indicate the site is on the edge of a potential liquefaction hazard zone. We performed a liquefaction hazard analysis using site specific parameters and found the site is not subject to seismically induced liquefaction. Other secondary effects and geologic hazards include slope failure, lurching, seismic settlement, seiches, tsunamis and surface rupture. These are not considered to be of significance to the project. A copy of the International Buildino Conference Active Fault Near-Source Zones Map for this vicinity is appended. This map is intended to be used in conjunction with the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Tables 16-S and 16-T. Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Residence Temecula - Project 8168-064 - January 2001 6 Inland Foumlation Engineering, Inc. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~I", ~..;';""~;;.!L...","-->"~7""'" -c_ . -~ - ..=......._._._._.~.__....--._"- SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The results of our investigation indicate that the site may be characterized as being underlain by predominately granular materials consisting of silty sands and clayey sands. A layer of sand was encountered within our exploratory borings at depths ranging from nine to twenty-one feet beneath the surface" Maximum density testing indicates maximum densities of the near surface soils ranging from 131.5 to 135 pounds per cubic foot. The relative compaction of these soils ranged from 79 to 90 percent. The average relative compaction encountered within the upper five feet of our exploratory borings is on the order of 84 percent. The in-situ moisture contents of the soils encountered ranged from 1.3 to 24.7. However, the soils which we expect to be subjected to grading were generally much nearer the optimum moisture contents. The soils within the upper five feet have moisture contents ranging from 3.3 to 9.2 percent with an average of 6.7 percent. The optimum moisture contents for these soils were on the order of 7.5 to 8.0 percent. Laboratory testing indica!es the near surface soils have plasticity indices of 2 and 8. The clayey sand sample with a plasticity index of 8 has an Expansion Index of 16. This is considered very low. Analytical testing of a selected sample indicated the concentration of sulfates in the soil is nil. Groundwater was encountered within our exploratory boring B-05 at a depth of 45.5 feet beneath the surface. No mottling or other evidence of higher groundwater was noted within our exploratory borings. Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Residence Temecula - Project 5168-064 - January 2001 7 Inlaml Foundation Engineering, Inc. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I !,I ~_:i.:~ CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS On the basis of our field and laboratory investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed construction will be feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. We recommend removal and recompaction of the soils within and extending five feet outside of the proposed building lines. This is to provide uniformity in the underlying condition and to assure satisfactory compaction of any existing fill materials. The minimum recommended depth of removal and recompaction within the building areas is one foot beneath the existing surface or one times the footing width beneath the footing base elevation, whichever is greater. The exposed surface should then be scarified and recompacted. On-site soils are observed to be predominately granular with low plasticity. Our testing indicates that these soils have a very low Expansive Index. Expansive soil design criteria will not be necessary for foundations and concrete slabs-on-grade. Analytical testing indicates sulfates concentrations are very low. In accordance with Table 19-A-4 of the Uniform Building Code, the sulfate exposure is considered to be negligible. Groundwater was encountered within our exploratory boring B-05 at a depth of 45.5 feet beneath the existing surface. We do not expect groundwater to raise significantly from this depth. It is our opinion that groundwater will not influence the proposed construction. This includes the effects of soil liquefaction during a seismic event. The following paragraphs present more detailed design criteria which have been developed on the basis of our field and laboratory investigation. Foundation Design: The results of our investigation indicate that either continuous wall or isolated square footings, which are supported upon properly recompacted native materials, may be expected to provide satisfactory support for the proposed structure. All footings should be underlain by a minimum compacted fill thickness equal to one times the width of the footing. This may be performed as described in the Site Grading Section of this report. Footings should have a minimum width of twelve inches and should be founded a minimum of twelve inches beneath the lowest adjacent final grade. Foundations supporting two floors should have a minimum width of fifteen inches and should be supported a minimum of eighteen inches beneath the lowest adjacent final grade. For design, we recommend an allowable soil bearing capacity of 4000 pounds per square foot. Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Residence Temecula - Project S168-064 - January 200t 8 Inland Foumlation Engineering, Inc. 9 ___ _"."M I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I ~Ic ~-_c_..-:o-. The recommendations made in the preceding paragraph are based on the assumption that all footings will be supported upon properly compacted soil. All grading shall be performed under the testing and inspection of the Soil Engineer or his representative. Prior to the placement of concrete, we recommend that the footing excavations be inspected in order to verify that they extend into satisfactory soil and are free of loose and disturbed materials. Settlements of properly designed and constructed footings are expected to be within tolerable limits for the proposed structure. Both continuous wall and isolated square footings carrying the design loads within the limits of the allowable bearing capacity are expected to experience a maximum settlement of less than one inch. Lateral Design: The allowable bearing capacity provided in the preceding section is for the total of dead and frequently applied live loads. These may be increased by 33 percent to provide for lateral loads of short duration such as those caused by wind or seismic forces. Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by a combination of friction acting at the base of the slab or foundation and passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.5 between soil and concrete may be used with dead load forces only. A passive earth pressure of 350 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth, may be used for the sides of footings which are poured against recompacted or dense native material. Passive earth pressure should be ignored within the upper one foot except where confined as beneath a floor slab, for example. Liquefaction Mitigation: Liquefaction is a phenomena where soil temporarily , loses strength due to cyclic stresses such as those caused by an earthquake. The primary effects of liquefaction are loss of support of the foundation, sand boils, lateral spreading and seismically induced settlement. Liquefaction is generally considered a hazard in relatively loose sandy soils with the groundwater table within fifty feet of the surface. We performed a liquefaction susceptibility analysis based on the conditions encountered within our exploratory borings. The soils we encountered do not appear to be susceptible to seismically induced liquefaction. The results of our analysis are presented in Appendix D. Trench Wall Stability: Significant caving did not occur within our exploratory borings. However, all excavations should be configured in accordance with the requirements of CaIOSHA. We would classify the soils as Type B. The classification of the soil and the shoring andlor slope configuration should be the Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Residence Temecula - Project 8168-064 - January 2001 Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. 9 \0 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I . Ii, responsibility of the contractor on the basis of the trench depth and the soil encountered. The contractor should have a "competent person" on-site for the purpose of assuring safety within and about all construction excavations. Retaining Walls: Retaining walls may be necessary during construction and/or landscaping. The retaining walls may be designed for an active earth pressure equivalent to, that exerted by a fluid weighing not less than that shown in the following table: - .. - ..............w......., .................,.,..., ................ Leve I 30 30 - 2 to 1 43 43 Any applicable construction and seismic surcharges should be added to the above pressures. At least 12 inches of granular material should be used in the backfill behind the walls and water pressure should not be permitted to build up behind retaining walls. The upper 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of impervious soil. A subdrain should be constructed along the base of the backfill. RETA1NtNG WALL - TYPICAL PROFtLE ... 1..--/1 P~rviOl.LlI Bilckfill (I8~ wide 1018- below surface) C.M.U. Retaining Wall (per SttucturullXsign) CM.V. Retaining Wall (per SlIuctural Design) 4M-dia. Schedule 40 P.V.c. Pmo11llted Pipc Filter Fabric (Mirafi 140N or equal) Opcn.gradcd Gravel (4" above & beside pipe) weephole H Native Backfill Imported Granular Backfill Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Residence Temecula - Project S168-064 ~ January 2001 Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. 10 \I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I ~,-"' " .. . "'.- '._~"~;~ -,,- , ~-,"-,-,~~,",,-,. " Concrete Slabs-on-Grade: All surfaces to receive concrete slabs-on-grade shall be underlain by a minimum compacted fill thickness of 12 inches, placed as described in the Site Grading Section of this report. Where slabs are to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings, we recommend the use of a polyethylene vapor retarder. Vapor retarders should have a minimum thickness of 6 mil and should be protected by two, one-inch thick layers of sand in order to reduce the possibility of puncture and to aid in obtaining a satisfactory concrete cure. Shrinkage of concrete should be anticipated. This will result in cracks in all concrete slabs-on-grade. Shrinkage cracks may be directed to saw-cut "control joints" spaced on the basis of slab thickness and reinforcement. The placement of reinforcing steel will help in reducing crack width and propagation as-well-as providing for an increase in the control joint spacing. Expansive Soils: On-site soils are not considered to be significantly expansive. Laboratory testing indicates an Expansion Index of 16. According to Section 1803.2 of the Uniform BuildinQ Code, special design criteria for expansive soils will not be necessary. Specifically, reinforcement and thickening of foundations and slabs-on- grade in order .to resist expansive soil pressures will not be necessary. Reinforcement may be required for other purposes related to structural properties. Nominal reinforcement is recommended for all foundations and concrete slabs-on- grade. Shrinkage and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinkage of the material which is excavated and replaced as controlled compaCted fill should be anticipated. We estimate that this shrinkage will be on the order of fifteen percent. Subsidence of the surfaces which are scarified and compacted will be on the order of 0.1 feet per foot of recompaction. The effects of the recompaction of the soil "in-place" may extend up to two feet beneath the surface which is compacted. Therefore, subsidence due to such recompaction, may be up to 0.2 feet. This will vary depending upon the type of equipment used and the moisture content of the soil at the time of grading. These values for shrinkage and subsidence are exclusive of losses which will occur due to the stripping of the organic material from the site and the removal of trees, utility or irrigation lines, and other subsurface obstructions. General Site Grading: All grading should be performed in accordance with the grading ordinance of the City of Temecula. The following specifications have been developed on the basis of our field and laboratory testing: Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Residence Temecula - Project 8168-064 - January 2001 Inland Foumlation Engineering, Inc. \2..- 11 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I ... ~~;.::.-'..- 1. Clearing and Grubbing: All surfaces to receive compacted fill should be cleared of existing vegetation, debris, and other unsuitable materials. Abandoned underground utility lines should be traced out, securely capped at their entrance and exit to the site, and removed from the site. Concrete irrigation lines may be capped at their entrance and exit to the site, crushed in place and distributed throughout the fill as directed by the Soil Engineer. Soils which are loosened due to the removal of trees should be removed and replaced as controlled compacted fill under the direction of the Soil Engineer. 2. Preparation of Surfaces to Receive Compacted Fill: All surfaces to receive compacted fill shall be scarified, brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. 3. Placement of Compacted Fill: Fill materials consisting of on-site soils or approved imported granular soils, shall be spread in shallow lifts, and compacted at near optimum moisture content to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Our observations of the material encountered during our investigation indicate that compaction will be most readily obtained by means of heavy rubber-wheeled or sheepsfoot compactors. If grading is performed during a dry period, pre-watering of the soil may provide a means of obtaining a more uniform moisture content through the soils which were encountered. This should be investigated by the grading contractor prior to the commencement of site grading. 4. Preparation of Building Areas: All bu'ilding areas should be underlain by a minimum compacted fill thickness of one times the footing width beneath the footing base elevation. This zone of recompaction should extend a minimum of five feet outside the building lines, and a minimum of one foot below the existing ground surface. The surface of the overexcavation should then be scarified, brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. An inspection should then be made by the Soil Engineer or his representative, in order to verify the depth of the overexcavation and the relative compaction obtained. The excavated material may then be replaced as controlled compacted fill. 5. Preparation of Slab and Paving Areas: All surfaces to receive asphalt concrete paving or concrete slabs-on-grade, should be underlain. by a minimum compacted fill thickness of 12 inches. This may be accomplished by a combination of overexcavation, scarification and recompaction of the Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Residence Temecula - Project S 168-064 - January 200 I 12 Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. 13 ~~-,' I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I ~I,," 0"'. " surface, and replacement of the excavated material as controlled compacted fill. Compaction of the slab areas shall be to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Compaction within the proposed pavement areas shall be to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. 6. Utility Trench Backfill: It is our opinion that utility trench backfill consisting of the on-site soil types should be placed by mechanical compaction to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Jetting of the surficial soils present across the site may not be a feasible means of compaction and is not recommended. Use of clean granular shading material jetted to 90 percent relative compaction may be considered above non- structural conduits, if so indicated by the Civil Engineer. 7. Testing and Inspection: During grading tests and observations shall be performed by the Soil Engineer or his representative in order to verify that the grading is being performed in accordance with the project specifications. Field density testing shall be performed in accordance with the ASTM D1556-90 test method. The minimum acceptable degree of compaction shall be 90 percent of the maximum dry density as obtained by the ASTM D1557 -91 test method. Where testing indicates insufficient density, additional compac- tive effort shall be applied until retesting indicates satisfactory compaction. Testing will also be conducted to verify that the soils will not subject concrete to sulfate attack and are not corrosive. Testing of any proposed import will be necessary prior to placement on the site. Testing of on-site soils may be done on either a selective or random basis as site conditions indicate. Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Residence Temecula - Project 8168-Q64 - January 2001 Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. ]3. \,,\ .- ,.., ....., d._ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I," ~.;.-. GENERAL The findings and recommendations presented in this report are based upon an interpolation of the soil conditions between boring locations. Should conditions be encountered during grading that appear to be different than those indicated by this report, this office should be notified. Our investigation was performed prior to the preparation of a grading plan for the project. We recommend that a pre-job conference be held on the site prior to the initiation of site grading. The purpose of this meeting will be to assure a complete understanding of the recommendations presented in this report as they apply to the actual grading performed. Our investigation was conducted for STK Architecture, Inc. for their use in the design of the proposed residence. This report may only be used by STK Architecture, Inc. for this purpose. The use of this report by parties other than STK Architecture, Inc. or for other purposes is not authorized without written permission by Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. Inland Foundation Engineering; Inc. will not be liable for any projects connected with the unauthorized use of this report. The recommendations of this report are considered to be preliminary. The final design parameters may only be determined or confirmed at the completion of site grading on the basis of observations made during the site grading operation. To this extent, this investigation is not considered to be complete until the completion of both the design process and the site preparation. Geotechnicallnvestigation - Proposed Residence Temecula - Project 8168-064 - January 2001 Inlaml Foundation Engineering, Inc. \5' 14 ,.&'''''.- - d """,,,,'_..-.._,;c..,_.~;~"": ...~- -. ~ - APPENDIX A ~ FIELD EXPLORATION I I ,I For our field investigation, five exploratory borings were excavated by means of a truck mounted rotary auger rig at the approximate locations shown on Figure No. A-7. Continuous logs of the materials encountered were made on the site by a Soil Engineer. These are presented on Figure No. A-2 through A-6. ~ Representative undisturbed samples were obtained within our borings by driving a thin-walled steel penetration sampler with successive 3D-inch drops of a 140-pound hammer. The number of blows required to achieve each six inches of penetration were recorded on our boring logs and used for estimating the relative consistencies of the subsoils. Two different samplers were used. The first sampler used was a Standard Penetration Sampler for which published correlations relating the number of hammer blows to the strength of the soil are available. The second sampler type was larger in diameter, carrying brass sample rings having inner diameters of 2.5 inches. Undisturbed samples were removed from the sampler and placed in moisture sealed containers in order to preserve the natural soil moisture content. They were then transported to our laboratory for further observations and testing. ~ ~ 'I .. 1 I I I I 1 I I ~I Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Residence T emecula - Project 8168-064 - January 200 I A-I Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. \G:> 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I ". ~~-, .. LOG OF BORING B-01 Elevation: Drilling Method: Drilling Rig: Boring Diameter: Date(s) Drilled: Rotary Auger CME-55 8-inches 12/6/00 Logged by: Hammer Type: Hammer Weight: Hammer Drop: MWS Auto-Trip 140 lb. 3D-inches SAMPLES ~ SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ~ W ~ ~ This summary applies only at the location 01 the boring and at the time of ...J W W ~ I- ~ "- ...J "- ~ ::1 Z .... drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at E: "- > e ... (I: E: I- W I- WH ~ U this location with the passage of time. The data presented Is a simplification of (f) (I: co I>: H :>1- H actual conditions encountered and is representative of interpretations made (f) W , :> z HU :r :r W ...J (f) I- :>~ 1-(1: I- "- (f) during drilling. Contrasting data derived from laboratory analysis may not be :> "" "- ::1 (f) ... (1:"- "- (I: U reflected in these representations. H ...J E: e H >0 ...JE: W I>: (f) I>: :> (I: ...J e 1>:"- we e Ul :> J~ '" 'E: e~ I>:U 7SC CLAYEY SAND fine to medium grained with trace clay, '/ red-brown, dry, medium dense, cemented ;;; SS 23 9 121 ';; 23 '- 5 -r; - ::: ::SM SILTY SAND fine grained with trace clay, light red-brown, dry, 55 21 6 101 '. . medium dense 19 - 10 . . . . .,""i: SW .sAND. fine grained with medium grained sand, light brown, dry, ...:.." medium dense " SS 14 3 104 .,...... 15 ...:.," :,:'l'!: ~ ",' :~.: - - 15 - i: .~:- - " r .:: SS 14 1 103 :~.: I-" ...." 20 .' . ~ ':. 20 -:;:.; .~-: - .:~ . :~:: k:i SPT 5 12 : ::SM SILTY SAND fine to medium grained with trace clay, brown, 6 , . dry, medium dense 1-25- . ' - . '. Ix ',' .' I<::Pl 7 c End of boring at 26.5 feet. No groundwater or mottling 9 encountered. ~ INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. Geotechnical Investigation Figure No. I 31705 Pia Pica Temecula, CA Proiect No. S168-064 A-2 \1 ,~'--~'>--'''' I 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I J LOG OF BORING B-02 Elevation: Drilling Method: Drilling Rig: Boring Diameter: MWS Auto-Trip 140 lb. 3D-inches Date(s) Drilled: Rotary Auger CME-55 8-inches 12/6/00 Logged by: Hammer Type: Hammer Weight: Hammer Drop: ~ +- ... ~ SAMPLES ~ SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS >< L1J ~ ~ This summary applies only at the location 01 the boring and at the time of ..JL1J X t- 0...J ~ ::J: :z drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at >:0. 0 <1:>: L1J t- L1JH U this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of 00<1: CD '" H ::>t- H actual conditions encountered and is representative of interpretations made 00 " ::J :z HU :I: L1J 00 t- ::J~ t-<I: 0. 00 during drilling. Contrasting data derived from laboratory analysis may not be ::>>< ::J: 00 ... <1:0. <I: U reflected in these representations. H..J 0 H >-0 ..J>: '" 00 "'::J ..J 0 "'0. L1J0 '" ::J OlD lD '>: o~ "'u .:SC CLAYEY SAND fine grained with trace clay, red-brown, dry, medium dense, cemented .- 17 5 107 20 SM SILTY SAND. fine grained with trace clay, light brown, dry, 10 4 99 .' medium dense .' 10 .' 12 7 111 .' 12 .' SM SILTY SAND. fine to medium grained, brown, moist, medium 10 16 108 dense 15 .' .' .sAI'ill. fine to medium grained, light brown, medium dense 10 End of boring at 21.5 feet. No groundwater or mottling encountered. :I: t- o. L1J o 5 10 15 20 ~ INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. Geotechnicallnvestigation Agure No. 31705 Pio Pico Temecula, CA Pro'ect No. S168-064 A-3 I~ 1 I 1 Elevation: Drilling Method: Drilling Rig: Boring Diameter: Date(s) Drilled: Rotary Auger CME-55 8-inches LOG OF BORING B-03 12/6/00 Logged by: Hammer Type: Hammer Weight: Hammer Drop: MWS Auto-Trip 140 lb. 30-inches I I I SAMPLES ~ SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS >< UJ ~ . ~ This summary applies only at the location of the boring and at the time of ...J UJ UJ >< I- ~ a. ...J a. ~ ::r z .... drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at E: a. >- a ... <t :E: I- UJ I- UJH ~ U this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of '" <t co '" H ::>1- H actual conditions encountered and is representative of interpretations made '" UJ " :;) Z HU :J: :J: UJ ...J '" I- :;)~ I-<t I- a. U) during drilling. Contrasting data derived from laboratory analysis may not be ::> '" a. ::r U) ... <ta. a. <t U reflected in these representations. H ...J E: a H >-u ...JE: UJ '" U) '" :;) <t ...J a "'D. UJa C (.!J :;) ClC U) lC E: C~ "'U ::' .:SM SILTY SAND fine grained with trace clay, red-brown, dry, B , - medium dense, cemented . - SS 21 7 112 ' . .." . 19 5 -: ::::SM SILTY SAND fine to medium grained with trace clay, - B 15 , . red-brown, dry, medium dense' SS 21 7 114 '" , , 11 16 10 - .:,: :~:: SW SAND. fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, - ~ .~: medium dense /';: SS 11 8 104 :f::~:: I-" .'f:;';:' 9 I- 15 ~:~:. . . ~::.i' k: I '''' 1? 117 End of boring at 16.5 feet. No groundwater or mottling encountered. ~ INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. Geotechnical Investigation Figure No. 31705 Pia Pica Temecula, CA Proiect No. S 168-064 A.4 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I -I. ~- \9. .:>-~.:,.;.--- 1 I I I I I I LOG OF BORING B-04 Elevation: Drilling Method: Drilling Rig: Boring Diameter: Date(s) Driiled: Rotary Auger CME-55 8-inches 12/6/00 Logged by: Hammer Type: Hammer Weight: Hammer Drop: MWS Auto-Trip 140 lb. 30-inches I SAMPLES ~ SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ~ LlJ ~ . ~ This summary applies only at the location of the boring and at the time 01 ...J LlJ LlJ ~ I- ~ 0. ...J 0. ~ OJ: Z .... drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at :E: 0. > 0 ... <I: :E: I- LlJ I- LlJH ~ U this location with the passage of time. The data presented Is a simplification of f/) <I: CD 0:: H :>1- H actual conditions encountered and is representative of interpretations made f/) LlJ " ::> z HU :I: :I: LlJ ...J f/) I- ::>~ 1-<1: I- 0. f/) during drilling. Contrasting data derived from laboratory analysis may not be :> ~ 0. OJ: f/) ... <1:0. 0. <I: U reflected in these representations. H ...J :E: 0 H >0 ...J:E: LlJ 0:: f/) 0:: ::> <I: ...J 0 0::0. LlJO C Ul ::> c '" f/) '" :E: c~ O::U Z 5C CLAYEY SAND fine to medium grained with trace clay, B 0- '0 red-brown, dry, medium dense, cemented .''/; : 55 9 9 109 :/C. 9 - 5 - ~. - "- "" .,., ., 111 End of boring at 6.5 feet. No groundwater or mottling 23 encountered. - ~ INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. GeOlechnicallnvesligalion Figure No. 31705 Pia Pica Temecula, CA Proiect No.5 168-064 A.5 I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I 2.0 I I I I I I I I I . 1 I 1 I I 1 I . .,. 4):. ,-_.... Elevation: Drilling Method: Drilling Rig: Boring Diameter: ~ ... ... ~ :I: l- ll. lLI o - 5 - 10 -., , . ',' LOG OF BORING B-05 Date(s) Drilled: Rotary Auger CME-55 8-inches 1/19/01 Logged by: Hammer Type: Hammer Weight: Hammer Drop: MJS Auto-Trip 140 lb. 30-inches SAMPLES lLI ...J1.Ll IJJ ll....J ll. :0::: ll. >- <1::0::: I- m<1: m lLI lLI ...J :>". ll. H...J :0::: O:::l <1: OlD m - 15 -: .' :. :: :: SM SILTY SAND. line to medium grained with clay, brown, slightly , . moist, medium dense - U H :I: ll. m <1: U 0: m <.!l ::l Z:SC ',~ ..~: : :' :: SM SILTY SAND. line to coarse grained with trace clay, light brown, : : : dry to slightly moist, medium dense , - 20 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ThiS summary applies only at the location of the boring and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification 01 actual conditions encountered and is representative of interpretations made during drilling. Contrasting data derived from laboratory analysis may not be reflected in these representations. CLAYEY SAND fine grained, red-brown, dry, medium dense, cemented . . ;: SM SILTY SAND. line to medium grained, light brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense f- 25 :: : . . ': SM SILTY SAND grading to sandy silt, fine to medium grained, brown, slightly moist, medium dense f- 30 -,' .,."",i: ....: "," 'III: ~:... .:.( - 35 - ':,: .': .' .:SM , . -40 SW SAND. fine to coarse grained, light gray, dry, medium dense SILTY SAND grading to sandy sill. line to medium grained, brown, slightly moist, medium dense SW .sAMIl line to coarse grained, light brown, dry, dense / CL SANDY CLAY, line grained with coarse, dark gray-brown, very // moist,lirm - 50 - .,~ SM SAND WITH SILT. line to medium grained, light brown, moist, I"'" ,dense I I End 01 boring at 52 leel. Groundwater encountered at 45.5 leel. ~ Geotechnical Investigation INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING INC. 31705 Pia Pica , Temecula, CA Project No. 5168-064 ',:"'I!: ...:'." -:~: ~-: ...:.." ',' ... .:.: .,'.: - 45 -:;;.::,:' ',' .: ~:..' ~ ~ SPT 11 10 X SPT 9 .<.0 11 - 2S SPT 14 21 - ~ SPT 10 16 ~ SPT 30 30 -8 SPT 23 25 - 'S SPT 7 4;J '" , m :1 o ...J lD lLI 0: ::l ?- m H o :0::: ~ :-: ~ ~ :-: ~ I- :1 I- H :z ::l~ ... >-0 0:0. o~ :z o lLIH ::>1- HU 1-<1: <1:ll. ...J:O::: lLIO O:U 6 16 2 13 7 14 20 Figure No. A-6 2.\ --~" _ ~_ .0_ -- G) CD o ,.... CD o ::T :J -. o m - - :J < CD CJ) ,.... -. <C m ,.... -. o :J - -------------- /' / .1l'.i"Z9 ~ Ol (0 (0 en "'.! - / / I I I ) / / / / / / / / ,-' / /- /' / / ------ ----...------ s90~ --I -- I I \ I I \ I I I ~ I \ / I / / ~z:/ / /' --- /' /' --- /' --- ----- \ 'f ~ \ (t.)\dO\d / / \ / \ I) \\~'t ': .. ..:.......,. ,~ _ ~ ',' ,.... \ '" ~IValliW"~ .y'I~:.!l~~' ""'"'":: _ l I' {: ". . . '1. "' .~ \"1 ~ I.. ' . ,~ . . "I~'~""~~~. 'rJ'~-""'':--'f ' ~;f^'r:~\).\.;j , "'I"O'-C~>Il,,,,,,, ,,,,).;;:\. "'011"... I ~., ( _ ~'" \J~,I,r.-,r:;, , "I' -,', , ! " J...: -, j-: I'","",.,. "I 'o-i <t:;. ~ .. It".'~.' 7;'& '1 ""'"-"h-.hl.}" b.~ I' 1-'/~";1- "If"''''''''''l-' ':\.'\\ ; \~,~.;;~(t~{~~;;;~;~,: .,. \ '1" ,.;''''.~c< ".,,',' - i:J; ","" ,; J. "'i . (i)" '," "-."" , .,--' ..\.,;.....:. .-- I; \1 " -" .~..~ 8, ,0 '.; . If;........,.':;'":" .. I -'W.~~,"?i' ~~'-. -'~" ~ _ ," . \..... 0-'.. ,..~ ',' . '''\, , !. . cD' ~" :\:.~. ,I. G..:.'S-''';--~ '\~ \ \. %-,.. ":~i -;"2{,', ,. . \ "'" (D~ "'_~ ,..~ .. '.'" ~ ,( "t:'"- -.c' . ~ \, \ . ' ,- '-",- -....... (}'- , , , , - .. -1_",_.., ,OJ, '\ 'e_1 ,\ .: .."",' ".'.'C.: -./, \, "';" ". "'F 'f!),\10Y - .~ ... . j~, \ '~.',.~ . "1' '.... - :" ',\ '. \., ""1"'~"--' '., ,~.' , ,r l ..\..,~, ? >~,. ;:,\'~( \'''0 ;;'\.1 (,,',,<,,;;:..- ~ .' ',. \ Jr' r-::::---,..--,t '. G,\ , .': .'~"~-' ~':' .... r:\ \. / .:~.> ~~'{~, ~'> f, nQ ", /," _~ Vet .., /"" ~ ,,-'. "0; <:' . "". ~ -c' ~'yP' :.; ,,- "t:"H\ .. Z,- 'r'.;".' , . /" \ I 'il. ~, . --~ '. ,..J'-:-l_ ~_', I,) ') '.... \.1'\, ,--' -.--k(;V'-', j~ '..//.... .,1 ,. r,,;--C;:"'-' ~.;..~- ~lp N ~~ U1 U1 U1 en OJ 060~ /' 960~ - Z -i en In o :>. :> co l) ~ - o' :> ~ :n Z )> 'l! l' I a > --.J ~ Z . 10 a 11) tl ~-'r1 i:~ "''''~Oc: ",:!! "'.. 0 .. i .j>o.= "'Z tIl ~~OC ....-< l.ADlC 0/.. ",n. e-> l!l ;: --l '" 5 ",-i - en 3 ~ ~..o ~ 0 ~~~QGZ iii' UI =: JorS tT.I 031 IOS''''>Z ..0 08 a o 0 ~ "tJ \0..... ~ _ ::; '" ~8' "," = Z '" z -. '" "t'Il ., 0 m ..C;ll. n m '. , ::a i' UJ 8: _ 3-; ~ Z Ii a " . ~ - g Z o 0 IV ~ 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~el APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Representative bulk soil samples were obtained in the field and returned to our laboratory for additional observations and testing. Laboratory testing was generally performed in two phases. The first phase consisted of testing in order to determine the compaction of the existing natural soil and the general engineering classifications of the soils across the site. This testing was performed in order to estimate the engineering characteristics of the soil and to serve as a basis for selecting samples for the second phase of testing. The second phase consisted of soil mechanics and analytical testing. This testing included a direct shear test, an Expansion Index test, and testing to estimate the concentration of water- soluble sulfate. These tests were performed in order to provide a means of developing specific design recommendations based on the strength characteristics of the soil. CLASSIFICATION AND COMPACTION TESTING Unit Weight and Moisture Content Determinations: Each undisturbed sample was weighed and measured in order to determine its unit weight. A small portion of each sample was then subjected to testing in order to determine its moisture content. This was used in order to determine the dry density of the soil in its natural condition. The results of this testing are shown on the Boring Logs (Figure Nos. A-2 through A-6). Maximum Density-Optimum Moisture Determinations: Representative soil types were selected for maximum density determinations. This testing was performed in accordance with the ASTM Standard D1557 -91 test method A. The results of this testing are present- ed graphically on Figure No. B-3. The maximum densities are compared to the field densities of the soil in order to determine the existing relative compaction to the soil. This is shown on the Boring Logs, and is useful in estimating the strength and compressibility of the soil. Classification Testing: Two soil. samples were selected for classification testing. This testing consists of mechanical grain size analyses and Atterberg Limits determinations. These provide information for developing classifications for the soil in accordance with the Unified Classification System. This classification system categorizes the soil into groups having similar engineering characteristics. The results of this testing are very useful in detecting variations in the soils and in selecting samples for further testing. The results of this testing are presented on Figure No. B-4. Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Residence Temecula - Project 8168-064 - January 200t B-1 Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. 2.~ I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I SOIL MECHANIC'S TESTING Direct Shear Testing: One sample was selected for Direct Shear Testing. This testing measures the shear strength of the soil under various normal pressures and is used in developing parameters for foundation design and lateral design. Testing was performed using recompacted test specimens which were saturated prior to testing. Testing was performed using a strain controlled test apparatus with normal pressures ranging from 934 to 2230 pounds per square foot. The results of this testing are shown on Figure No. B-5. Expansion Testing: One sample was selected for Expansion testing. Expansion testing was performed in accordance with the UBC Standard 18-2. This testing consists of remolding 4-inch diameter by 1-inch thick test specimens to a moisture content and dry density corresponding to approximately 50 percent saturation. The samples are subjected to a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and allowed to reach equilibrium. At that point the specimens are inundated with distilled water. The linear expansion is then measured until complete. The results of this testing are shown on Figure No. B-6. ANALYTICAL TESTING Soluble Sulfate: One sample was selected to determine the concentration of soluble sulfate in the soil. This testing was performed in accordance with the California Test 417, 1986. These results are used in determining the corrosive nature of the soils on concrete. In this test, the sulfate ions are precipitated with barium chloride to produce a suspension of barium sulfate. A turbidimetric reading is taken and compared with a known standardization curve. The result of this test indicates the concentration of soluble sulfate in the selected sample is nil. GENERAL All laboratory testing has been conducted in conformance with the applicable ASTM test methods by personnel trained and supervised in conformance with our QNQC policy. Our test data only relates to the specific soils tested. Soil conditions typically vary and any significant variations should be reported to our laboratory for review and possible testing. The data presented in this report are for the use of STK Architecture, Inc. only and may not be reproduced or used by others without written approval of Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Residence Temecula - Project S168-064 - January 200] B-2 Inlaml Foundation Engineering, Inc. 2~ 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I...,. i? -"..-..'.-..-' ~- ,~~';~", 160 155 150 145 140 135 130 lL u ll. .,: 125 I- H (J) Z w 120 0 >- '" 0 115 110 105 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 MOISTURE CONTENT, Yo Specimen Identification . 8-02 0.0 1%1 8-03 0.0 Max.Density 135.0 131.5 MC% 7.5 8.0 Classification CLAYEY SAND SC SIL TV SAND SM PROJECT Geotechnicallnvestiqation PROJECT NO. 5168-064 DATE December 28,2000 MAXIMUM DENSITY-OPTIMUM MOISTURE CURVES Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. 1310 S. Santa Fe San Jacinto, Ca FIGURE NO. B-3 -,--'.b._ .":,,",.>;:e-"',,, .. ..~ . ->._~_. 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1'_"-0' ~"":,~,-.!.,.--,,..-.,;./ U.S. 81EVE OPENING IN INCHES 4 2 1/2 I 3 I 200 HYDROMETER U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS o 6 30 50 100 6 6 3 1.5 13/4 8 4 81 141 20 40 70 140 I I I ~~ II I 1""- .\ . \ \ \ \ \ \. \ \ ~\ \ 100 gO 80 P E R70 C E N TOO F I N E50 R B Y 40 w E I G30 H T 20 10 o . IZI 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0_001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine Specimen Identification Classification S_G. LL PL PI Cc Cu 8-02 0.0 CLAYEY SAND SC 24 16 8 B-03 0.0 SIL TV SAND SM 19 17 2 Specimen Identification . B-02 0.0 IZI B-03 0.0 060 0.22 0.29 010 %Gravel 0.6 0.6 %Silt %Clay 34.4 30.2 %Sand 65.0 69.2 0100 9.50 9.50 030 PROJECT Geotechnicallnvestiqation PROJECT NO. DATE Sl68-o64 December 28, 2000 GRADATION CURVES Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. 1310 S. Santa Fe San Jacinto, Ca FIGURE NO. B-4 ~ ,~'. I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I cl 2.5 2.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 Specimen Identification . 8-02 0.0 PROJECT GeotechnicallnvestiQation Pi i -~~c;:-- 1.0 1.5 . S H E A 1.5 R s T R E N G T H 1.0 k s f NORMAL PRESSURE. ksf Classification CLAYEY SAND SC SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. 1310 S. Santa Fe San Jacinto. Ca Phi 40 PROJECT NO. DATE 2.0 2.5 Cohesion DD MC% 0.496 122 10 S 168-064 December 28, 2000 FIGURE NO. 8-5 2.1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I :1:. EXPANSION TEST SUMMARY III II . i1llli!lilflltli }:fM{HItr~~ttHf11f~tHIltt~ :~~~~t::::~:tt~~:;~:tM:K:mH;~:;~:*% fHMtMltHtMHtf:ttlftM ~::::::::::::~::::~:::~M:~:::::;:::::~::~:::~::?:;~:::::::?:;~: IIillillll1l11 illllli 1IIIIjllllllll,!1111 .,.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.,::.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.~:.:.:.~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: . ........................---.-..-.-.-... B-02 0 0 1 1 1 6 9 6 1 7 1 1 6 (Ve ry Low) Project No. 5168-064 Figure No. B-6 Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. Z8 '~~'-. 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 0",.("" , ~ . . ~ --' APPENDIX C INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS MAPS OF KNOWN ACTIVE FAULT NEAR-SOURCE ZONES Section 1629.4.2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code™ (UBC) requires that in Seismic Zone 4, each site shall be assigned a near-source factor. To determine if the near-source factor is greater than 1.0, the designer must assess whether the site is located within 10 to 15 km of a known active fault. ICBO has published a volume of Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada. This map is intended to be used in conjunction with the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Tables 16-S and 16-T. The map of the project vicinity is appended. It is important to note that ICBO has placed stated limitations on the interpretation of the maps. These limitations, in part stem from previous limitations made by the California Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) indicating that the DMG database was compiled for regional analysis and was not compiled at a scale appropriate for site-specific studies. The information presented may be useful for determining near-source parameter values, but is not of sufficient detail to accurately determine the distance of a site from a fault. The map(s) presented herein are not regulatory, but only provide guidance for the designer or code official in implementing the requirements of 1997 UBC. We make no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the ICBO maps. All of the published ICBO limitations related to the referenced f!1aps are applicable. Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Residence Temecula - Project 8168-064 - January 2001 C-1 Inland Fountlation Engineering, Inc. zC\ o I e,) UI ~ i-c \ ~ ,. If ~ )> _ n :J ... CD ~ -- CO _. < CO 0 (I) .....3 5= {l ." s: iii' r>> 3 a C OJ CD - c: g, ... =CD 9:c.Z :J- IQ 0 (I) o 0" "'ll o CD .... C. c: ... CD 0 I . CD ~ '=: en O":J 0' (jjO o g C ~_. m c: ... , :J n cn!l ~ gO (I) ~~o N ~:f 0 -I ::s (I) tn 00 _01>> s- C/l' ::;; -.0 0.., :J :J o iii' -0 ~tn :J'tJ tnl>> C/l~ I>> 3 :Jtn Q.:J - (j)o tn- Q.OO 00 cc:J '< C/l I tne,) ~U1 o' :J ~ -, ~ r- m G> m z o o CD CD ~ ~ 2- Q, 8 CD " Q, D> " Q, 5' Q, ~ 3 ~ "0 CD". rn~ ~8. "N 00 c" i,lm !I'm ~ 5' '" ~ Q. !f ~ . )> ii1' c: .. m ii1' c: .. ~L~ ~\7'v/ ~ ~ ~ 1 J - /~~ ~ 1(<-- j,J'Cj >~ '\J'J.! ~ ~ ~~"l; _,. ,l. {~*>- \~ /~~~ ~ \ '\ nr.::i(J~. ~)-j..: + ~ -",-v- ........... ),,\. f.'\.. '.\"" t- I f'lI ~ -J.' ~k W x:!!!. [1 f- \ . \~ 1\"- .. -/l'\ '/\\ '~I< ~~ 5' "\ <:!)S;J' ~ ~. ~ 0r"' "".=~ ~8 ~ \f- )1-~~ -,! ( ">~ " fl...U lH' " .rl " " " rr"'; /~ ~ ~-1 k~~"~, r~V:; ",'" ~~'-\ A" \~~~~"t ~ ~\n. ~'J/I ,,..If y~ \t ~~. '\..;~' ~:t.u~ {.(~ I ~ .... -G~' ~":~ ~~T l~ L~ ~ .~ ' ~~ -, ~~4Y- ~ Y,!' J ~ Ji~ ~.d::1 ~.r -"f-~ ..-, ~ ~ ~.6 '\ ;\.~ rv 'x -{ \ (if U ~~: 'SCD~) /-<. .', J- i:' ~~'h ""\\\'~~';-( f"rTtJ}( Y\" ~"./ r.,r;' ~:.. '\ ~~ ....~ ,";?\: ~' ~W~"" ~~Y' ~.,,/\ .... -.' ''1':.: j:..Y ","". \~- ~ . 1:1!"1 I :VI ~ ,.t \ ,~,}~!:r~~ '=--t'~ ~ / ~";,;,;,);\::~t~~ ,.::.. I ',.,.., -~ ""JI r"l~ ~ -<ll/ Y .... \: ~~iI} ~~ ~ :1'" ........ ~'-->. 't c<a)) AS l. f'" ,~" _ ! ~ ~ / v~ ~~;'1, : " '" t ,/, _ '" '''''-~ - ~,', I"!J;\~~' . " -,:....: r~, l:!'" ( . .- I. T.... ,..r ,.;.l:tr: ., ',,6$' \ ( II....... -I. :H1r) "t.. . ~, , ,))"t (~Ts ~ ~ _.01 )i ~~ _.;.~ ~ .:<<f,rl'",,' .~ ,(1 ~~ r-~ ~'~ h II"'\.. \r ~D'''''; I'- .';;9 "i n' CL . _~ e. "~.. y' 'J r ~ ' ,"'" ..._ .t?~'~I". ~~;:' r:, \ \. ),(. - ________t--- 51" ;~ , :"'ll""lW'L,... . ',I \ j~, i' 11..... ~- ,/'-~ "(:;j* ~~ 1:~W,~~1~~'\j':ic;~l' rIJy ~ , . oJ.' ;.,)~ 1- ' \ v 'W>.~~~~' . , ~ UI ~ f?"' ^-.. ~ .::. \ AI/: ;\r",~7;1;1, . .' ~ ,,~ V, Y'-' , h --J.~1,';1'c ,,. , / } \~ ~ } '--.. ~ ,j\~J~ ..! ':'v:. ..... . . r---- -:' '-- " /1 I \ <--' -rJ f,g,.;li~il' iiI ~,;;C; ~ - , I _~ -/\1 '" .,,' '~\,l\.. . ,:~d!l.'~ '. ~ ;(/ ... ..J..I -L\c:, , - ,. ,'" h ",.1l;J.f;"'" ," ~'h~o!ol";:'~\iIYr" \ 'Q l.- T J , , ",~,,~,., ~i''ltl' .... ' , "1 ~ Y'iL c ," ~;t;_ ,Y~':~f:~~/J,;~.I , ~ ~ ~ k I~ i 7J:.~... 1 rh.,-.\,~; ;,."'l..',.".":.ii":r\'C/.i''fiiJ,'N"r;~,, ' J 1.. l\- :r;w1 ,'J" 1 A"k,,\;k,,,.".,,1"~t · 'r , ,c/",.V' ,'''l >-- 11)j ,....""":~;k".,~.'.,.,:",..~r".".,,. 1 ~. 1/ - In II. 'L~ - t;', V 1; 1 'oj,."',,,.',,"" . / '~ ' "1\" ) \.")11 _ ~~iJ,~~~if \' < Dr ' Ih. II r-..""'~ n lA'. {I----' '-:::: ,~.;f. l ' I f' ~ - I ~ ~ ' " ~~' ",,,,,,., "",; ~L' ~y" 7 " I" I . --' = \ - - --- I - ., -, I ~\ ~7?~ t" ~ 1~ A -0 · og !fa 00 ~c ,,01 "0 CD_ ii'Q. i!a OCD ..a 0". Co il", CDN fOg l[ Q, ~ " o CD 01 '" 3 .... .... 01 0 '" '" 3 3 ~Il 3 .u01 CD - CD (jJ ~-I. o - ~ . 0; ~ 'tl a ll. 3 ~ -< .2l C I!!. S' - ~ ~ <C ~ - ~ Vi 1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I ***************************** * * * * * * * * * L I QUE F Y 2 Version 1.50 * ***************************** EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL JOB NUMBER: S168-064 DATE: 01-22-2001 JOB NAME: STK SOIL-PROFILE NAME: Z:\S168-064\LIQTEST.LDW BORING GROUNDWATER DEPTH: 35.00 ft CALCULATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH: 35.00 ft DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.75 Mw SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.945 9 BOREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.15 SAMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 II N60 HAMMER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.30 1 I 1 1 1 I I -)- ',' -"-" ~- - -,~~,-+- MAGNITUDE SCALING FACTOR METHOD: Idriss (1998, in press) Magnitude Scaling Factor: 1.196 rd-CORRECTION METHOD: Idriss (1998, in press) FIELD SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS. Rod Stick-Up Above Ground: 3.0 ft CN NORMALIZATION FACTOR: 1.044 tsf MINIMUM CN VALUE: 0.6 3\ 0.' 0.--'.- 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I",." NCEER [19971 Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY File Name: LIQTEST.OUT PAGE 1 I CALC. I TOTAL 1 EFF. I FIELD I FC I I CORR. I LIQUE. I I INDUC. I LIQUE. SOILI DEPTH I STRESS I STRESS I N I DELTA I C 1 (N1)60IRESISTI r ISTRESSISAFETY NO.1 (ft) I (tsf) I (tsf) I (B/ft) IN1_601 N I (B/ft) I RATIO I d I RATIOIFACTOR ----+------+------+------+------+-----+-----+------+------+-----+------+~----- 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 / 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.251 0.75/ 1.251 1. 751 2.251 2.751 3.251 3.751 4.251 4.751 5.251 5.751 6.251 6.751 7.251 7.751 8.25/ 8.75/ 9.251 9.751 10.251 10.751 11. 251 11.751 12.251 12.751 13.251 13.751 14.251 14.751 15.251 15.751 16.251 16.751 17 .251 17.751 18.251 18.751 19.251 19.751 20.251 20.751 21. 251 0.0151 0.0451 0.075 0.105 0.135 0.165 0.195 0.225 0.255 0.285 0.315 0.345 0.375 0.405 0.435/ 0.4651 0.4951 0.5251 0.5551 0.5851 0.6151 0.6451 0.6751 0.705/ 0.7351 0.7651 0.7951 0.8251 0.8551 0.8851 0.9151 0.9451 0.9751 1. 0051 1. 0351 1. 065/ 1. 095 I 1.125 I 1.1551 1. 185 I 1. 2151 1.245/ 1. 2751 0.015/ 0.0451 0.0751 0.1051 0.1351 0.1651 0.1951 0.2251 0.255/ 0.2851 0.3151 0.3451 0.3751 0.4051 0.4351 0.4651 0.4951 0.5251 0.5551 0.5851 0.6151 0.6451 0.6751 0.705/ 0.7351 0.7651 0.795/ 0.8251 0.855/ 0.8851 0.9151 0.9451 0.9751 1. 0051 1. 0351 1. 065/ 1. 0951 1.1251 1.1551 1.185 I 1. 2151 1. 2451 1.2751 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 8.901 8.901 8.901 8.901 8.901 8.90/ 8.901 8.901 8.901 8.901 8.901 1- 8.90 I I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.90/ I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.90/ I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 I 8.901 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * / * I * I * I * / * I * I * I * I * I * I * I * I * I * I * I * I * I * I * I * I * I * / * I * I * I * I * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I I / I I I I I / I I / I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I / I 1 I I / I I * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I I I I I I I I I I I / I I I I I * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I I I I I I I I I I I / I I I I ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 32. I I ------------------- ----------------------------- NCEER [1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 2 ------------------- ----------------------------- I File Name: LIQTEST.OUT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 I CALC. I TOTAL I EFF. I FIELD I FC I / CORR.ILIQUE./ 1 INDUC. I LIQUE. SOIL I DEPTH I STRESS I STRESS I N I DELTA I C I (N1) 60 I RESIST I r 1 STRESS I SAFETY NO.1 (ft) I (tsf) I (tsf) I (B/ft) I N1 60 I N I (B/ft) 1 RATIO I d I RATIO I FACTOR ----+------+------+------+------+-----+-----+------+------+-----+------+------ I 1 / 21. 751 1. 305 I 1. 3051 21 I 8.901 * I * I * I * I * 1 ** 1 1 22.251 1. 3351 1. 3351 21 I 8.901 * I * I * I * I * 1 ** 1 I 22.751 1. 3651 1. 3651 21 I 8.901 * I * / * I * I * I ** 1 1 23.251 1. 395/ 1. 3951 21 I 8.901 * I * I * I * I * 1 ** I 1 I 23.751 1. 4251 1. 4251 21 I 8.901 * I * I * I * 1 * I ** 1 I 24.251 1. 455/ 1. 455/ 21 1 8.90/ * I * I * I * / * I ** 1 I 24.751 1. 4851 1. 4851 21 I 8.901 * I * 1 * I * I * I ** 1 2 I 25.251 1. 5151 1. 5151 20 I 9.781 * I * I * 1 * 1 * I ** 2 I 25.751 1. 5451 1. 5451 20 I 9.781 * I * / * 1 * I * I ** 2 I 26.25/ 1. 5751 1. 5751 20 1 9.781 * I * I * I * 1 * I ** 2 I 26.751 1. 6051 1. 6051 20 I 9.781 * I . I . I . I * I ** I 2 1 27.251 1. 635/ 1. 635 I 20 L 9.78/ . I . I . I . I * I ** 2 I 27.751 1. 665 I 1. 665 I 20 I 9.781 * I . I * I * / . I ** 2 I 28.251 1. 695 I 1. 6951 20 I 9.781 . I * I . I . I * I ** 2 I 28.751 1. 7251 1. 7251 20 I 9.781 . / * 1 . I . I . I ** 1 2 I 29.251 1. 755 I 1. 755 I 20 I 9.781 * I . I * I * / . I ** 2 I 29.751 1. 785 I 1. 7851 20 I 9.781 . 1 . I . I . I * I .. 2 I 30.251 1.8151 1. 815 I 20 / 9.781 . 1 . 1 . I . I * 1 ** I 3 I 30.751 1.8461 1. 8461 35 1 0.051 . I . I . I . 1 . I .. 3 I 31. 251 1.8771 1.8771 35 1 0.051 . I . 1 * I * I * I ** 3 1 31. 751 1. 908/ 1. 9081 35 I 0.05/ . 1 . 1 . / . I * .* 3 I 32.251 1. 9391 1. 9391 35 I 0.051 . I . 1 . I . I . .. I 3 I 32.751 1.9711 1.9711 35 / 0.051 . I . 1 . 1 * 1 . ** 3 1 33.251 2.0021 2.0021 35 I 0.051 * 1 '. 1 . 1 . I . .. 3 I 33.751 2.0331 2.0331 35 I 0.051 . 1 . I . / . I * ** I 3 1 34.251 2.0641 2.0641 35 / 0.051 . 1 * I . I . I . ** 3 I 34.751 2.0961 2.096/ 35 I 0.051 . 1 . I . 1 . I . ** 3 / 35.251 2.1271 2.119 35 I 0.05 0.7551 39.6 1 Infin 10.8351 0.515 NonLiq 4 35.751 2.1571 2.134 26 110.34 0.7011 37.6 1 Infin 10.832/ 0.516 NonLiq I 4 36.251 2.1871 2.148 26 110.34 0.7011 37.6 I Infin 10.8291 0.518 NonLiq 4 36.751 2.2171 2.163 26 110.34 0.701/ 37.6 1 Infin 10.8261 0.520 NonLiq 4 37.25/ 2.2471 2.177 26 110.34 0.7011 37.6 I Infin 10.8231 0.522 NonLiq I 4 37.751 2.2771 2.192 26 110.34 0.7011 37.6 /Infin 10.8201 0.524 NonLiq 4 38.251 2.3071 2.206 26 110.34 0.7011 37.6 1 Infin 10.8171 0.525 NonLiq 4 38.751 2.337/ 2.220 26 110.34 0.7011 37.6 I Infin 10.8141 0.527 NonLiq 4 39.251 2.3671 2.235 26 110.34 0.7011 37.6 I Infin 10.812/ 0.528 NonLiq 1 4 39.751 2.3971 2.249 26 110.34 0.701/ 37.6 1 Infin 10.8091 0.5291NonLiq 5 40.251 2.4291 2.265 60 I 0.07 0.6781 60.9 I Infin 10.8061 0.5311NonLiq 5 40.751 2.4611 2.282 60 I, 0.07 0.6781 60.9 1 Infin /0.8031 0.532 I NonLiq I 5 41. 25/ 2.4941 2.299 60 / 0.07/0.6781 60.9 I Infin 10.8001 0.5331NonLiq 5 41. 751 2.5261 2.316/ 60 1 0.0710.6781 60.9 I Infin 10.7971 0.5341NonLiq 5 42.25/ 2.559/ 2.3331 60 / 0.07/0.6781 60.9 I Infin 10.794/ 0.5351NonLiq 5 42.751 2.591/ 2.3491 60 I 0.0710.6781 60.9 /Infin / O. 7921 0.5361NonLiq 1 5 43.251 2.6241 2.3661 60 I 0.0710.6781 60.9 I Infin 10.789/ 0.5371NonLiq I li1cc 33 ':~ _ F .. 1 I 1 I 1 I I I ~I .4 I I I 1 I I I I I~ NCEER [1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 3 File Name: LlQTEST.OUT 1 CALC. 1 TOTAL 1 EFF. 1 FIELD I FC 1 1 CORR. 1 LIQUE. / 1 INDUC. 1 LIQUE. SOILI DEPTH 1 STRESS/STRESS/ N 1 DELTA 1 C 1 (N1)60IRESISTI r 1 STRESS 1 SAFETY NO.1 (ft) 1 (tsf) 1 (tsf) 1 (B/ft)IN1_60/ N 1 (B/ft) 1 RATIO 1 d 1 RATIOIFACTOR ----+------+------+------+------+-----+-----+------+------+-----+------+------ 5 43.751 2.656/ 2.3831 60 0.07/0.6781 60.9 Ilnfin 10.7861 0.5381NonLiq 5 44.251 2.6891 2.4001 60 0.0710.6781 60.9 Ilnfin 10.7831 0.5391NonLiq 5 44.751 2.7211 2.4171 60 0.0710.6781 60.9 Ilnfin 10.7801 0.5401NooLiq 6 45.251 2.754/ 2.4341 48 0.0610.6541 47.0 /lnfin 10.7771 0.5401NonLiq 6 45.751 2.7861 2.4511 48 0.0610.6541 47.0 Ilnfio 10.775/ 0.5411NonLiq 6 46.251 2.819/ 2.4681 48 0.0610.6541 47.0 Ilnfio 10.7721 0.542/NonLiq 6 46.751 2.8511 2.4851 48 0.06/0.6541 47.0 Ilnfin 10.7691 0.5421NonLiq 6 47.251 2.8841 2.5021 48 0.0610.6541 47.0 Ilnfin 10.7661 0.5431NonLiq 6 47.751 2.9161 2.5181 48 0.0610.6541 47.0 Ilnfin 10.7631 0.5431NonLiq 6 48.251 2.9491 2.5351 48 0.0610.6541 47.0 Ilofin 10.761/ 0.5431NooLiq 6 48.751 2.9811 2.5521 48 1 0.0610.654\ 47.0 Ilofin 10.7581 0.5441NonLiq 6 49.251 3.014/ 2.5691 48 1_ 0.0610.6541 47.0 Ilofio 10.7551 0.5441NooLiq 6 49.7513.04612.5861 48 10.0610.654147.0 Ilnfin 10.7521 0.5441NooLiq 7 50.251 3.0781 2.6021 50 1 1.8910.6321 49.2 Ilnfin 10.7491 0.5441NonLiq 7 50.751 3.1091 2.6181 50 1 1.8910.6321 49.2 /lnfin 10.7471 0.5451NooLiq 7 51.251 3.1411 2.6341 50 1 1.8910.6321 49.2 Ilofin 10.7441 0.5451NonLiq 7 51.75/ 3.1721 2.6491 50 1 1.8910.6321 49.2 Ilnfin 10.7411 0.5451NonLiq ~----------------------------------------------------------------------------- .3'\