06-0331 (OFC) Geotechnical Reporti.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA CENTER
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
TRANSPACIFIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
B7 -2063-P1
APRIL 5, 7990
CITY OF LA QUINTA
BUILDING & SAFETY DEPT.
APPROVED
FOR CONSTRUCTION
DAT 2'3 D� B
.t _A
%tggIC.� GEi{P�1
'R C E EIVcD.
Buena Engineers, Inc. MAY 14 1990
AN EAAYN IYWMbM INC COMPANY
DEVE:OPWINT DEPARTMENT
79-811 B COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE BERMUDA DUNES, CALIFORNIA 922o1 PHONE (619)34,5-1588 - FAX (619) 345-7315
�" JIL
May 10, 1990 B7 -2083-P1
' 90-05-785
Transpacific Development Company
' 2377 Crenshaw Boulevard
Torrance, California 90501-3325
Attention: Keith Holmes
Project: 111 La Quinta Center
La Quinta, California
' Ref: Geotechnical Engineering Report by Buena Engineers, Inc.
dated April 5, 1990; Report No. 90-04-724
' This letter is concerning the additional two and six tenths (2.6) acre site to the north of
the Whitewater Channel and the channel crossing along Adams street. The site plan
for this portion of the project was inadvertently omitted from the referenced report. The
' plan is attached with the approximate boring locations indicated. The corresponding
boring logs are included in the referenced report.
' If there are any questions concerning this letter or the referenced report please contact
the undersigned. I apologize for any inconvenience.
1
1
1
1
Respectfully submitted,
E
E
Copies: 4 - Transpacific Development Company
1 - VTA File
1 - PS File
1 ,
Buena Engineers, Inc.
' AN lANTN BYMI^ INC Co11PANY
19-8116 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE • BERMUDA DUNES, CALIFORNIA 92201 • PHONE (619) 345-1588 • FAX (619) 345=7315
April 5, 1990
B7 -2083-P 1
90-04-724
Transpacific Development Company
2377 Crenshaw Boulevard
Torrance, California 90501-3325
Attention: Keith Holmes
Project: 11 1 La Quinta Center
La Quinta, California
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Ref: Geotechnical Engineering Report by Buena Engineers, Inc.
dated January 17, 1990; Report No. 90-01-788
Presented herewith is our Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared for the
proposed commercial development to be located in La Quinta, California.
This report incorporates the tentative information supplied to our office, and in
accordance with your request, recommendations for general site
development and foundation design are provided.
This report was prepared to stand as a whole, and no part of the report should
be excerpted or used to exclusion of any other part.
This report completes our scope of services in accordance with our
agreement. Other services which may be 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.
Please contact the undersigned if there are any questions concerning this
report or the recommendations included herein.
Respectfully submitted, RA°F`-o
'BUENA ENGINEERS, INC."�'�""0
� ��x Reviewed and Aproed,
No
No. C C
/ ESP. 3.51 •: I
R. Layne Richinsar, Joseph R. Ve,
Staff Geologist '� �FCAL1f�P �_ C.:,
Brett L. Anderson, P.E.
RLR/BLA/JRV/ss
HD/SER Copies:' 6 -Transpacific Development Co. 1 -PS File 1-VTA File
BERMUDA DUNES BEAUMONT RAKFRCFIFI n I e/J(`ACTco
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
' INTRODUCTION ...........................
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK....:...................................................................1
SITE DESCRIPTION ...................................... ...................2
FIELD EXPLORATION.............................................................
LABORATORY TESTING..........................................................................................2
SOIL CONDITIONS ...............................................
' GROUNDWATER................................................................ .......4
...................................
REGIONAL GEOLOGY ......................................
LOCAL GEOLOGY ...................................................
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS....................................................................
Primary...............................................................................................................5
Secondary...................................................................... ..
Non-Seismic........................................................................................................7
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS...................................................................8
SITE DEVELOPMENT ..................................
Site Development - Main ' Complex. ...................................
Site Development......................9
- Satellite Buildings . ...........................11
Site Development - General.....................................................................12
Excavations ....................
13
Traffic Areas.
..... .
...13
UtilityTrenches..................................................................................................14
STRUCTURES..........................................................:.:..:............................................14
....
Foundations . 14
Slabs -on -Grade
...........................:.................................................15
Settlement ' Considerations..........................................................:...............16 Frictional and Lateral Coefficients.
SlopeStability..................................................................................................17
Expansion......................................................................................
Additional Services ...................................................
.....................................17
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ..................... ................18
REFER.ENCES................................................................................................. ........20
APPENDIX A
Site and Vicinity Map
Logs of Borings
' APPENDIX B
Summary of Test Results
Table 2
' APPENDIX C
Standard Grading. Specifications
April 5, 1990 -1- B7 -2083-P1
90-04-724
LNIRODUCTION
This Geotechnical Engineering . Report has been prepared for the
' proposed commercial development to be located in La Quinta,
California.
' A It is proposed to- construct a large commercial complex on the
approximately sixty (60) acre site.
B. For the large structures throughout the main complex structural
considerations for column loads of up to 100 kips and a maximum
wall loading of 4.0 kips per linear foot were used as a basis for
' recommendations as provided herein. These are estimated values
since we did not have foundation plans available at the time of
production of this report.
' C. For the smaller satellite structures, structural considerations for building
column loads of up to 30 kips and a maximum wall loading of 2.0
' kips per linear foot were used as a basis for recommendations
related to the construction of the residential buildings.
' D. All loading is assumed to be dead plus reasonable live load.
E. If the actual loading. exceeds . the assumed loading the
recommendations provided herein will need to be reevaluated.
' PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK
The purpose of our services was to evaluate the site soil conditions, and
' to provide conclusions and recommendations relative to the site and
the proposed development. The scope of work includes the following:
' A A general reconnaissance of the site.
B. Shallow subsurface exploration by drilling limited to the Albertsons
' building only.
C. Laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained from the
' exploratory borings drilled for this'project.
D. Review of selected technical literature pertaining to the site.
' E. Evaluation of field and laboratory data relative to soil conditions
F. Engineering analysis of the data obtained from the exploration and .
testing programs.
G. A summary of our findings and recommendations in written report.
April 5; 1990 -2- 137-2083-P1
90-04-724
' Contained In This Report Are:
A Discussions on regional and local geologic and soil conditions.
B. Graphic and/or tabulated results of laboratorytest
studies. s and field
' U
' C. Discussions and recommendations relative to allowable
foundation
bearing capacity, recommendations for foundation design,
' estimated total and differential settlements, lateral earth pressures
and site grading criteria.
' Not Contained In This Report:
A Our scope of services did not include any environmental
assessment or investigation to determine the presence of
. hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water,
or air, on, below or around this site. groundwater
' SITE DESCRIPTION
The site of the proposed sixty (60) acre commercial development is
located on the north side of Highway 111 between Adams Street and
Washington Street in La Quinta, California.
' A The Whitewater channel forms the north edge of the site.
B. The Washington. Street forms the west edge of the site.
1
C. Highway 111 forms the south edge of the site.
D. The site is presently vacant with the exception of one existing
building along Highway 111 which is unoccupied. The remainder of
the site is covered with scattered desert brush, short grass, weeds
and debris.
E. It is obvious that previous grading has been performed on the site
during the construction of the adjacent storm channel and probably
prior to the construction of the existing building.
This investigation also includes a small two (2) acre site on the
side of the Whitewater Channel at Adams Street. north
1
FIELD EXPLORATION
Exploratory borings were drilled for observing,the soil profile
obtaining samples for further analysis. p and
A Twenty-three (23) borings were drilled for soil profiling and sam lin
to a maximum depth of fifty-one p
p fty-one (51) feet below the existing ground
' surface. Borings were drilled on February 20, March 2, 14 and 24, 1990,
April 5, 1990 73- 137-2083-P1
90-04-724
using an eight (8) inch diameter hollow -stem auger powered by a
CME 45-B drilling ng. The approximate boring locations as indicated
on the ' attached plan in Appendix A, were determined by pacing and sighting from existing streets and topographic features. The
boring locations should be considered accurate only to the
degree implied by,the method used.
B. Samples were secured within the borings with a two and one-half
(2.5) inch diameter ring sampler (ASTM D 3550, shoe similar to ASTM D
1586). The samples were obtained by driving the sampler with a one
hundred forty (140) pound hammer, dropping thirty (30) inches. The
number of blows required to drive the sampler one foot was
recorded. Recovered soil samples were sealed in containers and
returned to the laboratory for further classification and testing.
C. Bulk disturbed samples of the soils were obtained from cuttings
developed during excavation of the test borings. The bulk samples
were secured for classification purposes and represent a mixture of
soils within the noted depths.
D. The final logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field
logs, and the results of the laboratory observations and tests of the
field samples. The final logs are included in the appendix A of this
report. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries
between soil types although the transitions may be gradual.
After a visual and tactile classification in the field, samples were returned
to the laboratory, classifications were checked, and a testing program
was established.
A Samples were reviewed along with field logs to determine which
would be further analyzed. Those chosen were considered as
representative of soil which would be exposed and/or used in
grading and those deemed within building influence.
B. In-situ moisture content and unit dry weights for the core samples
were developed in accordance with ASTM D 2937.
C. The relative strength characteristics of the subsurface soils were
determined from the results of direct shear tests. Specimens were
placed in contact with water at least twenty-four (24) hours before
testing, and were then sheared under normal loads ranging from 0.5
to 2.0 kips per square foot in general accordance with ASTM D 3080.
D. Settlement and hydroconsolidation potential was evaluated from
the results of consolidation tests performed in accordance with
ASTM 2435:
' April 5, 1990 -4- B7 -2083-P1
90-04-724
' E. Classification tests consisted of: Expansion Index (UBC Standard No,
29-2),. Maximum Density -Optimum Moisture (ASTM D 1557) and
Hydrometer Analysis (California Test Method 203).
' F. Refer to Appendix B for tabular
PP and graphic representation of the
test results.
SOIL CONDITIONS
' As determined by the borings, site sods were found to consist primarily of
fine silty sands. The boring logs in Appendix A contain a more detailed
' description of the soils encountered.
A In-place densities indicate that the soils are of inconsistent density
but generally quite loose with ring densities indicating relative
compaction as low as fifty-five (55) percent of maximum density.
' B. The upper four (4) to six (b) feet of soils encountered on the
northwest portion of the site were placed as fill materials during
previous grading.
C. The consolidation test data indicates that some of the site soils are
susceptible to large settlements due to hydroconsolidation and
' loading. The majority of the highly collapsible soil was encountered
along the wash at depths of fifteen (15) to thirty (30) feet.
D. Clay and silt contents of the majority of the site soils exhibit low
plasticity. Expansion tests indicate soils to be in the "verylow'
expansion categories in accordance with Table 2 in Appendix of
this report. Refer to section F of the structures sectionforscific
' explanations and requirements dealing with expansive soil.
E. Soils should be readily cut by normal grading equipment
tGROUNDWATER
Free groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings; however,
' local information indicates the groundwater level is in excess of one
hundred (100) feet. Fluctuations in groundwater levels may occur due to
variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors.
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
iThe project site is located in the western Coachella Valley near the base
of the Santa Rosa Mountains, north of Indio Mountain. The Coachella
Valley is part of the tectonically active Salton Basin. This basin is a closed,
internally draining trough that has been filled with a complex series of
continental clastic materials during Pleistocene and Holocene time (Van
' de.Camp, 1973).
' April 5, 1990 -5- 67-2083-P1
90-04-724
The Sari Andreas rift zone dominates the geology of the Coachella
Valley. The Banning and Mission Creek faults, which are parts of the San
' Andreas system are responsible for earthquakes recently felt in the
Coachella Valley. Other regional faults that have produced events felt in
the Coachella Valley are the San Jacinto, Imperial and Elsinore faults
' (see figures 1 & 2).
Based upon the historical and prehistorical record, the Coachella Valley
' segment of the San Andreas fault system is likely to generate a
magnitude seven (7.0) or greater earthquake within the next fifty (50)
years. The potential for a magnitude seven (7.0) earthquake within the
' next fifty (50) years is estimated by Seih (1985) as 'High' (50%-900/).
LOCAL GEOLOGY
The proposed development is located on the east side of Washington
Street north of Highway 111. This area is south of the Whitewater River
Storm Channel. Lithologic units observed on site include Quaternary
aeolian and alluvial deposited sediments and artificial fills. These units
are described as follows:
Quaternary Sediments - Qs
' Gray brown, unconsolidated sand, silt and gravels. These sediments
have been deposited by fluvial or aeolion processes and are found at
' the base of the granitic rocks.
- A=k:ii Fill - At
Generally the some as Qs found throughout the site but mainly in the
storm channel bank area.
' The project site is located approximately five and five tenths (5.5) miles
southwest of the San Andreas fault zone. Figure 3 shows the project site in
' relation to the local geology.
` GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
A Primary' Seismic Hazards:
Primary seismic geologic hazards that may affect any property in
the seismically active southern California region include ground
rupture and strong. ground motion.
1. Fault Rupture:
April 5, 1990 -6- 137-2083-P1
90-04-724
a. The project site is not located in any Alquist-Priolo special
study zones. Nor are any faults mapped through or
adjacent to the project area. At the time of drilling no
surface expression of faulting was observed.
b. Fault= rupture would most likely occur along previously
established traces. However, fault rupture may occur at
other locations not previously mapped.
2. Ground Shaking;
a. Strong ground motion is the seismic hazard most likely to
affect the site during the life of the intended structures.
Using methods developed by Seed and Idriss (1982) and
Ploessel & Slosson (1974), the following table was compiled
for anticipated accelerations which may be experienced
during an earthquake at the project site.
b. The project area is mapped in Ground Shaking Zone III C
as designated by the County of Riverside, California.
Ground Shaking Zones are based on distance from
causative faults and soil types.
c. Because of the thick sedimentary layer of soils two
thousand (2000 feet or more) under the site ground
shaking characteristics are expected to include
moderate amplification of all frequencies. Duration of
shaking could be from .(fifteen) 15 to thirty-six (36) seconds.
B. Secondary Seismic Hazar
Secondary seismic geologic hazards that may affect the project
site area include subsidence, liquefaction, and ground lurching.
Subsidence, whether seismically related or not, is considered a
potential hazard in this area. Historic records report significant
episodes of subsidence in the La Quinta area due to seismic .
forces and/or heavy rain fall end flooding.
TABLE 1
Estimated
Design
Maximum
Acceleration
Maximum
Acceleration
Repeatable
Ground
Approximate
Distance to
Eorthauake'
in Rock
inSoil"
Accelerations
Proiect Srt�
San Andreas 7.5.
.51g
.48g
31g
5.7 mi
San Jacinto 6.5
.18g
.15g
log
19.5 mi
" Richter Magnitude
Deep Cohesionless
Soils
b. The project area is mapped in Ground Shaking Zone III C
as designated by the County of Riverside, California.
Ground Shaking Zones are based on distance from
causative faults and soil types.
c. Because of the thick sedimentary layer of soils two
thousand (2000 feet or more) under the site ground
shaking characteristics are expected to include
moderate amplification of all frequencies. Duration of
shaking could be from .(fifteen) 15 to thirty-six (36) seconds.
B. Secondary Seismic Hazar
Secondary seismic geologic hazards that may affect the project
site area include subsidence, liquefaction, and ground lurching.
Subsidence, whether seismically related or not, is considered a
potential hazard in this area. Historic records report significant
episodes of subsidence in the La Quinta area due to seismic .
forces and/or heavy rain fall end flooding.
April 5, 1990
-7-
B7-2083-P1
90-04-724
2. Liquefaction is the loss of strength of saturated cohesionless soils
generally from seismic shaking. In order for liquefaction to
occur, three principal conditions must be present. First, the soils
must have relative densities below seventy (70) percent;
second, the water table - perched or otherwise - must be within
the. upper fifty (50) feet of soils; and third, the soils must have a
.predominant grain size range between 0.5 mm and 0.01 mm.
Other criteria that identify susceptibility to liquefaction are a
uniformity coefficient between two (2) and ten (10) and ten (10)
percent passing between 01 mm and .25 mm, (Hunt,
Geotechnical Engineering 'Investigation Manual, McGraw-Hill
Book Co., 1984). When any of these conditions or criteria are
not satisfied, liquefaction is not. considered a possibility.
3. No freewater was encountered in our exploratory borings
indicating that liquefaction is unlikely. Also, the project is not
located within the Riverside County Liquefaction Study Zone.
4. Ground lurching is generally associated with. fault rupture and
liquefaction. Because of the distance of the project site to the
San Andreas fault system. The possibility of ground lurching
affecting the site is considered low.
5. The probability of other seismic hazards such as tsunamic and
seiches (waves oscillating in an inclosed area) impacting the
site is considered low.
' C. Non -Seismic Hazards
Other geologic hazards that could affect the project site include
' landslides, flooding and erosion.
' a. Evidence of past landsliding was not observed at the site. The
site is not at the base of any steep hills.
' b. Flooding and erosion are always a consideration in arid
regions. On-site, the erosion rate is affected by sparse
vegetation and seasonal rains. The sites proximity to the
' Whitewater storm chcnnel may impact the planned
development. The storm channels sides are not protected
form erosion in this area.
' c. The Coachella Valley averages four (4) inches of rainper year.
When large amounts of rain occur suddenly, the surface
' alluvium becomes saturated and prevents further infiltration of
the rains. The result is surface runoff and sheet flow drainage on
slopes toward gullies and washes.
' d. Generally, erosion in the desert can be reduced by minimizing
soil disturbances and diverting seasonal runoff from areas f
' high potential erosion.
' April 5, 1990 -8- 137-2083-P1
90-04-724
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1 Based on a review of selected technical literature and the site
investigation, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the intended
1 development provided it is designed around the noted geologic
hazards. The following is a'summary of our conclusions and professional
opinions based on the data obtained.
A The primary geologic hazard relative to site development is severe
ground shaking from earthquakes originating on nearby faults. The
' site is located in Southern California which is an active seismic area.
In our opinion, a major seismic event originating. on either the San
Andreas or San Jacinto fault zones would be the most likely cause of
' significant earthquake activity at the site within the estimated design
life of the proposed development.
B. Subsidence, whether seismically related or not, is considered a
potential hazard. Adherence to the grading recommendations
contained in this report is necessary to limit differential settlements
and subsidence.
' C. Areas of aeolian and alluvial soils may be susceptible to fluvial
aeolian erosion processes. Preventative measures to minimize r
' seasonal flooding should be incorporated into site grading plans.
Disturbances of native ground cover should be minimized.
' D. Due to the sites location directly adjacent to the Whitewater storm
channel and the unprotected condition of the storm channel walls,
erosion of said wails may impact site -development. A licensed civil
engineer should be consulted regarding this concern.
E. Other hazards including liquefaction, lurching, seiching and tsunamis
' are considered low to negligible.
F. It is our opinion that the site soils will not provide uniform or adequate
support for the proposed structures without the recommended.
' sitework. Due to varying soil conditions, the recommended site
preparation will vary throughout the site. In general, we
recommend that structures be -supported by recompacted soil
' mats to provide more uniform and firm bearing support. Additional
site work is recommended along the Whitewater Channel due to
the susceptibility to hydroconsolidation of the deeper soils.
' G. The project site is in seismic Zone 4 as defined in Section 2312 (d) 2, of.
the Uniform Building Code. It is recommended that any permanent
' structure- be designed according to the current additions of the
Uniform Building Code and Standards.
' H. It is further recomme=nded 4,hct, cny pe.rmcn,ent structure constructed
on the site be designed to accommodate expected repeatable
' ground accelerations resulting from the predicted maximum
probable earthquake as stated in Table 1.
1 ,
April 5, 1990 -9- B7 -2083-P1
' 90-04-724
' I. Adherence to the following grading recommendations should limit
potential settlement problems due to seismic forces, heavy rainfall,
flooding and the weight of the intended structure.
J. It is recommended that Buena Engineers, Inc.
g be retained to
provide continuous Geotechnical Engineering services during site
tdevelopment and grading, and foundation construction phases of
the work to observe compliance with the design concepts,
specifications and recommendations, and to allow design
' changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those
anticipated prior to the start of construction.
' K. Plans and specifications should be provided to Buena Engineers,
Inc. prior to grading. Plans should include the grading plans,
foundation plans, and foundation details. Preferably, structural loads
should be shown on the foundation plans.
' SITE DEVELOPMENT
As discussed the site soils are composed primarily of previously placed fill
material and native soils which were found to be quite dry with
inconsistent and generally low densities. The consolidation. testing
indicates that much of the underlying native soil is susceptible to large
' ,settlements due to the introduction of water and the additional loading
of structures. The magnitude and inconsistent nature of the potential
settlement along the. Whitewater Channel is in our opinion unacceptable
for structural support. Limiting the potential settlement in this area is the
primary concern in site development. There are several alternatives for
site preparation of the northern portion of the site which should be
' examined considering both cost and effectiveness.
A Site Development - Main Complex
' As previously mentioned, the site conditions vary greatly,
unfortunately the most severe conditions occur along the northern
edge of the site where the main shopping complex is proposed.
The following alternatives are presented for preparation of the
building areas along the Whitewater Channel.
'
I. Pile or drilled pier foundations extending through collapsible
soils into firm native soils could provide adequate support for
the proposed structures. The primary problem with the use of
' pile or pie.r foundations is the potential settlement of auxiliary
structures such as retaining walls, sidewalks, etc. This problem
must be addressed. If specific building locations and loading
' becomes available, pile or pier design can be provided.
April 5,
1990 -10- 137-2083-P1
'
90-04-724
2.
Complete removal of the collapsible material is perhaps the
most effective method of site preparation. However, with the
worst conditions encountered at depths of fifteen (15) to thirty
(30) feet, removal would involve extensive grading which could
be cost prohibitive.
3.
The structure could be supported by normal spread footings
provided a recompacted soil mat of substantial thickness,
'
(approximated ten (10) feet) be constructed beneath the
footings. This option also involves extensive grading.
'
4.
The use of large mat foundations is also d viable alternative
and would require significantly less recompaction, probably in
the range of five (5) feet thick. A primary consideration with mat
'
foundations is substantial cost associated with structural design
and construction.
5.
Perhaps the most economical solution is a combination of
recompaction, saturation and preconsolidation. Initially a
recompacted soil mat probably about five (5) feet thick should
be constructed. Water induction points can then be drilled for
_
saturation of the deeper soils. Providing surcharge loads would
increase the effectiveness of the saturation and consolidation.
Adequate monitoring and follow-up testing is imperative in
'
determining preconsolidation effectiveness prior to
construction.
a. Water induction can be performed by drilling into the
problem layers and . filling the borings with water for a
period of time in order to induce hydroconsolidation.
'
b. The induction borings will be necessary in areas where dry
collapsible layers were encountered, generally throughout
'
the northern portion of the site.
c. The depth and spacing of induction borings will vary with
'
the soils encountered and the time allotted. The necessary
spacing and depths will vary throughout. the site.
d. The effectiveness of the water induction system should be
monitored during the watering process and adequate
moisture should be verified.
'
Because
e. many of the site soils are very Y silt we
recommend that the building pads be graded prior to
'
water induction to avoid potential problems with
overexcavation.
b.
The given alternatives are presented generally and more
specific information can be provided when potential design
configurations become available. The project civil engineer,
'
architect and potential contractors should be consulted
throughout site development.
April 5, 1990 -11- 137-2083-P1
' 90-04-724
-= B. Site Development - Satellite Buildinas
As previously discussed, the soil conditions encountered throughout
the southern portion of the site were not as severe as along the
' wash and normal grading should be adequate for structure support.
Site grading should be visually checked by Buena Engineers, Inc.,
or their representative prior to placement of fill. Local variations in
' soil conditions may warrant increasing the depth of recompaction
and/or excavation.
' 1. Prior to site grading any existing structures, stumps, roots,
foundations, pavements, leachfields, uncompacted fill and
trash piles, any abandoned underground utilities should be
removed from the proposed building and paving areas. The
top surface should be stripped of all .organic growth and
noncomplying fill which along with other debris, should be
removed from the site.
2. Depressions resulting from these removals should have debris
and loose soil removed and be filled with suitable fill soils
adequately compacted. No compacted fill should be
placed unless the underlying soil has been observed by Buena
Engineers, Inc.
3. In order to help minimize potential settlement problems
associated with structures supported on a non-uniform thickness
of compacted fill, Buena Engineers, Inc. should be consulted
for site grading recommendations relative to backfilling large
' and/or deep depressions resulting from removal under item 1
above. In general, all proposed construction should be
supported by a uniform thickness of compacted soils.
1 4. Due to widely varying soil. conditions, the necessary grading will
vary from the southeast to the southwest portions of the site.
' Due to the granular nature of the site soils throughout the
southeastern portion of the site, it is expected that compaction
may be obtained to a depth of three (3) to four (4) feet by
' heavily watering and compacting from the surface. Because
the soils throughout the southwestern portion of the site are very
silty near the surface, removal and recompaction is
recommended.
5. Building areas throughout the southeastern portion of the site
■ - should be moistened to at or above optimum moisture to a
■ depth of four (4) feet below original grade or the bottom of the
footings, whichever is deeper. The surface should be
' compacted so that a minimum of ninety (90) percent of
maximum density is obtained to a depth of three (3) feet
below, original grade or the bottom of the footings, whichever is
deeper if applicable, fill material should be placed in thin layers
at near optimum moisture and compacted to a minimum of
April 5, 1990 -12- B7 -2083-P1
90-04-724
ninety (90) percent of maximum density. The intent Is to have at
' least three (3) feet of soil compacted to a minimum of ninety
(90) percent of maximum density compose the building pad
beneath the footings and to have an additional foot of
' moisture penetration. Compaction is to be confirmed by
testing.
' 6. These grading requirements apply to building areas and at
least five (5) feet beyond building limits.
7. Auxiliary structures including freestanding or.retaining walls shall
have the existing soils beneath the structure processed as per
items six (6), seven (7) and eight (8) above. The grading
' requirements apply to three (3) feet beyond the face of the
walls. If plans for auxiliary structures and walls are provided for
our review, these recommendations may be revised.
8. It is anticipated that during grading a loss of approximately
. 9 9 9 one
tenth (.1) of a foot due to stripping, and a shrinkage factor of
' about ten (10) to twenty (20) percent for the upper five (5) feet
of soil, may be used for quantity calculations. This is based on
compactive effort needed to produce an average degree
' of compaction of approximately ninety-three (93) to ninety-four
(94) percent and may vary depending on contractor methods.
Subsidence is estimated between two-tenths (2) to three -tenths
' (.3) of a foot.
C. Site Development - General
' 1. The following 'general' recommendations listed in this section
are in addition to those listed in Sections A and B above.
' 2.. Any rocks larger than eight (8) inches in greatest dimension,
should be removed from fill or backfill material.
' 3. Import soil used to raise site grades should be equal to or
better than on-site soil in strength, expansion, and
' compressibility characteristics. Import soil may be prequalified
by Buena Engineers, Inc. Comments on the characteristics of
import will be given after.the material is on the project, either in-
place or in stockpiles of adequate quantity to complete the
' project.
' 4.- Areas around the structures should be graded so that drainage
is positive and away from the structures. Gutters and down
spouts should be considered as a way to convey water out of
' the foundation area. Water should not be allowed to pond on
or near pavement sections.
5. Added moisture within previously compacted fill could result in a
number of reactions at the surface depending upon the
r7 rY1 r\i int rnf mr-,ic+i iron +h rn 4 .. .. :1.. ..F +L. .� ..:I ....
April 5, 1990 -13- B7 -2083-P1
' 90-04-724
situ moisture content and soil type. Although the soil could in
' reality be expanding, collapsing, moving laterally due to the
phenomenon 'creep', the result is usually movement and will
most likely manifest itself visually in structural slabs and street
areas as cracks, (horizontal, lateral and vertical displacement).
b. The apparent cure to the problem is to not introduce excess
moisture into fill material once in place. To help minimize
' increased moisture into the fill material, site drainage and
landscape is critical. Site drainage should be in the form of roof
' gutter, concrete brow ditcher, ribbon gutters and gutters, storm
drain and other drainage devices. Landscaping should be
such that water is not allowed to pond. Additionally, care
' should be taken so as not to over water landscaped areas.
7. The Recommended Grading Specifications included in
Appendix C are general guidelines only and should not be
' included directly into project specifications without first
incorporating the site specific recommendations contained in
the Site Development section of this report. Chapter 70 of the
Uniform Building Code contains specific considerations for
grading and is considered a part of these General Guidelines.
8. It is recommended that Buena Engineers, Inc., be retained to
provide soil engineering services during construction of the
grading, excavation, and foundation phases of the work. This is
' to observe compliance with the design concepts,
specifications or recommendations and to allow design
changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from
' those anticipated prior to start of construction.
C. Excavations
' 1. All excavations should be made in accordance with
applicable regulations. From our site exploration and
knowledge of the general area, we feel there is a potential for
'construction problems involving caving of relatively deep site
excavations (i.e. utilities, etc.) Where such situations are
encountered, lateral bracing or appropriate cut slopes should
be provided.
2. No surcharge loads should be allowed within a horizontal
' distance measured from the top of the excavation slope,
equal to the depth of the excavation.
D. Traffic Areas
I. Curbs and streets should be provided with two (2) feet of
subgrade compacted to ninety (90) percent of maximum
' density.
2. On-site parking should be provided with two (2) feet of
subgrade compacted to ninety (90) percent of maximum
density.
April 5, 1990 -14- 137-2083-P1
90-04-724
3. Final preparation of subgrade will depend on paving section
' designs.
4. Sidewalks s-hould be provided with one (1) foot of subgrade
compacted to ninety (90) percent of maximum density.
E. Utility Trenches
' 1. Backfill of utilities within road right-of-way should be placed in
strict conformance with the requirements of the governing
agency (Water District, Road Department, etc.).
2. Utility trench backfill within private property should be placed in
' strict conformance with the provisions of this report relating to
minimum compaction standards. In general, service lines
extending inside of property may be backfilled with native soils
compacted to a minimum of ninety (90): percent of maximum
density.
3. Backfill operations should be observed and tested by Buena
' Engineers, Inc., to monitor compliance with these
recommendations.
STRUCTURES
' Based upon the results of this evaluation, it is our opinion that structure
foundation can be supported by compacted soils placed as
recommended above. The recommendations that follow are based
' on "very low" expansion category soils.
A Foundations
' It is anticipated that foundations will be placed on firm compacted
soils as recommended elsewhere in this report. p The
recommendations that follow are based on 'very low" expansion
category soils.
'
I. Table 2 gives specific recommendations for width, depth and
reinforcing: Other structural consideration may be more
stringent and would govern in any case. A minimum footing
depth of twelve (12) inches below lowest adjacent finish grade
' for one (1) story structures and eighteen (18) inches for two 2
story structures should be maintained.
2. Conventional Foundations:
Estimated bearing values are given below for foundations on
recompacted soils, assuming import fill (if required) to be equal
to or better than site soils:
April 5, 1990 -15- 87-2083-P1
90-04-724
a. Continuous foundations of one (1) foot wide and twelve
(12) inches below grade:
i. 1400 psf for dead plus reasonable live loads.
ii. 1850 psf for wind and seismic considerations.
b. Isolated pad foundations 2' x 2' and bottomed twelve (12)
inches below grade:
i. 1600 psf for dead plus reasonable live loads.
ii. 2150 psf for wind and seismic considerations,
3. Allowable increases of 200 psf per one (1) foot of additional
footing width and 300 psf for each additional six (6) inches of
footing depth may be used. The maximum allowable bearing
will be 2500 pcf. The allowable bearing values indicated have
been determined using a safety factor of three (3) and are
based upon anticipated maximum loads indicated in the
introduction section of this report. If the indicated loading is
exceeded then the allowable bearing values and the
Grading Requirements must be reevaluated by the soils
engineer.
4. Although footing reinforcement may not be required per Table
2; one 0) number four (7#4) rebar at top and bottom of footings
should be considered to reduce the potential for cracking due
to temperature and shrinkage stresses and in order to span
surface imperfections. Other requirements that are more
stringent due to structural loads will govern.
5. Soils beneath footings and slabs should be premoistened prior
to placing concrete.
6. Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction on floor slabs and
foundations and by passive resistance of the soils acting on
' foundation stem walls. Lateral capacity is based partially on
the assumption that any required backfill adjacent to
foundations and grade beams is properly compacted.
' 7. Foundation excavations should be visually observed by the soil
engineer during excavation and prior to placement of
' reinforcing steel or concrete, Local variations in conditions may
warrant deepening of footings.
8. ' Allowable bearing values are net (weight of footing and soil surcharge may be neglected) and are applicable for dead
plus reasonable live loads.
1. Concrete slabs -on -grade should be supported by
compacted structural fill placed in accordance with
applicable sections of this report.
April 5, 1990 -16- B7 -2083 -Pi
3 P1
90-04-724
' 2. In areas of moisture sensitive floor. _coverin s, an appropriate
9
vapor barrier should be installed in order to minimize vapor
' transmission from the subgrade soil to the slab. We would
suggest that the floor slabs be underlain by a four (4) inch thick
layer of gravel or by an impermeable membrane as a
' capillary break. A suggested gradation for the gravel layer
would be as follows:
' Sieve Size Percent Passing
3/4" 90-100
No. 4 0-10
No. 100 0-3
' If a membrane is used, a low -slump concrete should be used
to help minimize shrinkage. The membrane should be
covered with two (2) inches of sand to help protect it during
' construction. The sand should be lighthly moistened just prior to
placing the concrete. Concrete slabs should be allowed to
cure thoroughly before placing moisture sensitive floor
' covering.
3. Reinforcement of slab -on -grade is contingent upon the
structural engineers recommendations and the expansion
index of the supporting soil. Since the mixing of fill soil with native
soil could change the expansion index, additional tests should
' be conducted during rough grading to determine the
expansion index of the subgrade soil. Also, due to the high
temperature differential endemic to desert areas, large
concrete slabs on grade are susceptible to tension cracks. As
a minimum, we suggest that all interior concrete slabs -on -grade
be reinforced with 6" x 6' / #10 x #10 welded wire fabric.
' Additional reinforcement due to the expansion index of the site
soil should be provided as recommended in section F below.
Additional reinforcement may also be required by the structural
' engineer.
4. It is recommended that the proposed perimeter slabs
(sidewalks., patios, etc.) be designed relatively independent of
foundation stems (free-floating) to help mitigate cracking due
to foundation settlement and/or expansion.
' C. Settlement Considerations
1. The estimated settlement based on site preparation selected
can be estimated when specific information becomes
available..
April 5, 1990 -17- 137-2083-P1
90-04-724
D. Frictional and Lateral Coefficients
' 1. Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction
acting on the base of foundations, a coefficient of friction of .49
may be used for dead load forces.
2. - Passive resistance acting on the sides of foundation stems 300
' pcf of equivalent fluid weight, may be included for resistance to
lateral loads. The value doe not include a factor of safety.
3. A one-third (1/3) increase in the quoted passive value maybe
' used for wind or seismic loads.
4. Passive resistance of soils against grade beams and the
frictional resistance between the floor slabs and the supporting
soils may be combined in determining the total lateral
resistance, however the friction factor should be reduced to .33
of dead load forces.
5. For retaining walls backfilled with compacted native soil, it is
' recommended that an equivalent fluid pressure of thirty-five
(35) pcf be used for well drained level backfill conditions. The
pressure will increase significantly with sloping backfill.
E. Slope Stability
' Slope stability calculations were not performed for specific slopes. If
slopes exceed five (5) feet, engineering calculations should be
performed to substantiate the stability of slopes steeper than 2 to 1.
Fill slopes should be overfilled and trimmed back to competent
material.
F.
The design of foundations should be based on the weighted
' expansion index (UBC.Standard No. 29-2) of the soil. As stated in the
soil properties section, the expansion index of the majority of the on-
site soils are in the 'very low" (0-20) classification. However, during
site preparation, if the soil is thoroughly mixed and additional fill is
added, the expansion index may change. Therefore, the
expansion index should be evaluated after the site preparation has
been completed, and the final foundation design adjusted
accordingly.
' G. 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 Buena
' Engineers, Inc., as the soil engineering firm from beginning to end of
the project will help assure continuity of services. Construction
A d 15 1990
p 18- 87-2083-P1
' 90-04-724
monitoring and testing would be additional services provided by
our firm. The costs of these services are not included in our present
' fee arrangements. The recommended tests and observations
include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:
1 1. Consultation during the final design stages of the project.
2. Review of the building plans to observe that recommendations
' of our report have been properly implemented into the design.
3. Observation and testing during site preparation, grading and
' placement of engineered fill.
4. Consultation as required during construction.
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
' The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based in
part upon the data obtained from the twenty-three (23) borings
performed on the site. The nature and extent of variations between the
borings may not become evident until construction. If variations then
appear , evident, it will be necessary to reevaluate the
' recommendations of this report.
Findings of this .report are valid as of this date. However, changes in
conditions of a property can occur with passage of time whether they
be due to natural processes or works of man on this or adjacent
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 eighteen (18) months.
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 modified or verified in writing.
' This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the
owner, or of his representative, to insure that the information and
' recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the
architect and engineers for the project and are incorporated into the
plans and specifications for the project. It is also the owners responsibility,
' or his representative, to insure that the necessary steps are taken to see
that the general contractor and all subcontractors carry out such
recommendations in the field. It is further understood that the owner or his
' representative is responsible for submittal of this report to the appropriate
governing agencies.
April 5, 1990 -1'9- 137-2083-P1
' 90-04-724
Buena Engineers, Inc., has. prepared this report for the exclusive use of
' the client and authorized agents. This report has been prepared in
accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering
practices. No other warranties, either expressed or implied, are made as
' the professional advice provided under the terms of this agreement,
and included in the report.
It is 'recommended that Buena Engineers, Inc., 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 Buena Engineers, Inc., is not accorded the privilege of making this
recommended review, we can assume no responsibility for
misinterpretation of our recommendations.
Our scope of services did not include any environmental assessment or
'investigation to determine the presence of hazardous or toxic materials
in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air, on, below or around this site.
Prior to purchase or development of this site, we suggest that an
' environmental assessment be conducted which addresses
environmental concerns.
END OF TEXT
Appendices
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
April 5, 1990
-20-
67-2083-P1
90-04-724
REFERENCES
1. Envicom, Riverside County, 1976, Seismic Safety Element,
2. Krinitzsky, E.L., Chang, F.K., Magnitude -Related Earthquake Ground
Motions, Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists Vol. XXV,
No. 4, 1988, Pgs. 399-423.
t 3. Greensfelder, Roger W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock
Accelerations from Earthquakes in California, CDMG Map Sheet 23.
4. Ploessel, M. R. and Slosson, J. E., "Repeatable High Ground
Accelerations from Earthquakes% 1974 California Geology, Vol. 27,
No. 9, Pgs. 195-199.
5. Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil
Liquefaction During Earthquakes.
6. Seih, Kerry, 1985, "Earthquake Potentials Along The San Andreas
Fault', Minutes of The National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation
Council, March 29-30,1985, USGS Open File Report 85-507.
n
APPENDIX A
Site and Vicinity Map
Logs of Borings
e.a11f
� p \
}
u 0^r P.— r� •\
ivlorr 2 '�>
n � o
2 +
< \
^FLOCK
' 8okr6/.r 1d
Tcn �1S�TaFoct.
1 � 1
♦ ,s.< �5110�
Lo.-�x0-� 9!G PINE I •y L:n._
4 tic
se op _
S onto Bar ooro 'f'
Veal✓o
$:n Ser rcrero •tnlr.�,. P: rn 1.
ITE' Cs -.1a Rosa tib/ Sonic [ru7 I1. T 1 P�vvG��n
F�Rr bSt a /O
P=/'^ Cr serf
Lr:i-,:. t S` `t 9
onto
Colo" .3
121• 120. S:.n s moi^' r+ y0a + Ercrk T
[I Cnvo• t- Y
Son 0•cgo Tocv
nx� 1
IIS• Jr
1 fT 1
' r
�J
Q 'O 1� IM1 �•� �
C.I f
I16' II i • 1.6' Ilj'
1
' Base ma of southern C
P alifonia region u-ith r..ajor faults
fault Nap of S.outhern California
BUENA ENG INEERSI INC.
i.lileman et a1 1973 __ ,
1927 (e! \
1 Lone Pine \
° Tu/ore
1
19<616.31 `�\
I�
°Chino Lck�
Pokers/ie/do
IS 52(7.7,6.,5.1,6.1) *Ecker
Son/o / 1947 (6 2:
) °/,trio
°,Dors/cw\
IN
1925(63) \ `\ 1986 i5.9
�•,\ X971 (6.4)
/ Son e'er-'- -d •
° in0
1948 (6.5),
U i 9 2 3 W/4)--
.'�� SITE
\� 1918 (0.9; /nc o
• � 1937
\ 1954(0.2?
1968 (6.4) 'erre; o° f
—'—`---- \ 4
� ?row/e y (942(6.5:•
190 S.7;
5,n ego
/r1 _ r I o
cricc/i
1934 (0.5) �� � �•.
I9�4
j 1915 (7.1) f
O 1935(6.0;�
/GOMi/ c c
�--��•••r—�___ eS Enseccc� 1.,.:6(0 9,6.1,5.3.0.-,1
I
/00
_ 207 Km S. 11 \ /
1954 (6.3 6 0) 1966 (6 /
Earth 0 u a k e s of magnitude 5.9 and.
greater in the Southern California
?,cgion, 1912 — 1972 (including the
Horth Palm Spring; Carthquakc),
f,ron Ilile.mnn ct a1 (-1P 7
:.: c Epicenter Map of
Southern California
rigurc 2
BUENA ENGINEERS, INC.
DATE: y -5—`O 1 FILE NO. BT 2cf93-PI
- � -r% I I I +pr's•'^ ; � '\� I ,
SNI 'S833NION 3 YN3n8 I" _
1 J)ilS d7k '1117 illy/ -
1,�0 i01 1'1701 01 1;01!'r1J—'`�::; 7
S)IIS I))fC2d J0 dY!'1 _ ,`:: = /
._ .. . ;. �,� .<:,. •,, _ _ ,- •; - - -- ",%•,; �; ,.'�.' � .., :�?.vim ,::-� ` ,1 •
L`.f;._.
' ��� -G. -_/,/ `- -�<�c - .`'� ••'�.==.>- -' 'c:! ��=I !"'_ �•\-'�•''r SIO
It
SP
5 Yl
IF
Jj
�� ar',r :��^:r,y- •_' � ..Y- Y��. \ a\�':+���`y_. - :' 1•:1.6,.•,_x'/.
%.. =.� .. ,_ \ h __ fes-- -1- I _ �. �.I . �i. � �` . ` V'! <,: • •` • —' -_ - .) :.
i�.� �.• �-� _ +..ti.-.- I,a.-���,�! =�.y� �-:� }_ate •' - •+\-ti:'�^�`'^ r _'L ":` `;n,'9.ii_j
:tip •:���' ��^J - ,��'_1,'��\Y�, �aJ �.�•-.�11` - ', , /- •i-•'—.!` _� \_\ ��L�_+ 'y,.
-I \ \\ � --\•1,.. .\ '�';\ to 1: I .\._
. •
1
' �'
�PP20Xl�'16�T�'
,�o ,ei,t/6
Coo -9x10 4J S
, - )/non/ 9 L 2.6 .4CAC S ATF" d
W�11�W'¢ f�YL Gb�9Mit%r L c ROSS inJ 6
LA
Buena. Engineers, Inc.
DATE: S' --/O -go. I FILE NO.:37-2o63-10J
J
Lo
2
2
3
z
3
Q
O
_
V
r
..r
r
1
�r
r
e
v
r
2
0
r
RZ
k
Q
�
r
_
r
r
•
'
r
r
K r
. r
' lbertsons Market Complex
Date: 02/28/90 Location: Per Plan BORING NO: 2
m m m
m p 4 > > .2
CL m E o`0 3 DESCRIPTION z'
C >1 U O o n
00
a o U
File No. 87-2083-P1
REMARKS
Thin interbedded silt layers
13 throughout
' A 1 ; Grey brown very fine to Sp
5 fine sand
8 86.8 1.2 82 Silt layer 1" thick
Silt layer 3/4" thick
t 10 6
A2: Brown slightly clayey SM
_ silty very fine to fine
15 sand
23 - 2.2
' ® Relatively undisturbed
ring sample
20
® No recovery
25
30
' 35
' 40
45
50
Total Depth = 16'
No Free Water
No Bedrock
Note:
The stratification lines
represent the approximate
boundaries between the
soil types; the transitions
may be gradual.
1
.Ibertsons Market Complex
Date:
02/28/90
Location: Per Plan
BORING NO. 3
File No. 87 -2083 -Pt
_
m
o
DESCRIPTION
a
o^
m
>
m
> .2
C
'
m
-
v o
0
m
o REMARKS
0
cn
-
o
V)
_
E a
CC
E
o
a
0
A 4: Grey brown fine to
SP
-
medium sand with
trace coarse sand'
95.2
0.5
87
131 layer 2" thick
5
A 1 : Grey brown very fine to
12
fine sand
'
B 1 : Brown clayey silt
ML
1 10
14
100.9
5.7
83
A2: Brown slightly clayey
SM
silty very fine to fine
Thin interbedded B1 layers
'
sand
throughout
15
1
17
67.9
5'.0
A 1 : Grey brown very fine to
SP
.
20
fine sand
F
t_
21I
Total Depth = 26'
Relatively undisturbed
'
ring sample
No Free Water
25
No Bedrock
No recovery
30
t -
-
t
35
I
' 40
-
'
Note:
45
The stratification lines
represent the approximate
boundaries between the
soil types; ilia transitions
' 5 0
may be gradual.
,bertsons Market Complex
1 Date:
02/28/90
Location: Per Plan
BORING
N0,
4 File No. B7 -2083-P1
m o
DESCRIPTION
m
a
o
>
o
m
>
o
._
m C a
v
o
m
a
REMARKS
U)
'c a
�
c
cc
o
o
E
0
0
1
45
A3: Brawn clayey very
glut
93 7
1 5
79
Closely interbedded B1 layers
silty very fine sand
throughout
1 5
1
24
-
1 0
15
Closely interbedded B1 layers
1
7 15'
1
15
A 1: Grey brown very fine
Sp
_
25.
to fine sand
96.0
1.3
9 0
1
Scattered thin silty layers (A2)
.
15 25'
20
1 -
23
92.7
1.2
87
1 25
_
1
30
30
1
24
88.8 1.8
- - -
B1 layer 6" thick
1 35
50/1 1 "
Note:
1 _
A2: Brown slightly clayey
SM
The stratification lines
silty very fine to fine
represent the approximate
4 0_
sand
boundaries between the
1
50/9"
soil types; the transitions
may be gradual.
1
A 4: Grey brown fine to
S,
4 5
medium sand with
. '
33
trace coarse sand
Trace gravel
1
Relatively undisturbed
.
ring sample
Total Depth = 46'
® No recovery
No Free Water
50
u
No Bedrock
- dbertsons Market Complex
Date: 03/02/90 Location: Per Plan BORING NO. 6 File No. 87 2083-P1
m o
DESCRIPTION
a
o
m
o
c
m .o
vo
m a
REMARKS
oZ U)o
cr E
0 a
1.10
c
c O
o U
0
38 Al ; Grey brown very fine SP 97.7 1.4 92 B1 layer 2" thick
to fine sand
5 32 Thin interbedded 61 layers
throughout
10 17 B1: Brown clayey silt ML
_ 76.8 5.3 ---
15
1 1 A2: Brown slightly clayey SM
silty very fine to fine
sand ,
20 24
A 1 : Grey brown very fine SP
to fine sand
25
36
30 A2: Brown slightly clayey SM
50/10" silty very fine to fine
sand
35
37
4o
47-
A 1:: Grey brown very fine SP
I o fine sand
45
25
Relatively undisturbed
ring sample
® _LLNo recovery
50
92.1 1 1.5 1 87
Closely interbedded B1 layers
throughout i
Thin interbedded' B1 layers
throughout
Note:
The stratification lines
represent the approximate
boundaries between the
soil types; the transitions
may be gradual.
Total Depth = 46'
No Free Water
No Bedrock
' Dale:
03/02/90
%lbertsons
Location: Per Plan
Market Complex
BORING NO. 7
File No. 87-2083-P1
m o
DESCRIPTION
m
d
o
m
>
m
> ._
o
'
Dcn
Uo
o
¢
a' REMARKS
U)
c
o
n.
�
10-0
,
o U
'
0
A 1 : Grey brown veryfine
SP
to fine sand
50/1 1
A2: Brown slightly clayey
SM
100.9
5.7
83
Interbedded B1 layers
silty very fine to fine
throughout
sand
5
_
30
95.2
0.5
87
Scattered thin B1 layers
'
-
Al : Grey' brown very fine
Sp
throughout
to fine sand
10
7
-
A2: Brown slightly clayey
SM
-
silty very fine to fine
'
sand
15
9
67.9
5.0
---
'
Scattered thin A2 layers
throughout
'
20
22
B1: Brown clayey silt
ML
100.9
5.7
83
25
_
32
100.9
5.7
83
A2: Brown slightly clayey
SM
'
30
36
silty very fine to fine
97 , 0
0.7
89
sand
Closely interbedded B1 layers
'B
1: Brown clayey silt
ML
35
_
45
Scattered A4 layers
_
Al : Grey brown :eery fine
SP
Note:
'
40
to fine sand
50/9"
The stratification lines
represent the approximate
'
boundaries between the
soil types; the transitions
45.
may be gradual.
50/ 9
'
W Relatively undisturbed
ring sample
Total Depth = 46'
(� No recovery
No Free Water
'
s o
No Bedrock
�Ibertsons Market Complex
Date: 03/02/90 Location: Per Plan BORING NO. 8
m
Q
o
E 0
3
DESCRIPTION`�
20
T-=-.
m
c
m .o
U
m e
�—
> U
o
a
°
m a
trE
10
%
a
G
o
o 0
-. U
0
%A3:
Brown clayey very
Sh'
silty very fine sand
25
95.6
8.0
80
'
A2:
SM
5
A 1 : Grey brown very fine
SP
3 0
to fine sand
File No. 87-2083-P1
REMARKS
Fill material
10 A2: Brown slightly clayey SM - _ _ 1 .3 B1 layer 6" thick
silty very fine to fine
sand Closely interbedded B1 layers
throughout
15
13
20
12
25
13
10
25
5
88.2 1 2.0 1 76
A 1 : Grey brown very fine SP
to fine sand 82.1 1 .4 77 A3 layers throughout
Thin interbedded B1 layers
A3: Brown clayey very SM throughout
silty very fine sand
A 1 : Grey brown very fineII SP
to fine sand
50/9"
kCl:own slightly sandy
0 silty clay
50/9"
Relatively undisturbed
ring sample
® No recovery
0
Scattered A3 layers throughout 11
I Total Depth = 41'
No Free Water
No Bedrock
Note:
The stratification lines
represent the approximate
boundaries between the
soil types; the transitions
may be gradual.
%lbertsons Market Complex
Date:
03/14/90
Location: Per Plan
BORING
NO. 9
File No. B7 -2083 -Pt
DESCRIPTION
m
Z:
o o
m
m
v o
m a
REMARKS
•
�
'c
Q E
a �
o 0
0
61 layer 2" thick on surface
.
012
103.0 0.9
97
B1 layer 1/2" thick
A 1 : Grey brown' very fine to
Sp
5
1 7
fine sand
B1 layer 2" thick
10
17
15
31
A2: Brown slightly clayey
sM
silty very fine to fine
Thin interbedded B1 layers
2 0
sand
- 20'
_
2 9
91.7 1.5
79
- Relatively undisturbed
Total Depth = 21'
ring sample
No Free Water
25
No Bedrock
No recovery
30
35
40
Note:
45
'
The stratification lines
represent the approximate
boundaries between the
soil types; the Iransilions
50
may be gradual.
Date: 03/14/90
.,Ibertsons Market Complex
Location: Per Plan BORING NO. 10
a)a) o
0-
DESCRIPTION
0 o m
o -- = a: E
U) U
Al: -Grey brown very fine to
fine sand
® No recovery
SP
File No. 137-2083-P1
REMARKS
Scattered A2 layers
Total Depth = 16'
No Free Water
No Bedrock
Note:
The stratification lines
represent the approximate
boundaries between the
soil types; the transitions
may be gradual.
a)
t m
o'
n
m :
-
0 3
c
M
U o
'—
U)
0
10
5
_
7
10
'
12
15
1
18
'
20
'
2 5'
30
'
35
4 0
45
50
.,Ibertsons Market Complex
Location: Per Plan BORING NO. 10
a)a) o
0-
DESCRIPTION
0 o m
o -- = a: E
U) U
Al: -Grey brown very fine to
fine sand
® No recovery
SP
File No. 137-2083-P1
REMARKS
Scattered A2 layers
Total Depth = 16'
No Free Water
No Bedrock
Note:
The stratification lines
represent the approximate
boundaries between the
soil types; the transitions
may be gradual.
'
0
Complex
�Ibertsons
Market
'
Date:
02/28/90
Location: Per Plan
BORING NO. 11
-•.-
CD
a
o
E
o
3
DESCRIPTION
m
a
m
>
m o
> .Z5
E
c
14
U
o
..
0
¢ a
A3: Brown clayey very
'
-
'E d
o
o U
'
0
A 1 : Grey brown very fine
to fine sand
14
5
A3: Brown clayey very
'
-
21
silty very fine sand
_
A2: Brown slightly clayey
'
1 0
silty very fine to fine
3 0
sand
1
-
15
5 0/ 1 1"
Al Grey brown very fine
to fine sand
'
20
50/10"
25
3 4
A4: Grey brown fine to
medium sand with
'
trace coarse sand
'
30
50/10"
Relatively undisturbed
'
ring sample
35
1
No, recovery
'
40
45
'
S0
File No. B7 -2083-P1
REMARKS
SP I I I II Thin interbedded B1 layers
up to 1/2" thick
SM 95.2 1 0.5 1 8711 131 layers throughout
SM I I 1 II Thin B1 layers throughout
100.91 5.7 l 83
Sp Widely scattered thin B1 layers
15-20'
mg
100.9 15.7 183
0
Total Depth = 31'
No Free Water
No Bedrock
Note:
The stratification lines
represent the approximate
boundaries between the
soil types; the transitions
may be gradual.
Date: •
,�,a� mut, uomptex .
Location: Per Plan
02/28/90
BORING
NO.
12
a`
E
o
3
m
a
m
>
(D
>
o
.�
DESCRIPTION
2:1
.n
1
O
o
.
o°
y
-E
2
m
cc
n.
a
U)
a
.�
o
43
5
A3: Brown clayey very
SM
23
10
1
-
21
15
27
20
'
50/12"
1
25
50/6"
30
'
50/6"
35
'
40
45
' 50
,.,�,�, ►��,��
,�,a� mut, uomptex .
Location: Per Plan
BORING
NO.
12
m
a
m
>
(D
>
o
.�
DESCRIPTION
2:1
o
.
o°
y
-E
2
m
cc
n.
a
U)
a
.�
o
0
o U
A3: Brown clayey very
SM
silty very fine sand
B 1 : Brown clayey silt
A 1 : Grey brown very fine
to fine sand
--- 1 2.9 1 ---
ML
89.0 5.0 75
�� m
89.9 1 1.4 1 85
A2: Brown slightly clayey SM
silty very fine to fine
sand 11
File No. 87.2083 -Pt
REMARKS
Thin B1 layers throughout
Thin interbedded B1 layers
throughout
0 Relatively undisturbed Total Depth = 31'
ring sample No Free Water
No Bedrock
21 No recovery
Note:
The stratification lines
represent, the approximate
boundaries between the
soil types; the transitions
may be gradual.
' Date: 02/28/90
m o
L m m y
o ` 0
0
Albertsons Market Complex
Location: Per Plan BORING NO. 13
m m m c
DESCRIPTION
0 o b
CD a
a ¢ E
D Cl- o 1-810 U
50/9"
A2: Brown slightly clayey SM
t silty very fine to fine
sand
5
37
10 10
FA 1 : Grey brown very fine SP
to fine sand
A3: Brown clayey very II Sm.
silty very fine sand
A 1 : Grey brown very fineII Sp
to fine sand
Relatively undisturbed
ring sample
No recovery
File No. 87-2083-P1
REMARKS -
101.41 1.9 1 88 11 B1 layer 2" thick
92.3 1 1.7 1 87
Scattered B1 layers throughout
B1 layer 2" thick
Interbedded B1 layers
throughout
Total Depth = 31'
No Free Water
No Bedrock
Note:
The stratification lines
represent the approximate
bo ;ndaries between the
soil types; the transitions
may be gradual.
21
20
►��27
25
►��
►�/43
35
,0
A3: Brown clayey very II Sm.
silty very fine sand
A 1 : Grey brown very fineII Sp
to fine sand
Relatively undisturbed
ring sample
No recovery
File No. 87-2083-P1
REMARKS -
101.41 1.9 1 88 11 B1 layer 2" thick
92.3 1 1.7 1 87
Scattered B1 layers throughout
B1 layer 2" thick
Interbedded B1 layers
throughout
Total Depth = 31'
No Free Water
No Bedrock
Note:
The stratification lines
represent the approximate
bo ;ndaries between the
soil types; the transitions
may be gradual.
Albertsons Market Complex
Date:
02/28/90
Location: Per Plan
BORING
NO. 14
File No. B7 -2083-P1
m
m m
oa.
E
o
DESCRIPTION
m
3
m
D
m .o
o
m a
REMARKS
U)
'c a
�
o
a: E
0
B 1: Brown clayey silt
ML.
I—
50/8"
98.0
4.4
5
23
94 1
1 9
81
Thin interbedded B1 layers
A2: Brown slightly clayey
SM
throughout
silty very fine to fine
_
sand
10
_
18
91.4
1.1
79
-
Interbedded B1 layers 12 17'
15
23
95.3
0.9
90
_
A 1 : Grey brown very fine
SP
to fine sand
20
38
Scattered A2 layers 20 25'
25
30
- Relatively undisturbed
Total Depth = 26'
ring sample
No Free Water
.30
No Bedrock
® .No recovery
35
40
Note:
45
The stratification lines
represent the approximate
boundaries between the
I
soil types; the transitions
�n'
may be gradual
r41
bertsons Market Complex•
Date: 03/22/90 Location: Per Plan BORING NO. 15 File No. B7 -2083-P1
'
m
o
a
m
?
c
m •°
a m
E
o
3
DESCRIPTION
z
0
°
—°
REMARKS
p —
o
-
oU)
..
m a
cc E
E 0
o
o U
u
1
A2: Brown slightly clayey
gM
_
silty very fine to fine
50/1 1 "
sand
120.0
4.6
100
1
5
1
33
107.9
3.5
100
Thin 81 layer
-
1 0
A 1 : Grey brown very fine
gp
'
7
to fine sand
'
15
1
_
7
65.1
3.6
61
81' layer 3" thick
-
20
A3: Brown clayey ve.rygM
Interbedded clay layers
'
25
silty very fine sand
89.7
1.8
76
throughout
r25
Al : Grey brown very fine
gp
38
to fine sand
30
r
25
Relatively undisturbed
Total Depth = 31'
'
ring sample
No Free Water
3-5
No Bedrock
1-
No recovery
r-
40
'
_
Note:
45
The stratification lines
represent the approximate
boundaries between the .
-
soil types; the transitions
may be gradual.
50
File No. B7 -2083-P1
REMARKS
B1 layers throughout
' - 21 87'2 2.6 82 Closely interbedded B1
layers 10 - 17'
'
-
Market Complex
A 1 : Grey brown very fine
SP
Albertsons
'
Date:
03/22/90
Location: Per Plan
BORING
NO. 16
85.2
m
o
'
20
m
a
m
?
mC
? r
'
o
DESCRIPTION
L'
0
°
�° M
CD c
o .-
U)
—
SM
a
--
'
m d
Cr E
silty very fine sand
C U
c
UO
50/10"
Ou
A2: Brown slightly clayey
SM
A4: Grey brown fine to
SP
silty very fine to fine
_
medium sand with
50110"
sand
'
30
112.8
9.3
97
trace coarse sand
5
31
A 1 : Grey brown very fine
SP
_
to fine sand
50/1 1 "
Bl: Brown clayey silt
ML
10
A 1 : Grey brown very fine
SP
File No. B7 -2083-P1
REMARKS
B1 layers throughout
' - 21 87'2 2.6 82 Closely interbedded B1
layers 10 - 17'
'
-
A 1 : Grey brown very fine
SP
15
17
to fine sand
85.2
2.4
80
'
20
33
_
A3: Brown clayey very
SM
'
silty very fine sand
25
50/10"
A4: Grey brown fine to
SP
_
medium sand with
'
30
25
trace coarse sand
35
50/1 1 "
A 1 : Grey brown very fine
SP
'
40
to fine sand
35
45
50
Relatively undisturbed
'
-
ring sample
® No recovery
'
50
Scattered thin B1 layers
Scattered thin clay layers
throughout
Note:
The stratification lines
represent the approximate
boundaries between the
i soil types; the transitions
.may be gradual.
Total Depth = 46'
No Free Water
No Bedrock
Albertsons . Market Complex
Date: 03/22/90 Location: Per Plan BORING NO. 18 File No. B7 -2083 -Pt
a -
O _-c.
o
3
E
cn
o
v
0=
DESCRIPTION
n
_�
o
U)
.-
-E U
mC:m
?
"-
> .2
`�
It E
U
REMARKS
0
131: Brown clayey silt
ML
2 3
-------------
Thin interbedded silt layers
_
A2: Brown slightly clayey
SM
throughout
5
28
silty very tine to fine
sand
1
10
80.5
1.4
76
A2 layer 6" thick
A 1 : Grey brown very fine
SP
to fine sand
Thin A2 layers throughout
15
18
20
23
B1: Brown clayey silt
ML
75.7
7.1
---
A2: Brown slightly clayey
SM
silty very fine to fine
25
50
and
A4: Grey brown fine to
medium sand with
SP
Thin interbedded silt layers
throughout
trace coarse sand
30
20
M .Relatively undisturbed
Total Depth = 31'
-
ring sample
No Free Water
35
No Bedrock
I
No recovery
-
40
-
_
I
I
Note:
45
The stratification lines
represent the approximate
boundaries between the
_
soil types; the transitions
50'
may be gradual.
Date: 03/23/90
Albertsons Market Complex
m
t (D
CL
o
-0
E
m
°
N
o
m o
DESCRIPTION
o
0
o
— ^
2
50/6
S
'E n
�
�
o
,
o U
_
46
10
silty very fine to fine
8
15
sand
10
117.1
5.3
20
A 1 : Grey brown very fine
SP
23
to fine sand
'
25
3.3
10 0
A3: Brown clayey very
_
24
Albertsons Market Complex
Location: Per Plan BORING NO. 19
m o
DESCRIPTION
o
o
o
— ^
2
n
¢
0
U)
'E n
�
�
o
,
o U
A2: Brown slightly clayey
SM
silty very fine to fine
sand
117.1
5.3
'100
A 1 : Grey brown very fine
SP
to fine sand
110.3
3.3
10 0
A3: Brown clayey very
SM
silty very fine sand
A 1 : Grey brown very fine
SP
- - .
3.7
_ . .
to fine sand
A2: Brown slightly clayey SM
File No. 87-2083-P1
REMARKS
silty very fine to fineI I I II Closely interbedded clay
sand 92.5 6.2 80 layers
B1 : Brown clayey silt ML 3.2 - - Obvious voids
A3 layer 1' thick
A4: Grey brown fine to SP
30 42 medium sand with
trace coarse sand
Relatively undisturbed
ring sample
No recovery
86.2 1 7.0 1 - - -
Total Depth = 35'
No Free Water
No Bedrock
Note:
The steatification lines
represent the approximate
boundaries between the
soil types; the transitions
may be gradual.
Albertsons Market Complex
Date: 03/23/90 Location: Per Plan BORING NO. 21 File No. B7 -2083-P1
m
o
m
a
>
m c
> .0
C e
0
DESCRIPTION
o
o
0
E
REMARKS
o
-
n
U)
j a
o
Q U
0
A 1 : Greybrown very fine
SP
_
40
to fine sand
5
_
3 3
100.7
0.8
95
A2 bottom 6"
Closely interbedded silt
layers 10 15'
_
A2: Brown slightly clayey
SM
10
silty very fine to fine
22
sand
15
50/8"
B1 layer 3" thick
20
42
76.3
9.4
---
---
-
B 1 : Brown clayey silt
ML
25
,50/10"
86.2
10.4
---
3 0
24
85.6
7.0
Thin A4 layers
A2: Brown slightly clayey
SM
-
_
silty very fine to fine
35
50/1 1 "�
98.1
2.4
85
81 layer 2" thick
A4: Grey brown fine to
SP
medium sand with
4 0
trace coarse sand
40
® Relatively undisturbed
Total Depth = 41'
-
_
ring sample
No Free Water
45
® No recovery
No Bedrock
Note: The stratification
lines represent the
approximate boundaries
_
between the soil types; the
50
transitions may be gradual.
I
I
I
April 5, 1990 B71
B7 -2083-P1
90-04-724
J
TEST RESULTS
1 . .
BORING/DEPTH 1@ 0-5' 1@ 8-13' 4@ 0-5'
3@ 0-2'
6@10' 19@15'
USCS SP SM SM
SP,
ML CL
' SOIL DESIGNATION Al A2 A3
A4
131 C1
' MAXIMUM
DENSITY (pcf) 106.3 115.7 118.8
105.7
--- ---
OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%) 14.4 11.7 11.9
14.7
ANGLE OF INT. FRIC. 32.40 31.40 31.50
35.80
--- ___
' COHESION (psf) 100 160 .175
60
--- ---
EXPANSION INDEX 0 0 4
---
--- ---
-_GRAIN
GR AIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION (%)
' GRAVEL 0.0 0.0 0.1
1.2
0.0 0.0
SAND 90.3 74.5 45.3
95.4
1.9 10.4
SILT 7.0 17.3 36.0
1.7
61.9 19.7
' CLAY 2.7 8.2 18.6
1.7
36.2 69.9
SOIL DESCRIPTIONS:
Al: Grey brown very fine to fine sand (SP)
' A2: Brown slightly clayey silty very fine to fine sand (SM)
A3: Brown clayey very silty very fine sand (SM)
A4: Grey brown fine to medium sand with trace coarse
sand (SP)
131: Brown clayey silt (ML)
C1; Brown slightly sandy silty clay (CL)
'
April 5, 1990
B-2
f ^`
B7 -2083-P1
90-04-724
BORING & DEPTH
IN-PLACE
DRY DENSITY
DENSITIES
I MOISTURE
RELATIVE
COMPACTION
1 @ 5.0
92.4
0.6
87%
10.0.
86.7
1.8
75%
30.0
97.0
1.3
82%
'
2@ 5.0
86.8
1.2
82%
15.0
---
2.2
---
'
3@ 2.0
93.1
6.4
88%
10.0
90.5
7.1
78%
'
15.0
93.6
8.7
81%
4@ 2. 0
93.7
1. �
o
79 /a5
15.0
96.0
1.3
90%
20.0
92.7
1.2
'87%
30.0
88.8
1.8
---
5@2.0
103.0
1.1
89%
10.0
86.0
0.9
---
15.0
100.2
1.0
94%
1
25.0
100.5
0.8
95%
35.0
99.5
1.4
84%
40.0
87.4
27.1
---
45.0
86.8
8.9
---
6@,2.0
97.7.
1.4
92%
'
10.0
76.8
5.3
---
45.0
92.1
1.5
87%
7@2.0
110.4
1.6
95%
5.0
94.1
2.4
89%
15.0
65.8
6.0 .
55%
'
20.0
68.4
4.8
58%
25.0
83..5
7.3
70%
30.0
95.1
3.5
82%
.8@2.0
95.6
8.0
80%,
10.0
---
1.3
---
15.0
88.2
2.0
76%
20.0
82.1
1.4
77%
40.0
81.8
14.9
---
j
April 5, 1990
B-3
67-2083-P1
90-04-724
BORING & DEPTH
1N -PLACE
DRY DENSITY
DENSITIES
I MOISTURE
..RELATIVE
COMPACTION
9@2.0
103.0
0.9
97%
' 20.0
91.7
1.5
79%
' 11 @5.0
98.1
13.0
83%
10.0
97.7
7.3
84%
'
20.0
96.8
0.8
91%
12@2.0
5.0
89.0
5.0
75%
- 10.0
94.7
1.0
89%
15.0
89.9
1.4
85%
1395.0
101.4
1.9
88%
15.0
92.3
1.7
87%
'
14@2.0
98.0
4.4
82%
5.0
94.1
1.9
81%
10.0
91.4
1.1
79%
15.0
95.3
0.9
90%
15@2.0
120.0
4.6
100%
'
5.0
107.9
3.5
100%
15.0
65.1
3.6
61%
20.0
89.7
1.8
76%
'
16@2.0
112.8
9.3
97%
10.0
87.2
2.6
82%
1 15.0
85.2
2.4
80%
17@2.0
106.9
10.5.
92%
' 5.0
85.9
8.3
72%
10.0
90.9
4.8
77%
20.0
99.9
1.0
95%
' 18@10.0
80.5
1.4
76%
20.0
75.7
7.1
---
19@2.0
117.1
5.3
100%
5.0
110.3
3,3
100%
10.0
---
3.7
---
15.0
92.5
6.2
80%
20.0
---
3.2
---
25.0
86.2
7.0
---
" April 5, 1990
B-4
B7 -2083-P1
'
90-04-724
'R
BORING & DEPTH
1N -PLACE DENSMES
DRY DENSITY I
MOISTURE
IV
COMPACTION
20@ 5.0
98.7
2.4
85%
15.0
61.0
11.7
---
20.0
88.4
2.9
83%
21 Qa 5.0
100.7
0.8
95%
20.0
76.3
9.4
'
25.0
86.2
10.4
---
30.0
85.6
7.0
---
35.0
98.1
2.4
85%
22@5.0
99.0
2.8
93%
10.0
81.6
6.6
15.0
67.9
7.9
---
23(92.0
---
1.5
---
' 15.0 ,
106.1
2.4
100%
B7 -2083—P1
=' MOISTURE CONTENT IN PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT
F-
0
0
U.,
U
U
W
CL
0
z
n
O
C.
z
z'
Lu
0
r=
0
108
106
104
12 14 16
METHOD OF COMPACTION
ASTM D-1557-78, METHOD A or C
SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE
Al 106.3pcf 14.4%
8 o r i n g 1 @ 0-5'
MAXIMUM DENSITY - OPTIMUM MOISTURE CURVES
B7 -2083-P1
MOISTURE CONTENT IN PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT
1—
O
0
U.
m
D
U
Q
W
CL
a�
0
z
D
0
IL
z
}
z
W
O
}
2
O
116
114
112
10 12 14
METHOD OF COMPACTION
.ASTM D-1557-78, METHOD A or C
SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE
A2 115.7 Pcf 11.7%
Boring 1 @ 8-13'
k
MAXIMUM DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE CURVES
87-2083-P1
MOISTURE CONTENT IN PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT
0
0
U.
U_
U
Q
W
a
0
z
0
CL
z
H
z
W
0
cr
0
120
118
116
10 12 14
METHOD OF COMPACTION
ASTM D-1557-78, METHOD A or C
SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE
A3 118.8 pcf 11.9%
Boring 4 @ 0-5'
MAXIMUM DENSITY - OPTIMUM MOISTURE CURVES
87-2083-P1
MOISTURE CONTENT IN PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT
H
O
0
U.
_U
m
U
Q
W
CL
co
O
Z
D
0
(L
I
q)
2'
W
0
O
ac 14 16
METHOD OF COMPACTION
ASTM D-1557-78, METHOD A or C
SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY
A4 105.7 pcf
Boring 3 @ 0-2'
106
104
102
OPTIMUM MOISTURE
MAXIMUM DENSITY - OPTIMUM MOISTURE CURVES
I
c,4 3.1
0
0
LL 3.0
U)
2.5
U) 2.0
co
Li
1.5
U)
I
B7 -20837P1
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
NORMAL LOAD (KIPS / FOOT 2 )
DIRECT SHEAR DATA
SQiI type:
Boring and depth: 1 .9 0-5'
Angle of internal friction: 32.4'*
-Cohesion: 100 n s f
..Samples remolded to 90% of maximum density
Samples relatively undisturbed
-71 -
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
NORMAL LOAD (KIPS / FOOT 2 )
DIRECT SHEAR DATA
SQiI type:
Boring and depth: 1 .9 0-5'
Angle of internal friction: 32.4'*
-Cohesion: 100 n s f
..Samples remolded to 90% of maximum density
Samples relatively undisturbed
- 4.0
N 3.E
0
0 3.0
C1. 2.5
Y
2.0
W
F-- 1.5
U)
87-2083—P1
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
NORMAL LOAD (KIPS / FOOT )
DIRECT SHEAR DATA
S -oil type: A2
B'o.ring and depth: P A-13
Angle of internal friction: 31.4°
Cohesion: 16o psf
23 Samples remolded to. 90% of maximum density
❑ Samples relatively undisturbed
4.0
N 3.5
O
O0 3.0
a. 2.5
V
v
Cl) 2.0
0
uJ
c
Z 1.0
0:
Q
W
= 0.5
U)
a•
B7 -2083-P1
U.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 .3.0 3.5 4.0
NORMAL LOAD (KIPS / FOOT )
DIRECT SHEAR DATA
Soil type: A3
Boring and depth: 4 @ 0-5'
Angle of internal friction: _ 31.5°
Cohesion: 175
�9 Samples remolded to 90% of maximum density
❑ .Samples relatively undisturbed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
87-2083-P1
4.0
N " 3.5
O
OL 3.0
IL 2.5
U) 2.0
U)
W
U
_Z 1.0
Q
W
= 0.5
U)
0 1 1 1
• 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
NORMAL LOAD (KIPS / FOOT 2 )
DIRECT SHEAR DATA
type: A4
Bo.ring and depth: 3 ® 0-2
Angle of internal friction: 35 8°
Cohesion: 60 osf.
®. Samples remolded to 90% of maximum density
❑ Samples relatively undisturbed
.0
.0
0'
.01
tress re in TDS pet" sc—uax-e oot
0.7 1.0 n
02
CL
.04
0
.,
.05
.06
a
.07
.08
.09
.10
\'SrL1D<^IOV �TapWSSIO:J J? ,G?1-2,
Borin9 1 @ 5'
BUENA ENGINEERS, INC.
DATF•I. f. nn I FII F Nn 27 ?/1RZ Ji
.0
.0
.0
Presses e in KIPS 'cera ;cot
0.5 1.0 n
.10
.11
.12
CONISOT,ID. TION DATA
CCM2?ESSIO: d
Borino 1 @ 10'
BUENA ENGINEERS, INC.
C
.0
0.
-?SSL're 1n pe_ -c�uc11' : 00L
0•D
0(
.08
.09
.10
CONSOLID TIM DATA
CCMT.RF.SSiCN DIAGRAM
Boring 2 @ 15'
BUENA ENGINEERS, INC.
DATE: 4-6-90 1FILE NO. A7 1naz_01
z-ressure in tiIPS per Sauce soot
0.3 i n
.0
.0
0.
.0
C .04
0
.05
.0(
08
.09
.10
CONSOLID-TIO_J 0Z�'rA
Ca'TPESSION DIAGRAM
8 o r i n 9 4 a 2'
BUENA ENGINEERS, INC.
DATE: 'I-6-90 1 FILE t4o.87-2033-P1
.0
0;
.01
0.0
.01
c
02
U 03
U
c 04
c
0
- .05
y
r.
0
U
vv7
.08
.09
.10
Jressu.re in XI?S 'Per
0.5 1.0 ? n A
Effect of Adding
Water
Rebound
CONSOLIDATTON DAT3
COMPRESSION DIAGR�M
Boring 4 H 20'
BUENA ENGINEERS., INC.
DATE: 4-6-90 FILE !:0.37 -208; -?1
0
.0;
.0'
0.0
.01
L
U
C
02
V
d
y
L
03
U
C
.04
a
.05
06
U
.07
.08
.09
.10
eSSLLYE i., oe c Lia—re Foct
0.�_.J 2_n 4 n
CaSOLI,-- 70% DLA
C %2RESSION DLkGRk'l
8orin;g 4 @ 30'
BUENA ENGINEERS, INC.
DATE:4-6-q0
FILEE Nog7-2C?3-P'.
0
. 0:
0l
0.0
01
U
C
L
.02
U
c -
N
U 0 3
u
c
c 04
c
0
.05
Pressure in KID'S Per 'cot
07
.08
.09
10
CO\�SOLIDATIOV DZT?
CQII-PRESSION DIr?GRkM
Boring 4 E 20'
BUENA ENGINEERS, INC.
7
DATE: 4-6-90 FILE N0. 87-2085-P1
0;
02
.01
0.0
s
.01
C
F-+
02
CL
N
L
03
U
C
04
.05
N
.06
C
O
U
.07
.08
.09
.10
rressure �I?S q--Up-7 oot
0.D ?.0 2.0 4..0
3.0
Rebound
CYJ\'SOLID.Z.T_O_`� DAA?.
Effect of Adding
Water
CCNTRESSION DLAGPAM
Borin;g 4 @ 30'
BUENA ENGINEERS, INC.
DATE:4-6_90 FILE NO B7 -2087) -PI
0'
. 0 2
.01
0.0
.01
.04
C
O
05
b
.0%
.08
.09
.10
_ ressure in KT --'S ger Scuare Foot
0.D_ 1.0 2.0 a n
4.0
C�
�C.....� PM
.� ME..
11 :lie
—C
r.
mmum
am
e c1Adding
� M
CON'SOLID=1 ! ON DuTJ
M`1PRESSION DLACR. M
Boring 5 0 25'
BUENA ENGINEERS, INC.
DATE: 4-6-90 FILE ;;0.87.2083-P1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.0
.0.
.0•
0.(
.ol
c
.02
n
03
U
c
c .04
C
.05
v
.07
.08
09
.10
Pressure in IPS per ST, -=e, 7 oot
0•' 1.0 2.0 a n
m
CONSOLIDATIO:q DATA
CalPIRESSIO\ D.DGR='1.1
8 o r i n 9 6 @ 101
BUENA ENGINEERS, INC.
DATE:4-6-90 . IFILE NOB 7-2083-P1
NOW
e�
c
Asot•>•J_
�
�111�♦l��
tea•
_•
���=�
�a���
�
mMMMM
M.
1
CONSOLIDATIO:q DATA
CalPIRESSIO\ D.DGR='1.1
8 o r i n 9 6 @ 101
BUENA ENGINEERS, INC.
DATE:4-6-90 . IFILE NOB 7-2083-P1
Pressure in tiIFS cer 4•-uare root
0.5 1.0 2.0
an 40
CO'\'SOLIDZ,Tig,1 DATA
M11PRESSION DIAGR;!j l
Boring 7 0 15'
BUENA ENGINEERS, INC.
r1 j. Tom. . _ _ r I I G WO R7 ')nP7 DSI
TABLE NO. 2
MINIMUM FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS*
(1) (10)
Footings for slab & Raised Floor Systems (2) (5) (10)
Concrete Slabs
3 1/2" Minimum Thickness
y
All Perimeter
Interior footings
Expansion Weight
m
m
c
Footings
for slab and
Premoistening control
4;
Index -
6
C
(6)
raised floors (6)
for soils under footings,
Pi 'rs under
_
vs
�c
Reinforcement
Reinforcement
Total
piers and slabs
raised floors
o
�
—
o,
c
for
(4)
thickness
(5) (6)
oE
Z
m
g
Depth below natural
continuous
footings
of sand
05
g
surface of ground
Inches
and finish grade
(3) (8)
INCHES
0-20
Voiy low
1
6
12
6
12
12None
6X6
Moistening of ground
Piers allowed
(tion-
2
3
8
10
15
18
7
8
18
24
18
24
Required
10/10
2
prior to placing concrete
for'single
sin le
expansive)
WWF
recommended
floor loads only
21-50
Low
1
2
6
8
12
15
6
7
15
18
12
18
1-#4 top
6X6 -
120% of optimum moisture
Piers allowed
3
10
18
8
24
24
and bottom
10/10
content to a depth of 21"
for
or single
WWF
-4
b
below lowest adjacent grade.
fk> bads only
Testing Required
6X6-
51-90
1
6
12
6
21
12
144 top
6/6 WWF
130% of optimum moisture
Medium.
2
8
12
8
21
18
and bottom
or #3 bars
4
content to a depth of 27"
Piers not
3
10
15
8
24
24
@ 24" e.w.
below lowest adjacent grade.
allowed
#3 bars @24" in exterior footing
Testing Required
and bent 3' into slab 9
6X5-
91-130
1
2
6
8
12
12
6
8
27
12
145 top
.6/6 WWF
140% of optimum moisture
I ligh
3
10
15
84
27
18
and bottom
or #3 bars
content to a depth of 33"
Piers not
27
24
24" e.w.
below lowest adjacent grade.
allowed
#3 bars @ 24" in exterior footing
and bent 3' into slab 9
Testing Required
Above
Vely High
SPECIAL DESIGN BY LICENSED ENGINEER/ARCHITECT n, inninn,ec
Refer to next page for footnotes. (1) through (10)
FOOTNOTES TO TAB
1. Premoistening is required where specified in Table 2 in order to
achieve. maximum and uniform expansion of soils prior to
construction and thus limit structural distress caused by uneven
expansion and shrinkage. Other systems which do not include
premorst`ening may be approved by the Building Official when such
' alternatives are shown to provide equivalent safeguards against
adverse effects of expansive soils.
' 2. Underfloor access crawl holes shall be provided with curbs
extending not less than six (6) inches above adjacent grade to
prevent surface water from entering the foundation area.
3. Reinforcement for continuous foundations shall be placed not less
than three (3) inches above the bottom of -the footings and not less
' than three (3) inches below the top of the stem.
4: Reinforcement shall be placed at mid -depth of slab.
' 5. After premoistening, the specified moisture content of soils shall be
maintained until concrete is placed, Required moisture content
shall be verified by an approved testing laboratory not more than
t twenty-four (24) hours prior to placement of concrete.
.6. Crawl spaces under raised floors need not be premoistened
except under interior footings. Interior footings which are not
enclosed by a continuous perimeter foundation system or
equivalent concrete or. masonry moisture barrier complying with
UBC Section 2907 (b) shall be designed and constructed as
specified for perimeter footings in Table 2.
' 7. A grade beam not less than twelve (12) inches by twelve (12) inches
in cross section, reinforced as specified for continuous foundations in
Table 2 shall be provided at garage door openings.
' 8. Foundation stem walls which exceed a height of three (3) times the
stem thickness above lowest adjacent grade shall be reinforced in
' accordance with Sections 2418 and 2614 in the UBC or as required
by engineering design, whichever is more restrictive.
9. Bent reinforcing bars between exterior footing and slab shall be
omitted when floor is designed as an independent, "floating" slab,
10. Fireplace footings shall be reinforced with a horizontal grid located
three (3) inches above the bottom of the footing and consisting of
not less than number four (#4) bars at twelve (12) inches on center
' each way. Vertical chimney reinforcing bars shall be hooked under
the grid.
C-1
1 STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
' PROJECT: ONE ELEVEN LAQUINTA CENTER
' CLIENT: TRANSPACIFIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
' 1. These Standard Grading Specifications have been prepared for
the exclusive use of our client for specific application to referenced
project in accordance with generally accepted soil and
' foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or
implied, is made.
' 2. These specifications shall be integrated with the Engineering Report
of which they are a part. Should conflicting statements be found
between these standard specifications and the itemized
recommendations contained in the main body of the engineering
report, the latter shall govern.
' 3. Buena Engineers, Inc., referred to as the soil engineer, should be
retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during
construction of the grading, excavation and foundation phases of
' the work: This is to observe compliance with the design concepts,
specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in
the event that subsurface conditions differ from that anticipated prior
' to start of construction.
4. The presence of our field representative will be for the purpose of
providing observation and field testing. Our work does not include
supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his
employees or agents. The contractor for this project should be so
advised. The contractor should also be informed that neither the
presence of our field representative nor the observation and testing
by our firm shall excuse him in any way from defects discovered in
his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or
' site safety on this project. Job and site safety will be the sole
responsibility of the contractor.
5. If the contractor encounters subsurface conditions at the site that (a)
are materially different from those indicated in the contract plans or
in specifications, or (b) could not have been reasonably
' anticipated as inherent in the work of the character provided in the
contract, the contractor shall immediately notify the owner verbally
and in writing within 24 hours. This notification shall be a condition
precedent before any negotiations for "charr red or differing site
conditions' can proceed. If the owner determines that conditions
do materially so differ and cause an increase or decrease in the
C-2
contractor's cost of, or the time required for, performance of any
part of the work under this contract, then negotiations shall
commence between owner and contractor to provide equitable
adjustment to owner or contractor resulting therefrom.
6. Whenever the„words "supervision', 'inspection', or "control” appear
they shall mean periodic observation of the work and the taking of
soil tests as deemed necessary by the soil engineer for substantial
compliance with plans, specifications and design concepts.
7. These specifications shall consist of clearing and grubbing,
preparation of land to be filled, filling of the land, spreading,
compaction and control of the fill, and subsidiary work necessary to
complete the grading of the filled areas to conform with the lines,
grades and slopes as shown on the accepted plans.
8. The standard test used to define minimum densities of compaction
work shall be the ASTM Test Procedure D 1557. Densities shall be
expressed as a relative compaction in terms of the maximum
density obtained in the laboratory by the foregoing standard
procedure.
9. Field density tests will be performed by the soil engineer during
grading operations. At least one (1) test shall be made for each five
hundred (500) cubic yards or fraction thereof placed with a
minimum of two (2) tests per layer in isolated areas. Where
sheepsfoot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth of
several inches. Density tests shall be taken in compacted material
below the disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the
density of any layer of .fill or portion thereof is below the required
density, the particular layer or portion shall be reworked until the
required density has been obtained.
10. Earth -moving and working operations shall be controlled to prevent
water from running into excavated areas. Excess water shall be
promptly removed and the site kept dry. Fill material shall not be
placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather conditions.
When the work is interrupted by heavy rain, fill operations shall not be
resumed until field tests by the soil engineer indicate that the
moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified.
11.. Compaction shall be by sheepsfoot rollers, vibrating sheepsfoot
rollers, multiple -wheel pneumatic -tired rollers or other types of
acceptable compacting rollers. Rollers shall be of such design that
they will be able to compact the fill to the specified density. Rolling
shall be accomplished while the fill material is within the specified
moisture content range. Rolling of each layer shall be continuous
over its entire area and the roller shall make sufficient trips to insure
that the required density has been obtained,
12. Existing structures, foundations, trash, debris., loose fill, trees (not
included in landscaping), roots, tree remains and other rubbish shall
be removed, piled or burned or otherwise disposed of so as to
C-3
leave the areas that have been disturbed with a neat and finished
appearance free from debris. No burning shall be permitted in the
area to be filled.
13. When fill material includes rock, large rocks will not be allowed to
nest aril voids,, must be carefully filled with small stones or earth and
properly compacted. Rock larger than eight (8) inches in diameter
will not be permitted in the compacted fill without review as to
location by the soil engineer.
14. Organic matter shall be removed from the surface upon which. the
fill, foundations or pavement sections are to be placed. The surface
shall then be plowed or scarified to a depth of at least eight (8)
inches and until the surface is free from ruts, hummocks or other
uneven features which would tend to prevent uniform compaction
by the equipment to be used. Specific recommendations
pertaining to stripping and minimum depth of recompaction of
native soils are presented in the main body of the soil report.
15. Native soil free from organic material and other deleterious material
may be used as compacted fill; however, during grading
operations the soil engineer will re-examine the native soils for
organic content.
16. Imported material should be tested and reviewed by Buena
Engineers, Inc., before being brought to the site. The materials used
shall be free from organic matter and other deleterious material.
17. Where fills are made on hillsides or exposed slope areas, greater
than ten (10) percent, horizontal benches shall be cut into firm
undisturbed natural ground to provide a horizontal base so that
each layer is placed and compacted on a horizontal plane. The
initial bench at the toe of the fill shall be at least ten (10) feet in width
on firm, undisturbed natural ground at the elevation of the toe stake
placed at the natural angle of repose or design slope. The width
and frequency of succeeding benches will vary with the soil
conditions and the steepness of slope.
18. The selected fill material shall be placed in layers which, when
compacted, shall not exceed six. (6) inches in thickness. Layers shall
be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly blade -mixed during
spreading. After each layer has been placed, mixed and spread
evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to a relative compacrion
of not less than ninety (90) percent. The fill operation shall be
continued in six (6) inch compacted layers, as specified above, until
the fill has been brought to the finished slopes and graded as shown
on the accepted plans.
19. When the moisture content of the fill material is not sufficient to
achieve required compaction, vcter shall be added unfil the so?!:.
attain a moisture content. so ti-i�at thorough bonding is achieved
C-4
during the compacting process. When the moisture content of the fill
material is excessive, the fill material shall be aerated by blading or
other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is reduced to
an acceptable content to achieve proper compaction.
20.Existing' septiq tanks and other underground storage tanks must be
removed from the site prior to commencement of building, grading
or fill operations. Underground tanks, including connecting drain
fields and other lines, must be totally removed and the resulting
depressions properly reconstructed and filled. Depressions left from
tree removal shall also be properly filled and compacted.
21. The methods for removal of subsurface irrigation and utility lines will
depend on the depth and location of the line. One of the following
methods may be used: 1) Remove the pipe and compact the soil
in the trench according to the applicable portions of these grading
recommendations, 2) The pipe shall be crushed in the trench. The
trench shall then be filled and compacted according to the
applicable portions of these grading specifications, 3) Cap the
ends of the line with concrete to mitigate entrance of water. The
length of the cap shall not be less than five (5) feet. The concrete
mix shall have a minimum shrinkage.
22. Abandoned water wells on the site shall be capped according to
the requirements of the 'appropriate regulatory agency. The
strength of the cap shall be at least equal to the adjacent soils. The
final elevation of the top of the well casing must be a minimum of
thirty-six (36) inches below adjacent grade prior to grading or fill
operations. Structure foundations should not be placed over the
capped well.