HomeMy WebLinkAboutPreliminary Geotechnical Investigation PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
25-ACRE SITE ADJACENT TO THE NORTH SIDE OF
MACHADO STREET AND HERBORN STREET
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For:
CORMAN LEIGH COMMUNITIES, LLC
32823 State Highway 79 South
Temecula, California 92522
November 9, 2004
Project No. 111401-002
0
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
40,01
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
November 9, 2004
Project No. 111401-002
To: Corman Leigh Communities, LLC
32823 State Highway 79 South
Temecula, California 92522
Attention: Mr. Rick Scott
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Approximately 25-Acre Parcel, Adjacent to
the North Side of Machado Street and Herborn Street, City of Lake Elsinore, County
of Riverside, California
In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) has
completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the 25-acre parcel adjacent to the north
side of Machado Street and Herbom Street, located in the City of Lake Elsinore, California (see
Figure 1). Significant geotechnical issues identified are those related to liquefaction, dynamic
settlement and hydrocollapse potential of the alluvial soils. A fault investigation for the subject
site was performed concurrently and no onsite faulting was determined. Our fault investigation
report will be issued under separate cover. Based on our preliminary investigation, the subject
property is considered suitable for the intended development provided the recommendations
herein are implemented during the design and construction. This report summarizes our findings,
conclusions, and preliminary recomm s regarding the geotechnical conditions on
subject site. ���Do ® ? FEss/oN
T
Respectfully submitted, No. 1421 a y 9y i
CERTIF'[1S _► m
ENGINEERING � � c No. 67160 C M
LEIGHTON AND AS OCIATE �CFoL flGIsr �z * ExP.qfX1 ,
s�� cI
of CauF�'
obert F. Riha, CEG, 1921 (Exp. 02/28/06) Arasan Singanaya am,RICE, 67160
Vice President/Principal Geologist Senior Staff Engineer
Matthew W. Clarke
Senior Staff Geologist
RFR/AS/MWC/rm/mm/dlm
1 1 1 40 1-002/Final/CL Prelim Geotech Inv
Distribution: (6) Addressee
41715 Enterprise Circle N.,Suite 103■Temecula,CA 92590-5661
909.296.0530■Fax 909.296.0534■www.leightongeo.com
111401-002
November 9, 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... ..............................I
1.1 Purpose and Scope.............................................................................................1
1.2 Site Location and Description...............................................................................I
1.3 Proposed Development.......................................................................................2
2.0 INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING.................................................................3
2.1 Field Investigation ..............................................................................................3
2.2 Laboratory Testing..............................................................................................3
3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS.......................................................................4
3.1 Regional Geology................................................................................................4
3.2 Site Geologic Units..............................................................................................4
3.2.1 Topsoil (not a mapped unit) .....................................................................4
3.2.2 Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu)..............................................................4
3.2.3 Alluvium (Qal) .........................................................................................5
3.2.4 Older Unnamed Quaternary Deposits (Qup)...............................................5
3.3 Soil Compressibility .............................................................................................5
3.4 Surface Water and Groundwater..........................................................................6
3.5 Landslides and Rockfalls......................................................................................6
3.6 Rippability..........................................................................................................6
3.7 Faulting.............................................................................................................6
3.8 Seismicity ..........................................................................................................7
3.9 Secondary Seismic Effects ...........................7
........................................................
3.9.1 Lurching and Shallow Ground Rupture.......................................................7
3.9.2 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement........................................................8
3.9.3 Flooding..................................................................................................9
4.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 10
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................. 11
5.1 General............................................................................................................11
5.2 Site Preparation and Remedial Removals............................................................11
5.3 Structural Fills..................................................................................................12
5.4 Shrinkage ........................................................................................................13
5.5 Utility Trenches ................................................................................................13
5.6 Preliminary Foundation Design Parameters .........................................................13
5.7 Settlement Considerations.................................................................................15
Apt
- i-
Leighton
111401-002
November 9, 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
5.8 Footing Setback..............................................................................................15
5.9 Slope Stability.................................................................................................16
5.10 Retaining Walls...............................................................................................16
5.11 Drainage ........................................................................................................17
5.12 Corrosion........................................................................................................17
5.13 Preliminary Pavement Design Parameters..........................................................17
5.14 Preliminary Recommendations for Cast In Place Concrete Pipes (CIPP)................18
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW.............................................................................................20
6.1 Plans and Specifications....................................................................................20
6.2 Construction Review.........................................................................................20
7.0 LIMITATIONS.............................................................................................................21
Accompanying Figures and Appendices
Figures
Figure 1 — Site Location Map End of Text
Figure 2— Boring Location Map End of Text
Figure 3 — Geologic Hazard Map End of Text
Figure 4— Local Geologic Map End of Text
Appendices
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Geotechnical Boring Logs
Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
- ii -
Leighton
111401-002
November 9, 2004
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of our investigation was to summarize the pertinent, readily available
geologic and geotechnical data, obtain additional site-specific data, and evaluate this data
with respect to the proposed development of the subject site.
Our scope of services for this investigation included the following items:
• Review of available information, including the reports presented in Appendix A;
• Geologic site reconnaissance to observe and document the current surface conditions;
• Drilling of seven (7) hollow stem auger borings (to a maximum depth of 50.5 feet) to
assess the general engineering characteristics of the subsurface soils, collect samples
for laboratory testing, and determine the depth to groundwater, if encountered;
• Laboratory testing of selected soil samples to determine: grain size distribution,
percent passing No. 200 sieve, shear strength, hydro-collapse potential, in-situ
moisture/density, maximum density, R-Value, corrosion potential, and other
engineering parameters of on site materials;
• Analysis and geotechnical review of geologic conditions including hydro collapse
potential, dry sand settlement,and liquefaction;
• Preparation of preliminary design parameters for foundations and site pavements;
• Preparation of this report, presenting our findings, conclusions and preliminary
recommendations regarding grading and development of this site; and
• A site specific fault investigation was conducted and provided under separate cover.
1.2 Site Location and Description
The subject site is situated on the north sides of Machado Street and Herborn Street in the
City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California (see Figure 1). A housing tract
community along Broadway Street borders the northeast edge of the subject site. The
approximately 25-acre site contains six distinct parcels. The northernmost parcel,
(approximately 6 acres), has an occupied home at the southeast corner of the property. An
open field and horse corrals make up the remaining portions of the parcel. The adjacent
parcel, approximately 6 acres, is unoccupied. Numerous groupings of live trees and piles
of household and automotive debris litter the entire site. Adjacent to this parcel are three
smaller parcels, each approximately 1.2 acres. Formally occupied, the homes on these
parcels have burned down sometime in the past. Household, automotive, and structural
debris litters these sites. The remaining parcel, located on the east portion of the subject
site, approximately 7.2 acres, has apparently been used by off-road vehicles. Stockpiles of
Leighton
111401-002
November 9, 2004
concrete foundation blocks, gravel, and asphalt have been observed along the southern
portions of the property.
Topographically the site is relatively flat, gently sloping to the southeast. Site elevations
range from approximately 1,360 feet above mean sea level (msl) along the northern
- boundary to approximately 1,330 feet(msl)near the southeastern corner.
1.3 Proposed Development
We understand the proposed development will consist of an unknown number of
residential lots with associated roadways and appurtenances. Although no grading plans
were available at the time of this study, we anticipate that site grading will include a
relatively shallow depth of cut and fill, possibly on the order of 5 to 10 feet. We
anticipate conventional cut and fill grading will be utilized to construct the graded pads
and roadways.
- 2 -
Lei ton
111401-002
November 9, 2004
2.0 INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
2.1 Field Investigation
On October 14, 2004, Leighton conducted a field exploration of the subject site using a
hollow-stem auger drill rig. Our current subsurface exploration consisted of the
excavation, sampling and logging of seven (7) exploratory borings. The borings were
advanced to depths of approximately 18 to 50.5 feet below the existing ground surface.
Approximate locations of the borings are depicted on the Boring Location Map(Figure 2).
The exploratory borings were excavated with a Mobile B-61 truck-mounted drill rig,
which utilized an automatic safety hammer for advancing the samplers. During the
drilling operation, bulk and relatively undisturbed samples were obtained from the
borings for laboratory testing and evaluation. The relatively undisturbed samples were
obtained utilizing a modified California drive sampler (2%-inch inside diameter and 3-
inch outside diameter) driven 18-inches where possible in general accordance with
ASTM Test Method D3550. In addition,.standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed
using a 2-inch outside diameter (1%-inch inside diameter) sampler driven 18-inches
where possible in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D1586. All drive samples
and SPTs were advanced with a 140-pound automatic hammer dropping 30-inches. The
number of blows to achieve the last 12-inches of penetration, or number of blows and
sampling penetration depth was recorded on the boring logs (Appendix B).
- Sampling and logging of the borings was conducted by a Leighton staff geologist. Soil
materials were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System and
further classified in the laboratory. Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix B.
After logging and sampling, the excavations were backfilled with spoils generated during
excavation. Samples were transported to our laboratory for testing.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were performed on the representative bulk and relatively undisturbed
samples to provide a basis for development of remedial earthwork and design parameters.
Selected samples were tested to determine the following parameters: in-situ moisture
content and dry density, gradation, percent passing the No. 200 sieve, maximum dry
density (Modified Proctor), shear strength, expansion index, hydrocollapse, R-value, and
corrosion suite (soluble sulfate content, pH, resistivity and chloride content). Laboratory
tests were performed in general accordance with the American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM) procedures and California Test Methods (CTM) as noted in Appendix
C. The results of our laboratory testing along with summaries of the testing procedures are
presented in Appendix C. The results of the in-situ moisture and density determinations as
well as the depth of other tests (see `type of test' column) are presented on the log of
borings(Appendix B).
-3 44
-
Leigh0n
111401-002
November 9, 2004
3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS
3.1 Regional Geology
The site is located in the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province of California. More
specifically, the property is located in a fault controlled, down dropped graben, known as
the Elsinore Trough (Kennedy, 1977). The active Glen Ivy North Fault is approximately
1.2 miles to the northwest of the site(Blake, 2000b). The Glen Ivy North Fault,like other
local faults, is part of the Elsinore Fault Zone, which extends from the San Gabriel River
Valley southeasterly to beyond the United States-Mexico border.
The Santa Ana Mountains lie along the western side of the Elsinore Fault Zone and the
Perris Block is located along the eastern side of the fault zone. The mountain ranges are
underlain by pre-Cretaceous metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks and Cretaceous
plutonic rocks of the Southern California batholith. Tertiary sediments, volcanics and
Quaternary sediments flank the mountain ranges. The Tertiary and Quaternary rocks are
generally comprised of non-marine sediments consisting of sandstones, mdstones,.
conglomerates, and localized volcanic units.
3.2 Site Geologic Units
Our field exploration, observations, and review of the pertinent literature (Appendix A)
indicates that subsurface materials within the site include several geologic units
consisting of various alluvial deposits. All of these materials are suitable for re-use as
compacted fill, if cleared of debris and organic matter. A general description of each unit
follows.
3.2.1 Topsoil (not a mapped unit)
Topsoil was encountered mantling the majority of the site to a depth of 9 to 12
inches. In areas that had been tilled, the topsoil was indistinguishable from the
underlying alluvium. The topsoil generally consists of a light brown to dark
brown, silty sand, silty clay to sandy clay with scattered gravel to cobble sized
clasts. All topsoil should be removed from any areas that will receive structural
fills or structural improvements.
3.2.2 Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu)
During our field investigation, undocumented artificial fill was encountered in
- soil boring B-3. The fill thickness was observed locally to be up to 5 feet thick
and we believe this fill was associated with the previous home construction within
the site. In general, the composition, origin, stability and method of placement of
the undocumented fill soil is not known. Therefore, this soil beneath the structural
-4 it
-
Leihtn
111401-002
November 9, 2004
improvements is considered unsuitable and will require complete removal and
1 recompaction during grading.
3.2.3 Alluvium (QaD
Holocene-aged alluvial soil was encountered in all areas of the subject site. The
alluvial soils were deposited as part of a complex fluvial/channel depositional
environment and include interbedded sands and silts. As encountered, the
alluvium generally consists of yellow-brown to gray, very fine to fine silty sand,
with local lenses of silt. Subsequent channel deposits were observed to consist of
medium to coarse sand with interbedded lenses and laminations of gray, loose to
medium dense,very fine to fine sand.
The near-surface alluvium should be removed from all areas in accordance with
Section 5.2 of this report. Removal depths within the alluvium will vary
depending upon location, but are anticipated to reach 5 feet below the existing
ground surface. Some localized deeper removals may be required. Alluvial soils
are suitable for re-use as compacted fill, if cleared of debris and organic materials.
3.2.4 Older Unnamed Quaternary Deposits(Quu)
Pleistocene-aged older alluvium was observed as part of the paleo-channel margin
encountered in the borings. This unit is light gray-brown to red-brown, moist,
dense, medium to coarse gravel with granitic rock clasts prominent; perhaps
equivalent to the Pauba Formation (CDMG, 1977). These deposits are generally
suitable for the support of structural fills (subject to the requirements of Section
5.2) or for re-use as compacted fill.
3.3 Soil Compressibility
Compressible soil layers at the site consist primarily of sand with silts and silty sands.
The silty sands encountered at the site are loose to dense. Compressibility characteristics
of these soils were interpreted from measured blowcounts and twelve (12) hydrocollapse
tests from this site and other tests performed on similar soils. Based on our laboratory
testing and in-situ moisture of the subsurface soils, we consider them to have slight to
moderate potential to hydrocollapse. The hydrocollapse potential will be on the order of
1.6 to 5.9 percent as shown in Appendix C of this report. Therefore, we recommend the
base of site excavations be heavily watered and compacted per Section 5.3 of this report
prior to fill placement.
- 5 -
LeightOn
111401-002
November 9, 2004
3.4 Surface Water and Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in the exploratory borings to the total depth explored.
' No seepage or standing water was observed on the ground surface during the time of the
investigation. Groundwater in the vicinity of the subject site is reported to currently be
over 200 feet below existing ground surface (Riverside County, 2003 and EVMWD,
2003, See Figure 3). Groundwater levels can be expected to fluctuate seasonally within
the subject site.
- 3.5 Landslides and Rockfalls
No evidence of on-site landslides was observed during our field investigation. Because
of the flat-lying nature of the site, the potential for landslides or rockfalls at the subject
site is considered nil.
3.6 RiMability
Based upon our field observations, Leighton anticipates that the site will be readily
excavatable to the anticipated design grades with conventional earthwork equipment. No
nonrippable rock was encountered in the borings.
3.7 Faulting
As defined by the California Geologic Survey, an active fault is one that has had surface
displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). The California
Geologic Survey has defined a potentially active fault as any fault which has been active
during the Quaternary Period(approximately the last 1,600,000 years).
These definitions are used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the
Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act (subsequently revised as the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and Earthquake Fault Zones). The intent of the act is to
require fault investigations on sites located within Earthquake Fault Hazard Zones
(Special Studies Zones) to preclude new construction of certain inhabited structures
across the trace of active faults.
The Glen Ivy North Fault, an active right-lateral, strike-slip fault, is located
approximately 1.2 miles northwest of the site (Blake, 2000b, See Figure 4). The subject
site is not included within an Earthquake Fault Zone as created by the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Hart, 1999). However, the northeastern portion of the site
is in a Riverside County Fault Zone, (See Figure 3) and was investigation by Leighton
concurrently with this study. Evidence of active or potentially active faulting was not
encountered.
-6 41
-
Leighton
111401-002
November 9, 2004
3.8 Seismicity
Our evaluation of the regional seismicity included a deterministic analysis using
EQSEARCH and EQFAULT (Blake, 2000a & 2000b). As indicated above, the nearest
known active fault and source of the design earthquake is the Glen Ivy segment of the
Elsinore Fault Zone, which is located approximately 1.2 miles northwest of the subject
site. The maximum credible earthquake is currently estimated to be magnitude 6.8Mw
(Blake, 2000a).
The Uniform Building Code (UBC) established Seismic Zones (often accepted as
minimum standards) based on maps showing ground motion with a 475-year return
period, or a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Our analysis indicates a 10%
probability that a peak ground acceleration of 0.68g would be exceeded in 50 years. The
design earthquake is therefore considered to be a magnitude 6.8Mw event on the Glen
Ivy segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone that would generate a probabilistic peak ground
acceleration of 0.68g(Blake 2000c).
The effect of seismic shaking may be reduced by adhering to the 1997 UBC and seismic
design parameters suggested by the Structural Engineers Association of California. The
site is located within seismic zone 4. Seismic design parameters are presented below:
Seismic Zone = 4
Seismic Source Type = B
Near Source Factor,Na = 1.3
Near Source Factor,N, = 1.6
Soil Profile Type = SD
Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration = 0.68g
(10%probability of exceedance in 50 years)
3.9 Secondary Seismic Effects
Secondary effects that can be associated with severe ground shaking following a
relatively large earthquake include ground lurching, shallow ground rupture, liquefaction,
dynamic settlement, flooding. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are discussed
in the following sections.
3.9.1 Lurching and Shallow Ground Rupture
Soil lurching refers to the rolling motion on the ground surface by the passage of
seismic surface waves. Effects of this nature are likely to be most severe where
the thickness of soft sediments varies appreciably under structures. The potential
for lurching can be reduced if the potentially compressible soils present on the site
- 7 44
-
Leighton
111401-002
November 9, 2004
are removed and properly compacted in accordance with the recommendations of
this report.
Ground rupture is generally considered to most likely occur along pre-existing
active faults. No signs of faulting were observed to be onsite. Our fault
investigation report (provided under separate cover) provides a detailed
discussion of ground rupture.
3.9.2 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement
Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due
to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils
below a near-surface groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction,while
the stability of most clayey material is not adversely affected by vibratory motion.
Liquefaction is characterized by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layers,
thereby causing the soil to behave as a viscous liquid. This effect may be
manifested at the ground surface by settlement and, possibly, sand boils where
insufficient confining overburden is present over layers. In order for the potential
effects of liquefaction to be manifested at the ground surface, the soils generally
have to be granular, loose to medium dense, saturated relatively near the ground
surface and must be subjected to a sufficient magnitude and duration of ground
shaking.
Liquefaction potential analyses and earthquake-induced settlement calculations
were performed utilizing procedures suggested by the most recent publications of
the NCEER Workshop (NCEER, 1997) and SP117 Implementation (CDMG,
1997) based on SPT blow counts recorded during our subsurface exploration
program and grain size characteristics of the soils. The ground motions resulting
from the design basis earthquake ground motion (0.68g) with a maximum
moment magnitude event for the Glen Ivy segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone of
6.8Mw were used in our analyses.
Based on the results of the current investigation subsurface explorations
(Appendix B) and the results of our analysis, the on-site soils contain deposits of
relatively medium dense to dense soils. Due to the presence of dense underlying
soils and the absence of shallow groundwater, it is Leighton's professional
opinion that this site possesses a very low potential for liquefaction.
Ground accelerations generated from a seismic event can produce settlements in
loose dry sands or granular earth materials with relative low density (dynamic
settlement). We are recommending that the near-surface soil deposits susceptible
to such seismically induced settlement be removed and recompacted during
grading. Based on our analysis we estimate the potential total seismic
450
Leighton
111401-002
November 9, 2004
densification may be on the order of less than % inch. The potential differential
seismic densification may be on the order of %2 inch in 40 feet laterally. When
site-specific development plans are available, additional analyses should be
performed to refine the above estimates of potential dynamic settlement.
3.9.3 Flooding
According to the Flood Insurance Map No. 0606362034 F Panel 2034 of 2725
and Map No. 0606362042 F Panel 2042 of 2725 both revised on August 18, 2003,
the site is within a boundary of zone "X" flood plane, as described by F.E.M.A.
This relationship should be reviewed and addressed by the project civil engineer.
Due to the inland location of the site, the risk from tsunamis is considered nil.
The 100-year flood elevation of Lake Elsinore is 1265 feet above sea level, or
approximately 65 to 95 feet below the existing ground surface at the subject site.
The possibility of site flooding due to seiching of Lake Elsinore is considered
low.
- 9 q5
-
Leightoo
111401-002
November 9, 2004
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on our preliminary geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed
development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The following is a summary of the
geotechnical factors that may affect development of the site.
• Based on our review of the previously completed geotechnical report (SID, 2003) of the site
and at near-by sites, and our current subsurface explorations, it is our opinion that the on-site
earth materials can be excavated with heavy-duty conventional grading equipment in good
working condition.
• Groundwater was not encountered during our current investigation. Shallow groundwater is
not expected to be a factor during site excavation and construction.
• Strong ground shaking and dynamic settlement may occur at this site due.to local earthquake
activity. The design ground motion having a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50
years is expected to produce a peak horizontal ground surface acceleration at the site of
approximately 0.68g. Differential total (static and dynamic) settlement is anticipated to be
within County of Riverside Guidelines provided the recommendations contained herein. are
incorporated into the design and construction of the subject site.
• The potential for hydrocollapse for the existing unmitigated/unimproved conditions is
moderate.
• Based on limited laboratory testing (Appendix Q and visual classification, onsite earth
materials generally possess a very low expansion potential. Moderately expansive soils may
be encountered locally during rough grading. Additional testing should be performed during
site grading to verify these observations and limited laboratory data.
• Limited laboratory testing(Appendix C) indicates that the on-site soils present a negligible
sulfate exposure to concrete and a low potential for corrosion of buried steel improvements.
Additional testing should be performed during site grading to verify these observations and
limited laboratory data.
• Based.on existing topography and our understanding of the proposed development, fill slopes
are anticipated to be less than 6 feet in height and are expected to be grossly and surficially
stable, assuming that the recommendations of this report are implemented during grading.
• Unprotected pads and slope faces will be susceptible to erosion if exposed to storms of a
sufficient intensity and duration. This risk is increased if granular materials are placed at pad
grade or on slope faces. This risk can be reduced by planting the slopes as soon as possible
after grading, and by maintaining proper erosion control measures.
• Remedial grading may be more problematic along the project margins. Care should be taken
to protect adjacent structures or improvements. Consideration should be given to inspecting
and monitoring adjacent structures both prior to and during grading.
- 10 -
Loiton
111401-002
November 9, 2004
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 General
Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading
Specifications in Appendix D and the following recommendations. The recommendations
contained in Appendix D are general grading specifications provided for typical grading
projects and some of the recommendations may not be strictly applicable to this project.
The specific recommendations contained in the text of this report supersede the general
recommendations in Appendix D.
The contract between the developer and earthwork contractor should be worded such that
it is the responsibility of the contractor to place the fill properly in accordance with the
recommendations of this report and the specifications in Appendix D, notwithstanding
the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant.
5.2 Site Preparation and Remedial Removals
Prior to grading, the proposed structural improvement areas (i.e. all structural fill areas,
pavement areas, building pads, etc.) of the site should be cleared of surface and
subsurface obstructions and vegetation. Roots and debris should be disposed of offsite.
Septic tanks, seepage pits, or wells, if encountered, should be abandoned in accordance
with the County of Riverside Department of Health Services guidelines. Voids created by
removal of buried material should be cleaned out and backfilled with properly compacted
soil in general accordance with the recommendations of this report.
The near surface native soils that exist on site are potentially compressible or collapsible
in their present state and may settle under the surcharge of fills or foundation loading. In
areas that will support additional fill soils or structural improvements, these soils should
be removed down to competent material as determined by the geotechnical consultant.
For planning purposes, the minimum removal depths for building pads should be 5 feet
below existing grade or 3 feet below bottom of footings, whichever is deeper for uniform
support. After completion of the recommended removal of unsuitable soils and prior to
placing additional fill, the approved bottom surface should be scarified a minimum of 12-
inches, heavily watered and compacted with heavy equipment. The upper 12 inches of
the removal bottom should be tested to a minimum 90 percent of the maximum dry
density(ASTM Test Method D 1557) and 2 percent above optimum moisture content of
the representative soils.
For roadways, driveways and parking, the minimum removal depths should be 2 feet
below existing grade, or 12 inches below finish grade,whichever is deeper.
Leighton
111401-002
November 9, 2004
The lateral extent of the removals should include the area within a perimeter of at least 10
feet beyond the outermost foundation elements for a given structure or established by a
1:1 projection from the edge of fill soils supporting settlement-sensitive structures
downward and outward to competent material identified by the geotechnical consultant.
A structural setback will be required where the recommended removals are not made.
Care should be taken when excavating along existing structures and property lines.
Excavations adjacent to the existing structures or roadways should be performed not to
undermine the adjacent footings and roadways. We recommend excavation be performed
in segments approximately equal to the width of the equipment. The equipment width
"slotted" excavation should be backfilled and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum
dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557 prior to excavation of the
adjacent slot.
If undermining of the adjacent structures cannot be avoided, temporary shoring and
underpinning of the adjacent structures or other settlement sensitive improvements should
be considered. In accordance with OSHA. requirements, excavations deeper than 5 feet
should be shored or be laid back to 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) if workers are to enter such
excavations. For shored excavations, the geotechnical consultant should review the
contractors shoring design for conformance to geotechnical design recommendations.
5.3 Structural Fills
The onsite soils are suitable for reuse as compacted fill, provided they are relatively free
of organic materials, debris and oversize materials. Materials greater than 8 inches in
greatest dimension should not be used within structural fills. Areas to receive structural
fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12
inches, conditioned to 2 percent above optimum moisture content, and recompacted to
minimum 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test
Method D1557. Fill soils should be placed at or above the optimum moisture content and
compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test
Method D1557. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance
with local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of the geotechnical
consultant. The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will
depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be
placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness.
Importation of fill soils is not anticipated. However, if import soils are used, these soils
should be granular in nature, relatively free of organic material, have an expansion index
less than 50 (per ASTM Test Method D4829) and have a low corrosion impact to the
proposed improvements. Import soils and/or the borrow site should be evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant prior to being purchased and delivered to the site
- 12 4C
-
Leigten
111401-002
November 9, 2004
5.4 Shrinkage
The volume change of excavated onsite materials upon recompaction is expected to vary
with materials, density, insitu moisture content, location, and compaction effort. The in-
place and compacted densities of soil materials vary and accurate overall determination
of shrinkage and bulking cannot be made. Therefore, we recommend site grading include,
if possible, a balance area or ability to adjust import quantities to accommodate some
variation. For planning purposes, we recommend an estimate of 15 percent shrinkage.
Due to the generally loose to medium dense nature of the near surface soils covering
most the site, a subsidence value of 0.25 feet should be applied.
5.5 Utility Trenches
The onsite soils are generally considered to be suitable as trench backfill provided they
are screened of rocks over 6 inches in diameter(or local utility requirements) and organic
matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in
compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction
(ASTM Test Method D1557).
Excavation of utility trenches should be performed in accordance with the project plans,
specifications and all applicable OSHA requirements. The contractor should be
responsible for providing the "competent person" required by OSHA standards.
Contractors should be advised that sandy or gravelly soils (such as fills generated from
the onsite alluvium)can make excavations particularly unsafe if all safety precautions are
not taken. In addition, excavations at or near the toe of slopes and/or parallel to slopes
may be highly unstable due to the increased driving force and load on the trench wall.
Excavation spoil piles and construction equipment should be kept away from the sides of
the trenches.
Utility trenches over 5 feet in depth will likely require shoring/shielding or layback at 1:1
(horizontal:vertical)or flatter, even after remedial grading has been performed.
5.6 Preliminary Foundation Design Parameters
We recommend that the proposed single-family residential structures be founded on post-
tensioned or conventional foundation systems. Additional recommendations can be
provided once 40-scale rough-grading plans and building footprints are reviewed. The
proposed foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with the structural
consultants' design,the minimum geotechnical recommendations presented herein, City
of Lake Elsinore requirements, and the 1997 UBC. In utilizing the minimum geotechnical
foundation recommendations, the structural consultant should design the foundation
system to acceptable deflection criteria as determined by the structural engineer and
architect. Foundation footings may be designed with the following parameters:
- 13 -
Leighton
111401-002
November 9, 2004
Allowable Bearing Capacity: 2000 psf at a minimum depth of embedment of 12
inches (minimum width of 12 inches), plus an
additional 250 psf per 6 inches of additional
embedment to a maximum of 2500 psf. Note that two
story buildings should follow UBC requirements for
minimum embedment.
(per 1997 UBC, capacities may be increased by 1/3 for
short-term loading conditions, i.e.,wind, seismic)
Sliding Coefficient: 0.35
Static Settlement: Total: 1 inch
Differential: 1 inch in 40 feet
The footing width, depth, reinforcement, slab reinforcement, and the slab-on-grade
thickness should be designed by the structural consultant based on recommendations and
soil characteristics indicated herein and the most recently adopted edition of the UBC.
The effects of seismic shaking on foundation soils may increase the static differential
settlement noted above. In addition to the static settlement, the architect and structural
designer should utilize a differential settlement equal to 0.5 inch in 40 feet, due to seismic
densification.
The under-slab moisture retarder should consist of 2 inches of sand (S.E. > 30) over 10
mil visqueen over an additional 2 inches of sand (a total of 4 inches of sand). The
recommended vapor retarder should be sealed at all penetrations and laps. Moisture vapor
transmission may be additionally reduced by use of concrete additives. Moisture vapor
retarders may reduce but not eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying
soils up through the slabs. A slipsheet or equivalent should be utilized above the concrete
slab if crack-sensitive floor coverings(such as ceramic tiles, etc.) are to be placed directly
on the concrete slab.
Our experience indicates that use of reinforcement in slabs and foundations will generally
reduce the potential for drying and shrinkage cracking. However, some cracking should
be expected as the concrete cures. Minor cracking is considered normal; however, it is
often aggravated by a high water/cement ratio, high concrete temperatures at the time of
placement, small nominal aggregate size and rapid moisture loss due to hot, dry and/or
windy weather conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and
moisture fluctuations can also be expected. The use of low slump concrete(not exceeding
4 to 5 inches at the time of placement)can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking.
Future homeowners and the homeowners' association should be made aware of the
importance of maintaining a constant level of soil moisture. Homeowners or Associations
- 14 -
Leigto
111401-002
November 9, 2004
should be made aware of the potential negative consequences of both excessive watering,
as well as allowing soils to become too dry. Improperly designed, constructed, or
maintained planters often pond water and cause deep moisture penetration and soil
moisture change. Since deep and repeated soil moisture change can damage the adjacent
structure,placement of planters adjacent to foundations or other sensitive hardscape, such
as pools and spas, should be discouraged if adequate and proper maintenance can not be
assured. Our recommendations assume a reasonable degree of homeowner responsibility,
if the homeowners do not adequately maintain correct irrigation and drainage, some
degree of foundation movement should be expected. However, this movement typically
does not cause structural damage, but will cause such things as stucco cracking and dry
wall separation.
The slab subgrade soils should be presoaked prior to placement of the moisture barrier
and foundation concrete. The depth of presoak and moisture needed should be
determined during grading based on expansion potential testing of near finish grade soils.
5.7 Settlement Considerations
Settlement of onsite fill materials is expected to occur during and within 90 days
following fill placement. However, following the placement of fill and construction of
residences, additional settlement may occur due to: (a) new footing/foundation loads and
(b) compression within the fill due to the effects of landscaping irrigation and (c) hydro-
compression of alluvium, below the removal depths.
Based on the findings of this limited exploration and analysis, we recommend that the
planned residential buildings be designed in anticipation of approximately 1 inch of total
static settlement with 1 inch of static differential settlement across a lateral distance of 40
feet. The majority of the static settlement associated with the building loads (elastic
compression) is anticipated to occur during construction as the load is applied.
Additionally, for rough-grade design, the architect and structural engineer should utilize
0.5 inch in 40 feet as potential differential settlement effect due to seismic densification.
When available, the rough grading plans should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer
with regard to anticipated settlement.
5.8 Footing Setback
We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all
structural footings (retaining and decorative walls, building footings, etc.). This distance
is measured from the outside bottom edge of the footing horizontally to the slope face (or
to the face of a retaining wall) and should be a minimum of H/2, where H is the slope
height (in feet). The setback should not be less than 7 feet and need not be greater than
10 feet.
- 15 -
Leighton
111401-002
November 9, 2004
Please note that the soils within the structural setback area possess poor lateral stability
and improvements (such as retaining walls, pools, decks, sidewalks, fences, pavements,
etc.) constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or
differential settlement. Potential distress to such improvements may be mitigated by
providing a deepened footing or a pier and grade-beam foundation system to support the
improvement. The deepened footing should meet the setback as described above.
5.9 Slope Stability
Due to the relatively flat lying nature of the subject site,we anticipate that any slopes will
be less than 6 feet in height. We do not anticipate a risk of slope failure in fill slopes.
Review of the rough-grading plans for surficial and general slope stability should be
performed when these plans are available.
Unprotected slope faces may be subject to erosion, particularly if granular soils are
exposed to sufficient rainfall. Surficial erosion may be reduced by selective grading or a
mixture of selective grading and appropriate vegetation.
5.10 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design
Project plans are currently not available. Should this change, and retaining wall and soil
parameters are required, the following preliminary retaining wall and'soil parameters can
be used. However, when retaining wall plans become available, Leighton should review
and update the preliminary design parameters as needed.
For preliminary design purposes, the following lateral earth pressure values for level or
sloping backfill are recommended for walls backfilled with onsite and/or import soils of
very low to low expansion potential (expansion potential less than 50 per ASTM Test
Method D4829) as indicated on the following table.
Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf)
Conditions Level 2:1 Slope
Active 35 55
At-Rest 55 65
Passive 350 --
(Maximum of 1.5 ksf)
The wall pressures assume walls are backfilled with free draining materials and water is not
allowed to accumulate behind walls. A typical wall drainage design is presented in
- 16 -
Leighto
111401-002
November 9, 2004
Appendix D. Wall backfill should be brought to at or above the optimum moisture content
and compacted by mechanical methods to at least 90 percent relative compaction(based on
ASTM D 1557). Wall footings should be designed in accordance with the foundation design
recommendations and reinforced in accordance with structural considerations.
Lateral soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be obtained from
the passive pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding resistance, the friction
coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. These values may be
increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration including wind or seismic
loads. The total resistance may be taken as the sum of the frictional and passive resistance
provided that the passive portion does not exceed two-thirds of the total resistance.
5.11 Drainage
All drainage should be directed away from structures by means of approved permanent or
temporary drainage devices. Adequate storm drainage should be provided to avoid
siltation of any temporary catch basins. Linear sandbagging of the pads tangential to flow
directions in periodic intervals, should reduce erosion potential of runoff over these pads.
5.12 Corrosion
Limited laboratory testing indicated that onsite soils likely possess a negligible
concentration of soluble sulfates. Minimum resistivity and pH testing indicated that the
onsite soils have a low potential for corrosion to buried uncoated metal conduits. The
laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C.
Additional corrosion testing should be performed on representative finish grade soils at
the completion of rough grading. Concrete foundations in contact with site soils should
be designed in accordance with Table 19A-A-4 of the Uniform Building Code. A
qualified corrosion engineer should be consulted to review if corrosion sensitive
materials are to be used.
5.13 Preliminary Pavement Design Parameters
Preliminary pavement thickness recommendation is based on the Caltrans Highway
Design Manual using an R-value =30. For planning and estimating purposes, a range of
Traffic Indexes (TI's) had been provided for preliminary pavement recommendations.
Final pavement sections should be selected by the project civil engineer or traffic
engineer consultant with the appropriate TI data and should be in general accordance
with City of Lake Elsinore and industry standards. The pavement sections should meet or
exceed County of Riverside standards.
- 17 *V
-
Leighton
111401-002
November 9, 2004
Representative samples of the actual subgrade materials should be obtained and tested for
R-Value during rough grading as the basis for the final pavement design.
AC Pavement Section Thickness
TI Asphaltic-Concrete (AC) Class 2 Aggregate Base(AB)
Thickness(inches)R=30 Rock(R=78) Thickness(inches)
5 3 6
6 3.5 8.0
7 4.0 10.0
8 5.0 11.0
The subgrade soils in the upper 12 inches should be properly compacted to at least 95
percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557) and should be moisture-conditioned to near
optimum and kept in this condition until the pavement section is constructed.
Minimum relative, compaction requirements for aggregate base should be 95 percent of the
maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557. Base rock should conform
to the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" (green book) current
edition or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base having a minimum R-value of 78.
The preliminary pavement sections provided in this section are meant as minimum, if
thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and
repair may be needed.
If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, some deterioration of
the subgrade load bearing capacity may result. We recommend some measures of
moisture control(such as deepened curbs or other moisture barrier materials)be provided
to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming saturated.
Additional pavement recommendations, including concrete paving, for parking lots, truck
loading docks and entry ramps will be provided when further information is available
regarding the proposed residential development.
5.14 Preliminary Recommendations for Cast In Place Concrete Pipes (CIPP)
Based on our subsurface field investigation and limited laboratory testing, we consider
the utilization of CIPP as feasible from a geotechnical point of view. The on-site soils are
considered suitable bearing material for placement of pipes. Groundwater and perched
groundwater are not considered a limitation during trench excavation, and concrete
- 18 io
-
Leighton
111401-002
November 9, 2004
placement. The trench wall stability and wall sloughing potential should be evaluated
- when the alignment of the pipelines is available. Limited laboratory testing of on-site
soils indicates a very low expansion potential and negligible concentration of sulfate
exposure (UBC, Table No. 19-A-4). However, additional testing of representative soils
should be tested along the pipe alignment. CIPP shall not be recommended if expansive
soils are encountered (Riverside County and Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, 2003). The minimum finished cover over the pipe shall be at least
three feet. Additional recommendations should be warranted if adverse soil conditions are
encountered during trench excavation. The plans and specifications should be reviewed by
Leighton, and additional recommendations may be provided based on appropriate
subsurface investigation and laboratory testing as deemed necessary prior to the
.finalization of plans or construction.
i
- 19-
oighto
111401-002
November 9, 2004
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
Geotechnical review is of paramount importance in engineering practice. The poor performance
of many foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to inadequate construction
review. We recommend that Leighton and Associates be provided the opportunity to review the
following items.
6.1 Plans and Specifications
Leighton and Associates should review the project rough-grading plans as well as
foundation plans and specifications prior to release for bidding and construction. Such
review is necessary to evaluate whether the geotechnical recommendations have been
effectively incorporated in plans and other construction documents. Review findings
should be reported in writing. Depending on the results of a detailed plan review,
additional subsurface evaluation may be warranted to further refine the seismic
densification(settlement)values and remedial grading depths presented herein.
6.2 Construction Review
Observation and testing should be performed by Leighton and Associates representatives
during grading and construction. It should be anticipated that the substrata exposed
during construction may vary from those encountered in the borings and test pits.
Reasonably continuous construction observation and review during site grading and
foundation installation allows for evaluation of the actual soil conditions and fault
locations and the ability to provide appropriate revisions during construction, if required.
Site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils, approval of imported earth materials, fill
placement, foundation installation and other site geotechnically-related operations should
be observed and tested by representatives of Leighton and Associates.
Additional laboratory tests of subsurface materials should be performed during or prior to
grading to confirm compacted density and moisture content, corrosion potential,
expansion potential and resistance value(R-value).
-20 49
-
Leighten
111401-002
November 9, 2004
7.0 LIMITATIONS
This report was necessarily based in part upon data obtained from a limited number of
observances, site visits, soil samples, tests, analyses, histories of occurrences, spaced subsurface
explorations and limited information on historical events and observations. Such information is
necessarily incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing characteristics can be
experienced within small distances and under various climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface
conditions can and do occur over time.
This report was prepared for Corman Leigh Communities, based on Corman Leigh
Communities' needs, directions, and requirements. This report is not authorized for use by, and
is not to be relied upon by any party except Corman Leigh Communities, and its successors and
assigns as owner of the property, with whom Leighton has contracted for the work. Use of or
reliance on this report by any other party is at that party's risk. Unauthorized use of or reliance
on this report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Leighton and Associates from
and against any liability which may arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless of any
fault,negligence, or strict liability of Leighton and Associates.
- 21 -
LeihtOn
III'• _v«
/.
•
5.
�I -sa Al APPROXIMATE
SITE LOCATION
A-
Ak
-r-' ' • (•r
:'fl-'�
fl' 41 _
L71
3 ;7ew
r
14,
Ar
� r' _ ,� �4i`�-..-.� tip ••.,Q� ��1�j $� �J
Kuhn l �-
R`',,.` ;'� ��7t-,_�_1,��AJy�,� �►. $�.�a'w �,�~ ~' .gyp.
J* ��•L t•_
,G 4p
r 1 k
2-4
'• f� t' fJ f' •' y�JJ 4
ti, ti f
c
Base Map:The Thomas Guide Digital Edition San Bernardino and Riverside,2004,Not To Scale
Preliminary Geotechnical Project No.
Investigation, Black Property SITE LOCATION 111401-002
Lake Elsinore MAP Date
Riverside County, California November 2004 Figure No. 1
- Jr, APPROXIMATE
SITE LOCATION
O� -
_
A Y
aB4
B-5
2
B-
B-3 B-1
�
°
NORTH
Base Map:Microsoft TerraServer Imagery, Image courtesy of the USGS.Lake Elsinore,California, United States 06 Jun 2002. Not to Scale.
Preliminary Geotechnical Project No. 4W/
Investigation, Black Property BORING LOCATION 111401-002
Lake Elsinore MAP Date 40(0
Riverside County, California November 2004 Figure No. 2
3"
APPROXIMATE
,. SITE LOCATION
R ,
A
= Alk 7 IN
LAKE ELS1
ia
.I
. - -
VVV
j
k�. r
! 7
• Groundwater Wells ®Existing Mapped Landslides JAI{
r CRIES
HHGV:'T Contour Liquefaction Hazard Zones 1 j
Major Roads Study Required '+''aterbodies >
- 7
Highways Discretionary 0 County boundary
^—,Couny Faults Sections Surrounding Counties
-Alquist Pnolo Faul Zones +
-County Fault Zones Townships R
Base Map:County of Riverside General Plan Safety Element 0 1.25 2.5
Adopted October 7,2003. miles
Preliminary Geotechnical Project No.
Investigation, Black Property GEOLOGIC HAZARD 111401-002
Lake Elsinore MAP Date r
Riverside County, California November 2004 Figure No.3
/' )b 1a
eo
r^� .(I 1 \ �• 1 ?
APPROXIMATE i h
SITE LOCATION - - '1
�'}- t ter' ''�Q ' y ( ti • t rz
1.0 lip
lip
�,• \f,'l'. �%�a ,,p...,_ r% �" �'��� s£ 7'.��1=►�"T'TT`�4�?r���S�1 �f'f'_
r• r
'_ - �
ell
<
(a) SC
!a)Sohl where well-defined and positively identified; / - 5 '� • •, t�,.. • • 1 •tt?• • • • •
;p;lonq-dcsnea where relatively weu-defined and modaete:y
we ident:fiec;(c!shor•-dashed where -race is va que, ,
e saec:ally m alluvial deposi•s,or where surmised and
:an;ec'c,oi: .d,.do, le: wive e?cueriee
Base Map:CDMG Open-File Report 77-4, May 1977,Plate IB, 1"=2000'
Preliminary Geotechnical Project No.
Investigation, Black Property LOCAL GEOLOGIC 111401-002
Lake Elsinore MAP Date
Riverside County, California I i November 2004 Figure No.4
111401-002
November 9, 2004
APPENDIX A
References
Blake, T.F., 2000a, EQSEARCH, Version 4.00, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak
Horizontal Acceleration from Southern California Historical Earthquake Catalogs, Users
Manual, 94pp.,with update data, 2000.
Blake, T. F., 2000b, EQFAULT, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program, for the Deterministic
Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults, User's
Manual, 77pp.
Blake, T. F., 2000c, FRISKSP, Version 4.00 Computer Program, for Determining the
Probabilistic Horizontal Acceleration, User's Manual, 99pp.
Blake, T. F., 2000d, UBCSEIS, Version 1.0, User's Manual for Evaluating the Seismic
Parameters in accordance with the 1997 UBC, 53 pp.
California Division of Mines. and Geology*, 1977, Seismic Hazards Related To Geologic
Factors, Elsinore and Chino Fault Zones, Northwestern Riverside County, California,
DMG Open-File Report 77-4, May 1977
California Division of Mines and Geology*, 1980, Special Studies Zone Map, Elsinore
Quadrangle, Preliminary Review Map, dated January 01, 1980 Scale 1:24,000.
California Division of Mines and Geology *, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the
State of California, 1996, Open-File Report 96-08.
California Division of Mines and Geology*, 1999, Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana 30' X
60' Quadrangle, Southern California, scale 1:250,000.
California, State of, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology 1980, Special
Studies Zones,Alberhill Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series.*
Department of Water Resources, State of California, Southern District, 1981. Investigation of
Groundwater supply for Stabilization of Level of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County: a
report to Department of Parks and Recreation under Interagency Agreement 162083.
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD), 2003, verbal communication between
Matthew Clark(Leighton and Associates) and Phillip Miller(EVMWD), April 25,2003.
Hart, E.W., Bryant, W. A., 1999, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning with Index to Earthquake Zones Maps: Department of
Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. Revised 1997,
Supplements 1 and 2 added 1999.
ARW
A-1
Leighton
111401-002
November 9, 2004
References (continued)
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997 Uniform Building Code,Volumes 1-3.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1988, Maps of Known Active Fault-Near Source
Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada.
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division
of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map Series, No. 6, Scale 1:750,000.
Kennedy, 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Riverside
County, California, CDMG Special Report 131.
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, (NCEER), 1997, Proceedings for -the
NCEER Workshop of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Technical Report NCEER-97-
0022, dated December 31, 1997.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1986a, Foundations and earth structures, design manual
7.02, Changes 1: U.S.Navy, September 1986.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1986b, Soil Mechanics, 7.01, Changes 1; U.S. Navy,
September 1986.
Pradel, D., 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils,
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 4,
dated April 1998.
Riverside County and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 2003,
Cast-In-Place Concrete Pipe Design Standards for Subdivision Project Improvement
Plans for Facilities to be Maintained by County or District, dated September29, 2003.
i Riverside County, 2003, General Plan Safety Element and Appendix H - Geotechinal Report
(Technical Background Document), Adopted October 7,2003
United States Geological Survey, 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30'
X 60' Quadrangle, Southern California. Compiled by D.M. Morton, Version 1.0
1:100,000 scale.
WGCEP - Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1995, Seismic Hazards in
Southern California: Probable Earthquake Probabilities, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., Vol.
85,No. 2,pp 379-439.
*Effective January 1, 2002 this department has been renamed the California Geological Survey.
A-2
Leighton
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1
Date 10-14-04 Sheet 1 of 2
Project Corman Leigh Black Property Project No. 111401-002
Drilling Co. Cal Pac Type of Rig B-61
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Hole#/- 1333' Location 33 41' 11 N/117 22'39W
o v rn z° av) DESCRIPTION m
._�. t�., la F-
ILL mLL 2 J o a Co. c UN o
w ® t9 Z m
IL go o 'o= Logged By PCCL
® U rn Sampled By PC M
1 ® TOPSOIL
QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM(Qal)
Bulk 2 SA,El,
0 5, @ MD
A 1330 R1 27 SM @ 2.5':Light brown,damp,medium dense,silty,fine to medium HCO
94.2 5.1 SAND;rootlets dense,porous
5 R3 29 94.8 6.6 5:Light brown,d� @ gh amp,medium dense,silty,fine to coarse SAND; HCO,DS
porous,gravels common
1 1325 R4 28 @ 7.5':Light brown,damp,medium dense,silty,fine to medium HCO
110.2 5.0 SAND;few gravels
10 R5 43 @ 10':Brown,damp,medium dense,silty,medium to coarse SAND; -200
1 114.5 2.4 gravels abundant,subangular to angular gravels
1 1320
15 R6 78 SM OLDER ALLUVIUM QUATERNARY DEPOSITS
1 105.3 2.0 @ 15':Brown,damp,dense,silty,medium to coarseSAND;gravels
abundant,subangular to angular gravels
1 1315
20 S7 78 20':Brown,d @ amp,dense,medium to coarse SAND;gravels -200
1 common
1 1310
25 S8 S 50/4" 0.9
@ 25':Brown-
gray,damp,very dense,silty,medium to coarse SAND;
1 rock fragments from larger block
1305
an
1 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: HCO HYDROCOLLAPSE CS CORROSION SUITE
S SPT G GRAB SAMPLE SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER MC MOISTURE CONTENT
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT
S BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS -200 200 WASH
T TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX RDS Remolded DS
1 CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1
Date 10-14-04 Sheet 2 of 2
Project Corman Leigh Black Property Project No. 111401-002
Drilling Co. Cal Pac Type of Rig B-61
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 lbs Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Hole#/. 1333' Location 33 41' 11 N/117 22'39W
v z° .� w N" DESCRIPTION H
I tam C.m IL OUL C.0 IsOLL m V d v
w c9 ® o= Logged By PC >?,
® Sampled By PC
30
0':Brown-gray,damp,very dense,silty,medium to coarse SAND;
k
1 1300
35 Total Depth 30.5'
No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled with Spoils 10/14/04
1295
40
1290
J45
1285
— 50
I
1280
1
55
1
1275
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: HCO HYDROCOLLAPSE CS CORROSION SUITE
S SPT G GRAB SAMPLE SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER MC MOISTURE CONTENT
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE .SAND EQUIVALENT
B BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS .200 200 WASH
T TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX RDS Remolded DS
CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
Date 10-14-04 Sheet 1 of 2
Project Corman Leigh Black Property Project No. 111401-002
Drilling Co. Cal Pac Type of Rig B-61
— Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Hole+/- 1339' Location 33 41' 13N/117 22'41 W
= v z° �" DESCRIPTION
e 0U.
1 W ®u. t9 z ma ® goo toy Logged By PC CL
Sampled By PC +—
1 0 k1, 1,. Tops on,
QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM(Qal)
1 RI 9 SM @ 2.5%Red-brown,damp,loose,silty,fine to medium SAND;few -200
97.2 6.0 rootlets
1335
5 R2 70 @ 5':No Recovery
1
.Bulk 4 @ SA
1
1330
10 R3 35 SWSP @ 10': Light red-brown,darc�p,medium dense,silty,fine SAND;
1 112.3 2.1 abundant subangular gravels
1
1325
15 R5 63 SM OLDER ALLUVIUM QUATERNARY DEPOSTTS(Qgp)
1 116.7 3.9 @ 15':Dark red-brown,moist,dense,silty,fine to medium SAND;few
gravels>1"in diameter,micaceous
1320
20 S6 37 @ 20':Dark red-brown,moist,dense,silty,fine to medium SAND; -200
1 very micaceous
J.
1315
25 ---- -- -- -- -- -- ----------------------------
R7 5015" 10g.g 2.1 SM/SP @ 25':Dark red-brown,moist,very dense,silty,fine to medium
SAND;very micaceous,gravels<3"in diameter
1
1310
1 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: Aid
SU SULFATE HCO HYDROCOLLAPSE CS CORROSION SUITE
S SPT G .GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR HD HYDROMETER MC MOISTURE CONTENT
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT
3 BULK SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS .200 200 WASH
CN CONSOLIDATION El . EXPANSION INDEX RDS Remolded DS
T TUBE SAMPLE
1 CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
Date 10-14-04 Sheet 2 of 2
Project Corman Leigh Black Property Project No. 111401-002
Drilling Co. Cal Pac Type of Rig B-61
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Hole#/- 1339' Location 33 41' 13N/117 22'41 W
® v zo �' y �; DESCRIPTION
CO m m 3°o �"° eo
.,c
1 >LL m� ��° c a Qt` ®CL ®� vy
W t9 Z W ��o Logged By PC 0.
Sampled By PC �-
30 S8 80/11" SP
@ 30%Gray-brown,damp,very dense,silty,fine to coarse SAND; -200
gravels abundant
1
1305
1 35 ———— R9 SO/5" 111.9 4.4 SM @ 35' Dark brown,damp,very dense,silty,fine to coarse SAND;
micaceous
1
1300
40 S10 50/6" @ 40':Red-brown,damp very dense,silty,fine to coarse SAND;very
micaceous,well sorted
1295
45 ———— R 11 50/6" 102.0 8.1 SM/SP 45' Gra -brown,da n , er ——si— ——— ——
@ y mp,very dense,silty,fine to coarse SAND; -200
gravels common,very micaceous
J
1290
50
4 q I 7 X SO/6" 0':Gray-brown,damp,very dense,silty,fine to coarse SAND;very
micaceous
1 1285
55 Total Depth 50.5'
No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled with Spoils 10/14/04
1280
l SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: HCO HYDROCOLLAPSE CS CORROSION SUITE
S SPT G GRAB SAMPLE SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER MC MOISTURE CONTENT
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT
B BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS .200 200 WASH
T TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX RDS Remolded DS
I CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3
Date 10-14-04 Sheet 1 of 2
Project Corman Leigh Black Property Project No. 111401-002
Drilling Co. Cal Pac Type of Rig 8-61
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Hole#/• 1345' Location 33 41' 14N/117 22'46W
t
IA
z° �o DESCRIPTION
m m al ea d 3 o c v
... m v w
�� � L-, o a o L ®a o. vy
1 LU ® o z M ma Z o o= Logged By PC a
® Sampled By PC
'1345 0 . , e ,. SOIL
ARTIFICIAL FILL UNDOCUMENTED(Afu)
Bulk 2 @ SA,RV
0-5'
1 R1 1 I ML @ 2.5':Light brown,damp,stiff,sandy,lean SILT;rootlets common HCO
98.6 4.0
1340 5 R3 29 SNVSP QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM(Gall HCO
108.4 3.1 5':Light brown,damp,medium dense,silty,fine to medium SAND;
subrounded to rounded gravels,abundant V in diameter
---- -- -- -- -- -- ----------------------------
R4 26 SM @ 7.5':Light brown,damp,medium dense,silty,fine to medium HCO
110.0 2.8 SAND;large rootlet,micaceous,some gravels
1335 10 SS 40 SM OLDER ALLUVIUM QUATERNARY DEPOSITS(Ouu)
@ 10':Light brown,damp,medium dense,silty,fine to medium
SAND;micaceous
1
t330 15 R6 59 @ 15%Light brown,damp,dense,silty,fine to medium SAND;
117.1 2.2 micaceous,silt stringers,few gravels
1
1325 20 ---- -- -- -- -- -- ----------------------------
R7 5016" SWSP @ 20%Light pray-brown,damp,very dense,silty,fine to medium
SAND;micaceous,few large gravels 1-2"in diameter
1
1320 25 R8 5015" @ 25':No Recovery
1
1 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:SU SULFATE HCO HYDROCOLLAPSE CS CORROSION SUITE
S SPT G .GRAB SAMPLE HD HYDROMETER MC . MOISTURE CONTENT
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT
B BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS -200.200 WASH
' T TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EL_ EXPANSION INDEX RDS Remolded DS
CR CORROSION RV_R VALUE
LEIGHTON
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3
Date 10-14-04 Sheet 2 of 2
Project Corman Leigh Black Property Project No. 111401-002
Drilling Co. Cal Pac Type of Rig B-61
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 ibs Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Hole+/- 1345' Location 33.41' 14N/117 22'46W
w m am cs
w flzDESCRIPTION
LA
Cal
Coo y m
"-
UJ ® t9 z ma 20 36 Logged By PC CL
® Sampled By PC
1315 30 S9 65/12" SM/SP 30':Light brown d @ gh gray- amp,very dense,silty,fine to coarse SAND;
---micaceous,rock fra ents>1/2,in.diameter
1
1 1310 35 Total Depth 31'
No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled with Spoils 10/14/04
1305 40
1300 45
l
1295 50
1
1
1290 55
I
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: HCO HYDROCOLLAPSE CS CORROSION SUITE
S SPT G GRAB SAMPLE SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER MC MOISTURE CONTENT
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT
MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS .200 200 WASH 40
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX RDS Remolded DS
1 T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4
Date 10-14-04 Sheet 1 of 1
Project Corman Leigh Black Property Project No. 111401-002
Drilling Co. Cal Pac Type of Rig B-61
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Hole+/- 1348' Location 33 41' 17N/117 22'46W
® v z �,® H ��; DESCRIPTION
m
z as m as 3 o cw ,�= Rv F-
�� mLL 1 J a a ®a ®= vy
1 W ® 0 Z ma -o o� Logged By PC a
1' Sampled By PC
1 0 SOIL
QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM(Oal)
1 1345 R1 34 SM @ 2.5%Light brown,damp,medium dense,silty,fine to medium -200
98.7 3.8 SAND;few rootlets,micaceous,few pores
1 R2 33 SP/SM @ 5'.Light brown,damp,medium dense,silty,fine to medium SAND;
107.9 3.2 rootlets common,micaceous,few gravels
1 1340 R3 44 @ 75:Red-brown,dam,medium dense,silty,fine to coarse SAND; -200
106.7 2.1 few gravels 1-2"in diameter,micaceous
R4 44 (SM)G OLDER ALLUVIUM QUATERNARY DEPOSITS(Oup)
{ 0 137.4 2.5 @ IV: Red-brown,damp,medium dense,silty,fine to coarse SAND;
o (a Bulk 5 @ gravels abundant,nucaceous SA
OK 10-15'
11335 o b
c,
15
S6 76/12" SM @ 15':Red-brown,damp,very dense,silty,fine to medium SAND;
1 micaceous,rock fragments
1 1330
20 R7 50/6" 98.0 2.6 @ 20':Red-brown,damp,very dense,silty,fine to medium SAND; -200
1 micaceous,rock fragments
1 1325
25 Total Depth 22'
1 No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled with Spoils 10/14/04
1320
t
1 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: HCO HYDROCOLLAPSE CS CORROSION SUITE
S SPT G GRAB SAMPLE SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER MC _MOISTURE CONTENT
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT
B BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS -200 200 WASH
T TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX RDS Remolded DS
1 CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5
Date 10-14-04 Sheet 1 of 1
Project Corman Leigh Black Property Project No. 111401-002
Drilling Co. Cal Pac Type of Rig B-61
Hole Diameter 81' Drive Weight 140 ibs Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Hole#/- 1343' Location
v
z w N� RIPTI
°...o-m �� s w d m 3 o m t9 eG® �O>LL 01J. ZM a a � no om Logged By PC
w a) ® Sampled By PC
0 {', solL
QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM(Qal)
1 1340 R1 13 SM @ 2.5':Light brown,damp,loose,silty,fine to medium SAND;rootlets
abundant micaceous,porous
5 R2 22 @ 5':Light brown,damp,medium dense,silty,fine to medium SAND;
1 97.9 4.3 rootlets abundant,micaceous,porous
1 1335 R3 25 1�53 S SM/SP @ 7.5':Red-brown,damp,medium dense,silty,fine to medium SAND; DS
few gravels,micaceous
10 R4 67/12" SP OLDER ALLUVIUM QUATERNARY DEPOSITS(Qua) -200
1 @ 10':Gray,damp,very dense,coarse,sandy GRAVEL;micaceous,
Bulk 5 @ quartz rich SA
1 1330
15 ———— R6 57 SM @ IT:Red-brown,moist,silty,fine to coarse SAND;very micaceous,
114.3 4.5 few gravels
1 1325
---- -- -- -- -- -- ----------------------------
20
S7 50/6" SM/SP @ 20':Gray-brown,damp,medium to coarse SAND;micaceous,
1 abundant gravels
11320
25 Total Depth 22'
No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled with Spoils 10/14/04
'1315
I SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
SU SULFATE HCO HYDROCOLLAPSE CS CORROSION SUITE
S SPT G GRAB SAMPLE HD HYDROMETER MC MOISTURE CONTENT
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE DS . DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT
B BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS .200 200 WASH
CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX RDS Remolded DS
t TUBE SAMPLE
1 CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6
Date 10-14-04 Sheet 1 of 1
Project Corman Leigh Black Property Project No. 111401-002
Drilling Co. Cal Pac Type of Rig B-61
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Hole+/- 1355' Location
v z yo N vf DESCRIPTION
o
m s m a► m HU)m 3 0 e t Fm
I to ® t7 Z ma g o OD Logged By PC cL CL
® Sampled By PC
11355 0 SOIL
QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM(Gall
RI 24 SM @ 2.5':Light brown,damp,medium dense,silty,fine to medium -200,
106.6 3.7 SAND;slightly micaceous HCO
1350 5 R2 35 @ 5':Red-brown,damp,medium dense,silty,fine to coarse SAND; HCO
I 106.1 3.9 few rootlets,slightly micaceous,porous
R3 61112" 114.9 6.5 @ 7.5':Red-brown,damp,very dense,silty,fine to medium SAND; -200,
few gravels,micaceous HCO
1345 10 R5 54 @ 10':Red-brown,moist,dense,silty,fine to medium SAND;calcium HCO
112.4 5.5 carbonate stringers,micaceous,few gravels
Bulk 4 @
5-10'
1
1340 15 S6 77/12" @ 15':Red-brown,d very
micaceous to white-gray,v d dense,silty,fine to medium SAND; -200
gray, amp,very dense,highly weathered
GRANPITC fabric
1335 20
Total Depth l 8'
No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled with Spoils 10/14/04
1330 25
1
I
I SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: 4401,
HCO HYDROCOLLAPSE CS CORROSION SUITE
S SPT G GRAB SAMPLE SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER MC MOISTURE CONTENT
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE D5 DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT
B BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS .200 200 WASH
I T TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX RDS Remolded DS
CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-7
Date 10-14-04 Sheet 1 of 1
Project Corman Leigh Black Property Project No. 111401-002
Drilling Co. Cal Pac Type of Rig B-61
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Hole+/_ 1353' Location
a
= v z° DESCRIPTIONm
w
>m mm �® o cm a d+- dQ H� vv o
®u- ®LL `J z E o c -U? m
I LU c9 ,c n- g o on Logged By PCi IN Q-
y ® yv Sampled By PC
® SOIL
Bulk 2 @ QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM(Oal)
MD,CS,
0-5' SA,EI
1 1350 RI rl 103.6 6.3 ML @ 2.5%Light brown,damp,stiff,lean SILT;few rootlets HCO
5 R3 24 @ 5':Red-brown,damp,medium dense,silty,fine to medium SAND; HCO
107.4 5.4 few rootlets,slightly micaceous
1345 R4 40 SM/SP @ 7.5':Dark gray-brown,moist,medium dense,silty,medium to
108.6 3.9 coarse SAND;very micaceous,abundant gravels
10 ———— R5 48 —— SM @ IV:Red-brown to gray-brown,moist,medium dense,silty,fine to
112.1 8.3 medium SAND;micaceous,mottled
'1340
15 R6 H 81/12" SM/SP OLDER ALLUVIUM OUATERNARY DEPOSTTS(Qup�
114.0 1.8 @ 15.Dark red-brown,moist,very dense,silty,fine to medium
SAND;very micaceous,weathered graintics fragments
1335
20 S7 65 @ 20':Gray,moist,dense,silty,fine to coarse SAND;comprised of
weathered gramtics fragments
1330
25
Total Depth 24'
1325 No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled with Spoils 10/14/04
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
HCO HYDROCOLLAPSE CS _CORROSION SUITE
S SPT G GRAB SAMPLE SU SULFATE HD HYDROMETER MC MOISTURE CONTENT
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT
B BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS .200 200 WASH
.TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX RDS Remolded DS
T
I CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON
111401-002
November 9, 2004
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
Classification or Grain Size Tests: Typical materials were subjected to mechanical grain-size
analysis by sieving from U.S. Standard brass screens (ASTM Test Method D422). The data was
evaluated in determining the classification of the materials. The grain-size distribution curves are
presented in the test data and the Unified Soil Classification (USCS) is presented in both the test
data and the boring logs.
Grain Size Test: Percent Passing the No. 200 Sieve: Percent soil particle finer than 0.075 mm
was evaluated for subgrade soils in general accordance with ASTM 1140.
Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method
D3080 on selected relatively undisturbed samples which were soaked for a minimum of 24 hours
under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing. After transfer of the sample to
the shear box, and reloading the sample, pore pressures set up in the sample due to the transfer
were allowed to dissipate for a period of approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing
force. The samples were tested under various normal loads, a motor-driven, strain-controlled,
4 direct-sheartesting apparatus at a strain rate of less than 0.001 to 0.5 inches per minute(depending
upon the soil type). The test results are presented in the test data.
Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated in accordance
with ASTM Test Method D4829. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to
approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation or
approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter
specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until
volumetric equilibrium is reached.
Hydrocollapse Tests: Hydrocollapse test was performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method
D4546 on selected, relatively undisturbed ring sample. A sample was placed in a consolidometer
and loads were applied in geometric progression. The percent hydrocollapse for each load cycle
was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original 1-inch height. The
hydrocollapse pressure curve is presented in the test data.
Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content and dry density determinations were
performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D2937 on relatively undisturbed samples
obtained from the test borings. The results of these tests are presented in the boring logs. Where
applicable,only moisture content was determined from"undisturbed" or disturbed samples.
Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical
materials were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. The results of these
tests are presented in the test data.
C-1
111401-002
November 9, 2004
Laboratory Testing (continued)
"R"-Value: The resistance "R"-value was determined by the California Materials Method No. 301
for subgrade soils. Three samples were prepared and exudation pressure and"R"-value determined
on each one. The graphically determined "R"-value at exudation pressure of 300 psi is
summarized in the test data.
Chloride Content, Sulfate Content,Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Chloride content, Sulfate
Content,Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with California
Test Method 422, 417, and 532/643. The results are presented in the test data.
C-2
0
o
� cp 00 0) c! co ui O`
m t' C) C7 C @ Z () o Nr a Na6 NCO r Nw tp)
N "o
`
(A O o r x
r
p m 00 o 00 r 00 �
d' CO N r N 4 � CV CV � Lo Y O
m � M N CS) r d i- CF)0) r r n
N (N r N r r r r' U ro
0
CO
LU
•- 0 0) V: r 0) Cl? N r r w O
N r U) M �f (I- m' C7 r m N to Cv9 f� r
m cn c0 N p (0N 00 `f e- 00 Z pal
J
W r
M 00 m -j M M 6C) J (q M M Cc6 O E j
OCl M CL � N 0 M f " 0 LO N h� Z Z
CO N CU C
'p •p .N N
a` Li U H
C\I tf} sfi N 'I N C] d CD
(L 0- vj J C CO
m U� CV (!� Cl)) ems- 0) M M w V b'
00 <C 0 M o wl LO
ctl 4t N It N r C9) N r
N - LOJ 0) m CR p 0) r Q p
m CV Z—W, n N 00 tsi tJ N 00 m U co 00 rn
W
L
N cyco N d OR rn q L
m fn N (o N N 60 N N 00
LON 00 co r 00
W N
(� ,to, 00 CO r r- C0 r to Z T-
r tt) p Z Cl C7� r r
m r �COr 00 tYi W' n co M W � M r- «� (a Q i
�' N N N r N s- Z
0. Q
E
CA E s- Z
CT �_ W
E, (�0 E W
O a
+ N + N t2 g N N N
N = N N C O
ro i v- 'd C C ti- C a-• Z Z
Q U o _o 0 0 o 0 ro 0 L 0 0 0 _o
Z 0 a) m 0 0 0 `m ro o yr �a
a) U)
`o ro a) ro a.
� o a) a) o o m to w o a)
m cn o cn > o o S' 0 ¢ o o a o
0
va
O
N N
N
O o
T N
Y c
U �
m
W N
0
0 '
r
Z o
W T
ui ..
ai r o, rn o v o o E
u�
d N N co
00 T Q N co 00 Q " Q O O z z ? "0
(n N C
to
a` Q- v N
o cn c) O o Un o O o
LO
L1. a N
00 N Oo
M c0
C7 J C7 co, 00 O 00 00 (D 00 oD
Oi C'l Z ��, Cr7 I`- M Ci (/�, M h� O Uj �. (D O
CIO 00 S`•. T 0o r t() 0)
N T r r r
W
W34.
��// ed T .�. iC C'7 �. O
N 00 00 CD coo
��//�� as
`- T N 00 N N OfN O CO
07 0
N
O
�
T O 00 00 L J T—
CO NZ i " w0 U 00 (,D000 0o ) 00N N 8
_Z C�
G
_ a ¢
m F-
10
a m E U 0) qs W
wcm
0 0 0 «: +
0 N 0-
U c
U Q + + ` + p- p- '' C, o C.4
a)
V p o C c M m � cV O
Q Co � U) 3 � Z Z
a c ° U ° Z il cc o z .� ci ° c
o z° H o 61 rn 0U L
a accc c c
o m aoi E N (D 0 0 0
m cn o cn > � o U U o o
60
50rtir}
a
40
x A"Line
d
C
30
u
20
a
10
0
_ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit(LL)
GRAVEL SAND 7777777 FINES
FCOARSE FINE CRSE I MEDIUM FINE SILT/CLAY
U.S.STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S.STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
3.0" 11/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #20
100
90 -
80
i- 70
x
60_ .. a -,...... ......_._ .... _._..._. ...
W � I
m 50
z
40
LL
j I
Z
v 30
W !
o- 20
i
10
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010
PARTICLE-SIZE(mm)
Boring No.: Sample No.: Depth(ft.).- Soil Type GR:SA:FI LL,PL,PI
B-1 B-2 5-0 SM 2 : 52 46 N/A
Project No.: 111401-002
ELSINORE BLACK
Visual Sample Description:
SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
ATTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE-SIZE CURVE
ASTM D 4318,D 422
Leicihton
' Rev.p8-04
Sieve B-1,B-2
60
50
x 40 A"Line
)
30
'u
20
a
10 _.-
;t.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit(LL)
GRAVEL SAND FINES
COARSE I FINE CRSE I MEDIUM I FINE SILT/CLAY
U.S.STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S.STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
3.0" 11/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #20
100
gp .... .I _...... _ j.. .
80 j
I
70
i
i—
x i
C9 60
L
m 50
w
U. 40
z
- v 30
w
0.
10
i I
0
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010
PARTICLE-SIZE(mm)
Boring No.: Sample No.: Depth ft): Soil Type GR:SA:FI LL,PL,PI
B-2 B-4 0-10 SM 2 : 62: 36 N/A
Project No.: 1 1 1 41-002
ELSINORE BLACK
Visual Sample Description:
SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
ATfERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE-SIZE CURVE
ASTM D 4318,D 422
L hto n
Rev.08-04
Sieve B-ZB-4
60
50 z; =:<i:;oi;<;a:;i`i-t •gr<s;? d
<.K.,.w?�t,P't;•:... -z:=?"`:mod s^.._
x 40 A"Line
W
a
Z, 30
20
a
10
rrr.�of
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit(ILL)
GRAVEL SAND FINES
COARSE FINE CRSE I MEDIUM 1 FINE SILT/CLAY
U.S.STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S.STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
3.0" 11/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #20
100
i
gp - . .__..... _.._
7
80
70
LU
c7
m 50
w
LL 40
i
z
V 30
w
a
Zp
10
0
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010
PARTICLE-SIZE(mm)
Boring No.: Sample No.: Depth ft): Soil Type GR:SA:FI LL,PL,PI
B-3 B-2 0-5 s(ML) 3 : 34: 63 N/A
Project No.: 111401-002
ELSINORE BLACK
Visual Sample Description:
s(ML),BROWN SANDY LEAN SILT
ATTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE-SIZE CURVE
ASTM D 4318,D 422
Rev.08-04
Sieve B-3,B-2
60
50i?xci
K 40 A"Line
d
v
e
30
20
a
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit(ILL)
GRAVEL SAND FINES
COARSE FINE CRSE I MEDIUM FINE SILT/CLAY
— U.S.STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S.STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
3.0" 11/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #20
100
i I
90 .._.. ............. _....._
80
70
j w 60
m 50
w
U. 40
Z
U 30
LU
(L 20 _._
10
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010
PARTICLE-SIZE(mm)
Boring No.: Sample No.: Depth ft): Soil Type GR:SA:FI LL,PL,PI
B-4 B-5 10-15 (SM)g 15: 60: 25 N/A
Project No.: 111401-002
ELSINORE BLACK
Visual Sample Description:
(SM)g, BROWN SILTY SAND WITH
GRAVEL ATTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE- SIZE CURVE
ASTM D 4318,D 422
Rev.OS-04
Sieve B-4,8-5
60
_ 50
0 1 Line
x 4
d
30
w
m 20
CL
10-
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit(LL)
GRAVEL SAND FINES
COARSE I FINE CRSE I MEDIUM I FINE SILT CLAY
U.S.STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S.STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
3.0" 11/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #20
100
90 _..... .. .
80 I j
70
w 60 _._ .
m 50
w
LL 40
z
U'U 30
a
20
i
10
0
100,000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010
PARTICLE-SIZE(mm)
Boring No.: Sample No.: Depth (ft.): Soil Type GR:SA:FI LL,PL,PI
B-5 B-5 10-15 SM 10: 57: 33 N/A
Project No.: 111401-002
ELSINORE BLACK
- Visual Sample Description:
SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
ATTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE- SIZE CURVE
ASTM D 4318,D 422
Leighton
Rev.08-04
Sieve B-5,B-5
60
50 a=ti i;:>7tS:a�)d ri:;e-t'sr a: c-:i
40 A"Line
1 30
u
X) 20
a
10
M...of C;.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit(LL)
GRAVEL SAND FINES
COARSE FINE CRSE I MEDIUM FINE SILT/CLAY
U.S.STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S.STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
3.0" 11/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #20
100
90 ...
80
70
w
60
3
m 50
Z 40
LL i
V 30
a a
20
10 -
0
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010
PARTICLE-SIZE(mm)
Boring No.: Sample No.: Depth (ft.): Soil Type GR:SA:FI LL,PL,PI
B-7 B-2 0-5 s(ML) 1 : 49: 50 N/A
Project No.: 111401-002
ELSINORE BLACK
- Visual Sample Description:
s(ML), BROWN SANDY LEAN SILT
ATTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE-SIZE CURVE
ASTM D 4318,D 422
Leighton
Rev.06-04
Sieve B-7,B-2
Oxw-Diinensior.i.al Swell or Settletneot
-ote'r)'fial of Cohesive Soils
Project Name: ELSINORE BLACK Tested By: JMD Date: 10/22/04
Project No.: 111401-002 Checked By: PRC Date: 10/26/04
Boring No.: B-1 Sample Type: IN SITU
Sample No.: R-1 Depth (ft.) 2.5
Sample Description: SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Initial Dry Density(pcf): 94.2 Final Dry Density (pcf): 101.3
Initial Moisture (%): 5.1 Final Moisture(%) : 21.6
Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.7887
Initial Dial Reading: 0.0500 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70
Diameter in : 2.416 Initial Saturation % 17.5
(+)
Apparent Load Swell Corrected
Pressure(p) Final Reading Settlement(-)
Thickness Compliance ° Void Ratio Deformation
(ksf) (in) of Sample(in) {%) /°Thickness (%)
0.500 0.0543 0.9957 0.00 -0.43 0.7810 -0.43
1,0t 0 U61.4 0.9886 0.00 -1.14 0.7683 -1.14
H2O 0,1198 0.9302 0.00 -6.98 0.6639 -6.98
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve]
0.7900
-- - --=-j --- ---- --� - _
0.7800
0.7700
0.7600 klUndate w th -- -
water'
0.7500
0.7400
0
m 0.7300
0 0.7200
� r
0.7100
7
0.7000
0.6900
i
r 0.6800
0.6700
0.6600
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Log Pressure (ksf) Rev.08-04
Collapse-Swell B-1,R-1
Project Name: ELSINORE BLACK Tested By: JMD Date: 10/22/04
Project No.: 111401-002 Checked By: PRC Date: 10/26/04
Boring No.: B-1 Sample Type: IN SITU
Sample No.: R-3 Depth(ft.) 5
Sample Description: SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Initial Dry Density(pcf): 94.8 Final Dry Density(pcf): 100.8
Initial Moisture(%): 6.6 Final Moisture(%) : 23.7
Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.7777
Initial Dial Reading: 0.0500 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70
Diameter in : 2.416 Initial Saturation % 22.8
(+)
Apparent Load Swell Corrected
Pressure (p) Final Reading Settlement(-)
Thickness Compliance a Void Ratio Deformation
(ksf) (in) in of Sample
( ) (o/o /o) Thickness ( )
0.600 0,0579 0.9921 0.00 -0.79 0.7637 -0.79
1:200 0.0670 0.9830 0.00 -1.70 0.7475 -1.70
H2O 0.1094 0.9406 0.00 -5.94 0.6722 -5.94
Percent Swell/ Settlement After Inundation = -4.31�
Void Ratio - Log Press=Curve
0.7700
0.7600
0.7500
0.7400 Inundate Nith -
WaU1'
0 0.7300
- - ----�- - -� -- t =-
cu
0.7200
o j
IT-
0.7100
0.7000
0.6900
0.6800
0.6700
0,010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Rev.08-04
Log Pressure(ksf)
xCollapse-Swell B-1,R-3
r F � Beall ot, Settletjiena
Project Name: ELSINORE BLACK Tested By: JMD Date: 10/22/04
Project No.: 111401-002 Checked By: PRC Date: 10/26/04
Boring No.: B-1 Sample Type: IN SITU
Sample No.: R-4 Depth (ft.) 7.5
Sample Description: SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Initial Dry Density(pcf): 110.2 Final Dry Density(pcf): 113.7
Initial Moisture(%): 5.0 Final Moisture(%) : 16.1
Initial Length(in.): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.5297
Initial Dial Reading: 0.0500 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70
Diameter in : 2.416 Initial Saturation % 25.4
Apparent Load Swell (+) Corrected
Pressure (p) Final Reading Settlement(-)
Thickness Compliance ° Void Ratio Deformation
(ksf) (in) (in) (% /o of Sample
Thickness (%)
0.70.0 0.056$ 0.9932 0.00 -0.68 0.5193 -0.68
t;a00 04,0662 0.9848 0.00 -1.52 0.5065 -1.52
H2O 0.0813, 0.9687 0.00 -3.13 0.4818 -3.13
Percent Swell ! Settlement After Inundation = -1.63
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
0.5200
i
f �
0.5100
ji
CU
0.5000
f
0.4900
i
k
0.4800
0,010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Log Pressure(ksf) Rev.08-04
Collapse-Swell B-1,R-4
0xie-lArnetision.al Swell or, Settlemeirt
oe
( z M ) � r
Project Name: ELSINORE BLACK Tested By: JMD Date: 10/22/04
Project No.: 111401-002 Checked By: PRC Date: 10/26/04
Boring No.: B-3 Sample Type: IN SITU
Sample No.: R-1 Depth (ft.) 2.5
Sample Description: SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Initial Dry Density (pcf): 98.6 Final Dry Density(pcf): 103.2
Initial Moisture (%): 4.0 Final Moisture(%) : 20.1
Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.7089
Initial Dial Reading: 0.0500 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2,70
Diameter in : 2.416 Initial Saturation % 15.1
Apparent Load Swell (+} Corrected
Pressure(p) Final Reading Settlement(-)
Thickness Compliance ° Void Ratio Deformation
(ksf) (in) % /° of Sample °
(in) ( } Thickness (/0)
0.500 0.0540 0.9960 0.00 -0.40 0.7020 -0.40
1.0(10 0.0577 0.9923 0.00 -0.77 0.6957 -0.77
H2O 0.0938 0.9562 0.00 -4.38 0.6340 -4.38
Percent Swell I Settlement After Inundation = -3.64
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
0.7100
1_14-
- -
;
0.7000
0.6900 Inundate dill
water
0.6800
o '
w
0.6700 '
o -
0.6600
0.6500
0.6400
Ltt
-- 0.6300
0.010 0.100 1,000 10.000
Log Pressure (ksf) Rev.08-04
Collapse-Swell B3,13-1
_,nfial of Cohesive Soils
45
Project Name: ELSINORE BLACK Tested By: JMD Date: 10/26/04
Project No.: 111401-002 Checked By: PRC Date: 10/26/04
Boring No.: B-3 Sample Type: IN SITU
Sample No.: R-3 Depth (ft.) 5
Sample Description: SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Initial Dry Density (pcf): 108.4 Final Dry Density(pcf): 114.5
Initial Moisture (%): 3.1 Final Moisture (%) : 15.1
Initial Length (in.): 1,0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.5543
Initial Dial Reading: 0.0500 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70
Diameter in : 2,416 Initial Saturation % 14.9
Apparent Load Swell (+) Corrected
Pressure (p) Final Reading Settlement(-)
Thickness Compliance ° Void Ratio Deformation
(ksf) (in) in of Sample
( ) (% %) Thickness ( )
0.600 0.0,63t3 0.9870 0.00 -1.30 0.5341 -1.30
1.200 0. 711' 0.9789 0.00 -2.11 1 0.5215 -2.11
H2O 0,102 0.9473 1 0.00 -5.27 0.4724
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation -3.23
Void Ratio - Log Press=Curve
0.5400
0.5300 It
0.5200 i
?P"7undat€,k,,tn
2 0.5100
j 0.5000
0.4900
l
0.4800
F
1
i
- 0.4700
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Log Pressure (ksf) Rev.08-04
Collapse-Swell B,3,R-3
Ae (A S FM 1)4,,-,§4,6`11
{ Project Name: ELSINORE BLACK Tested By: JMD Date: 10/26/04
Project No.: 111401-002 Checked By: PRC Date: 10/26/04
Boring No.: B-3 Sample Type: IN SITU
Sample No.: R-4 Depth (ft.) 7.5
Sample Description: SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Initial Dry Density(pcf): 110.0 Final Dry Density (pcf): 114.2
Initial Moisture (%): 2.8 Final Moisture (%) ; 14.5
Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.5320
Initial Dial Reading: 0.0500 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70
Diameter in : 2.416 Initial Saturation % 14.2
(+)
Apparent Load Swell Corrected
Pressure(p) Final Reading Settlement(-)
Thickness Compliance ° Void Ratio Deformation
(ksf) (in) % % of Sample °
(in) ( ) Thickness (/0)
0.700 0.0556 0.9944 0.00 -0.56 0.5235 -0.56
1.500 0.0M 0.9877 0.00 -1.23 0.5132 -1.23
H2O 0.0867 0.9633 0.00 -3.67 0.4758 -3.67
Percent Swell I Settlement After Inundation = -2.47�
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
0.5300
i
i i I
i
0.5200
0.5100
U
o
0.5000
i
0.4900
0.4800
-- - - f
0.4700
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Log Pressure (ksf) Rev.08-04
Collapse-Swell B-3,R-4
: - : imensionai Serail oi- settielnent
Lei,, ht,-,,r Potential of Cohesbve Soils
iq*40 (AS"T'NID4,546',
Project Name: ELSINORE BLACK Tested By: JMD Date: 10/22/04
Project No.: 111401-002 Checked By: PRC Date: 10/26/04
Boring No.: B-6 Sample Type: IN SITU
Sample No.: R-1 Depth (ft.) 2.5
Sample Description: s(ML), BROWN SANDY LEAN SILT
Initial Dry Density (pcf): 106.6 Final Dry Density (pcf): 110.0
Initial Moisture (%): 3.7 Final Moisture(%) : 17.9
Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.5810
Initial Dial Reading: 0.0500 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70
Diameter in : 1 2.416 1 Initial Saturation % 17.4
Apparent Load Swell (+) Corrected
Pressure(p) Final Reading Settlement(-}
Thickness Compliance ° /0
Void Ratio Deformation
(
(ksf) (in) (in) ° /° of Sample (° }
(/0} Thickness
0.500 0.0559 0.9941 0.00 -0.59 0.5717 -0.59
1.000 0.0648,11111 , 0.9852 0.00 -1.48 0.5576 -1.48
H2O 0.0810 0.9690 0.00 -3.10 0.5320 -3.10
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation = __1.64
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curvel
0.5800
i
0.5700
j
0 0.5600
.2
lr"undite,v: -- i I
o water
0.5500
0.5400
� I
0.5300
0.010 0.100 1,000 10.000
Log Pressure (ksf) Rev.08-04
xCollapse-Swell B-6,R-1
One-Dirtiensional - ell or Settleinent
L-eighton Potential of Cohesive Soils
Project Name: ELSINORE BLACK Tested By: JMD Date: 10/26/04
Project No.: 111401-002 Checked By: PRC Date: 10/26104
Boring No.: B-6 Sample Type: IN SITU
1 Sample No.: R-2 Depth (ft.) 5
Sample Description: SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Initial Dry Density (pcf): 106.1 Final Dry Density(pcf): 114.5
Initial Moisture (%): 3.9 Final Moisture (%) : 15.9
Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.5884
Initial Dial Reading: 0.0500 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70
Diameter in : 2.416 Initial Saturation % 18.0
Apparent Load Swell (+) Corrected
Pressure(p) Final Reading Settlement(-)
Thickness Compliance ° (/0
Void Ratio Deformation
(
(ksf) (in) (in) % %of Sample ° )
( ) Thickness
0300 0.0590 0.9910 0.00 -0.90 0.5741 -0.90
,200 0.0673 0.9827 0.00 -1.73 0.5609 -1.73
H2O 0.1230 0.9270 0.00 -7.30 0.4725 -7.30
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation = -5.67
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
0.5800
I
0.5700 - -- - -- �
0.5600
iliundate valtn
0.5500
I I
0,5400
---- It
-
m 0.5300
if
0 0.5200
> 777
0.5100 1
i
0.5000
i
0.4900
0.4800
0.4700 14
0.010 0.100 1.000 10,000
Log Pressure (ksf) Rev.06-04
Collapse-Swell 0-6,R-2
Potential of Cohesive Soils
4WO-0
Project Name: ELSINORE BLACK Tested By: JMD Date: 10/22/04
Project No.: 111401-002 Checked By: PRC Date: 10126104
Boring No.: B-6 Sample Type: IN SITU
Sample No.: R-3 Depth (ft.) 7.5
Sample Description: SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Initial Dry Density(pcf): 114.9 Final Dry Density(pcf): 118.5
Initial Moisture (%): 6.5 Final Moisture(%) : 14.1
Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.4667
Initial Dial Reading: 0.0500 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70
Diameter in : 2.416 Initial Saturation % 37.7
Apparent Load Swell (+) Corrected
Pressure (p) Final Reading Settlement(-)
Thickness Compliance Void Ratio Deformation
(ksf) (in) (in) (% (/0
%of Sample ° )
) Thickness
0.700 0.0559 0.9941 0.00 -0.59 0.4580 -0.59
1.500 0.4639" 0.9861 0.00 -1.39 0,4463 -1.39
H2O 0.0801 0.9699 0.00 -3.01 0.4225 -3.01
Percent Swell /Settlement After Inundation =1.64
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
0.4600
I l
i
0.4500 '
:undattewithm
O =r
� t
I
I
ith
0.4400
i
0.4300
0.4200
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Log Pressure (ksf) Rev.08-04
Collapse-Swell 8-6,R-3
One-Dii-nensional Sivell or Set ale itient
Potential of ve Soils
(ASTNI D
Project Name: ELSINORE BLACK Tested By: JMD Date: 10/26/04
1 Project No.: 111401-002 Checked By: PRC Date: 10/26104
Boring No.: B-6 Sample Type: IN SITU
Sample No.: R-5 Depth (ft.) 10
Sample Description: SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Initial Dry Density(pco: 112.4 Final Dry Density(pco: 116.8
Initial Moisture(%): 5.5 Final Moisture(%) 14.5
Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.5003
Initial Dial Reading: 0.0500 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70
Diameter(in): 1 2.416 Initial Saturation 29.9
Apparent Load Swell (+) Corrected
Pressure(p) Final Reading Thickness Compliance Settlement Void Ratio Deformation
(kso (in) (in) (%) % of Sample N
Thickness
1,000 -U,598 0.9902 0.00 -0.98 0.4856 -0.98
2,000 U680 0.9820 0.00 -1.80 0.4733 -1.80
H2O 0.0884 0.9616 0.00 -3.84 .0.4427 -3.84
Percent Swell Settlement After Inundation = -2.08
[Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
0.4900
0.4800 -
0.4700 Iru U EV 9 W
wat&,
>
0.4600
0.4500
0.4400 1 14
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Log Pressure(ksf) Rev.08-04
Collapse-Swell B-6,R-5
One-Dimensional Swell or Seftleme,nii.
n Potential of C"ohesive Soils
Project Name: ELSINORE BLACK Tested By: JMD Date: 10/26/04
a Project No.: 111401-002 Checked By: PRC Date: 10/26/04
Boring No.: B-7 Sample Type: IN SITU
Sample No.: R-1 Depth (ft.) 2.5
Sample Description: SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Initial Dry Density (pcf): 103.6 Final Dry Density(pcf): 108.3
Initial Moisture (%): 6.3 Final Moisture(%) : 19.1
Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.6266
Initial Dial Reading: 0.0500 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70
Diameter in : 2.416 Initial Saturation % 27.3
Apparent Load Swell (+) Corrected
Pressure(p) Final Reading Thickness Compliance Settlement(-} Void Ratio Deformation
(ksf) (in) (in) (/° /°of Sample °
° ) Thickness (/°)
0.500 0;0542 0.9958 0.00 -0.42 0.6198 -0.42
1.000 0.0606 0.9894 0.00 -1.06 0.6094 -1.06
H2O 0,0931 0.9569 0.00 -4.31 0.5565 -4.31
Percent Swell /Settlement After Inundation = _3.28
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
0.6200
I
0.6100
; I
Inundate w'i h
0.6000 'water
.° 0.5900
1
j 0.5800
0.5700
0.5600
i
0.5500 44+
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Log Pressure(ksf) Rev.08-04
Coliapse-Swell B-7,R-1
Oae-.Diawi,ision.al Swell or Settleirient
Le i 9 ,, n potelitial of coliesive, Soils
Project Name: ELSINORE BLACK Tested By: JMD Date: 10/26/04
+ Project No.: 111401-002 Checked By: PRC Date: 10/26/04
Boring No.: B-7 Sample Type: IN SITU
Sample No.: R-3 Depth (ft.) 5
Sample Description: SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Initial Dry Density(pcf): 107.4 Final Dry Density(pcf): 112.8
Initial Moisture (%): 5.4 Final Moisture(%) : 15.1
Initial Length(in.): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.5688
Initial Dial Reading: 0.0500 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70
Diameter in : 2.416 Initial Saturation % 25.7
Apparent Load Swell (+) Corrected
Pressure (p) Final Reading Settlement(-)
Thickness Compliance ° Void Ratio Deformation
(ksf) (in) in ° /°of Sample °
( ) (/0) Thickness (/0)
0.700 0A600 0.9900 0.00 -1.00 0.5531 -1.00
1.500 0,0701 0.9799 0.00 -2.01 0.5372 -2.01
H2O 0.0975 0.9525 0.00 -4.75 0.4942 -4.75
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation = -2.80
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
0.5600
I
0.5500 j
0.5400
Inundate wit',
m 0.5300 eater
j 0.5200
I
0.5100
j
0.5000
I i !
0.4900
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Log Pressure (ksf) Rev.0e-04
Collapse-Swell 6-7,R3
4 Leigt'iton EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
ASTM D 4829
Project Name: ELSINORE BLACK Tested By: RGO Date: 10/20/04
Project No. : 111401-002 Checked By: PRC Date: 10/27/04
Boring No.: B-1 Depth(ft.) 0-5
Sample No. : B-2 Location:
Sample Description: SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Dry Wt.of Soil+Cont. (gm.) 1679549
Wt.of Container No. (gm.) 0.0
Dry Wt.of Soil (gm.) 16795.9
Weight Soil Retained on#4 Sieve 315.9
Percent Passing#4 98.1
MOLDED SPECIMEN Before Test After Test
Specimen Diameter (in.) 4.01 4.01
Specimen Height in.) 1.0000 1.0026
Wt.Comp. Soil+Mold(gm.) 605.9 627,1
Wt.of Mold ( m.) 189.0 189.0
Specific Gravity(Assumed) 2.70 2.70
Container No. E-4 E-4
Wet Wt.of Soil+Cont. ( m.) 312.6 627.1
Dry Wt. of Soil+Cont. ( m.) 286.6 380.7
Wt.of Container (gm.) 12.6 189.0
Moisture Content %) 9.5 15.1
Wet Density c 125.8 132.0
Dry Density( cf) 114.8 114.7
Void Ratio 0.468 0.472
Total Porosity 0.319 0.321
Pore Volume (cc) 66.0 66.5
Degree of Saturation % S meas 54.8 86.2
SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate<0.0002 in./h.
Date Time Pressure Elapsed Time Dial Readings
_77 (psi) (min.) (in.)
10/20/04 1437 1.0 0 1.0000
10/20/04 14:47 1.0 10 0.4981
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
10/21/04 8 00 1.0 1(33 Q.5026
10/21/04 1 9:00 1.0 1093 0.5026
Expansion Index(El meas) _ ((Final Rdg-Initial Rdg)/Initial Thick.)x 1000 4.5
Expansion Index(El)50 = El meas -(50-S meas)x((65+EI meas)/(220-S meas)) 7
Rev.08-04
400,
4WI0 Leighton EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
ASTM D 4829
Project Name: ELSINORE BLACK Tested By: RGO Date: 10/20/04
Project No. : 111401-002 Checked By: PRC Date: 10/27/04
Boring No.: B-7 Depth(ft.) 0-5
Sample No. : B-2 Location: N/A
Sample Description: s(ML), BROWN SANDY LEAN SILT
Dry Wt.of Soil+Cont. (gm.) 14088.0
Wt.of Container No. (gm.) 0.0
Dry Wt.of Soil (gm.) 14088.0
Weight Soil Retained on#4 Sieve 190.3
Percent Passing#4 98.6
MOLDED SPECIMEN Before Test After Test
Specimen Diameter (in.) 4.01 4.01
Specimen Height in. 1.0000 1.0026
Wt.Comp. Soil+Mold(gm.) 615.4 635.E
Wt.of Mold ( m. 191.5 191.5
Specific Gravity(Assumed) 2.70 2.70
Container No. E:-5 E-5`
Wet Wt. of Soil+Cont. ( m.) 311.9 635.6 . .
Dry Wt.of Soil +Cont. ( m.) 285.9 387.1
Wt.of Container ( m.) 11.9 191.5
Moisture Content % 9.5 14.7
Wet Density(pcf) 127.9 133.8
Dry Density cf) 116.8 116.6
Void Ratio 0.444 0.447
Total Porosity 0.307 0.309
Pore Volume (cc) 63.6 64.2
,Degree of Saturation % S meas 57.8 88.8
SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate <0.0002 in./h.
Date Time Pressure Elapsed Time Dial Readings
(psi) (min.) (in.)
10/20/04 14:53 1.0 0 1.0000
10/20/04 15:03 1.0 10 0.4994'
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
10/21/04 815 1.0 1032 0.5026
10121/04 9:15 1.0 1092 0.5026
Expansion Index(EI meas) _ ((Final Rdg-Initial Rdg)/Initial Thick.)x 1000 3.2
Expansion Index(Ell )50 = El meas -(50-S meas)x((65+EI meas)/(220-S meas)) 6
Rev.08-04
2,000
1,500
a
W ® "�
1,000
m
500
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
NORMAL PRESSURE,psf
a
Specimen Identification Classification Yd MC% c
0 B-1/R-3 5.0 Silty SAND,SM 82.8 25.2 454 29.1
o m B-1/111-3 5.0 Silty SAND,SM 82.8 25.2 407 30.2
m
3
_
a
c�
(11
O
O
O
V_ R T C TEST
� �®\ �■ SHEAR ■ V
� Q- Leighton and Associates, Inc.
y ® 17781 Cowan Project: Corman Leigh Black Property
W ."„ Irvine, CA 92614 Location: Lake.Elsinore
(949)250-1421
`..�"� Number: 111401-002-
2,000
1,500 '
S �
z
w
a 1,000
w
Cn
500
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
NORMAL PRESSURE,psf
,J Specimen Identification Classification Yd MC°/a c c�
0 B-&R-3 7.5 Silty SAND,SM 88.9 22.5 626 32.2
® B-5JR-3 7.6 Silty SAND,SM 88.9 22.5 626 32.2
a
N
O
O
O
V_ T CN TEST
IREC■ S ■
� Leighton and Associates, Inc.
1 17781 Cowan Project: Corman Leigh Black Property
W . __ Irvine, CA 92614 Location: Lake Elsinore
o "� — (949)250-1421
`.r"� Number: 111401-002-
Ot P ,, K
Project Name: ELSINORE BLACK Tested By : RGO Date: 10/21/04
Project No.: 111401-002 Calculated By : PRC Date: 10/26/04
Boring No.: B-1 Depth ft): 0-5
Sample No. : B-2
Sample Description SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Preparation Method: F] Moist X Mechanical Ram
�X Dry I Manual Ram
Mold Volume(ft 3) 0A3344 Ram Weight 10 i_BS Drop 18 inches
Moisture Adde 150 100 200 250
TEST NO. 1 2 3 4
Wt. Comp. Soil+Mold (gm.) 5723 5630 5664 5599
Wt. of Mold (gm.) 3586 3586 3586 3586 AS
Net Wt. of Soil (gm.) 2137 2044 2078 2013 REC'D
Wet Wt. of Soil +Cont. ( m.) 130.1 128.2 128.3 123.o1 13$.0
Dry Wt. of Soil.+Cont. ( m.) 120.1 120.1 116.5 110.1 133.9
Wt. of Container (gm.) 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9
Moisture Content (%) 9.2 7.5 11.3 13.1 3.4
Wet Density (pcf) 140.9 134.8 137.0 132.7
DrV Density c 129.0 125.4 123.1 117.3
Maximum Dry Density(pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (%)
PROCEDURE USED 145.0
S)( Procedure A
oil Passing No.4(4.75 mm)Sievi SP. GR. =2.70
Mold:4 in.(101.6 mm)diamete SP. GR. =2.75
Layers:5(Five, 140.0 -771
Blows per layer:25(twenty-five SP. GR. =2.80
May be used if No.4 retained<20°/
Procedure B 135.0
Soil Passing 3/8 in.(9.5 mm)Siev<
Mold:4 in.(101.6 mm)diamete "
Layers:5(Five 130.0
Blows per layer:25(twenty-five
Use if+No.4>20%and+318 in.<200/
Fj Procedure C 0 125.0
Soil Passing 3/4 in.(19.0 mm)Siev(
Mold:6 in.(152.4 mm)diamete
Layers:5(Five: --
Blows per layer:56(fifty-six 120.0
Use if+3/8 in.>20%and+%in.<301X
Particle-Size Distribution: 115.0 -
77
�_ - -
GR:SA:F
Afterber Limits: 110.0
0.0 5:0 10.0 15.0 20.0
LL,PL,PI Moisture Content(l,)
Rev.08-04
Compaction 8-1,8-2
COMPACTION TEST
L e i ".
Oro-, AS TIVII D 1657
Project Name: ELSINORE BLACK Tested By : AJP Date: 10/20/04
Project No.: 111401-002 Calculated By : PRC Date: 10/27/04
Boring No.: B-7 Depth ft): 0-5
Sample No. : B-2
Sample Description s(ML), BROWN SANDY LEAN SILT
Preparation Method. Moist X . Mechanical Ram
RX Dry Manual Ram
Mold Volume(ft') 0.03344 Ram Weight 10 LBS Drop 18 inches
Moisture Added[ 50 100 150 200'
TEST NO. 1 2 3 4
Wt. Comp. Soil+Mold (gm.) 5613 5717 5695 5611
Wt. of Mold (gm.) 3586 3586 3586 3586 AS
Net Wt. of Soil (gm.) 2027 2131 2109 2025 REC'D
Wet Wt. of Soil +Cont. (gm.) 140.1 143,8 141,E 144 141--.8
Dry Wt. of Soil+Cont. (gm.) 1'31.9 133.1 128.9 1295 135.8
Wt. of Container ( m.) T1.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 119
Moisture Content (%) 6.8 8.8 10.9 12.7 4.8
Wet Density (pcf) 133.6 140.5 139.0 133.5
Dry Density c 125.1 129.1 125.4 118.5
Maximum Dry Density(pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (%)
PROCEDURE USED 145.0
® Procedure A
Soil Passing No.4(4.75 mm)Sievi SP. GR. =2.70
Mold:4 in.(101.6 mm)diamete - -" SP. GR. =2.75
Layers:5(Five. 140.0 SP. GR. =2.80
Blows per layer:25(twenty-five
May be used if No.4 retained<200/,
Procedure B 135.0
Soil Passing 3/8 in.(9.5 mm)Sievi
Mold:4 in.(101.6 mm)diamete
Layers:5(Five:
Blows per layer:25(twenty-five 130.0 _ _ _ '
Use if+No.4>20%and+3/8 in.<200/ `
Procedure C 0 125.0 - ---- - OF
-
Soil Passing 3/4 in.(19.0 mm)Siev( -1
Mold:6 in.(152.4 mm)diamete
Layers:5(Five
Blows per layer:56(fifty-six 120.0
Use if+3/8 in.>20%and+3/<in.<30%
115.0
Particle-Size Distribution: - - _ ___ _ _ 77
GR:SA:FI
Artt-e^rberq Limits: 110.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
LL,PL,PI Moisture Content(d}
Rev.08-04
xCompaction 8-7,8-2"
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
Project Name: ELSINORE BLACK Date: 10/20/04
Project Number: 111401-002 Technician: RGO
Boring Number: B-3 Depth: 0-5
Sample Number: B-2 Sample Location: N/A
Sample Description: s(ML), BROWN SANDY LEAN SILT
TEST SPECIMEN A B C
MOISTURE AT COMPACTION% 10.9 12.0 13.0
HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.53 2.60 2.59
DRY DENSITY,pcf 121.7 120.4 118.7
COMPACTOR AIR PRESSURE,psf 255 215 180
EXUDATION PRESSURE,psf 390 212 173
EXPANSION, Inches x 10ex -4 3 0 0
STABILITY Ph 2,000 Ibs(160 psi) 52 105 124
TURNS DISPLACEMENT 5.25 7.18 7.81
R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 50 15 9
R-VALUE CORRECTED 50 16 9
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c
GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0
TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0
STABILOMETER THICKNESS,ft. 0.80 1.34 1.46
EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS,ft. 0.10 0.00 0.00
4.00 90
C
ZO 3.50
80
N
-
Q 3.00 - -
a 70
x -
w 2.50 _
N y 2.00 - - - - - --
G7 w
w w
Z WD 50 • -
Y 1.50 ¢ _
U ?
F- 1.00 40
w -
O 0.50 30
U
0.00 ••.
0.00 0.50 1.00 1,50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3,50 4.00 20
COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in _ _
feet - - - - - - -
10
EF-
FF.t..t--
0
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: N/A EXUDATION PRESSURE(psi)
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 33
EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE: 33
Rev.06-04
ES
RESISTIVITYO CA TESL"532 1643
Project Name:ELSINORE BLACK Tested By : BCC Date: 10/22/04
Project No. : 111401-002 Data Input By: BCC Date: 10122/04`
Boring No.: B=7 Checked By: PRC Date: 10l27/04
Sample No. : B2 Depth (ft.) : 0.0-5.0
Visual Soil Identification: SM
Initial Moisture Content(%) _
Wet Wt. of Soil +Cont. (g) 100.00 Initial Soil Weight(gm)(Wt) 1300:0
Dry Wt. of Soil +Cont. (g) 92.70 Box Constant: 6.75
Wt. of Container (g) 0.00
Moisture Content (%) (MC 7.87
Remolded Specimen Moisture Adjustments
Water Added (ml) (Wa) 100 200 300
Adj. Moisture Content (MC 16.17 24.47 32.77
Resistance Rdg. (ohm) 3500 2000 2100
Soil Resistivity(ohm-cm) 23611 1 13492 14167
25000
24000
23000
22000
21000
20000
19000
18000
17000
16000
15000
14000
13000
12000
11000
Z 10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Moisture Content(%)
Minimum Moisture Sulfate Chloride
Resistivity Content Content Content Soil pH
DOT CA Test 532/643 DOT CA Test 417 Part DOT CA Test DOT CA Test
<150 22 7.86
Rev.08-04
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES,INC
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING
1.0 General
1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and
earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical
report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the
geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the
geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the
earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result
in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall
employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The
Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical
report(s)and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions,
and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work
plan"prepared by the Earthwork Contractor(Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel
to perform the appropriate level of observation,mapping,and compaction testing.
During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe,
map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design
assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the
interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform
the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed
conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be
geotechnically observed,mapped, elevations recorded,and/or tested include natural ground
after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed,bottoms of all "remedial
removal'areas,all key bottoms,and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the
subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the
attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to
the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified,
experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of
ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill
The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these
Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely
responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications.
The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a
work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of
3030.1094
Leighton and Associates,Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 2 of 6
work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to
commencement of grading. .The.Contractor shall inform,.the.owner and.the_Geotechnical
-,Consultant of chaiiges in,work schedules and updates to:the work plan at least 24 hours m
-advance,of�such;changes.so that,°appropriate,observations sand tests_can,be planned,and
accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware
of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and
agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved
geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition,
inadequate compaction,insufficient buttress key size,adverse weather,etc.,are resulting in
a.quality of,work less.than.required in.these specifications,,the Geotechnical:Consultant
shall,rejectthe.work°and.mayrecommend°to-the owner,that constructiowbe,stopped until
the conditions are rectified.
2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious
material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to
the owner,governing agencies,and the Geotechnical Consultant.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on
specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic
materials (by,volume). No fill lift shall contain more than:5.percent of organic matter..
Nesting of the organic:materials shall not be allowed.
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the
affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper
evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area.
As presently defined by the State of California,most refined petroleum products (gasoline,
diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.)have chemical constituents that are considered
to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids
onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment,
and shall not be allowed.
3030.1094
Leighton and Associates,Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 3 of 6
2.2 Processing: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the
Geotechnical Consultant.shall be scarified to a.minimum,depth of 6 inches. Existing
_.ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following,section. =
Scarification shall°continue.<until soils are brokemdown.and.free of.large.clay=lumps: or-
clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that
would inhibit uniform compaction.
2.3 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the
approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy,
organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to
competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.
2.4 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal
. ...to vertical units),.the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details
for a graphic illustration. .The lowest bench or key-shall be a.minimum of 15 feet wide and
,.at least 2.feet.deep;.into.:competent material..as.evaluated by the Geotechnical-
Consultant..-Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into,competent material or as
otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping
flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade
for the fill.
2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and
processed areas,key bottoms,and benches,shall be observed,mapped,elevations recorded,
and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive
fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant
prior to fill...placement. A licensed surveyor shall .provide the survey control .for
determining elevations of processed areas;keys,and benches.,;..
3.0 Fill Material
3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to
placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high
expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical
Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.
3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as,rock,or other irreducible material with a maximum
dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location,
materials,and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Placement:operations-:shall be 1such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and
such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill.
Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet
of future utilities or underground construction.
3.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading,proposed import material shall
3030.1094
Leighton and Associates,Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 4 of 6
meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the
Geotechnical Consultant at least 48.hours(2 working days)before importing begins so that
its suitability cambe determined and appropriate'tests performed: -
4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
4.1 Fill Layers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per
Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The
Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading
procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly
and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.
. 4.2, : Fill Moisture Conditionins::_Fill soils shall.,be.watered, dried back,,blended,..and/or mixed,
as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content.°at or slightly`over optimum. ,
Maximum;density.:and.,.optimum-:.soil.LI:moisture content tests. shall:-..be performed in.
accordance with the.American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method
D1557-91).
4.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly
spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density
(ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be
either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently
achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.
4.4. Compaction of Fill Sloes;:.:In addition.to normal_compaction procedures specified above,
compaction ofslopes shall be accomplished by:backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot
rollers at increments:of 3.to -4 feet.:in fill elevation; or by .other methods producing
satisfactory..results acceptable to the .Geotechnical .:Consultant. Upon completion of
grading,relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of
maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557-91.
4.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill
soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests
shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction
test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be
selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to
inadequate compaction(such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).
4.6 Frequency of:Compaction Testing: Tests shall.be,taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in
vertical rise and/or) 000..cubic.,yards.:of compacted fill soils embankment. -In addition, as a
guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope
face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill
construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical
Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these
minimum standards are not met.
3030.1094
Leighton and Associates,Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 5 of 6
4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate
elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate
with.the:project.surveyor to..assure_that sufficient:grade.stakes..are .established so.that,the_
Geotechnical Consultant can determine.the.test locations with sufficient:accuracy. >At•a
°minimum,-two-grade-stakes-within a horizontal-distance-of 100°feet and vertically-less than
5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided.
5.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the
grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional
subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions
encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for
line.:and grade Tafter installation:and-prior:to;burial. Sufficient,time-should be allowed by-the
Contractor for these surveys.
6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the
Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans
are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical
Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut
slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the
slope,unless otherwise recommended.by,the Geotechnical Consultant
7.0 Trench Backfills
7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench
excavations.
7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable
provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material
shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1
foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and
densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit
to the surface.
-7.3 The jetting-of,the bedding-around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least
one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.
3030.1094
Leighton and Associates,Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 6 of 6
7.5 Lift thickness of trench backf`ill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard
Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the
Geotechnical Consultant that.the fill lift can..be..compacted.to the minimum..relative
compaction by his alternative equipment and method.--:
3030.1094
f OMPACTED s"'
PI4OJEC=RAW
1 TO 1 TOEOF SLOPE To APP140VM GROUND === '�= — FILL SLOP
REMOVE
NATURAL -_-�='=, — ArTYP=L UNSUITABLE
GROUND _
MATEFM
BENCH
HEIGHT
�-•—i 5'11iN.---�
MIN.KEY DEPTH LOWESTBENCH
(KEY)
FILL-OVER-CUT
SLOPE
NATURAL W TYPICAL
GROUND BENCH
HEIGHT
—•2%MIN.=.— REMOVE
—ram- UNSUITABLE
- '� 16'MIN. MATERIAL
LOWEST BE3VCH
Y MIN.
KEY DEPTH
CUT FACE
SHALL BE PRIOR
TO FXL PLAC'S ENTTO ASSURE CUT FACE
ADEQUATE GEOLOGIC CONCIT(CN3 TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRICA
TO FiLl PLtiCEMefT
NATURAL CUT-OVEN?--FILL
GROUND / SLOPE
OVERBUILT AND 'f-=
TRIM!BACX ®-"-
'`- For Subdrains See
DESIGN SLOPE �� -- REMOVE Standard Detail C
PROJECTED PLANE — == UNSUITABLE
1 To.1 MAMMUM FROM ,c—� _— - MATERIAL
TOE OF SLOPE TO --
APPROVED GROUND -_-'�=_— — N TYPIS.AL
PAC7ED l3 CH BENCH HE?GHT
=2'X�IIIW=+- BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPES
ANGLE 1S EQUAL TO CR GREATER THAN 5.1
2'MiN. iv sum MINIMUM Be4cm HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 F--
KEY DEPTH LOWEST BENCH MINIMUM FILL WMTH SHALL BE 9 Fc as
- - _ OKEY)
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
YING AND BENCHING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS A
Rev.7 0o
FINISH GRADE
— -- — — — — — -10,— — — — COMPACTED FILL'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
SLOPE FACE — — — — — — .MIN. — — — — — — —— —— — — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -7 -- - - - - --- - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -10'— -- — — — — — —
—MIN. f 5'MIN.MIN.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -
— — —OVERS — — — ——--- — — — — — —
UE — — — — — — — — —
W DR — — — — — — -
OW'_
— — — — — — — — — — — —IN — JETTED OR FLOODED
APPROVED SOIL
• Oversize rock Is larger than 8 Inches
In largest dimension.
• Backfill with approved soil jetted or
flooded In place to fill all the voids.
• Do not bury rock within 10 feet of
finish grade.
Windrow of buried rock shall be
parallel to the finished slope face.
SECTION A-A'
ALONG WINDROW- - - - - - - - - - - -PROFILE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
co
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A' - - - -
OR FLOODED
APPROVED SOIL
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS B
Rev,71OU
NATURAL
GROUND
-- - - - - - - - — - - - - - - — _
— — — — — _ _COMPAC_fED FILL =^�-— —
TYPICAL — —_—_—_— — — — —
BENCHING — — — — — — — — REMOVE
UNSUITABLE MATERIAL
SUBDRAIN
(See Alternates A and B)
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A PERFORATED PIPE SLRROUNDED FILTER MATERIAL
WITH FILTER MATERIAL FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL.PERSfATEOF
CALIFORNIA STANDARD SPECIFICATION,OR APPROVED ALTERNATE
FILTER MATERIAL(9FT/FT) CLASS 2 GRADING AS FOLLOWS:
Sieve Sae Percent Passing
1" 100
90-100
s' s MiN.coJER �,.*. 3/8" 40-100
No.4 25-40
18-33
No.8
In' No.30 5715
4"MIN ' No.50 0-7
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A 1 PERFO TH7 PIPE SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A-2 No.200 0-3
6"0 MIN.
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINAL
3/4"GRAVEL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC
12"MIN.OVERLAP F041SHHEED GRADE FILTERFABRE
(MIRAFI
FILTER FABRIC • � IQUI
30'MIN.84CKFIII. AFPPAYED EQIIiVAIEl17
APPROVED EQUIVALENT)
.1` AP
{ 1S MIN. r 0'MIN.
!FM PERFORATED 3/9'WEN GRADED GRAYS.
5*0 MW. OR APMOYED EQLWAIENT
3/4"MAX: GRAVEL OR ALTERNATE B-� NON PERFORATED
ALTERNATE B-1
APPROVED EQUIVALENT F-r o m.
(9Fr 3/FT)
CF PERFORATED PIPE IS OPTIONAL PER
GOVERNING AGENCYS REQUIREMENTS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
CANYON SPECIFICATIONS
SUBDRAIN STANDARD DETAILS C
Rev.7 W
15 MIN.
OUTLET PIPES44 NON-PERFORATED PIPE, ___-
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY -
30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY
-2% MIN. BACKCUT
—_____--_=-- _
- -- ----------- -
_—__—__-_____ — BENCHING
 ___ _— --- _ _ —
—— -: __
_
-2%MIN
_ _ --_------ --- -- -- -- ---
--- — _ SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B
2%MIN.
15' MIN. MIN. 12"OVERLAP FROM THE TOP
KEY DEPTH f KEY WIDTH
2'MIN.
POSITIVE SEAL SHOULD BE � FILTER FABRIC
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATEA PROVIDED AT THE JOINT (MIRAFI140OR
APPROVED
CALTRANS CLASS 2 So r EQUIVALENT)
FILTER MATERIAL(3FT3/Fr) �o M�
(NON-PE
RFORATED)
AT®}
OUTLET PIPE
(NON-PERFORATED) , 16'MIN. 3/4"ROCK(3Fr?/FT)
—�- WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC
j 4"MIN.
T-CONNECTION FROM
COLLECTION PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE . .
J
• SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION -Subdrain collector pipe shall be installed with perforations down or,
unless otherwise designated by the geotechnicai consultant Outlet pipes shall be non-perforated
pipe. The Subdrain pipe shall have at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot Perforation shall
be 1/4"to 11Z' if drilled,holes are used. All subdrain pipes shall have a gradient at least 2%towards the
outlet
r •
SUBDRAIN PIPE -Subdrain pipe shall be ASTM D2751,ASTM D1527(Schedule 40) or SDR 23.5 ABS pipe
or ASTM D3034(Schedule 40) or SDR 23.5 PVC pipe.
I
All outlet pipe shall be placed in a trench and, after fill Is placed above It, rodded to verify integrity.
BUTTRESS OR GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
PLACEMENT FILL SPECIFICATIONS
SUBRRAINS STANDARD DETARS D
Rev:
CUT-FILL TRANSITION LOT OVERE)CAVATION
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE /
GROUND ® ��
/ MIN.
— —COMPACTED FILL — — — —�'�� — ^ — 4'MIN.
OVEREXCAVATE
AND RECOMPACT
TYPICAL
BENCHING
r UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR MATERIAL APPROVED
BY THE GEOfECHIdICA1 CONSULTANT C
SIDE HILL FILL FOR CUT PAD NATURAL
• GROUND
I
/
^�---- RESTRICTED USE AREA
1 /
OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT FINISHED CUT PAD
(REPLACEMENT FILL)
OVERBURDEN _ _— -- - -'�^ • • e0s a <• fas �s••sa• •ass•
OR UNSUITABLE — — — — —/
MATERIAL
PAD OVEREXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION
— — — /— r — "LL BE PERFORMED
IF CONS TED
BY THE GEOI E
TYPICAL..
1_ ANT
BENCHING
` SEE STANDARD DETAIL FOR SUBDRAINS
WHEN REQUIRED BY GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
9'MIN.
2'MIN.
ICY
DEPTH UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR MATERIAL APPROVED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
_ TRANSITION LOT FILLS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
AND SIDE HILL FILLS STANDARD DETAILS E
_ .� o
SUBDRAIN OPTIONS AND BACKFILL WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF <,50
OPTION 1:PIPE SURROUNDED WITH
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL OPTION 2:GRAVEL WRAPPED
IN FILTER FABRIC
WITH PROPER WITH PROPER
SURFACE DRAINAGE SURFACE DRAINAGE
SLOPE SLOPE
OR LEVEL OR LEVEL
12"
12"
NATNE NATIVE
WATERPROOFING •:
(SEE GENERAL NOTES) WATERPROOFING r
(SEE GENERAL NOTES) FILTER FABRIC .
12"MINIMUM r. (SEE NOTE 4)
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE , 12"MINIMUM
WEEP HOLE FILTER MATERIAL
(SEE NOTE S) (SEE GRADATION) WEEP HOLE Ya ID 1Yz INCH SIZE
(SEE NOTE 5) ••'. GRAVEL WRAPPED IN FALTER
4INCH DIAMETER a FABRIC
LEVEL OR PERFORATED PIPE LEVEL OR `
SLOPE (SEE NOTE 3) SLOPE
Class 2 Filter Permeable Material Gradation
Per Caltrans Specifications
Sieve Size Percent Passing
1" 100
3/4" 90-100
3/8" 40-100
No.4 25-40
No. 8 18-33
No.30 5-15
No. 50 0-7
No.200 0-3
GENERAL NOTES:
*Waterproofing should be provided where moisture nuisance pOoblem through the wall is undesirable.
k Water proofing of the walls is not under purview of the geotechnical engineer
All drains should have a gradient of 1 percent minimum
*Outlet portion of the subdrain should have a 4-lnch diameter solid pipe discharged into a_suitable disposal area designed by the project
:ngineer.The subdrain pipe should be accessible for maintenance(rodding)
kOther subdrain backfill options are subject to the review by the geotechnical engineer and modification of design parameters.
Notes:
t)Sand should have a sand equivalent of 30 or greater and may be dens!W by water jetting.
!)1 Cu.ft.per ft.of 1/4-to 1 1/24nch size gravel wrapped in filter fabric
3)Pipe type should be ASTM D1527 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene(ABS)SDR35 or ASTM D1785 Polyvinyl Chloride plastic(PVC),Schedule
40,Armco A2000 PVC,or approved equivalent. Pipe should be installed with perforations down.Perforations should be 3/8 inch in
iiameter placed at the ends of a 120-degree arc in two rows at 3-inch on center(staggered)
1)Filter fabric should be Mirafi 140NC or approved equivalent.
5)Weephole should.be 3-inch minimum diameter and provided at 10-foot maximum intervals. If exposure is permitted,weepholes should
'e located 12 inches above finished grade. If exposure is not permitted such as for a wall adjacent to a sidewalk/curb,a pipe under the
idewalk to be discharged through the curb face or equivalent should be provided.For a basement-type wall,a proper subdrain outlet
-ystem should be provided.
1 6) Retaining wall plans should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer.
f ) Walls over six feet in height are subject to a special review by the geotechnical engineer and modifications to the above requirements.
RETAINING WALL EACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL
FOR WALLS 6 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT
WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF <50
Figure No.