HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 13-02; CARLSBAD RANCH PA 5 MARBRISSA II; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2011-11-04(1c3- 02..-
GEOTECHMCAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Sales, Activity and Fitness Buildings
Carlsbad Ranch, Planning Area 5
MarBrisa Phase II
Carlsbad, California
Prepared For:
Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc.
5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 200
Carlsbad, California 92008
Prepared By:
MTGL, Inc.
6295 Ferris Square, Suite C
San Diego, California 92121
Project No. 19 16-A08
- Log No. 11-1409
U
Geo technical Engineering
Construction Inspection
Materials Testing
Environmental
November 4, 2011
Office Locations . Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc. Project No. 1916-A08
Orange County 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 200 Log No. 11 1409
Corporate Branch: Carlsbad, California 92008 2992 E. La Palma Avenue
Suite A
Anaheim, CA 92806 Attention: Mr. Bruce Zelenka
Tel: 714.632.2999
Fax: 714.632.2974
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Investigation
San Diego Proposed Sales, Activity and Fitness Buildings
Imperial County
6295 Ferris Square Carlsbad Ranch, Planning Area 5
Suite iar nsa Phase It San Diego, CA 92121
Tel: 858.537.3999 Carlsbad, California
Fax: 858.537.3990
Dear Mr. Zelenka:
Inland Empire
14467 Meridian Parkway
Building 2A In accordance with your request and authorization we have completed a geotechnical
Riverside, CA 92518 investigation at the site for a proposed Sales, Activity and Fitness Buildings including two Tel 951.653 4999
Fax: 951.653.4666 Swimming Pools at the Carlsbad Ranch, Planning Area 5, MarBnisa Phase. H in Carlsbad, CA.
We are pleased to present the following report with our conclusions and recommendations.
India
4
Suite 1
4917Gof Center Parkway The site for proposed development is located inside the MarBnisa Resort that was previously
Indio, CA 92201 graded with an elevated pad on the east corner with tennis court. Tel: 760.342.4677
Fax: 760.342,4525
Our report concludes that the proposed improvement and addition would be feasible provided
OC/LAThIand Empire the recommendations presented are incorporated into the plans and specifications.
Dispatch
800.491.2990
Details related to seismicity, geologic conditions, foundation design, and construction
San Diego Dispatch considerations are included in subsequent sections of this report. 888 844 5060
We look forward to providing additional consulting services during the planning and
www.mtglinc.com construction of the project.
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings Project No. 191 6-AOS
MarBrisa Resort, Carlsbad, CA1111.11-11—'- Lo No. 11-1409
If you have any questions regarding our report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We
appreciate this opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
MTGL, IJic.
c. FE S
No, 572171
E2U;dOflR
Senior Engineer CIVI
EXP. 12/311'
F CA
MB. (Ben) Lo, RGE
Chief Geotechnical Engineer
FESS/0
( No,G52088
cx; Exp, 12/31/il °
A
III
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings Project No. 1916-A08
MarBrisa Resort, Carlsbad, CA Log No. 11-1409
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 1
PROPOSEDCONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
SCOPE........................................................................................................................................................1
SITEDESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................... 2
FIELDEXPLORATION .........................................................................................................................2
LABORATORYTESTING ..................................................................................................................... 3
GEOLOGY................................................................................................................................................3
REGIONALGEOLOGY .................................................................................................................................3
LOCALGEOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 4
SITE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS .....................................................................................................................4
Fill.........................................................................................................................................................4
TerraceDeposit.....................................................................................................................................5
GROUNDWATER........................................................................................................................................5
DISCUSSION OF GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS ............................................................. 5
FAULTINGAND SEISMICITY ......................................................................................................................5
LIQUEFACTIONPOTENTIAL .......................................................................................................................6
LANDSLIDE, MUDFLOw AND FLOODING ...................................................................................................6
GROUNDRUPTUREO ................................................................................................................................6
SEISMICSETFLEMENT ............................................................................................................................... 6
LATERALSPREADING................................................................................................................................7
TSUNAMISAND SEICHES ...........................................................................................................................7
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS .................................................................................................................7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................8
GENERALCONSIDERATIONS .....................................................................................................................8
EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................................................................. 8
CUT/FILL TRANSITION CONDITIONS .........................................................................................................8
EXPANSIONPOTENTIAL ............................................................................................................................8
CORROSIVITY............................................................................................................................................8
RECOMMEMDATIONS.........................................................................................................................9
GENERAL..................................................................................................................................................9
SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................9
SitePreparation ..................................................................................................................................... 9
TemporaryExcavation .........................................................................................................................9
SiteGrading ......................................................................................................................................... 10
ft
.4
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings Project No. I916-A08
MarBrisa Resort, Carlsbad, CA Log No. 11-1409
General Compaction Standard ...........................................................................................................11
Import Fill Material ............................................................................................................................11
FOUNDATION........................................................................................................................................... 11
LATERAL RESISTANCE ............................................................................................................................12
SETTLEMENT........................................................................................................................................... 12
INTERIOR SLAB-ON-GRADE .................................................................................................................... 12
EXTERIOR CONCRETE SLAB/FLATWORK.................................................................................................13
RETAINING WALL...................................................................................................................................13
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT ......................................................................................................................14
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................................... 15
Moisture Sensitive Soils/Weather Related Concerns........................................................................15
Drainage and Groundwater Considerations.......................................................................................16
Excavations......................................................................................................................................... 16
Utility Trenches ..................................................................................................................................17
SITE DRAINAGE.......................................................................................................................................17
PLAN REviEw .........................................................................................................................................17
GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION/TESTING................................................................................................17
LIMITATIONS....................................... ................................................................................................ 18
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 - Boring Location Plan
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Field Exploration Program
Appendix C - Laboratory Testing Procedures
Appendix D - Engineering Analysis
Appendix E - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
lv
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings Project No. 1916-A08
MarBrisa Resort, Carlsbad, CA Log No. 11-1409
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with your request and authorization, MTGL, Inc. has completed a geotechnical
investigation for the subject site. The following report presents our findings, conclusions and
recommendations based on the results of our investigation, laboratory testing and engineering
review.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
A sales building of two to three-story with basement is planned on elevated pad with existing tennis
court. Planned grading for the basement level consists of the removal of approximately 12 feet of
the existing soil. In addition, site grading is to include the re-construction of the elevated pad slopes
to enlarge the existing pad area. The activity and fitness buildings including associated two
swimming pools are to be constructed west of the sales building. It is our understanding that the
activity and fitness buildings are to include a basement level. Additional related improvements
include paved driveway and parking, flatworks, and underground utilities. Future thirteen two- to
three-story villas with paved parking are planned around the swimming pools.
SCOPE
The scope of our Geotechnical services included the following:
Geotechnical investigation consisting of drilling six borings to explore subsurface
conditions and to obtain samples for laboratory testing. (See Geotechnical Boring Location
Plan, Figure 2, for the location of borings, and Appendix B, Field Investigation, for boring
logs).
Laboratory testing of samples (See Appendix Q.
Geotechnical engineering review of data and engineering recommendations.
Preparation of this report summarizing our findings and presenting our conclusions and
recommendations for the proposed construction.
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings . Project No. 1916-A08
MarBrisa Resort, Carlsbad. CA Log No. 11-1409
SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is located on the northwestern portion of the existing MarBrisa Resort on Grand
Pacific Drive south of Canon Road in Carlsbad, CA. Existing development at the MarBrisa Resort
includes a hotel building, resort conference facility building, restaurant building, sales building,
villas, paved driveway and parking, and associated retaining walls and landscaping. Mass grading
for the entire MarBrisa Resort including the project site under this investigation was performed in
2005 and 2006 under the observation and testing of Leighton and Associates, Inc.
The sales building site located on the southeast corner is elevated with a ground elevation of
approximately 215 feet. The site for the planned activity and fitness building including two
swimming pools and future villas are located on the gently slopes down to the west with elevation
ranging from 198 feet to 186 feet. Currently this area is tilled with partial plants within the
southeast. Numerous shallow underground water lines exist on the entire lot for irrigation
purposes.
The As-Graded Report by Leighton and Associates, Inc. dated August 2, 2006 reveals the tennis
court area is mantled by approximately 14 to 18 feet of documented fill. The other area of the site
is mantled by varying thickness of documented fill ranging from 2 to 13 feet. Expansive clayey soil
was buried at the time of mass grading within the future planned parking lots.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The subsurface conditions at the project site were explored with six test borings. Two of the
borings were drilled within the pool area and four of the borings were drilled within the sales
building location. The approximate boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan
(Figure 2). All borings were advanced with a truck mounted drill rig equipped with an 8" diameter
hollow stem auger. The borings were drilled to a depth of between 20 and 50 feet below existing
site grades. Samples were obtained with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and CAL Sampler for
geotechnical testing. See Appendix B for further discussion of the field exploration including logs
of test borings.
2
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings Project No. 1916-A08
MarBrisa Resort, Carlsbad, CA Log No. 11-1409
LABORATORY TESTING
The laboratory testing included moisture content of the disturbed and undisturbed samples, The
maximum density was determined on selected samples of the near surface soils for compaction and
shrinkage calculations. Direct shear and consolidation testing were accomplished for foundation
bearing determinations. Soluble sulfates were determined on selected on-site soil samples to
determine its degradation on concrete structure. Resistivity and pH testing were performed on
representative soil for corrosion potential of buried metals. Index testing including sieve analysis
and expansion index were performed on selected soil samples. R-value testing was performed for
pavement design analysis. The results and expanded explanation of laboratory testing are presented
in Appendix C.
GEOLOGY
Regional Geology
The site lies within the Peninsular Ranges province of Southern California. The Peninsular
Ranges are a group of mountain ranges, in the Pacific Coast Ranges, which stretch 1 500 km from
southern California in the United States to the southern tip of Mexico's Baja California peninsula.
They are part of the North American Coast Ranges that run along the Pacific coast from Alaska
to Mexico. Elevations range from 500 ft to 11,500 ft.
Rocks in the ranges are dominated by Mesozoic granitic rocks, derived from the same massive
batholith which forms the core of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California. They are part of a
geologic province known as the Salinian Block which broke off the North American Plate as the
San Andreas Fault and Gulf of California came into being;
According to Kennedy (1975), the Peninsular Ranges province includes two principal rock units.
The underlying basement rocks include igneous and metamorphic rocks and the overlying rock
units include sedimentary rocks of a variety types. The basement rocks are structurally complex,
metamorphosed volcanics and volcaniclastic rocks and intrusive rocks related in part to
emplacement of the Cretaceous age southern California batholith which forms the backbone of
the Peninsular Ranges province. The overlying sedimentary rocks were deposited on a high
relief surface. Most of the overlying sedimentary rocks are Upper Cretaceous age strata of
3
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings Project No. 1916-A08
MarBrisa Resort, Carlsbad, CA Log No. 11-1409
marine, lagoonal, and nonmarine origin related to two major transgressive and regressive
depositional episodes.
The geologic structure of southern California is dominated by right-lateral strike-slip faulting with
the movement of two tectonic plates. The San Andreas fault system marks the principal boundary
between the Pacific plate and the North American plate. Additional faults that affect the geologic
structure of the project vicinity include the Elsinore-Julian Fault and the Rose Canyon Fault.
Local Geology
The project site is located within a developed area with documented fill. Based upon available
geologic map (Tan and Kennedy, 1996, Oceanside, San Luis Rey and San Marcos 7.5'
Quadrangles), the underlying natural soil at the site consists of the Pleistocene-aged Terrace
deposits. The Terrace deposits are composed of reddish-brown, poorly bedded, poorly- to
moderately-indurated sandstone, siltstone and conglomerate. This unit was encountered in all
borings below the fill at approximate depth of between 8 and 18 feet below existing site grades.
Site Geologic Conditions
A brief discussion of the earth materials encountered in the borings is presented in the following
sections. Refer to the borings logs in the Appendix B for a more detailed description of these
materials.
ME
Documented fill material was encountered in all borings ranging in thickness between 7 and 18 feet
from the surface. The encountered fill generally consists of brown to orange-brown silty sand,
which was generally moist and medium dense to very dense at the time of our exploration. The
documented fill in its current condition would be suitable for structural support for the proposed
development. However, for uniform soil bearing support and to eliminate cut/fill transition
conditions within building pad it is recommended that existing soil should be excavated and
recoinpacted to a depth of at least 2 feet below bottom of footings. Lab test results indicate a very
low expansion potential for the existing on-site fill soils.
4
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings Project No. 1916-A08
MarBrisa Resort. Carlsbad, CA Log No. 11-1409
Terrace Deposits
Underlying the fill is Terrace deposits, which extend at least to the maximum explored depth of 50
feet below existing site grade. This encountered deposits generally consists of orange-brown silty
sand. At the time of expidration the deposits were moist and dense to very dense. Expansion
potential for this Terrace deposits is very low.
Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered within the maximum explored depth of 50 feet below existing
grade. Geotechnica.l reports by Leighton and Associates, Inc. reported localized perched
groundwater encountered during their investigation and the subsequent mass grading at elevation
between the terrace deposits and the underlying Santiago Formation. During our investigation the
underlying Santiago Formation was not encountered. The perched groundwater would have no
impact on the proposed development. However, it is possible that transient oversaturated ground
conditions at shallower depths could develop at a later time due to periods of heavy precipitation,
landscape watering, leaking water lines, or other unforeseen causes.
DISCUSSION OF GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS
Faulting and Seismicity
Faults are one of the most widespread geologic hazards to development in California. Faults of
most concern are those designated as active (less than about 11,000 years since last movement and
potentially active (11,000 to about 750,000 years). According to Hart and Bryant, (2007) the site is
not within a designated earthquake fault zone.
In the event of an earthquake, the closest active fault likely to generate the highest ground
accelerations at the site is the Rose Canyon Fault, which runs parallel to and just offshore of the
coast from north of Carlsbad to south of Lindbergh Field. The Rose Canyon Fault with a maximum
earthquake magnitude (Mw) of 7.2 is located approximately 8.5 km southwest of the project site. A
number of other significant faults also occur in the San Diego metropolitan area suggesting that the
regional faulting pattern is very complex. Faults such as those offshore, are known to be active and
any could cause a damaging earthquake. The San Diego metropolitan area has experienced some
major earthquakes in the past, and will likely experience future major earthquakes.
5
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings Project No. 1916-A08
MarBrisa Resort, Carlsbad, CA Log No. 11-1409
Other active faults which could cause ground shaking at the site include the offshore Newport-
Inglewood Fault, located approximately 11.6 km to the northwest and the offshore Coronado Bank
Fault, located approximately 21. 1 km to the southwest.
Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction involves the substantial loss of shear strength in saturated soil, when subjected to
impact by seismic or dynamic loading. This usually occurs within a uniform fine-grained soil, with
loose relative density, and low confining pressures. Liquefaction potential has been found to be
greatest when the groundwater level is within 50 feet from the surface and loose fine sands or silts
occur within that depth. Liquefaction potential decreases with increasing grain size, and clay and
gravel content, but increases as the ground acceleration and duration of shaking increase.
The on-site documented fill is underlain by terrace deposits, in turn, underlain by Santiago
Formation. Due to the medium dense to very dense nature of the documented fill and the
underlying formation unit, liquefaction potential at the site is negligible.
Landslide, Mudflow and Flooding
Landslide, mudflow and flooding are not considered a significant hazard at the site due to the
absence of ascending slopes, valleys and rivers in the vicinity area.
A review of the available Landslide Hazard Maps (DMG Open-File Report 95-04) indicates no
mapped landslide within the project site.
Ground Rupture
No known active or potentially active faults, with known surface traces, cross the site. Therefore,
the potential for ground rupture due to faulting is considered to be negligible.
Seismic Settlement
Saturated and non-saturated granular soils are subject to densification under strong shaking. The
lower the density of the soils, the higher the intensity and duration of shaking, results in greater
degree of densification. The project site is underlain by very dense formational unit that is
6
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings Project No. I916-A08
MarBrisa Resort, Carlsbad, CA Log No. 11-1409
considered not subject to settlement. Based on the anticipated earthquake effect and the
stratigraphy of the site, seismically induced settlement is considered negligible.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading may occur where liquefaction occurs at depth and there is either a nearby free face
or there is a general slope of the terrain. The overlying non-liquefiable soils tend to break into
blocks, which then may tilt and move laterally over the liquefiable soils. Given the stated low risk
potential for liquefaction, we consider the potential for lateral spreading to be negligible.
Tsunamis and Seiches
Given that the site is located a sufficient distance inland from the coast and due to its elevated
location, inundation by tsunamis is considered to be nonexistent. Due to the lack of surface water
impoundment in the immediate site vicinity, the seiche potential is also considered to be very low to
nonexistent.
Earthquake Accelerations / CBC Seismic Parameters
The computer program Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters Version 5. 1.0 was used to calculate
the CBC site specific design parameters as required by the 2010 California Building Code (CBC).
Based upon boring data and SPT values, the site can be classified as Site Class D. The spectral
acceleration values for 0.2 second and 1 second periods obtained from the computer program and in
accordance with Section 1613.5 of the 2007 California Building Code are tabulated below.
Ground Motion
Parameter
Value 2007 CRC Reference
Ss 1.252g Section 1613.5.1
S1 0.473g Section 1613.5.1
Site Class D Table 1613.5.2
Fa 1.0 Table 1613.5.3(1)
F 1.527 Table 1613.5.3(2)
S 45 1.252g Section 1613.5.3
SMI 0.722g Section 1613.5.3
SDS 0.835g Section 1613.5.4
SD! 0.481g Section 1613.5.4
7
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings Project No. 1916-A08
MarBrisa Resort, Carlsbad, CA Log No. 11-1409
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
General Considerations
Given the findings of the investigation, the proposed project appears to be feasible from a geologic
and geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations presented in this report are fully
incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Specific conclusions pertaining to
geologic conditions are summarized below:
Excavation Characteristics
The site is mantled by documented fill, underlain by terrace deposit. Excavation on these materials
can be accomplished with the use of conventional construction equipment.
Expansion Potential
Generally, the engineered fill and terrace deposits possess a very low expansion potential. As a
result, the on-site soils are considered suitable for use as compacted fill within the project site.
Cut/Fill Transition Conditions
With the varying thickness of documented fill of between 2 and 18 feet, it is anticipated that
proposed buildings and other structures to have cut/fill transition conditions. In order to minimize
the potential for differential settlement in areas of cut/fill transitions, it is recommended that all
proposed buildings and settlement sensitive structures to be entirely supported by properly
compacted fill. A minimum 2 feet of compacted fill is recommended below bottom of footings.
This minimum 2 feet compacted fill requirement should extend across the entire building pad and at
least 5 feet beyond building footprint.
Corrosivity
Corrosion series tests consisting of pH, soluble sulfates, and minimum resistivity were performed
on selected sample of the on-site soils. Soluble sulfate levels for the on-site soil indicate a
negligible sulfate exposure for concrete structure. As such, no special considerations are required
for concrete placed in contact with the on-site soils. However, it is recommended that Type II
cement to be used for all concrete
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings Project No. 1916-A08
MarBrisa Resort, Carlsbad, CA Log No. 11-1409
The corrosion potential of the on-site soil is moderate to high and considered to impact
underground ferrous metals. The actual corrosive potential is determined by many factors in
addition to those presented herein. MTGL, Inc. does not practice corrosion engineering.
Underground metal conduits in contact with the soil need to be protected. We recommend that a
corrosion engineer be consulted.
RECOMMEMDATIONS
General
The recommendations presented herein are considered minimum and may be superseded by more
conservative requirements of the architect, structural engineer, building code, or governing
agencies. The foundation recommendations are based on the load-deformation characteristics and
shear strength of the onsite soils. In addition to the recommendations in this section, additional
general earthwork and grading specifications are included in Appendix E.
Site Grading Recommendations
Site Preparation
Current improvements within proposed development include tennis court, plants and underground
utilities. Prior to the start of any grading, all of these existing improvements should be removed
and utilities be relocated.
Temporary Excavation
We anticipate temporary excavation for the basement level would not exceed 15 feet below existing
grade. Temporary vertical excavations of up to 4 feet deep for the on-site fill and terrace deposits
would be generally stable. Excavation beyond 4 feet deep should be benched or sloped back not
steeper than 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) up to a maximum height of 15. Beyond 15 feet high
temporary slopes should have an inclination of between 1:5:1 and 2:1. The on-site terrace deposits
material and fill soil should be classified as Type C soil.
9
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings Project No. 916-A08
MarBrisa Resort, Carlsbad, CA Log No. 11-1409
Site Grading
Sales Building - Grading of the pad includes cutting approximately 12 feet of the existing soil and
the construction of new fill slopes. The materials anticipated to be used in new fill slope grading
consist of the onsite soil derived from the cutting of the site. It is anticipated that the finish fill
slope for the building pad to be approximately 10 to 25 feet high. For slope stability purposes, the
finished fill slope should have an inclination not steeper than 2: 1. Construction of the new fill slope
should include the excavation of key at the toe with a width of at least 8 feet and minimum depth of
2 feet below lowest adjacent grade into firm soil. Benching into the existing slope should be
performed simultaneously during the fill slope construction at a vertical interval of 2 to 4 feet.
Additional grading recommendations within proposed building pad is to excavate and recompact
the existing soil to a depth of at least 2 feet below bottom of footings for uniform soil bearing
support and eliminate cut/fill transition condition.
Activity and Fitness Buildings - A cut/fill transition condition could be anticipated within building
pads. For uniform soil bearing support and to eliminate cut/fill transition condition, it is
recommended that grading for the building to include removal and recompaction of the existing soil
to a depth of at least 2 feet below bottom of footing elevation.
Future Swimming Pools, and Villas - Likewise with the above proposed structures, entire
foundations are recommended to be supported by properly compacted fill. Existing soil should be
removed and recompacted to a depth of at least 2 feet below bottom of footing elevation for
uniform soil bearing and eliminate cut/fill transition condition.
If highly expansive clay is encountered within building pads, it should be removed and replaced
with available onsite soil with low expansion potential. The depth of removal and replacement of
highly expansive clay should be at least 3 feet below bottom of footing for buildings and at least 5
feet below bottom of slab for swimming pool. The removal and replacement should extend at least
5 feet beyond structure footprint.
The lateral limit of grading for all structures should extend at least 5 feet beyond building footprint.
Prior to recompaction process, the bottom of excavation to receive fill should be scarified to a depth
of 6 inches, moisture conditioned and recompacted.
10
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings Project No. 1916-A08
MarBrisa Resort. Carlsbad, CA Log No. 11-1409
General Compaction Standard
All fills should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. All fill materials
should be placed in thin lifts not more than 8 inches and compacted. Material should be moisture-
conditioned and processed as necessary to achieve a uniform moisture content at near optimum
moisture to achieve adequate bonding between lifts and compaction. Fill surfaces and finished
subgrades should not be allowed to dry and should be maintained in a moist condition or scarified
prior to placing additional fill.
Fill soils outside structure and under vehicular pavement should be compacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction. However, the top 12 inches of subgrade under all vehicular pavement should
be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
Backfill of utilities should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. All
compaction shall be based on Test Method ASTM D1557. Moisture content of all fill and backfill
soil should be at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content.
Import Fill Material
If required, import fill should consist of non-expansive granular soils, and have a maximum particle
size of 1 inch. Import material should have an expansion index (El) of 20 or less. Where import
soils will be in contact with concrete or buried metal pipes a standard corrosion series test should be
performed.
Foundation
The recommendations and design criteria are "minimum", in keeping with the current standard-of-
practice. They do not preclude more restrictive criteria by the governing agency or structural
considerations. The project structural engineer should evaluate the foundation configurations and
reinforcement requirements for actual structural loadings.
Proposed structures are anticipated to be supported by properly compacted fill. Conventional
continuous or isolated footings are considered suitable for structural support founded on engineered
fill, Allowable soil bearing capacity for continuous or isolated footing with a minimum width of 2
feet are the following:
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings Project No. 1916-A08
MarBrisa Resort, Carlsbad, CA Log No. 11-1409
Embedment Below Lowest Adjacent Grade Allowable Soil Bearing Values
2 feet 5,000 psf
3 feet 6,500 psf
4 feet 8,000 psf (maximum)
The above allowable bearing values may be increased by one-third where wind or seismic loads are
considered in combination with dead and/or live loads.
Minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all building footings should be
H12, where H is the slope height, with a maximum of 15 feet along 2:1 slopes. This distance is
measured from the outside edge of the footing, horizontally to the face of slope.
Lateral Resistance
Lateral forces may be resisted by friction on the base of foundations, and passive earth pressure on
the sides of the portions of foundations or shear keys hearing against competent native formation or
compacted engineered fill. The allowable base friction may be calculated using a coefficient of
0.33. The allowable passive pressure may be calculated as equivalent to that of a fluid weighing
350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for foundations bearing against compacted engineered fill.
Settlement
For design consideration, a maximum settlement of at least 1-inch with a differential settlement of
1/2-inch in a span of 40 feet should be incorporated.
Interior Slab-On-Grade
Interior slab-on-grade should be designed for the actual applied loading conditions expected. The
structural engineer should size and reinforce slabs to support the expected loads utilizing accepted
methods of pavement design, such as those provided by the Portland Cement Association or the
American Concrete Institute. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci)
could be utilized in design. Based on geotechnical consideration, interior slab should be a
minimum of 5 inches. Appropriate slab reinforcement should be designed by the project structural
engineer based upon low expansion potential.
12
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings Project No. I 916-A08
MarBrisa Resort, Carlsbad, CA Log No. 11-1409
Floor slabs should be underlain by a capillary break material consisting of at least 4 inches thick
clean sand. In moisture sensitive flooring areas, such as carpeted or linoleum covered areas, a 10-
niil visqueen moisture barrier or equivalent should be installed rnidheight within the capillary break
material. Alternatively, a Stego Wrap moisture barrier or equivalent may be installed following
manufacturers recommendations. The sand should be moistened just prior to the placing of
concrete.
Concrete is rigid brittle material that can withstand very little strain before cracking. Concrete,
particularly exterior hardscape is subject to dimensional changes due to variations in moisture of the
concrete, variations in temperature and applied loads. It is not possible to eliminate the potential for
cracking in concrete; however, cracking can be controlled by use of joints and reinforcing. Joints
provide a pre-selected location for concrete to crack along and release strain and reinforcement
provides for closely spaced numerous cracks in lieu of few larger visible cracks.
Exterior Concrete Slab/Flatwork
Exterior slabs should be supported by at least 12 inches of properly compacted fill. Compacted fill
should have at least 90 percent relative density based on Test Method ASTM D1557. Exterior
concrete slab/flatworks should have a nominal thickness of 4 inches. Reinforcement may be
provided for stability purposes. Controlled joints should be provided to eliminate potential for
cracking.
Retaining Wall
Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The
magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can yield under
load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed
for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil
cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls as basement and swimming
pools should be designed for the "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the
resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance.
For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls founded
above the static ground water table and backlilled with on-site soils (expansion index less than 20)
is provided below. Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative
13
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings Project No. 1916-A08
MarBrisa Resort. Carlsbad, CA Log No. 11-1409
compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). Recommended pressures are tabulated below.
Equivalent Fluid Weight (pqfl
Condition Level 2:1 (H:V) Slope
Active 33 60
At-Rest 55 80
Passive 350
(Maximum of 3 ksf)
150
(Sloping Down)
Soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be obtained from the passive
pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.33 may be
used at the concrete and soil interface. The passive pressure and the friction of resistance could be
combined without reduction. In addition, the lateral passive resistance is taken into account only if
it is ensured that the soil against embedded structures will remain intact with time.
Drainage of backfill behind walls may be provided by a vertical layer of Miradrain 6200 with
Mirafi 140 Geofabric, or equivalent, placed at the back of the wall; or by a minimum 12-inch width
of 3/4 inch open-graded crushed gravel enveloped in Mirafi 140 Geofabric. Subdrains should
consist of 4-inch diameter Schedule 40, PVC pipe or equivalent, embedded in approximately 1
ft3/1inear foot of 3/4-inch down open-graded gravel, enveloped in Mirafi 140 Geofabric Filter or
equivalent, with the pipe being 3± inches above the trench bottom; a gradient of at least 1% being
provided to the pipe and trench bottom; discharging into suitably protected outlets. Alternatively
low-retaining walls (less than 5 feet retained) may use weep holes.
Preliminary Pavement
The preliminary pavement sections presented below are based on the R-value of the upper on-site
soil (R-value of 25), assumed Traffic Index, and minimum pavement section based on the City of
Carlsbad Supplemental Standard GS-17. Final pavement designs should be evaluated based on R-
value tests of the actual subgrade material after completion of grading. Where the pavement is
subject to repeated turning stress (i.e. Trash .Enclosures Aprons) the pavement should be Portland
cement concrete.
14
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings Project No. 1916-A08
MarBrisa Resort. Carlsbad, CA Log No. 11-1409
Pavement AC Class II Base
Loading Condition Traffic Index Thickness Thickness
Auto 4,5 4.0 inches 4.0 inches
Parking Areas
Auto 5.0 4.0 inches 4.0 inches
Driveways
Light Duty Truck 6.0 4.0 inches 9.0 inches
Driveways
Moderate Duty 7.0 4.0 inches 11.0 inches
Truck Driveways
All fill under pavement should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction with
exception of the upper 12 inches. Prior to the placement of base material, the upper 12 inches of
pavement subgrade should be scarified; moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum 95
percent relative compaction based on Test Method ASTM D1557. Aggregate base material should
conform to Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 26 (Class 2) or the Standard Specification for
Public Works Construction (Crushed Aggregate Base or Crushed Miscellaneous Base) and should
be compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction based on Test Method ASTM D1557
prior to placement of the asphaltic concrete.
Portland cement concrete pavement sections may incorporate steel reinforcement and to be
provided with crack control joints as designed by the project structural engineer. Recommended
concrete mix should be at least 3,500 psi.
It is recommended that Portland cement concrete swales to be designed and constructed within
asphalt pavement areas for drainage of surface water. Fill soils under curb and gutter should be
compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction based on Test Method ASTM D1557.
Construction Considerations
Moisture Sensitive Soils/Weather Related Concerns
The soils encountered at the site may be sensitive to disturbances caused by construction equipment
and to changes in moisture content. During wet weather periods, increases in the moisture content
of the soil can cause significant reduction in the soil strength and support capabilities. In addition,
soils that become wet may be slow to dry and thus significantly retard the progress of grading and
15
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings Project No. 1916-A08
MarBrisa Resort, Carlsbad. CA Log No. 11-1409
compaction activities. It will, therefore, be advantageous to perform earthwork and foundation
construction activities during dry weather.
Much of the on-site soils may be susceptible to erosion during periods of inclement weather. As a
result, the project Civil Engineer/Architect and Grading Contractor should take appropriate
precautions to reduce the potential for erosion during and after construction.
Drainage and Groundwater Considerations
No groundwater was encountered within the maximum explored depth of 50 feet below existing
grade. It should be noted, however, that variations in the ground water table may result from
fluctuation in the ground surface topography, subsurface stratification, precipitation, irrigation, and
other factors that may not have been evident at the time of our exploration. Seepage sometimes
occurs where relatively impermeable and/or cemented formational materials are overlain by fill
soils, We should be consulted to evaluate areas of seepage during construction.
Positive site drainage should be designed to reduce infiltration of surface water around and
underneath the building. Finish grades should be sloped away from the building.
Excavations
It is mandated by federal regulation that excavations, like utility trenches, basement excavation or
foundation excavations, be constructed in accordance with the new OSHA guidelines. It is our
understanding that OSHA regulations are being strictly enforced and if not closely followed, the
owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial penalties.
The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations
and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of
both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractor's "responsible person", should evaluate the
soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures. In no case, should
slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth,
exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.
16
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings Project No. 1916-A08
MarBrisa Resort, Carlsbad. CA Log No. 11-1409
Utility Trenches
Except where extending perpendicular under proposed foundations, utility trenches should be
constructed outside a 1:1 projection from the base-of-foundations. Trenches for utility lines under
structures should be properly backlilled and compacted.
Utilities should be bedded and backfil!ed with approved sand or granular material to a depth of at
least 1-foot over the pipe. Sand bedding material should be moisture conditioned and properly
compacted. Compaction by jetting is not allowed. The remainder of the backfill may be typical on-
site soil or imported soil which should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness,
watered or aerated close to optimum moisture content, and mechanically compacted to at least 95
percent (under structure and pavement) and 90 percent (not under structure and pavement) of
maximum dry density (based on ASTM D1557).
Site Drainage
Drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface waters away from structures to approved
drainage facilities. Downspouts, berms, area drains and other drainage controls should be included
in construction considerations to minimize discharging or ponding of water near the foundation
line. For earth areas, a minimum gradient of 1 percent should be maintained and drainage should
be directed toward approved swales or drainage facilities. Positive drainage with a minimum
gradient of 2 percent away from all structures should be provided and maintained within at least 5
feet from structure to reduce any runoff from infiltrating the soil beneath structural foundation.
Plan Review
The geotechnical and geological consultants should be retained to review grading and foundation
plans and specifications to ascertain conformance with site conditions and recommendations
presented herein.
Geotechnical Observation/Testing
The geotechnical and geological consultants should be retained to perform on-site construction
observations and testing to ascertain that conditions correspond to the findings and conclusions
presented herein and that construction conform generally to the recommendations presented herein.
17
Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings Project No. I916-A08
MarBrisa Resort, Carlsbad, CA Log No. 11-1409
The geotechnical and geological consultants should be called upon for testing and observations as
indicated in this report and at least for the following:
During site grading and overexcavation.
During foundation excavations and placement.
During excavation and backfilling of all utility trenches
Upon completion of any foundation and retaining wall footing excavation prior to placing
concrete
During processing and compaction of the subgrade for the access and parking areas and
prior to construction of pavement sections.
It is the responsibility of the contractor to coordinate all inspections and testing required by this firm
or by other regulatory agencies.
LIMITATIONS
The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site
conditions as they existed at the time of our investigation and further assume the explorations to be
representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site. If different subsurface conditions
are observed during construction, we should be promptly notified for review and reconsideration of
our recommendations,
This report was prepared for the exclusive use and benefit of the owner, architect, and engineer for
evaluating the design of the facilities as it relates to geotechnical aspects. It should be made
available to prospective contractors for information on factual data only, and not as a warranty of
subsurface conditions included in this report.
Our investigation was performed using the standard of care and level of skill ordinarily exercised
under similar circumstances by reputable soil engineers and geologists currently practicing in this or
similar localities. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and
professional advice included in this report.
18
3- ?
. I C
-- 0 --
'C, .0
High Kel 1
Sell ,-
,
- Sah
P.
Valley High Seh*
E
(1 :
a 1 /
..........
\''
,r-
-- it a'
0 ., Evans PQint
/
/L g. a.
'a
I ever y r
C C I C I
-
'TE9CATIoNl;
- H
v \ Farr
-a - -
SITE LOCATION MAP
SALES, ACTIVITY & FITNESS BUILDINGS
Project No. 1916-A08 I Date: NOV. 2011 FIGURE 1
MTGL, INC.
/
/ .
tJJTL
/
/ . Jj
,
/1
BIA
-
I
Y/
B- \J
Lp LL VA 58 B s B-4
2 /t:.. •
k j S
N B6 . B3
LJ LL
Legend:
S
B-6 Approximate Location of Boring
BORING LOCATION PLAN
SALES, ACTIVITY & FITNESS BUILDINGS
Project No. 1916-A08 I Date: NOV. 2011 1 FIGURE 2
n,l
MTGL, INC.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
Blake, Thomas F., 2000, "EQFAULT, A Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of
Peak Horizontal Acceleration From Digitized California Faults
CDMG, California Division of Mines and Geology, 2000, DMG CD 2000-003, Digital Images of
Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Zones.
Bryant, W.A. and Hart, E.W.,2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Aiquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, California
Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42,
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division of
Mines and Geology. Scale 1:750,000.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Map of the
Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California, DMG Open-File Report 96-02. Scale
1:24,000.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Recent Failures, Ancient
Landslides, and Related Geology of the North-Central Coastal Area, San Diego County,
California by F. Harold Weber, Jr, 1982, DMG Open-File Report 82-12, Scale 1:24,000.
U.S. Geological Survey, Topographic Map of the San Luis Rey Quadrangle, California-San Diego
County, 7.5-Minute Series (Topographic), 1997, Scale 1:24,000.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1995, Landslide Hazards
in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, CA, DMG
Open-File Report 95-04, Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 35.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, The Rose Canyon Fault
Zone , Southern California, 1993, DMG Open-File Report 93-02.
California Building Standards Commission, 2007 California Building Code, California Code of
Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2.
Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1982, Foundations and Earth
Structures, NAVFAC DM-7.2.
Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1982, Soil Mechanics NAVFAC
DM-7.l.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2005, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed 53-Acre Resort
Development - Phase 1, Carlsbad Ranch, Planning Area No. 5, Carlsbad, CA, Project No.
040575-003, April 11, 2005.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2006, As-Graded Geotechnical Report of Rough and Fine Grading,
Hotel One, Resort and Conference Facilites, Sales Building, and Villas No. 53 through 56,
Lots 10, 11 and A Portion of Lot 1, Grand Pacific Carlsbad, Carlsbad, CA, Project No.
040575-005, August 2, 2006.
APPENDIX B
FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM
On October 6, 2010, six exploratory borings were drilled utilizing 6-inch diameter hollow stem
auger drilled to a depth of between 20 and 50 feet below existing site grade. Samples were
obtained with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler, CAL Sampler and a bulk sample, as
appropriate. The approximate location of the borings are shown on the Boring Location Plan,
Figure 2, attached. The field exploration was performed under the supervision of our
Geologist/Engineer who maintained a continuous log of the subsurface soils encountered and
obtained samples for laboratory testing.
The soils encountered were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
System (see Key to Logs, Figure B-0). Subsurface conditions are summarized on the Boring Logs,
Figures B-i and B-5. The soils were classified based on field observations and laboratory tests.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS
-I GRAVELS CLEAN GW Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no
MORE THAN GRAVELS fines.
. GP Poorly graded gravels or gravel-Band mixtures, little or HALF OF (LESS THAN
O - c' 5% FINES) no fines.
0
COARSE
FRACTION IS GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-slit mixtures, non-plastic GRAVEL lines. w 0 z Z <
LARGER THAN
NO. 4 SIEVE WITH FINES - GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic
LL fines.
SANDS CLEAN
SANDS ,, SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little at no fines. >
z MORE THAN (LESS THAN -
HALF OF 5% FINES) ' . SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines.
COARSE
< W FRACTION IS S SANDS Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines.
- SMALLER THAN WITH FINES NO. 4 SIEVE SC Clayey sand, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines.
ML inorganic silts and very fine sends rock flour, silty or clayey fine sends or clayey silts with slight plasticity. o j °' SILTS AND CLAYS -
CL inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly w Cl) LIQUID LIMIT IS clays, sandy clays, lean clays.
° LESS THAN 60% U) w OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity.
—<-0 <
Zzcco
MH Inorganic 811t8, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy
<O SILTS AND CLAYS or silty soils, elastic silts.
CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. (DwEz LIQUID LIMIT IS
z << GREATER THAN 50% -
OH Organic clays of medium to nigh plasticity, organic
-
slits.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils.
GRAIN SIZES
SAND GRAVEL I
SILTS AND CLAYS COBBLES 1BOULDERS FINE MEDIUM COARSE I FINE COARSE
200 40 1 10 4 3/4 3 12
U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS
i GROUND WATER LEVEL OR GROUND WATER SEEPAGE.
M 2
LOCATION OF SAMPLE TAKEN USING A STANDARD SPLIT TUBE SAMPLER,
-INCH 0.0., 1-3/8-INCH I.D. DRIVEN WITH A 140 POUND HAMMER FALLING
30-INCHES.
Z 3
LOCATION OF SAMPLE TAKEN USING A MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLER,
-1/8-INCH 0.0., WITH 2-112-INCH I.D. LINER RINGS. DRIVEN USING THE
WEIGHT OF KELLY BAR (LARGE DIAMETER BORINGS) OR USING A 140 POUND
HAMMER FALLING 30-INCHES (SMALL DIAMETER BORING):
LOCATION OF SAMPLE TAKEN USING A 3-INCH O.D. THIN-WALLED TUBE SAMPLER
(SHELBY TUBE) HYDRAULICALLY PUSHED.
LOCATION OF BULK SAMPLE TAKEN FROM AUGER CUTTINGS.
KEY TO LOGS - UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D-2487)
JOB NO.: 1916A08 1DATE: NOV. 2011 1FIGURE: B0
DATE OBSERVED: Oct. 6, 2011 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY:ECD GROUND ELEVATION: ±188' LOCATION: See Figure 2
-
0
0
C))
>
'-4 Ix ca
E'z
O
U
-
0 >
'
W
BORING NO. B-i
DESCRIPTION
SOIL TEST
SB-i
SB-2
SB-3
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
36
52
76
54
56
49
55
13.5
12.5
9.3
11.8
10.4
13.4
10.4
122.9
120.4
124.1
FILL: Silty Sand (SM), orange-brown, moist, medium
dense, trace clay.
Grades to dense.
Corrosivity
R-value
Gradation
Direct Shear
Consolidation
-
-
5
-
-
-
- TERRACE DEPOSITS: Silty Sand (SM), orange-brown,
moist, very dense, mix yellow-brown color, trace clay.
Grades with mix grey color.
Grades with dark brown color.
Grades to dense
Grades to very dense.
10 _.-
15
20
25
30
- Boring Terminated at 30 Feet.
No Groundwater Encountered.
Borehole Backfilled on 10/6/2011. -
35
40
Project No.: 1916A08 LOG OF BORING Figure B-i
DATE OBSERVED: Oct. 6, 2011 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8 Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY:ECD
— GROUND ELEVATION: ±190 LOCATION: See Figure 2
0
Co
C/C
Cl)
.
'-I
C/C
,.
0
Ez
z 0 U
U
u Co z Z
BORING NO. B-2
DESCRIPTION
SOIL TEST
O
SB-i
SB-2
SB-3
SS-1
SS-2
38
48
65
24
37
—
12.1
13.5
13.2
10.2
8.2
124.8
126.2
123.8
fiLLi Silty Sand (SM), orange-brown, moist, medium
dense to dense, trace clay.
Grades to mix orange-brown Silty Sand.
Max. Density
Expansion Index
Corrosivity
Direct Shear
Consolidation
—
-
5 .—
TERRACE DEPOSITS: Silty Sand (SM), orange-brown,
moist, dense, mix with red-brown color.
Grades to medium dense
Grades to dense.
-
10 -
-
15
20
- Boring Terminated at 20 Feet.
No Groundwater Encountered.
Borehole Backfihled on 10/6/2011.
-
-
25
30
35
40
Project No.: 1916A08 LOG OF BORING Figure B-2
DATE OBSERVED: Oct. 6, 2011 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8° Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY:ECD GROUND ELEVATION: ±215' LOCATION: See Figure 2
-
a E.
0
Z
Ell
0
C))
Cn
H
c
0
Zco C))
'z- 20:0
U Z C))
BORING NO, B-3
DESCRIPTION
SOIL TEST
0 -
SB-i
SB-2
SB-3
SB-4
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
-
39
105
36
80
48
45
25
-
14.3
8.1
11.7
9.4
10.1
9.7
9.3
123
132.8
125.8
131.9
FILL: Silty Sand (SM), orange-brown, moist, medium
dense, trace clay.
Mix with dark brown color, very dense.
Grades to medium dense.
R-value - ,...-
5 -'
10
- TERRACE DEPOSITS: Silty Sand (SM), orange-brown,
moist, very dense, trace clay.
Grades to dense.
Grades to medium dense.
15 7
20 :c
25
30
- Boring Terminated at 30 Feet.
No Groundwater Encountered.
Borehole Backtilled on 10/6/2011.
-
-
35
40
Project No.: 1916A08 LOG OF BORING Figure B-3
DATE OBSERVED: Oct. 6, 2011 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY:ECD - GROUND ELEVATION: ±215' LOCATION: See Figure 2
0
H
H
0
C,)
H H 0
H
co
-
F'z H
O
X O U
—
0 :,.,
cM
z Z HH
BORING NO. B-4
DESCRIPTION
SOIL TEST
0
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
SS-5
SS-6
SS-7
SS-8
-
15
22
50/5"
72
37
47
47
45
- -
10.3
11.2
7.4
8.5
8.7
10.2
8.5
FILL: Silty Sand ISM), brown, moist, medium dense,
trace clay.
Grades to mix yellow-brown and orange-brown color.
Grades to very dense.
Max. Density
Expansion Index
Corrosivity
-
X
-
-
10
15
-
9.5
TERRACE DEPOSITS: Silty Sand (SM), moist, orange-
brown, very dense, trace clay.
Grades to dense.
20
25
30
35
40
continuation Figure B-4A
LP
~ oject No.: 1916A08 LOG OF BORING Figure B-4
I I I I I I I I i°il I III 1° DEP'rH(FEEr) 0 loll I l l hlI l lI0! III l"l L" C) 0 Li.
.-
ID 0 cn 0) (0 SAMPLENUMBER 0 0
.< ID
o 0 01 BLOWS/FOOT
ID
tq rn 0 C) D H DRIVE SAMPLES
—I 0
(7) 2. BULK SAMPLE
0 co
MOISTURE 0
01 CONTENT (%-) C)
0
IN-PLACE DRY
DENSITY (PCF) ID
a 00 G) 3—I m ID
ID — Q. ID Q I4 00 C0 ID 0 CL 0 (DC Z ,
co CI_ -' x 0
t-I
(DO
0
Q —. oil) co
o 0 a a - -I 0 0
Dl ID Cfl -.0 I
-
In cn En C) ID o iS . ID p H z p 0. CD D I-. 0.0 0Z U. (0 2. D 341
0 Cl)
CD CO 3 C?
lz a IC CD
ID
h1I
ID m
tQ C') 2 II C.
(D
w
'-I ID If) I -3
:3.1
DATE OBSERVED: Oct. 6, 2011 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8' Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BV:ECD
-
GROUND ELEVATION: ±215' LOCATION: See Figure 2
I.,
a N
Cl)
0
to
N
U)
N
0
N
to
-
H El O a u
o' 'z
0
BORING NO. B-5
DESCRIPTION
SOIL TEST
0
SB-i
SB-2
SB-3
SB-4
SB-S
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
41
47
39
37
50/4"
34
57
60
70
8.2
13.2
13.8
11.6
10.4
10.1
10.4
9.9
7.9
123.5
123.4
123.4
124.6
122,9
FILL.: Silty Sand (SM), orange-brown, moist. medium
dense, trace clay.
Grades to mix dark brown color.
Gradation
Gradation
Direct Shear
Consolidation
-
5
10
15
-
TERRACE DEPOSITS: Silty Sand (SM), moist, orange-
brown, very dense, trace clay.
Grades to dense.
Grades to very dense.
20
25
30
35
40
- Boring Terminated at 40 Feet. No Grounwater
Encountered. Borehole Backfitied on 10/6/2011.
Project No.: 1916A08 LOG OF BORING Figure B-5
1t
DATE OBSERVED: Oct. 6, 2011 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY:ECD GROUND ELEVATION: ±215' LOCATION: See Figure 2
-
El
U)
,.
(ID Z
Z B
"
El
,U)
z 14
Q
BORING NO. B-6
DESCRIPTION
SOIL TEST
o -
SIB-i
SB-2
SB-3
SB-4
SS-1
SS-2
-
53
43
35
90
37
55
-
11.2
12.9
10.8
9.2
9.8
8.6
128.3
122.1
121.4
125.4
FILL: Silty Sand (SM), orange-brown, moist, medium
dense to dense, trace clay.
Mix with dark brown color. Max. Density
Expansion Index
Corrosivity
Gradation
Direct Shear
Consolidation
-
5 ,..-
-
10 -
15 __
-
- TERRACE DEPOSITS: Silty Sand (SM), orange-brown,
moist, very dense, trace clay.
Grades to dense.
Grades to very dense.
-
20 .-
25
30
- Boring Terminated at 30 Feet.
No Groundwater Encountered.
Borehole Backtilled on 10/6/2011.
-
-
35
40
Project No.; 1916A08 LOG OF BORING Figure B-6
j
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES
GENERAL
The results of laboratory testing are discussed and presented in this appendix.
MOISTURE/DENSITY
Determinations of in situ moisture content and dry density were performed on selected undisturbed
samples. Soil moisture content determinations were performed according to the: ASTM D 2216.
The dry density of soil was determined on CAL samples in general accordance with ASTM D2937.
Results of these tests are presented on the boring logs, Figures B-i through B-2, in Appendix B.
CLASSIFICATION
The Unified Soil Classification System was utilized for visual (ASTM D2488) and laboratory
(ASTM D2487) classifications of soils encountered.
GRADATION
The sieve analysis of selected soil samples was performed in accordance with ASTM D422 and
results are presented in Figures C-i to C-S
MAXIMUM DENSITY
A maximum density test was performed on a representative bag sample of the near surface soils in
accordance with ASTM D1557. The test results are shown below.
Location Maximum Dry
Density (pcf)
Optimum Moisture
Content (%)
B-2 @ 8'- 12' 130.5 8.3
B-4 @ 8' -12' 134.2 8.5
B-6 @ 5' -9' 131.3 9.7
DIRECT SHEAR
Direct shear tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D3080-98. Direct shear tests
were performed on undisturbed soil samples. Test results are as follows.
Location Cohesion
(PSF)
Angle of Internal
Friction (Deg.)
B-i @ 5' 435 38
B-2 @ 10' 1003 40
B @ 15' 1004 35
13-6 @ 15' 66 44
EXPANSION INDEX
Expansion Index testing was completed in accordance with ASTM D4829. Test results are
presented in the following table.
Boring
No.
Depth
(feet).
Expansion Index
(El)
UEC
Potential Expansion
B-2 8'-12' 0 Very Low
B-4 8' -12' 0 Very Low
B-6 5' -9' 5 Very Low
CORROSIVITY
Corrosivity Testing in compliance with Caltrans Test Method 417, 422,'& 643. Test results are
presented below.
Sample Location PH Soluble Sulfates
(%)
Mm. Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
B-I @ l'-S' 6.8 0.032 1,460
B-2 @ 8'- 12' 6.7 0.02 1 1,694
B-4@8'-I2' 6.6 0.011 1,781
B-6 @ 5' -9' 6.7 0.010 2,080
CONSOlIDATION
Consolidation test was performed on representative, relatively undisturbed sample of the underlying
soil to determine compressibility characteristics in accordance with ASTM D2435. Test result is
presented on Figure C-6 to C-9.
R-VALUE
R-value testing was performed on existing upper on-site soil within proposed pavement areas.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Test Method 301 was used to determine
exudation and expansion values.
Location R- Value
B-1@ 1'-S' 25
B-3@1'-5' 48
Particle Size Distribution Report
000 C C c C. . 0 000 0 0 1 0
100
gc
80
70
cc, U.I 60 Z
LL
F- z 50
w 0
cc 40 a.
30
20
ic
0
LLL _i_1
if
i
lilt
II I I
I
I
I
liii
II I I
I I
liii
liii
if
III
ill I
I
I
I
I liii
l
liii
II
11111
11111
11111
11111
Li_Ii
11111
III
1111
tIll
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I'l
Iii
--±-+--
I_Li
I
I
I
I
till
liii
1111
liii
Ii
ill
hf
4
lOU 10 1 U.] 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
% Gravel % Sand % Fines / +3 Coarse I Fine Coarse Medium I Fine' Silt Clay
0.0 0.0 0,6 0.9 35.7 46.4 16.4
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
.375 100.0
#4 99.4
#10 98.5
#20 94.9
#40 62.8
#60 37.2
#100 24.2
#200 16.4
Material Description
Atterbera Limits
PL= LL= P1=
Coefficients
D90= 0.7318 085= 0.6501 D60= 0.4038
D50= 0.3338 030= 0.1986 D15=
D1 O= C= C=
Classification
USCS= AASHTO=
Remarks
(no specification provided)
Sample Number: B-i Depth: 5'
MTGL, Inc.
Anaheim, CA
Date: 10/24/11
Client:
Project: SALES / FITNESS BUILDING - MARBRISA PHASE 2
Project No: 1916-A08 Figure C-I
Tested By: JH Checked By: ED
Particle Size Distribution Report
000
ioo T flThtTL
90
I III II I I liii
11111 I I I
III I I I III
7I lull I Ii
lull I I I I III
I I liii I I III
W 60 ------ -l--F :--+- l ------u -l-+-H---: Z LL
I..... I 1111 I I I III Z 50—----
I liii I I I III
40-—----- -i-_4--'-----I-' '----------' -'-4-- 0. lii I I I I
I I I II 30-— I Ti
I II I I I
20 - 1_.LI.....__Ll I I IJ_J_j
f 10 ;
11111 I I III
.1 __I 11111 _I - I I III
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE -
%Gravel %Sand
%+3" Coarse Fine Coarse Medium
0,0 1 0.0 6.1 1 3.4 1 27,1
% Fines
Fine Silt
29.4 34.0
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
.375 100.0
#4 93.9
#10 90.5 -
#20 86.6
#40 63.4
#60 46.8
#100 39.2
#200 34.0
Material Description
Atterbera Limits
PL= LL= P1=
Coefficients
090= 1.7910 085= 0.7921 D60= 0.3874 050= 0.2834 030= D15=
Dio= C= C=
Classification
USCS= AASHTO=
Remarks
(no specification provided)
Sample Number: B-2 Depth: 10'
Date: 10/24/11
MTGL, Inc. Client:
Project: SALES / FITNESS BUILDING - MARBRISA PHASE 2
Anaheim, CA Project No: 1916-A08 Figure C-2
Tested By: JH Checked By: ED
100
90
80
70
W 60 z
U-
I- 50
w
rr
W 40
0-
30
20
10
Particle Size Distribution Report
000
.C. . . :e • ID M N - -
I 11111' I I I liii
,1 I 111111 I I iili
I III I I 1111
I liii I I Il_I_I
II I I
I II II I I
:----
III II I I III
I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I II
I I
I II 1 I I I
(I I I I I
iTi iTt
I till I I I III
I liii I I III
I liii
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
% Gravel % Sand % Fines / +3 Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 49.0 34.4
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
#4 100.0
#10 100.0
#20 98.9
#40 83.4
#60 59.2
#100 42.8
#200 34.4
Material Description
Atterbera Limits
PL= LL= P1=
Coefficients
Dg 0.5158 D85 0.4427 D60= 0.2545
050= 0.1958 030= D15=
010= C= C=
Classification
USCS= AASHTO=
Remarks
(no specification provided)
Sample Number: B-4 Depth: 10
Date: 10/24/1 1
MTGL, Inc. Client:
Project: SALES / FITNESS BUILDING - MARBRISA PHASE 2
Anaheim, CA Project No: 1916-A08 Figure C-3
Tested By: JH Checked By:
cc
60
IL
F— z 56
w 0
I w 40
3-
30
20
10
Particle Size Distribution Report
00 . 0 000 0 0 0
(0 M ((I r (0 (0 (0 (0 (0
I II I I I Ill
I I iI I III
ii I I iii
I -------
PIll I I III
11111 I I I Ill II I I I I Ill
I 11111 I I I ill
11111 I
III II I I
11111 I lIi!1I{
iii I lII
L4_4I
I 11111 I
I II I I ii
I I I 1111
__ I ILIl I IiH
I ill Ii I I I
11111 p p I I ill
II II I I I Ill
II II I _l I IIIl• j 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
% +3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 17.7 48.2 33.6
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
#4 100.0
#10 99.5
#20 98.4
#40 81.8
#60 59.3
#100 43.4
#200 33.6
Material Description
Atlerbera Limits
PL= LL= P1=
Coefficients
D90= 0.5460 085= 0.4645 D60= 0.2546
D50= 0.1925 D30= D15=
D10= C=
Classification
USCS= AASHTO=
Remarks
- (no specification provided)
Sample Number: B-S Depth: 15'
Date: 10/24/11
MTGL, Inc. Client:
Project: SALES/ FITNESS BUILDING - MARBRISA PHASE 2
Anaheim, CA Project No: 1916-AO8 Figure C-4
Tested By: JH Checked By: ED
Particle Size Distribution Report
...... e . ceo
. . • • F B 9 10 fl — S
100 I TTT1 YTT1T
I I I I I
80
liii I I III
1111 I I
I I I-—-.
II I I ''ii I
70
El
11111 I I I III
I I liii
.1.1 I II I I I III
W 60---- Z
Ei I II 1 III.
I— . I Ii II I III Z 50
LU I liii I I Iii
40.
0.. 111111 I I
II
30. IiTTI
III II I I I II
20 LLJII II
11111 I I I III
Ii I 11111
lGy ---I--H-I
II I I III
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE -
%Gravel %Sand /
Coarse1 Fine Coarse Medium
0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.4 22.1
% Fines
Fine Silt j CI
52.3 25.2
a
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
#4 100.0
#10 99.6
#20 98.0
#40 77.5
#60 52.5
#100 35.0
#200 25.2
Material Description
Atlerberg Limits
PL= LL= P1=
Coefficients
Dg= 0,5952 085= 0.5127 D60= 0.2941
050= 0.2359 030= 0.1156 015=
010= cu= C
Classification
USCS= AASHTO=
Remarks
(no specification provided)
Sample Number: B-6 Depth: 15 • Date: 10/24/I1
MTGL, Inc. Client:
Project: SALES I FITNESS BUILDING - MARBRISA PHASE 2
_Inaiieirn, CA Project No: 1916-A08 Ficiure C-5
Tested By: Checked By: ED
____ CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
0.0 11111111111 0.4
WATER ADDED
0.6-
1E 1.6
2.0
2.4
H
2.8
3.2
3.6 .IIIL1I IHILIJdIbiIHI 11111 100 200 500 1000 2000 5000
Applied Pressure - psf
Natural Dry Dens.
(pcf) LL P1 Sp.
Gr.
Overburden
(psf)
PC
(psf) cc Cr Swell Press.
(psf)
Cipse.
% e ° Sat. Moist.
4163 0.1
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - IJSCS AASHTO
Project No. 1916-A08 Client: Remarks:
Project: SALES / FiTNESS BUILDING - MARBRISA PHASE 2
Source: Sample No.: B-I EtevJDepth: 5
MTGL, Inc.
Anaheim, CA Figure C-6
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
0.0
:: 1IITIIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIIIIIII
ER ADDED
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.8
3.2
3.6
4.0 100 200 500 1000 2000 5000
Applied Pressure - psi
Natural Dry Dens.
(pci) LL Or.
Overburde
(psf)
P
(psi) 0 Crp. C C Swell Press.
(psi)
Cipse.
% e0
Sat. Moist.
1249 0.2
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
Project No, 1916-A08 Client: Remarks:
Project: SALES I FITNESS BUILDING - MARBRISA PHASE 2
Source: Sample No.: B-2 EleviDepth: 10
MTGL, Inc.
Anaheim, CA Figure C-7
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
0.0
0.4
0.8
1_
WATER ADD1.6 N
2.0
IL
2.4
2.8 -t------------------_----
3.2
EEE EEEE 3.6
4.0 _ 100 200 500 1000 2000 5000
Applied Pressure - psf
Natural Dry Dens. LL P1 Sp. Overburden c, Cr Swell Press. Swell e0
Sat. Moist. (pcf) Gr. (psf) (psf) (psf) %
1 2693 1 1108 0.1
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - - USCS AASHTO
Project No. 1916-A08 Client: Remarks:
Project: SALES / FiTNESS BUILDING - MARBRJSA PHASE 2
Source: Sample No.: B-5 EleviDepth: 15
MTGL, Inc.
Anaheim, CA Figure C-S
____
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
0.
0.5
1.0
LIWATER ADD EDI1
(I)
2.0
a) 0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4,0
4.5 100 200 500 1000 2000 5000
Applied Pressure - psi
Natural Dry Dens. LL P1 Sp. Overburden P cc r c Swell Press. Cipse. e Sat. Moist. (pci) Gr. (psf) (psi) (psi) %
2559 U.!
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
Project No. 1916-A08 Client: Remarks:
Project: SALES / FITNESS BUILDING - MARBRISA PHASE 2
Source: Sample No.: B-6 Elev./Depth: 15
MTGL, Inc.
Anaheim, CA Figure C-9
APPENDIX D
ENGINEERING and SEISMIC ANALYSIS
General
The details of the engineering analyses performed as part of this investigation are discussed in this
section.
Seisrnicity
Seismic design values were computed based on site coordinates of N33.13199 and W117.3124 1.
The nearest active fault computed by the Thomas Blake EQFAULT program is the Rose Canyon
Fault, located approximately 8.5 km southwest of the site. The deterministic analyses are attached.
The ground motion values derived from the 2010 California Building Code (CBC), Title 24 were
obtained from the Java Ground Motion Parameter Calculator, Version 5.1.0 and is attached. Based
upon the results of the exploratory borings, the project site is assigned to Site Class D.
CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP
Test Run
lISTS
-100
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
am
1000
700
800
500
400
I,,
300
200
TEST. OUT
* *
: E Q F A U L T
Version 3.00 *
** ** ** * * * * *******
DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF
PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
JOB NUMBER: 1916-A08
DATE: 10-21-2011
JOB NAME: Sales, Activity & Fitness Buildings
CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.1320
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3124
SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 17) Campbell & Bozorgnia (1994/1997) - Alluvium
UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0
DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist
SCOND: 0
Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell sSR: 0 campbell SHR: 0
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0
Page 1
TEST. OUT
---------------
EQFAULT SUMMARY ---------------
-----------------------------
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS -----------------------------
Page 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROSE CANYON
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore)
CORONADO BANK
ELSINORE-TEMECULA
ELSINORE-JULIAN
ELSINORE-GLEN IVY
PALOS VERDES
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY
SAN JACINTO-ANZA
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A. Basin)
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore)
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK
WHITTIER
ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN
COMPTON THRUST
ELYSIAN PARK THRUST
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO
SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino
SAN ANDREAS - southern
SAN JOSE
PINTO MOUNTAIN
SAN ANDREAS - Coachella
SIERRA MADRE
CUCAMONGA
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West)
BURNT MTN.
CL EGHO RN
EUREKA PEAK
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto)
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East)
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture
SAN ANDREAS - Mojave
RAYMOND
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT
ELMORE RANCH
VE RD U GO
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto)
HOLLYWOOD
5.3(
7.2(
21.1(
24.3(
24.3(
35.4(
37.8(
42.4(
47.0(
47.8(
48.3(
49.8(
51.7(
53.3(
56.2(
58.0(
60.9(
61.3(
64.9(
65.7(
65.7(
70.6(
72.5(
73.3(
74.3(
74.6(
77.2(
78.0(
79.0(
80.8(
81.0(
81.2(
82.4(
82.4(
82.5(
84.2(
84,7(
85.2(
85.7(
87.1(
8.5:
".6:
33.9:
39.
39.':
57.0:
60.8:
68.3:
75.6:
77.0:
77.7:
80.2:
83.2:
85.8:
90.5:
93.3
98.0:
98.6:
104.5:
105.7:
105.7:
113.7:
116.7:
117.9:
119.6:
120.1:
124.2
125.6
127.2
130,1
130.4
130.6
132.6
132.6
132.8
135 . 5
136.3
137.1
138,0
140.1
ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT -------------------------------
MAXIMUM I PEAK lEST. SITE
EARTHQUAKEI SITE JINTENSITY
MAG.(Mw) I ACCEL. ci IMOD.MERC.
7.2 0.435 X
7.1 0.373 IX
7.6 0.218 VIII
6.8 0.101 VII
7.1 0.129 VIII
6.8 0.063 VI
7.1 0.075 VII
6.5 0.038 V
7.2 0.062 VI
6.9 0.047 VI
7.1 0.055 VI
6.7 0.037 V
6.8 0.039 V
6.8 0.037 V
6.8 0.035 V
6.8 0.032 V
6.7 0.028 V
6.7 0.028 V
6.6 0.024 V
7.5 0.053 VI
7.4 0.048 VI
6.5 0.019 IV
7.0 0.030 V
7.2 0.035 V
7.0 0.027 V
7.0 0.026 V
7.0 0.025 V
6.4 0.016 IV
6.5 0.017 IV
6.4 0.015 IV
6.6 0.018 IV
6.7 0.018 IV
7.8 0.051 VI
7.4 0.036 V
6.5 0.015 IV
6.5 0.015 IV
6.6 0.017 IV
6.7 0.017 IV
6.6 0.017 IV
6.4 0.013 III
APPROXIMATE
ABBREVIATED DISTANCE
FAULT NAME mi (km)
Page 2
0.023
0.030
0.025
0.014
0.028
0.012
0.015
0.016
0.019
0.016
0.014
0.020 ** * * * * *
CH RADIUS.
IV
V
V
IV
V
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV * * * * * * * * *
TEST.OUT
-----------------------------
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS -----------------------------
Page 2
--
ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
APPROXIMATE
ABBREVIATED DISTANCE MAXIMUM I PEAK lEST. SITE
FAULT NAME I ml (km) JEARTHQUAKE1 SITE JINTENSITY
MAG.(Mw) I ACCEL. ci IMOD.MERC.
LAGUNA SALADA 1 87.4( 140.7) 7.0
LANDERS 1 88.1( 141.8)1 7.3
HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 1 89.4( 143.8)1 7.1
SANTA MONICA 1 91.8( 147.7)l 6.6
LENW000-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS 93.1( 149.8)1 7.3
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1 94.1( 151.4)1 6.4
MALIBU COAST 1 94.3( 151.8)1 6.7
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 1 96.1( 154.6)1 6.7
EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. - 96.2( 154.8)1 6.9
NORTHRIDGE (E. oak Ridge) 1 98.5( 158.5)1 6.9
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) 1 99.0( 159.3)1 6.7
SAN GABRIEL 1 99.2( 159.7)1 7.0
-END OF SEARCH- 52 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEAl
THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.
IT IS ABOUT 5.3 MILES (8.5 km) AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.4353 g
Page 3
Conterminous 48 States
2005 ASCE 7 Standard
Latitude = 33.13199
Longitude = -117.31241
Spectral Response Accelerations Ss and Si
Ss and Si = Mapped Spectral Adceleration Values
Site Class B - Fa = 1.0 ,Fv= 1.0
Data are based on a 0.01 deg grid spacing
Period Sa
(sec) (g)
0,2 1.252 (Ss, Site Class B)
1.0 0.473 (Si, Site Class B)
Conterminous 48 States
2005 ASCE 7 Standard
Latitude = 33.13199
Longitude = -117.31241
Spectral Response Accelerations SMs and SM1
SMs = Fax Ss and SM1 = Fv x Si
Site Class D - Fa= 1.0 ,Fv= 1.527
Period Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 1.252 (SMs, Site Class D)
1.0 0.722 (SM1, Site Class D)
Conterminous 48 States
2005 ASCE 7 Standard
Latitude = 33.13199
Longitude = -117.31241
Design Spectral Response Accelerations SDs and SD1
SDs=2/3xSMs and SD1 =2/3xSM1
Site Class D - Fa = 1.0 ,Fv= 1.527
Period Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 0.835 (SDs, Site Class D)
1.0 0.481 (SD1, Site Class D)
APPENDIX E
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
APPENDIX E
GENERAL EARTI-IWOR}( AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
GENERAL
These specifications present general procedures and requirements for grading and earthwork as shown on
the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installation of
subdrains, and excavations. The recommendations contained in the attached geotechnical report are a
part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained herein in
the case of conflict Evaluations performed by the Consultant during the course of grading may result
in new recommendations, which could supersede these specifications, or the recommendations of the
geotechnical report.
EARTHWORK OBSERVATION AND TESTING
Prior to the start of grading, a qualified Geotechnical Consultant (Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering
Geologist) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for
conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It will be
necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and observation so that he may determine that
the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the
Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his
personnel accordingly.
It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to
accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these
specifications and the approved grading plans.
Maximum dry density tests used to determine the degree of compaction will be performed in accordance
with the American Society for Testing and Materials Test Method (ASTM) D1557-91 or later revision.
PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED
Clearing and Grubbing: All brush, vegetation and debris shall be removed or piled and otherwise disposed
of.
Processing: The existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of fill shall be scarified to
a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground, which is not satisfactory, shall he overexcavated as
specified in the following section.
Overexcavation: Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a
depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, shall be overexcavated down to
firm ground, approved by the Consultant.
Moisture conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils shall be watered, dried-back, blended, and mixed
as required to have a relatively uniform moisture content near the optimum moisture content as
determined by ASTM 1)1557.
Recompaction: Ovemexcavated and processed soils, which have been mixed, and moisture conditioned
uniformly shall be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of ASTM D1557.
Benching: Where soils are placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground
shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be excavated in firm material for a minimum width of 4 feet.
FILLMATERIAL
General: Material to be placed as fill shall be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and
shall be approved by the Consultant.
Oversize: Oversized material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension
greater than 12 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill, unless the location, material, and disposal
methods are specifically approved by the Consultant. Oversize disposal operations shall be such that
nesting of oversized material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely
surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 30 feet
vertically of finish grade or within the range of future utilities or underground construction, unless
specifically approved by the Consultant.
Import If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material shall meet the general
requirements.
FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION
Fill Lifts: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near-horizontal layers not
exceeding 6 inches in compacted thickness. The Consultant may approve thicker lifts if testing indicates
the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater
thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to attain
uniformity of material and moisture in each layer.
Fill Moisture: Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum shall be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers shall be aerated by scarification or shall be blended with drier material. Moisture conditioning
and mixing of fill layers shall continue until the fill material is at uniform moisture content at or near
optimum.
Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned, and mixed, it shall be
uniformly compacted to not less that 90 percent of maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM
D1557. Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and shall be either specifically designed for
soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction.
Fill Slopj Compacting on slopes shall be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by
backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at frequent increments of 2 to 3 feet as the fill is placed, or
by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction
of the slope out to the slope face shall be at least 90 percent in accordance with ASTM D1557.
Compaction Testing: Field tests to check the fill moisture and degree of compaction will be performed by the
consultant. The location and frequency of tests shall be at the consultant's discretion. In general, these
tests will be take at an interval not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise, and/or 1,000 cubic yards of fill
placed. In addition, on slope faces, at least one test shall be taken for each 5,000 square feet of slope face
and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope.
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION
Subd rain systems, if required, shall be installed in approved ground to conform to the approximate
alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials shall not be
changed or modified without the approval of the Consultant. The Consultant, however, may
recommend and, upon approval, direct changes in subdrain line, grade or materials. All subd rains
should be surveyed for lie and grade after installation and sufficient time shall be allowed for the
surveys, prior to commencement of fill over the subdrain.
EXCAVATION
Excavations and cut slopes will be examined during grading. If directed by the Consultant, further
excavation or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes shall be
performed. Where fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of
the slope shall be made and approved by the Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction
of the fill portion of the slope.