DOCSLIB.ORG

Geotechnical Investigation Lantern Crest Ridge Ii 11010 Sunset Trail Santee, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geotechnical Investigation Lantern Crest Ridge Ii 11010 Sunset Trail Santee, California REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION LANTERN CREST RIDGE II 11010 SUNSET TRAIL SANTEE, CALIFORNIA Prepared for DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTOR, INC. 110 Town Center Parkway Santee, California 92071 Prepared by GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 San Diego, California 92126 Project No. SD528 June 19, 2017 Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD528 Lantern Crest Ridge II June 19, 2017 Development Contractor, Inc. Page 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 5 1.1 Scope of Services ...................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Site Description ........................................................................................................ 5 1.3 Proposed Development ............................................................................................ 6 2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION .................................................................... 6 3.0 INFILTRATION TESTING ................................................................................................ 7 4.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................... 7 4.1 Granitic Rock ............................................................................................................ 8 4.2 Colluvium .................................................................................................................. 8 4.3 Groundwater ............................................................................................................ 8 5.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .................................................................................................... 9 5.1 Ground Rupture ........................................................................................................ 9 5.2 Seismicity .................................................................................................................. 9 5.3 Soil Liquefaction and Seismic Compaction ............................................................... 9 5.4 Landslides and Slope Instability ............................................................................. 10 5.5 Rockfall ................................................................................................................... 10 5.6 Expansive Soils ........................................................................................................ 10 5.7 Tsunamis, Seiches and Flooding ............................................................................. 10 6.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 10 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 11 7.1 Earthwork ............................................................................................................... 11 7.1.1 Site Preparation .......................................................................................... 12 7.1.2 Remedial Earthwork ................................................................................... 12 7.1.3 Over‐Excavation ......................................................................................... 12 7.1.4 Fill Materials ............................................................................................... 13 7.1.5 Import Soil .................................................................................................. 13 7.1.6 Fill Compaction ........................................................................................... 13 7.1.7 Fill Slope Construction ................................................................................ 13 7.1.8 Cut Slope Construction ............................................................................... 14 7.1.9 Excavation Characteristics .......................................................................... 14 Lantern Crest Ridge II GeoRpt (Group Delta 17‐0057).doc Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD528 Lantern Crest Ridge II June 19, 2017 Development Contractor, Inc. Page 4 7.1.10 Temporary Excavations .............................................................................. 14 7.2 Seismic Design Criteria ........................................................................................... 15 7.3 Shallow Foundations .............................................................................................. 15 7.3.1 Allowable Vertical Bearing Capacity ........................................................... 15 7.3.2 Settlement .................................................................................................. 15 7.3.3 Lateral Resistance ....................................................................................... 16 7.3.4 Slope Setback ............................................................................................. 16 7.4 On‐Grade Slabs ....................................................................................................... 16 7.4.1 Moisture Protection for On‐Grade Slabs .................................................... 16 7.5 Earth‐Retaining Structures ..................................................................................... 17 7.5.1 Seismic Wall Design .................................................................................... 18 7.5.2 Segmental Retaining Walls ......................................................................... 18 7.6 Exterior Surface Improvements ............................................................................. 19 7.6.1 Exterior Concrete Slabs .............................................................................. 20 7.6.2 Asphalt Concrete ........................................................................................ 20 7.6.3 Portland Cement Concrete Pavements ...................................................... 20 7.7 Pipelines ................................................................................................................. 21 7.7.1 Thrust Blocks .............................................................................................. 21 7.7.2 Modulus of Soil Reaction ............................................................................ 21 7.7.3 Pipe Bedding ............................................................................................... 21 7.8 Reactive Soils .......................................................................................................... 21 7.9 Grading Plan Design ............................................................................................... 22 7.10 Surface Drainage .................................................................................................... 22 7.11 Stormwater Infiltration .......................................................................................... 23 8.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ...................................................................... 23 9.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING ............................................................ 23 10.0 LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................................. 24 11.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 25 Lantern Crest Ridge II GeoRpt (Group Delta 17‐0057).doc Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD528 Lantern Crest Ridge II June 19, 2017 Development Contractor, Inc. Page 5 TABLES Table 1 – 2016 CBC Acceleration Response Spectra FIGURES Figure 1A – Site Location Map Figure 1B – Site Vicinity Plan Figures 2A and 2B – Geotechnical Maps Figure 3 – Regional Geologic Map Figure 4 – Fault Location Map Figure 5 – Typical Transition Details Figure 6 – Slope Grading Details Figure 7A – Lateral Earth Pressures for Yielding Retaining Walls Figure 7B – Lateral Earth Pressures for Restrained Retaining Walls Figure 8 – Wall Drain Details Figure 9 – Segmental Wall Drains APPENDICES Appendix A – Field Exploration Appendix B – Laboratory Testing Appendix C – Infiltration Feasibility Assessment Lantern Crest Ridge II GeoRpt (Group Delta 17‐0057).doc Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD528 Lantern Crest Ridge II June 19, 2017 Development Contractor, Inc. Page 5 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results from our geotechnical investigation for the proposed Lantern Crest Ridge II development in Santee, California. The approximate location of the site is shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1A. The site vicinity is shown in Figure 1B. Geotechnical Maps with aerial images and preliminary grading plans are shown in Figures 2A and 2B, respectively. The approximate locations of the exploratory boring, test pits and interpreted site geology are also shown in Figures 2A and 2B. The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to characterize geotechnical conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction. The recommendations are based on our recent subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, geologic and engineering analyses, and our previous experience with similar geologic conditions. 1.1 Scope of Services This report was prepared in general accordance with the provisions of the referenced proposal (GDC, 2017). In summary, we
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Southward Continuation of the San Jacinto Fault Zone Through and Beneath the Extra and Elmore Ranch Left-Lateral Fault Arrays, Southern California
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 5-2013 Southward Continuation of the San Jacinto Fault Zone through and beneath the Extra and Elmore Ranch Left-Lateral Fault Arrays, Southern California Steven Jesse Thornock Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Geology Commons Recommended Citation Thornock, Steven Jesse, "Southward Continuation of the San Jacinto Fault Zone through and beneath the Extra and Elmore Ranch Left-Lateral Fault Arrays, Southern California" (2013). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 1978. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/1978 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SOUTHWARD CONTINUATION OF THE SAN JACINTO FAULT ZONE THROUGH AND BENEATH THE EXTRA AND ELMORE RANCH LEFT- LATERAL FAULT ARRAYS, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA by Steven J. Thornock A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Geology Approved: ________________ ________________ Susanne U. Janecke James P. Evans Major Professor Committee Member ________________ ________________ Anthony Lowry Mark R. McLellan Committee Member Vice President of Research and Dean of the School of Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2013 ii ABSTRACT Southward Continuation of the San Jacinto Fault Zone through and beneath the Extra and Elmore Ranch Left-Lateral Fault Arrays, Southern California by Steven J. Thornock, Master of Science Utah State University, 2013 Major Professor: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a - 2002 California Fault Parameters
    APPENDIX A - 2002 CALIFORNIA FAULT PARAMETERS FAULT NAME AND GEOMETRY Fault Slip Down Dip (ss) strike slip, (r) reverse, (n) normal Length +/- Rate +/- Rank Mmax Width +/- Ruptop Rupbot Dip Endpt N Endpt. S COMMENTS (rl) rt. lateral, (ll) left lateral, (o) oblique (km) (mm/yr) (1) (2) (km) (3) (4) (5) (W) (E) Note: Entry highlighted in yellow indicates modifications to 1996 fault parameters. Entry highlighted in grey with red text indicates 1996 source that has been deleted in the 2002 fault parameters. A FAULTS SAN ANDREAS FAULT ZONE San Andreas (Coachella) (rl-ss) 96 10 25.0 5.0 P 7.2 12 2 0 12 90 -116.47; -115.71; Slip rate based on Sieh and Williams (1990); Sieh (1986); Keller et 33.92 33.35 al. (1982); Bronkowski (1981). San Andreas (San Bernardino) (rl-ss) 103 10 24.0 6.0 M 7.5 18 2 0 18 90 -117.50; -116.48; Minor modifications to digitial fault trace and minor length 34.29 33.92 modification. San Andreas (Mojave) (rl-ss) 103 10 30.0 7.0 P 7.4 12 2 0 12 90 -118.51; -117.50 Minor modifications to digitial fault trace. 1996 slip rate based on 34.70 34.29 Sieh (1984), Salyards et al. (1992), and WGCEP (1995). San Andreas (Carrizo) (rl-ss) 146 15 34.0 3.0 W 7.4 12 2 0 12 90 -119.87; -118.51; Minor modifications to digitial fault trace and minor length 35.31 34.70 modification. 1996 slip rate based on Sieh and Jahns (1984).
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report for NEHRP Grant 06HQGR0031 Detecting Hidden
    Final Report for NEHRP Grant 06HQGR0031 Detecting hidden, high-slip rate faults: S. San Jacinto fault zone Susanne U. Janecke PI 4505 Old Main Hill Department of Geology Utah State University Logan UT 84322-4505 Report by Benjamin E. Belgarde and Susanne U. Janecke 2008 This final report is a prepublication manuscript by Belgarde and Janecke. It is also Chapter 3 in Belgarde’s MS thesis. ii Publications from this research include one MS thesis, three abstracts, and one invited talk for the Second annual SoSAFE meeting in Pomona, California, Jan 31-Feb 2, 2008. Belgarde, Benjamin, 2007, Structural characterization of the three southeast segments of the Clark fault, Salton Trough, California [M.S thesis]: Utah State University: 4 plates, map scale 1:24,000. 216 p. (Benjamin Belgarde’s 2007 MS thesis consists of two prepublication manuscripts and three other thesis chapters) INVITED TALK presented by Janecke: Belgarde, B., and Janecke, S. U., 2007, A “hidden” fault? Structural geology of three segments of the Clark fault, San Jacinto fault zone, California: 20 minute presentation for SoSAFE workshop, Pomona California. Talk by Janecke and Belgarde will be posted in the near future. ABSTRACTS: Janecke, S. U., Belgarde, B. E., 2007, The width of dextral fault zones and shallow decollements of the San Jacinto fault zone, southern California: Annual meeting of the Southern California Earthquake Center, Palm Springs, CA, v. 17. http://www.scec.org/meetings/2007am/index.html Cross-sectional, structural, geomorphic and map analysis of recently relocated earthquakes (Shearer et al., 2005) reveals steep NE dips and transpression across much of the San Jacinto fault zone in accord with growing evidence for widespread transpression across the southern San Andreas fault (Fuis et al., 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Analysis of Earthquake Source Spectra and Swarms in the Salton Trough, California X
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, B09309, doi:10.1029/2011JB008263, 2011 Comprehensive analysis of earthquake source spectra and swarms in the Salton Trough, California X. Chen1 and P. M. Shearer1 Received 26 January 2011; revised 20 May 2011; accepted 30 June 2011; published 23 September 2011. [1] We study earthquakes within California’s Salton Trough from 1981 to 2009 from a precisely relocated catalog. We process the seismic waveforms to isolate source spectra, station spectra and travel‐time dependent spectra. The results suggest an average P wave Q of 340, agreeing with previous results indicating relatively high attenuation in the Salton Trough. Stress drops estimated from the source spectra using an empirical Green’s function (EGF) method reveal large scatter among individual events but a low median stress drop of 0.56 MPa for the region. The distribution of stress drop after applying a spatial‐median filter indicates lower stress drops near geothermal sites. We explore the relationships between seismicity, stress drops and geothermal injection activities. Seismicity within the Salton Trough shows strong spatial clustering, with 20 distinct earthquake swarms with at least 50 events. They can be separated into early‐Mmax and late‐Mmax groups based on the normalized occurrence time of their largest event. These swarms generally have a low skew value of moment release history, ranging from −9 to 3.0. The major temporal difference between the two groups is the excess of seismicity and an inverse power law increase of seismicity before the largest event for the late‐Mmax group. All swarms exhibit spatial migration of seismicity at a statistical significance greater than 85%.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
    2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN JUNE 2021 This page intentionally blank 2 2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN City of El Centro Prepared for: City of El Centro 1275 W. Main Street El Centro, CA 92243 Prepared by: 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 300 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Date: June 2021 This page intentionally blank ii City of El Centro 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ xi 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Urban Water Management Plan Requirements ........................................................................... 1-1 New Requirements Since 2015 ........................................................................................ 1-1 Senate Bill 7 of the Seventh Extraordinary Session of 2009, Water Conservation in the Delta Legislative Package ...................................................................................... 1-2 Assembly Bill 1668 and Senate Bill 606 ........................................................................... 1-2 1.2 Lay Description ............................................................................................................................ 1-3 Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1-3 Chapter 2: Plan
    [Show full text]
  • Imperial County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Update April
    Ju IMPERIAL COUNTY M ULTI-JURISDICTION AZARD ITIGATION H M PLAN UPDATE APRIL 2014 Imperial County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update April 2014 Adoption by Local Governing Body: §201.6(c)(5) County of Imperial RESOLUTION OF THE COUTY OF IMPERIAL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPTING THE IMPERIAL COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE RESOLUTION NO. __________ WHEREAS, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires all jurisdictions to be covered by a Pre- Disaster All Hazards Mitigation Plan to be eligible for Federal Emergency Management Agency pre- and post-disaster mitigation funds; and WHEREAS, the County of Imperial recognizes that no community is immune from natural, technological or domestic security hazards, whether it be earthquake, flood, severe winter weather, drought, heat wave, wildfire or dam failure related; and recognizes the importance of enhancing its ability to withstand hazards as well as the importance of reducing human suffering, property damage, interruption of public services and economic losses caused by those hazards; and WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and California Office of Emergency Services have developed a hazards mitigation program that assists communities in their efforts to become Disaster-Resistant Communities that focus, not just on disaster response and recovery, but also on preparedness and hazard mitigation, which enhances economic sustainability, environmental stability and social well-being; and WHEREAS, Imperial County fully participated in the Federal
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Geological Survey Final Technical Report Award No
    U.S. Geological Survey Final Technical Report Award No. G12AP20066 Recipient: University of California at Santa Barbara Mapping the 3D Geometry of Active Faults in Southern California Craig Nicholson1, Andreas Plesch2, John Shaw2 & Egill Hauksson3 1Marine Science Institute, UC Santa Barbara 2Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences, Harvard University 3Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology Principal Investigator: Craig Nicholson Marine Science Institute, University of California MC 6150, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-6150 phone: 805-893-8384; fax: 805-893-8062; email: [email protected] 01 April 2012 - 31 March 2013 Research supported by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of the Interior, under USGS Award No. G12AP20066. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors, and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. 1 Mapping the 3D Geometry of Active Faults in Southern California Abstract Accurate assessment of the seismic hazard in southern California requires an accurate and complete description of the active faults in three dimensions. Dynamic rupture behavior, realistic rupture scenarios, fault segmentation, and the accurate prediction of fault interactions and strong ground motion all strongly depend on the location, sense of slip, and 3D geometry of these active fault surfaces. Comprehensive and improved catalogs of relocated earthquakes for southern California are now available for detailed analysis. These catalogs comprise over 500,000 revised earthquake hypocenters, and nearly 200,000 well-determined earthquake focal mechanisms since 1981. These extensive catalogs need to be carefully examined and analyzed, not only for the accuracy and resolution of the earthquake hypocenters, but also for kinematic consistency of the spatial pattern of fault slip and the orientation of 3D fault surfaces at seismogenic depths.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology & Soils
    4.6 Geology and Soils 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS This section provides an evaluation of the projects in relation to existing geologic and soils conditions within the project area. Information contained in this section is summarized from publications made available by the California Geological Survey (CGS) and site-specific geotechnical studies prepared by Landmark Consultants, Inc. (LCI), including a Preliminary Geotechnical and Geohazards Report for Ferrell Solar Farm (FSF) (LCI 2013a), a Preliminary Geotechnical and Geohazards Report for Rockwood Solar Farm (RSF)(LCI 2013b), a Preliminary Geotechnical and Geohazards Report for Iris Solar Farm (ISF) (LCI 2013c), and a Preliminary Geotechnical and Geohazards Report for Lyons Solar Farm (LSF)(LCI 2013d). The preliminary reports prepared by LCI are included in Appendix G of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 4.6.1 Environmental Setting The project sites are located in the Colorado Desert Physiographic province of southern California. The dominant feature of the Colorado Desert province is the Salton Trough, a geologic structural depression resulting from large-scale regional faulting. The trough is bounded on the northeast by the San Andreas Fault and Chocolate Mountains and the southwest by the Peninsular Range and faults of the San Jacinto Fault Zone. The Salton Trough represents the northward extension of the Gulf of California, containing both marine and non-marine sediments since the Miocene Epoch. Tectonic activity that formed the trough continues at a high rate as evidenced by deformed young sedimentary deposits and high levels of seismicity (LCI 2013a-d). Figure 4.6-1 illustrates the location of the project area in relation to regional faults and physiographic features.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Report on Seismological and Geotechnical Engineering Aspects of the April 4 2010 Mw
    1.0 Introduction 1.1 Introduction The M7.2 mainshock of the Sierra El Mayor ­ Cucapah earthquake occurred at 3:40 pm local time on April 4, 2010, which was Easter Sunday. The mainshock was followed by a sequence of aftershocks that were felt during the reconnaissance effort and continue to the present. The mainshock had an estimated focal depth of 10 km (USGS, 2010) and struck in the El Mayor and Cucapah mountains to the southwest of Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico. The epicenter was located at 32.237°N, 115.083°W (USGS, 2010). The earthquake was felt throughout northern Baja California and southern California, and caused damage in a region from the Sea of Cortez in the south to the Salton Sea in the north. This earthquake is the largest to strike this area since 1892. The USGS seismic intensity was IX near the fault rupture, and VIII in Mexicali, which is the nearest densely­ populated area. The largest peak ground acceleration of 0.58g was recorded at McCabe School about 5 km southwest of El Centro, CA. The earthquake ruptured the surface for as much as 140 km from the northern tip of the Sea of Cortez northwestward to nearly the international border, with strike­slip, normal, and oblique displacements observed. The earthquake resulted in two fatalities and hundreds of injuries. Damage occurred to irrigation systems, water treatment facilities, buildings, bridges, earth dams, and roadways. Liquefaction and ground subsidence was widespread in the Mexicali Valley, and left wheat and hay fields submerged under water and destroyed many canals that irrigate fields in the predominantly agricultural region.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement for Expansion and Reconfiguration of the Land Port of Entry in Downtown Calexico, California May 2011
    Final Environmental Impact Statement for Expansion and Reconfiguration of the Land Port of Entry in Downtown Calexico, California May 2011 General Services Administration 450 Golden Gate Ave San Francisco, California 94102 COVER SHEET RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION TITLE: Final Environmental Impact Statement for Expansion and Reconfiguration of the Land Port of Entry in Downtown Calexico, California CONTACT: For further information concerning this Environmental Impact Statement, contact Ms. Maureen Sheehan NEPA Project Manager Portfolio Management Division Capital Investment Branch (9P2PTC) U.S. General Services Administration 400 15th St, S.W. Auburn, Washington 98001 Telephone: (253) 931-7548 E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The General Services Administration (GSA) proposes expanding and reconfiguring the Land Port of Entry in downtown Calexico, California to improve its safety, security, and operations. All existing port structures would be demolished. GSA has identified and assessed a Preferred Alternative, a larger expansion alternative, and the No Action Alternative. The Preferred Alternative includes building new inspection facilities for southbound privately owned vehicles (POVs) and buses on the site of the former commercial vehicle inspection facility and building new facilities at the site of the existing port for inspection of northbound POVs, buses, and pedestrians. Public Comments: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued on July 10, 2010. Public hearings were held June 22 and July
    [Show full text]
  • 2.4 Geology and Soils This Section Discusses the Existing Geology and Soils in Imperial County
    Imperial County COSE Environmental Inventory Report RESOURCE INVENTORY 2.4 Geology and Soils This section discusses the existing geology and soils in Imperial County. The regulatory environment and existing conditions have been assessed and analyzed to determine associated constraints and opportunities for updating the COSE for the County. 2.4.1 Terminology The following is a summary of geology and soils terminology discussed in this section. Corrosive Soils – Soil corrosion is a complex phenomenon. Chemical reactions between existing elements take place in soils, many of which are not fully understood. The relative importance of variables changes for different materials, making a universal guide to corrosion impossible. Expansive Soils – Composed of a significant amount of clay particles, which can expand (absorb water) or contract (release water). These shrink and swell characteristics can result in structural stress and place other loads on these soils. Expansive soils are often associated with geological units having marginal stability and can occur in low-lying alluvial basins and along hillsides. Facies – A distinctive rock feature with specific characteristics that form under certain conditions of sedimentation. Fault Rupture – The California Geological Survey places active faults with surface expression in a zone referred to as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Earthquake Fault Zones are regulatory zones around active faults. These zones are defined by turning points connected by straight lines. The delineation of the Earthquake Fault Zones is intended to prohibit construction of new habitable structures near or on active faults in California for the purpose of protecting human health and safety. Ground Lurching – Typically results where loose to poorly consolidated soil deposits on or adjacent to steep slopes move laterally as the result of strong ground shaking during a seismic event.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment for the State of California
    CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DMG OPEN-FILE REPORT 96-08 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY USGS OPEN-FILE REPORT 96-706 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1996 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION Division of Mines and Geology THE RESOURCES AGENCY STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DOUGLAS P. WHEELER PETE WILSON LAWRENCE J. GOLDZBAND SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES GOVERNOR DIRECTOR DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY JAMES F. DAVIS, STATE GEOLOGIST Copyright © 1996 by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent of the Division of Mines and Geology. The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any particular purpose." STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY__________________________________________PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY HEADQUARTERS 801 K Street, MS 12-30 Sacramento, CA 95814-3530 Phone: (916)445-1825 FAX: (916)445-5718 DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY OPEN-FILE REPORT 96-08 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OPEN-FILE REPORT 96-706 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. By Mark D. Petersen, William A. Bryant, Chris H. Cramer, Tianqing Cao and Michael S. Reichle of the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology; and Arthur D. Frankel, James J. Lienkaemper, Patricia A. McCrory and David P. Schwartz of the U.S. Geological Survey. 1996. PRICE: $25.00 SUMMARY This report documents a probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the state of California and represents an extensive effort to obtain consensus within the scientific community regarding earthquake parameters that contribute to the seismic hazard.
    [Show full text]