UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
OAK SPRINGS RANCH, PHASE II WILDOMAR, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
MAPLE MULTI-FAMILY LAND CA, LP CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
MARCH 5, 2020 PROJECT NO. T2537-22-05
Project No. T2537-22-05 March 5, 2020
Maple Multi-Family Land CA, LP 5790 Fleet Street, Suite 140 Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Tony Ditteaux, President
Subject: UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OAK SPRINGS RANCH, PHASE 2 WILDOMAR, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Ditteaux:
In accordance with your authorization of Geocon Proposal IE-2542 dated February 20, 2020, Geocon West, Inc. (Geocon) herein submits the results of our updated geotechnical investigation for the proposed residential development. The accompanying report presents the results of our study and conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of the high-density residential project. The site is considered suitable for development provided the recommendations of this report are followed.
Should you have questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON WEST, INC.
Lisa A. Battiato Mehrab Jesmani CEG 2316 PhD, PE 81452
MJ:LAB:JJV:hd
Distribution: Addressee (email)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...... 1
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 1
3. BACKGROUND ...... 2
4. GEOLOGIC SETTING ...... 2
5. GEOLOGIC MATERIALS ...... 3 5.1 General ...... 3 5.2 Previously Placed Fill (cf) ...... 3 5.3 Younger Alluvium (Qal) ...... 3 5.4 Unnamed Sandstone (Qus) ...... 3 5.5 Geologic Structure ...... 3
6. GROUNDWATER ...... 4
7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ...... 4 7.1 Surface Fault Rupture ...... 4 7.2 Liquefaction ...... 6 7.3 Expansive Soil ...... 7 7.4 Hydrocompression ...... 7 7.5 Landslides ...... 7 7.6 Rockfall ...... 7 7.7 Slope Stability ...... 7 7.8 Lateral Spreading ...... 8 7.9 Tsunamis and Seiches ...... 9
8. SITE INFILTRATION...... 9
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 10 9.1 General ...... 10 9.2 Soil Characteristics ...... 11 9.3 Grading ...... 12 9.4 Earthwork Grading Factors ...... 14 9.5 Utility Trench Backfill ...... 14 9.6 Seismic Design Criteria ...... 15 9.7 Foundation and Concrete Slabs-On-Grade Recommendations ...... 17 9.8 Mat Foundation System ...... 22 9.9 Exterior Concrete Flatwork ...... 23 9.10 Conventional Retaining Walls ...... 24 9.11 Lateral Loading ...... 25 9.12 Swimming Pool/Spa ...... 25 9.13 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations ...... 26 9.14 Temporary Excavations ...... 28 9.15 Shoring ...... 29 9.16 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection ...... 30 9.17 Plan Review ...... 30
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - i - March 5, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
LIST OF REFERENCES
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Geologic Map Figures 3 and 4, Geologic Cross Sections Figure 5, Wall/Column Footing Detail Figure 6, Typical Retaining Wall Drain Detail
APPENDIX A EXPLORATORY EXCAVATIONS Figures A-1 through A-3, Logs of Geotechnical Borings Figures A-4 through A-7, Percolation Test Data Sheets
APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Figure B-1, Direct Shear Test Results
APPENDIX C LIQUEFACTION AND SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
APPENDIX D RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - ii - March 5, 2020
UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of our updated geotechnical investigation for the high-density residential development proposed for Oak Springs Ranch, Phase 2, in Wildomar, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of the investigation was to review existing geotechnical information for the site with respect to the Conceptual Site Plan prepared by DESIGNARC dated August 27, 2019, review the subsurface exploration results from 2018 and, based on the site conditions, provide updated recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of developing the property.
The scope of our investigation included review of previous project reports and subsurface exploration performed in 2018, geologic mapping, results of percolation testing, laboratory testing results, engineering analyses, and the preparation of this report. A summary of the information reviewed for this study is presented in the List of References.
The site was explored on December 14, 2018, by drilling three small-diameter geotechnical borings to depths of 40 ½ feet (B-1 through B-3), two percolation borings to depths of 5 feet (P-1 and P-2), two percolation borings to depths of 2 feet (P-3 and P-4), and one 50-foot-deep boring for the measurement of groundwater (B-4). We utilized a CME 75 truck mounted drill rig. Percolation testing was performed on December 15, 2018. The approximate locations of the exploratory excavations are depicted on the Geologic Map (Figure 2). A detailed discussion of the field investigation, including excavation logs of the geotechnical borings (except B-4 that was not logged but drilled for groundwater measurement only), is presented in Appendix A.
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained during the investigation to evaluate pertinent physical and chemical soil properties. Appendix B presents a summary of the laboratory test results.
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed residential development will include residential buildings (288 units), amenity building, shade structure, band shell, surface parking, enclosed garage parking, perimeter pedestrian trial, dog walk park, vehicular connection to phase I, sewer pump station, pool and detention basin. The sewer pump station will be located at the southwestern portion of the site. Generally, the project is located at the latitude of 33.5947 and longitude of -117.2381. The site elevations currently range from approximately 1,310 to 1,341 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Access is currently gained through a gate on Inland Valley Drive.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 1 - March 5, 2020
References to elevations presented in this report are based on the referenced project documents. Geocon does not practice in the field of land surveying and is not responsible for the accuracy of such topographic information.
The locations and descriptions provided herein are based on a site reconnaissance, our field exploration, review of previously completed reports, and project information provided by the client. If project details differ significantly from those described, Geocon should be contacted for review and possible revision to this report.
3. BACKGROUND
The site was graded as a super pad in 2012 to 2013 with geotechnical observation and testing provided by Geocon. The earthwork observation and testing were reported on March 29, 2013 (Reference 10). The super pad consists of a cut ridgeline, which exposes Unnamed Sandstone, surrounded by 2:1 (h:v) fill slopes on the east, west, and south. Natural drainages bound the site on the east, southeast, west, and south. Grading operations were restricted to the limits of grading as depicted in Reference 10. Therefore, fill slope keys were cut down toward the site from the limits of grading at a 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) to approximately 2 feet above groundwater before fill was placed to construct the perimeter slopes and fill pad. Geogrid and rock were placed on the alluvium in the fill key to provide a stable surface for fill placement. The Geologic Cross Sections are presented on Figures 3 and 4. Since the completion of grading, the site has remained undeveloped for 8 years.
4. GEOLOGIC SETTING
The site is located southeast of the Elsinore Trough within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Peninsular Ranges are bounded on the north by the Transverse Ranges and the Cucamonga/Sierra Madre faults, the east by the San Jacinto fault, the west by the Elsinore fault and the Santa Ana Mountains. The Peninsular Ranges extend southward into Mexico. The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by granitic highlands of low to moderate relief surrounded by alluvial plains and valleys. Locally, the Elsinore Trough is the dominant geomorphic feature of the area and was created by a graben that formed as a result of a left step over from the Wildomar to the Willard faults which are mapped on the eastern and western sides of the lake, respectively. Geologic mapping by Kennedy (1977) identifies the bedrock unit as Unnamed Sandstone.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 2 - March 5, 2020
5. GEOLOGIC MATERIALS
5.1 General
The primary geologic units at the site consist of previously placed fill, Quaternary alluvium and Unnamed Sandstone. Geologic unit classification follows that of Kennedy (1977). The descriptions of the soil and geologic conditions are depicted on Figures 2 to 4, discussed on the boring logs in details, and generally described herein in order of increasing age.
5.2 Previously Placed Fill (cf)
The site was graded in 2012 and 2013 with geotechnical observation and testing provided by Geocon (Reference 10). The compacted fill was encountered from the surface to depths of 25.5, 21, and 26 feet below existing grade and consists of pale yellow silty to well graded sand layered with brown to grey brown silty sand. The soil is moist and medium dense to very dense.
5.3 Younger Alluvium (Qal)
Younger alluvium was removed to expose Unnamed Sandstone in most areas of the site. Alluvium was left in some places due to saturated conditions during grading. The alluvium encountered during the due diligence exploration was 25.5, 21 and 26 feet below grade with a thickness of 7.5 to 12 feet. It consists of dark grey brown to brown silty coarse sand and poorly graded sand, which is saturated, cohesionless, and medium dense.
5.4 Unnamed Sandstone (Qus)
Earliest Pleistocene-age Unnamed Sandstone is present beneath the alluvium in the western area of the site and at grade within the eastern portion of the site. It consists of light-yellow brown, silty sandstone to poorly graded sandstone with thin siltstone beds. The unit characteristics are described as soil herein due to the soil like properties of the unit. The sandstone is moist, very dense, slightly cohesive, and slightly weathered. Note: Kennedy & Morton (2003) renamed this unit QTsw “Sandstone Unit”.
5.5 Geologic Structure
The geologic structure consists of an older alluvial fan surface emanating westward from the adjacent granitic highlands. As such, the underlying older alluvial surface likely strikes northwest and is horizontal or slightly dipping to the southwest.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 3 - March 5, 2020
6. GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was encountered at the time of drilling within the geotechnical borings at depths of 29 to 32 feet. Boring B-4 was drilled to 50 feet and left open to measure groundwater after 24 hours. Groundwater within B-4 was measured at a depth of 26.4 feet below grade (corresponding to an elevation of approximately 1325 feet MSL.
It is not uncommon for seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed due to the permeability characteristics of the geologic units encountered. During the rainy season, localized perched water conditions may develop that may require special consideration during grading operations. Groundwater elevations are dependent on seasonal precipitation, irrigation, and land use, among other factors, and vary as a result.
7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
7.1 Surface Fault Rupture
The numerous faults in southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults. The criteria for these major groups are based on data developed by the California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly known as CDMG) for the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Program (Bryant and Hart, 2007). By definition, an active fault is one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault has demonstrated surface displacement during Quaternary time (approximately the last 1.6 million years) but has had no known Holocene movement. Faults that have not moved in the last 1.6 million years are considered inactive.
The site is not within a currently established State of California or Riverside County Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards. No active or potentially active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly beneath the site.
Gail Hunt performed a subsurface fault investigation on the site to locate and evaluate the faulting that had been geologically mapped on the overall Oak Springs Ranch site by Kennedy and mapped adjacent to the site by Gary Rassmussen. Eighteen trenches were excavated and logged, exposed road cuts were mapped and aerial photographs were reviewed for their study. Ms. Hunt concluded that active faulting was not present within Oak Springs Ranch. The faulting encountered off-site was within the Pauba bedrock and was older than 100,000 years and the Rasmussen fault does not project onto the site (Hunt, 2005).
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 4 - March 5, 2020
The closest active faults to the site is the Wildomar and Glen Ivy North branches of the Elsinore fault zone located approximately 2 miles west. Faults within a 50-mile radius of the site are listed in Table 7.1.1. Historic earthquakes in southern California of magnitude 6.0 and greater, their magnitude, distance, and direction from the site are listed in Table 7.1.2.
TABLE 7.1.1 ACTIVE FAULTS WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE SITE Maximum Geometry Slip Distance Information Direction Fault Name Magnitude (Slip Rate from Source from Site (Mw) Character) (mm/yr) Site (mi) Elsinore Fault (Glen Ivy) 6.8 RL-SS 5 a 2 W Elsinore (Wildomar) 6.8 RL-SS 5 a 2 W San Jacinto (Casa Loma) 6.9 RL-SS 12 a 18 NE San Jacinto (Claremont) 6.7 RL-SS 12 a 20 NE Chino 6.7 RL-R-O 1 a 25 NW San Gorgonio Pass n/a THRUST n/a a 30 NE Whittier 6.8 RL-R-O 2.5 a 30 NW Newport-Inglewood-Rose 7.1 RL-SS 1 a 30 NW Canyon San Andreas (San Bernardino) 7.5 RL-SS 24 a 34 N San Jacinto (Clark) 7.2 RL-SS 12 a 35 SE San Jacinto (Glen Helen) 6.7 RL-SS 12 a 38 N Cucamonga 6.9 R 5 a 38 N San Jacinto (Coyote Creek) 6.8 RL-SS 4.0 a 42 SE Pinto Mountain 7.2 LL-SS 2.5 a 42 NE San Andreas (Southern 7.5 RL-SS 24 a 46 NE Branch) Morongo Valley 7.2 LL-SS 2.5 a 46 NE
Geometry: BT = blind thrust, LL = left lateral, N = normal, O = oblique, R = reverse, RL = right lateral, SS = strike slip. Information Sources: a = Cao, T., Bryant, W.A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Wills, C.J., 2003, The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated June; b = online Fault Activity Map of California website, maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/, as of 1/2017. n/a = data not available
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 5 - March 5, 2020
TABLE 7.1.2 HISTORIC EARTHQUAKE EVENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE SITE
Distance to Direction Earthquake Date of Magnitude Epicenter to Earthquake (Oldest to Youngest) (Miles) Epicenter Near Redlands July 23, 1923 6.3 28 N Long Beach March 10, 1933 6.4 42 W Tehachapi July 21, 1952 7.5 140 NW San Fernando February 9, 1971 6.6 87 NW Whittier Narrows October 1, 1987 5.9 58 WNW Sierra Madre June 28, 1991 5.8 63 NW Landers June 28, 1992 7.3 62 NE Big Bear June 28, 1992 6.4 48 NE Northridge January 17, 1994 6.7 86 WNW Hector Mine October 16, 1999 7.1 89 NE Ridgecrest China Lake July 5, 2019 7.1 151 N Fault
7.2 Liquefaction
Liquefaction typically occurs when a site is located in a zone with seismic activity, onsite soils are cohesionless/silt or clay with low plasticity, static groundwater is encountered within 50 feet of the surface, and soil relative densities are less than about 70 percent. If the four previous criteria are met, a seismic event could result in a rapid pore-water pressure increase from the earthquake-generated ground accelerations. Seismically induced settlement may occur whether the potential for liquefaction exists or not. The site and surrounding area is mapped by Riverside County as having a low to moderate potential for liquefaction.
The current standard of practice, as outlined in the “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California” and “Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California” requires liquefaction analysis to a depth of 50 feet below the lowest portion of the proposed structure.
The liquefaction analysis of the soils underlying the site was performed using the spreadsheet template LIQ2_30.WQ1 developed by Thomas F. Blake (1996). This program utilizes the 1996 NCEER method of analysis. The liquefaction potential evaluation was performed by utilizing the encountered groundwater depth, historic high groundwater measurements, a magnitude 6.97 earthquake, and the site class modified peak horizontal acceleration for the site from the 2019 CBC. This semi-empirical method is based on a correlation between values of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 6 - March 5, 2020
The liquefaction analysis was performed for the Maximum Considered Earthquake level for borings B-1 to B-3 indicates that the alluvial soils below the historic high groundwater level would be prone to 1.3 to 1.6 inches of liquefaction settlement during the Maximum Considered Earthquake ground motion (see enclosed calculation sheets in Appendix C).
Due to the thickness of non-liquefiable soils overlying the alluvial soils, manifestation of liquefaction is expected to be limited to ground surface settlement.
7.3 Expansive Soil
The on-site soils generally consist of sands and silty sands. Laboratory test results taken on finished grade samples of Phase I have expansion indices of 0 to 5, indicating samples of the near surface soils exhibit a “very low” expansion potential.
7.4 Hydrocompression
Hydrocompression is the tendency of unsaturated soil structure to collapse upon wetting resulting in compression of the effected soil and the potential for distress to the overlying foundations or improvements. Potentially compressible soils underlying the site are limited to the upper portion of the compacted fill that has been exposed to surface disturbance since the completion of grading. Removal and compaction of the compressible soils is anticipated during remedial site grading to mitigate the collapse potential of the near surface soils.
7.5 Landslides
We did not observe evidence of previous or incipient slope instability within the site or adjacent hillsides during our aerial photograph review or investigation. Further, no landslides have been geologically mapped on or adjacent to the site (California Geological Survey, 2007 and 2011). Therefore, landslide hazard to the site is not a design consideration.
7.6 Rockfall
The site is located almost a mile from the granitic hillsides to the northeast. Therefore, rockfall hazards are not a design consideration for this project.
7.7 Slope Stability
Graded slopes around the perimeter of Phase 2 are at an inclination of 2:1 (h:v) at heights of 30 feet or less (See Cross Sections on Figures 3 and 4). Significant modification to the slopes is not anticipated during finished grading of this site.
In general, it is our opinion that permanent, fill slopes as previously graded with gradients of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter and vertical heights of 30 feet or less will possess Factors of Safety of 1.5 or greater under static conditions. A slope stability analysis was performed using Slope/W 2007 by Geo-Slope International on the planned fill slope along the southern portion of the project. A copy of the Slope/W output is included in Appendix C.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 7 - March 5, 2020
Geocon observed the condition of the existing slopes during our field work. The slopes appear to be in relatively good condition with a few localized areas of surficial slumping and erosion observed near the northwestern portion of the site. Other areas of slope slump or erosion may be present where obscured by vegetation.
We should be provided the opportunity to evaluate the stability of slopes at the site should additional site grading be planned. Grading of cut and fill slopes should be designed in accordance with the requirements of the city of Wildomar and the 2019 CBC.
7.8 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading of a ground surface during an earthquake takes place along weak shear zones that have formed within a liquefiable soil layer. Current understanding within the geotechnical engineering profession is that lateral spreading can be expected in liquefiable sites adjacent to slopes. The observed horizontal ground displacement typically decreases with increased distance from the open face.
The subsurface data obtained from our exploratory borings during our geotechnical evaluation indicate that the alluvial soils at the site have the potential for liquefaction which could lead to lateral spreading along the southern and western sides of the project where fill slopes were placed over alluvium.
The potential for lateral spreading was evaluated based on the seismic deformation analysis using Newmark’s approach in accordance with FHWA guidelines for LRFD Seismic Analysis and Design of Transportation Geotechnical Features and Structural Foundations (2011). The geometry of embankment slope, residual strength characteristics of the subsurface soil, site acceleration due to earthquake, as well as the water and groundwater levels are the important parameters in estimating the potential for lateral spreading.
The slope stability analysis was performed using an undrained residual strength based on correlations with the SPT Corrected Blowcount based on studies published by Seed (1987) and Seed & Harder (1990). A fully specified stability analysis was conducted through the liquefied layers to evaluate the acceleration resulting in a factor of safety of 1.0. The permanent displacement was then evaluated by the normalized yield acceleration for embankments after Makdisi and Seed (1978).
Based on a PGA of 0.785g, the maximum earthquake-induced horizontal ground displacement at the top of the slope is calculated to be on the order of 3½ inches. The horizontal ground displacement would gradually diminish with a distance of about 60 feet from the top of slope. We understand that the buildings are set back approximately 100 feet from the slope face. Assuming the displacement is linearly distributed over the failure surface in our stability analysis, we estimate that horizontal ground displacement at the edge of the nearest buildings will be conservatively on the order of 1 inch or less. The calculated earthquake-induced horizontal ground displacement has the potential to cause distress to the planned improvements should liquefaction of the underlying alluvium occur. The structural engineer should evaluate the proposed structures for the anticipated lateral spreading and verify that anticipated deformations would not cause the foundation system to lose the ability to support the gravity loads and/or cause collapse of the structures.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 8 - March 5, 2020
7.9 Tsunamis and Seiches
A tsunami is a series of long period waves generated in the ocean by a sudden displacement of large volumes of water. Causes of tsunamis include underwater earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or offshore slope failures. The first order driving force for locally generated tsunamis offshore southern California is expected to be tectonic deformation from large earthquakes (Legg et al., 2002). The site is located greater than 23 miles from the nearest coastline, with the Santa Ana Mountains lying between the site and the Pacific Ocean; therefore, the risk associated with tsunamis is not a design consideration.
A seiche is a run-up of water within a lake or embayment triggered by fault- or landslide-induced ground displacement. The site is not located downstream from Lake Elsinore, Skinner, or Diamond Valley. Therefore, a seiche hazard from this reservoir is not a design consideration.
8. SITE INFILTRATION
Percolation testing was performed in accordance with the procedures in Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District LID BMP, Appendix A. The percolation test locations are depicted on the Geologic Map (see Figure 2).
A 3-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe in silt filter sock was placed in each percolation test hole and approximately 2 inches of gravel was placed at the bottom of the PVC pipe. The test locations were pre-saturated prior to testing. Percolation testing was begun 24 hours after the holes were presaturated. Percolation data sheets are presented in Appendix A of this report. Calculations to convert the percolation test rate to infiltration test rates are presented in Table 8.0. Note that the Handbook requires a factor of safety of 3 be applied to the values below based on the test method used.
TABLE 8.0 INFILTRATION TEST RATES FOR PERCOLATION AREAS
Parameter P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4
Geologic Unit Cf Cf Qus Qus Depth (inches) 52.8 64.2 21.0 21.0 Test Type Normal Normal Normal Normal Change in head over time: ∆H (inches) 0.7 0.5 1.4 0.4 Average head: Havg (in) 13.3 12.1 10.6 12.4 Time Interval (minutes): ∆t (minutes) 30 30 30 30 Radius of test hole: r (inches) 4 4 4 4 Tested Infiltration Rate: It (inches/hour) 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 9 - March 5, 2020
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 General
9.1.1 No soil or geologic conditions were encountered that would preclude the development of the property as proposed, provided the recommendations of this report are followed.
9.1.2 Based on our investigation and available geologic information, active, potentially active, or inactive faults are not present on or trending toward the site.
9.1.3 The upper portion of the previously placed fill is considered unsuitable for the support of compacted fill or settlement-sensitive improvements based on the conditions as described on the boring logs and in-situ moisture and density test results. Remedial grading in the form of removal and compaction of the upper approximately 2 feet of the previously placed fill and cut bedrock will be required. However, deeper removals may be necessary based on the conditions encountered during grading.
9.1.4 Groundwater was encountered during this field work and can be expected at depths of 26.4 feet below grade. Standing water was observed in the temporary basin located in the western corner of the site. Although grading is not expected to extend to the depth of groundwater, seepage and perched groundwater conditions may be encountered during the grading operations, especially during the rainy seasons.
9.1.5 Based on the results of the field investigation, some of the alluvial deposits along the edge of the western and southern slopes could be prone to liquefaction and seismic settlement during strong earthquake shaking. The resulting settlement of the soils is estimated to be up to 1.6 inches with differential settlement anticipated to be on the order of 1.3 inches over the length of the buildings. We have depicted the area susceptible to seismic settlement on the Geologic Map, Figure 2.
9.1.6 Lateral spreading along the slope resulting from the liquefaction of the alluvium could result in horizontal ground displacement along the top of the slope. Lateral displacements during a large seismic event are estimated to be on the order of 3½ inches at the top of the slope. Assuming the displacement is linearly distributed over the failure surface in our stability analysis, we estimate that horizontal ground displacement at the edge of the buildings will be conservatively on the order of 1 inch or less. The area depicted as susceptible to seismic settlement on the Geologic Map, Figure 2 is approximately the same as that subject to lateral spreading.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 10 - March 5, 2020
9.1.7 Proper surface drainage should be maintained to prevent ponding and saturation of the fill in pad and slope areas. Recommendations for site drainage are provided herein.
9.1.8 Changes in the design, location or elevation of improvements, as outlined in this report, should be reviewed by this office. Once grading plans become available, they should be reviewed by this office to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report.
9.2 Soil Characteristics
9.2.1 Based on the soil encountered in the field investigation and during grading, the site soils are expected to be “non-expansive” (Expansion Index [EI] less than 20) as defined by 2019 California Building Code (CBC) Section 1803.5.3. Table 9.2.1 presents soil classifications based on the expansion index.
TABLE 9.2.1 SOIL CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX
Expansion Index (EI) Expansion Classification 2019 CBC Expansion Classification 0 – 20 Very Low Non-Expansive 21 – 50 Low 51 – 90 Medium Expansive 91 – 130 High Greater Than 130 Very High
9.2.2 Additional testing for expansion potential should be performed during finish grading along with plasticity index testing on soils with expansion indices of more than 20.
9.2.3 Laboratory tests performed on samples of the site materials during Phase I grading indicate that the on-site materials possess a sulfate content of less than 0.10 percent (100 parts per million [ppm]) equating to a S0 sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by 2019 CBC Section 1904.3 and ACI 318. Table 9.2.3 presents a summary of concrete requirements set forth by 2019 CBC Section 1904.3 and ACI 318. The presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different concentrations. Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect the concentration.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 11 - March 5, 2020
TABLE 9.2.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SULFATE-CONTAINING SOLUTIONS
Water-Soluble Maximum Water Minimum Exposure Cement Sulfate Percent to Cement Ratio Compressive Class Type by Weight by Weight Strength (psi) S0 0.00-0.10 -- -- 2,500 S1 0.10-0.20 II 0.50 4,000 S2 0.20-2.00 V 0.45 4,500 S3 > 2.00 V+ Pozzolan or Slag 0.45 4,500
9.2.4 Laboratory testing during grading of Phase 1 indicates resistivity test results of 2,400 and 5,400 ohm-cm, Ph of 7.7 and 8.5, and percent chloride of 30 to 40 ppm. The site soils are not classified as corrosive to metal improvements in accordance with Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines (Caltrans, 2018).
TABLE 9.2.4 CALTRANS CORROSION GUIDELINES Corrosion Resistivity Chloride (ppm) Sulfate (ppm) pH Exposure (ohm-cm) Corrosive <1,100 500 or greater 1,500 or greater 5.5 or less
9.2.5 Geocon does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, further evaluation by a corrosion engineer may be performed if improvements that could be susceptible to corrosion are planned.
9.3 Grading
9.3.1 Grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading Specifications contained in Appendix D and the City of Wildomar Grading Ordinance.
9.3.2 Prior to commencing grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with the county inspector, owner or developer, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time.
9.3.3 Site preparation should begin with the removal of deleterious material, debris and vegetation. The depth of removal should be such that material exposed in cut areas or soil to be used as fill is relatively free of organic matter. Material generated during stripping and/or site demolition should be exported from the site.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 12 - March 5, 2020
9.3.4 The upper approximately 2 feet of previously placed fill within structural areas should be removed to expose previously placed fill with an in-situ relative compaction of 90 percent or greater, respectively. The removals should extend to a depth of at least 1 foot below the bottom of the planned foundations. The actual depth of remedial grading should be evaluated by the engineering geologist during grading operations. The bottom of the excavations should be scarified to a depth of at least 1 foot, moisture conditioned to above optimum moisture content, and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D1557), prior to fill placement.
9.3.5 The bedrock will require over excavation and compaction in areas where structures are proposed to span compacted fill and Unnamed Sandstone. The bedrock over excavation should result in a differential fill condition of H/3 or less where H is the deepest fill depth within a 1:1 projection of the structure.
Alternatively, footings can be excavated to the Unnamed Sandstone and the deepened footing excavation backfilled with 2-sack cement slurry up to footing bottom elevation.
9.3.6 The upper 1 to 2 feet of previously placed fill within roadway and flatwork areas is expected to be loose and disturbed and consequently require remedial grading prior to the placement of additional fill. For estimating purposes, the upper one foot of previously placed fill should be removed below pavement and flatwork subgrade. The exposed surface should then be scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted to 90 percent (in flatwork areas) or 95 percent (in subgrade areas) of the maximum dry density at or above optimum moisture content.
9.3.7 The site should be brought to finish grade elevations with fill compacted in layers. Layers of fill should be no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. Fill, including backfill and scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557. Fill materials placed below optimum moisture content may require additional moisture conditioning prior to placing additional fill.
9.3.8 The fill placed within 3 feet of proposed finish grade should possess a “low” expansion potential (EI of 50 or less), where practical.
9.3.9 Oversized rock (i.e. greater than 6-inches in maximum dimension) could be encountered during grading. If encountered, the rock will require special handling and placement. Rocks 6 inches in maximum dimension should be placed in soil fill within the outer 3 feet of finish grade. Rocks 6 to 12 inches in maximum dimension may be placed deeper than 3 feet below finished grade elevations. Rocks 12 inches or larger in maximum dimension should be exported from the site or placed at least 10 feet below finished grades in accordance with the Recommended Grading Specifications, Appendix D.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 13 - March 5, 2020
9.3.10 Import fill (if necessary) should consist of granular materials with a “low” expansion potential (EI of 50 or less), generally free of deleterious material and rock fragments larger than 6 inches and should be compacted as recommended herein. Geocon should be notified of the import soil source and should perform laboratory testing of import soil prior to its arrival at the site to evaluate its suitability as fill material.
9.3.11 The existing perimeter slopes should be inspected prior to grading. Geocon should provide slope repair recommendations as necessary.
9.3.12 Fill slopes should be overbuilt at least 2 feet and cut back to design grades.
9.3.13 Finished slopes should be landscaped with drought-tolerant vegetation having variable root depths and requiring minimal landscape irrigation. In addition, the slopes should be drained and properly maintained to reduce erosion.
9.4 Earthwork Grading Factors
9.4.1 Estimates of shrinkage factors are based on empirical judgments comparing the material in its existing or natural state as encountered in the exploratory excavations to a compacted state. Variations in natural soil density and in compacted fill density render shrinkage value estimates very approximate. As an example, the contractor can compact the fill to a dry density of 90 percent or higher of the laboratory maximum dry density. Thus, the contractor has an approximately 10 percent range of control over the fill volume. Based on our experience and in-situ density test results with respect to maximum density/optimum moisture test results for the upper 5 feet, the shrinkage of the previously placed fill and Unnamed Sandstone are expected to be approximately 0 to 5 percent. This estimate is for preliminary quantity estimates only. Due to the variations in the actual shrinkage/bulking factors, a balance area should be provided to accommodate variations.
9.5 Utility Trench Backfill
9.5.1 Utility trenches should be properly backfilled in accordance with the requirements of city of Wildomar and the latest edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook). The pipes should be bedded with well graded crushed rock or clean sands (Sand Equivalent greater than 30) to a depth of at least one foot over the pipe. The use of well graded crushed rock is only acceptable if used in conjunction with filter fabric to prevent the gravel from having direct contact with soil. The remainder of the trench backfill may be derived from onsite soil or approved import soil, compacted as necessary, until the required compaction is obtained. The use of 2-sack slurry and controlled low strength material (CLSM) are also acceptable. However, consideration should be given to the possibility of differential settlement where the slurry ends and earthen backfill begins. These transitions should be minimized, and additional stabilization should be considered at these transitions.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 14 - March 5, 2020
9.5.2 Utility excavation bottoms must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon), prior to placing bedding materials, fill, gravel, concrete, or geogrid.
9.5.3 During the rainy season, localized perched water conditions may develop above bedrock that may require special consideration during grading operations. The contractor should be prepared to mitigate seepage and perched water conditions. Groundwater, seepage, and perched water are dependent on seasonal precipitation, irrigation, and land use, among other factors, and vary as a result.
9.6 Seismic Design Criteria
9.6.1 The following table summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2019 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2018 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-16), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. We used the computer program Seismic Design Maps, provided by the Structural Engineers Association (SEA) to calculate the seismic design parameters. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.2.2 of the 2019 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16. The values presented herein are for the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER).
2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value 2019 CBC Reference
Site Class D Section 1613.2.2 MCE Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration R 1.626g Figure 1613.2.1(1) – Class B (short), SS MCE Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration R 0.608g Figure 1613.2.1(2) – Class B (1 sec), S1
Site Coefficient, FA 1.0 Table 1613.2.3(1)
Site Coefficient, FV 1.7* Table 1613.2.3(2) Site Class Modified MCE Spectral Response R 1.626g Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-36) Acceleration (short), SMS Site Class Modified MCE Spectral Response R 1.034g* Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-37) Acceleration – (1 sec), SM1 5% Damped Design 1.084g Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-38) Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS 5% Damped Design 0.690g* Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-39) Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1
*Using the code-based values presented in this table, in lieu of a performing a ground motion hazard analysis, requires the exceptions outlined in ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8 be followed by the project structural engineer. Per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE/SEI 7-16, a ground motion hazard analysis should be performed for projects for Site Class “E” sites with Ss greater than or equal to 1.0g and for Site Class “D” and “E” sites with S1 greater than 0.2g. Section 11.4.8 also provides exceptions which indicates that the ground motion hazard analysis may be waived provided the exceptions are followed.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 15 - March 5, 2020
9.6.2 The table below presents the mapped maximum considered geometric mean (MCEG) seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-16.
ASCE 7-16 PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION
Parameter Value ASCE 7-10 Reference
Mapped MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.713 Figure 22-7
Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.100g Table 11.8-1 Site Class Modified MCE Peak Ground Acceleration, G 0.785g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1) PGAM
9.6.3 The Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion (MCE) is the level of ground motion that has a 2 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years, with a statistical return period of 2,475 years. According to the 2019 California Building Code and ASCE 7-16, the MCE is to be utilized for the evaluation of liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismic settlements, and it is our understanding that the intent of the Building code is to maintain “Life Safety” during a MCE event. The Design Earthquake Ground Motion (DE) is the level of ground motion that has a 10 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years, with a statistical return period of 475 years.
9.6.4 Deaggregation of the MCE peak ground acceleration was performed using the USGS online Unified Hazard Tool, 2014 Conterminous U.S. Dynamic edition. The result of the deaggregation analysis indicates that the predominant earthquake contributing to the MCE peak ground acceleration is characterized as a 6.97 magnitude event occurring at a hypo central distance of 6.89 kilometers from the site.
9.6.5 Deaggregation was also performed for the Design Earthquake (DE) peak ground acceleration, and the result of the analysis indicates that the predominant earthquake contributing to the DE peak ground acceleration is characterized as a 6.78 magnitude occurring at a hypocentral distance of 15.11 kilometers from the site.
9.6.6 Conformance to the criteria in the above tables for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 16 - March 5, 2020
9.7 Foundation and Concrete Slabs-On-Grade Recommendations
9.7.1 The foundation recommendations presented herein are for the proposed typical buildings subsequent to the recommended grading. Future buildings will be supported on conventional shallow foundations with concrete slabs-on-grade deriving support in newly placed engineered fill.
9.7.2 The structural engineer should evaluate the anticipated static settlement, seismic settlements, and lateral spreading for tolerance with the foundation design. Where the settlement exceeds the tolerable limits for shallow foundations a grade beam system (waffle slab), post tensioned foundation system, or a mat foundation may be needed to accommodate the estimated settlement.
9.7.3 The foundation recommendations presented herein are for the proposed structures following remedial grading. We separated the foundation recommendations into three categories based on either the maximum and differential fill thickness or Expansion Index. We expect most structures will be Category I and II due to the low expansion potential and expected geometry of the planned fill and underlying alluvial materials. However, the category may be increased to Category III where expansion potential or fill geometry dictates. The foundation category criteria for the expected conditions are presented in Table 9.7.3. Final foundation categories will be evaluated once site grading has been completed.
TABLE 9.7.3 FOUNDATION CATEGORY CRITERIA
Foundation Maximum Fill Differential Fill Expansion Index Category Thickness, T (Feet) Thickness, D (Feet) (EI) I T<20 D<10 EI≤50 II 20≤T<50 10≤D<20 50
9.7.4 Foundations for the structures may consist of either continuous strip footings and/or isolated spread footings. Conventionally reinforced continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide, and isolated spread footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. Footings should extend to the minimum footing embedment in Table 9.7.4. A wall/column footing dimension detail is provided on Figure 5.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 17 - March 5, 2020
TABLE 9.7.4 CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY
Minimum Foundation Footing Continuous Footing Interior Slab Category Embedment Reinforcement Reinforcement Depth (inches) Two No. 4 bars, one top 6 x 6 - 10/10 welded wire I 12 and one bottom mesh at slab mid-point Four No. 4 bars, two top No. 3 bars at 24 inches on II 24 and two bottom center, both directions Four No. 5 bars, two top No. 3 bars at 18 inches on III 30 and two bottom center, both directions
9.7.5 Where needed to accommodate the anticipated seismic settlement and potential lateral spreading along the southern and western sides of the site where the fill slopes were constructed over alluvium, consideration should be given to the use of post-tensioned concrete slab and foundation systems for the support of the proposed structures. The post- tensioned systems should be designed by a structural engineer experienced in post-tensioned slab design and design criteria of the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) DC 10.5-12 Standard Requirements for Design and Analysis of Shallow Post-Tensioned Concrete Foundations on Expansive Soils or WRI/CRSI Design of Slab-on-Ground Foundations, as required by the 2019 CBC Section 1808.6.2. Although this procedure was developed for expansive soil conditions, it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress due to differential fill settlement. The post-tensioned design should incorporate the geotechnical parameters presented in Table 9.7.5 for the particular Foundation Category designated. The parameters presented in Table 9.7.5 are based on the guidelines presented in the PTI DC 10.5 design manual.
TABLE 9.7.5 POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) Foundation Category DC 10.5-12 Design Parameters I II III Thornthwaite Index -20 -20 -20 Equilibrium Suction 3.9 3.9 3.9
Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance, eM (feet) 5.3 5.1 4.9
Edge Lift, yM (inches) 0.61 1.10 1.58
Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, eM (feet) 9.0 9.0 9.0
Center Lift, yM (inches) 0.30 0.47 0.66
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 18 - March 5, 2020
9.7.6 The foundations for the post-tensioned slabs should be embedded in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. If a post-tensioned mat foundation system is planned, the slab should possess a thickened edge with a minimum width of 12 inches and extend below the clean sand or crushed rock layer.
9.7.7 If the structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than the PTI DC 10.5: • The deflection criteria presented in Table 9.7.5 are still applicable. • Interior stiffener beams should be used for Foundation Category II and III. • The width of the perimeter foundations should be at least 12 inches. • The perimeter footing embedment depths should be at least 12, 18, and 24 inches for Foundation Categories I, II, and III, respectively. The embedment depths should be measured from the lowest adjacent pad grade.
9.7.8 Our experience indicates post-tensioned slabs may be susceptible to excessive edge lift, regardless of the underlying soil conditions. Placing reinforcing steel at the bottom of the perimeter footings and the interior stiffener beams may mitigate this potential. The structural engineer should design the foundation system to reduce the potential of edge lift occurring for the proposed structures.
9.7.9 During the construction of the foundation system, the concrete should be placed monolithically. Under no circumstances should cold joints form between the footings/grade beams and the slab during the construction of the post-tension foundation system unless specifically designed by the structural engineer.
9.7.10 Category I, II, or III foundations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) (dead plus live load). This bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. We estimate the total settlements under the imposed allowable loads to be up to 1 inch with differential settlements on the order of ½ inch over a horizontal distance of 40 feet.
9.7.11 Based on the liquefaction and seismically induced settlement analyses, seismic differential settlement at the ground surface is estimated to be on the order of 1.3 inches over the length of the structure along the western and southern portions of the site where the fill slope was constructed over alluvial deposits during the design earthquake. Lateral spreading conservatively is estimated to be on the order of 1 inch or less at the edge of the buildings along the graded slopes. These settlements and ground movements are in addition to the static settlements indicated above and should be considered for design purposes.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 19 - March 5, 2020
9.7.12 If needed, the grade beam foundation system consists of a continuous perimeter reinforced concrete grade beam foundation, which is interconnected with interior grade beams and a concrete slab. The system of grade beams, in conjunction with the slab, provides a stiff foundation system that is more capable of distributing building loads and resisting differential settlements. The grade beams and slab should be poured monolithically where possible. Alternatively, a mat foundation can also be utilized to accommodate static and seismic settlements. Parameters for a mat foundation are provided in this report.
9.7.13 Isolated footings, if present, should have the minimum embedment depth and width recommended above for a particular foundation category. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be connected to the building foundation system with grade beams.
9.7.14 Slabs-on-grade that may receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or may be used to store moisture-sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder placed directly beneath the slab. The vapor retarder and acceptable permeance should be specified by the project architect or developer based on the type of floor covering that will be installed. The vapor retarder design should be consistent with the guidelines presented in Section 9.3 of the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI) Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06) and should be installed in general conformance with ASTM E1643 (latest edition) and the manufacturer’s recommendations. A minimum thickness of 15 mils extruded polyolefin plastic is recommended; vapor retarders which contain recycled content or woven materials are not recommended. The vapor retarder should have a permeance of less than 0.01 perms demonstrated by testing before and after mandatory conditioning. The vapor retarder should be installed in direct contact with the concrete slab with proper perimeter seal. If the California Green Building Code requirements apply to this project, the vapor retarder should be underlain by 4 inches of clean aggregate. It is important that the vapor retarder be puncture resistant since it will be in direct contact with angular gravel. As an alternative to the clean aggregate suggested in the Green Building Code, the concrete slab-on-grade may be underlain by a vapor retarder over 4 inches of clean sand (sand equivalent greater than 30), since the sand will serve as a capillary break and will minimize the potential for punctures and damage to the vapor barrier.
9.7.15 The bedding sand thickness should be determined by the project foundation engineer, architect, and/or developer. However, we should be contacted to provide recommendations if the bedding sand is thicker than 4 inches. Placement of 3 inches and 4 inches of sand is common practice in southern California for 5-inch and 4-inch thick slabs, respectively. The foundation engineer should provide appropriate concrete mix design criteria and curing measures that may be utilized to assure proper curing of the slab to reduce the potential for rapid moisture loss and subsequent cracking and/or slab curl.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 20 - March 5, 2020
9.7.16 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however, the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in such concrete placement.
9.7.17 Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations and possible building setbacks are recommended due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur.
• Building footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope.
• Geocon should be contacted to review the pool plans and the specific site conditions to provide additional recommendations, if necessary.
• Swimming pools located within 7 feet of the top of cut or fill slopes are not recommended. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, the portion of the swimming pool wall within 7 feet of the slope face be designed assuming that the adjacent soil provides no lateral support
• Although other improvements, which are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete flatwork or masonry walls, may experience some distress if located near the top of a slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible, however, to incorporate design measures that would permit some lateral soil movement without causing extensive distress. Geocon should be consulted for specific recommendations.
9.7.18 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs and foundations due to expansive soil (if present) or differential settlement of fill soil with varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.
9.7.19 Geocon should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer.
9.7.20 Foundation excavations should be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon), prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to verify that the excavations and exposed soil conditions are consistent with those expected. If unexpectd soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be required.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 21 - March 5, 2020
9.7.21 This office should be provided a copy of the final grading and foundation plans so that the recommendations presented herein can be properly reviewed and revised if necessary.
9.8 Mat Foundation System
9.8.1 If needed, to accommodate the anticipated settlements, a mat foundation system can be used for the proposed structures. The recommended maximum allowable bearing value is 1,500 psf. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by up to one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces.
9.8.2 A vertical modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch may be used in the design of mat foundations deriving support in compacted fill following remedial grading. This value is a unit value for use with a 1-foot square footing. The modulus should be reduced in accordance with the following equation when used with larger foundations:
where: KR = reduced subgrade modulus K = unit subgrade modulus B = foundation width (in feet)
9.8.3 The thickness of and reinforcement for the mat foundation should be designed by the project structural engineer.
9.8.4 The maximum expected static settlement for a structure supported on a mat foundation system with an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf and deriving support in engineered fill is estimated to be ¾ inch and to occur below the heaviest loaded structural element. Settlement of the foundation system is expected to occur on initial application of loading. Differential settlement is not expected to exceed ½ inch over a horizontal distance of 40 feet. Based on the liquefaction and seismically induced settlement analyses, seismic differential settlement at the ground surface is estimated to be on the order of 1.3 inches over the length of the structure during the design earthquake. Lateral spreading conservatively is estimated to be on the order of 1 inch or less at the edge of the buildings along the graded slopes. These settlements and ground movements are in addition to the static settlements indicated above and should be considered for design purposes
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 22 - March 5, 2020
9.9 Exterior Concrete Flatwork
9.9.1 Exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein assuming the subgrade materials possess an Expansion Index of 50 or less. Subgrade soils should be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction. Slab panels should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and when in excess of 8 feet square should be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars spaced 18 inches center-to-center in both directions to reduce the potential for cracking. In addition, concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce and/or control shrinkage cracking. Crack control spacing should be determined by the project structural engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage. Criteria of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) should be taken into consideration when establishing crack control spacing. Subgrade soil for exterior slabs not subjected to vehicle loads should be compacted in accordance with criteria presented in the Grading section prior to concrete placement. Subgrade soil should be properly compacted, and the moisture content of subgrade soil should be verified prior to placing concrete. Base materials will not be required below concrete improvements.
9.9.2 Even with the incorporation of the recommendations of this report, the exterior concrete flatwork has a potential to experience some uplift due to expansive soil beneath grade. The steel reinforcement should overlap continuously in flatwork to reduce the potential for vertical offsets within flatwork. Additionally, flatwork should be structurally connected to the curbs, where possible, to reduce the potential for offsets between the curbs and the flatwork.
9.9.3 Where exterior flatwork abuts the structure at entrant or exit points, the exterior slab should be dowelled into the structure’s foundation stem wall. This recommendation is intended to reduce the potential for differential elevations that could result from differential settlement or minor heave of the flatwork. Dowelling details should be designed by the project structural engineer.
9.9.4 The recommendations presented herein are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of exterior slabs as a result of differential movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, slabs-on-grade will still crack. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the soil supporting characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, the use of crack control joints and proper concrete placement and curing. Crack control joints should be spaced at intervals no greater than 12 feet. Literature provided by the Portland Concrete Association (PCA) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) present recommendations for proper concrete mix, construction, and curing practices, and should be incorporated into project construction.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 23 - March 5, 2020
9.10 Conventional Retaining Walls
9.10.1 The recommendations presented herein are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 10 feet. In the event that walls higher than 10 feet or other types of walls are planned, Geocon should be consulted for additional recommendations.
9.10.2 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), an active soil pressure of 65 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall possess an EI of 50 or less. For walls where backfill materials do not conform to the criteria herein, Geocon should be consulted for additional recommendations.
9.10.3 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall in feet) at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, walls with a level backfill surface should be designed for a soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of 60 pcf.
9.10.4 The structural engineer should determine the seismic design category for the project in accordance with 2019 CBC. If the project possesses a seismic design category of D, E, or F, proposed retaining walls in excess of 6 feet in height should be designed with seismic lateral pressure (2019 CBC).
9.10.5 An incremental seismic load of 20 pcf should be used for design of walls with level backfill in accordance with 2019 CBC. The pressure should be taken as an inverted triangular distribution with the zero-pressure point at the toe of the wall and 20 H (psf where H in feet) at the top of the wall, where H is the wall height in feet. The point of application of the dynamic thrust may be taken at 0.6H above the toe of the wall. This seismic load should be applied in addition to the active earth pressure. The earth pressure is based on half of
two-thirds of PGAM calculated from ASCE 7-16.
9.10.6 Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backfilled and loading is applied. The amount of lateral deflection is dependent on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill, and loads acting on the wall. The retaining walls and improvements above the retaining walls should be designed to incorporate an appropriate amount of lateral deflection as determined by the structural engineer.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 24 - March 5, 2020
9.10.7 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces and waterproofed as required by the project architect. The soil immediately adjacent to the backfilled retaining wall should be composed of free draining material completely wrapped in Mirafi 140N (or equivalent) filter fabric for a lateral distance of 1 foot for the bottom two-thirds of the height of the retaining wall. The upper one-third should be backfilled with less permeable compacted fill to reduce water infiltration. Alternatively, a drainage panel, such as a Miradrain 6000 or equivalent, can be placed along the back of the wall. A typical drain detail for each option is shown on Figure 6. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The recommendations herein assume a properly compacted backfill (EI of 20 or less) with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are expected or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon should be contacted for additional recommendations.
9.10.8 Wall foundations should be designed in accordance with the above foundation recommendations.
9.11 Lateral Loading
9.11.1 To resist lateral loads, a passive pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) should be used for the design of footings or shear keys poured neat against compacted fill. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet, or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in design for passive resistance.
9.11.2 If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, an allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.40 should be used for design.
9.12 Swimming Pool/Spa
9.12.1 If swimming pools or spas are planned, the proposed swimming pool shell bottom should be designed as a free-standing structure and may derive support in newly placed engineered fill or the competent unnamed sandstone. We recommend that uniformity be maintained beneath the proposed swimming pools where possible. However, swimming pool foundations may derive support in engineered fill or unnamed sandstone.
9.12.2 Swimming pool foundations and walls may be designed in accordance with the Foundation and Retaining Wall sections of this report. A hydrostatic relief valve should be considered as part of the swimming pool design unless a gravity drain system can be placed beneath the pool shell.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 25 - March 5, 2020
9.12.3 If the proposed pool is in proximity to a proposed building, consideration should be given to construction sequence. If the proposed pool is constructed after building foundation construction, the excavation required for pool construction could remove a component of lateral support from the foundations and would therefore require shoring. Once information regarding the pool location and depth becomes available, this information should be provided to Geocon for review and possible revision of these recommendations.
9.13 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations
9.13.1 The final pavement design should be based on R-value testing of soils at subgrade. Streets should be designed in accordance with the city of Wildomar (Riverside County) specifications when final Traffic Indices and R-Value test results of subgrade soil are completed.
For preliminary design purposes, we used an average R-value test result of 30 from Phase 1. A value of 78 was considered for aggregate base materials for the purposes of this preliminary analysis. Pavements should meet the minimum requirement for asphalt thickness in Riverside County. Preliminary flexible pavement sections are presented in Table 9.13.1. Geocon should be contacted if other roadway classifications and traffic indices are appropriate for the project.
TABLE 9.13.1 PRELIMINARY FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Assumed Assumed Asphalt Crushed Road Classification Traffic Subgrade Concrete Aggregate Index R-Value (inches) Base (inches) Local Street/Access Road 5.5 30 3.5 6.0 Enhanced Street at School or Park 6.5 30 4.0 8.0 Collector 7.0 30 4.0 9.5 Industrial Collector 8.0 30 5.0 10.5 Secondary Highway 8.5 30 5.5 11.5
9.13.2 The upper 12 inches of the subgrade soil should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content beneath pavement sections.
9.13.3 The crushed aggregated base and asphalt concrete materials should conform to Section 200-2.2 and Section 203-6, respectively, of the Greenbook and the latest edition of the County of Riverside Specifications. Base materials should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to a density of 95 percent of the laboratory Hveem density in accordance with ASTM D 1561.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 26 - March 5, 2020
9.13.4 A rigid Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement section should be placed in driveway aprons and cross gutters. We calculated the rigid pavement section in general conformance with the procedure recommended by the American Concrete Institute report ACI 330R-08 Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots using the parameters presented in Table 9.13.4. TABLE 9.13.4 RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design Parameter Design Value Modulus of subgrade reaction, k 150 pci
Modulus of rupture for concrete, MR 500 psi Traffic Category, TC C and D Average daily truck traffic, ADTT 100 and 700
9.13.5 Based on the criteria presented herein, the PCC pavement sections should have a minimum thickness as presented in Table 9.13.5.
TABLE 9.13.5 RIGID PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Location Portland Cement Concrete (inches) Roadways (TC=C) 7.0 Bus Stops (TC=D) 7.5
9.13.6 The PCC pavement should be placed over subgrade soil that is compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. This pavement section is based on a minimum concrete compressive strength of approximately 3,000 psi (pounds per square inch). Base material will not be required beneath concrete improvements.
9.13.7 A thickened edge or integral curb should be constructed on the outside of concrete slabs subjected to wheel loads. The thickened edge should be 1.2 times the slab thickness or a minimum thickness of 2 inches, whichever results in a thicker edge, and taper back to the recommended slab thickness 4 feet behind the face of the slab (e.g., a 9-inch-thick slab would have an 11-inch-thick edge). Reinforcing steel will not be necessary within the concrete for geotechnical purposes with the possible exception of dowels at construction joints as discussed herein.
9.13.8 In order to control the location and spread of concrete shrinkage cracks, crack-control joints (weakened plane joints) should be included in the design of the concrete pavement slab in accordance with the referenced ACI report.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 27 - March 5, 2020
9.13.9 Performance of the pavements is highly dependent on providing positive surface drainage away from the edge of the pavement. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the pavement surfaces will likely result in pavement distress and subgrade failure. Drainage from landscaped areas should be directed to controlled drainage structures. Landscape areas adjacent to the edge of asphalt pavements are not recommended due to the potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the underlying permeable aggregate base and cause distress. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, consideration should be given to incorporating measures that will significantly reduce the potential for subsurface water migration into the aggregate base. If planter islands are planned, the perimeter curb should extend at least 6 inches below the level of the base materials.
9.14 Temporary Excavations
9.14.1 Excavations on the order of 5 to 15 feet below the existing ground surface are expected for construction of the proposed utility improvements; and we expect that the proposed utilities will be installed with conventional cut-and-cover methods.
9.14.2 The excavations are expected to expose previously placed fill and Unnamed Sandstone which are suitable for vertical excavations up to 5 feet where loose soils or caving sands are not present and where not surcharged by adjacent traffic or structures.
9.14.3 Vertical excavations greater than 5 feet will require sloping measures in order to provide a stable excavation. Where sufficient space is available, temporary unsurcharged embankments should be designed by the contractor’s competent person in accordance with OSHA regulations.
9.14.4 Where there is insufficient space for sloped excavations, shoring or trench shields should be used to support excavations. Shoring may also be necessary where sloped excavation could remove vertical or lateral support of existing improvements, including existing utilities and adjacent structures. Recommendations for temporary shoring are provided in the following section.
9.14.5 Where sloped embankments are utilized, the top of the slope should be barricaded to prevent vehicles and storage loads at the top of the slope within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the slope. If the temporary construction embankments are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are suggested along the tops of the slopes where necessary to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces. The contractor’s competent person should inspect the soils exposed in the cut slopes during excavation in accordance with OSHA regulations so that modifications of the slopes can be made if variations in the soil conditions occur.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 28 - March 5, 2020
9.15 Shoring
9.15.1 Where there is insufficient space to perform sloped excavations, shoring may be implemented. We expect that braced shoring, such as conventionally braced shields or cross-braced hydraulic shoring, will be utilized; however, the selection of the shoring system is the responsibility of the contractor. Shoring systems should be designed by a California licensed civil or structural engineer with experience in designing shoring systems.
9.15.2 We recommend that an equivalent fluid pressure based on the table below, be utilized for design of shoring. These pressures are based on the assumption that the shoring is supporting a level backfill and there are no hydrostatic pressures above the bottom of the excavation.
TABLE 9.15.2 RECOMMENDED SHORING PRESURES HEIGHT OF SHORED EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE EXCAVATION (Pounds Per Cubic Foot) (Pounds Per Cubic Foot) (AT- (FEET) (ACTIVE PRESSURE) REST PRESSURE) Up to 15 25 45
9.15.3 Active pressures can only be achieved when movement in the soil (earth wall) occurs. If movement in the soil is not acceptable, such as adjacent to an existing structure or where braced shoring will be utilized the at-rest pressure should be considered for design purposes.
9.15.4 Additional active pressure should be added for a surcharge condition due to sloping ground, construction equipment, vehicular traffic, or adjacent structures and should be designed for each condition as the project progresses.
9.15.5 In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper 10 feet of the shoring adjacent to roadways or driveway areas should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf, acting as a result of an assumed 300 psf surcharge behind the shoring due to normal street traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least ten feet from the shoring, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. Higher surcharge loads may be required to account for construction equipment.
9.15.6 It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of a shored embankment but some deflection will occur. We recommend that the deflection be minimized to prevent damage to existing structures and adjacent improvements. Where public right-of-ways are present or adjacent offsite structures do not surcharge the shoring excavation, the shoring deflection should be limited to less than 1 inch at the top of the shored embankment. Where offsite structures are within the shoring surcharge area it is recommended that the
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 29 - March 5, 2020
beam deflection be limited to less than ½ inch at the elevation of the adjacent offsite foundation, and no deflection at all if deflections will damage existing structures. The allowable deflection is dependent on many factors, such as the presence of structures and utilities near the top of the embankment, and will be assessed and designed by the project shoring engineer.
9.16 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection
9.16.1 Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures in accordance with 2019 CBC 1804.4 or other applicable standards. In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure.
9.16.2 Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked periodically for leaks, and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of time.
9.16.3 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement’s subgrade and base course. We recommend that area drains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage structures or impervious above-grade planter boxes be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, we recommend construction of a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 6 inches below the bottom of the base material.
9.16.4 If not properly constructed, there is a potential for distress to improvements and properties located hydrologically down gradient or adjacent to infiltration areas. Factors such as the amount of water to be detained, its residence time, and soil permeability have an important effect on seepage transmission and the potential adverse impacts that may occur if the storm water management features are not properly designed and constructed. We have not performed a hydrogeology study at the site. Down-gradient and adjacent structures may be subjected to seeps, movement of foundations and slabs, or other impacts as a result of water infiltration.
9.17 Plan Review
9.17.1 Grading, shoring and foundation plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.), prior to finalization to verify that the plans have been prepared in substantial conformance with the recommendations of this report and to provide additional analyses or recommendations, if necessary.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 30 - March 5, 2020
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that expected herein, Geocon West, Inc. should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon West, Inc.
2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.
3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
4. The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to provide testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements, and excavation of foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 March 5, 2020
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Boore, D.M. and G.M Atkinson, Ground-Motion Prediction for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA at Spectral Periods Between 0.01 and 10.0 S, Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, Issue 1, pages 99-138, February 2008.
2. California Geological Survey, 2007, Seismic Hazard Zones, Murrieta Quadrangle, dated December 5.
3. California Geological Survey, 2003, Earthquake Shaking Potential for California, from USGS/CGS Seismic Hazards Model, CSSC No. 03-02.
4. California Geological Survey, 2002, Seismic Shaking Hazards in California, Based on the USGS/CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment (PSHA) Model, 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years; revised April 2003; http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html.
5. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Engineering Services, Materials Engineering and Testing Services, 2012, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 2.0, dated November.
6. Campbell, K.W. and Y. Bozorgnia, NGA Ground Motion Model for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10 s, Preprint of version submitted for publication in the NGA Special Volume of Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, Issue 1, pages 139-171, February 2008.
7. Chiou, B.S.J., and R.R. Youngs, A NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra, preprint for article to be published in NGA Special Edition for Earthquake Spectra, Spring 2008.
8. Conceptual Site Plan, Oak Springs Ranch II, prepared by: DESIGNARC, AS01, August 17, 2019.
9. Conceptual Grading Plan, Oak Springs Ranch II, prepared by: DESIGNARC, December 6, 2019
10. Fuscoe Engineering, 2012, Tract No. 31736, Project 08-0015, Mass Grading Plan, City of Wildomar, Oak Springs Ranch, dated June 21.
11. Fuscoe Engineering, 2007, Tentative Tract Map No. 31736, Oak Springs Ranch, dated September 26.
12. Geocon West, Inc., 2013, Final Report of Observation and Testing Services during Grading, Oak Springs Ranch, Tract 31736, Wildomar, California, Grading Permit 20110217-2, dated March 29.
13. Geocon West, Inc., 2012, Geotechnical Update and Engineer of Record, Oak Springs Ranch, Tract 31769, Wildomar, California, dated July 20.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - 1 - March 5, 2020 LIST OF REFERENCES (continued)
14. Geocon West, Inc., 2018, Due Diligence Geotechnical Investigation, Oak Springs Ranch, Phase 2, Wildomar, California, dated December 20.
15. Hernandez, Janis L. and Tan, Siang S., 2011, Landslide Inventory Map of the Murrieta Quadrangle, Riverside County, California, California Geologic Survey
16. Jennings, C.W. and W.A. Bryant, 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, California Division of Mines and Geology Map No. 6.
17. Kennedy, M.P. and Morton, D.M., 2003, Geologic Map of the Murrieta 7.5’ Quadrangle, Riverside County, California, Version 1.0, USGS Open File Report 03-189.
18. Kennedy, Michael P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 131.
19. Legg, M.R., J.C. Borrero, and C.E. Synolakis, 2003, Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal Cities, EERI, NEHRP Professional Fellowship Report PF2002-11, dated January.
20. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 2011, Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices, dated September 2011.
21. Riverside County GIS (RC GIS), 2015, Map My County website, http://mmc.rivcoit.org/MMC_Public/Custom/disclaimer/Default.htm; accessed September 28, 2017
22. Arulmoli, K., J.I. Baez, T.F. Blake, J. Earnest, F. Gharib, J. Goldhammer, D. Hsu, S. Kupferman, J. O’Tousa, C.R. Real, W. Reeder, E. Simantob, and T.L. Youd, 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquifaction Hazards in California, Southern California Earthquake Consortium (SCEC).
23. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2011, LRFD Seismic Analysis and Design of Transportation Geotechnical Features and Structural Foundations, Reference Manual, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-11-032, GEC No. 3, Rev 1, dated August.
24. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2015, U.S. Seismic Design Maps website: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php; accessed March 20, 2018.
25. United Geological Survey, U.S. Seismic Design Maps web tools, Unified Hazard Tool, accessed March 20, 2018.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 March 5, 2020 SITE LOCATION
Wilson Street
SOURCE: Google Earth Pro, 2018 SCALE: 1” = 4,000’ VICINITY MAP
OAK SPRINGS RANCH PHASE 2 WILDOMAR, CALIFORNIA
ATS MARCH 2020 PROJECT NO. T2537-22-05 FIG. 1 B-1
cf
Qus Qus
B-2 P-4
B-4 P-3
cf
Qal B-3
Qus
cf
Qus
cf
Qus AREAS SUSCEPTIBLE TO SEISMIC SETTLEMENT P-1
P-2
GEOCON LEGEND (LOCATIONS ARE B-4 APPROXIMATE) cf BORING LOCATION
Qal P-4 PERCOLATION TEST LOCATION
cf Compacted Fill, 2013
Qal Alluvium
Qus Unnamed Sandstone
CROSS SECTION LOCATION AND ORIENTATION
LIMITS OF THIS INVESTIGATION GEOLOGIC CONTACT
0 330 660
SCALE: 1” = 330’
SOURCE: FUSCOE ENGINEERING, 2007, OAK SPRINGS RANCH, SITE PLAN, SHEET 5, SCALE: 1”=60’, DATED SEPTEMBER 26 (JOB NO. 705.01) GEOLOGIC MAP
OAK SPRINGS RANCH PHASE 2 WILDOMAR, CALIFORNIA
ATS MARCH 2020 PROJECT NO. T2537-22-05 FIG. 2 A SCALE 1” = 25’ A’
1350 - - 1350
SCALE 1” 25’ = Parking
82’ 1325 - - 1325 1 cf 1
1300 - Qal Groundwater @ 32’ - 1300 Qus
1275 - - 1275 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
B Parking
SCALE 1” = 38’ Parking B’
1340 - - 1340 SCALE 1” 40’ =
155’ cf 1 1 1300 - - 1300 Qal Groundwater @ 32’
1260 - Qus - 1260
GEOCON LEGEND Dimensions and angles are approximate 1220 - - 1220 0 38 76 114 152 190 228 266 304 …….. Geologic Contact …….. Geogrid Reinforcement
cf …….. Compacted Fill, 2013 GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS Qal …….. Alluvium OAK SPRINGS RANCH PHASE 2 Qus …….. Unnamed Sandstone WILDOMAR, CALIFORNIA ATS MARCH, 2020 PROJECT NO. T2537-22-05 FIG. 3
C C’ Parking
1340 - Parking - 1340
165’
1 1300 - cf - 1300 SCALE 1” = 36’
1 SCALE 1” 40’ = Qal Qal Groundwater @ 32’
1260 - - 1260 Qus
1220 - - 1220 0 36 72 108 144 180 216 252 290 328
GEOCON LEGEND Dimensions and angles are approximate …….. Geologic Contact …….. Geogrid Reinforcement Layer
cf …….. Compacted Fill, 2013 GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS Qal …….. Alluvium OAK SPRINGS RANCH PHASE 2 Qus …….. Unnamed Sandstone WILDOMAR, CALIFORNIA ATS MARCH, 2020 PROJECT NO. T2537-22-05 FIG. 4 WALL FOOTING
CONCRETE SLAB
FINISHED PAD GRADE VAPOR BARRIER
CLEAN SAND
EMBEDMENT EMBEDMENT
FOUNDATION FOUNDATION
FOUNDATION WIDTH
COLUMN FOOTING
VAPOR BARRIER
CLEAN SAND
EMBEDMENT FOUNDATION
FOUNDATION WIDTH
NOTE: SEE REPORT FOR FOUNDATION WIDTH AND DEPTH RECOMMENDATION NO SCALE
WALL / COLUMN FOOTING DETAIL
OAK SPRINGS RANCH PHASE 2 WILDOMAR, CALIFORNIA
CER MARCH, 2020 PROJECT NO. T2537-22-05 FIG. 5 GROUND SURFACE
CONCRETE BROWDITCH PROPOSED PROPERLY RETAINING WALL COMPACTED BACKFILL . . . TEMPORARY BACKCUT . . PER OSHA ...... MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC 2/3 H ... (OR EQUIVALENT) ...... OPEN-GRADED . . . ¾” MAX. AGGREGATE GROUND SURFACE . . .. WATER PROOFING 1” .. . PER ARCHITECT FOOTING
4” DIA. PERFORATED SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE EXTENDED TO APPROVED OUTLET 12”
GROUND SURFACE
CONCRETE BROWDITCH PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
WATER PROOFING PER ARCHITECT
DRAINAGE PANEL (MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT) 2/3 H 12” OPEN-GRADED ¾” MAX. AGGREGATE .. (1 CU. FT./FT.) PROPOSED . . MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC . (OR EQUIVALENT) GRADE .. .. 4” DIA. PERFORATED SCHEDULE FOOTING 40 PVC PIPE EXTENDED TO APPROVED OUTLET NOTES:
DRAIN SHOULD BE UNFORMLY SLOPED TO GRAVITY OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPIMG
CONCRETE BROW DITCH RECOMMENDED FOR SLOPE HEIGHTS GREATER THAN 6 FEET NO SCALE TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL
OAK SPRINGS RANCH PHASE 2 WILDOMAR, CALIFORNIA
CER MARCH, 2020 PROJECT NO. T2305-22-05 FIG. 6 $33(1',; $
APPENDIX A
EXPLORATORY EXCAVATIONS
Geocon performed the field investigation on December 14, 2018 and percolation testing on December 15, 2018. Our subsurface exploration consisted of drilling three geotechnical borings, four percolation test borings, and one deep boring for groundwater measurement. The geotechnical borings were drilled through the previously placed fill and alluvium into the Unnamed Sandstone to depths of 41.5 feet below the existing ground surface. We collected bulk and relatively undisturbed samples from the borings by driving a 3-inch O. D., California Modified Sampler into the “undisturbed” soil mass with blows from a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The California
Modified Sampler was equipped with 1-inch high by 23/8-inch inside diameter brass sampler rings to facilitate removal and testing. Relatively undisturbed samples and bulk samples of disturbed soils were transported to our laboratory for testing.
The soil conditions encountered in the borings were visually examined, classified and logged in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Logs of the borings are presented on Figures A-1 through A-3. The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions encountered and the depth at which samples were obtained. The approximate locations of the excavations are indicated on the Geologic Map, Figure 2.
Percolation testing was performed in accordance with Appendix A of Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s LID BMP Handbook.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - A-1 - March 5, 2020 &'
! " " #"$ %
! ( # !!!
! "!#$ "%&'"$(!
$
) '" !*+", )("% &+"(-" $$ (! %
&
' ) '" ! "%)("% ")("% & " . (
'
*( )("% ' *!& ( *) '" !+$( ( '$
) '" ! $(/*( )("% & "'"$(! &($' "0"(*$ '" "( '%
'&
*($ " "! ! " ! *+ "% )("% $ )("% &+"(-" $$ (!
""(*($ " ! "!*+*( & " '"$(!
$
% ! , ( "! $(/*( )("% &!*+"(*$ ' " "(& ", ('"$(! &
) '" !% )("% &, ('"$(!
" !)
# ! !! ! ! ! " ! &'
! " " #"$ %
! ( # !!!
! !$ ($ )("% &, ('"$(!
$ 3 $ 456, ( ! !$ ($ *+ "%)("% &#""( *($ &'"$(! !$ & ($ 1 2 %
&
$ 1 2 ) '" !#$ "%&'"$(! &#""(*($ &"'$ $!!, &($' *($, 4"$ #+7 8 2 #$* $8 9(" %$ ($ 8 $ $0 ( ( * ($" ( !!$ ' 0"( )+$ (0$ * '+ !) $ "+$ ( $'/0 %+' *!
" !)
# ! !! ! ! ! " ! &'
! " $ " #"$ %
! ( # !!!
""(*($ " ! "!, (*+ "% )("% &'"$(! %+ "%!$ (!&($' 2*($,
$ ! "! "% $(/*( )("% $ (!& "'"$(! %+!" 0 *($, &' *!) '" $(/*( 1)("% & 00' ( * %
&
' ) '" ! ! *+ "%)("% %+)("% &($' *($, &+"(-" $ $ (!
'
' *!) '" *( )("% '$
) '" ! ($ ( %+#""(*($ !$ !, ( ! '%
'&
4 ! "! $(/*( )("% ")$'/&0 " & "(*$ '!$ *&"# $)$'/%+!$ ! , ( "!)("% &!" %"" ' *!& $ !" ". - !$ *&!" '$()" $ !( * (!
%
& %+*($, % $(/)("% "( )("% : $("" ;
" !)
# ! !! ! ! ! " ! &'
! " $ " #"$ %
! ( # !!!
3 $ 456, ( ! !$ ($ #$ "%&#""(*($ !$ "$ &'"+ !!" !!&'$()" # ' !
$
1 2 %
&
+ 12!$ (!$ !" *($, $ 1 2 4"$ #+7 8 2 9(" %$ ($ 8 $ $0 ( ( * ($" ( !!$ ' 0"( )+$ (0$ * '+ !) $ "+$ ( $'/0 %+' *!
" !)
# ! !! ! ! ! " ! &'
! " # " #"$ %
! ( # !!!
""(*($ " ! , ( "!*+ )("% ) '" ! ! "!*+*( &+"(-" $$ (!& "'"$(! & ($' *($, $ ! "!)("% %
&
' ) '" !*+)("%
'
$(/*( ' *! '$ ""(*($ " ! "!#$ "%&0 %$ (! "0*( )("% !!$ '%
'&
) '" !*+*(
9 *($, $ (*( $ * $(2*($, ! "! $ ! "! $(/*( !+*( &"(*$ '!$ * "'"$(! &($' 0 *($, % "#""(*($ !$ % )("%
&
$(/*( ' *!
" !)
# ! !! ! ! ! " ! &'
! " # " #"$ %
! ( # !!!
! !$ ($ )("% "*( )("% &'"$(! %+ ($' 0 *($,
""(*($ " ! !$ ($ $(/*( $ )("% &'"$(! !$ %++ !$ (!&'"$(! %+!" 12*($,
%
& 3 $ 456, ( ! !$ ($ , (*+ "%"*( )("% &'"$(! #""(*($ "!!$ &'"+ !!" !! $ 1 2 4"$ #+7 8 2 9(" %$ ($8 $ $0 ( ( * ($" ( !!$ ' 0"( )+$ (0$ * '+ !) $ "+$ ( $'/0 %+' *!
" !)
# ! !! ! ! ! " ! PERCOLATION TEST REPORT
Project Name: Oak Springs Ranch Phase 2 Project No.: T2537-22-03 Test Hole No.: P-1 Date Excavated: 12/14/2018 Length of Test Pipe: 84.0 inches Soil Classification: SM (Cf) Height of Pipe above Ground: 31.2 inches Presoak Date: 12/14/2018 Depth of Test Hole: 52.8 inches Perc Test Date: 12/15/2018 Check for Sandy Soil Criteria Tested by: SP Percolation Tested by: SP Water level measured from bottom of hole
Sandy Soil Criteria Test Trial No. Time Time Total Initial Water Final Water ' in Water Percolation Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate (min) Time (min) (in) (in) (inches) (min/inch) 7:49 AM 1 25 25 12.1 11.6 0.5 52.1 8:14 AM 8:14 AM 2 25 50 12.2 11.9 0.4 69.4 8:39 AM Soil Criteria: Normal
Percolation Test Reading Time Time Total Initial Water Final Water ' in Water Percolation No. Interval Elapsed Head Head Level Rate (min) Time (min) (in) (in) (inches) (min/inch) 8:39 AM 1 30 30 17.4 17.0 0.4 83.3 9:09 AM 9:09 AM 23060 17.0 16.7 0.4 83.3 9:39 AM 9:39 AM 3 30 90 16.7 15.8 0.8 35.7 10:09 AM 10:09 AM 4 30 120 15.8 14.9 1.0 31.2 10:39 AM 10:39 AM 5 30 150 14.9 14.2 0.7 41.7 11:09 AM 11:09 AM 630180 14.2 13.4 0.7 41.7 11:39 AM 11:39 AM 7 30 210 13.4 12.7 0.7 41.7 12:09 PM 12:09 PM 8 30 240 12.7 12.0 0.7 41.7 12:39 PM 12:39 PM 9 30 270 12.0 11.3 0.7 41.7 1:09 PM 1:09 PM 10 30 300 15.6 14.8 0.8 35.7 1:39 PM 1:39 PM 11 30 330 14.8 14.0 0.7 41.7 2:09 PM 2:09 PM 12 30 360 14.0 13.3 0.7 41.7 2:39 PM
Infiltration Rate (in/hr): 0.2 Radius of test hole (in): 4 Figure A-4 Average Head (in): 13.7 PERCOLATION TEST REPORT
Project Name: Oak Springs Ranch Phase 2 Project No.: T2537-22-03 Test Hole No.: P-2 Date Excavated: 12/14/2018 Length of Test Pipe: 84.6 inches Soil Classification: SM (Cf) Height of Pipe above Ground: 28.8 inches Presoak Date: 12/14/2018 Depth of Test Hole: 64.2 inches Perc Test Date: 12/15/2018 Check for Sandy Soil Criteria Tested by: SP Percolation Tested by: SP Water level measured from bottom of hole
Sandy Soil Criteria Test Trial No. Time Time Total Initial Water Final Water ' in Water Percolation Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate (min) Time (min) (in) (in) (inches) (min/inch) 7:46 AM 1 25 25 12.6 11.6 1.0 26.0 8:11 AM 8:11 AM 2 25 50 11.6 11.3 0.4 69.4 8:36 AM Soil Criteria: Normal
Percolation Test Reading Time Time Total Initial Water Final Water ' in Water Percolation No. Interval Elapsed Head Head Level Rate (min) Time (min) (in) (in) (inches) (min/inch) 8:36 AM 1 30 30 19.8 19.4 0.4 83.3 9:06 AM 9:06 AM 2 30 60 19.4 17.6 1.8 16.7 9:36 AM 9:36 AM 3 30 90 17.6 16.3 1.3 22.7 10:06 AM 10:06 AM 4 30 120 16.3 15.8 0.5 62.5 10:36 AM 10:36 AM 5 30 150 15.8 15.4 0.5 62.5 11:06 AM 11:06 AM 6 30 180 15.4 14.9 0.5 62.5 11:36 AM 11:36 AM 7 30 210 14.9 14.4 0.5 62.5 12:06 PM 12:06 PM 8 30 240 14.4 14.0 0.4 83.3 12:36 PM 12:36 PM 9 30 270 14.0 13.6 0.5 62.5 1:06 PM 1:06 PM 10 30 300 13.6 13.1 0.5 62.5 1:36 PM 1:36 PM 11 30 330 13.1 12.6 0.5 62.5 2:06 PM 2:06 PM 12 30 360 12.6 12.1 0.5 62.5 2:36 PM
Infiltration Rate (in/hr): 0.1 Radius of test hole (in): 4 Figure A-5 Average Head (in): 12.4 PERCOLATION TEST REPORT
Project Name: Oak Springs Ranch Phase 2 Project No.: T2537-22-03 Test Hole No.: P-3 Date Excavated: 12/14/2018 Length of Test Pipe: 28.8 inches Soil Classification: SW/SM (Qus) Height of Pipe above Ground: 7.8 inches Presoak Date: 12/14/2018 Depth of Test Hole: 21.0 inches Perc Test Date: 12/15/2018 Check for Sandy Soil Criteria Tested by: SP Percolation Tested by: SP Water level measured from bottom of hole
Sandy Soil Criteria Test Trial No. Time Time Total Initial Water Final Water ' in Water Percolation Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate (min) Time (min) (in) (in) (inches) (min/inch) 7:42 AM 1 25 25 12.6 9.7 2.9 8.7 8:07 AM 8:07 AM 2 25 50 15.2 12.8 2.4 10.4 8:32 AM Soil Criteria: Normal
Percolation Test Reading Time Time Total Initial Water Final Water ' in Water Percolation No. Interval Elapsed Head Head Level Rate (min) Time (min) (in) (in) (inches) (min/inch) 8:32 AM 1 30 30 12.8 10.8 2.0 14.7 9:02 AM 9:02 AM 2 30 60 12.0 10.0 2.0 14.7 9:32 AM 9:32 AM 3 30 90 13.1 11.2 1.9 15.6 10:02 AM 10:02 AM 4 30 120 12.1 10.9 1.2 25.0 10:32 AM 10:32 AM 5 30 150 12.5 11.2 1.3 22.7 11:02 AM 11:02 AM 6 30 180 12.7 11.3 1.4 20.8 11:32 AM 11:32 AM 7 30 210 13.0 11.5 1.4 20.8 12:02 PM 12:02 PM 8 30 240 12.0 10.6 1.4 20.8 12:32 PM 12:32 PM 9 30 270 12.4 11.0 1.3 22.7 1:02 PM 1:02 PM 10 30 300 12.8 11.5 1.3 22.7 1:32 PM 1:32 PM 11 30 330 12.1 10.7 1.4 20.8 2:02 PM 2:02 PM 12 30 360 12.0 10.6 1.4 20.8 2:32 PM
Infiltration Rate (in/hr): 0.4 Radius of test hole (in): 4 Figure A-6 Average Head (in): 11.3 PERCOLATION TEST REPORT
Project Name: Oak Springs Ranch Phase 2 Project No.: T2537-22-03 Test Hole No.: P-4 Date Excavated: 12/14/2018 Length of Test Pipe: 28.2 inches Soil Classification: SM (Qus) Height of Pipe above Ground: 7.2 inches Presoak Date: 12/14/2018 Depth of Test Hole: 21.0 inches Perc Test Date: 12/15/2018 Check for Sandy Soil Criteria Tested by: SP Percolation Tested by: SP Water level measured from bottom of hole
Sandy Soil Criteria Test Trial No. Time Time Total Initial Water Final Water ' in Water Percolation Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate (min) Time (min) (in) (in) (inches) (min/inch) 7:40 AM 1 25 25 11.6 8.8 2.9 8.7 8:05 AM 8:05 AM 2 25 50 13.6 10.3 3.2 7.7 8:30 AM Soil Criteria: Normal
Percolation Test Reading Time Time Total Initial Water Final Water ' in Water Percolation No. Interval Elapsed Head Head Level Rate (min) Time (min) (in) (in) (inches) (min/inch) 8:30 AM 1 30 30 13.7 12.0 1.7 17.9 9:00 AM 9:00 AM 2 30 60 13.2 11.8 1.4 20.8 9:30 AM 9:30 AM 3 30 90 14.2 12.5 1.7 17.9 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 4 30 120 13.8 13.0 0.8 35.7 10:30 AM 10:30 AM 5 30 150 13.0 12.0 1.0 31.2 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 6 30 180 12.0 11.0 1.0 31.3 11:30 AM 11:30 AM 7 30 210 14.4 13.7 0.7 41.7 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 8 30 240 13.7 13.6 0.1 250.0 12:30 PM 12:30 PM 9 30 270 13.6 13.2 0.4 83.3 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 10 30 300 13.2 13.0 0.2 125.0 1:30 PM 1:30 PM 11 30 330 13.0 12.7 0.2 125.0 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 12 30 360 12.7 12.4 0.4 83.3 2:30 PM
Infiltration Rate (in/hr): 0.1 Radius of test hole (in): 4 Figure A-7 Average Head (in): 12.5 $33(1',; %
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with test methods of ASTM International (ASTM), California test (CT) methods or other suggested procedures. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Figure B-1. The in-place dry density and moisture content of the samples tested are presented in the boring logs in Appendix A.
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - B-1 - March 5, 2020 5000
4000
3000
Shear Stress (psf) 2000
1000
0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Normal Stress (psf)
SAMPLE INITIAL DRY INITIAL FINAL C I SOIL TYPE ID DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE (%) MOISTURE (%) (psf) (deg) B-1 @ 30' SM 118.6 15.9 15.0 870 45 B-3 @ 30' SM 117.9 15.7 17.2 470 40
*Sample remolded to approximately 90% of the test maximum dry density at optimum moisture content.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS OAK SPRINGS RANCH PHASE 2 WILDOMAR, CALIFORNIA
LAB MARCH 6, 2020 PROJECT NO. T2537-22-05 FIG B-1 APPENDIX C
APPENDIX C
LIQUEFACTION AND SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
FOR
OAK SPRINGS RANCH PHASE 2 WILDOMAR, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. T2537-22-05
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - C-1 - March 5, 2020 Project: OAK SPRINGS RANCH, PHASE II File No. : T2537-22-05 Boring : B-1
LIQUEFACTION SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE (SATURATED SAND AT INITIAL LIQUEFACTION CONDITION)
NCEER (1996) METHOD EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION: Earthquake Magnitude: 6.97
PGAM (g): 0.785 Calculated Mag.Wtg.Factor: 0.833 Historic High Groundwater: 27.0 Groundwater @ Exploration: 29.0
DEPTH BLOW WET TOTAL EFFECT REL. ADJUST LIQUEFACTION Volumetric EQ. TO COUNT DENSITY STRESS STRESS DEN. BLOWS SAFETY Strain SETTLE. Tav/σ' [e } (%) BASE N (PCF) O (TSF) O' (TSF) Dr (%) (N1)60 o FACTOR 15 Pe (in.) 1 17 114 0.029 0.029 95 50 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 2 17 114 0.086 0.086 95 50 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 3 17 114 0.143 0.143 95 50 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 4 17 114 0.200 0.200 95 50 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 5 25 132 0.261 0.261 109 71 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 6 25 132 0.327 0.327 109 64 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 7 25 132 0.393 0.393 109 59 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 8 25 132 0.459 0.459 109 55 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 9 33 132 0.525 0.525 112 66 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 10 33 132 0.591 0.591 112 63 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 11 33 132 0.657 0.657 112 60 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 12 33 132 0.723 0.723 112 57 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 13 33 132 0.789 0.789 112 55 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 14 39 134 0.856 0.856 111 66 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 15 39 134 0.923 0.923 111 64 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 16 39 134 0.990 0.990 111 62 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 17 39 134 1.057 1.057 111 60 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 18 39 134 1.124 1.124 111 58 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 19 39 134 1.191 1.191 111 57 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 20 43 138 1.259 1.259 107 62 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 21 43 138 1.328 1.328 107 60 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 22 43 138 1.397 1.397 107 59 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 23 42 135 1.465 1.465 99 60 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 24 42 135 1.532 1.532 99 58 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 25 42 135 1.600 1.600 99 57 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 26 42 135 1.667 1.667 99 56 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 27 10 137 1.735 1.720 46 19 0.515 0.51 1.60 0.19 28 10 137 1.804 1.757 46 19 0.524 0.50 1.60 0.19 29 10 137 1.872 1.794 46 19 0.532 0.49 1.60 0.19 30 10 137 1.941 1.832 46 19 0.541 0.48 1.60 0.19 31 10 137 2.009 1.869 46 19 0.549 0.47 1.60 0.19 32 10 137 2.078 1.906 46 18 0.556 0.46 1.70 0.20 33 10 137 2.146 1.943 46 18 0.563 0.46 1.70 0.20 34 100 137 2.215 1.981 141 123 0.571 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 35 100 137 2.283 2.018 141 122 0.577 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 36 100 137 2.352 2.055 141 121 0.584 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 37 100 137 2.420 2.093 141 120 0.590 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 38 100 137 2.489 2.130 141 119 0.596 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 39 100 137 2.557 2.167 137 118 0.602 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 40 100 137 2.626 2.205 137 117 0.608 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 41 100 137 2.694 2.242 137 116 0.613 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 42 100 137 2.763 2.279 137 115 0.619 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 43 100 137 2.831 2.316 137 114 0.624 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 44 100 137 2.900 2.354 137 113 0.629 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 45 100 137 2.968 2.391 137 113 0.633 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 46 100 137 3.037 2.428 137 112 0.638 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 47 100 137 3.105 2.466 137 111 0.643 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 48 100 137 3.174 2.503 137 110 0.647 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 49 100 137 3.242 2.540 137 109 0.651 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 50 100 137 3.311 2.578 137 108 0.655 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 TOTAL SETTLEMENT = 1.4 INCHES
Figure C-1 Project: Project: OAK SPRINGS RANCH, PHASE II File No. : T2537-22-05 Boring : B-1
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN GUIDES AS ADAPTED FROM THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NO. 9 EVALUATION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED SETTLEMENTS IN DRY SANDY SOILS MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE
MCE EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION: Earthquake Magnitude: 6.97 Peak Horiz. Acceleration (g): 0.785 Fig 4.1 Fig 4.2 Fig 4.4
Depth of Thickness Depth of Soil Overburden Mean Effective Average Correction Relative Correction Maximum Volumetric Number of Corrected Estimated Base of of Layer Mid-point of Unit Weight Pressure at Pressure at Cyclic Shear Field Factor Density Factor Corrected rd Shear Mod. [yeff]*[Geff] yeff Strain M7.5 Strain Cycles Vol. Strains Settlement Strata (ft) (ft) Layer (ft) (pcf) Mid-point (tsf) Mid-point (tsf) Stress [Tav] SPT [N] [Cer] [Dr] (%) [Cn] [N1]60 Factor [Gmax] (tsf) [Gmax] Shear Strain [yeff]*100% [E15} (%) [Nc] [Ec] [S] (inches) 1.0 1.0 0.5 114.0 0.03 0.02 0.015 17 1.25 94.8 2.0 49.8 1.0 227.285 6.33E-05 1.00E-04 0.010 3.34E-03 10.6141 2.86E-03 0.00 2.0 1.0 1.5 114.0 0.09 0.06 0.044 17 1.25 94.8 2.0 49.8 1.0 393.669 1.08E-04 2.30E-04 0.023 7.69E-03 10.6141 6.58E-03 0.00 3.0 1.0 2.5 114.0 0.14 0.10 0.073 17 1.25 94.8 2.0 49.8 1.0 508.225 1.36E-04 2.30E-04 0.023 7.69E-03 10.6141 6.58E-03 0.00 4.0 1.0 3.5 114.0 0.20 0.13 0.102 17 1.25 94.8 2.0 49.8 1.0 601.340 1.58E-04 1.70E-04 0.017 5.69E-03 10.6141 4.87E-03 0.00 5.0 1.0 4.5 132.0 0.26 0.17 0.133 25 1.25 109.4 2.0 70.5 1.0 772.273 1.58E-04 1.70E-04 0.017 3.75E-03 10.6141 3.21E-03 0.00 6.0 1.0 5.5 132.0 0.33 0.22 0.166 25 1.25 109.4 1.8 63.6 1.0 835.273 1.79E-04 1.50E-04 0.015 3.74E-03 10.6141 3.20E-03 0.00 7.0 1.0 6.5 132.0 0.39 0.26 0.200 25 1.25 109.4 1.6 58.5 1.0 890.668 1.99E-04 1.50E-04 0.015 4.13E-03 10.6141 3.54E-03 0.00 8.0 1.0 7.5 132.0 0.46 0.31 0.233 25 1.25 109.4 1.5 54.6 1.0 940.478 2.15E-04 4.50E-04 0.045 1.35E-02 10.6141 1.15E-02 0.00 9.0 1.0 8.5 132.0 0.53 0.35 0.266 33 1.25 111.9 1.4 66.0 1.0 1071.578 2.12E-04 4.50E-04 0.045 1.07E-02 10.6141 9.19E-03 0.00 10.0 1.0 9.5 132.0 0.59 0.40 0.299 33 1.25 111.9 1.3 62.6 1.0 1116.721 2.25E-04 4.50E-04 0.045 1.14E-02 10.6141 9.80E-03 0.00 11.0 1.0 10.5 132.0 0.66 0.44 0.332 33 1.25 111.9 1.3 59.7 1.0 1158.783 2.37E-04 4.50E-04 0.045 1.21E-02 10.6141 1.04E-02 0.00 12.0 1.0 11.5 132.0 0.72 0.48 0.364 33 1.25 111.9 1.2 57.1 0.9 1198.263 2.48E-04 4.50E-04 0.045 1.28E-02 10.6141 1.09E-02 0.00 13.0 1.0 12.5 132.0 0.79 0.53 0.396 33 1.25 111.9 1.2 54.9 0.9 1235.540 2.57E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 1.10E-02 10.6141 9.42E-03 0.00 14.0 1.0 13.5 134.0 0.86 0.57 0.429 39 1.25 110.7 1.1 65.8 0.9 1366.066 2.48E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 8.87E-03 10.6141 7.59E-03 0.00 15.0 1.0 14.5 134.0 0.92 0.62 0.461 39 1.25 110.7 1.1 63.6 0.9 1402.425 2.56E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 9.24E-03 10.6141 7.91E-03 0.00 16.0 1.0 15.5 134.0 0.99 0.66 0.493 39 1.25 110.7 1.0 61.6 0.9 1437.152 2.63E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 9.60E-03 10.6141 8.22E-03 0.00 17.0 1.0 16.5 134.0 1.06 0.71 0.525 39 1.25 110.7 1.0 59.8 0.9 1470.427 2.70E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 9.95E-03 10.6141 8.51E-03 0.00 18.0 1.0 17.5 134.0 1.12 0.75 0.556 39 1.25 110.7 1.0 58.1 0.9 1502.398 2.76E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 1.03E-02 10.6141 8.80E-03 0.00 19.0 1.0 18.5 134.0 1.19 0.80 0.587 39 1.25 110.7 0.9 56.6 0.9 1533.192 2.82E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 1.06E-02 10.6141 9.08E-03 0.00 20.0 1.0 19.5 138.0 1.26 0.84 0.619 43 1.25 107.2 0.9 61.6 0.9 1621.314 2.77E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 9.59E-03 10.6141 8.21E-03 0.00 21.0 1.0 20.5 138.0 1.33 0.89 0.650 43 1.25 107.2 0.9 60.0 0.9 1650.701 2.83E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 9.89E-03 10.6141 8.47E-03 0.00 22.0 1.0 21.5 138.0 1.40 0.94 0.681 43 1.25 107.2 0.9 58.6 0.9 1679.098 2.87E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 1.02E-02 10.6141 8.72E-03 0.00 23.0 1.0 22.5 135.0 1.46 0.98 0.711 42 1.25 98.8 0.8 59.6 0.9 1729.707 2.88E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 9.98E-03 10.6141 8.54E-03 0.00 24.0 1.0 23.5 135.0 1.53 1.03 0.741 42 1.25 98.8 0.8 58.3 0.9 1756.140 2.92E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 8.31E-03 10.6141 7.11E-03 0.00 25.0 1.0 24.5 135.0 1.60 1.07 0.770 42 1.25 98.8 0.8 57.1 0.9 1781.817 2.96E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 8.52E-03 10.6141 7.29E-03 0.00 26.0 1.0 25.5 135.0 1.67 1.12 0.799 42 1.25 98.8 0.8 55.9 0.9 1806.790 2.99E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 8.73E-03 10.6141 7.47E-03 0.00 27.0 1.0 26.5 137.0 1.74 1.16 0.827 10 1.25 46.2 0.8 19.2 0.9 1290.904 4.29E-04 8.10E-04 0.081 8.50E-02 10.6141 7.27E-02 0.02 28.0 1.0 27.5 137.0 1.80 1.21 0.856 10 1.25 46.2 0.8 19.0 0.9 1310.254 4.32E-04 8.10E-04 0.081 8.64E-02 10.6141 7.39E-02 0.00 29.0 1.0 28.5 137.0 1.87 1.25 0.884 10 1.25 46.2 0.7 18.8 0.9 1330.466 4.35E-04 8.10E-04 0.081 8.74E-02 10.6141 7.48E-02 0.00 30.0 1.0 29.5 137.0 1.94 1.30 0.911 10 1.25 46.2 0.7 18.6 0.9 1351.500 4.37E-04 8.10E-04 0.081 8.81E-02 10.6141 7.54E-02 0.00 31.0 1.0 30.5 137.0 2.01 1.35 0.938 10 1.25 46.2 0.7 18.5 0.9 1372.081 4.39E-04 8.10E-04 0.081 8.88E-02 10.6141 7.60E-02 0.00 32.0 1.0 31.5 137.0 2.08 1.39 0.964 10 1.25 46.2 0.7 18.4 0.9 1392.235 4.40E-04 8.10E-04 0.081 8.96E-02 10.6141 7.66E-02 0.00 33.0 1.0 32.5 137.0 2.15 1.44 0.991 10 1.25 46.2 0.7 18.3 0.9 1411.983 4.42E-04 8.10E-04 0.081 9.02E-02 10.6141 7.72E-02 0.00 34.0 1.0 33.5 137.0 2.21 1.48 1.016 100 1.25 141.5 0.7 123.3 0.8 2710.215 2.34E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.38E-03 10.6141 2.89E-03 0.00 35.0 1.0 34.5 137.0 2.28 1.53 1.041 100 1.25 141.5 0.7 122.2 0.8 2743.523 2.35E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.42E-03 10.6141 2.93E-03 0.00 36.0 1.0 35.5 137.0 2.35 1.58 1.066 100 1.25 141.5 0.7 121.1 0.8 2776.139 2.35E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.46E-03 10.6141 2.96E-03 0.00 37.0 1.0 36.5 137.0 2.42 1.62 1.090 100 1.25 141.5 0.7 120.1 0.8 2808.096 2.36E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.49E-03 10.6141 2.99E-03 0.00 38.0 1.0 37.5 137.0 2.49 1.67 1.113 100 1.25 141.5 0.7 119.0 0.8 2839.425 2.37E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.53E-03 10.6141 3.02E-03 0.00 39.0 1.0 38.5 137.0 2.56 1.71 1.136 100 1.25 137.3 0.7 118.0 0.8 2870.154 2.37E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.56E-03 10.6141 3.05E-03 0.00 40.0 1.0 39.5 137.0 2.63 1.76 1.159 100 1.25 137.3 0.7 117.1 0.8 2900.310 2.37E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.60E-03 10.6141 3.08E-03 0.00 41.0 1.0 40.5 137.0 2.69 1.81 1.181 100 1.25 137.3 0.7 116.1 0.8 2929.917 2.38E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.64E-03 10.6141 3.11E-03 0.00 42.0 1.0 41.5 137.0 2.76 1.85 1.203 100 1.25 137.3 0.7 115.2 0.8 2959.000 2.38E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.67E-03 10.6141 3.14E-03 0.00 43.0 1.0 42.5 137.0 2.83 1.90 1.224 100 1.25 137.3 0.7 114.3 0.8 2987.578 2.38E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.71E-03 10.6141 3.17E-03 0.00 44.0 1.0 43.5 137.0 2.90 1.94 1.244 100 1.25 137.3 0.7 113.4 0.8 3015.674 2.38E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.74E-03 10.6141 3.20E-03 0.00 45.0 1.0 44.5 137.0 2.97 1.99 1.264 100 1.25 137.3 0.7 112.5 0.8 3043.305 2.38E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.77E-03 10.6141 3.23E-03 0.00
Figure Figure C 46.0 1.0 45.5 137.0 3.04 2.03 1.284 100 1.25 137.3 0.6 111.7 0.8 3070.489 2.38E-04 1.00E-02 1.000 1.27E-01 10.6141 1.09E-01 0.00 47.0 1.0 46.5 137.0 3.11 2.08 1.303 100 1.25 137.3 0.6 110.9 0.8 3097.244 2.38E-04 1.00E-02 1.000 1.28E-01 10.6141 1.10E-01 0.00 48.0 1.0 47.5 137.0 3.17 2.13 1.321 100 1.25 137.3 0.6 110.0 0.8 3123.585 2.38E-04 1.00E-02 1.000 1.29E-01 10.6141 1.11E-01 0.00
49.0 1.0 48.5 137.0 3.24 2.17 1.339 100 1.25 137.3 0.6 109.3 0.8 3149.527 2.38E-04 1.00E-02 1.000 1.30E-01 10.6141 1.12E-01 0.00 - 2 50.0 1.0 49.5 137.0 3.31 2.22 1.357 100 1.25 137.3 0.6 108.5 0.8 3175.084 2.38E-04 1.00E-02 1.000 1.31E-01 10.6141 1.13E-01 0.00
TOTAL SETTLEMENT = 0.06 Project: OAK SPRINGS RANCH, PHASE II File No. : T2537-22-05 Boring : B-2
LIQUEFACTION SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE (SATURATED SAND AT INITIAL LIQUEFACTION CONDITION)
NCEER (1996) METHOD EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION: Earthquake Magnitude: 6.97
PGAM (g): 0.785 Calculated Mag.Wtg.Factor: 0.833 Historic High Groundwater: 21.0 Groundwater @ Exploration: 32.0
DEPTH BLOW WET TOTAL EFFECT REL. ADJUST LIQUEFACTION Volumetric EQ. TO COUNT DENSITY STRESS STRESS DEN. BLOWS SAFETY Strain SETTLE. Tav/σ' [e } (%) BASE N (PCF) O (TSF) O' (TSF) Dr (%) (N1)60 o FACTOR 15 Pe (in.) 1 32 129 0.032 0.032 129 84 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 2 32 129 0.097 0.097 129 84 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 3 32 129 0.161 0.161 129 84 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 4 32 129 0.226 0.226 129 84 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 5 28 117 0.287 0.287 115 75 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 6 28 117 0.346 0.346 115 69 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 7 28 117 0.404 0.404 115 64 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 8 28 117 0.463 0.463 115 60 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 9 45 136 0.526 0.526 131 88 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 10 45 136 0.594 0.594 131 83 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 11 45 136 0.662 0.662 131 79 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 12 45 136 0.730 0.730 131 75 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 13 45 136 0.798 0.798 131 72 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 14 47 139 0.867 0.867 121 78 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 15 47 139 0.936 0.936 121 75 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 16 47 139 1.006 1.006 121 72 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 17 47 139 1.075 1.075 121 70 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 18 47 139 1.145 1.145 121 68 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 19 31 91 1.202 1.202 91 50 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 20 31 91 1.248 1.248 91 50 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 21 31 91 1.293 1.278 91 49 0.516 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 22 10 138 1.351 1.304 50 20 0.529 0.54 1.40 0.17 23 10 138 1.420 1.342 50 20 0.540 0.52 1.60 0.19 24 10 138 1.489 1.379 50 20 0.551 0.50 1.60 0.19 25 10 138 1.558 1.417 50 19 0.561 0.49 1.60 0.19 26 10 138 1.627 1.455 50 19 0.570 0.47 1.60 0.19 27 10 138 1.696 1.493 50 19 0.580 0.46 1.60 0.19 28 10 138 1.765 1.531 50 19 0.588 0.45 1.60 0.19 29 22 138 1.834 1.568 71 34 0.597 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 30 22 138 1.903 1.606 71 34 0.604 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 31 22 138 1.972 1.644 71 33 0.612 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 32 63 134 2.040 1.681 117 79 0.619 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 33 63 134 2.107 1.717 117 79 0.626 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 34 63 134 2.174 1.752 117 78 0.633 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 35 63 134 2.241 1.788 117 77 0.639 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 36 63 134 2.308 1.824 117 77 0.646 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 37 63 134 2.375 1.860 117 76 0.651 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 38 63 134 2.442 1.896 117 75 0.657 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 39 100 146 2.512 1.934 142 118 0.663 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 40 100 146 2.585 1.976 142 117 0.667 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 41 100 146 2.658 2.018 142 116 0.672 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 42 100 146 2.731 2.060 142 115 0.676 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 43 100 146 2.804 2.102 142 114 0.681 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 44 100 146 2.877 2.143 142 113 0.685 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 45 100 146 2.950 2.185 142 112 0.689 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 46 100 146 3.023 2.227 142 111 0.693 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 47 100 146 3.096 2.269 142 110 0.696 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 48 100 146 3.169 2.311 142 109 0.700 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 49 100 146 3.242 2.352 142 109 0.703 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 50 100 146 3.315 2.394 142 108 0.706 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 TOTAL SETTLEMENT = 1.3 INCHES
Figure C-3 Project: OAK SPRINGS RANCH, PHASE II File No. : T2537-22-05 Boring : B-2
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN GUIDES AS ADAPTED FROM THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NO. 9 EVALUATION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED SETTLEMENTS IN DRY SANDY SOILS MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE
MCE EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION: Earthquake Magnitude: 6.97 Peak Horiz. Acceleration (g): 0.785 Fig 4.1 Fig 4.2 Fig 4.4
Depth of Thickness Depth of Soil Overburden Mean Effective Average Correction Relative Correction Maximum Volumetric Number of Corrected Estimated Base of of Layer Mid-point of Unit Weight Pressure at Pressure at Cyclic Shear Field Factor Density Factor Corrected rd Shear Mod. [yeff]*[Geff] yeff Strain M7.5 Strain Cycles Vol. Strains Settlement Strata (ft) (ft) Layer (ft) (pcf) Mid-point (tsf) Mid-point (tsf) Stress [Tav] SPT [N] [Cer] [Dr] (%) [Cn] [N1]60 Factor [Gmax] (tsf) [Gmax] Shear Strain [yeff]*100% [E15} (%) [Nc] [Ec] [S] (inches) 1.0 1.0 0.5 129.0 0.03 0.02 0.016 32 1.25 129.0 2.0 84.0 1.0 287.726 5.66E-05 7.80E-05 0.008 1.39E-03 10.6141 1.19E-03 0.00 2.0 1.0 1.5 129.0 0.10 0.06 0.049 32 1.25 129.0 2.0 84.0 1.0 498.356 9.62E-05 1.90E-04 0.019 3.40E-03 10.6141 2.91E-03 0.00 3.0 1.0 2.5 129.0 0.16 0.11 0.082 32 1.25 129.0 2.0 84.0 1.0 643.374 1.22E-04 1.70E-04 0.017 3.04E-03 10.6141 2.60E-03 0.00 4.0 1.0 3.5 129.0 0.23 0.15 0.115 32 1.25 129.0 2.0 84.0 1.0 761.251 1.41E-04 1.70E-04 0.017 3.04E-03 10.6141 2.60E-03 0.00 5.0 1.0 4.5 117.0 0.29 0.19 0.146 28 1.25 114.6 1.9 74.9 1.0 826.590 1.62E-04 1.70E-04 0.017 3.49E-03 10.6141 2.98E-03 0.00 6.0 1.0 5.5 117.0 0.35 0.23 0.176 28 1.25 114.6 1.7 68.8 1.0 881.485 1.80E-04 1.50E-04 0.015 3.41E-03 10.6141 2.92E-03 0.00 7.0 1.0 6.5 117.0 0.40 0.27 0.205 28 1.25 114.6 1.6 64.0 1.0 930.762 1.95E-04 1.50E-04 0.015 3.71E-03 10.6141 3.18E-03 0.00 8.0 1.0 7.5 117.0 0.46 0.31 0.235 28 1.25 114.6 1.5 60.2 1.0 975.715 2.09E-04 4.50E-04 0.045 1.20E-02 10.6141 1.03E-02 0.00 9.0 1.0 8.5 136.0 0.53 0.35 0.266 45 1.25 130.6 1.4 87.9 1.0 1179.661 1.93E-04 1.50E-04 0.015 2.54E-03 10.6141 2.17E-03 0.00 10.0 1.0 9.5 136.0 0.59 0.40 0.300 45 1.25 130.6 1.3 83.0 1.0 1230.152 2.05E-04 4.50E-04 0.045 8.16E-03 10.6141 6.98E-03 0.00 11.0 1.0 10.5 136.0 0.66 0.44 0.334 45 1.25 130.6 1.3 78.9 1.0 1277.070 2.17E-04 4.50E-04 0.045 8.66E-03 10.6141 7.41E-03 0.00 12.0 1.0 11.5 136.0 0.73 0.49 0.368 45 1.25 130.6 1.2 75.5 0.9 1321.005 2.27E-04 4.50E-04 0.045 9.15E-03 10.6141 7.83E-03 0.00 13.0 1.0 12.5 136.0 0.80 0.53 0.401 45 1.25 130.6 1.1 72.4 0.9 1362.406 2.36E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 7.90E-03 10.6141 6.76E-03 0.00 14.0 1.0 13.5 139.0 0.87 0.58 0.434 47 1.25 121.1 1.1 77.6 0.9 1452.924 2.36E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 7.27E-03 10.6141 6.22E-03 0.00 15.0 1.0 14.5 139.0 0.94 0.63 0.468 47 1.25 121.1 1.1 74.9 0.9 1492.232 2.44E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 7.59E-03 10.6141 6.50E-03 0.00 16.0 1.0 15.5 139.0 1.01 0.67 0.501 47 1.25 121.1 1.0 72.5 0.9 1529.723 2.51E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 7.90E-03 10.6141 6.76E-03 0.00 17.0 1.0 16.5 139.0 1.08 0.72 0.534 47 1.25 121.1 1.0 70.3 0.9 1565.602 2.58E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 8.19E-03 10.6141 7.01E-03 0.00 18.0 1.0 17.5 139.0 1.14 0.77 0.567 47 1.25 121.1 1.0 68.3 0.9 1600.038 2.64E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 8.48E-03 10.6141 7.26E-03 0.00 19.0 1.0 18.5 91.0 1.20 0.81 0.593 31 1.25 91.3 0.9 50.4 0.9 1482.202 2.95E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 1.22E-02 10.6141 1.04E-02 0.00 20.0 1.0 19.5 91.0 1.25 0.84 0.613 31 1.25 91.3 0.9 49.6 0.9 1501.753 2.97E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 1.24E-02 10.6141 1.06E-02 0.00 21.0 1.0 20.5 91.0 1.29 0.87 0.633 31 1.25 91.3 0.9 48.8 0.9 1520.865 2.99E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 1.27E-02 10.6141 1.08E-02 0.00 22.0 1.0 21.5 138.0 1.35 0.90 0.659 10 1.25 50.0 0.9 20.3 0.9 1160.334 4.02E-04 1.20E-03 0.120 1.18E-01 10.6141 1.01E-01 0.00 23.0 1.0 22.5 138.0 1.42 0.95 0.689 10 1.25 50.0 0.9 20.0 0.9 1182.609 4.08E-04 1.20E-03 0.120 1.20E-01 10.6141 1.03E-01 0.00 24.0 1.0 23.5 138.0 1.49 1.00 0.720 10 1.25 50.0 0.8 19.6 0.9 1204.272 4.13E-04 1.20E-03 0.120 1.23E-01 10.6141 1.05E-01 0.00 25.0 1.0 24.5 138.0 1.56 1.04 0.750 10 1.25 50.0 0.8 19.3 0.9 1225.368 4.18E-04 8.10E-04 0.081 8.44E-02 10.6141 7.22E-02 0.00 26.0 1.0 25.5 138.0 1.63 1.09 0.779 10 1.25 50.0 0.8 19.0 0.9 1245.937 4.23E-04 8.10E-04 0.081 8.59E-02 10.6141 7.36E-02 0.00 27.0 1.0 26.5 138.0 1.70 1.14 0.808 10 1.25 50.0 0.8 18.8 0.9 1266.015 4.27E-04 8.10E-04 0.081 8.74E-02 10.6141 7.48E-02 0.00 28.0 1.0 27.5 138.0 1.76 1.18 0.837 10 1.25 50.0 0.8 18.5 0.9 1285.634 4.31E-04 8.10E-04 0.081 8.89E-02 10.6141 7.61E-02 0.00 29.0 1.0 28.5 138.0 1.83 1.23 0.865 22 1.25 71.4 0.8 34.5 0.9 1612.373 3.51E-04 5.20E-04 0.052 2.71E-02 10.6141 2.32E-02 0.00 30.0 1.0 29.5 138.0 1.90 1.27 0.893 22 1.25 71.4 0.7 33.9 0.9 1634.066 3.54E-04 5.20E-04 0.052 2.76E-02 10.6141 2.36E-02 0.00 31.0 1.0 30.5 138.0 1.97 1.32 0.920 22 1.25 71.4 0.7 33.4 0.9 1655.287 3.57E-04 5.20E-04 0.052 2.81E-02 10.6141 2.40E-02 0.00 32.0 1.0 31.5 134.0 2.04 1.37 0.947 63 1.25 116.8 0.7 79.2 0.9 2244.139 2.68E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 5.75E-03 10.6141 4.92E-03 0.00 33.0 1.0 32.5 134.0 2.11 1.41 0.972 63 1.25 116.8 0.7 78.5 0.9 2274.145 2.69E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 5.81E-03 10.6141 4.97E-03 0.00 34.0 1.0 33.5 134.0 2.17 1.46 0.997 63 1.25 116.8 0.7 77.9 0.8 2303.502 2.70E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 5.87E-03 10.6141 5.02E-03 0.00 35.0 1.0 34.5 134.0 2.24 1.50 1.022 63 1.25 116.8 0.7 77.2 0.8 2332.242 2.71E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 5.93E-03 10.6141 5.08E-03 0.00 36.0 1.0 35.5 134.0 2.31 1.55 1.046 63 1.25 116.8 0.7 76.6 0.8 2360.394 2.72E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 5.99E-03 10.6141 5.13E-03 0.00 37.0 1.0 36.5 134.0 2.37 1.59 1.069 63 1.25 116.8 0.7 76.0 0.8 2387.987 2.72E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 6.05E-03 10.6141 5.18E-03 0.00 38.0 1.0 37.5 134.0 2.44 1.64 1.092 63 1.25 116.8 0.7 75.4 0.8 2415.046 2.73E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 6.10E-03 10.6141 5.22E-03 0.00 39.0 1.0 38.5 146.0 2.51 1.68 1.116 100 1.25 142.5 0.7 118.0 0.8 2843.722 2.35E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.57E-03 10.6141 3.05E-03 0.00 40.0 1.0 39.5 146.0 2.58 1.73 1.141 100 1.25 142.5 0.7 116.9 0.8 2876.110 2.36E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.61E-03 10.6141 3.09E-03 0.00 41.0 1.0 40.5 146.0 2.66 1.78 1.165 100 1.25 142.5 0.7 115.9 0.8 2907.863 2.36E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.64E-03 10.6141 3.12E-03 0.00 42.0 1.0 41.5 146.0 2.73 1.83 1.189 100 1.25 142.5 0.7 114.9 0.8 2939.010 2.37E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.68E-03 10.6141 3.15E-03 0.00 43.0 1.0 42.5 146.0 2.80 1.88 1.212 100 1.25 142.5 0.7 113.9 0.8 2969.577 2.37E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.72E-03 10.6141 3.18E-03 0.00 44.0 1.0 43.5 146.0 2.88 1.93 1.234 100 1.25 142.5 0.6 112.9 0.8 2999.591 2.38E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.76E-03 10.6141 3.22E-03 0.00 45.0 1.0 44.5 146.0 2.95 1.98 1.256 100 1.25 142.5 0.6 112.0 0.8 3029.074 2.38E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.80E-03 10.6141 3.25E-03 0.00
Figure C Figure 46.0 1.0 45.5 146.0 3.02 2.03 1.278 100 1.25 142.5 0.6 111.1 0.8 3058.048 2.38E-04 1.00E-02 1.000 1.28E-01 10.6141 1.09E-01 0.00 47.0 1.0 46.5 146.0 3.10 2.07 1.299 100 1.25 142.5 0.6 110.2 0.8 3086.534 2.38E-04 1.00E-02 1.000 1.29E-01 10.6141 1.10E-01 0.00 48.0 1.0 47.5 146.0 3.17 2.12 1.319 100 1.25 142.5 0.6 109.4 0.8 3114.552 2.39E-04 1.00E-02 1.000 1.30E-01 10.6141 1.11E-01 0.00
49.0 1.0 48.5 146.0 3.24 2.17 1.339 100 1.25 142.5 0.6 108.5 0.8 3142.119 2.39E-04 1.00E-02 1.000 1.31E-01 10.6141 1.12E-01 0.00 - 4 50.0 1.0 49.5 146.0 3.31 2.22 1.358 100 1.25 142.5 0.6 107.7 0.8 3169.252 2.39E-04 1.00E-02 1.000 1.33E-01 10.6141 1.13E-01 0.00
TOTAL SETTLEMENT = 0.03 Project: OAK SPRINGS RANCH, PHASE II File No. : T2537-22-05 Boring : B-3
LIQUEFACTION SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE (SATURATED SAND AT INITIAL LIQUEFACTION CONDITION)
NCEER (1996) METHOD EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION: Earthquake Magnitude: 6.97
PGAM (g): 0.785 Calculated Mag.Wtg.Factor: 0.833 Historic High Groundwater: 15.0 Groundwater @ Exploration: 29.0
DEPTH BLOW WET TOTAL EFFECT REL. ADJUST LIQUEFACTION Volumetric EQ. TO COUNT DENSITY STRESS STRESS DEN. BLOWS SAFETY Strain SETTLE. Tav/σ' [e } (%) BASE N (PCF) O (TSF) O' (TSF) Dr (%) (N1)60 o FACTOR 15 Pe (in.) 1 28 127 0.032 0.032 121 74 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 2 28 127 0.095 0.095 121 74 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 3 28 127 0.159 0.159 121 74 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 4 28 127 0.222 0.222 121 74 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 5 40 130 0.287 0.287 137 105 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 6 40 130 0.352 0.352 137 95 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 7 40 130 0.417 0.417 137 88 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 8 40 130 0.482 0.482 137 82 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 9 29 115 0.543 0.543 105 58 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 10 29 115 0.600 0.600 105 55 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 11 29 115 0.658 0.658 105 53 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 12 29 115 0.715 0.715 105 51 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 13 29 115 0.773 0.773 105 49 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 14 29 115 0.830 0.830 105 48 0.510 -- 0.00 0.00 15 39 134 0.893 0.877 112 60 0.519 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 16 39 134 0.960 0.913 112 58 0.536 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 17 39 134 1.027 0.949 112 56 0.552 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 18 39 134 1.094 0.984 112 54 0.567 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 19 23 126 1.159 1.018 82 35 0.581 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 20 23 126 1.222 1.050 82 34 0.594 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 21 23 126 1.285 1.082 82 33 0.606 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 22 23 126 1.348 1.114 82 32 0.617 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 23 23 126 1.411 1.145 82 32 0.628 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 24 16 132 1.475 1.179 66 28 0.639 0.72 0.75 0.09 25 16 132 1.541 1.213 66 28 0.648 0.69 0.75 0.09 26 16 132 1.607 1.248 66 27 0.657 0.66 1.10 0.13 27 16 132 1.673 1.283 66 22 0.665 0.49 1.40 0.17 28 16 132 1.739 1.318 66 22 0.673 0.47 1.40 0.17 29 16 132 1.805 1.353 66 21 0.681 0.46 1.40 0.17 30 20 136 1.872 1.388 71 32 0.688 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 31 20 136 1.940 1.425 71 32 0.695 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 32 20 136 2.008 1.462 71 31 0.701 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 33 20 136 2.076 1.499 71 31 0.707 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 34 18 130 2.143 1.534 65 24 0.713 0.50 1.30 0.16 35 18 130 2.208 1.568 65 24 0.718 0.49 1.30 0.16 36 18 130 2.273 1.602 65 23 0.724 0.49 1.30 0.16 37 18 130 2.338 1.636 65 23 0.729 0.48 1.30 0.16 38 18 130 2.403 1.669 65 23 0.734 0.48 1.30 0.16 39 100 136 2.469 1.705 148 122 0.739 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 40 100 136 2.537 1.741 148 121 0.743 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 41 100 136 2.605 1.778 148 120 0.747 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 42 100 136 2.673 1.815 148 119 0.751 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 43 100 136 2.741 1.852 148 118 0.755 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 44 100 136 2.809 1.889 148 117 0.759 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 45 100 136 2.877 1.925 148 116 0.762 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 46 100 136 2.945 1.962 148 115 0.766 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 47 100 136 3.013 1.999 148 114 0.769 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 48 100 136 3.081 2.036 148 113 0.772 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 49 100 136 3.149 2.073 148 112 0.775 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 50 100 136 3.217 2.109 148 112 0.778 Non-Liq. 0.00 0.00 TOTAL SETTLEMENT = 1.6 INCHES
Figure C-5 Project: OAK SPRINGS RANCH, PHASE II
File No. : T2537-22-05 Boring : B-3
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN GUIDES AS ADAPTED FROM THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NO. 9 EVALUATION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED SETTLEMENTS IN DRY SANDY SOILS MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE
MCE EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION: Earthquake Magnitude: 6.97 Peak Horiz. Acceleration (g): 0.785 Fig 4.1 Fig 4.2 Fig 4.4
Depth of Thickness Depth of Soil Overburden Mean Effective Average Correction Relative Correction Maximum Volumetric Number of Corrected Estimated Base of of Layer Mid-point of Unit Weight Pressure at Pressure at Cyclic Shear Field Factor Density Factor Corrected rd Shear Mod. [yeff]*[Geff] yeff Strain M7.5 Strain Cycles Vol. Strains Settlement Strata (ft) (ft) Layer (ft) (pcf) Mid-point (tsf) Mid-point (tsf) Stress [Tav] SPT [N] [Cer] [Dr] (%) [Cn] [N1]60 Factor [Gmax] (tsf) [Gmax] Shear Strain [yeff]*100% [E15} (%) [Nc] [Ec] [S] (inches) 1.0 1.0 0.5 127.0 0.03 0.02 0.016 28 1.25 120.8 2.0 73.6 1.0 273.239 5.87E-05 7.80E-05 0.008 1.63E-03 10.6141 1.40E-03 0.00 2.0 1.0 1.5 127.0 0.10 0.06 0.049 28 1.25 120.8 2.0 73.6 1.0 473.263 9.97E-05 1.90E-04 0.019 3.98E-03 10.6141 3.40E-03 0.00 3.0 1.0 2.5 127.0 0.16 0.11 0.081 28 1.25 120.8 2.0 73.6 1.0 610.980 1.26E-04 1.70E-04 0.017 3.56E-03 10.6141 3.05E-03 0.00 4.0 1.0 3.5 127.0 0.22 0.15 0.113 28 1.25 120.8 2.0 73.6 1.0 722.922 1.46E-04 1.70E-04 0.017 3.56E-03 10.6141 3.05E-03 0.00 5.0 1.0 4.5 130.0 0.29 0.19 0.146 40 1.25 137.1 1.9 104.6 1.0 922.810 1.45E-04 1.70E-04 0.017 2.33E-03 10.6141 2.00E-03 0.00 6.0 1.0 5.5 130.0 0.35 0.24 0.179 40 1.25 137.1 1.7 95.0 1.0 989.871 1.63E-04 1.50E-04 0.015 2.31E-03 10.6141 1.98E-03 0.00 7.0 1.0 6.5 130.0 0.42 0.28 0.212 40 1.25 137.1 1.6 87.8 1.0 1049.365 1.79E-04 1.50E-04 0.015 2.54E-03 10.6141 2.18E-03 0.00 8.0 1.0 7.5 130.0 0.48 0.32 0.244 40 1.25 137.1 1.5 82.0 1.0 1103.169 1.93E-04 1.50E-04 0.015 2.76E-03 10.6141 2.36E-03 0.00 9.0 1.0 8.5 115.0 0.54 0.36 0.275 29 1.25 104.6 1.4 57.9 1.0 1042.620 2.26E-04 4.50E-04 0.045 1.26E-02 10.6141 1.08E-02 0.00 10.0 1.0 9.5 115.0 0.60 0.40 0.304 29 1.25 104.6 1.3 55.3 1.0 1080.078 2.37E-04 4.50E-04 0.045 1.33E-02 10.6141 1.14E-02 0.00 11.0 1.0 10.5 115.0 0.66 0.44 0.332 29 1.25 104.6 1.3 53.1 1.0 1115.349 2.46E-04 4.50E-04 0.045 1.39E-02 10.6141 1.19E-02 0.00 12.0 1.0 11.5 115.0 0.72 0.48 0.360 29 1.25 104.6 1.2 51.2 0.9 1148.741 2.56E-04 4.50E-04 0.045 1.46E-02 10.6141 1.25E-02 0.00 13.0 1.0 12.5 115.0 0.77 0.52 0.388 29 1.25 104.6 1.2 49.4 0.9 1180.497 2.64E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 1.25E-02 10.6141 1.07E-02 0.00 14.0 1.0 13.5 115.0 0.83 0.56 0.416 29 1.25 104.6 1.1 47.9 0.9 1210.815 2.72E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 1.30E-02 10.6141 1.11E-02 0.00 15.0 1.0 14.5 134.0 0.89 0.60 0.446 39 1.25 112.0 1.1 59.9 0.9 1352.093 2.57E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 9.93E-03 10.6141 8.50E-03 0.00 16.0 1.0 15.5 134.0 0.96 0.64 0.478 39 1.25 112.0 1.0 57.8 0.9 1385.446 2.65E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 1.04E-02 10.6141 8.87E-03 0.00 17.0 1.0 16.5 134.0 1.03 0.69 0.510 39 1.25 112.0 1.0 55.9 0.9 1417.298 2.72E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 1.08E-02 10.6141 9.23E-03 0.00 18.0 1.0 17.5 134.0 1.09 0.73 0.541 39 1.25 112.0 1.0 54.2 0.9 1447.810 2.79E-04 3.70E-04 0.037 1.12E-02 10.6141 9.58E-03 0.00 19.0 1.0 18.5 126.0 1.16 0.78 0.572 23 1.25 82.3 0.9 34.9 0.9 1286.650 3.27E-04 7.10E-04 0.071 3.64E-02 10.6141 3.12E-02 0.00 20.0 1.0 19.5 126.0 1.22 0.82 0.600 23 1.25 82.3 0.9 34.0 0.9 1309.954 3.33E-04 7.10E-04 0.071 3.76E-02 10.6141 3.22E-02 0.00 21.0 1.0 20.5 126.0 1.28 0.86 0.629 23 1.25 82.3 0.9 33.2 0.9 1332.486 3.39E-04 7.10E-04 0.071 3.87E-02 10.6141 3.31E-02 0.00 22.0 1.0 21.5 126.0 1.35 0.90 0.657 23 1.25 82.3 0.9 32.4 0.9 1354.308 3.44E-04 7.10E-04 0.071 3.98E-02 10.6141 3.40E-02 0.00 23.0 1.0 22.5 126.0 1.41 0.95 0.685 23 1.25 82.3 0.9 31.7 0.9 1375.475 3.49E-04 7.10E-04 0.071 4.08E-02 10.6141 3.49E-02 0.00 24.0 1.0 23.5 132.0 1.48 0.99 0.713 16 1.25 66.1 0.8 28.0 0.9 1349.610 3.66E-04 7.10E-04 0.071 4.74E-02 10.6141 4.06E-02 0.00 25.0 1.0 24.5 132.0 1.54 1.03 0.742 16 1.25 66.1 0.8 27.5 0.9 1371.546 3.70E-04 5.20E-04 0.052 3.54E-02 10.6141 3.03E-02 0.00 26.0 1.0 25.5 132.0 1.61 1.08 0.770 16 1.25 66.1 0.8 27.1 0.9 1392.932 3.74E-04 5.20E-04 0.052 3.61E-02 10.6141 3.09E-02 0.00 27.0 1.0 26.5 132.0 1.67 1.12 0.798 16 1.25 66.1 0.8 22.0 0.9 1325.973 4.02E-04 8.10E-04 0.081 7.23E-02 10.6141 6.18E-02 0.00 28.0 1.0 27.5 132.0 1.74 1.17 0.825 16 1.25 66.1 0.8 21.6 0.9 1343.649 4.06E-04 8.10E-04 0.081 7.39E-02 10.6141 6.32E-02 0.00 29.0 1.0 28.5 132.0 1.81 1.21 0.852 16 1.25 66.1 0.8 21.3 0.9 1362.759 4.09E-04 8.10E-04 0.081 7.51E-02 10.6141 6.43E-02 0.00 30.0 1.0 29.5 136.0 1.87 1.25 0.879 20 1.25 71.1 0.8 31.9 0.9 1588.101 3.59E-04 5.20E-04 0.052 2.97E-02 10.6141 2.54E-02 0.00 31.0 1.0 30.5 136.0 1.94 1.30 0.906 20 1.25 71.1 0.7 31.7 0.9 1612.302 3.61E-04 5.20E-04 0.052 3.00E-02 10.6141 2.56E-02 0.00 32.0 1.0 31.5 136.0 2.01 1.35 0.932 20 1.25 71.1 0.7 31.4 0.9 1635.960 3.62E-04 5.20E-04 0.052 3.02E-02 10.6141 2.59E-02 0.00 33.0 1.0 32.5 136.0 2.08 1.39 0.958 20 1.25 71.1 0.7 31.2 0.9 1659.106 3.64E-04 5.20E-04 0.052 3.05E-02 10.6141 2.61E-02 0.00 34.0 1.0 33.5 130.0 2.14 1.44 0.983 18 1.25 65.1 0.7 23.8 0.8 1539.757 3.98E-04 5.20E-04 0.052 4.23E-02 10.6141 3.62E-02 0.00 35.0 1.0 34.5 130.0 2.21 1.48 1.007 18 1.25 65.1 0.7 23.6 0.8 1558.734 3.99E-04 5.20E-04 0.052 4.27E-02 10.6141 3.65E-02 0.00 36.0 1.0 35.5 130.0 2.27 1.52 1.030 18 1.25 65.1 0.7 23.4 0.8 1577.334 4.00E-04 8.10E-04 0.081 6.71E-02 10.6141 5.75E-02 0.00 37.0 1.0 36.5 130.0 2.34 1.57 1.052 18 1.25 65.1 0.7 23.2 0.8 1595.573 4.01E-04 8.10E-04 0.081 6.78E-02 10.6141 5.80E-02 0.00 38.0 1.0 37.5 130.0 2.40 1.61 1.075 18 1.25 65.1 0.7 23.0 0.8 1613.469 4.02E-04 8.10E-04 0.081 6.84E-02 10.6141 5.85E-02 0.00 39.0 1.0 38.5 136.0 2.47 1.65 1.097 100 1.25 148.4 0.7 121.6 0.8 2848.379 2.31E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.44E-03 10.6141 2.94E-03 0.00 40.0 1.0 39.5 136.0 2.54 1.70 1.120 100 1.25 148.4 0.7 120.6 0.8 2879.228 2.31E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.47E-03 10.6141 2.97E-03 0.00 41.0 1.0 40.5 136.0 2.61 1.75 1.142 100 1.25 148.4 0.7 119.6 0.8 2909.503 2.31E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.51E-03 10.6141 3.00E-03 0.00 42.0 1.0 41.5 136.0 2.67 1.79 1.164 100 1.25 148.4 0.7 118.6 0.8 2939.229 2.32E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.54E-03 10.6141 3.03E-03 0.00 43.0 1.0 42.5 136.0 2.74 1.84 1.185 100 1.25 148.4 0.7 117.7 0.8 2968.429 2.32E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.58E-03 10.6141 3.06E-03 0.00 44.0 1.0 43.5 136.0 2.81 1.88 1.205 100 1.25 148.4 0.7 116.7 0.8 2997.125 2.32E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.61E-03 10.6141 3.09E-03 0.00 45.0 1.0 44.5 136.0 2.88 1.93 1.225 100 1.25 148.4 0.7 115.8 0.8 3025.338 2.32E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.65E-03 10.6141 3.12E-03 0.00
Figure C Figure 46.0 1.0 45.5 136.0 2.95 1.97 1.245 100 1.25 148.4 0.7 115.0 0.8 3053.085 2.32E-04 3.00E-04 0.030 3.68E-03 10.6141 3.15E-03 0.00 47.0 1.0 46.5 136.0 3.01 2.02 1.264 100 1.25 148.4 0.7 114.1 0.8 3080.386 2.33E-04 1.00E-02 1.000 1.24E-01 10.6141 1.06E-01 0.00 48.0 1.0 47.5 136.0 3.08 2.06 1.283 100 1.25 148.4 0.6 113.3 0.8 3107.257 2.33E-04 1.00E-02 1.000 1.25E-01 10.6141 1.07E-01 0.00
49.0 1.0 48.5 136.0 3.15 2.11 1.301 100 1.25 148.4 0.6 112.4 0.8 3133.715 2.33E-04 1.00E-02 1.000 1.26E-01 10.6141 1.08E-01 0.00 - 6 50.0 1.0 49.5 136.0 3.22 2.16 1.318 100 1.25 148.4 0.6 111.6 0.8 3159.773 2.32E-04 1.00E-02 1.000 1.27E-01 10.6141 1.09E-01 0.00
TOTAL SETTLEMENT = 0.02 Slope Stability Analysis Oak Springs Ranch Phase 2 Cross Section AA Method: Spencer 410 Horz Seismic Load: 0
390
370 3.173
350
330 Name: Compacted Fill Unit Weight: 130 Cohesion: 100 Phi: 33 310 Piezometric Line: 1 Name: Alluvium Above GW Unit Weight: 135 Elevation -1000 (ft) Elevation Cohesion: 400 290 Phi: 40 Piezometric Line: 1 Name: Alluvium Below GW Name: Unnamed Sandstone 270 Unit Weight: 135 Cohesion: 400 Unit Weight: 135 Phi: 40 Cohesion: 100 Piezometric Line: 1 Phi: 40 Piezometric Line: 1 250 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 Distance (ft) SLOPE/W Analysis Report generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7.23. Copyright © 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd.
File Information Created By: Chet Robinson Revision Number: 18 Last Edited By: Chet Robinson Date: 12/19/2018 Time: 12:24:21 PM File Name: 01_Cross Section AA Static.gsz Directory: C:\Users\jesmani m\Desktop\T2537-22-05\Stability Analysis Files\Stability Analysis Files -Update\
Project Settings Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D
Analysis Settings SLOPE/W Analysis Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Spencer Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Right to Left Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Grid and Radius Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 ° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 °
Materials Compacted Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 33 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Alluvium Above GW Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 400 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Alluvium Below GW Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 400 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Unnamed Sandstone Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1
Slip Surface Grid Upper Left: (9, 327.02405) ft Lower Left: (82, 327.02405) ft Lower Right: (98, 427.95153) ft Grid Horizontal Increment: 10 Grid Vertical Increment: 10 Left Projection Angle: 0 ° Right Projection Angle: 0 °
Slip Surface Radius Upper Left Coordinate: (4, 299.01314) ft Upper Right Coordinate: (150, 299.01314) ft Lower Left Coordinate: (3, 276.0311) ft Lower Right Coordinate: (164, 276.0311) ft Number of Increments: 8 Left Projection: No Left Projection Angle: 135 ° Right Projection: No Right Projection Angle: 45 °
Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (0, 302) ft Right Coordinate: (250, 332) ft
Piezometric Lines Piezometric Line 1
Coordinates X (ft) Y (ft) 0 299 150 299 250 299
Seismic Loads Horz Seismic Load: 0 Regions Material Points Area (ft²) Region 1 Compacted Fill 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,13,11,14,12,15,16,18 4281 Region 2 Alluvium Above GW 1,2,18,16,17,19 611 Region 3 Alluvium Below GW 24,19,17,21,20 972 Region 4 Unnamed Sandstone 22,24,20,21,17,16,15,12,14,11,13,10,9,8,7,6,5,23 12286
Points X (ft) Y (ft) Point 1 0 302 Point 2 50 307 Point 3 88 327 Point 4 250 332 Point 5 250 329 Point 6 245 329 Point 7 245 325 Point 8 234 325 Point 9 234 318 Point 10 225 318 Point 11 216 313 Point 12 207 310 Point 13 225 313 Point 14 216 310 Point 15 207 303 Point 16 176 303 Point 17 150 299 Point 18 55 301 Point 19 0 299 Point 20 63 293 Point 21 115 294 Point 22 0 250 Point 23 250 250 Point 24 0 286
1.450 Slope Stability Analysis Oak Springs Ranch Phase 2 Cross Section AA Method: Spencer 410 Horz Seismic Load: 0.395
390
370
350
330 Name: Compacted Fill Unit Weight: 130 Cohesion: 100 Phi: 33 310 Name:Piezometric Alluvium Line: Above 1 GW Unit Weight: 135 Elevation -1000 (ft) Cohesion: 400 290 Phi: 40 Piezometric Line: 1 Name: Alluvium Below GW Unit Weight: 135 Name: Unnamed Sandstone 270 Cohesion: 400 Unit Weight: 135 Phi: 40 Cohesion: 100 Piezometric Line: 1 Phi: 40 Piezometric Line: 1 250 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 Distance (ft) SLOPE/W Analysis Report generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7.23. Copyright © 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd.
File Information Created By: Chet Robinson Revision Number: 22 Last Edited By: Dr. Mehrab Jesmani Date: 3/2/2020 Time: 6:12:31 PM File Name: 01_Cross Section AA Seismic.gsz Directory: C:\Users\jesmani m\Desktop\T2537-22-05\Stability Analysis Files\Stability Analysis Files -Update\ Last Solved Date: 3/2/2020 Last Solved Time: 8:29:10 PM
Project Settings Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D
Analysis Settings SLOPE/W Analysis Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Spencer Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Right to Left Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Grid and Radius Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 ° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 °
Materials Compacted Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 33 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Alluvium Above GW Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 400 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Alluvium Below GW Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 400 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Unnamed Sandstone Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1
Slip Surface Grid Upper Left: (9, 327.02405) ft Lower Left: (82, 327.02405) ft Lower Right: (98, 427.95153) ft Grid Horizontal Increment: 10 Grid Vertical Increment: 10 Left Projection Angle: 0 ° Right Projection Angle: 0 °
Slip Surface Radius Upper Left Coordinate: (4, 299.01314) ft Upper Right Coordinate: (150, 299.01314) ft Lower Left Coordinate: (3, 276.0311) ft Lower Right Coordinate: (164, 276.0311) ft Number of Increments: 8 Left Projection: No Left Projection Angle: 135 ° Right Projection: No Right Projection Angle: 45 °
Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (0, 302) ft Right Coordinate: (250, 332) ft
Piezometric Lines Piezometric Line 1
Coordinates X (ft) Y (ft) 0 299 150 299 250 299 Seismic Loads Horz Seismic Load: 0.395 Ignore seismic load in strength: No
Regions Material Points Area (ft²) Region 1 Compacted Fill 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,13,11,14,12,15,16,18 4281 Region 2 Alluvium Above GW 1,2,18,16,17,19 611 Region 3 Alluvium Below GW 24,19,17,21,20 972 Region 4 Unnamed Sandstone 22,24,20,21,17,16,15,12,14,11,13,10,9,8,7,6,5,23 12286
Points X (ft) Y (ft) Point 1 0 302 Point 2 50 307 Point 3 88 327 Point 4 250 332 Point 5 250 329 Point 6 245 329 Point 7 245 325 Point 8 234 325 Point 9 234 318 Point 10 225 318 Point 11 216 313 Point 12 207 310 Point 13 225 313 Point 14 216 310 Point 15 207 303 Point 16 176 303 Point 17 150 299 Point 18 55 301 Point 19 0 299 Point 20 63 293 Point 21 115 294 Point 22 0 250 Point 23 250 250 Point 24 0 286 Critical Slip Surfaces Slip FOS Center (ft) Radius (ft) Entry (ft) Exit (ft) Surface (39.6, (121.08, (8.41403, 1 883 1.450 128.938 427.952) 328.021) 302.841)
Slices of Slip Surface: 883 Base Frictional Cohesive Slip X (ft) Y (ft) PWP (psf) Normal Strength Strength Surface Stress (psf) (psf) (psf) - 1 883 10.304301 302.40035 424.35839 356.07897 400 212.18177 - 2 883 14.084845 301.57765 621.23574 521.27868 400 160.84198 - 3 883 17.86539 300.8727 778.42478 653.17595 400 116.85497 - 4 883 21.64593 300.28355 901.8677 756.75685 400 80.091803 - 5 883 25.42647 299.80865 996.26722 835.96746 400 50.457488 - 6 883 29.207015 299.4467 1065.2572 893.85688 400 27.873227 7 883 32.98756 299.1967 -12.27518 1111.8669 932.96712 400 - 8 883 36.7681 299.0581 1138.5829 955.38449 400 3.6261175 - 9 883 40.54864 299.0305 1147.3704 962.75804 400 1.9024267 10 883 44.329185 299.1138 -7.100018 1139.9943 956.56882 400 - 11 883 48.10973 299.3082 1117.8459 937.98405 400 19.232185 - 12 883 52.5 299.68465 1192.365 1000.513 400 42.724472 - 13 883 56.96712 300.20355 1344.0596 1127.7999 400 75.100102 - 14 883 60.901365 300.80055 1462.9973 1227.6005 400 112.35197 - 15 883 64.663595 301.48585 1486.2663 965.19261 100 155.11562 - 16 883 68.25381 302.2508 1571.1592 1020.3227 100 202.84805 - 17 883 71.84403 303.1237 1639.8346 1064.921 100 257.31805 18 883 75.434245 304.1068 -318.6634 1692.9829 1099.436 100 - 19 883 79.02446 305.20275 1731.1751 1124.2383 100 387.04812 - 20 883 82.614675 306.41465 1754.8913 1139.6397 100 462.68276 - 21 883 86.20489 307.74595 1764.6031 1145.9466 100 545.75754 - 22 883 89.83778 309.2195 1674.878 1087.6785 100 637.70394 - 23 883 93.51334 310.84315 1492.1319 969.00181 100 739.01024 - 24 883 97.1889 312.6068 1304.339 847.04768 100 849.05571 - 25 883 100.86444 314.51695 1111.68 721.93347 100 968.26449 26 883 104.54 316.5811 -1097.05 914.40814 593.82359 100 - 27 883 108.2156 318.80805 712.76141 462.87267 100 1236.0289 - 28 883 111.89115 321.20805 507.05653 329.28636 100 1385.7833 - 29 883 115.5667 323.79305 297.62912 193.28261 100 1547.0779 - 30 883 119.24225 326.5772 84.89389 55.130737 100 1720.8123
Slope Stability Analysis Oak Springs Ranch Phase 2 Cross Section AA Method: Spencer 410 Horz Seismic Load: 0.425
390
370
1.005 350
330 Name: Compacted Fill Unit Weight: 130 Cohesion: 100 Phi: 33 310 Piezometric Line: 1 Name: Alluvium Above GW Unit Weight: 135 Elevation -1000 (ft) Elevation Cohesion: 400 290 Phi: 40 Piezometric Line: 1 Name: Alluvium Below GW Name: Unnamed Sandstone 270 Unit Weight: 135 Cohesion: 1050 Unit Weight: 135 Phi: 0 Cohesion: 100 Piezometric Line: 1 Phi: 40 Piezometric Line: 1 250 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 Distance (ft) SLOPE/W Analysis Report generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7.23. Copyright © 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd.
File Information Created By: Chet Robinson Revision Number: 23 Last Edited By: Chet Robinson Date: 12/19/2018 Time: 12:26:21 PM File Name: 02_Cross Section AA Lat Spreading.gsz Directory: C:\Users\jesmani m\Desktop\T2537-22-05\Stability Analysis Files\Stability Analysis Files -Update\
Project Settings Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D
Analysis Settings SLOPE/W Analysis Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Spencer Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Right to Left Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Fully-Specified Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 ° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 °
Materials Compacted Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 33 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Alluvium Above GW Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 400 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Alluvium Below GW Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 1050 psf Phi: 0 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Unnamed Sandstone Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1
Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (0, 302) ft Right Coordinate: (250, 332) ft
Fully Specified Slip Surfaces Fully Specified Slip Surface 1 X (ft) Y (ft) 7 308 28 295 88 296 122 334
Fully Specified Slip Surface 2 X (ft) Y (ft) 22 309 41 296 101 296 138 335
Fully Specified Slip Surface 3 X (ft) Y (ft) 16 308 48 296 109 296 149 333
Fully Specified Slip Surface 4 X (ft) Y (ft) 30 309 50 296 96 296 161 339
Fully Specified Slip Surface 5 X (ft) Y (ft) 25 309 49 300 132 300 168 337
Fully Specified Slip Surface 6 X (ft) Y (ft) 4 305 21 294 116 297 158 334
Fully Specified Slip Surface 7 X (ft) Y (ft) 35 309 54 297 125 297 149 336
Fully Specified Slip Surface 8 X (ft) Y (ft) 18 306 45 298 83 298 111 331
Fully Specified Slip Surface 9 X (ft) Y (ft) 12 306 37 296 105 297 129 332
Fully Specified Slip Surface 10 X (ft) Y (ft) 9 305 32 295 116 295 142 334
Piezometric Lines Piezometric Line 1
Coordinates X (ft) Y (ft) 0 299 150 299 250 299
Seismic Loads Horz Seismic Load: 0.425 Ignore seismic load in strength: No
Regions Material Points Area (ft²) Region 1 Compacted Fill 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,13,11,14,12,15,16,18 4281 Region 2 Alluvium Above GW 1,2,18,16,17,19 611 Region 3 Alluvium Below GW 24,19,17,21,20 972 Region 4 Unnamed Sandstone 22,24,20,21,17,16,15,12,14,11,13,10,9,8,7,6,5,23 12286
Points X (ft) Y (ft) Point 1 0 302 Point 2 50 307 Point 3 88 327 Point 4 250 332 Point 5 250 329 Point 6 245 329 Point 7 245 325 Point 8 234 325 Point 9 234 318 Point 10 225 318 Point 11 216 313 Point 12 207 310 Point 13 225 313 Point 14 216 310 Point 15 207 303 Point 16 176 303 Point 17 150 299 Point 18 55 301 Point 19 0 299 Point 20 63 293 Point 21 115 294 Point 22 0 250 Point 23 250 250 Point 24 0 286
Slope Stability Analysis Oak Springs Ranch Phase 2 Cross Section BB Method: Spencer Horz Seismic Load: 0
380
360 3.024 340
320
300
280 Elevation -1000 (ft)
260 Name: Compacted Fill Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 33 ° Piezometric Line: 1 Name: Alluvium Above GW Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 400 psf Phi: 40 ° Piezometric Line: 1 240 Name: Alluvium Below GW Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 400 psf Phi: 40 ° Piezometric Line: 1 Name: Unnamed Sandstone Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 40 ° Piezometric Line:
220 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 Distance (ft) SLOPE/W Analysis Report generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7.23. Copyright © 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd.
File Information Created By: Chet Robinson Revision Number: 26 Last Edited By: Dr. Mehrab Jesmani Date: 3/2/2020 Time: 8:20:26 PM File Name: 03_Cross Section BB Static.gsz Directory: C:\Users\jesmani m\Desktop\T2537-22-05\Stability Analysis Files\Stability Analysis Files -Update\
Project Settings Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D
Analysis Settings SLOPE/W Analysis Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Spencer Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Right to Left Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Grid and Radius Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 ° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 °
Materials Compacted Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 33 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Alluvium Above GW Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 400 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Alluvium Below GW Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 400 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Unnamed Sandstone Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1
Slip Surface Grid Upper Left: (23, 328.99686) ft Lower Left: (83, 328.99686) ft Lower Right: (95, 414.96533) ft Grid Horizontal Increment: 10 Grid Vertical Increment: 10 Left Projection Angle: 0 ° Right Projection Angle: 0 °
Slip Surface Radius Upper Left Coordinate: (3, 295.99453) ft Upper Right Coordinate: (108, 295.99453) ft Lower Left Coordinate: (7, 266.00282) ft Lower Right Coordinate: (101, 266.00282) ft Number of Increments: 10 Left Projection: No Left Projection Angle: 135 ° Right Projection: No Right Projection Angle: 45 °
Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (0, 304) ft Right Coordinate: (300, 322) ft
Piezometric Lines Piezometric Line 1
Coordinates X (ft) Y (ft) 0 298 67 298 120 298 132 298 300 298 Surcharge Loads Surcharge Load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 130 pcf Direction: Vertical
Coordinates X (ft) Y (ft) 105 322 120 322
Seismic Loads Horz Seismic Load: 0
Regions Material Points Area (ft²) Region 1 Compacted Fill 4,5,6,13,12,11,10,22,9,8,21 2361.5 Region 2 Alluvium Above GW 23,22,10,11 66 Region 3 Alluvium Below GW 9,22,23,19,18,17,16,20,21,8 1409 Region 4 Alluvium Above GW 1,2,3,4,21,20 212 Region 5 Unnamed Sandstone 16,17,18,19,23,11,12,13,6,7,24,15,14 24672.5
Points X (ft) Y (ft) Point 1 0 304 Point 2 15 300 Point 3 41 300 Point 4 63 304 Point 5 103 320 Point 6 270 322 Point 7 300 322 Point 8 68 296 Point 9 120 296 Point 10 120 302 Point 11 141 302 Point 12 141 311 Point 13 179 309 Point 14 0 220 Point 15 300 220 Point 16 0 284 Point 17 68 284 Point 18 84 288 Point 19 110 288 Point 20 0 298 Point 21 67 298 Point 22 120 298 Point 23 132 298 Point 24 300 298
Slope Stability Analysis 1.378 Oak Springs Ranch Phase 2 Cross Section BB Method: Spencer Horz Seismic Load: 0.395
380
360
340
320
300
280 Elevation -1000 (ft)
260 Name: Compacted Fill Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 33 ° Piezometric Line: 1 Name: Alluvium Above GW Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 400 psf Phi: 40 ° Piezometric Line: 1 240Name: Alluvium Below GW Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 400 psf Phi: 40 ° Piezometric Line: 1 Name: Unnamed Sandstone Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 40 ° Piezometric Line: 1 220 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 Distance (ft) SLOPE/W Analysis Report generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7.23. Copyright © 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd.
File Information Created By: Chet Robinson Revision Number: 26 Last Edited By: Dr. Mehrab Jesmani Date: 3/2/2020 Time: 8:19:36 PM File Name: 03_Cross Section BB Seismic.gsz Directory: C:\Users\jesmani m\Desktop\T2537-22-05\Stability Analysis Files\Stability Analysis Files -Update\
Project Settings Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D
Analysis Settings SLOPE/W Analysis Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Spencer Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Right to Left Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Grid and Radius Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 ° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 °
Materials Compacted Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 33 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Alluvium Above GW Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 400 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Alluvium Below GW Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 400 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Unnamed Sandstone Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1
Slip Surface Grid Upper Left: (23, 328.99686) ft Lower Left: (83, 328.99686) ft Lower Right: (95, 414.96533) ft Grid Horizontal Increment: 10 Grid Vertical Increment: 10 Left Projection Angle: 0 ° Right Projection Angle: 0 °
Slip Surface Radius Upper Left Coordinate: (3, 295.99453) ft Upper Right Coordinate: (108, 295.99453) ft Lower Left Coordinate: (7, 266.00282) ft Lower Right Coordinate: (101, 266.00282) ft Number of Increments: 10 Left Projection: No Left Projection Angle: 135 ° Right Projection: No Right Projection Angle: 45 °
Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (0, 304) ft Right Coordinate: (300, 322) ft
Piezometric Lines Piezometric Line 1
Coordinates X (ft) Y (ft) 0 298 67 298 120 298 132 298 300 298 Surcharge Loads Surcharge Load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 130 pcf Direction: Vertical
Coordinates X (ft) Y (ft) 105 322 120 322
Seismic Loads Horz Seismic Load: 0.395 Ignore seismic load in strength: No
Regions Material Points Area (ft²) Region 1 Compacted Fill 4,5,6,13,12,11,10,22,9,8,21 2361.5 Region 2 Alluvium Above GW 23,22,10,11 66 Region 3 Alluvium Below GW 9,22,23,19,18,17,16,20,21,8 1409 Region 4 Alluvium Above GW 1,2,3,4,21,20 212 Region 5 Unnamed Sandstone 16,17,18,19,23,11,12,13,6,7,24,15,14 24672.5
Points X (ft) Y (ft) Point 1 0 304 Point 2 15 300 Point 3 41 300 Point 4 63 304 Point 5 103 320 Point 6 270 322 Point 7 300 322 Point 8 68 296 Point 9 120 296 Point 10 120 302 Point 11 141 302 Point 12 141 311 Point 13 179 309 Point 14 0 220 Point 15 300 220 Point 16 0 284 Point 17 68 284 Point 18 84 288 Point 19 110 288 Point 20 0 298 Point 21 67 298 Point 22 120 298 Point 23 132 298 Point 24 300 298
Slope Stability Analysis Oak Springs Ranch Phase 2 Cross Section BB Method: Spencer Horz Seismic Load: 0.47
380
360 1.005
340
320 Name: Compacted Fill Unit Weight: 130 Cohesion: 100 Phi: 33 300 Name: Alluvium Above GW Unit Weight: 135 Cohesion: 400 280 Phi: 40 Name: Alluvium Below GW Elevation -1000 (ft) Unit Weight: 135 260 Cohesion: 1050 Phi: 0 Name: Unnamed Sandstone 240 Unit Weight: 135 Cohesion: 100 Phi: 40
220 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 Distance (ft) SLOPE/W Analysis Report generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7.23. Copyright © 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd.
File Information Created By: Chet Robinson Revision Number: 32 Last Edited By: Chet Robinson Date: 12/19/2018 Time: 12:29:29 PM File Name: 04_Cross Section BB Lat Spreading.gsz Directory: C:\Users\jesmani m\Desktop\T2537-22-05\Stability Analysis Files\Stability Analysis Files -Update\
Project Settings Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D
Analysis Settings SLOPE/W Analysis Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Spencer Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Right to Left Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Fully-Specified Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 ° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 °
Materials Compacted Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 33 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Alluvium Above GW Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 400 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Alluvium Below GW Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 1050 psf Phi: 0 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Unnamed Sandstone Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1
Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (0, 304) ft Right Coordinate: (300, 322) ft
Fully Specified Slip Surfaces Fully Specified Slip Surface 1 X (ft) Y (ft) 16 303 37 291 109 292 153 329
Fully Specified Slip Surface 2 X (ft) Y (ft) 21 305 40 294 88 293 119 324
Fully Specified Slip Surface 3 X (ft) Y (ft) 19 304 44 289 73 289 132 325
Fully Specified Slip Surface 4 X (ft) Y (ft) 26 304 52 292 98 290 143 329
Fully Specified Slip Surface 5 X (ft) Y (ft) 36 304 57 292 92 291 128 331
Fully Specified Slip Surface 6 X (ft) Y (ft) 14 304 32 290 107 290 138 324
Fully Specified Slip Surface 7 X (ft) Y (ft) 41 306 62 289 103 290 136 327
Fully Specified Slip Surface 8 X (ft) Y (ft) 46 304 62 292 89 291 117 323
Fully Specified Slip Surface 9 X (ft) Y (ft) 11 305 29 289 113 290 159 328
Fully Specified Slip Surface 10 X (ft) Y (ft) 48 308 66 293 107 293 149 330
Piezometric Lines Piezometric Line 1
Coordinates X (ft) Y (ft) 0 298 67 298 120 298 132 298 300 298
Seismic Loads Horz Seismic Load: 0.47 Ignore seismic load in strength: No
Regions Material Points Area (ft²) Region 1 Compacted Fill 4,5,6,13,12,11,10,22,9,8,21 2361.5 Region 2 Alluvium Above GW 23,22,10,11 66 Region 3 Alluvium Below GW 9,22,23,19,18,17,16,20,21,8 1409 Region 4 Alluvium Above GW 1,2,3,4,21,20 212 Region 5 Unnamed Sandstone 16,17,18,19,23,11,12,13,6,7,24,15,14 24672.5
Points X (ft) Y (ft) Point 1 0 304 Point 2 15 300 Point 3 41 300 Point 4 63 304 Point 5 103 320 Point 6 270 322 Point 7 300 322 Point 8 68 296 Point 9 120 296 Point 10 120 302 Point 11 141 302 Point 12 141 311 Point 13 179 309 Point 14 0 220 Point 15 300 220 Point 16 0 284 Point 17 68 284 Point 18 84 288 Point 19 110 288 Point 20 0 298 Point 21 67 298 Point 22 120 298 Point 23 132 298 Point 24 300 298
Slope Stability Analysis 380 Oak Springs Ranch Phase 2 Cross Section CC Method: Spencer 360 Horz Seismic Load: 0
340 3.176
320
300 Name: Compacted Fill Unit Weight: 130 Cohesion: 100 Name: AlluviumPhi: Above 33 GW 280 Unit Weight: 135 Cohesion: 400 Elevation -1000 (ft) Phi: 40 Name: Alluvium Below GW 260 Unit Weight: 135 Cohesion: 400 Phi: 40 Name: Unnamed Sandstone 240 Unit Weight: 135 Cohesion: 100 Phi: 40 220 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 Distance (ft) SLOPE/W Analysis Report generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7.23. Copyright © 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd.
File Information Created By: Chet Robinson Revision Number: 28 Last Edited By: Dr. Mehrab Jesmani Date: 3/2/2020 Time: 8:22:56 PM File Name: 05_Cross Section CC Static.gsz Directory: C:\Users\jesmani m\Desktop\T2537-22-05\Stability Analysis Files\Stability Analysis Files -Update\
Project Settings Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D
Analysis Settings SLOPE/W Analysis Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Spencer Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Right to Left Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Grid and Radius Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 ° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 °
Materials Compacted Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 33 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Alluvium Above GW Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 400 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Alluvium Below GW Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 400 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Unnamed Sandstone Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1
Slip Surface Grid Upper Left: (18, 317) ft Lower Left: (90, 317) ft Lower Right: (112, 421) ft Grid Horizontal Increment: 10 Grid Vertical Increment: 10 Left Projection Angle: 0 ° Right Projection Angle: 0 °
Slip Surface Radius Upper Left Coordinate: (8, 287) ft Upper Right Coordinate: (179, 287) ft Lower Left Coordinate: (14, 248) ft Lower Right Coordinate: (177, 248) ft Number of Increments: 10 Left Projection: No Left Projection Angle: 135 ° Right Projection: No Right Projection Angle: 45 °
Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (0, 297) ft Right Coordinate: (270, 310) ft
Piezometric Lines Piezometric Line 1
Coordinates X (ft) Y (ft) 0 292 22 292 68 292 177 292 270 292 Surcharge Loads Surcharge Load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 130 pcf Direction: Vertical
Coordinates X (ft) Y (ft) 105 315 120 315
Seismic Loads Horz Seismic Load: 0
Regions Material Points Area (ft²) Region 1 Compacted Fill 4,5,6,21,13,12,11,10,9,8,7,22 3331 Region 2 Alluvium Below GW 2,22,7,8,9,10,11,18,17,16,15,23 2385 Region 3 Unnamed Sandstone 19,15,16,17,18,11,12,13,21,14,20 17350 Region 4 Alluvium Above GW 1,2,23 55 Region 5 Alluvium Above GW 3,4,22,2 111
Points X (ft) Y (ft) Point 1 0 297 Point 2 22 292 Point 3 44 295 Point 4 64 296 Point 5 104 312 Point 6 270 310 Point 7 72 288 Point 8 80 286 Point 9 141 285 Point 10 164 290 Point 11 177 292 Point 12 202 296 Point 13 238 307 Point 14 270 296 Point 15 0 278 Point 16 27 272 Point 17 126 274 Point 18 148 276 Point 19 0 220 Point 20 270 220 Point 21 270 306 Point 22 68 292 Point 23 0 292
1.445
Slope Stability Analysis 380 Oak Springs Ranch Phase 2 Cross Section CC Method: Spencer 360 Horz Seismic Load: 0.395
340
320
300 Name: Compacted Fill Unit Weight: 130 Cohesion: 100 Name: AlluviumPhi: Above 33 GW 280 Unit Weight: 135 Cohesion: 400 Elevation -1000 (ft) Phi: 40 Name: Alluvium Below GW 260 Unit Weight: 135 Cohesion: 400 Phi: 40 Name: Unnamed Sandstone 240 Unit Weight: 135 Cohesion: 100 Phi: 40 220 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 Distance (ft) SLOPE/W Analysis Report generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7.23. Copyright © 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd.
File Information Created By: Chet Robinson Revision Number: 30 Last Edited By: Dr. Mehrab Jesmani Date: 3/2/2020 Time: 8:25:55 PM File Name: 05_Cross Section CC Seismic.gsz Directory: C:\Users\jesmani m\Desktop\T2537-22-05\Stability Analysis Files\Stability Analysis Files -Update\
Project Settings Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D
Analysis Settings SLOPE/W Analysis Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Spencer Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Right to Left Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Grid and Radius Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 ° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 °
Materials Compacted Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 33 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Alluvium Above GW Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 400 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Alluvium Below GW Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 400 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Unnamed Sandstone Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1
Slip Surface Grid Upper Left: (18, 317) ft Lower Left: (90, 317) ft Lower Right: (112, 421) ft Grid Horizontal Increment: 10 Grid Vertical Increment: 10 Left Projection Angle: 0 ° Right Projection Angle: 0 °
Slip Surface Radius Upper Left Coordinate: (8, 287) ft Upper Right Coordinate: (179, 287) ft Lower Left Coordinate: (14, 248) ft Lower Right Coordinate: (177, 248) ft Number of Increments: 10 Left Projection: No Left Projection Angle: 135 ° Right Projection: No Right Projection Angle: 45 °
Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (0, 297) ft Right Coordinate: (270, 310) ft
Piezometric Lines Piezometric Line 1
Coordinates X (ft) Y (ft) 0 292 22 292 68 292 177 292 270 292 Surcharge Loads Surcharge Load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 130 pcf Direction: Vertical
Coordinates X (ft) Y (ft) 105 315 120 315
Seismic Loads Horz Seismic Load: 0.395 Ignore seismic load in strength: No
Regions Material Points Area (ft²) Region 1 Compacted Fill 4,5,6,21,13,12,11,10,9,8,7,22 3331 Region 2 Alluvium Below GW 2,22,7,8,9,10,11,18,17,16,15,23 2385 Region 3 Unnamed Sandstone 19,15,16,17,18,11,12,13,21,14,20 17350 Region 4 Alluvium Above GW 1,2,23 55 Region 5 Alluvium Above GW 3,4,22,2 111
Points X (ft) Y (ft) Point 1 0 297 Point 2 22 292 Point 3 44 295 Point 4 64 296 Point 5 104 312 Point 6 270 310 Point 7 72 288 Point 8 80 286 Point 9 141 285 Point 10 164 290 Point 11 177 292 Point 12 202 296 Point 13 238 307 Point 14 270 296 Point 15 0 278 Point 16 27 272 Point 17 126 274 Point 18 148 276 Point 19 0 220 Point 20 270 220 Point 21 270 306 Point 22 68 292 Point 23 0 292
Slope Stability Analysis 380 Oak Springs Ranch Phase 2 Cross Section CC Method: Spencer 360 Horz Seismic Load: 0.365
340
320
300 Name: Compacted Fill Unit Weight: 130 Cohesion: 100 Name: AlluviumPhi: Above 33 GW 280 Unit Weight: 135 Cohesion: 400 Elevation -1000 (ft) Phi: 40 Name: Alluvium Below GW 260 Unit Weight: 135 Cohesion: 1050 Phi: 0 Name: Unnamed Sandstone 240 Unit Weight: 135 Cohesion: 100 Phi: 40 220 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 Distance (ft) SLOPE/W Analysis Report generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7.23. Copyright © 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd.
File Information Created By: Chet Robinson Revision Number: 29 Last Edited By: Chet Robinson Date: 12/19/2018 Time: 12:16:36 PM File Name: 06_Cross Section CC Lat Spreading.gsz Directory: C:\Users\jesmani m\Desktop\T2537-22-05\Stability Analysis Files\Stability Analysis Files -Update\
Project Settings Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D
Analysis Settings SLOPE/W Analysis Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Spencer Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Right to Left Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Fully-Specified Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 ° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 °
Materials Compacted Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 33 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Alluvium Above GW Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 400 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Alluvium Below GW Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 1050 psf Phi: 0 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Unnamed Sandstone Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 100 psf Phi: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1
Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (0, 297) ft Right Coordinate: (270, 310) ft
Fully Specified Slip Surfaces Fully Specified Slip Surface 1 X (ft) Y (ft) 20 297 44 281 120 281 151 331
Fully Specified Slip Surface 2 X (ft) Y (ft) 33 296 60 278 130 278 165 326
Fully Specified Slip Surface 3 X (ft) Y (ft) 44 297 69 279 124 279 151 322
Fully Specified Slip Surface 4 X (ft) Y (ft) 18 296 75 280 117 278 181 318
Fully Specified Slip Surface 5 X (ft) Y (ft) 38 298 62 281 130 280 160 323
Fully Specified Slip Surface 6 X (ft) Y (ft) 25 297 54 277 139 278 167 316
Fully Specified Slip Surface 7 X (ft) Y (ft) 50 298 82 282 116 282 142 317
Fully Specified Slip Surface 8 X (ft) Y (ft) 29 296 55 278 111 277 137 322
Fully Specified Slip Surface 9 X (ft) Y (ft) 46 299 71 283 147 282 183 327
Fully Specified Slip Surface 10 X (ft) Y (ft) 25 296 57 278 120 276 162 318
Piezometric Lines Piezometric Line 1
Coordinates X (ft) Y (ft) 0 292 22 292 68 292 177 292 270 292
Seismic Loads Horz Seismic Load: 0.365 Ignore seismic load in strength: No
Regions Material Points Area (ft²) Region 1 Compacted Fill 4,5,6,21,13,12,11,10,9,8,7,22 3331 Region 2 Alluvium Below GW 2,22,7,8,9,10,11,18,17,16,15,23 2385 Region 3 Unnamed Sandstone 19,15,16,17,18,11,12,13,21,14,20 17350 Region 4 Alluvium Above GW 1,2,23 55 Region 5 Alluvium Above GW 3,4,22,2 111
Points X (ft) Y (ft) Point 1 0 297 Point 2 22 292 Point 3 44 295 Point 4 64 296 Point 5 104 312 Point 6 270 310 Point 7 72 288 Point 8 80 286 Point 9 141 285 Point 10 164 290 Point 11 177 292 Point 12 202 296 Point 13 238 307 Point 14 270 296 Point 15 0 278 Point 16 27 272 Point 17 126 274 Point 18 148 276 Point 19 0 220 Point 20 270 220 Point 21 270 306 Point 22 68 292 Point 23 0 292
$33(1',; '
APPENDIX D
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
OAK SPRINGS RANCH PHASE 2 WILDOMAR, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. T2537-22-05
Geocon Project No. T2537-22-05 - C-1 - March 5, 2020 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1. GENERAL
1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon. The recommendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict.
1.2 Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these specifications. The Consultant should provide adequate testing and observation services so that they may assess whether, in their opinion, the work was performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly.
1.3 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. If, in the opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, and/or adverse weather result in a quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that grading be stopped until the unacceptable conditions are corrected.
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading performed.
2.2 Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.
2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded topography.
2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project.
GI rev. 07/2015 2.5 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications.
2.6 Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site grading.
2.7 Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are intended to apply.
3. MATERIALS
3.1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as defined below.
3.1.1 Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than ¾ inch in size.
3.1.2 Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches.
3.1.3 Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material smaller than ¾ inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity.
3.2 Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the Consultant shall not be used in fills.
3.3 Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9
GI rev. 07/2015 and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.
3.4 The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This procedure may be utilized provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant.
3.5 Samples of soil materials to be used for fill should be tested in the laboratory by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil.
3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition
4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED
4.1 Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding 1½ inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials.
4.2 Asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off-site facility or in an acceptable area of the project evaluated by Geocon and the property owner. Concrete fragments that are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document.
GI rev. 07/2015 4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter and other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of removal and compaction should be observed and approved by a representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.
4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the following illustration.
TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
Finish Grade Original Ground
2 1 Finish Slope Surface
Remove All Unsuitable Material As Recommended By Consultant Slope To Be Such That Sloughing Or Sliding Does Not Occur Varies
“B” See Note 1 See Note 2
No Scale
DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet, or sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope.
(2) The outside of the key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Consultant.
4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared and scarified, the surface should be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in Section 6 of these specifications.
GI rev. 07/2015 5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
5.1 Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the specified moisture content.
5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.
6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL
6.1 Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:
6.1.1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications.
6.1.2 In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557.
6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range specified.
6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is within the range specified.
6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent. Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the entire fill.
GI rev. 07/2015 6.1.6 Where practical, soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 should be placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material.
6.1.7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.
6.1.8 As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice.
6.2 Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:
6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.
6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.
6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment.
6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should first be approved by the Consultant.
GI rev. 07/2015 6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow.
6.2.6 Rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the windrows should be continuously observed by the Consultant.
6.3 Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:
6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water.
6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be utilized. The number of passes to be made should be determined as described in Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill.
6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D 1196, may be performed in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the required minimum number of passes of the compaction equipment. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing tests should be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection
GI rev. 07/2015 variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two.
6.3.4 A representative of the Consultant should be present during rock fill operations to observe that the minimum number of “passes” have been obtained, that water is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading.
6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in their opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be required in the rock fills.
6.3.6 To reduce the potential for “piping” of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement.
6.3.7 Rock fill placement should be continuously observed during placement by the Consultant.
7. SUBDRAINS
7.1 The geologic units on the site may have permeability characteristics and/or fracture systems that could be susceptible under certain conditions to seepage. The use of canyon subdrains may be necessary to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts associated with seepage conditions. Canyon subdrains with lengths in excess of 500 feet or extensions of existing offsite subdrains should use 8-inch-diameter pipes. Canyon subdrains less than 500 feet in length should use 6-inch-diameter pipes.
GI rev. 07/2015 TYPICAL CANYON DRAIN DETAIL
7.2 Slope drains within stability fill keyways should use 4-inch-diameter (or larger) pipes.
GI rev. 07/2015 TYPICAL STABILITY FILL DETAIL
7.3 The actual subdrain locations will be evaluated in the field during the remedial grading operations. Additional drains may be necessary depending on the conditions observed and the requirements of the local regulatory agencies. Appropriate subdrain outlets should be evaluated prior to finalizing 40-scale grading plans.
7.4 Rock fill or soil-rock fill areas may require subdrains along their down-slope perimeters to mitigate the potential for buildup of water from construction or landscape irrigation. The subdrains should be at least 6-inch-diameter pipes encapsulated in gravel and filter fabric. Rock fill drains should be constructed using the same requirements as canyon subdrains.
GI rev. 07/2015 7.5 Prior to outletting, the final 20-foot segment of a subdrain that will not be extended during future development should consist of non-perforated drainpipe. At the non-perforated/ perforated interface, a seepage cutoff wall should be constructed on the downslope side of the pipe.
TYPICAL CUT OFF WALL DETAIL
7.6 Subdrains that discharge into a natural drainage course or open space area should be provided with a permanent headwall structure.
GI rev. 07/2015 TYPICAL HEADWALL DETAIL
7.7 The final grading plans should show the location of the proposed subdrains. After completion of remedial excavations and subdrain installation, the project civil engineer should survey the drain locations and prepare an “as-built” map showing the drain locations. The final outlet and connection locations should be determined during grading operations. Subdrains that will be extended on adjacent projects after grading can be placed on formational material and a vertical riser should be placed at the end of the subdrain. The grading contractor should consider videoing the subdrains shortly after burial to check proper installation and functionality. The contractor is responsible for the performance of the drains.
GI rev. 07/2015 8. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
8.1 The Consultant shall be the Owner’s representative to observe and perform tests during clearing, grubbing, filling, and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill should be placed without at least one field density test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test should be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and compacted.
8.2 The Consultant should perform a sufficient distribution of field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion whether the fill material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved.
8.3 During placement of rock fill, the Consultant should observe that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant should request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied to the material. When observations indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied.
8.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading.
8.5 We should observe the placement of subdrains, to check that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications.
8.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:
8.6.1 Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:
8.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556, Density of Soil In-Place By the Sand-Cone Method.
GI rev. 07/2015 8.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D 6938, Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).
8.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D 1557, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer and 18-Inch Drop.
8.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D 4829, Expansion Index Test.
9. PROTECTION OF WORK
9.1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.
9.2 After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant.
10. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS
10.1 Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.
10.2 The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications.
GI rev. 07/2015