HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3883 Lot 69 Prelim Geotechnical Investigation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PREUMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Single - Lot, Residential Development
Lot 69, Tract 3883, La Colima Road
A.P.N.919-05104)12
Temecula, California
December 20, 2001
PROJECT NO. 21395-01
PREPARED FOR:
Rhonda & William Thomas
3628 Lake Garden Drive
Fallbrook, California 92028
Earth Technics P.O. Box 891989, Temecula, California 92589 (909) 699-5451 FAX (909) 767-1193
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
December 20, 2001
Project No. 21395-01
1.0 INTRODUCTION
At your request, we have performed a Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation for the above referenced site. The purpose of our
investigation was to evaluate the underlying soil conditions with
respect to the proposed development and to assess the
geotechnical and engineering constraints that might exist
considering this development.
The 40-Scale Topographic Plan prepared by Earth Technics, based
on field measurements, was used to direct our field work. Plate
1 presents our Geotechnical data obtained during our field
investigation. At the time of our investigation, the property
corners had been surveyed and staked.
ACCOMPANYING MAPS. ILLUSTRATIONS AND APPENDICES
Index Map - (2000-scale) - Page 2
Geotechnical Map - (40-scale) - Plate 1
Regional Fault Map - (1" = 20 miles) - Plate 2
Appendix A - Geotechnical Trench Logs
Appendix B - Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Appendix C - General Earthwork and Grading specifications
Appendix D - Slope Stability
Appendix E - References
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INDEX. MAP
N
o
2000
4000
SCALE
INDEX MAP
feet 0 F
1.25+j-ACRES, APN 919-051-012
LOT 69, TRACT 3883, MEADOWVIEW ESTATES
TEMECULA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
2
SOURCE: U.S.G.S. 71;, MIN. QUAD. MURRIETA 1953 (PR 1979)
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21395-01
Page 3
2.0 SITE LOCATION/CONDITIONS
The irregularly-shaped 1.25 +/- acre "flag lot" is located on La
Colima Road approximately 475 feet northeast of N. General
Kearney Road, both improved paved roads, in the Temecula area of
Riverside County. The property is bounded by La Colima Road at
the narrow access on the west, with existing homes to the north
and west, and vacant land in all remaining directions.
Topographically, the parcel is very gentle descending to the
east-southeast at less than 12 percent. Total relief over the lot
is 16+/- feet, but less than 8 feet in the area proposed for pad
development. No bedrock is exposed at the site.
A large swale crosses the southeast corner of the site, and
displayed evidence of considerable previous running water.
At time of our testing the site had been disced for weed control.
Large eucalyptus trees are located on the eastern property
boundary.
The topographic and geographic relationsips of the lot to
adjacent areas is shown on the Index Map (Page 2).
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Based on the initial 20-scale Precise Grading Plan, being
prepared by Earth Technics, the site will be developed with a cut
and fill pad and driveway access with a northern retaining wall.
The pad will be constructed with maximum cuts and fills on the
order of 5 and 8 feet respectfully at finished slope inclinations
of 2:1 (horizontal'to vertical) or flatter. The pad area for the
proposed single-family residence will be constructed in
transition from cut on the northwest to fill on the southeast.
An access driveway to provide vehicular access to the residence
will incorporate daylight cuts of 4-6 feet and a retaining wall
on the north to a maximum height of 4 feet.
The generalized house footprint is shown on Plate 1.
On-site sewage disposal will be utilized in the natural areas
unaffected by the current grading and is shown on Plate 1.
4.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of our investigation included the following:
1. A review of available data pertinent to the site.
.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21395-01
Page 4
2. Subsurface exploration of the site utilizing 3 exploratory
backhoe trenches to depths as great as 14.7 feet. The
trenches were logged, and these logs appear in Appendix A of
this report. Several trenches were tested for in-place
density utilizing the Sand Cone Method (ASTM 01556-64).
Representative bulk samples were obtained for testing.
3. Laboratory testing of representative earth materials to
develop soil engineering parameters for the proposed
development.
4. Preparation of this report presenting our findings,
conclusions and recommendations concerning site development
based upon an engineering analysis of the geotechnical
properties of the subsoils as determined by field and
laboratory evaluation.
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING
The following tests were performed for this project in our
laboratory in accordance with the American Society for Testing
and Materials, the State of California Standard Specifications or
contemporary practices of the soil engineering profession.
5.1 Maximum Densitv - optimum Moisture Determinations
This test determines the density that a soil can be compacted to
at various contents. For each soil moisture, there is a maximum
dry density obtained and the associated optimum moisture content.
The results are used to evaluate the natural compaction, control
of the grading process and as an aid in developing the soil
bearing capacity. This is based on ASTM Standard D1557-78 (five
layer method) .
5.2 In-Situ Moisture and Densitv
These tests consisted of performing Sand Cone Density tests (ASTM
DI556-64) in the trenches to determine in-place moisture and
density. The results are used to analyze the consistency of the
subsoils and aid in determining the necessary grading to prepare
the pad area.
5.3 Sieve Analvsis
This test determines the material grading of the individual
particle sizes and is used in generating an engineering
classification.
"\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21395-01
Page 5
5.4 Sand Eouivalent Testino
This is a test for the rapid determination of the relative
portions of fine silt and clay materials within the soil samples,
and is used for a relative comparison of soils in the
determination of the adequate paving sections for driveways, etc.
5.5 Expansion Testino
The expansion index of the soils are determined by the V.B.C.
Method 29-2 and is used to design foundations for anticipated
expansion forces.
5.6 Direct Shear
A direct shear strength test was performed on a representative
sample of the on-site soils remolded to 90% relative compaction.
To simulate possible adverse field conditions, the sample was
saturated prior to shearing. A saturating device was used which
permitted the samples to absorb moisture while preventing volume
change. This test is used to determine soil strengths for slope
stability evaluations and for foundation bearing capacity.
5.7 Soluble Sulfate
A representative surface sample was tested to determine soluble
sulfate content. The test results are used to recommended the
type and strength of concrete to be used in construction.
6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The area of the proposed pad is underlain by colluvial soils with
variable thickness from 2-4 feet. The colluvium thickens to the
south at 3.5 feet in the area of the proposed fill. In-place
densities for the colluvium were low with densities of 106.3 pcf
(83.2% relative compaction) to 111.3 pcf (87.1% relative
compaction) and moistures of 4-8 percent at 2-3.5 feet below the
existing ground surface.
The underlying Pauba Formation bedrock was dense to very dense
with in-place densities of 116.2 pcf (90.9% relative compaction)
to 117.8 pcf (92.2% relative compaction) at 4-5.5 feet and
moistures of 6-7 percent.
7.0 GROUND WATER
No ground water seepage was encountered on the site to a depth of
14.7 feet. Historic high ground water is expected to be 60-65
feet at the lowest elevations of the lot based on historic ground
water in nearby wells 1000 feet to the southwest T7S, R3W 35-Al
(DWR, 1971).
s
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21395-01
Page 6
8.0 FLOODING
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the
county of Riverside, the pad site is not located within the
boundaries of a 100-year flood plain. The stream crossing the
southeast corner of the property presents a flooding hazard in a
narrow channel 20-25 feet wide, but 4-6 feet below the pad area.
No potential for flooding exists on the proposed improved and
elevated pad.
9.0 GEOLOGY
The entire proposed building pad area is underlain at depth
sedimentary bedrock identified as the pauba Formation (Mann,
1955; Kennedy, 1977). The poorly-developed bedding was oriented
N80-85E and dipping 5-7 degrees NE. No evidence of slope
instability exists at the site or in the adjoining cut slopes
along La Colima Road.
The site is not included in any state or County fault hazard zone
for active faulting.
10.0 SEISMIC SETTING/GROUND MOTION PARAMETERS
The regional seismic setting is shown on Plate 2. The nearest
active faults to the site include the Wildomar Fault of the
Elsinore Fault Zone which is located approximately 5.1 miles to
the southwest. The Casa Lorna branch of the San Jacinto Fault is
located 22 miles to the northeast.
The Elsinore Fault zone because of its proximity and seismic
potential to the site is the design fault when evaluating the
site seismic parameters.
11.0 HISTORIC SEISMICITY
During the last 100 years in the San Bernardino/Riverside area,
the greatest number of moderate to large earthquakes (greater
than 6.0 M) have occurred along the San Jacinto Fault (Hileman,
Allen and Nordquist, 1974; Peterson, et all, 1996). The most
significant earthquake epicenter of magnitude 6.0M on the
Elsinore Fault occured 12+ miles to the northwest in 1910 in Lake
Elsinore. Several earthquakes of magnitude 6.8M and 7.0M have
occurred on the casa Loma and San Jacinto faults approximately
20-22 miles northeast.
~
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21395-01
Page 7
12.0 SEISMIC EXPOSURE
Although no precise method has been developed to evaluate the
seismic potential of a specific fault, the available information
on historic activity may be projected to estimate the future
activity of the fault. This is usually done by plotting the
historic activity in terms on number of events in a given time
interval versus magnitude of the event. Based on such plots,
recurrence intervals for earthquakes of given magnitudes may be
estimated. A probabilistic evaluation of potential seismicity
for the site utilizing FRISKSP (Blake 1998) indicates a 10%
probability of exceedance of 0.62g in 50 years assuming all
seismic sources.
We have utilized strain rates of 5.0 rom/year for the Elsinore
Fault suggested by Peterson, et aI, (1996) to estimate the maximum
moment earthquake. We estimate the maximum moment magnitude or
"design earthquake" for the Elsinore Fault to be 7.5 magnitude
with a 10% possibility of exceedance in 50 years. This is in
agreement with the probabilistic model by Blake, (1998).
12.1 1997 U.B.C. Seismic Parameters:
The following UBC seismic parameters should be incorporated into
seismic design:
Nearest Active Seismic Source (Type B Fault) - 8.2 km
Soil Type* - SD
Near Source Factor N. - 1.0
Near Source Factor Nv - 1.1
* Soil type may be Sc but requires additional field work to
verify.
13.0 GROUND MOTION CHARACTERISTICS
The ground motion characteristics which could affect, the site
during the postulated maximum moment magnitude of 7.5 on the
Elsinore Fault were estimated. Available information in the
literature about maximum peak bedrock acceleration and its
attenuation with distance (Joyner and Borzognia, 1994), the
effects of site-soil conditions on surface ground motion
parameters (Seed & Idress, 1982), and site response criteria
(Hays, 1980) were utilized.
The predominant period of bedrock acceleration is expected to be
0.30 seconds with 24 seconds of strong ground shaking (Bolt,
1973) .
1
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21395-01
Page 8
14.0 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS
The dense well-cemented nature of the underlying sedimentary
bedrock in the area of the existing pad at depths as shallow as
4.0 feet, and the historic depth to ground water over 60 feet
precludes such secondary seismic hazards as liquefaction. lateral
spreading or settlement of the ground the house is being placed
upon. No rockfall hazard exists at the building site. The
potential for seismically-triggered landslides is discussed in
detail under the slope stability section.
15.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
15.1 Foundation Desiqn
A strip and spread footing foundation system should provide an
adequate foundation for one and two-story buildings in this site.
All exterior footings should be founded a minimum of 18 inches
below adjacent finished grade for two-story buildings, and 12
inches for one-story buildings. Interior footings may be founded
a minimum of 12 inches below finished grade.
When the footings are founded in properly compacted fill or dense
bedrock, an allowable bearing capacity of 1500 psf for 12 inch
wide footings is acceptable for dead plus live load. This value
may be increased by one-third for short term wind and seismic
loading conditions.
When foundations are placed in natural soils, no cobbles over 6
inches should be left within the base of the foundation. A
typical foundation design is included in Appendix C. Two No. 4
bars, 1 top and 1 bottom, is recommended as a minimum design.
15.2 Settlement
Our subsurface investigation revealed that the alluvial soils on
the south are loose and soft. Upon replacement with compacted
fill settlement potential will be reduced. Footings should
experience less than I-inch total settlement with less than 1/2
inch differential settlements between adjacent footings of
similar sizes and loads. This settlement is based upon grading
of up to 30 feet of fill over a distance of 60 feet horizontally.
If thicker fills are proposed, settlement could be greater and
should be evaluated prior to placement.
15.3 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade
Sufficient fine-grained materials exists within near surface
earth materials to possible create moisture problems. Therefore,
we recommend that a moisture barrier be placed under any concrete
b
~
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21395-01
Page 9
slabs that might receive a moisture-sensitive floor covering.
This moisture barrier should consist of a 10-mil polyethylene
vapor barrier sandwiched between a 1-inch layer of sand, top and
bottom, to prevent puncture of the barrier and enhance curing of
the concrete. Reinforcement of the slabs with 6x6-6/6 welded
wire mesh centered in the 4 inch slab is recommended. The
subgrade below the slab should be. moisture conditioned and
properly compacted prior to placement of concrete.
15.4 Expansive Soils - Soluble Sulfate
Expansion testing of near-surface silty sand soils (T-1 ; 0-3
feet) possible at finished grades indicate that the soils in the
pad area are very low expansion. No special design provisions are
necessary for the foundation or concrete flatwork to resist
expansion forces as shown on the Foundation and Slab
Recommendations for Expansive Soils in Appendix C. This is in
accordance with the U.B.C. Table 18-B-1.
The soluble sulfate content was 62 ppm allowing normal Type II
concrete with 2500 psi strength.
15.5 Earthwork Shrinkaqe and Subsidence
Shrinkage of the colluvium will occur during grading, estimated
as 8-10 percent when recompacted to compacted fill standards. The
sedimentary bedrock is expected to bulk 3-5% when placed as
compacted fill.
15.6 Retaininq Wall Desiqn
Retaining walls should be designed using the following
parameters:
o
o
o
Active pressure
Active pressure
Active pressure
(level backfill)
(2:1 backfill)
(1 1/2:1 backfill)
42 lb/ft /ft
52 lb/ft /ft
58 lb/ft/ft
For purpose of lateral resistance, a value of 0.35 may be used
for frictional resistance. A value of 275 lb/ft /ft may be used
for passive resistance for footings placed into properly
compacted fill. Frictional and passive resistance may be
combined, provided the later is reduced by one-third.
Special loads for dead plus actual loads should be considered in
the driveway/parking area that is retained.
~
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21395-01
Page 10
15.7 Lateral Loads
Lateral loads in the near-surface soils are:
Active
At Rest
Passive
- 42 pounds per square foot of soil depth (psf/ft)
- 58 psf/ft
- 275 psf/ft (for wood shoring)
350 psf/ft (for concrete footings)
Active means movement of the structure away from the soil; at
rest means the structure does not move relative to the soil (Such
as a loading dock); and Passive means the structure moves into
the soil. The coefficient of friction between the bottom of the
footings and the native soil may be taken as 0.35.
15.8 Trench Stabi1itv
The near-surface soil to a depth of 5 feet should stand
vertically when excavated, however, trenches in excess of 5 feet
in depth should have the sides laid back at 1:1 in accordance
with OSHA requirements.
15.9 Slope Stabi1itv
The proposed grading indicates the maximum slope height is 8 feet
at finished face inclinations of 2:1 or flatter. The high
strength values allow 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) cut and fill
slopes up to 35 feet without gross or surficial instability.
Selection of Shear Strenath Parameters
The following shear strength parameter utilized for our slope
stability analysis was determined by our laboratory test results
as presented below:
Material
(Cut or Fill)
Friction Angle
(Dearee)
Cohesion
lb/ft2
Anticipated On-site Fill
28.0
340
We have utilized values of 28.0 degrees and 340 Ib/ft2 for
bedrock cut slopes although it represents a conservative number,
determined from a remolded saturated sample. Bedrock is expected
to be 20% + stronger (Coduto, 1989).
Even more critical to overall cut slope performance is the
orientation of joints and fractures and bedding. All measured
vague poorly-defined bedding was at a low angle into the slope.
\0
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21395-01
Page 11
No evidence of slope instability exists on the site and adjoining
areas. The bedrock and low angle into slope bedding orientation
make all the natural slopes stable.
Drainage and terracing should be in accordance with Uniform
Building Code Appendix Chapter 33 requirements. At no time
should water be diverted onto the slope face in an uncontrolled
and erosive fashion. Rapid erosion and rutting of the fill
slopes could occur, and they should be planted with drought
resistant landscaping as soon as possible.
16.0 GENERAL SITE GRADING
16.1 C1earinq and Grubbinq
Any heavy brush and grasses or remaining trees that exist at the
time of grading should be stripped from any areas to receive fill
and removed off-site or stockpiled in landscape areas.
16.2 Preparation of Buildinq Pad Areas
The proposed grading will encounter colluvium that should be
removed to a minimum of 2 feet to a maximum of 4 feet to firm
sedimentany bedrock as determined during grading inspections. The
cut/fill transition should be removed by overexcavation to 3
feet.
16.3 Preparation of Surface to Receive Compacted Fill
All sufficiently dense (90 percent relative compaction) surfaces
which are to receive compacted fill should be scarified to a
depth of 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content and
compacted to 90 percent relative compaction. other softer areas
must be overexcavated to sufficiently dense material and
recompacted. Anticipated overexcavation and colluvial removal
would be 2.0-4.0 feet on the west. Actual depth of removal should
be determined at the time of grading by testing.
16.4 Placement of Compacted Fill
Compacted fill is defined as that material which will be replaced
in the areas of removal due to root removal, the placement of
footings and paving, and also wherever their grade is to be
raised. All fill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent
based upon the maximum density obtained in accordance with ASTM
D 1557-78 procedure. The area to be filled will be prepared in
accordance with the preceding section.
Fills placed on natural slopes of 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or
steeper will require a key and benching as shown in Appendix C.
II
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21395-01
Page 12
16.5 Pre-Job Conference
Prior to the commencement of grading, a pre-job conference should
be held with representatives of the owner, developer, contractor,
architect and/or engineer in attendance. The purpose of this
meeting shall be to clarify any questions relating to the intent
of the grading recommendations and. to verify that the project
specifications comply with recommendations of this report.
16.6 Testinq and Inspection
During grading, density testing should be performed by a
representative of the soil engineer in order to determine the
degree of compaction being obtained. Where testing indicates
insufficient density, additional compactive effort shall be
applied with the adjustment of moisture content where necessary,
until 90 percent relative compaction is obtained.
Inspection of critical grading control procedures such as keys,
installation or need for subdrains, should be made by a qualified
soils engineer.
16.7 Development Impact
Provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into
the design and construction of the residential project, both the
proposed development and off-site areas will be safe from
geotechnical hazards.
17.0 GENERAL
All grading should, at a minimum, follow the "Standard Grading
and Earthwork Specifications" as outlined in Appendix C, unless
otherwise modified in the text of this report. The
recommendations of this report are based on the assumptions that
all footings will be founded in dense, native, undisturbed soil
or properly compacted fill soil. All footing excavations should
be inspected prior to the placement of concrete in order to
verify that footings are founded on satisfactory soils and are
free of loose and disturbed materials and fill. All grading and
fill placement should be performed under the testing and
inspection of a representative of the soil engineer.
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in
accordance with contemporary engineering principles and practice.
Our recommendations are based on an interpolation of soil
conditions between trench locations. Should conditions be
encountered during grading, that appear to be different that
those indicated by this report, this office should be notified.
12.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21395-01
Pag'e 13
Respectfully Submitted,
Larry J. Fast, R
Registration Expir
Services
\3>
-------------------
l1,
>(
~
~
-'\
e L-4 COLI!:!/! ::...,?..AP __
:;:
o
o
"
~
~'-
"'
(106' ...
{v"
IId6
1(06'
~
~\
~I~ +
IT~~
1
~
~
t
!:\
;)
, -\
-l> ,
. \U>
-c ",
", x
;0 -c
n ,
o 0
, ;0
;J;> ;to ~
...; -I
~ 0
o ;0 "tI
Z -< ,r-
-I -I ~
", ;0 z
U> ", :r>
-I ~ -l
::c -
o
z
,';v'.
o
I-' -c
0;0
o~
... 3:
;to
", ;0
x-<
-c
;to,
Z'"
(/l):>
~n
o ::c
Z
,
,I-'
", 2l
;to",
nu>
::c
,
I-'
Z
",
U>
n
U
* * * *
z r ;:t:oo +:a
o m -0 I
;to -c OJ
""0 n r- m
o :::I: 1-4 0
;0 n;o
-4 I :;x::. 0
1-4 I--t -i 0
o :z ~ 3:
Z ", 0
U> Z ::c
o 0
" :r::: ;:0 c:
~ ;to U>
:;x::.. -i -i rrI
OJ ::c ",
U> ;0
o ...... 0 rr1
;0 "T1.o
-c "T1 c
-i 0 00 .......
I--IOO:::O(f)
~-lV'l~<
0.0 0
U>"T1CI-'-1
-< ):> N ..,
Vl ::::c ::tJ 0 m
-10"'0"",
m n l;a
3: ^ "'T'1 G')
", ;to _
c - fT1 r ,.",
ZVl-lr-m
~ W ...... ~ ~
;oNU> G)
o 0 l.Q ~ Z
;:0 r 0-. -0
- ........ 0 -I
<::z ~
fT1 m V'l (""')
:E ;to .0
)::0 ;:::0 C ---i
-< ;to;to
(J') " ;:0 :z
.. fT1 fT1 7'
", ,
IT1 -I "T1
-I m
no",
. "T1 -I
w 0
I "T\
"T1
o ;to
o OJ
-I U>
o
:E ;0
I-' -c
<::> -I
", ~
o
, :z
",
;to ;to
n ;0
::c ",
;to
, ,
I-'
Z
",
,
~
I
~
---~
)~
\
~""
v"
-- ,,~ ~/o <
-;i
-I
h--- (/ot;)
~ "". "-
'" ......
~
~ ~ \
D ~ I
\1\ ,
; t I
f\l If\ I
---:;.-------.......
---=-~...:==--- -----
:< \
~ \ '--'>-..
.l) \ /'---
\ /~T-C-- -
D(~/--'~~ti
t!ytD ~ )
- ----"'---
_t: __
\
---
-.......1......"
y, ~',--
-1<- '-
t
~
--
i
t
-----
"
------/1 ,~
-..
,,'
~
,
'"
'"
'"'
C~
?
'0'
I"
"tI
~
-l
m
~
~
...
I
I
I
I
I
...
...
::1!
o
,.
r
r
m
,.
o
%
C
z
m
~~
.
,'+
'<
\
..
q,.
<..
7~
..
~
... CC..;:;:
"~=~=~::=
.. .... 1:1: E
" :l::. aatii ~
=ilit~=.ooI,,=
< Oat '< :D
~ ~;.il!! -1-;'
~. .
~
~
~
"
n
~
w
~
~
"
W
~
! . ;~ 5 ~ ~ ~~ - I .
i So _ii
! . g ... 1--
;; :;: ~ . i lei
- ~ i ::1 - - ii . I"' ~
is ... ,1::-
! ! " . . ~ 51 - :2! z
~ ! i. i:
0 ~ ! ! =: c
~ o. ..- i= ~
- .
~..
m
- " - - - . . . - - 1-= "
. , ... I'~ >-
- :'" "";;::a
~ . - - - - " i - F-' ~
- 'w " " ~ :H
;; " - - - " " i . - -I'.
. - ::: "5
- -
. ,
-I" _u_
~~~s i;5~
J-". ..._:Ii
!!~.I a"'!i
-i- ...1..
i:;' IE"..
..=. ,'U
=..= i!:'"
~::a.. ;;;:-i!
=_,' 1._-
.....- ~~....
.:... ..;;~s
=.;:;.. :-=_.
....... -J!i
~;!.. 1.:1
::-= =:"!
-I~- ...
=:1:: :!s
!"'.eA .....
:;: ::i::
~S~~ ;;:
. ~~ ;::"'11
.;1 .tiS
.~
, ,
;:I:!_I =
5" .. .
..:== ...
i--- E
S.i" ,
i..... .::
-..--
_"'ll. ;:
Itl:..: :::
li.is .
iiii!
_...1 ...
IE;~=
.. toO.
~'~...
:....11
ili:.:
.. ..1-
i,;h
=:!:"j
ii::~:
~i-~=
I' ~
-.
--
~
c-
o
ar
z
o
I.
~
\ll
\!)
U1
I
o
-
051
I
I
c
~
~
I
~,...-
.
.
i'
--
.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...
...
"
n
,.
r
r
m
,.
o
%
r
Z
m
...
i2
...
m
I:
.
~
!
n
~
c
~
~
i>
~
~
.
~
"
~
~
~
..
~
,
"
~
;:
~
"
!'
..
"
~
n
.
~
..
.,,;,);
n
~
~
.
.
g
~
I-~
.
.
.
i'
..
~;
.~
~n
"
;;
~
2
..
c
~
o
.
... ..
~,il
,. r f-
. 0 .
.. .. .
. ~ .
jt ~ ..
: : .
~ ~ ~
" " "
. . .
! ! .
~ ~ ~
w . _
.. .. ..
~ .. "
~ .. "
~ ~ ~
~ i ~
" " "
He
.... ..
~ ~ ~
. .
o.
· E
~i'=
~
.
.
n
.
!:
.
.
.
o
~
~
~
.
.
n
.
~
.
.
c.
..
~.
=.
~~
m
o
c
~I
ii'
~
I
1.
r
~
o
%
C
z
m
C "
m '"
... 0
- "
t:) 1ft
Z '"
...
"II ...
o "
'" ..
~
... z
r
o
:!!
z
D
Ii)
'"
o
c
z
'"
I
I
I
W"TIII UNI
o
.
~
l=
..
~-
~.
~n
.~
~!:
..~
~~
ll=
!
~
.
.
~
~
~
-
.
"
~
.
~
)-
.
.
i'
a
.
~
.
..
.
n
.
~
sa
~ I
~-
.!: -.;;~.
~~. '1J.~.:i
~I c"~:
... n- I....
S! =a ..-::;:
:.. == ,.Ot
M. ...'
..~ 0 ":u
-i . l~'.
=~ 2 '.1.
~E -
~~'r-'r
...& .....
-c r I'''..
I ."; .
, ~,"'.
~...:.. .
lCt';'
....,
.':,' 1
.:.... .
It":':
.....
'tt.."
.
.
~
, c:.
; .~
,....'.........;. ~~
......... 10)"
. '. 210
. . 0"
c
.
"
. .
.
. ~.
t !!C:
.. :a:.
S ~&
:.e;;
_ 0_
0: ..
"..
.. .
.. ~
I .. rK
a .. M.
.. ~' ~.
>>0 . zc:
I ~ ;'l~,.~~!"f'I~:& t:J:
:I: DO............ n
=: i DO........ ~~
a -4 -.
. -~
.. . ..
; .. :s
iI: Z ....
.. 0 -:II
II n
_ 0
" ~
" "
n :
II 0
" "
::l ~
I: :i
.
I
I
..........
0...0
0,
"
r
~
m
ro
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
Ij:.
...
I
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
,.
.
I
I
I
.
.
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL TRENCH LOG
Pro/eel Name THOMAS
pro/eel Number 21395-01
Elevallonll 03+/ -
Equlpmenl CASE 580 SUPER L BACKHOE Trench No.
T-1
~ c
! i .2 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
- . .c - I~ 'i ,
- - Q. Ii ;:
. . ?;' ~. .
! ~ . 0.,. I
Cl 'i . . U.L. SHERUNG
.0
c ! . . Logged by 12/15/01
<; . ~ -.
.c ii = o . = Dale
a. E . '" W.L. SHERLI NG
.! . ~ j - - ~ Sampled by
~ . ~ j .
0>' Cl ..
0 0
_ MD - 5.8 SM SOIL/COLLUVIUM - Bro~n 10 YR 5/3 silty sand w/trace'of
or~ ~~ 106.; -
(83.~ ) clay, Soft, porous, s'l. damp upper 12" then dry. -
--:: EI K 117 .~ Grad. 'lower contact. I -
c~ 7.8
S04 (92.l ) l-
s- f-s
- I-
- ..' BEDROCK - ,Pauba Formation - Interbedded sequence of e.:
- SM/ ~ silty and' clayey sands with mi nor fi Fie grave 1 to 1;,". ~ ~
- SC Occ.intervals 1-6" thick of s1. silty to almost clean '-
med. - coarse gravelly sands. Dense to very dense, sl ,
10- damo. /' I i 4:
- -
,
- " T.D. 7.8 Feet '-
.., No Water / Mottling
- -
- -
15- -1!
- -
- -
- -
GRAPHIC LOG trend - scale: 1"c
- . Symbols
- Test
-
B" Bulk SImple
, , I , R - Ring Sample
, , , , SC - SMd Cone
I I IT r II I I I IT MD"
I- - Mulmum Dofillly
I- - G S - Grain Slz.
I- - SE - Sand Equl......t
I- - EI - expaMlon Index
(90)- R.latlva Compaction
'- -
'- -
'- - Ear h
'- -
I I I , . I , I I I I I : .echnics
"To 0'
- . Y-o--
~...-
- ~
~
- 11
-
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL TRENCH LOG
PrOject
. Project
Name THOMAS
N b 21395-01
um ar
Elevation 1096+ /-
E I t CASE 580 SUPER L BACKHOE Trench No.
qu pmen '
T-2
I
.
.
I
.
I
.
I
I
I
.
I
.
I
I
I
- .I
- i
. "" I j.., i GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
- - - g
.. - t t I
~ =.
! Q ;; u.,. : . W.L. SHERLING
0: ; . ~ Logged br
"" '0 ~ & -. Date 12/15/01
u .
- ... I :> ""
! E - SlIIIIpled by W.L. SHERLING
. t' 1- ~
~ . .II
... Q
0 0
- ! SOIL/COLLUVIUM - Pale brown 10 YR 6/3 to 6/4 silty fine
-
- 11.~ 4;7 SM med. sand w/trace of clay & minor fine gravel. Damp, -
sCJ 87. l soft porous. Grad. lower contact. -
~ 16., 6.2 -!i
- (90.~ ) BEDROCK - Pauba Formation - Brownish yellow 10 YR 6/6 to ,-
- SMSC 7/6 interbei:Jded s i lty andsl. silty sand w/mi nor fi ne " -
- \ gravel. OCc. intervals of clayey sand 8-12" thick. / f-
Dense to very dense, sl. damp.
- f-
10- ~
- LD, 7.2 Feet f-
- No Water / Mottling '-
-, -
I -
'~
15-: ~!
-+ -
.:. -
- -
GRAPHIC LOG trend- scale: 1",
- i- . Test Symbols
- -+
'- B - Bulk Sample
- - R - Ring Sample
I I I I 1 I I I SC - Sand Cone
I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I
- - MD- Maximum Density
- - GS - Grain Size
- - SE - Sand Equivalent
- - EI - Expanalon Index
(90)- Relative Compaction
-+ -
f- -
'- - Ear h
- -
I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ echnics
I I I I I I ,
- 4 w---=-;.-'
-
- !:--" \&
~
-
I
I
Project
. Project
GEOTECHNICAL TRENCH LOG
Name THOMAS
Number 21395-01
Elevation 1098+/-
Equipment CASE 580 SUPER L BACKHOE
Trench N T-3
o.
.
.
I
I
I
.
.
I
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
- j
- i GEOTECHNICAL
- . ~ I L, i DESCRIPTION
-
- ! 1 !# .
: 1: =.
:: .. : . I W.L. SHERLING
" ; .~ LoggacI br 12/15/01
- ~ .!l -. Date
~ 0 u .
- f - ~'
! J! "" S~ad by W.L. SHERLING
. ~ - - ~
~ . . J .:I
. ..
0
- SOIL/COLLUVIUM - Pale brown 10 YR 6/3 silty to sl. silty -
- sand with'minor fine gravel to 3/8". Trace of clay at -
- lower contact. Soft, porous, sl. damp to 12-15" then -
almost drv.
5- -!i
- BEDROCK - Pauba Formation - Light yellowish brown 10 YR ,...
- 6/4 - 6/6 interbedded sequence of silty and clayey fine- -
- medium sands with trace of gravel to 1;,". Occ. intervals -
- -i 1-6" thick sl silty med.-coarse sand \~/5% gravel. -
10- B Sl. damp, dense. -4(
U
- GS L -
- K
-
- T.D. 15.7 Feet f-
15- No Water / Mott1in9 1-1!
- f-
- I-
- I-
GRAPHIC LOG trend - scale: 1":
I-- . Test Symbols
l-
I-- e - Bulk Somplo
e- R - Ring Sample
, , I , , , , S C - Sond Con.
TTTT TTT I TTTI MD - Moxlmum Density
-
- - GS - Groin Size
I- - SE - Sand Equivalent
I- - EI - Expanllon Index
e90)- Relative Compaction
I- -
I- -
I- - Ear h
"- -
, , , , , , 0 I o , , , : ~echnics
,TT o I I I
y-/
~..-- \<\
~
~
-
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
.
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MAXIMUM DENSITY - OPTIMUM MOISTURE DETERMINATION
The maximum density was determined in accordance with ASTM
standard DI557-78. The result by full laboratory curve is
Sample Depth Maximum Optimum
Location (Feet) Soil Description Drv Densitv Moisture
T-l 0-3 (Soil Type A) Soil 127.8 11. 6
light brown silty sand
with 5% gravel
T-1 5-7 (Soil Type B) Pauba 126.5 11.9
silty sand with minor
gravel trace of clay
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION TESTING
U.B.C. METHOD 29-2
Sample Location
Oepth
Expansion Index Expansion Potential
T-l
0-3'
14 Very Low
SAND EOUIVALENT TESTING
Sample Location
Depth
Sand Equivalent
T-1
0-3'
28
2.\
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project:
Thomas
Job Number:
21359-01
Date:
Direct Shear Test Data
" Ea~chnll
~c.
12/18/01
.
5
..
./ V
./ V
~ /
....
- Best-Fit
Line
~
II..
d
U)
-
!II
Co
i:
.
.
!II
!II
CD
...
...
CI)
Cl
c
.;:
III
CD
.c
CI)
. Actual
Values
o
o
Normal Pressure-Kips/SQ. FT.
5
Excavation Number:
T-l
Depth: 0-3'
Saturated Test
</J =,;~8.00 Degrees
{ "
C = '...... 340 P,S,F,
Z-z..,
1
I ~ ;
>-
<(
I ...J
0
I
l/)l/)
l/)l/)
I q <(<(
...J...J
00
~ oq
I UJ:r
(jj i;:0
-<(
z ,
(/) ::><(
a:
I w
I-
W
0 ::i;
I a:: ..J
<l:
0 ..J
2 ::i;
<l: 0 I
I> l-
(/) a: UJO
zZ
W -<(
, (/) I- lI.l/)
I ::J W
I ::i; I" l
<l: i
(/) 0 ...J"':
I w ...in:
N W
- ..J
(/) U
I- UJ
W l/)O
I > a: a::z
w q <l: <(<( I-'
0- Ol/) 1<,
(/) 0 ~
. '
1 09
0 _lC'l
, .
H-
I I:
.c
..J
I UJ 0
>
<( z
a::
" <!)
I ;
0 :r
2 l-
I a.
-- UJ
0
0 g 2 0 ~ 2 0
0 I'- <t
I PER CENT FINER BY WEIGHT
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
I By: WLS Dale: Iz/ol EXHIBIT
TE"'E-CIIl.A NUMBER
LA CoL.I J-IA 1C.oAl> 2~
J.N. 'Z1'?95 -01/02
- ,- - " -
.
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
APPENDIX C
~~
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
These specifications present Earth Technics Inc., standard recommendations for grading
and earthwork.
No deviation from these specifications should be permitted unles!\ specifically superseded
in the geotechnical report'Dfthe projector by written communication signed by the
geotechnical consultant. 'Evaluations performed by the geotechnical consultant during the
course' of grading may result in subsequent recommendations which could supersede
these specifications or therecommendations of the geotechnical report.
1.0 General
1.1 The geotechnical consultant is the owner's or developer's representative on
the project. For the purpose of these specifications, observations by the
geotechnical consultant include observations by the soils engineer,
; geotechnical engineer, engineering geologist, and those performed by
. "persons employed by and responsible to the geotechnical consultant.
1.2 All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall
be conducted and directed by the contractor under the supervision of the
geotechnical consultant.
1.3 The contractor should be responsible for the safety of the project and
satisfactory completion of all grading. During grading, the contractor shall
remain accessible,
1.4 Prior to the commencement of grading, the geotechnical consultant shall be
employed for the purpose of providing field, laboratory, and office services
for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and
these specifications. It will be necessary that the geotechnical consultant
provide adequate testing and observations so that he may determine that the
work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the
contractor to assist the geotechnical consultant and keep him apprized of
work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his personnel
accordingly.
1.5 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, agency ordinances"these specifications, and the
2:S"""
.
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 2
approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant,
unsatisfactory conditions, such as questionable soil, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a
quality of work less than required in these specifications, the geotl:\chnical
consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that'
construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.
1.6 It,is the contractor's responsibility to provide access to the gt;otechnical
consultant for testing and/or grading observation purposes. This may
require the excavation of test pits and/or the relocation of grading
equipment.
1,7 A final report shall be issued by the geotechnical consultant attesting to the
contractor's conformance with these specifications.
2.0 SITE PREPARATION
2.1 All vegetation and deleterious material shall be disposed of off-site. This
removal shall be observed by the geotechnical consultant and concluded
prior to fill placement.
2.2 Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the geotechnical
consultant as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be
removed from the site or used in open areas as determined by the
geotechnical consultant. Any material incorporated as a part of a
compacted fill must be approved by the geotechnical consultant pril?r to fill
placement.
2,3 After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, tit shall be
scarified, disced, or bladed by the contractor until it is uniform and free
from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may prevent
uniform compaction.
2.(:.
.
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
3.0
.
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 3
The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture,
mixed lis required, and compacted as specified. If the scarified zone is
greater than twelve inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and placed
in lifts not to exceed six inches or less.
, "
Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to'receive fill shall be observed,
tested, and approved by the geotechnical consultant.
2.4 Any underground structures or cavities such as cesspools, cisterns, mining
shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines, or others are to be removed or.
treated in a manner prescribed by the geotechnical consultant.
2.5 In cut-fill transition lots and where cut lots are partially in soil, colluvium
or unweathered bedrock materials, in order to provide uniform bearing
conditions, the bedrock portion of the lot extending a minimum of 5 feet
outside of building lines shall be overexcavation a minimum of3 feet and
replaced with compacted fill. Greater oveiexcavation could be required as
determined by geotechnical consultant where deep fill of20+ feet
transitions to bedrock over a short distance. Typical details are given on
Figure D- L
COMPACTED FILLS
3.1 Material to be placed as fill shall be free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances, and shall be approved by the geotechnical
consultant. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics
shall be placed in areas designated by geotechnical consultant or shall be
mixed with other soils to serve as satisfactory fill material, as directed by
the geotechnical consultant.
,
21
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 4
3.2 Rock fragments less than twelve inches in diameter may be utilized in the
fill, provided:
1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets.
2. There is a minimum of75% overall of fine grained material to
surround the rocks.
3. The distribution of rocks is supervised by the geotechnical
consultant.
3.3 Rocks greater than twelve inches in diameter shall be taken off-site, or
placed in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical
consultant in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. (A typical
detail for Rock Disposal is given in Figure D-2.
3.4 Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered
unsuitable shall not be used in the compacted fill.
3.5 Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be
analyzed by the laboratory of the geotechnical consultant to determine their
physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is
encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of the is material shall
be conducted by the geotechnical consultant as soon as possible.
3.6 Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered,
processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness
to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and compacted
on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise approved by the geotechnical
consultant.
3.7 If the moisture content or relative compaction varies from that required by
the geotechnical consultant, the contractor shall rework the fill until it is
approved by the geotechnical consultant.
"i'
3.8 Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density in
compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling
governmental agency or ASTM 1557-70, whichever applies.
2e
.
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 5
If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling
govemmental agency because of a specific land use of expansive soil
condition, the area to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall
either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate reference made to
the area in the geotechnical report.
3.9' All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium alluvium,
or creep material, into sound bedrock or finn material where the slope
receivin'g fill exceeds a ratio of five horizontal to one vertical",in
accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant.
3.10 The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum width of 15 feet within
bedrock or'nrm materials, unless otherwise specified in the,geotechnical
report. ( See detail on Figure D-3. )
3.11 Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances
of the controlling governmental agency, or with the recommendations of the
geotechnical consultant. (Typical Canyon Subdrain details are given in
Figure D-4. )
3.12 The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of
90 percent out to the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and
stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either over building the slope
and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the
slope face with suitable equipment, or by any other procedure which
produces the required compaction approved by the geotechnical consultant.
3.13 All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by other methods
specified n the geotechnical report.
3.14 FiIl-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or
creep material into rock or finn materials, and the transition shall be
stripped of all soil prior to placing fill. (See detail on Figure D-3. )
2.~
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.0
.
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 6
4.0
CUT SLOPES
4.1 . The geotechnical consultant shall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals
not exceeding ten feet.
4.2 If any conditions not anticipated in the geotechnical report such as percl1~ .
water; seepage, lenticular or confined strata of potentially adverse nature, .
unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes encountered during
grading, these c6nditions shall be analyzed by the geotechnical consultimt,
and recommendations shall be made to mitigate these problems. (Typical
details for stabilization of a cut slope are given in Figures D-3a and D-5. )
i\
4.3 Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be
protected from slope wash by a non-erodible interceptor swale placed at the 'j
top of the slope.
4.4 Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be
excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of
controlling governmental agencies.
4.5 Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of
controlling governmental agencies, or with the recommendations of the .
geotechnical consultant.
TRENCH BACKFILLS
5.1 Trench excavations for utility piiJes shall be backfilled under the
supervision of the geotechnical consultant.
5.2 After the utility pipe has been laid, the space under and around the pipe
shall be backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at
least one foot over the top of the pipe. The sand backfill shall be uniformly
jetted into place before the controlled backfill is placed over the sand.
5.3 The on-site materials, or other soils approved by the geotechnical
consultant shall be watered and mixed as necessary prior to placement in
lifts over the sand backfill.
30
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 7
5.4 'The controlled backfill shall be compacted to at least90 percent of the
maximum laboratory density as detennined by the ASTI D1557-70 or the
controlling governmental agencies.
5.5' Field density tests and inspection of the backfill procedures shall be made
by the geotechnical consultant during backfilling to see that proper moisture
content arid unifonn compaction is being maintained., The contractor shall
provide test holes and exploratory pits as required by the geotechnical
consultant to enable sampling and testing.
6.0 GRADING CONTROL
6,1 Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the geotechnical
consultant during the progress of grading.
6.2 Ih general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding two feet
of fill height or every 500 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria wilI vary
depending on soil conditions and the size of the job. In any everit, an
adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verifY that the
required compaction is being achieved.
6.3 Density tests should also be made on the surface material to receive fill as
required by the geotechnical consultant.
6.4 All c1eanout, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains,
and rock disposals should be inspected and approved by the geotechnical
consultant prior to placing any fill. It shall be the contractor's
responsibility to notifY the geotechnical consultant when such areas are
ready for inspection,
,
2:1\
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PAGE 8
7.0
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the
contractor during grading and prior to the completion and construction of
p,ermanent drainage controls.
7.2 Upon completion of grading and termination of inspections by the
geotechnical consultant, no further filling or excavation, including that
. necessary for footings, foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or
other features shall be preformed without the approval of the geotechnical
consultant.
7.3 Care shaIl be taken by the contractor during final grading to preserve any
berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of permarient
nature on or adjacent to the property,
r:'
2:.2..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TRANSITION LOT DETAILS
CUT-FILL LOT
NATURAL GROUND
\ '
----
--
-- --
----
---
--
__ .-- -- :.......- __ 5' L
__ __ -- ___ ___ MIN. I ~
--\: --- .
:COMPACTED ::'FILi.:-:-:::-==-~-:::':"--OC~~--~~----':--I:------------::: 30" MIN.
_________________..."i ---.>:-: .", lI\ .. .<>". -.--
____________--c:..---.--\'t.'r.:--..--'" . \ l'
--:~~~Wif:.t~~~:~: OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
,---""'-\.--07IOC-y-::..-.- n". ^
---.. ,'oj .------
--=-.,,'C.\~_-...:::..:-:::-_-.:.:.:-
---
. II \
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR ,1
,--- MATERIAL APPROVED BY - -~
1 THE GEOTECHNICAL Co.NSULTANT
CUT LOT
- .._.
NATURAL GROUND
~--
- ----
--
--
- --
--
----
-
-
--
_ -::::::. REMOVE
_ __ - \?NSUITABLE ~ _ -
_:.- - MATERIAL _
::::==_=~~-=-:::~-=--=.:------_-_-----.:-::;.. ~-------':----T-':-":-=----':': -=------.:----
., _ __ _' __ _ ",y, V\ /^
'-COMPACTED :::------.=-::::::-- \
__-=':~~;.:~-=I OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
---
---
---
---
---
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR f
,--- MATERIAL APPROVED BY -
t THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
NOTE:
?eeper o".erexcavation and recomooclion sholl be p~rformed.,
, If de!ermmed -0 be necesscry by the geotec"nicCI consultant.
~
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
.
BENCHING DETAILS
FILL SLOPE
V'
_-=-====~c-i~p ;'c-rio -~==: ~=-.
_ :_-_-_-_-:_-:...: FILL ::-.:---------~
~==~:~=~~t~~==~~:~
_-__ _=_ :_____-_-_- -=-_-;~ ____---- - --::1'
_____________-----...c'~ ,"",^,
i PROJECTED PLANE ---::--------:;~-----~--
I to I moxl'mum from toe :_-:::----:;.:-Z"'--:::....[~ =-='\"'."
_______~-__--~_ N~
of slope to approved ground _-~-:-:-7=:?--';::7:: . '
, _-:::.7~-----:;-=-f t "'>;~ REMOVE
:;...?:::::_--::-::"11; } UNSUITABl..!::
, , ----::-'?------..=:::7~~-;;. ~~ ,MATERIAL
" _ _ -- - 4' MIN. "-
". -:r----:;.:=-------: BE"CH BENCH
./-__,-------- I'" .
I'" l - _.._--------- HEIGHT
-L- _-:::-::::-2%MIN::::-::::-:':- (typical) VARIES
------::-----
T ,^.... '^'V
2' MIN. I 15' MIN. I
KEY \*"LOWEST BENCH --,
DePTH' (KEY)
NATURAL
GROUND \
_-: COMP ACTED ::--=-=-:;::::-
: :::-~ Fl LL :-_-.7::...-:_-
----------------..-...:::::---.:_-2'" '"
-------------~~
_-=~====~==LC-------:;...-~---]
____~_____:..?'i ."''<;;:/1'"
----------.....--; I
_--=-::--::::--------~~---3: ...
REMOVE, NATuRAL ~~-=-:.:-=-~~
UNSUlIABLE GROUND ~-_-_-_-:_-------1->. I
MATERIAL __ ~ -- ::-:=:::-~=9 '/0."'1' L 4' MI~
"" __ -- ---.;::...--.c-_-:_--J \' BErK.. I
--\ __ -- ~2%M1N.~-': (t,;,piCQ[~
--
_ - \ --. ,~.........., r-.'
__ -'(f'..'
..--~___..- ~15' MIN.-J
___ ___ --- I LOW"ST BENCH \
F1LL OVER' CUT stOPE
\
BENCH
HEIGHT
V;.?IES
--
CUT
FACE
To be constructed prior
10 fill placement
---
--
No"""
NOTES:
LOWEST BENCH: Oeplhond width subject to field change
, based c.' consultant's inspec lion.
S~'!ODRA1:JAGE:, e",;, ce,:':":; m:::y be required at the
"::.........._t'r'ln nr th.... ,.,~otecnnicnl (""'nn::;uttont. ~
I
I
FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR EXPANSIVE SOILS
(ONE AND TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS)
I
EXPANSION INDEX
0-20
VERY lOW EXPANSION
EXPANSION INDEX
21 -: 60
lOW EXPANSION
EXPANSION INDEX
51 - gO
MEDIUM .EXPANSION
EXPANSION INDEX
81 - 130
HIQH EXPANSION
I
''',TOftY fOOTlNOa
ALL fOOTINOI 12 IMeNU
OUP. fOOTtHOI
CONTlNUOUI. NO U[U
IU:OUUU:O fOft UPANSION
,often.
ALL rOOTlNOI 12 INCHEI
ou,.rOOltHOI
COHTIMU'OOll. 1-1'10." IAft
TO' AND lOTTO".
EXTER'Oft !'OOTlNOI 11
IHCHEI OU:'. INfEftlOft
"OOTINOI 1% IHCHE. DEEr.
t-NO. .. IAft TO" AND
IOTTOW.
[XTfIUO" I'OOltHOI U INCHE.
. ou". "'U"IO" fOOTINOS .12
IMeNU DEEI'. 1-NO. , IAft lO"
AND 10TTOW.
I
I-ITO,"'" fOOTINGS
ALL rOOllNOS 11 IMeNU
DEE". I'OOTIHOI
CONTINUOUS. NO ITUl
,,[OOII'1EO I'D" [X'''N$lO"
,OfllCU.
All fOOTlNOI 11 tt4CHU
ou... 'DO lIMOS
CONTINUOUS. 1-NO." .""
Tor AMD aOTTOw.
ALL ..OOTINO' 11 INCHES
DfEr. ,-OOTlHoa
CONTINUOUI. 1-NO. 4 'AR
.TO,. AND .OTTO....
EXTUUOR FOOTlNaS u INCHEa
DU". IMURIO" FOOTINOS 11
INCHEa DEEr. 1-NO. . aAR Tor
AND aOTTOw.
I
~A'R";OE DOOR ORAOE
'EA'"
feOT"(;~O.
12 INCHtI O[Er. 1-1010. . IAft
Tor AND .OTTO....
n INCHEI DEEr. 1-"0.. aAft
TO" AND aOTTOW.
24 .'(eNE' DEEP. I-HO. . IAI\
TOP -AND 10TTOW.
I
lIVtHQ AMA 'LOOR aLAas 1111 INCHES THICK. feD IoI[SH '112 IMCWEI THtCK. I 112 IHCHEI THICK. . INCHEa THICK. I X I-I"
ftEOUIREO FOf! ExrANSION I x 1-'0/10 WIRE ...[IH At I X 1-10/10 WIRE ...EIH AT WIII;E UESH AT "'IO-HEIONT.
FORCES. NO aAIE REOVIIfED. WID-NOQHT.2 INCHU ..1l0-HEIQHT. '" r.(CHES NO. S DOWELL' "II;Ow_ fOOTINO
. ...IL VlSOVEEN 1ol01STUI\~ OIlAYU 0fI IAHO aAIl. . ORAVEl.. Oil; I"NO lASE. I TO SlAI AT II tHCHES ON
aAIUUEIl rLUS 1 IHCN lAND. WIl VIIOUHN ...OIITUJIIE "'Il VlSOUEEN MOISTURE CfNTEIl. .. IftCHES QIlAYEl OR
IA""IE" 'PlUS 1 IHCH 8AND. I""U'IIER PLUS 1 IHCH lAND. lAND IAIE. . Wll VISOU(EN
WOISTURE 8A'IIUE" rlUS 1
INCH IAHO.
GARAGE flOOR SLAIS 1112 INCHU THICK. NO WUH S 112 INCHES THICK. , 112 INCHES THICK. .. INCHES THICK. I X 1-"1
REOUlRED FOR EXPANSION I X 1-10/10 WIRE WE IN OR I X '-10110 WIRE \oCESN OR WIRE WESN OR OUARtE"
FORCES. NO lASE "EO""R[D. OUAIHER IIl"'S. ISOLATE OUARTER l!Il~,'S. ISOLATE alAB'. ISOLATE FRON StEw
HO "'OI,TURE IARRIER F"OIol STEW WALL FOOTIHOI. FROW STEU WALL FOOTIHOS. WAlL FOOTIHOS.ol INCHES
REOUIREO. 2 IHCHES PlOCK. GRAVEL OR .. IHCHES ROCK. ORAVEl OR ROCK. OFlAVEl Of! SAND lIASE.
SAND lIASE. NO MOISTURE SAND BASE. HO 1ol0lSTURE NO wOISTURE aARRIEI\
'AAAIEI\ REOU1RED. BARRIER REOUIRED. REOl,/lREO.
"'U-30.~kll-lO OF LIVINO I-IOT REOUlRED. UOISTEN SOU; TO 12 II-lCHES DEPTH 1I0AK TO II! "CHES OErTH 10AK TO 2. INCHES DEPTH TO
A"EA AND OARAOE SlA' rRIOR TO rOURING TO ." AllOVE orTlIolUu TO II~ AIIOVE OPTlIolUIol 111. AlIOVE OPTIIotIJlolIolOISTURE
aOll' CONCRETE. 1ol01STURE COl-lTE.NT. 1ot01:"URE CONTENT. CONTENT.
I
I
I
I
NOTE I: ,) All OEPTH3 ARE RELATlVE'TO SlAlI SUBGRADE.
2) SPECIAL OESION IS REOUIRED FOR VERT HIGNLY ElPANSIVE SOlll.
I
FOUNDATION AND SLAB DETAIL
I
(NOT TO SCALE)
I
OOWEl
:H'" SUlIGRAOE\ Wl:l.t "';:$"-,
(WH<" ",OU,""'\. \ "^", \ I
G~' ..,...... .~---'_...:...~\'.--;/
.... ~ ~....:;.,:,-:::;'.;;:).n.,.,.!......
. .,
~ g.
II ;::,::~::,
/_ rQR..VElOI\
s....o . ~Sl (...~,.. ", o::.u."-I 01
/
I
'~.':D-u'".. n:"':;.
....".<... ~ v'r1.,'.""'(\-:
';,:
.
',.'
I
I
I
FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
JOB NO.:
'DATE:
FIGURE NO.:
I
EARTH TECHNICS
35'
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX D
~
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY
---
Ct,,& 0( ~ Q. \l~S
;) I;" 0( . 0.4.4 (,
\tlV1 f/ ~ 0.S32
S.F. = H elf B) cos20( tan ~ + C
Ifs H Sin eX cos 0<.
zone of
satura'tion
fS>
M (t~ ,0) (ceol )(os?~) +--34 Q
H (\?O,<I-)(O.Mb)(o.\l~S)
= ZblL'
H ( 28. O)f! ) -t 34<>
ll( ""'-.o'?)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J:::s-,,-
H = Depth of saturation zone
~B = Bouyant weight of soil. = 68.D
6's = Total wet weight of soil = \?D.4
~ = Angle of internal friction = t8
C = Cohesion = ?4o
S.F. =
=
H' S.F.
Z- ? .~'Z.
-
4 1.1'J
Project No.:
Calc. by:
Chk. by:
Date:
.
'.213~S- 01
wU
W~
12-}19/0 \
~1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX E
~
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PUBLISHED REFERENCES
Blake, T.F., 1998, Computer Services Software, A Computer Program
for the Probabilistic Evaluation Horizontal Acceleration from
California Faults, FRISKSP, July 1998
Blake, T.F., 1998, Comnputer Services Software, A Computer
Program to Determine Historical Seismicity from Digitized
California Faults, EQSEARCH, July 1995
Bolt, B.A., 1973, Ouration of Strong Ground Motion: Proc. Fifth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 2927
Coduto, D.P., 1987, Oown to Earth Soils Engineering, Vol. 1,
Engineering Properties of Soils, Calif. Poly. University, Pomona,
193 pages.
Clark, M.W., Harms, K., et al., 1984, Preliminary Slip-Rate and
Map of Late-Quaternary Faults of California, U.S.G.S. Open-File
Report 84-106, 12 p.
DWR, 1971 Water Wells and Springs in the Western Part of the
Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Riverside and San Diego
Counties, California", Bull. No. 91-20, 377
Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California,
C.D.M.G. Special Report No. 42, 25p
Hays, W.W., 1980, Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground
Motions, U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1114, 77p
Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the
Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California,
C.D.M.G. Spec. Report 131, 12 pages
Peterson,M.P., Bryant, W. A., Cramer, C.H., Reichle, M.S., 1996,
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of
california, C.D.M.G. Open-File Rept. 96-08
Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motion and Soil
Liquefaction During Earthquakes, E.E.R.I. Nomograph, 134p,
Berkley Press
Slemmons, D.B., 1977, State-of-the-Art for Assessing Earthquake
Hazards in the united States, Army Corps of Engineers, Misc.
Papers, S-73-1, Repoort 6, Fault and Earthquake Magnitude, 240p
Weber, F.H. Jr., 1977, Seismic Hazards Related to Geologic
Factors, Elsinore an d Chino Fault Zones, Northwestern Riverside
County, California, cDMG Open-File Report 77-5 LA, 96 pages
~