HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3883 Lot 324 Prelim Geotechnical Investigation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.'.
-
Ear
PREUMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Single - Lot, Residential Development
Lot 324, Tract ~WC Calle VIsIa " VIa Norte
A.P.N.919-210-003 -
Temecula, California
April 3, 21101
PROJECT NO. 21152-01
PREPARED FOR:
Mr. " Mrs. Gregory Bringhurst
29486 Via Puesta Del Sol
Temecula, California 92591
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
-
April 3, 2001
Project No. 21152-01
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 geologic
and engineering constraints that might exist considering this
development.
The 20-Scale Grading Plan prepared by Elliott Uhrich Engineering,
Temecula, dated March 15, 1999, 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
0 2000
I .
SCALE
I
I
I
I
INDEX MAP
N
4000
INDEX MAP
feet OF
LOT 324. TRACT 3835
CALLE FIESTA, MEADOINIEH ESTATES
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
-2-
U.S.G.S.
BACHELOR t1TN.
(PR 1973)
71;, MIN. QUAD.
1953
SOURCE:
"'"
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
21152-01
Page 3
2.0 SITE LOCATION/CONDITIONS
The roughly trapizoidal-shaped 0.45+/- acre property is located
at the southwest corner of Calle Vista and Via Norte, improved
paved roads in the City of Temecula. Calle vista bounds the the
property to the south with vacant land in all remaining
directions. The Index Map (Page 2) presents the topographic and
geographic relationships of the property to surrounding areas.
Topographically, the site is extremely variable from the nearly
flat area adjacent to Calle vista to over 15 degrees to the west-
central portions of the lot where the house and garage are
planned.
Heavy grassess and annual weeds cover most of the property.
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
According to the referenced 30-scale Grading Plans, a large pad
and short driveway access will be constructed on the east side of
the lot adjacent to Calle vista utilizing cut and fill grading.
Maximum cuts and fills are 8 and 23 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 east to fill on the
west.
An access driveway to provide vehicular access to the backyard
area on the west side of the lot will also be constructed. cut
and fill grading will be utilized to construct this access
driveway with maximum cuts and fills of 3 and 8 feet respectfully
and finished inclinations of 2:1 or flatter.
The proposed 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.
2. Subsurface exploration of the site utilizing 3 exploratory
backhoe trenches to depths as great as 15.4 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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...
21152-01
Page 4
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 oeterminations
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 01557-78 (five
layer method).
5.2 In-situ Moisture and Densitv
These tests consisted of performing Sand Cone Oensity tests (ASTM
D1556-64) 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.
5.4 Sand Eauivalent Testina
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.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...
21152-01
Page 5
5.5 Expansion Testina
The expansion index of the soils are determined by the U.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 2-7 feet. The colluvium to the west in
the gentle swale area was the deepest colluvium at 7.5 feet in
the area of the proposed fill. In-place densities for the
colluvium were low to very low with densities of 104.3 pcf (79.5%
relative compaction) to 107.5 pcf (81.6% relative compaction) and
moistures of 8-10 percent at 3-5.5 feet below the existing ground
surface.
The underlying Pauba Formation bedrock was dense to very dense
with in-place densities of 123.6 pcf (96.2% relative compaction).
7.0 GROUND WATER
No ground water seepage was encountered on the site to a depth of
15.4 feet. Historic high ground water is expected to be 75-80
feet at the lowest elevations of the lot based on historic ground
water in nearby wells (DWR, 1978).
No evidence of seepage was seen in the natural slope faces
surrounding the property.
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21152-01
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. No streams cross the
property. The gentle swale on the norhern 1/3 of the site showed
no evidence of running water.
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 Via Norte.
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 Wi1domar Fault of the
Elsinore Fault Zone which is located approximately 5.1 miles to
the southwest. The casa Lama 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
-
21152-01
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 mm/year for the Elsinore
Fault suggested by Peterson, et al (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).
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21152-01
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
7.0 feet, and the historic depth to ground water over 70 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 sites. The
potential for seismically-triggered landslides is discussed in
detail under the slope stability section.
15.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
15.1 Foundation Desian
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 1800 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 1-inch 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 55 feet horizontally. If
thicker fills are proposed, settlement could be greater and
should be evaluated prior to placement.
15.3 Concrete Sla~s-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
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21152-01
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 - Sol~le Sulfate
Expansion testing of near-surface silty sand soils (T-2 ; 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 57 ppm allowing normal Type II
concrete with 2500 psi strength.
15.5 Earthwork Shrinkaae and S~sidence
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 Retainina Wall Desian
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.
0..
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21152-01
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 sta~i1itv
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 Stabilitv
The proposed grading indicates the maximum slope height is 23
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 60 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 Filll
Friction Angle
(Deareel
Cohesion
Th/f~
Anticipated On-Site Fill
24.5
610
We have utilized values of 24.5 degrees and 610 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.
~
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21152-01
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 Clearina and Gr~bina
Any heavy brush and grasses or rema1n1ng 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 Bui1dina Pad Areas
The proposed grading will encounter colluvium that should be
removed to a minimum of 3 feet to a maximum of 7 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 (85 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 3.0-7.0 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.
~
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21152-01
Page 12
16.5 Pre-Jo~ 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 Testina and Insoection
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 Develooment Imoact
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 m1n1mum, 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.
\"b-
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21152-01
Page 13
Respectfully
Larry J. Fast,
Registration Exp
WLS/LJF:ss
Distribution: (3) Addressee
...
services
\
\
I
I
.' i
,
-t
I
I
I
~_.-
c
-0 en
en ><
;0 -0
n r
o 0
r ;0
:Jo> :Jo>
-I -I
~ 0
o ;0
:G: -<
-I -I
en ;0
V> m
-I :z
n
:c
'Pz~'
B
'-' ..~~
'I' .,<:>-
',' ~
;.,.~
:'..,<o.~..
>
.<;
<:
t
t
o
}l
.,./
fD
_ ie.. _ _"r:i~ _
.,~iH~!;~~;i1~;fs'::~~;~ '"e~tr;. ..'U;<!ijl :;J~[l~
..,,,,..,.. .1J 0... '0..... . ,'O.,!,~ ~,.' ~J.l. ..I.
'~.'.,'-.'.l" ""p . . r'~'-"i'K (...; ...-
J.~g:l~:~]i~~f;/ "~~i;~::!j~~)}::,fs:::N,---[:I:~.:H~;i:ll :}ifl':,:><~-;
",j'l~".~, "i..'''.~.,r.''''- :", .s.:~ta ,ll, lj,. ':f=
~;;~'f,g~::;; :}~,::a:~,:-<::~:\:UX~..,(;l fJ:~:t!!;i,' -~~ :.to -""":', ,g
~,' ... ... ',,',9;- ..,,,,,,,!,; '-, '." _,:o,..",'"jl".;"'..." ,_, .. <._ .., _'_. .. ", ,~
','~'.' ",.--,.,., -. ........~!/ " .,.,,,",..,.,,,.... "'~I"-"" _:; , ...'Oel. , -0'
\.;.,,! ,f;;:tl' ,...,::"'~:/;"'.i:.'O,::::it,=-;:;1:1,<i ":'~;.;,-.-';-,'- a
~l~~~:'i~S~lr il~lil~!:~~I~l~I!~:~~'i:I~ ~.;{f~~'/;J:.
:":'i;'~~''!'' r,t'fi;"'iJ';':"'~'f'W"':i"IJ; '.:~1-" '.
:~1tlf;f~~~:~: f;;g~~:.~~i~~~~~~;t,:.i~~1-~ if :;{,i~t;,-,:.:< i
"..".,.-.'.".!i..."..."'''''''\'',...''::....~iE..".I, ,.1 . ,.."a;. '. . '.'
:'t::Ifi'il\"'i" :,i.';.c~::'<~-';':":."l'!'''' !O':"':'~' ,;::' ...i" ::~. "1-
""'o'i!it ;'l!:s,'!'>ii"''''~'t;''itll ." ""~'~ t
~f!~iiij "!~if'~r~~m~!~~t!;H~.~;\{~iJ~3;~;~~~m;!....S~ ~~tl:?l
''''H'''t '''''''~'~'~.'~'''';1,,,,;I';1'''''f~',J;,,,,.\ "C"i,ll':' .J,. ".,. ~.. ,J". ,{~
;zir,~~t~;~i :9~~~::;~~~q}1~t~~t~d~~;f;~~i~,!~i;~~~~1~-;:r;'~!':.,~i:{;~i~::l))"::,:':' '~~::~:~,~:- -.',: / E
C' B."""" '''1''B'~''',r";"'''",, -,[''''~f'lEN' ,~,,,"f":' .,~g,~ "'''h'''''l' ". "If .:
i1i!;i~~~ ~1ifi;.t)~VN";~~tl7.f"\.f~i'i!.'i""" ;',d'"".'; ;,;. '~~':S:.{J
.~ Ill' .,.g.., -' ".. -,>\", i. ,,~'l,a-'" a_ ..
~'. t'!l. 9: ' .': '. )1...';"10' -- ..
N
m
X
"C
!i::
z
:l>
-l
o
Z
-0 ...j
, J
:\~
".
-
"
.
o
..... -0
o ;0
o ~
"" -
;);
en '"
>< -<
-0 .
:Jo> r
:z m
V> :Jo>
~ n
o :c
:z
r
r ~
~ :z
:z en
m V>
V>
-
~
n
II
U
.
(J)
-<
(J)
-l
m
is:
c
m
(J)
i5
z
.~
:?:wc:,,):::>.l:::>
o I -I !"Tl -::;;r I
I'll--l rrl'v CO
""':1 or --I, ["Tl
001--11--10
""':1--1NOn;o
-l 1--1 "T1:J;:> 0
1--1 ;-~: Z --I 0
(':). 1--1 ~j) ::t::> 1--1 3:
::z CJ 0:; 0
n1, U1Z ::I:
o me> <=)
-"'n:D;:::o;:::oc:
:r: n -0):::> U"l
~:t:>::C-;--1rn
CO "3:- -m
lI"lCDZQ ;:::0
QP1GJ:":::Om
:A:l7J I1D
-0 n:J;:. c:
--l I;',J OJ I--l
1--1 ):;> r'le> ;::0
o ::~)::> fT1
:Z' ()J V'l U"l
. rl1 .0
(.i ;.0 c: f'"
-< U1 )::>N
(,;> ;0 0
--I 1--1 r:'l 0
~ (I) r
-.... .." ,oJ
_.. 1'..) r'l P
C: u, rrl r
::',~ ('l~ -I r
L:J 0
roo 1 r 1-1 Z
':('( 1--1 l/'l
.- -'7 (/)
(J rr; l.O m
.;':u :t=> O'l-o
~-t ;:0 0--1
< 1-1
m J1 U"l n
~:: m ..a
;:r;:. m C-I
-< -I )::>):::>
;0 :z
o en 7<
-n
-
I\"'Z
t .
~-
~
.
!
d.
rn
(1
:2,
Ci
L.
i)'
'..!
~
(!
-
------,
"l~f~'. ':-.. ."~ ~.'
. ",'-' '-,.;,;
. r'<_:;~ ~~::_
,'.' -"':
\1(: .
.
N:
.~~.
":".j)
'.}1';'
: t-r:.
,
c.5:
,~.. ".
'-I_
t.,
il\
hi
\\.
':'\
\)
F
l....-;
0'
l".:":
->"..,
.
.
"
~
,
..
~-=-
~I:i:',~, ;,;. " :,;
.. _ .~', .~, ~.;:~ n
",.,...-: ,-.,""
iJ'"",.,,",...;,.,
~ :;iliil"'1S;f~
I
\
:LD"
--'
1952
M G.I
a':~--
~:
~ I,
l ".1 t I
l->:/ I /
o "/. ! "".y \
~:-"""r:::: . . "~,o<'-9 ~~c.
~ ". \ ~
'( ../ '\~\ ....
......l..... "
"~~ "-
"-.>-
........ ~u", .
....~)- ....BARSTOW '-
. ~I S A~~\.N
"f\'" '" (/00\"" ~\"\ ON
\""'", "'->-. A "'+..~ \
~("'''' 000 ~"'~'" "'''',''' : ~
"".0-9' 1"" 1';"", :'.~
....:'" . o~',,\ '~
'i ~~"'~~
'. T ". ~ ~: \ \~'( "'\ .
i-~ ~& "9'~. \ "':.-,0. ~'"
. <.>- '<'~" ~.
" 1~~'NGa'\~ 1992
~'99l2 " '^?3
1907 "
V' ~CH U M"
"9' SN ~~
" '1- SAN 4""'0 "1;.I~\..\..t'
BERNARnINq. '. ".?~4 INTO '"":.\,1::1 "-\
v.';~- '1/ ........ s f. __ ~'V'f....~
----.._ ..../-......... C'/". - -MISS' y.Q---.
"'I. "r): 10",
RIVERSIDE 0 (''9(:
"'+
"
I
A
~
N
._---...
I
---
-I
I
~
..,
I
O~"O~t~...:~~:,:,s f. ''!l ,
--------~ " \
,
I
I
?'>>"
,~
,0
CO
1947
~M6.2
~,6.tll~ Ft>-u....1
I
\
~..~L}..
B
.;'(
'.~...
".'0
I
I
I
.T FAULT
~.
I
..-....
I
I
A(-O"
.,..
o.
'.
~~"
'<;;.
'.
I
1933
Mli3
..... ~~~~{;na
........ WSIOl'ld
. .
'.'
I
'.
'"
".
I
..
'"
I
MILES
'k-..o 10 ~
G
I
"f!:" ft~~l~Ull'
...." 1941 'Ii'....
"fk--<1' M5.9-6.0< Hlsn~.RIC M6.0+ EPICE
. I.. .~
. '..
TERS 18 0-1998 1656
I
1?
to
AEG
1973)
I
w.o. NO:
'Z1I52-o I
OATE:
A/O\
FIGURl:iLATE 2
-
1
GEOTECHNICAL
'I Project Name BRINGHURST
I Project Numbar 21152-01
'I
J
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TRENCH
LOG
Elevation 1253 +/-
Equipment CASE 580 SUPER L BACKHOE
Trench No. T -1
~ c
i i .2 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
. .t:. i ~.
0. ~ i .!!~
;; - ;:- li
. = ui
~ . . <J# I
Q Oi . ,
... . <J D. RIDLON
" ! . , Logged by 3-31-01
.t:. (; . . ~ - .. Date
Q. Q <J , =
Q. ;; ::> D. RIDLON
! . E ... ~ ~~ li Sampled by
a. . 0
~ co ..
-
0 0
- S~l SOIL/COLLUVIUM - DARK YELLOHISH BROWN 10 YR 4/4 - 3/4 -
- SANDY SILT W/MINOR FINE GRAVEL TO ~". SOFT, POROUS SL. -
- DAMP. ROOTLETS TO 3' DEEP. -
- -
5- ~
- I BEDROCK-PAUBA Fm - YELLOWISH BROWN 10 YR 5/4 - 5/6 \ '-.
- INTERBEDDED SANDY SILT AND SILTY SAND. OCC. CLEAN SAND -
- B SM/SC LENSES L~/FlNE GRAVEL TO J,,". DENSE TO VERY DENSE. SL. -
- GS U DAMP. OCC. SL. CEMENTED IN 10% OF CLAYEY COARSE SAND IN - I
10- L 8-12 FOOT INTERVAL. -1)1
- K EASY-MOD. EXCAVATION
- 1
f-I
- 1-,
- I
f-'
15- T.D. 15 i 145
- NO WATER/MuTTLING f-
- f-
- f-
GRAPHIC LOG t rencl- scale: 1-,
. Test Symbols
-
B - Bulk SImp II
- R - Ring Sompll
I I I 1 1 I 1 SC - SInd Cone
I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I M D - Moxlmum Denllty
- -
- - GS - Groin SI..
- - S E - SInd Equlvllent
- - E I - Explnllon Indl'
(90) - Rollllvl Compaction
- -
- -
- - Ear h
- -
I I I I I I I I I I I I , ~ ~echnics
I . , . ,
- - y-,..-
- - ~--
- - !:--' ,-5
~
- -
.
I
GEOTECHNICAL
BRINGHURST
21152-01
TRENCH
LOG
I Project Name
Project Number
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Elevation 1250 +/-
Trench No. T-2
Equipment CASE 530 SUPER L. BACKHOE
- c
i j .2 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
. .c ~ i :!
.. - a. ?: & .!!- ~
. 0 = en
~ 0 0 .. 0.,. . , j
... .0 D. RIDLON
c 0 . , Logged by 3-31-01
.c (; . 0 S - . Date
ii 0 o , .c
a: E i _3 ~ D. RIDLON
~ 0 . >- ~ : . Sampled by
a. co a '"
,?:-
0 i 0
- r~D SOIL/COLLUVIUM - DARK YELLOWISH BROWN 10 YR 3/4 SANDY -
- GS B SILT AND SILTY SAND. INTERVAL 2-4' CLAYEY SAND OLDER =1
- os U SM DENSE PALEOSOL. SOFTER 4-7'. POROUS, SOFT TO ENTIRE
EI L DEPTH. DAMP TO SL. DAMP. SHARP LOHER CONTACT.
- S04 K -I
107. 10.9
~~ (81. ) ~I
- I BEDROCK - Pauba Fm - LIGHT YELLOHISH BROWN 10 YR 6/4 \ -i
. INTERBEDDED SEQUENCE OF SANDY SILT AND SILTY SAND H/
- -;
- MD B M/SC MINOR FINE GRAVEL. DENSE TO BERY DENSE, DAMP. INTERVALS -
10- U OF 2-5" THICK CEf1ENTED V. DENSE CLAYEY SAND. / 4:
- L T.D. 9.5 f-
- K NO WATER / MOTTLING f-
- f-,
- f-
15- f'/s
- f-
- f-
- f-
GRAPHIC LOG trend - scale: 1"c
- i- . Test Symbols
- l-
i- B - Ikllk Simp II
- I- R - Ring Samplo
, , , , 1 , , , SC - Sand Cone
I I I I I I I I I I I I MD - Maximum Donally
- -
- - GS - Gral. Sin
- - S E - Sand Equivalent
- - E I - Exponalon Indo.
(90) - Ralatlve Compaction
f- -
I- -
I- - Ear h
I- -
, , I , , r I I I I I I : .echnics
I I I 1 . , .,
- . ----;..--
- I- ~--
I- ~
~ \(P
I-
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL TRENCH LOG
ProJect Name BRINGHURST
ProJect Numbar 21152-01
Elevation 1259 + /- T -3
Trench No.
CASE 5S0 SUPER L BACKHOE
Equipment
i
~ c 1
i i .2 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
. .J:: ~ & I_ ~ !
'. .. Q. ?' = vi ~
~ . . u# . , j i
t- o .. . u Logged by -ll. R WI ON 1
c . . , 3-31-01 i
~, '" . . ~ - . Date
0 ii 0 u , .J::
1i. .. _3 I' RIDLON I
E ~ Sampled by u. ,
I ~ . . .. ~ : . I
a. c '"
~ '"
0
0 ,
- SOIL/COLLUVIUM - BROWN 10 YR 5/3 SILTY SAND H/MINOR -,
- 104. 8.2 FINE GRAVEL. SOFT, POROUS. SLo DAMP. ROOTLETS, SHARP -,
LOWER CONTACT TEXTURE & COLOR. I
X,2 (79. t ) t-j
':.Q
- BEDROCK - Pauba Fm - VERY PALE BROvlN 10 YR 7/4 to 6/4 ~I
;:~ 23. t 9.1 INTERBEDDED SILTY SAND AND SANDY SILT W/MINOR FINE GRAVEL
(96.2 ) OEilSE TO VERY DENSE. SL. DAMP TO DAMP. INTERVALS OF -
\ HARD CLAYEY SAND 6-12" THICK. FLAT BEDDING. I
- r-I
-I
- T. D. 7.0
10- f-tJ
NO WATER/MOTTLING/CAVING
-
- -
- -
- -
15- -15
- -
- -
- -
GRAPHIC LOG trend - scale: 1",
. t- . Test Symbols
- t-
t- S - Bulk Simp I.
r R - Ring Sampl.
.1 ...L _1 I I I , , . SC - Sand Cone
I I I I 1 , I 1 I I I I MD - Moxlmum OInllly
-
- - G S - Grlln Slz.
I- - SE - Sind Equlvllenl
- EI - Expanllon Index
t-
(90)- RIIIlIvI Compacllon
- -
- -
- - Ear h
- - : ~echnics
I I I I I I , I _1 I I I
. , 1 , . , ,
- ~,;:;--
-
- y--
~ \\
- t-
.
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 accordancelwith ASTM
standard D1557-78. The result by full laboratory curve is
!
Sample
Location
Maximum
Drv Detsitv
13t.2
11.1
Optimum
Moisture
Depth
(Feet)
Soil Description
T-2
(Soil Type A) Soil
light brown silty sand
with 5% gravel
0-3
T-2
(Soil Type B) Pauba
silty sand with minor
gravel trace of clay
128.5
10.7
8-10
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION TESTING
U.B.C. METHOD 29-2
Sample Location
Expansion Index Expansion Potential
Depth
T-2
0-3'
18 Very Low
SAND EOUIVALENT TESTING
Sample Location
Sand Eauivalent
Depth
T-2
0-3'
26
\<<'b
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Direct Shear Test Data
Exihibit:
B-2
Project:
Bringhurst
Job Number:
2] 152-0]
Date:
Ear h
chnlcs
~'
4/2/0 ]
...
5
I
.............. ...............
~ ~
~ ,.,.-
l-
ll.
a
rn
-
Ul
Co
i:
.
.
Ul
Ul
Gl
..
...
(/)
OJ
l:
.;:
ClI
Gl
.l:
(/)
o
o
Normal Pressure-Kips/SQ. FT.
5
Excavation Number:
T-2
Depth: 0-3'
Saturated Test
rjJ = 24.50 Degrees
C = 610 P,S,f,
: ~-A~~;; 1
Values:
i-Best-fitl
I H _ _Lin.:___
\0...
I
I
1 S +
>-
<t
~. ..J
U
1
- - - ~ ~ :+'
._~ ..i.._
- .--- -- - !--
I
I
o
I
II
I
(f)
0:
c W
=E~ ==.:- I-
l"-' "= =~
--. w
0 ., -~--=:,..
0 >- 2
0: N -
<( 8- -.J
0 -.J
N
Z 2
<( 0
l- I
(f) 8
0:
(f) 0 w
co I-
::> ~- w
~ "'- 2
0 <(
'"
(f) 0
w ~
N W
- 2- -.J
(f) <.)
W I-
> 0:
q <(
w (L
(f) co
0
co
I
I
I
I
I
o
@
I
...
I
I
o
ci
I
'.".
'"
=
I
o
o
<j' 2
PER CENT FINER BY WEIGHT
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
o
@
g
I'-
I
By: WLS Dot.: 4{o \
JoN. 211152-01
CA L.L g f 1I;.5i1\
,
\~e<:uLA
-
wO
zZ
-<t
l1.(/)
(/) (/)
(f) (f)
<t <t
..J ..J
U U
I.. a ci
....1 W I
-
0) LL (j)
Z <t
::) <t
..J
..J a:
w
(/)0
O:Z
<t<t I-'
O(/) l1.
U
('J'"
-;,
gQ
......
, ,
t-
..J
W 0
>
<t Z
0:
<!>
; J:
f-
lL
W
0
JP
EXHIBIT
NUMBER
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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 unless specifically superseded
in the geotechnical report of the project or 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 the recommendations 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
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 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 geotechnical
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 geotechnical
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 prior 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.
?}/
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 3
The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture,
mixed as 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 overexcavation could be required as
determined by geotechnical consultant where deep fill of 20+ feet
transitions to bedrock over a short distance, Typical details are given on
Figure D-l.
3,0 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.
'/lJ
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 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.
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,
1A
...
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 5
If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling
governmental 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 firm material where the slope
receiving 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 firm 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 Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or
creep material into rock or firm materials, and the transition shall be
stripped of all soil prior to placing fill. (See detail on Figure D-3, )
1/-6
-
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 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 perched
water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of potentially adverse nature,
unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes encountered during
grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the geotechnical consultant,
and recommendations shall be made to mitigate these problems, (Typical
details for stabilization of a cut slope are given in Figures D-3a and 0-5, )
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
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.
5,0 TRENCH BACKFILLS
5,1 Trench excavations for utility pipes 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
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
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 least 90 percent of the
maximum laboratory density as determined by the ASTI 01557-70 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 and uniform 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 In 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 will vary
depending on soil conditions and the size of the job. In any event, 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 cleanout, 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,
0/-
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
permanent 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 shall be taken by the contractor during final grading to preserve any
berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent
nature on or adjacent to the property,
1h
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
\ '
---
--
- ---
..--
--
II ,~
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR . 1
,-- MATERIAL APPROVED BY , ----.J
t THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
CUT LOT
NATURAL GROUND
~-
--
-
-
--
. -
--
-
-
--
NOTE:
Deeper overexccvction end recomoactian shaH be p~rfarmed
. if determined .0 be necesscry by the geotechnical consultant.
1J--
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BENCHING DETAILS
------- -
---------------
FILL SLOPE _-::-:-::~9.~PACTEC!. :~---~
_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-:-: F ILL :..-----------.:
---------------------
---:-:-~-:-:-:-:::-=-:-:-~;~-~-~
--=~-?~-:-~-:-:=:~::::-=:::--;:-~' -
____________~---~---l'
_-___- ___-_-_-__ -=-_-;..:::"""'___-_-_-~ II"r^'
PROJECTED PLANE . _-_-:-::::::-:-:-::-;7~---::.;~--3
I to I maximum from .oe _::--..:-----;2'"-=-----2'"-1 ,\NI'"
of slope to approved ground _-::-::-::-::7::..:-:-=---;::~":--=:~ \
_-..:__-_-/:.::-----..:-;: L 1 '",".N REMOVE
..:_;:.2:':-=-':~""=-=--=- -v. UNSUIT AS:"!:
NATURAL . -:: _ .-"'-..:' .~ ~ . MATERIAL
GROUND -- - - -- ~4' MIN. ~ '\.
\ ", ..:-r------;...-~---..:----- BE"CH BENCH
I^ 1 -r..:_;?..:--=---------..:--=- '" HEIGHT
'" -L- ==::2%MIN.::::-::-: (typical) VARIES
T -;;,-;----=-:--:,:
2' MIN.\ 15' MIN. I
KEY [+1.0WEST BENCH -,
DEPTH (KEY)
_-: COMPACTED ::-:-=:-:::::-:-
clLL OVER CUT SLOPE ------..:--'F1LL:--=-~.:::.----z
r .' __~=====3==t3=i:=~;Ej~~'
_-...:-_-_-_--=:.c-_ -.,..., -:
____~_____~; .. .<;::Jr-'"
----------......-..., I
__-=-.-;::..-~___-_-_-__~------3: ~
REMOVE, NATURAL 7...:0:-:~-:::?-=""S. ,~,,-\
UNSUITABLE GROUND ~-_-_-_--_---------ft.> J
MATERIAL", __ __ '\- - ~~0-S '8"1' r4' MIN: BENC;.:.
'" __ __-=---"""-----) 3ENC. I HEIGH I
_ _ \_ __ ~ ~2%MIN,'::::-J (typiCQI~ VA?IES
--
_ ~ __ "'A..Y/^, <'(/'...'
.......'\_ -- \-.---15' MIN.---l
__ ____ -- . \ LOWEST BENCH I
--
CUT
FACE
To be constructed prior
to fill placement
----
----
""''''''
.
NOTES:
LOWEST BENCH: Depth end width subject to field change
based 0.') consultant's inspection.
S~~DRAI~JAGE:, E:-ck c~.:.:.,:; mey be required 01 the
jiscretlon oi the geolecnnical con:;u\ton:.
o/J,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
1-'TORY'00'INOll
2-ITO"Y 'OOTINOS
OA'U.Of. DOOIl ORADE
IE"M
L1VtNQ AM" fLOOA lll..AII~
QARAGE nOOR aLAllS
I"IIIE-50AI0IolO or L1VINQ
"ilEA AHD GARAGE SL'"
10lll
FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR EXPANSIVE SOILS
(ONE AND TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS)
EXPANSION INDEX
0- 20
VERY LOW EXPANSION
ALL 'OOTlNOII 12 INCHU
DElI'. f0011NOI
CONTINUOUI. NO lTElL
flEOUUItE.D '0" (X'AHSIOH
,OAen.
ALL 'OOTlNOS " INCHU
DUI", ,OOTINOS
CONTINUOUS. NO 'THL
REOUllllEO '0" [nA...SIQN
'ORCIES.
NOT REOUlMD.
S tf2 INCHES THICK. NO WE::lIH
REQUIRED FOR [X"ANStOH
FORCES. 1010 IIASE REQUIRED.
. ..tl.. VISOUlEEN lolOISTURE
....RAIER !"lVS 1 INCH llANO.
3112 INCHES THICK. NO MESH
REQUIRED FOR EXPAHSIOH
FORCES. NO lIASE REQUIRED.
NO MOISTURE BARRIER
REOUIRED.
NOT REQUIRED. I.101STEN
..AIOR TO POURINO
CONCRETE.
EXPANSION INDEX
21 - 60
LOW EXPANSION
All FOOTlNOS 12 INCHES
ou'. FOOTINOS
COtfTlNUOUS. 1."0." 'AIIt
TO' AND 10TTOW.
All FOOTINGS" tHCHES
ou'. FOOTINOS
CONTINUOUS. 1-NO. .. IAIIt
TO' AND lOTTO...
EXPANSION INDEX
51 - 80
MEDIUM .EXPANSION
(XTEflIOllt 'OOTlNOS 11
INCHE. DEE'. INTEAIOA
FOOTINOS " INCHES DEE'.
1~NO. . S"'I 10' AND
10110W.
ALL FOOTINOS ,. INCHES
DEE'. FOOTlNOS
CONTINUOUS. 1-NO.. SAA
TO' AND 10TTOW.
EXPANSION INDEX
01 - 130
HIGH EXPANSION
EXTEAIOA FOOTtHOS 24 I~H('
OU'. INUAKtA 'OOTINO$ 12
INCHU OU'. 1-NO. . IAIII TO'
AND lOTTO".
EXTEAIOIll FOOTlNOS ,.. INCHE.
DEE'. INTEfUOR FOOTlNOS "
INCHES DEE'. '."0. Ii SAR TO'
AND BOTTO".
t2 INCHES DEE'. 1.NO. .. 'Alii l' IHCHES DEE'. 1-NO. .. BAA '" INCHES DEE'. 1-NO. Ii IAII
TO" AND lOTTO". TO' AHO 10TTOW. TO" AND IIOTTOW.
S 1/2 INCHES THtCIl;.
Ii X '-10no WIRE WESH AT
WID-HUOHT.' tHCHES
ORAVEl OR SAND 'ASIE. .
WIl VISOUEEN WOlS TURE
'AR"IfR )olUS , INCH lAND.
:) "2 INCHES THICI(,.
Ii x 1i-'01l0 WIRE WESH OR
OUA/HER alAIS. ISOLATE
FROW STEW WAll FOOTINGS.
2 INCHES ROCI(" ORAVEl Ol'l
SAND e"'SE. NO MOISTURE
IIARFUER REOUIRED,
SO"'I(, TO 12 INCHES DEPTH
TO "'Yo "lOVE OPTlwuw
,",OtSTURE CONTENT_
NOTES: 1) "LL DEPTHS ARE REL"nvE.TO SLAII SUBGR"'OE.
2) SI'ECI"L DESION 1$ REOUIRED FOR VERY HIGHLY EXP"NSIVE SOILS.
JOB NO,:
o 0"'" H
1 "2 tHCHES THICI(.
. X 1-10110 WIRE "ESH AT
"IO-HEIOHT. .. INCHES
OR "VEL OF! SAND II"IE. Ii
WIL VI'OUEEN 1040lSTURE
IARRIER 'lU' 1 INCH 'AHD.
S 112 INCHES THICK.
8 X Ii-'O"O WIRE MESH OR
OUARTER 'lAIIS. ISOLATE
FROM STEM W"LL FOOTlNOI_
.. INCHES ROCI(. OFl"VEL OFl
'''NO B"IE. NO ),lOISTURE
IARRtER REOUIREO.
80"K TO HI INCHES DEPTH
TO 11'1. AIIOVE OPTIMUM
MOISTUAE CONTENT.
FOUNDATION AND SLAB DETAIL
(NOT TO SCALE)
(w:::',::~~:::)'~ W':,:,'~\ /
;..::": ':;:->-',':"_'-\'-,.",---
v "
,:\0;';) -:::;'':0.t1...,.,:.':)
/
/1 ;:~,::~::"
/ rOR......EL
.. INCHES THICK. . X 1-818
WIA!: wE'H AT W'O.HI:IOHT.
NO.3 OOWELlI FROW fOOTINO
TO SlA8 AT 311 INCHES ON
CENTER. .. tHCHES OFl"VEL 01'1
SAND II"SE. II Mil VISOUEEN
..OISTUAE BARRIER 'LUS ,
INCH SAND.
.. INCHES THtel(. ex I-"t
WIAE "ESH OR QUARTER
BLAIIS. ISOLATE FROW STEW
w...lL FOOTlNOS. " INCHES
AOCI(,. GR"'VEl OR S"'ND B"'SE.
NO WOISTUAE B...ARIER
REOUIAEO.
SOAI( TO H tNCHES DEPTH TO
1I'Yo "BOVE OPTtMU'\ol WOtSTURE
CONTENT.
011 S.o.ND ,.o.S[ ("n'l~ >llGu,REOl
. '0"
rl~'. ...:
.(\-:
/~::.
0",,>,,,,::,:'
'~
REUoIFORCtNQ ....R
(WHEN REOUIAEO)
FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
. DATE: FIGURE NO,:
~\
'-, ~,)'U'". - (\.."'>:":0:-,.
.,....
EARTH TECHNICS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H = Depth of saturation zone
I ~8 = 80uyant wei ght of soi 1.
I
I
SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY
S'I'~o{' 0,4'4(,
600( > 0,&04
\00~ ~ o4s{,
~. 10 9at~~.:'.."Lc.~.61.j:j;,1 Q
M (\314) ( o 44f,) (D .~?S)
r:s ~
= H (OB) cos2o<.tan p + C
S.F.
Os H Sin 0< coso<.
1-\ (ZG.2) .,. 6.'...'?
--
\1 (S2,S)
FS ,
zone of
saturation
== 1b,<:J'
10,0,0
=
1211.4
24.S
~s = Total wet weight of soil =
~ = Angle of internal friction =
"10
C = Cohesion
=
t.F. =
I
I
I
I
=
21\02.-.() \
\\JW
L..,Jf
4/ ~/., \
Project No.:
Calc. by:
ChI<. by:
Date:
H' S.F.
Z b.U~
-
A 3.:l;~
?:j""
.
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
11
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
--Slope Stability Analysis--
simplified Janbu, simplified Bishop
or Spencer's Method of Slices
Run Date:
Time of Run:
Run By:
Input Data Filename:
Output Filename:
Plotted output Filename:
21152-1
21152-0
21152-P
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
BRINGHURST - 24 FOOT HIGH 2:1 FILL SLOPE
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
3 Top Boundaries
3 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd
1 .00 12.00 16.00 12.00 1
2 16.00 12.00 34.00 27.00 1
3 34.00 27.00 70.00 27.00 1
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
1 Type(s) of Soil
Soil
Type
No.
Total Saturated
unit wt. unit wt.
(pcf) (pcf)
Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
Friction
Angle
(deg)
Pore
Pressure
Paramo
Pressure
Constant
(psf)
Piez.
Surface
No.
1
125.0
132.0
610.0
24.0
.00
.0
o
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random
Technique For Generating circular surfaces, Has Been specified.
25 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
.
5 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced
Along The Ground Surface Between X = 12.00 ft.
and X = 16.00 ft.
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 40.00 ft. ~
--~ ,~ ~~ ~~
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Slice
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation
At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft.
4.00 ft. Line segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Restrictions Have Been Imposed upon The Angle Of Initiation.
The Angle Has Been Restricted Between The Angles Of -45.0
And -15.0 deg.
Following Are Displayed The
Failure Surfaces Examined.
First.
Ten Most Critical Of The Trial
They Are Ordered - Most Critical
* * safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * *
Failure Surface specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 12.00 12.00
2 15.79 10.73
3 19.74 10.08
4 23.74 10.08
5 27.69 10.72
6 31.48 11. 99
7 35.02 13.86
8 38.21 16.27
9 40.97 19.16
10 43.23 22.46
11 44.93 26.08
12 45.19 27.00
*** 3.037 ***
Individual data on the 13 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load
Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs (kg) L~s (kg) L~s(kg) L~s(kg) L~s (kg) L~s (kg) L~s(kg)
3.8 301.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
.2 33.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
3.7 1482.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
4.0 3352.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
3.9 4784.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
3.8 5672.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
2.5 4186.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
1.0 1709.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1;k. .0
..- -. -
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
12
13
.
1.7
.3
579.9
15.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 15.00 12.00
2 18.82 10.83
3 22.78 10.26
4 26.78 10.30
5 30.73 10.97
6 34.52 12.24
7 38.07 14.08
8 41.30 16.44
9 44.12 19.28
10 46.47 "22.52
11 48.29 26.08
12 48.59 27.00
... 3.122 ...
Failure Surface specified By 13 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 13.00 12.00
2 16.65 10.37
3 20.52 9.33
4 24.49 8.91
5 28.49 9.13
6 32.40 9.97
7 36.13 11.41
8 39.59 13.42
9 42.69 15.95
10 45.35 18.93
11 47.51 22.30
12 49.11 25.97
13 49.38 27.00
*** 3.163 ***
Failure Surface specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
X-Surf
(ft)
Y-Surf
(ft)
1
2
16.00
19.74
12.00
10.57
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
~~
1
I
1
I
11
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
6 35.43 11. 45
7 38.98 13.29
8 42.17 15.70
9 44.91 18.62
10 47.12 21. 95
11 48.74 25.61
12 49.09 27.00
*** 3.228 ***
Failure Surface specified By 11 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 14.00 12.00
2 17.66 10.39
3 21.58 9.59
4 25.58 9.63
5 29.48 10.51
6 33.12 12.18
7 36.31 14.59
8 38.93 17.61
9 40.86 21.11
10 42.01 24.94
11 42.18 27.00
*** 3.256 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 15.00 12.00
2 18.57 10.20
3 22.41 9.06
4 26.38 8.62
5 30.37 8.90
6 34.25 9.88
7 37.89 11.54
8 41.17 13.83
9 44.00 16.66
10 46.27 19.95
11 47.93 23.59
12 48.79 27.00
*** 3.286 ***
~
.
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
y
A
x
I
s
F
T
.00
8.75
17.50
26.25
35.00
43.75
x
,00
+---------+---*-----+---------+---------+---------+
- I
I
I
,
8.75 ,
J,_
'"
2
. 91 '"
1, 1'7.50 + .05 \
. 9 .2 \
. 0 31
. 65
. 9 . 41
..0 3
X 26.25 + .... . 652
. .9 41
.. . .0 375
. .9 .86 2
0 34 1
67 5
I 35.00 + . .9 . 8 42 1
.0 3 5
. . 8 6 2 1
. .9 . 3 5
....0 76 2
...9. 8 3
S 43.75 + 0 76
8
.. . 0
\.
\
1 5 \
5 5
2 1
43 1
7 6 42
3 6
7
8.
. .. 9
.. .0 B
. . 9
52.50 + . . . . 9. . .7 .
. . o. 9. .8
.. o. 9. .8
.. O.
. . . . . .
. .
F 61.25 +
T
70.00 +
** PCSTABL5M **
'?7\
.
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
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 Histor~cal seismicity from Digitized
California Faults, EQSEARcH, July 1995
Bolt, B.A., 1973, Duration of strong Ground Motion: Proc. Fifth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 2927
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.
OWR, 1971 Water Wells and springs in the Western Part of the
Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Riverside and San Oiego
Counties, california", Bull. No. 91-20, 377
Hart, E.W., 1998, 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
Ploessel, R.J., and Sloson, J.E., 1974, "Repeatable High Ground
Accelerations from Earthquake", in California Geology, Sept. 1974
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
~