0104-087 (COMM) Geotechnical Evaluation ReportEarth Systems
Southwest
I Y OF LA QUI-
BUILDING & SAF-ETY DEPT
AP
LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB
77-750 AVENUE 50
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253
' GEOTECHIVICAL EVALUATION REPORT
DISTRESS TO CLUBHOUSE FACILITY r
LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Earth Systems Consultants
thWest 79-81113 Country Club Drive
� Sou
Bermuda Dunes,,CA 92201
(760)345-1588
(800)924-7015
FAX (760) 345-7315
January 24, 2000 File No. 07457-01
00-01-728
La Quinta Country Club
77-750 Avenue 50
La Quinta, California 92253
Attention: Mr. Robert Moore
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Report of Distress to Clubhouse Facility
Project: La Quinta Country Club
La Quinta, California
We take pleasure to present'this Geotechnical Reportprepared to evaluate the distress to the
clubhouse facility at the -La Quinta Country Club located in.the City of La Quinta, California.
This report presents our findings and recommendations for site grading and foundation design,
incorporating the tentative information supplied to our office. This report should stand as a .
whole, and no part of the report should be excerpted or used to the exclusion .of any other part.
This report completes our scope of service& in accordance with our agreement, dated November
17, 1999. Other services that maybe required, such as plan review and grading observation are
additional services and will be billed according to the Fee Schedule in effect at the time services
are provided. Unless requested'in writing, the client is responsible to distribute this report to the `
appropriate governing agency or other members of the design team.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional services. Please contact our office if
there are any questions or comments concerning this report or its recommendations.
Respectfully submitted,
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS -
pt•ESS/a�
Southwest
Shelton L. Stringer . U No.11N(B
GE 2266
' SER/t �,�P,���
g � . 0t
Distribution: 4/La Quinta Country Club
1/Greg Riley and Associates
1/RJG Construction Company
1NTA File
TABLE OF CONTENTS
r.
Section 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................
1.1 Project Description.........................................................................................
1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work...........................................................................
Section 2 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION...........................................................
2.1 Field Exploration:.........................................................................................
2.2 Laboratory Testing.........................................................................................
2.3 Observation of Distress..................................................................................
2.4 Floor Level Survey........................................................:................................
Section3 DISCUSSION...............................................................................................
3.1 Soil Conditions..............................................................................................
3.2 Groundwater.................................................................................................
3.3 Geologic Setting........................................................... ..................................
3.4 Seismic Setting...............................................................................................
3.5 Land Subsidence............................................................................................
Section 4 CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................
Section 5 RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................
5.1 Remedial Repairs ........................ .................:..........................................:......
5.2 Helical Anchors...................................................................................:.........
5.3 Monitoring ................................. :...................................................................
Section 6 LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES ..................................
6.1 Uniformity of Conditions and Limitations.....................................................
6.2 Additional Services........................................................................................
REFERENCES..................................................:......................................................
APPENDIX A
VicinityMap..................................................................................................
Building Plan and Exploration Locations......................................................
AerialPhotograph......................................................... ...............................
FloorLevel Survey...........................................................................I..............
Conceptual Diagram of Subsidence...............................................................
WellLocation Map.........................................................................................
Log of CPT Soundings and Borings
Table 1 — Measurement of Cracks and Distress of Clubhouse Facility
Table 2 — Measurement of Exterior Wall Cracks
Table 3 — Well Data for Wells Near La Quinta Clubhouse
APPENDIX B ,
Laboratory Test Results
APPENDIX C
Water Wells Hydrographs
APPENDIX D
Results of Field Anchor Load Tests
Page
1
1
2
2
2
3
4
4
G,
5
5
5
6
9
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
14
Figure
1
2
3
4
5
6
January 24, 2000 4- File No. 07457-01
00-01-728
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
This Geotechnical Evaluation Report has been prepared for the clubhouse facility located within
the La Quinta Country Club in the City of La Quinta, California.
The clubhouse facility is located northeast of the intersection of Avenue 50 with Eisenhower
Drive. The existing clubhouse is approximately 34 years old (circa 1966) and can generally be
described as wood frame, post and beam structure. The structure has a tile roof generally
supported by means of exterior columns as -well -as two rows of interior columns. Additionally,
occasional columns and bearing walls supported upon scattered isolated square and continuous
wall footings are on the interior of the structure.
The facility is over 500 feet in length. The easterly and westerly ends of the building are related
to golf cart maintenance and overall maintenance functions, respectively. These portions of the
structure are of dissimilar design from the main portion of the structure. There are underground
utilities near and within the building area. These utility lines include but are not limited to
domestic water, electric, sewer, and irrigation lines.
Beginning in 1994, structural distress was noted within the main clubhouse. No distress was
noted at the time in the eastern and western ends of the facility. A distress evaluation was
conducted by Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. of San Jacinto, California in 1996 including
soil borings and floor level survey. Pressure grouting was recommended.
Pressure grouting was conducted between September 23 and 27, 1996. During that period, a
total of 35 injection points.were installed. These injection points were drilled or driven to depths
ranging from 2 feet to 25 feet beneath the existing ground surface. Pressure grouting was
conducted within 24 of the injection points. The injection points were along the south column
line of the cocktail lounge and dining rooms, east wall of the dining room, and south wall of the
lounge room.
After pressure grouting, periodic observations and limited floor -level surveys were conducted by
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. Only minor adjustments or settlement was noted in 1997.
However, in 1999 significant cracking and lateral movement resumed. The distress is now more
widespread from the western and eastern ends of the facility. Notably, new cracks have
appeared, and older cracks have widened since the 7.1 magnitude Hector Mine Earthquake of
October 16, 1999.
Inland Foundation Engineering and their consulting geologist, Don Swartzkopf, have postulated
the distress may be the result of regional land subsidence related to recent lowering of the
groundwater table in the La Quinta area.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
January 24, 2000 -2- File No. 07457-01
00-01-728
1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work
The purpose for our services was to'evaluate the site soil conditions and to provide professional
opinions and recommendations regarding the proposed development of the site. The scope of
work included the following:
• A general reconnaissance of the site.
• Shallow subsurface exploration by drilling one exploratory boring and two cone
penetrometer soundings to depths ranging from 65 to 85 feet.
• Laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained from the exploratory boring.
• Floor level survey of the facility.
• Review of selected published technical literature pertaining to the site and previous
geotechnical reports and correspondence prepared for the clubhouse.
• Engineering analysis and evaluation of the acquired data from the exploration and testing
programs.
• A summary of our findings and recommendations in this written report.
This report contains the following:
• . Discussions on subsurface soil and groundwater conditions.
• Discussions on regional and local geologic conditions.
• Discussions on the seismic setting.
• Discussions on the probable cause of distress.
• Graphic and tabulated results of laboratory tests and field studies.
• Recommendations regarding remedial foundation repair.
Not Contained In This Report: Although available through Earth Systems Consultants
Southwest, the current scope of our services does not include:
• A corrosive study to determine cathodic protection of concrete or buried pipes.
• An environmental assessment.
• Investigation for the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil,
surface water, groundwater, or air on, below, or adjacent to the subject property.
Section 2
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
2.1 Field Exploration
CPT Soundings: Subsurface exploration was conducted on December 3, 1999, using Holguin,
Fahan, & Associates, Inc. of Irvine, California to advance two electric cone penetrometer (CPT)
soundings to an approximate depth of 85 feet. The soundings were made at the locations shown
on Figure 2, in Appendix A.
CPT soundings provide a continuous profile of the soil stratigraphy with readings every 5 cm (2
inch) in depth. Direct sampling for visual and physical confirmation of soil properties is
generally recommended with CPT exploration in large geographical regions. The author of this
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
January 24, 2000 -3- File No. 07457-01
00-01-728
report has generally confirmed accuracy of CPT interpretations from extensive work at numerous
Imperial and Coachella Valley sites.
The CPT exploration was conducted by hydraulically advancing an instrument Hogentogler 10
cm2 conical probe into the ground at a ground rate of 2 cm per second using a 23-ton truck as a
reaction mass. An electronic data acquisition system recorded a nearly continuous log of the
resistance of the soil against the cone tip (Qc) and soil friction against the cone sleeve (Fs) as the
probe was advanced. Empirical relationships (Robertson and Campanella, 1989) were then
applied to the data to give a continuous profile of the soil stratigraphy. Interpretation of CPT
data provides correlations for SPT blow count, phi (0) angle (soil friction angle), ultimate stress
(Su) of clays, and soil type.
Interpretive logs of the soundings were prepared and edited after examination of retrieved
samples in the laboratory. The subsurface CPT logs are presented in Appendix A of this report.
The stratification lines shown on the subsurface logs represent the approximate boundaries
between the various strata. However, the transition from one stratum to another may be
gradational.
Soil Boring: An exploratory boring was drilled to a depth of 65 feet below the existing ground
surface to observe the soil profile and to obtain samples for laboratory testing. The boring was
drilled on December 9, 1999 using 8-inch outside diameter hollow -stem augers, and powered by
a CME 45 truck -mounted drilling rig. The boring location is shown on Figure 2, in Appendix A.
The location shown is approximate, established by pacing and sighting from existing topographic
features.
Samples were obtained within the test boring using a Standard Penetration (SPT) sampler
(ASTM D 1586) and a Modified California (MC) ring sampler (ASTM D 3550 with shoe similar
to ASTM D 1586). The SPT sampler has a 2-inch outside diameter and a 1.38-inch inside
diameter. The MC sampler has a 3-inch outside diameter and a 2.37-inch inside diameter. The
samples were obtained by driving the sampler with a 140-pound downhole hammer dropping 30
inches in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. Recovered soil samples were sealed in
containers and returned to the laboratory. Bulk samples were also obtained from auger cuttings, -
representing a mixture of soils encountered at the depths noted.
The final log of the boring included in Appendix A, represents our interpretation of the contents
of the field log and the results of laboratory testing performed on the samples obtained during the
subsurface investigation. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between
soil types although the transitions, however, may be gradational.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Samples were reviewed along with the field log to select those that would be analyzed further.
Test results are presented in graphic and tabular form in Appendix B of this report. The tests
were conducted in general accordance with the procedures of the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) as referenced below.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
1
January 24, 2000 -4- File No. 07457-01
00-01-728
Our laboratory -testing program consisted of the following tests:
• In -situ Moisture Content and Unit Dry Weight for the ring samples (ASTM D 2937).
• Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D422) to classify and evaluate soil composition. The
gradation characteristics of selected samples were made by hydrometer and sieve analysis
procedures.
• Consolidation (Collapse Potential) (ASTM D2435) to evaluate the compressibility and
hydroconsolidation (collapse) potential of the soil.
• Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index (ASTM D4318) to evaluate the properties of clayey
soils.
2.3 Observation of Distress
The primary distress to the clubhouse facility is the lateral separation of a main crack system that
traverses along the length of the entire facility (about 5004eet). This lateral separation varies
from 0.5 to 2.0 inches wide. Perceptible differential tilting of columns and walls may be
observed in several areas, especially at the front entrance, foyer, and northeast dining room.
Substantial cracking of walls may be observed in the ladies locker room. In the Pro -Shop, the
differential settlement of the floor slab can be felt through the carpet. The west window to the
Pro -Shop has had extra furring strips added to keep the glass from falling out from the lateral
distortion. Noteworthy, is that many of the floor slabs had separated an additional 0.2 to 0.6
inches in the last few months since patching with grout. A partial listing of observed cracks and
distress is provided in Table 1 in Appendix A.
Perhaps as notable and impressive as the distress within the clubhouse facility is the observed
distress to garden. walls and flatwork near the facility. These observations indicate the area
affected is regional around the clubhouse. The masonry walls on the north side of the clubhouse
and along each side of Eisenhower Drive indicate that 2 to 4-inches of lateral extension have
occurred since their construction. The north wall moreover, indicates that about 1-inch of this
lateral extension occurred after the October 16, 1999, Hector Mine Earthquake. Several of the
cracks are fresh and were not observed by maintenance personnel until after the earthquake. A
summary of these observations is included in Table 2 (Appendix A). An estimated area affected
is shown on Figure 3 (Appendix A).
2.4 Floor Level Survey
On January 11 and 12, 2000, one of our personnel conducted a floor level survey using a Stanley
Compulevel® performed over the entire clubhouse facility. An arbitrary base elevation of zero
("0") was set at the column on the northeast side of the foyer next to the fireplace. This base
elevation was correlated to a reference datum mark on the north side of the entrance curb for
future reference. The purpose of the floor level survey is to evaluate relative differential
elevations of the floor. A 10 x 10-foot grid pattern was used throughout, corresponding to most
of the column lines in the main clubhouse building.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
January 24, 2000 -5- File No. 07457-01
00-01-728
The results of the floor level survey are shown on Figure 4, using a computer -generated contour
map from SURFER.
Additional data for the exterior patio and shop floors were collected but not plotted. These floors
were constructed with slopes. The data collected is for a baseline reference for any future floor -
level surveys.
The floor -level survey indicates that about 5-inches of differential elevation exists along the
length of the clubhouse building, presumably most of it from settlement. It should be noted that
the floor level in the hallway and portions of the Pro -Shop floor have been altered. Additionally,
the floor level in the lounge has a raised floor. The floor -level survey indicates substantial
movement has occurred in the ladies locker room, Pro -shop, and northeast corner of the dining
room, correlating to observed distress. An apparent ridgeline exists along the axis of the building
that correlates to the lateral cracking in the building floor. A comparison with the floor level
survey conducted by Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. in 1996 indicates a similar pattern
except the magnitude of differential settlement has increased. In 1996, 3-inches of differential
elevation was observed, now increasing to about 5-inches. The differential settlement in the
locker room and northeast dining room has increased by 0.5 to 1-inch.
Section 3
DISCUSSION
3.1 Soil Conditions
The field exploration indicates that site soils consist primarily of an upper layer of medium dense
to dense silty sand that is 8 to 12 feet thick. This silty sand is underlain with interbedded sandy
silts, clayey silts, silty clay, and silty sand to a depth of about 66 to 70-feet. The soils below 10-
feet are wet and near saturation. Below 66 to 70-feet lies generally dense to hard, sandy and
clayey soils. The logs provided in Appendix A.include a more detailed description of the soils.
.encountered. The logs generally agree with the previous investigation by Inland Foundation
Engineering, Inc., except the silt soils are interbedded with clayey silts and the silty clays.
3.2 Groundwater
Perched groundwater was encountered in the boring and CPT soundings at 45 to 68 feet. The
depth to groundwater in the area is believed to be about 110`,feet based on recent water well data
obtained from the Coachella Valley Water District, .as discussed further below. However, there
is uncertainty in the accuracy of short -terns water level measurements. Groundwater levels may
fluctuate with regional drawdown, irrigation, drainage, and site grading. The groundwater levels
detected may not represent an accurate or permanent condition.
3.3 Geologic Setting
Regional Geology: The site lies within the Coachella Valley, a part of the Colorado Desert
geomorphic province. A significant feature within the Colorado Desert geomorphic province is
the Salton Trough. The Salton Trough is a large northwest -trending structural depression that
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
January 24, 2000 - -6- File No. 07457-01.
00-01-728'
extends from San Gorgonio Pass, -approximately 180 miles to the Gulf of California. Much of
this depression in the area of the Salton Sea is below sea level.
a
The Coachella Valley forms the northerly portion of the Salton Trough. The Coachella Valley
contains a thick sequence of sedimentarydeposits that are. Miocene to recent in age. Mountains
surrounding the Coachella Valley include the Little San Bernardino Mountains on the northeast,
foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains on the northwest, and the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa
Mountains on the southwest. These mountains expose primarily Precambrian metamorphic and
Mesozoic granitic rocks. The San Andreas Fault zone within the Coachella Valley consists of,
the Garnet Hill Fault, the Banning'Fault, and the Mission Creek Fault that traverse along the
northeast margin of the valley. a
Local Geolp-9r. The project site lies at an elevation of.about 45-feet above mean sea level in the
lower part of the La Quinta Cove portion of the Coachella Valley. The La Quinta Cove is
situated "on an alluvial owedge between two granite mountain'spurs of the Santa Rosa Mountains.
The project area was at one time covered by the waters of ancient Lake Cahuilla. The sediments,
within the cove consist of fine to coarse -grained sands with interb_ edded clays, silts, and -gravels.
-of aeolian (wind-blown), alluvial (water laid), and lacustrine (lake bed) origin.
l * Geohydologic Setting: The site. lies within the Thermal-•subbasin of the Coachella Valley
groundwater basin. The "thermal subbasin is subdivided into four generalized zones: a semi
perched zone with alternating clay layers to about 100 foot depth, underlain by a upper and lower
aquifer, separated by an aquitard layer. Domestic wells in the region derive their water ,from the
upper and lower aquifers, generally from about 200 to 1000 feet deep.'
3.4 Seismic Setting
_ Seismic Sources: Our research of regional faulting indicates that several active faults or seismic
zones lie within-62 miles (100 kilometers), of the project site: The primary seismic hazard to the
site is strong groundshaking from earthquakes along the San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults that.
lie'about 7.1 and 19 miles distance, respectively
Surface Fault Rupture: The project site does not lie within a currently delineated State, of
California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart, 1994).. Well -delineated fault lines cross.
through this region as shown on California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) maps
(Jennings, 1994 and Rodgers, 1965). Therefore, active fault rupture is unlikely to occur at the
project site. While .fault rupture would most likely occur along previously established fault
traces, future fault rupture could occur at other locations:
Both the Jennings and Rodgers geologic maps `indicate that a series of northwest -southeast
trending faults cross the mountain canyons surrounding La Quinta. Jennings classifies these
faults as pre -Quaternary (last movement before 21-million years in 'geologic time). Therefore;.
these faults may be .considered inactive and improbable to have caused the observed distress.
They have however, influenced the structural morphology (form) of the mountains.
Historic Seismicity: Five historic seismic events (5.9 M or greater) have significantly affected the -
Coachella Valley since the development of the country club. They areas follows:
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST r'
January 24, 2000 -7- File No. 07457-01
00-01-728
• Palm Springs Earthquake - A magnitude 5.9 ML (6.2MW) earthquake occurred on July 8, 1986 in the
Painted Hills causing minor surface creep of the Banning segment of the San Andreas Fault. This
event was strongly felt in the Palm Springs area and caused structural damage, as well as injuries.
• Desert Hot Springs Earthquake - On April 22, 1992, a magnitude 6.1 ML (6.1MW) earthquake
occurred in the mountains 9 miles east of Desert Hot Springs. Structural damage and minor injuries
occurred in the Palm Springs area as a result of this .earthquake.
• Landers & Big Bear Earthquakes - Early on June 28, 1992, a magnitude 7.5 Ms (7.3Mw) earthquake
occurred near Landers, the largest seismic event in Southern California for 40 years. Surface rupture;,
occurred just south of the town of Yucca Valley and extended some 43 miles toward Barstow. About
three hours later, a magnitude 6.6 Ms (6.4MW) earthquake occurred near Big Bear Lake. No
significant structural damage from these earthquakes was reported in the Palm Springs area.
• Hector Mine Earthquake - On October 16, 1999, a magnitude 7.1MW earthquake occurred on the
Lavic Lake and Bullion Mountain Faults north of 29 Palms. This event while widely felt, no
significant structural damage has been reported in the Coachella Valley.
Site Acceleration: To assess the potential intensity of ground motion, we have estimated the
horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) for historic and design seismic events. Ground
motions are dependent primarily on the earthquake magnitude and distance to the seismogenic
(rupture) zone. Accelerations also are dependent upon attenuation by rock and soil deposits,
direction of rupture, and type of fault. For these reasons, ground motions may vary considerably
in the same general area.
Important factors influencing the structural performance are the duration and frequency of strong
ground motion, local subsurface conditions, soil -structure interaction; and structural details.
Because of these factors, an effective peak acceleration (EPA) is used in structural design.
The following table provides the probabilistic estimate of the PGA and EPA taken from the 1996
CDMG/USGS seismic hazard maps.
Estimate of PGA and EPA from 1996 CDMG/USGS
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Mans
Risk
Equivalent Return
Period ( ears)
PGA (a) (1)
Approximate
EPA (g) (2)
10% exceedance in 50 years
475
0.47
0.43
Notes:
1. Based on soft rock site, Site Class SBic
2. Spectral acceleration (SA) at period of 0.3 seconds divided by 2.5 for 5% damping, as defined by
the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC, 1996).
UBC Seismic Coefficients: The Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic design are based on a
Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) that has an earthquake ground motion with a 10% probability of
occurrence in 50 years. The PGA and EPA estimates given above are provided for information
on the seismic risk inherent in the UBC design. The following lists the seismic and site
coefficients given in Chapter 16 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC).
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
January 24, 2000 -8- File No. 07457-01
00-01-728
UBC Seismic Coefficients for Chapter 16 Seismic Provisions
Seismic Zone:
Seismic Zone Factor, Z:
Soil Profile Type:
Seismic Source Type:
Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source:
Near Source Factor, Na:
Near Source Factor, Nv:
Seismic. Coefficient, Ca:
Seismic Coefficient, Cv:
4
0.4
Sp
A
11.4 km 7.1 miles
1.00
1.13
0.44 = 0.44Na
0.73 ' = 0.64Nv
Reference
Figure" 16-2
Table 16-I
Table 16-J
Table 16-U
(San Andreas Fault)
Table 16-S
Table 16-T -
Table 16-Q
Table 16-R
Historic Site Acceleration: The following table gives estimated ground acceleration experienced
at the site from significant earthquakes listed above. These ground accelerations are estimated
from comparison of nearby recorded seismograph stations. in Indio, Palm Desert, and Lake .
Cahuilla Park in La Quinta, as well as calculated from attenuation relationships.
Earthquake
Moment
Epicentral
Estimated PGA
Estimated
Magnitude
Distance to Site
(g)
Magnitude
(mi)
Weighted PGA
*
1986 Palm Springs
6.2
26
0.04
0.03
1992 Desert Hot
6.1
18
0.10
0.06
Springs
1992 Landers
7.3
37
0.08
0.07
1992 Big Bear
6.4
46
0.04
0.03
1999 Hector Mine
7.1
62
0.10
0.09
*Adjusted to reference magnitude 7.5 using 1997 NCEER weighting relationship. Magnitude weighting adjusts -for.
duration of the seismic event.
This table illustrates that the most significant seismic events affecting the site since the
development of the La Quinta County Club are the 1992 Landers and recent 1999 Hector Mine
earthquakes. Observed progression of distress occurred after these events, especially the recent
Hector Mine Earthquake. We speculate these seismic events may have released accumulated
strain within the subsurface soils from consolidation, as discussed below. Since no distress was
noted after the 1986 Palm Springs earthquake, the threshold acceleration to induce lateral strain
release may be about 0.05g. Note that the expected site acceleration from the design seismic
event given above is far greater than historic events.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
January 24, 2000 -9- File No. 07457-01
00-01-728
3.5 Land Subsidence
In our opinion, the most likely cause for the observed distress to the clubhouse facility and
surrounding area is the result of land subsidence from groundwater withdrawals. We were
provided by the Coachella Valley Water District water well records and hydrographs for several. -
wells near the La Quinta Clubhouse. A listing of water well records reviewed and their locations
are shown on Table 3 and Figure 6, respectively (Appendix A). Hydrographs for the water wells
of the La Quinta Country Club and the municipal wells of the CVWD are included in Appendix
C. These hydrographs indicate that groundwater levels have dropped dramatically 31 to 70-feet
in the north La Quinta cove area in the last twenty years. This corresponds to the increased water
usage from the rapid growth of the City of La Quinta and golf course development.
Land subsidence occurs when the groundwater levels drop to cause an increase in effective
overburden stress to underlying sediments and resulting in further consolidation of these
sediments. As the sediments consolidate to this increased stress, subsidence of the ground
occurs. Land subsidence is common in valleys containing aquifer systems that are in part
composed of fine-grained sediments and have undergone extensive groundwater development.
The CVWD has commissioned a study through the U.S. Geological Survey in 1996 to monitor
land subsidence because of groundwater withdrawal (Ikehara, et al, 1996). Land subsidence has
historically occurred in the lower Coachella Valley, because of the decline in groundwater levels
from pumping prior to the import of Colorado River water, beginning in 1949. However, since
the 1970's, the demand for water has exceeded the import of water and increased pumping has
again lowered the groundwater table.
On July 23, 1948, a large fissure was observed to have formed about one mile southeast of the La
Quinta Country Club near Avenue 52, west of Adams Street. This fissure is believed to be a
result of land subsidence.
The mechanism for the observed distress and lateral extension may be explained by differential
subsidence across an inferred buried mountain ridge. This buried ridge can be inferred by an
extension of the southeast, descending ridge just northeast of the corner of Eisenhower and
Avenida Fernando. The buried mountain ridge may only be a few hundred feet below the
clubhouse facility and be roughly aligned with the length of the building. Conversely, the
surrounding sediments are at least 900 to over 1100-feet deep, based on water well records. -The
land subsidence over deeper sediments may be relatively uniform, except where sediments are
thinner over a buried ridge. The result is differential subsidence causing settlement. The
ridgeline causes a tension zone above the ridge that results in lateral extension. Figure 5
(Appendix A) shows a conceptual diagram of the mechanism of land;subsidence that explains the
observed distress to the facility and area.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
January 24, 2000 -10- File No. 07457-01
00-01-728
Section 4
CONCLUSIONS
The following is a summary of our conclusions and professional opinions based on the data
obtained from a review of selected technical literature and the site evaluation.
_ The observed distress to the clubhouse facility is significant and classifies as "severe to very
severe" (Burland et. al., 1977). Crack widths of 1 to 2-inches are common along a central
crack system along the axis of the facility. Differential settlement of about 5-inches may
have occurred. This movement appears to be progressive. Significant cracks and lateral
separations (2 to 4 inches cumulative) are also observed in exterior masonry walls and
flatwork in areas around the clubhouse facility.
• The project site is in seismic Zone 4 as defined in the Uniform Building Code. A qualified
professional who is aware, of the site seismic setting should design any permanent structure
constructed on the site.
• Land subsidence from groundwater withdrawals is the most plausible cause of the observed
distress. Differential settlement and lateral extension of cracks are probably the result of an
inferred buried mountain ridge aligned with the building.
• The building is repairable and may be stabilized by helical anchors and lateral tiebacks. The
advantage of the helical anchor system is that it can be readjusted. Further progression of
movement may be expected, especially after a major earthquake.
• Earth Systems Consultants Southwest (ESCSW) should provide geotechnical engineering
services during project design and foundation construction phases of the work. This is to
observe compliance with the design concepts and recommendations, and to allow design
changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start
of construction. Plans and specifications should be provided to ESCSW prior to
construction.
Section 5
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Remedial Repairs,
On January 11, 2000, a consensus between the author, structural engineer, Greg Riley, and
foundation specialty contractor, Ken Drake with RJG Construction, was reached during a site
meeting. This consensus is that the clubhouse facility could be repaired and reasonably
stabilized using helical anchors. The primary goal of remedial repairs is to restore the
appearance of the building so that obvious distress is corrected. These include the following:
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
January 24, 2000 -11-- File No. 07457-01
00-01-728
• underpinning perimeter column footings of north and south walls with helical anchors,
discussed below,
• floor support anchors on 10-foot center to raise and level floor slabs in the northeast dining
room and ladies locker room,
• replacement of portion of Pro -Shop floor slab,
• relevel southwest Pro -Shop column, reframe west Pro -Shop window,
• replace tiles that are cracked, readjust joint spacing to span lateral separation equally,
• provide lateral restraint to exterior north patio columns by tension rods to the north wall
column footings, and
• no remedial repairs to the flexible steel -frame structure on the west side are proposed at this
time.
5.2 Helical Anchors
The AB Chance Helical anchor system is the recommended means of providing stability to the
building at the north and south' walls of the main clubhouse facility where the settlement has
occurred. Beneath each column at 10-foot centers, an anchor consisting of 8, 10, 12, and 14-inch
diameter helical configuration should be installed. This helical configuration was demonstrated
to provide a design load of 20 kips at total deflections of 1/8 inch or less by means of load tests at
the site on December 9 and 10, 1999 by RJG Construction Company. These load tests were
witnessed by the author. An average depth of 10-feet should achieve the required load capacity.
The results of the load tests are presented in Appendix D.
Additionally and integral to the stabilization of the building is the installation of tieback anchors.
We recommend that tieback anchors be installed at, at least every other exterior column. At the
northeast corner of the dining room, tieback anchors are recommended for each column where,
perceptible outward tilt of the columns has occurred.
The purpose of the tieback anchors is to provide lateral restraint to the sides of the building. To
function they must develop relative lateral resistance. If the relative lateral movement between
the anchor and building are about the same, the tiebacks will require readjustment.
5.3 Monitoring
We recommend that periodic monitoring of the building occur after remedial repairs are made.
This monitoring may consist of crack measurements and floor -level survey(s). Moreover, we
recommend a leak detection survey be conducted of underground water and sewer pipes at this
time. Water leakage can exacerbate settlement problems.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
January 24, 2000 -12- File No. 07457-01
00-01-728
Section 6
LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES
6.1 Uniformity of Conditions and Limitations
Our findings and recommendations in this report are based on selected points of field
exploration, laboratory testing, and our understanding of the proposed project. Furthermore, our
findings and recommendations are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary
significantly from those found at specific exploratory locations. . Variations in soil or
groundwater conditions could exist between and beyond the exploration points. The nature and
extent of these variations may not become. evident until construction. Variations in soil or
groundwater 'may require additional studies, consultation, and possible revisions to our
recommendations.
Findings of this report are valid as of the issued date of the report. However, changes in
conditions of a property can occur with passage of time whether they are from natural processes
or works of man on this or adjoining properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate
standards occur whether they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge. Accordingly,
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 one
year.
In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the building are planned, the
conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless
the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing.
This report is issued with the understanding that the owner, or the owner's representative, has the
responsibility to bring the information and recommendations contained herein to the attention of
the engineers for the project so that they are incorporated into the plans and specifications for the
project. The owner, or the owner's representative, also has the responsibility to take the
necessary steps to see that the general contractor and all subcontractors carry out such
recommendations in the field. It is further understood that the owner or the owner's
representative is responsible for submittal of this report to the appropriate governing agencies.
Earth Systems Consultants Southwest has striven to provide our services in accordance with
generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this,locality at this time. No warranty or
guarantee is express or implied. This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and
the Client's authorized agents.
ESCSW should be provided the opportunity for a general review of final design and
specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly
interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. If ESCSW is not accorded the
privilege of making this recommended review, we can assume no responsibility for
misinterpretation of our recommendations.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
l
January 24, 2000 -13- File No. 07457-01
00-01-728 ,
Although available through Earth Systems Consultants Southwest, the current scope of our
services does not include an environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or
absence of wetlands, hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air
on, below, or adjacent to the subject property.
6.2 Additional Services
This report is based on the assumption that an adequate program -of client consultation,
construction monitoring, and testing will be performed during the final design and construction
phases to check compliance with these recommendations. Maintaining ESCSW as the
geotechnical consultant from beginning to end of the project will provide continuity of services.
The geotechnical engineering . firm providing tests and observations shall assume the
responsibility of Geotechnical Engineer of Record.
Construction monitoring and testing would be additional services provided by our firm. The
costs of these services are not included in our present fee arrangements, but can be obtained from
our office. The recommended review, tests, and observations include, but are not necessarily
limited to the following:
• Consultation during the final design stages of the project.
• Review of the foundation plans to observe that recommendations of our report have been "
properlyimplemented into the design. r
• Observation and testing during construction as required by UBC Sections 1701 and 3317,
or local grading ordinances.
• Consultation as required during construction
-000-
Appendices as cited are attached and complete this report
11
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
January 24, 2000 -14- File No. 07457-01
00-01-728
REFERENCES
Blake, B.F., 1998b, Preliminary Fault -Data for EQFAULT and FRISKSP, 71 p.
Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1993, Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak
Accelerations from Western North American Earthquakes: An Interim Report; U.S.
Geological Survey Open -File Report 93-509, 15 p.
Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1994, Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak
Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: An Interim Report, Part 2, U.S.
Geological Survey Open -File Report 94-127.
Burland, J. B., Broms, B. B: and DeMello, V.F.B. (1977), "Behavior of Foundations and
Structures: State of the Art Report," Proceedings, 9`" International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Japanese Geotechnical Society, Tokyo, Japan,
pp 495-546.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology: Guidelines for
Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117,
WWW Version.
Coachella Valley Water District, 1999, Water Well Records
Ellsworth, W.L., 1990, 'Earthquake History, 1769-1989" in: The San Andreas Fault System;
California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1515, 283 p.
Hart, E.W. 1994 rev., Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California: California Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42, 34 p.
Ikehara, M.E., Predmore, S.K., and Swope, D.J. (1996), Geodetic Network to Evaluate Historical
Elevation Changes and to Monitor Land Subsidence in the Lower Coachella Valley,
U.S.G.S., Water Resources Investigation Report 97-4237.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition.
Jennings, C.W, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Division
of Mines and Geology, Geological Data Map No. 6, scale 1:750,000.
Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cao, T., Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D.,
Leinkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.A., and Schwarz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment for the State of California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open -
File Report 96-08, 59 p. -
Rogers, T.H., 1966, Geologic Map of California - Santa Ana Sheet; California Division of Mines
and Geology Regional Map Series, scale 1:250,000.
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
January 24, 2000 -15- File No. 07457-01
00-01-728 '
Van de Kamp, P.C., 1973, Holocene Continental Sedimentation in the Salton Basin, California:
A Reconnaissance, Geological Society of America, Vol 84, March 1973.
Wallace, R. E.,. 1990, The San Andreas Fault System,, California: U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1515, 283 p.
n
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
APPENDIX A
Vicinity Map
Building Plan and Exploration Locations
Aerial Photograph
Floor Level Survey
Conceptual. Diagram of Subsidence
Well Location Map
Log of CPT Soundings and Borings
Table 1 — Measurement of Cracks and Distress at Clubhouse Facility
Table 2 — Measurement of Exterior Wall
Table 3 —Well Data for Wells Near La Quinta Country Club
I tlf
VA
Al
Ilk
-33
Projec sit'
50
Wa
11 on
It. 11 it It 11
Figure I - Vicinity Map
Projebt Name: La Quinta Country Club
Project No.:07457-01
Scale: 1 2,000' E arth Systems Consult ants
Southwest
0 2,000 4,000 . —0 -
'
. . '
�
. ` .
. . .�
' ~
CPT-1
x--ir--
71
[y .� •A' ! '�.r t+T I i�i i � of !i 1 � fi ., i li . I
r_ - —i a •A,6 ..• ` �'— #�' i �. v'---r---_=.
n .
�� b— 1. � ' \\. ' \• ' .1 '-T1.i, ._ _y '
I
Scale: 1" = 50'
0 50 100
.. i.•�b
"f 1 j'�
camp:.. � (, ��1,
IL
Figure 2 - Building Plan and
Exploration Locations
Project: La Quinta Country Club Clubhouse
Project No.: 07457-01
0 Earth Systems Consultants
Southwest
I
yam/ r •��,xa� y ry��- ij •r��•b' �3 ,y ,�r,I.+p'q. +r. ,
�Lr•,r�.• �. 't'Y ie: `yam .''��+.'�,. ` . �: 'Z`t .�'r ..,.� f,.
I� � L�.� � �Qru+6.kl'�'-. �+ elf "" 4 i e.'. ._. ,�,• � .. .1
10
14
l" , it ., w� -•'C �'Y
�'�'!"fa�':
sf ry k ! !�, :`• ! « f�•'� �, a, r�ti;., as
Clubhouseic-
USGS
. ` Yana-�%.'' F t } _� ,►'".. ` Yn -.. n .��.„ ik ^S"�,t�yt,r,. -"?; � ,�dbr..-....r ',-+•
t� Distressed Area.
�. .�. s �i��,"•`rck�a ��,.0'1 i ��'r' 1�� �%. ` k S'r +k,rt. 1 �'- 'k., �'�°�""+�bn"°w""7azr•.�a+.,..w,?�i
t' , • i�� �.�,,'}tC,�' �4�+a.�� �L �e;��.:�` '�y►� �_ 'y�ilR^-^=�4�'.�"'° ,� .ate , ,� � -
c f
c."i �tit',r e'•r• ''r �i a i+f �i. •j ,�� t �a•#' i�. Y' �" �sr � •�� ' �" _ �_ ^.w
t+p.,�♦„e•,y+M .4 44.Q
th
f y Y r , t � �' ts[ ... �. • ji*} � yi .1� ,i k � � r ��.,
*' r.?ti....- {.,. - .: ' ' of ••.� �.,.
�^' � w Zy, -� Awv� e, b1 � A"-1k.`ke'ti',y{' �. 7,�k. ♦ q k
1 i!. «1v��k. ,. i�+Yti a�YWt�rn4in+.w.,rrP.;.1rw-a•,�"'TM,;� •k'e*•aF � ,
Avenue 56 �.*"=Us�,,
Reference: La Quinta 7.5 min. USGS Digital Ortho-Quadrangle Aerial Photograph (1996)
i Figure 3 - Aerial Photograph
Project Name: La Quinta Country Club
Project No.:07457-01
�i Scale: 1" = 400 ft M� Earth systems Consultants
0 400 800 Southwest
t
0 90 1.50 0.80 1.40 1.10 1.20 0.60 0.20 1.40 0.70 0.70 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.10 0.00 -0.50 -0.80 -1.20 -1.30 -1.10 -1.40 -1.50 -1.50 -1.90 -1.50 -1.70 -1.80 -1.40 -1.20
-•-•-♦--♦---•---•-•-•--♦-•-•-•-•-♦-♦--•-•-•-•-♦--•-•-• • •-• •-•-#
1
2.60 2.40
1.90
1.80
1.40
1.40
1.OQ
0.50 ,1.90, 6q 0.60
0.60
0.60 OAP-0.60 0.20
2. 0 2.40
2:30
2.10
-.1.90
2.00.,
1.3
4 2.30.1Q 1.00
0.80_
0.60 0.50; 1:bb 0,30
2. iO 2.70•`,
2.40
2.20
2.10
2.10'•,1.6a'�,
.1.20' ' 3.00. � .OQ 1.20
' 1:10 --1..10.
0.90 0.90
2.10 '2 20'
2.Bq
2.40,
1.90
2.40
1.90
2:20\0V0
1.80' �3.10. 2.60-,-2.70-
2.70 -.2.50'
0.80
2. 0 .?30
2.40
2,10
1.90
2.00
1.90
1 80', 2.50-2.30'•-2.50
2.50,'2.20 2.30�2:40�.1:90
-2.20 2.10
2.40
2.20
2.10
2.30
2.10
2.00 1.90, 1:50 00" 1.80'-V,
96j5:00�4:80
2.70
2.50
2.40i
2.00
2.10
1,80 y1.60
1.60 •1.00 1.10\1.40
14
4..7(�4.8
2.70I1.90
1.80
1.50
1.50
1.90
1.80 1.40' 1.20 1.10
1.10
1�
4.80 4.80
1.80'
1.20
' 1.s0
1.20
1.60
1.20
1.30 1.20 1.00 1.10
1.20
1.00 0: 0�_0. 0 0.60
•
S
•
•,
•
•
• • • o
o ••
• - •
1.60
0.90
0.10
1.30
1.10
0.60
0.90 0.70 1.00 2.70
2.90
3.00 0.10 0. 0
• --
•-•
---
• •--
•
-•-•--•--•--•---0-•-•-
Points are on approximately 10 ft. 96ds
Not To Scale
-0.20• -0.80 .70.70 -1.00 -1.10-0.80.-1.10' - 1.60 -1.40 -1.80 -1.80 -1.90 1.70. -1
-0.10 -0.30 '-0.40 -0.30 -0.60 -0.70 -1.10 -1.00 -1.30 -1.10.-1.40 -1.40 -1.30 -1
0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20-0.60'=0.20 ',1.10-1.06"=1.10' -0.90 -1.40
0.70•• 0.40 0.2Q -0.30 6.00 -0.10 `0.50 ,0.20 -b: 0' 0.60 -0AQ =1.10 -1.30_ -1
•. •, • • • •, • • • • • i 0". _ .6
-1.40, 0.70 0.60 '0.10 0.10 -0.20 -0.30 -0.50 -0.60 -0.80 -0.80-1.00;-0:20.`-1
0 0;
'4- 0 9.40 0:00-0.30--0.40 -0.30 -0.40 -0.80 ,0.90' -0.60 -0.50' -0.40 -0
• • • • • • • • • •' •
1 �
f 0.2Q -0.20 -0.10 -0.50 -0.30 -0.f0 -0.100.40-=030 -0.40 -0.40 -
4.90 4. 0 -0. 0 -0.50 .0.40 -0.40 -0.20 -0.80 -1.00 -0.50-0.50-0
-0. 0 -0.70 •4-0.40 -0.5p-0.60',0.80 -0.70 -0.70 -0
• 1 • • I • •' - • •
-0. 0 -1.10 0.00 -0.40 -0.60 -0.70 -1.00 -0.70 -1
La Quinta Country Club Clubhouse
1 /15/2000
Job No. 07457-01
Earth Systems Consultants
Southern California
PROFILE LOOKING NORTHEAST
Mountain Ridge ,
Tilt --�
Ground Surface I Clubhouse r— Subsidence
9,00 to 1100+ feet of sediments
Ground Surface
Drop in Groundwater level
Buried Mountain Ridge
(inferred)
Valley Basement
PROFILE LOOKING NORTHWEST
Lateral Cracking and Tilting
Clubhouse
Consolidation of
sediments from
increased stress
Subsidence
F— —> Tension
Drop in Groundwater level
900 to 1100+ feet 3: ,
Consolidation of
of sediments
sediments from
increased stress
Buried Mountain Ridge
(inferred)
Valley Basement
Figure 5 - Conceptual Diagram
of Land Subsidence
Project Name: La Quinta Country Club
Project No.:07457-01
Earth Systems Consultants
"�i Southwest
... -..-..__..CHAiN
1.__...
-
CM
J
13
�j•?,;y
IS
Of
-.
l `,; if{°.• M`\::`; i/,%•ilj ��`.' Ali �./y. ____ 0;::�
A1:1'
tJ
tt S I J
:i
.......... ....
i ..
1
1!.
1 f-
Ya-,
I
Al
\. . l.`•'i:r:�`_� ;� �';, w'l'•./,:��",) I .�,i it i
:
ti r
Project Site..
}`V -:\-.:`��, `, II II•. .;r'� 't cry_: i YY4 ;.' � iie ®I ,fill.l .:t l ..
,'y l'�1 t it \` �t \� �lr�. i I' I . :�: `, : ,I C.. 1 �® - r�.''=� • {L. __—_•® ... - II
GJ�ier 2. ..
, r II'i v rr
50 t,
+ •tNafer Wtll� � �* -�
is �//1. , y).�! �'-_-.',,\1f•'r :I U 1 II_�_'•,-• x
it
• l
Jy, I
-
- - _
—'f'1 __ _.'. `)i.• i 1 l,i 1� :le. �-�I� j'\ 1 I r-':..,...: �i• •I� I:� �.__; _
..c•.` �. � �,: �. 1 / i� it !i �i��' •1' --_ I••I-:�I'l_ •Il� • "— I✓- .. ... —___ "'_,_-�.
.iJi :". �"y;rr(. .\ �`�. �Ji _.g II, Ij .I j. �. w f;"q' , �1.,' Ix ..II• .i N 1
•�:.'al`
LII I I:,,I• ` Ih,l I ) C•IIW; :( I 6
!; �.-., `\ �\\. �`.,��,c'!:.r;' �wL •• f. I€ II'`t I ----—uRA��l •.:C��L�.�.---- .--- �', —._ --- - —
Reference: La Quinta (photorevised 1980) 7.5•min. USGS Quadrangle
Figure 6 - Well Location Map
Project Name: La Quinta Country, Club
. Project No.:07457-01
N Scale: 1" = 2,000' Earth Systems Consultants
0 2,000 4,000 Southwest ,
Table 1
Observations of Cracks and Distress at the Clubhouse
Facility January 11, 2000
No.
Location
Crack Widths or Separations
1
North Foyer Tile
1.6" NE, 2.0" NW, 0.6" new
2
SE Column at West Hallway
1.0" between column and wall
3
SW Column at East Hallway
0 at bottom, 0.2" @ 6 ft height, est.
1 " at roof
4
Kitchen Tile
1" W,1.6" E, 0.2" new
5
South Diniing Room Carpet
0.3" separation @ edge
6
Fireplace Tile Floor
0.1" at NEC
7
SW Dining Room Column
0.8" at bottom, 0.5" @ 6 ft height,
est. 0.5" at roof
8
West Proshop Window
1.8" separation at N end of Window
9
Hallway west of Prosho
1.0" at the grout line, 0.2" new
10
Men's Changing Room
Cracks at upper corner of walls
11
Lounge Fireplace
0.3" crack in ceiiling at S end of
Fireplace
12
Patio Ramp
0.4" separation patio to ram
13
Maintenance Shop Floor
0.2" to 0.5" cracks (grouted), 0.1"
new
14
Mechanical Room Floor
0.5" to 1.0"
15
Istorage Room Floor
0.7"
16.
JGolf Shop Floor
0.5" to 1.1" separation at joint
17
INE Corner of Exteror Golf Shop
Wall
1" separation between planter wall
& Buildin
18
Concrete Driveways north of
Golf Shop
0.5" to 1.0" separation at joints
1
19
West Maintenance Shop Floor
0.2" W to 1.8" E separattion at joint
20
West Maintenance Shop Floor
0.5" to 0.7" diagonal cracks at SW
Corner
21 1
Northwest Maintenance Shop
Wall
0.1" new cracks
22 1
Northwest Maintenance Shop
Wall
0.35"crack with 0.35" offset in
foundation.
23
Curb at SE Corner of Facility
0.25" & 0.4"offsets in curb at
joint/crack
24
Driveway Area at East End of
Facility
0.5" separation at joints with some
offset i
Table 2
Measurements of Wall Cracks
December 8 & 9. 1999
Crack Width
inches
Notes of Cracks from East to West
East-West Wall at North End of Clubhouse
0.80
@ curb, E of Wall
0.40
@ E End
hairline
0.10
2.0
1.7" @ Bottom, @ No Smoking sign, painted 2-3 yrs
ago, crack in AC extends to building
0.15
hairline
0.20
0.05
0.05
0.20
splits to 2 - 0.1
0.05
@ Column, 0.8" crack in AC extends to building
0.05
@ Column
hairline
hairline
0.15
hairline'
4.2•
Total.
0.9
new since 10/16/99
Crack Width
Notes of Cracks from South to North
inches
North -South Wall at East Side of Eisenhower Drive
0.05
@ Bus Stop
0.05
@ Bus Stop
0.15
1.15
@ Column
1:25
@ Column
0.50
@ Column
0.05
0.40
@ Column
3.6 Total
Crack Width
Notes of Cracks from South to North
inches
North -South Wall at West Side of Eisenhower Drive
0.05
0.05
0.45
0.10
0.10
0.45
0.25
0:05
0.05
0.25
0.10
0.10
2.0
Total
Crack Width
Notes of Cracks from East to West
inches
Along Golf Cart Path north of Clubhouse
0.38
@ curb joint
0.38
@ curb joint
0.50
@ curb joint
0.25
@ curb joint
0.38
crack in curb
0.63
@ curb joint, 1.25 vertical offset, nearby tree
0.13
crack in curb
0.25
@ curb joint
0.13
@ curb joint
0.19
crack near roadway
0.75
separation of curb in center circular
3.9
Total
sg-
l�"gtj( P, q
nga
NO
rlx E: c: I
E U
LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB
05s-
07E -
31
N
.1
priorl.978-
=.5705
110-772
775
49
-28...
'38
LA QUINTA COUNTRY -CLUB
-05S
07E
31
P
1.
12h 5/58,
-"5706
110-200,'450-680
692 1
-55
i.�_19
-50
=31
_qq,Aqt!ELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT`
05S
05S
- `0 ' 7E
07E
31
31
Q`
A
2
1
02/23/86
01105/90
5707
5711
380-420;760-920
450-630 J50-850
960
1000'
60
50
,-32
�#N/A,
,:94,_
:-881
-62.
#N/A
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT-
'06S
707E
06--
'A
1
3/11/ 4
720-1000-
1 011
50
_#N/A
100-,
#N/A
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT"'
06S
�07E
06-
B.
80
`67
832
48
'30
-62
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT.-
06S
-07E.
6
J
li�
04/27/98,
-,6704
'740-lm'
40
40
#N/A
-102
#N/A
-07E
06,
prioFl 978
6761
?-267--
>276---,
58
#N/A
# /A
ILANDMARK LAND COMPANY-
6S-
06E
01
—N,_l
G
1
prior 1978
' 205-296'
A
>300
—
"50-
-----
-38
'#N/A
#N/A--'
LANDMARK LAND COMPANY e
1-96
06E,�
_jqE
01
36
Q
'_l-,
priorl'968
10 9
_6649,
?-510.
>510
55
53.
-23
-97,
#N/A
-69
#N/A
4. -
WA Earth Systems Consultants
ti Southwest 79-81 1 B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Phone (760) 345-1588 FAX (760) 345-7315
Boring No: B-1
Drilling Date: December 9, 1999
Project Name: La Quinta Country
Club Clubhouse
Drilling Method: 8-in. Hollow Stem Auger
Project Number: 07457-01
Drill Type: CME 45
Boring Location: See Figure 2
Logged By: Cliff Batten
^
Sample
Type
Penetration
.y
a3 s
Description of Units Page 1 of 1
L
Resistance
o
rn
U
A a
Note: The stratification lines shown represent the
n
Y
o
approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types Graphic Trend
O
m' o
(Blows/6")
O
0
and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density
i
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
SM
SILTY SAND: Dark brown; dense; damp to moist;
fine grained.
21,23,26
ML
SANDY SILT: Dark brown; medium dense, wet, with
9,11,12
fine sand and some clay.
•
10,10,23
•
MLCL
CLAYEY SILT to SANDY SILT: Dark brown; stiff to
7,10,10
7,9,13
medium dense, wet, interbedded, low plasticity.
•
8,11,15
i i
i
8,15,12
f i
7,11,14
•
CL
SILTY CLAY: Dark brown; very stiff, wet, low to
medium plasticity.
SM
SILTY SAND: Dark brown; dense; wet; fine gr.
13,18,18
I
•
MLCL
CLAYEY SILT to SANDY SILT: Dark brown; stiff to
7,7,9
medium dense, wet, interbedded, low plasticity.
I
5,5,7
I
CL
CLAY: Dark brown; stiff to very stiff, wet, low to
5,8,15
medium plasticity.
3,3,9
5,9,15
1
,Total Depth: 65 feet
I
Perched groundwater encountered at 45 & 61 feet.
i
Earth Systems Consultants
ou
i`
w
=
H
CPT Sounding : CPT-1 Cone Penetrometer: HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSC.
Project Name: La Quinta Country Club Truck Mounted Electric Cone
Project No.: 07457-01 with 23-ton reaction weight
Location: See Site Exploration Plan Date: 12/3/99
d
W
Interpreted Soil Stratigraphy Friction Ratio (%) Tip Resistance, Qc (tst]
(Robertson & Campanella, 1989) Density/Consistency 10 8 6 4 2 ® 100 200 300 400
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard
Clayey Silt to'Silty Clay very stiff
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Sand to Silty Sand very dense
Perched Groundwater measured @ 63 feet
End of Sounding @ 85 feet
10
20
30
i
40-
i
-50-
i
-60-
_
-70-
I
I
i
-80-
I
-90-
100
"j Earth Systems Consultants
\.�,, Southwest
iz
W
U.
=
i-
CPT Sounding: CPT-2 Cone Penetrometer: HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSC.
Project Name: La Quinta Country Club Truck Mounted Electric Cone
Project No.: 07457-01 with 23-ton reaction weight
Location: See Site Exploration Plan Date: 12/3/99
►LI
Interpreted Soil Stratigraphy Friction Ratio (%) Tip Resistance, Qc (tsfli
(Robertson & Campanella, 1989) Density/Consistency 10 8 6 4 2 ® 100 200 300 400
Sand to Silty Sand very dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt very dense
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff
Silty Clay to Clay stiff
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt loose
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt medium dense
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard
Silty Clay to Clay hard
Silty Clay to Clay very stiff
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay very stiff
Silty Clay to Clay very stiff
Silty Clay to Clay very stiff
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt dense
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay hard
Sand to Clayey Sand dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt medium dense
Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt dense
Perched Groundwater measured @ 68 feet
End of Sounding @ 85 feet
10
20
30
i
I
-40-
-50-
'
-60-
7
-70-
_
I
I
i
-80-
-90-
100
ED
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Test Results
UNIT DENSITIES AND MOISTURE CONTENT
Job Name: La Quinta Country Club Clubhouse .
Job Number: 07457-01
Date:.12/16/99
Unit
Moisture
USCS
Sample Depth Dry
Content
Group
Location (feet) Density (pcf) '
(%)
Symbol
B1
5
95.0
9.9
SM
B1
10
88.4
20.1
ML
B1
15
85.9
18.8
ML
131
20
87.2
35.4
ML/CL
B1
22
88.9
29.2
ML/CL
B1
25
90.2
32.2
ML/CL
B1
30
90.3
31.4
ML/CL
B1
35
89.7
34.0
CL
Bl
40
92.6
24.1
SM
B1
55
---
29.4
CL
n
07457-01
Dec 16, 1999
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D-422
Job Name: La Quinta Country Club Clubhouse
Sample ID: B1 @ 5 feet
Description: Silty F Sand (SM)
100
90
80
70
60
N
N
A
50
n 40
30
20
10
0
Sieve
Percent
Size
Passing
1-1/2"
100
1"
100
3/4"
100
1 /2"
100
3/8"
100
#4
100
#8
100
#16
100
#30
98
#50
83
#100
51
#200
17
% Gravel: 0
% Sand: 83
% Silt: 16
% Clay (3 micron): 1
(Clay content by short hydrometer method)
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle Size ( mm)
E
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
07457-01
Dec 16, 1999
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
ASTM D-422
Job Name: La Quinta Country Club Clubhouse
Sample lb: B1 @ 10 feet
Description: Sandy Silt with Clay (ML)
Sieve Size % Passing
By Hydrometer Method:
3" 100
Particle Size
% Passing
2" 100
53 Micron
48
1-1/2" 100
21 Micron
35
1 " 100
13 Micron
24
3/4" 100
7 Micron
17
1/2" 100
5 Micron
14
3/8" 100
3.3 Micron
13
#4 100
2.8 Micron'
10
#8 100
1.4 Micron
9
#16 99
#30 99
% Gravel:
0
#50 97
% Sand:
39
#100 88
% Silt:
51
#200 61
% Clay (3 micron):
10
100
90
80
70
60
ou
a
50
s
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1
Particle Size (mm)
0.01 0.001
EARTH SYSTEMS CONULTANTS SOUTHWEST
07457-01
Dec 16, 1999
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D-422
Job Name: La Quinta Country Club Clubhouse
Sample ID: B1 @ 20 feet
Description: Clayey Silt (ML/CL)
e-
100
90
70
60
40
30
20
[DI
N
Sieve Size % Passing
3"
100
2"
100
1- 1/2
100
1"
100
3/4"
100
1/2".
100
3/8"
100
#4
.100
#8
100
#16
99
#30
98
#50
98
#100
97
#200
94
By Hydrometer Method:
Particle Size % Passing
45 Micron
86
19 Micron
60
12 Micron
48
6 Micron
31
5 Micron
25
3.3 Micron
20
2.7 Micron
20
1.4 Micron
15
% Gravel:
0
% Sand:
6
% Silt:
74
% Clay (3 micron):
20
10 1 0.1
Particle Size (mm)
E
0.001
EARTH SYSTEMS CONULTANTS SOUTHWEST
07457-01
Dec. 16, 1999
PLASTICITY INDEX ASTM D-24 t 8
Job Name: La Quinta Country Club Clubhouse
Sample ID: B 1 @ 20 feet
Soil Description: Clayey Silt (ML/CL)
DATA SUMMARY TEST RESULTS
Number of Blows: 15 30 22 LIQUID LIMIT 36
Water Content, % 38.9 35.7 36.7 PLASTIC LIMIT 24
Plastic Limit: 23.6 23.6 PLASTICITY INDEX 12
Flow Index
39.5
39.0
38.5
38.0
c 37.5
V 37.0
36.5
36.0
35.5
35.0
10 Number of Blows 100
Plasticity Chart
70
60
50
x
c 40
I
00e-
CH
�
30
a" 20
CL
I
too��
MH
10
—00000
ML
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
07457-01 Dec. 16, 1999
CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM' D 2435-90 & D5333
La Quinta Country Club Clubhouse Initial Dry Density: 83.6 pcf
B 1 @ 10 feet Initial Moisture, %: 20.1 %
Sandy Silt with Clay (ML) Specific Gravity: 2.67 (assumed)
Ring Sample Initial Void Ratio: 0.995
Hydrocollapse: 0.8% @ 2.0 ksf
% Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram
--�—Before Saturation Hydrocollapse
s After Saturation --Rebound
2
1
0
-2
.r
^°
-3
on
-4
-5
s
U
-6
v
u
L
Q
-7
-8
-9
-10
-ll
-12
0.1 1.0
Vertical Effective Stress, ksf
ii
I
10.0
1
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
07457-01
Dec. 16, 1999
CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D 2435-90
La Quinta Country Club Clubhouse Initial Dry Density: 89.2 pcf
B 1 @ 35 feet Initial Moisture, %: 34.0%
Silty Clay (CL) Specific Gravity: 2.67 (assumed)
Ring Sample Initial Void Ratio: 0.869
2
1
0
-1
-2
a+
-° -3
an
x
-4
CD
�s
-5
s
U
c -6
v
u
c.
°J -7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
% Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram
�--Before Saturation ®Hydrocollapse
i After Saturation —--Rebound
0.1 1.0 10.0
Vertical Effective Stress, ksf
EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SOUTHWEST
s
APPENDIX C
Water Well Hydrographs
Coachella Valley Plater District
0
-140
-1b0
-180
-200
-220
-240
AVERAGE ANNUAL DEPTH from GROUND SURFACE
Well: 05S0IE31N01S - CVWD 5705
Basin: Indio
Area : Theimal
ups: WRGROUP user: 8S037b
Peiiofafion Depth (11)
110 - 11.2
Coachella
Valley
Pater
District
AVERAGE
ANNUAL
DEPTH
from
GROUND
SURFACE
� Well: 05-S07E31P01S - CVWD 5706
b 0
60
40
........................... ...................
................. ........ ...... .. ...................
—4a
20 .
.......
........
........ .......
......... ........
........ ....... ....... .................
—20
- 2 0
.......
.......
....... .......
.......................... ....... .................
................. ....... I ........ ........ ....... ................. ........
-20,
-40
......
. ...... ........ .......
.............................. . .. ...............
........ ....... ....... ............. ................. ........
— -40
-bo .
.......
........
................ .................................
.... ... ............................
.....
.. ........ ....... ....... ........ I ...... ..........
. . ........... ....... ........ ........
--Be
................. ....... * ....... .... ...
.........
...... ....... ....... ................
--100
CL
C)
120
...... ........ .......
........ ........ ................
......................... .............. ........................
--120
-140 .
.......
........
........
.................. ......
. ... ........ .............
- 1 4 0
- 1 6 0
.......
........
, ........
- 1 8 0
.....:.......:........I................:
......... .......
- 2 0 0
................ I .......
....... .........
........ ............... ......
....... ........
--200
-220
. .. ............ ........ ................ ....
....
-220
-240
--240
9 2
9 2
9 3 9 9
9 15 9 9 97
9 9 9 2 2 2 2 2
9 9 0 0 0 0 0
0
5
3 5 4 0
0
4 5 5 5
0 @
7 9 0 0 1 1 2
0 5 90
Basin: Indio Peiloialion Depth M�
Area : Thermal 110 - 680
1,15: LkIRGROUP user: BS037b
I
Coachella Valley dater District
AVERAGE ANNUAL DEPTH from GROUND SURFACE
Well: 05S07E31002S - CVWD 57071
20
20
-2@
........ ...... . .......................... .......
....... ........
........ .........
........ ........ ........
20
-40
.............. ....... ................. ........
..................
................. ....... ........ ........
40
.......................... ....... ......................... .......
................
................. ................ ........
--bO
- 8 0.
....... ........ ........ ........ ....... ................. ................. .........
.......
. ...............
................. ..... . ..................
..............
....... .. ..... ........
................. ................
-
-120
............... ........................ ......
. ......
........ ....... ....... ......
................ ........
120
-140
....... ....... ........................
....... ..............
. ............... ................. ........
140
C)
........... ....
........ ....... .......
........ ....... ....... ........ ........
1bg
........ ....... ....... ................. ........
..... .
... . ................................................................
........
--ISO
-200
....... .......................... ..........................
.................
........ ....... ....... ........ ........
-220 .
....... ....... .........
................. ........
.............
................ ............... ........
220
-240
........ ........ ........ ....... .......
........
.......... ....... .......... ........
240
-2bO .
....... ........ ................. ....... ................
..............
....... ....... ........ .........
-2bg
280-
9 91g ig ig lg lg 9 19 IQ 1
20 25
20 20 20
20
4 4 5 5 h h
5 0 , 5
9
0
9 0 1 1
5 0, 5 0 5
2
0
Basin: Indio
Area Thermal
ws: IAIRGROUP user: B9037h
Peiloialion Depth (H)
380 - 920
Coachella Valley Water District
AVERAGE ANNUAL DEPTH from GROUND SURFACE
Weli: 06SU E06B01S - CVWD 6701
ig lg, ig ig lg lq lg 1,� ], ]y , ]�:Lg
0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 ('0 b 70 �`, 80
Basin: Indio
Rea : Thermal
ws: A GROUP user: B9037b
Perforation Depth (11)
580 - 800
0
Coachella Valley Water District
AVERAGE. ANNUAL DEPTH from.GROUND SURFACE
Well: 06S06E01001S - CVWD 6649
20.......:.......:................. ::......:................ :........ :....... :.:.... .... ..... .... ..-- 0
.:.. .:.. ..:. .:.. .:.. .:.
0
0
-20
-•.....:.......:....
..... .... .... .....
-20
- 4 0 -
..............;................ ..................... ..... ....
..... .... ..... ..... ....
- 40
- b 0
....... :.................................. :.......:........:........:......
b 0
-Be-
:.......:................................................:...
--Be
'— -100
....... .......;........:........ ............... .....,..:.............
.... .... .. .... ....
-100
-� - 1,2 0
.................. .......::........ ......... ................................. ...............
.... ..... ....
- 1 2 0
Q
- 1 4 0
------- :................. ........:.......:.......:........:........:......
..... ..... ..... .... ........
-1 40
Q
- l b 0
.......:.......:........:.......:........................:.....
1 6 0
.... ..... ..... ..... .... .... ...
................. .... ..... ......
--ISO
- 2 0 0.........................
:........ :........ .........................
- 2 0 0
- 2 2 0
.......:.......:........:.......:.......:.......I........:........;.
2 2 0
- 2 4 0
:.......:........:.......:....... ................ ........
2 4 0
- 2 b P �.......:;................:.......:.......:......
�� r1 ITrTrrl , 1Tr 11-t-1 r i,-r,l-r-i-r7-r7-'-rTr�-1 -.rr, I i , ,' , , ,.� , , •� I r , rr t-'-rrZ-1-'Tr•r�T�-r-��.
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 1.q to '`� 1g 1g 1q 19 1g 20 20 20 20 20
20 25 30 35 d0 45 50 55 �U ..fr �U �r' g0 85 9e 95 �0 05 10 15 20
Basin: Indio
Aiea : Thermal
wr: GiRGROUP user: OS037b
Pei(ofafion Depth (11)
510
APPENDIX D
Results of Field Anchor Load Tests
a
Construction Company Inc.
J
December 14, 1999
Ila
Greg Riley Consulting Engineer .
23236 Lyons Avenue Suite # 220
Santa Clairita, CA. 91321
Re: La Quinta Country Club
Results of Field Anchor load Tests
Dear Mr. Riley,
At your request we have completed field anchor load tests at the above referenced site.
The testing included two full frame tests, as well as three penetration/torque tests which
were performed at various locations around the subject site. The full frame tests were
performed within close proximity of the deep testing conducted by Earth Systems
Consultants. The three penetration tests were performed at various locations around the
subject structure within landscape areas.
The full frame tests were completed under the observation of Mr. Shelton Stringer with
Earth Systems Consultants.
A single 10" helices was installed to a total depth of eighty one (81') linear feet below the
adjacent grade. This single helix was loaded to 10 KIP at which point it failed with a
measured deflection of 1-1/47 inches after the initial pre -load. Based upon measured
installation torque during.the total installation of the test anchor; it was determined that
the bearing capacity of -the soils became weaker as the depth increased.
Based upon information derived from test # 1, test 9 2 was conducted at a shallower
depth utilizing an 8", 10",12",14" helical configuration. This anchor was load tested at a
depth of ten (10') linear feet from the adjacent grade. This test anchor was loaded in
increments of 2500 lbs. to a maximum applied load of 50KIP with a total deflection of
1/4" which indicates the anchor can support the required load with a greater factor of
safety than *required by the Structural Engineer.
16904 Sierra Highway Canyon Country. California 91351 o Lac. No. 466194 B C61/030 o (661) 298-1192 a Fax (661)296-1193
Test # 3 was performed in the.pavcd area located adjacent to the cart maintenance facility.
As in test # 2, an 8",10",12",14" helix lead section was driven to a depth of 10'3". As in
test # 2, the anchor was incrementally loaded to a maximum loading of 50 KIP with a
total deflection of 5/8" which indicates that the anchor can support the required load with
a greater factor of safety than required by the Structural Engineer.
Three penetration tests were performed at various locations around the structure. The
lead section consisted of an 8",10",12",14" lead section driven at depths varying from
10'3"-15'. Based upon installation torque, it appears that higher capacities were obtained
at depths ranging from 10'3"-10'6 Installation torque's declined as depth increased to
the 15' final depth tested.
Results of the tests indicate that the appropriate anchor configuration required to support
and lift the structure would consist of a multiple helices configuration driven to an
average depth of 10' around the structure. Based upon the tests performed, it appears that
deep anchors would not be appropriate for the site as the bearing capacities decrease with
depth. High capacity shallow anchors would greatly reduce costs associated with the
installation of the system while providing a much higher factor: of safety. Additionally,
shallow anchors would not be effected by a fluctuating ground water table.
We would appreciate any questions or comments regarding these test results.
Respe y Submitted:
Kenneth B. Drake
Vice-president/CFO
KBD/kad -
cc: Mr. Shelton Stringer, Earth Systems Consultants, via fax (760) 345-7315
Mr. Robert Moore, La Quinta Country Club, via fax (760) 564-6396
.Construction Company Inc:
J
LOAD AND PERFORMANCE TEST REPORT
RE: JOB NAME La Quinta Country;Club
LOCATION 77 : 750 Avenue 50
La Quinta, CA 92253
TEST DATE 12/08/1999
INSTALLER RIG Construction Company, Inc.
LOAD TEST NO. LT99120801
TESI N
A "Load Test" was performed at the above -captioned location on the date indicated. A
steel channel load test frame was used, supported by three (3) reaction anchors. The test
pier was loaded using a 30-tou calibrated test unit and deflection/settlement was surveyed
under as
conditions.
The test pier incorporated a single 10" helix configuration and was installed to a depth of
81'0" using a 6,000 foot-pound installer attaining a measured torque reading of 2,500
foot-pounds. The load test results are shown in the table below:
PIER
APPLIED
SURVEY
MEASURED
NOTES
SIZE
LOAD
READING
DEFLECTION
10"
2-TONS
47-7/8"
0" :
PRELOAD
10'.
4-TONS
48-7/8"
1"
8 KIP
10"
5-TONS
49-1/8" .
1-1/4"
10 K1P
•
FAILED
Total measured deflection at a. load of only 5-tons/10-kip: 1-1/4".
16904 Sierra Highway o Canyon Country, Calitomia 91351 0 Lic. No. 466194 6 C61/030 0 (661) 298-1 192 ,) Fax (661) 298.1 t 93
i
TEST NO.2
After failure of the first test at a depth of 81', additional testing was conducted. Test
Number 2 was conducted in the same fashion as Test Number 1.
The test pier incorporated a four helix configuration, incorporating 8", 1V,12" and 14"
helices, and was installed to a depth of 10'0" using a 6,000.foot=pound installer attaining
a measured torque reading of 5,500 foot-pounds. The load test results are shown in the
table below:
PIER
SIZE
APPLIED
LOAD -
SURVEY
READING
MEASURED
DEFLECTION
NOTES
8"/10"/12"/14"
2-TONS
41-7/8"
0"
PRELOAD
8"/10"/12"/14"
5-TONS
41-7/8"
4"
10 KIP
8"/10"/12"/14"
7.5-TONS
41-7/8"
0"
15 KIP
. 8"110"/12"/14"
10-TONS.
41-7/8"
0"
20 KIP
8"/10"/12"/14"
12.5-TONS
41-15/16"
1/16"
25 KIP
8"/10"/12"/14"
15-TONS_
41-15/16"
1/16"_
30 KIP
.8"/10"/12"/14"
17.5-TONS
42"
1/8"
35 KJP
8"/10"/12"/14"
20-TONS
42"
1/8"
40 KIP
8"/10"/12"/14"
25-TONS
42-1/8"
1/4"
50 KIP
Total measured deflection at a load of 25-tons/50-kip: 1/4-inch.
-2-
TEST NO.3
Test Number 3 was conducted in the same fashion as Test Number 2. The test pier
incorporated a fourbelix configuration, incorporating 8", 10",12" and 14" helices, and
was installed to a depth of 10'3" using a 6,000 foot-pound installer attaining a measured
torque reading of 3,000 foot-pounds. The load test results are shown in the,table below:
PIER
SIZE
APPLIED
LOAD
SURVEY
READING
MEASURED
DEFLECTION
NOTES
8"/10"/12"/14"
.2-5-TONS
52-3/8"
0"
PRELOAD
8"/10"/12"/14"
5-TONS
52-7/16"
1/16"
10 KIP
8710"/12"/14"
7.5-TONS
52-7/16"
1/16"
15 KIP
8"/10"/12"/14"
10-TONS
52-1/2"
1/8"
20 KIP
8'710"/12"/14"
12.5-TONS
52-5/8"
1/4" _
25 KIP
8"/1.0"/12"/14".
15-TONS
52-11/16"
5/16"
30 KIP
8"/10"/12"/14"
17.5-TONS
52-3/4"
3/8"
35 KIP
'8"/10"/12"/14"
20-TONS
52-7/8"
1/2"
40 KIP
8"/10"/12"/14"
22.5-TONS 1
52-15/16"
9/16"
45 KIP
8"/10"/12"/14"
25-TONS 1
53-1/16"
5/8"
50 KIP
ry .
Total measured deflection at a load of 25-ions/50-kip: 5/8-inch.
PENETRATION TESTS
TEST NO.
CONFIGURATION
PIER DEPTH
TORQUE READING
1
8"/1'0"/12"/14"
15'0"
2,000 FT/LB
2
8"/10"/12"/14"
10'3"
4,000 FT/LB
3
8"/10"/12"/14"
10'6"
3,500 FTfLB
-3-