BRES2016-0240 Geotechnical ReportMR. AND MRS. CASE SWENSON
62 Fl.LI:NWOOD AVENUE
I -OS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 95030
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
SWENSON RESIDENCE
77-210 LOMA VISTA
THE LA QUINTA RESORT
LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
March 26. 2013
RECEIVED
NOV 18 2019
INTERWI_ST
CONSULTING GROUP
REVIEWED
JAN 0 2 2020
INTEkWEST
CONSULTING GROUP
RECEIVED
NOV 0 8 2019
CITY OF LA QUINTA
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
C(- 2013 Earth Systems Southwest
Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited
without the express written consent of Earth Systems Southwest.
! File No.: 12124-01 t
Doc. No.: 13-03-737
Earth Systems
�/ Southwest 79-811 B Country Club Drive
Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203
(760) 345-1588
(800) 924-7015
FAX (760) 345-7315
March 26, 2013
Mr. and Mrs. Case Swenson
62 Ellenwood Avenue
Los Gatos, California 95030
Dear Mrs. Swenson:
Project: Swenson Residence
77-210 Loma Vista
The La Quinta Resort
La Quinta, Riverside County, California
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report
File No.: 12124-01
Doc No.: 13-03-737
Earth Systems Southwest [Earth Systems] presents this Geotechnical Engineering Report
prepared for the proposed proposed single-family residential site located within the La Quinta
Resort in La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The site is legally described as Assessor's
Parcel Number [APN] 658-200-004.
This report presents our preliminary findings and recommendations for site grading and
foundation design, incorporating the information provided to our office. The site is suitable for
the proposed development, provided the recommendations in this report are followed in design
and construction. 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 services in accordance with our agreement, authorized on
January 25, 2013. Other services that may be required, such as plan review and grading
observation, are additional services and will be billed according to our Fee Schedule in effect at
the time services are provided. Unless requested in writing, the client is responsible for
distributing 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 SOUTItEST
S�pNAI GFO`
p %40A,�\
Mark S. Spykerman a� _ Kevin L. Paul
Ho.tt7� z
Senior Vice -President, Senio ir� +eA+C, �. Vice President, Senior
EG 1174 GEOLMSTG CE 70084, GE 2930
SER/mss/klp/mr OF rat �Fv/
��N L. P,�G<y\
No. 0 70084
�GE 29
iExD.913012014
Distribution: 5/Mr. Case Swenson, 1/TFic-Altum Group. 1BD File
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Section1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................2
1.1 Background and Project Description.................................................................2
1.2 Site Description..................................................................................................2
Section 2 METHODS OF EXPLORATION AND TESTING................................................4
2.1 Field Exploration...............................................................................................4
2.2 Laboratory Testing.............................................................................................6
Section3
DISCUSSION..............................................................................................................8
3.1
Geologic Setting.................................................................................................8
3.2
Soil and Rock Conditions..................................................................................8
3.3
Groundwater......................................................................................................9
3.4
Soil Collapse Potential.....................................................................................10
3.5
Expansive Soils................................................................................................11
3.6
Corrosivity.......................................................................................................11
3.7
Geologic Hazards.............................................................................................12
3.7.1
Primary Seismic Hazards.................................................................................12
3.7.2
Secondary Hazards...........................................................................................14
3.7.3
Other Geologic Hazards...................................................................................15
Section 4
CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................21
Section 5
RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................23
5.1
Site Development — Grading for Building Structures......................................23
5.1.1
Mass Grading - (Conventional Cut/Fill Level Pad).........................................23
5.2
Excavations and Utility Trenches....................................................................26
5.3
Foundations......................................................................................................27
5.4
Estimated Settlements......................................................................................29
5.5
Slabs.................................................................................................................29
5.6
Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls...................................................30
5.7
Seismic Design Criteria...................................................................................32
5.8
Site Drainage and Maintenance.......................................................................33
Section 6
LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES..__.........
6.1
Uniformity of Conditions and Limitations......................................................34
6.2
Additional Services..........................................................................................35
REFERENCES...........................................................................................................37
APPENDIX A
Plate A-1 — Site Location
Plate A-2 — Regional Geologic Map
Plate A-3 — Site Plan & Geologic Map
Plates A-4 & A-5 — Geologic Cross Sections
Plate A-6 - Fill Slope Construction
Plate A-7 — Pad Transition Condition
Plate A-8 — Alluvial Cut Slope Stabilization Fill
Plate A-9 — Retaining Wall Backdrain Details
Table A-1 — Fault Parameters
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Results
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
APPENDIX C
Seismic Refraction Survey
APPENDIX D
Kinematic Analysis
Plates 13-1 & D-2
Slope Stability Analysis
Surficial and Gross
Rockfall CRSP Analysis
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 2 File No.: l 2124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
SWENSON RESIDENCE
77-210 LOMA VISTA
THE LA QUINTA RESORT
LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Project Description
This Geotechnical Engineering Report has been prepared for the proposed Swenson residence to
be located on a currently undeveloped lot within The La Quinta Resort in the city of La Quinta,
Riverside County, California. The property is described as Lot 1, Tract 28016 and is legally
described as Assessor's Parcel Number [APN] 658-200-004 at 77-210 Loma Vista.
The purpose of this report is to summarize the geologic conditions of the property and provide
geotechnical recommendations for site development, including recommendations for site grading,
retaining wall design, and mitigation of rockfall hazards.
We understand that proposed developments for the 3.16 acre site will consist of one single
family residence at least 3,500 square feet in area located in the immediate vicinity of the exiting
partially graded pad. Driveway access will also be in the same general location of the existing
access road. Some site grading is proposed, and may include adjusting the current pad grade up
or down a few feet, modifying the driveway for Code compliance, and construction of a
emergency access turn -around. Cut and fill slopes are not anticipated to exceed 15 to 20 feet in
height. The use of retaining walls for support of cut slopes and fill areas is anticipated. We
understand that the proposed single -story residential structure will likely be of light -frame or
masonry constriction supported with perimeter wall foundations with slab on grade or raised
floors. A swimming pool is also proposed.
We used maximum column loads of 30 kips and a maximum wall loading of 2.0 kips per linear
foot as a basis for the foundation recommendations. All loading is assumed to be dead plus
actual live load. If actual structural loading exceeds these assumed values, we will need to
reevaluate the given recommendations in writing.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 2 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
1.2 Site Description
The 3.16 acre lot is located on the north side of the cul-de-sac that defines the west terminus of
Loma Vista within The La Quinta Resort development in La Quinta, Riverside County,
California. The lot is described as Lot 1, Tract 28016. Coordinates near the center of the lot are
33.6935°N/116.31570W. Access to the site is via Loma Vista, a paved interior residential street.
An existing dirt road provides access to the lot and an existing graded pad is located in the
central portion of the property.
Topographically, the lot lies upon a south -trending ridge at the eastern foothills of Eisenhower
Mountain with steep ascending hills to the north and west. The existing pad is elevated above
the adjacent residential development to the east and south. The site is characterized by a primary
level pad, steep descending bedrock outcrops and slopes to the east, moderately steep descending
bedrock slopes and fills slopes to the south and southwest, and steep ascending natural slopes to
the north and northwest. Bold bedrock outcrops with near vertical exposures are present north,
east, and south of the existing pad.
Elevations vary from approximately 55 feet to 180 feet above mean sea level. Drainage is by
sheet flow to the defined drainages and swales that direct runoff to the east, south, and southwest
towards a concrete lined channel.
Vegetation consists of native desert plants. Vegetation is sparse except along the drainage
channel and along the street margin where landscaping, including trees, is present.
Existing improvements include a graded access road and small level pad. The dirt road is poorly
maintained and includes small perimeter fills. The graded pad is located in the central portion of
the lot and appears to be a cut/fill pad with undocumented fills along the southern and eastern
pad perimeter. Fills are estimated to be on the order of 8 feet thick.
Along portions of the southwest, south and east property limits is a graded flood control channel.
The outer edge of the channel is a cast -in -place concrete wall. In the southwest portion of the
lot, the flood control channel connects to an underground culvert system that directs water past
Loma Vista.
It is assumed that underground utilities exist within or immediately adjacent to Loma Vista along
the west edge of the lot and include a CVWD water line extending into a portion of the
driveway. These utility lines may include but are not limited to domestic water, electric, sewer,
and irrigation lines.
1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services
The purpose for our services was to evaluate the site soil and rock conditions and to provide
professional opinions and recommendations regarding the proposed development. The scope of
services for this report included:
1. A visual site and geologic assessment regarding surficially observed site conditions. In
addition, we reviewed our files and select published reports pertinent to the site area.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013
3 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
2. Due to apparent rocky conditions under most of the site, exploration consisted of geologic
mapping, sampling of shallow fill soils and bedrock near the building site, and geophysical
surveys to evaluate rippability of the bedrock and approximate depths of fill deposits.
3. Laboratory testing was performed on selected soil samples obtained from the site mapping.
Testing included Expansion Index, moisture -density relationship, shear strength, and soil
chemical analyses. These test results aid in the classification and evaluation of the pertinent
engineering properties of the various soils encountered at the site.
4. We conducted engineering analyses of the data generated from our exploration and prepared
a written report of our findings and recommendations related to the following:
i► Geologic and seismic hazards.
.- 2010 California Building Code [CBC] seismic design values.
y Soluble sulfate and settlement potential of site soils.
;o Site grading and earthwork, including requirements for site preparation and specifications
for placement of fill and utility trench backfill.
General design criteria for the foundations of the proposed structures (under seismic and
static conditions), including bearing capacity, anticipated building settlement, and lateral
resistance.
r Concrete slabs and soil corrosivity.
Excavation conditions and buried utility installations.
Y Allowable bearing capacities for foundations for the proposed building structures.
Y Lateral earth pressures and coefficients for building foundations.
Not Contained in This Report: Although available through Earth Systems, the current scope of
our services does not include:
i- An environmental assessment.
An 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.
The client did not direct Earth Systems to provide any service to investigate or detect the
presence of moisture, mold, or other biological contaminates in or around any structure, or any
service that was designed or intended to prevent or lower the risk or the occurrence of the
amplification of the same. Client is hereby informed that mold is ubiquitous to the environment,
with mold amplification occurring when building materials are impacted by moisture. Site
conditions are outside of Earth Systems' control, and mold amplification will likely occur or
continue to occur in the presence of moisture. As such, Earth Systems cannot and shall not be
held responsible for the occurrence or recurrence of mold.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013
4 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.: 13-03-73 7
Section 2
METHODS OF EXPLORATION AND TESTING
2.1 Field Exploration
The site exploration program included geologic mapping, seismic refraction surveys, and
soil/rock sampling. Geologic mapping was performed by a registered professional engineering
geologist with pertinent geologic units and features plotted on the base topographic map
provided by The Altum Group. Bulk samples of soil and rock materials were obtained from the
vicinity of the building area.
As site soils in the proposed building areas were anticipated to be shallow bedrock, the primary
site characterization tool was detailed geologic mapping to define the distribution of bedrock,
alluvium, and fill areas, as well as document the structural attitudes of discontinuities (fractures,
faults, and joints) within the bedrock. Seismic refraction geophysical surveys were used to assist
in evaluation the rippability of the shallow bedrock and approximate the depth of shallow fills.
The soil types were visually observed and logged in the field in general accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System [USCS]. Our field exploration was performed under the
direction of certified Engineering Geologist from our firm.
2.1.1 Geophysical Survey
A refraction survey was conducted along four lines located in the areas of proposed
development. The purpose of the survey was to approximate the physical properties of the
subsurface materials by estimating the depth of fill materials, depth to bedrock, and P-Wave
velocity of the shallow bedrock. P-Wave velocity is a useful tool to estimate rippability.
The scope of services included the following:
Acquisition of seismic refraction data along four lines, each consisting of one 24-channel
geophone spread.
An engineering analysis and evaluation of the acquired data.
'r A summary of our findings and recommendations in this written report.
This information is intended for use in planning of the proposed development and as an aid in
estimating physical properties of some of the subsurface materials that underlie the survey site.
Note that the seismic refraction data provided herein pertain specifically to the areas surveyed.
While some correlation between rock types across the site is reasonable, site specific surveys at
any other proposed structure locations are recommended, if necessary. 'Phis seismic refraction
survey was performed by Joseph E. McKinney, GP, PG, senior geophysicist of Southwest
Geophysics on February 22, 2013 at locations specified by Mark S. Spykerman, Earth Systems
project manager.
Methodoloey: Methodologies and results are appended in Appendix C of this report.
Line Locations: The seismic refraction surveys were located in the general vicinity of the
proposed residence location and upper driveway. These line locations were chosen because they
traverse across the areas of proposed foundations, fill areas, and anticipated deeper excavation
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 5 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
areas and were deemed to be representative of the soil/rock types anticipated to be encountered
during construction.
Survey Depth: The maximum depth of a seismic refraction survey depends upon several factors,
primarily line length and seismic velocity. As geophone spacing is increased (and, therefore,
total line length), the depth of survey is increased. Conversely, as geophone spacing is
increased, resolution of subsurface features is decreased. Also, higher subsurface seismic
velocities result in better depth penetration. A rule of thumb is: survey depth equals 1/3 to 1/5
of the total line length, end geophone to end geophone. Using this rule of thumb, the estimated
maximum depth of penetration for the seismic refraction survey is from 25 to 41 feet.
Data Presentation: Data are presented in Appendix C as color velocity sections of the time -term
modeling results. The velocity sections show elevation (in feet) along the vertical axis and
distance (in feet) along the horizontal.
Note that distances shown on the horizontal axis are not slope corrected -distances. Also note
that the bottom of the color section does not necessarily represent the lower extent of the bottom
refractor; it represents the approximate depth limit of the refraction data.
Interpretation: The soils encountered at this site consist of fill deposits overlying weathered
Mesozoic granitic bedrock. P-Wave velocities suggest a two -layer interpretation with Layer 1
velocities between approximately 1,500 to 2,400 fps. This represents fill soils and weathered
bedrock zones. The underlying Layer 2 P-wave velocities ranged from approximately 5,040 to
7,800 fps and represents weathered to slightly weathered granitic bedrock. Elevated velocities
may be due to harder, less weathered rock, or bedrock with fewer discontinuities.
Rippability: Based on performance charts prepared by Caterpillar Tractor Company (see Table
1, below), the P-wave velocities observed for Layer 1 are characteristic of loose soil, fill soils,
and very weathered bedrock that should be easily excavated without ripping or with minor light
ripping. Observed Layer 2 P-wave velocities are characteristic of weathered and slightly
weathered bedrock and may be ripped with difficulty by a D9 or D 10 or equivalent tractor -dozer.
It should be noted that Layer 2 may contain zones of very hard rock that may require additional
excavation efforts. These materials would be somewhat blocky upon excavation.
The reported rippability is valid only for the immediate vicinity of the line locations. Thus
caution is urged when using this information. Seismic velocities through rock are controlled in
large part by the joint (fracture) and/or foliation density, orientation, separation, and geometry.
These factors can vary widely throughout a given rock unit.Therefore, reported velocities and
rippability for a given rock type should not be considered representative of that rock type over
the entire project site.
Bedrock rippability is dependent upon many factors which include rock hardness, bedrock
discontinuity (joints, fractures, and bedding planes) frequency and spacing, size, type. and
condition of grading equipment, and operator experience. The need for hard ripping or blasting
will also be dependent upon these and other factors which could also include cost benefits, time
schedules, and contractor preferences.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 6 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
Table 11
Rippability Correlation Summary
Rock P-Wave
Velocities Rock Characteristics
1.000 to 3.500 Highly weathered soil -like material which is easily excavated without
ripping or with minor light ripping.
3.500 to 4,500
Weathered rock which can be ripped by moderate effort with the D8K
or equivalent tractor -dozer and easily ripped by the D9L or equivalent
tractor -dozer.
4.500 to 5,500
Moderately weathered rock which can be ripped with little to moderate
difficulty by a D9L or equivalent tractor -dozer. These materials would
be somewhat blocky upon excavation.
5,500 to 6,500
Moderately to lightly weathered rock which can be ripped with
difficulty (single shank) by a D9L or equivalent tractor -dozer.
6,500 to 7,500
lightly weathered to fresh rock with closely to moderately spaced
fractures. The practicality of ripping becomes marginal but is still
possible due to fracture spacing and development.
7,500 to 10,000
Generally fresh rock in a matrix of decomposed rock or generally fresh
rock with close to moderate fracture space. Drill and blast for
excavation. A model D-10 dozer can rip some materials in this
velocity range with difficulty.
10,000 to 15,000 Mostly fresh rock with moderately to wideh spaced fractures. frill and
blast.
> 15,000 Fresh rock, tight fractures widely spaced. Drill and blast.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Bulk samples were reviewed along with the geologic map to select samples to be analyzed. Soil
samples selected for laboratory testing include, but were not limited to, soils that would be
exposed and those deemed to be within the influence of the proposed structures. Test results are
presented in graphic and tabular form in Appendix B of this report. Testing was performed in
general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other
appropriate test procedure. Selected samples were also tested for a screening level of corrosion
potential (pH, electrical resistivity, water-soluble sulfates, and water-soluble chlorides). Earth
Systems does not practice corrosion engineering; however, these test results may be used by a
qualified corrosion engineer in designing an appropriate corrosion control plan for the project.
Our testing program consisted of the following:
Maximum density tests to evaluate the moisture -density relationship of typical fill soils
encountered (ASTM D 1557).
➢ Expansion index tests to evaluate the expansive nature of the soil. The samples were
surcharged under 144 pounds per square foot at moisture content of near 50% saturation.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTI]WEST
March 26, 2013 7 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
Samples were then submerged in water for 24 hours and the amount of expansion was
recorded with a dial indicator (ASTM D 4829).
➢ Chemical Analyses (Soluble Sulfates and Chlorides (ASTM D 4327), pH (ASTM D
1293), and Electrical Resistivity/Conductivity (ASTM D 1125) to evaluate the potential
for adverse effects of the soil on concrete and steel.
➢ Direct shear testing to estimate the shear strength parameters of the bedrock and
anticipated fill materials.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 8 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
Section 3
DISCUSSION
3.1 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
extends approximately 180 miles from the San Gorgonio Pass to the Gulf of California. Much of
this depression in the area of the Salton Sea is below sea level.
The Coachella Valley forms the northerly part of the Salton Trough and contains a thick
sequence of Miocene to Holocene sedimentary deposits. 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.
Local Geology: The project site is located at the eastern foothills of Eisenhower Mountain,
which is part of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The site is approximately 90 feet above mean sea
level and has relatively shallow fills overlying gneissic granitic rock. Fill deposits in and
adjacent to the lower man-made drainage channel consist of soil deposits within the drainage
course and fill deposits associated with the channel construction. The fill deposits consist of
gravelly sand and silty sand. Large gravels, cobbles, and boulders are common within the fill
deposits, with bold granitic outcrops on the adjacent hillsides. The depth to bedrock beneath the
pad portion of the site is estimated to be approximately 0 to 8 feet.
Hillsides are underlain by gneissic granitic bedrock that is moderately to severely jointed.
Exposed rocks are typically moderately to severely weathered. Rock hardness ranges from soft
to hard. Boulders are common on hillsides, the result of toppling and rockfalls from higher
elevation outcrops. Talus deposits (boulder/cobble deposits) are common within the upper
defined drainage swales.
No active faults have been mapped within the project limits. The closest active or potentially
active fault is the San Andreas fault located approximately 7 miles northeast of the site. The San
Jacinto fault is located approximately 18 miles southwest of the property.
3.2 Soil and hock Conditions
Artificial Fill: Fill deposits are present along the flood control channel and along the perimeter
of the access road and graded pad. The fill is undocumented and consists predominantly of sand,
silty sand, and gravelly sand (Unified Soils Classification System symbols of SP, SM and SP-
SM), with gravel, cobbles and boulders. Sandy soils within the drainages are generally loose.
The fills are estimated to range from poorly compact to compact. Oversize rock, defined as
clasts greater than six inches in diameter are common within the soil profiles, drainages, slopes,
and on the ground surface. Abundant oversize rock, including large boulders in excess of one to
two feet in diameter are within the fills, especially the access road fills.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 9 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
Fill depths are relatively shallow, estimated to be less than approximately 8 to 10 feet on the pad
and adjacent driveway. Site soils are classified as Type C in accordance with CalOSHA.
Existing improvements include a graded road and pad. The access road is poorly maintained and
includes small perimeter fills on the outer flank and exposed bedrock adjacent to the cut side of
the roadway. The graded pad is located in the central portion of the lot and appears to be a
cut/fill pad with undocumented fills along the eastern and southern pad perimeter. Fills are
estimated to be on the order of 1 to 8 feet thick and are comprised of poorly compacted sand,
silty sand, and sand with silt and gravel (Unified Soils Classification System symbols of SP. SM
and SP-SM), with gravel, cobbles and boulders.
The site lies within an area of moderate to high potential for wind erosion. Fine particulate
matter (PMio) can create an air quality hazard if dust is blowing. As such, site grading may
require particulate matter control. Watering the surface, planting grass or landscaping, or placing
hardscape normally mitigates this hazard.
Quaternary Colluvium: Unconsolidated sand, gravel and boulders can be found within the
drainage courses and along the base of the bedrock outcrops. These soils are generally loose to
medium dense.
Quaternary Talus Deposits: Boulders, cobbles and gravel, resulting from rocks dislodging from
outcrops higher on the ascending hillsides, collect within defined drainage areas. Two distinct
talus areas exist adjacent to the access road. The southern zone is northwest of the access road
and is offsite. Steep, vertical outcrops over 75 feet up on the hillside are the source of the strewn
boulders that collect in a talus cone that borders the access road. Another smaller talus area is at
the bend in the access road. Boulders vary from one foot to over five feet in diameter, are
typically angular and trapezoidal in shape.
Pre -Tertiary Gneissic Granitic Rock: Most of the site and adjacent terrain is underlain by
granitic rock of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The rock is slightly gneissic and metamorphosed.
The bedrock is highly jointed, generally moderately hard to hard, and moderately to slightly
weathered.
Jointing is pervasive with the predominant joint set striking north-northwest with very steep dips
to the northeast. Secondary jointing dips steeply to the southeast and southwest. Intersecting
joints result in wedge and topple failures along steep outcrops. Due to tectonic deformation, the
rock structure (foliation) exhibits folding and internal faulting. Localized shear zones are
exposed in the driveway roadcuts. Nearly vertical outcrops are common northeast of the pad and
high up on the ascending slopes northwest of the property.
3.3 Groundwater
Free groundwater was not observed in the drainages during our field reconnaissance. Nor was
there current evidence of active springs. The depth to groundwater in the aquifer areas east of
the site are believed to be in excess of 200 feet based on 1986 water well data obtained from the
Coachella Valley Water District. However, there is uncertainty in the accuracy of short-term
water level measurements. Groundwater levels may fluctuate with precipitation, irrigation,
drainage, regional pumping from wells, and site grading. Seasonal shallow groundwater or
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 10 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
flowing water will occur within the flood control channel. The absence of groundwater levels
detected may not represent an accurate or permanent condition.
Depending upon seasonal precipitation, shallow or perched groundwater and surface runoff
within and immediately adjacent to the onsite drainage courses and fractures is expected.
Fluctuations of the groundwater level, localized zones of perched water, and soil moisture
content should be anticipated during and following the rainy season or from irrigation. Long-
term percolation of landscape irrigation can result in perched groundwater conditions at or near
alluvial and fill contacts with the underlying bedrock.
3.4 Soil Collapse Potential
Undocumented fill deposits are prone to settlement and collapse due to low in -place density.
Collapsible soils are generally defined as soils that have potential to suddenly decrease in volume
upon increase in moisture content even without increase in external loads. Collapse
(hydroconsolidation) may occur when the soluble cements (carbonates) in the soil matrix
dissolve, causing the soil to densify from its loose configuration.
A hazard ranking system associated with collapsible soil as developed by Hunt (1984) is
presented in Table 2, Collapsible Soil Hazard Ranking System.
Table 2
Collapsible Soil Hazard Ranking System
Degree of Flazard
Definition of Hazard
No Hazard
No hazard exists where the potential collapse magnitudes are non-
existent under any condition of ground wetting.
Low Hazard
Low hazards exist where the potential collapse magnitudes are
small (CP values 0-1%) and tolerable or the probability of
significant ground wetting is low.
Moderate Hazard
Moderate hazards exist where the potential collapse magnitudes
are undesirable (CP values 1-5%) or the probability of substantial
ground wetting is low, or the occurrence of the collapsible unit is
limited.
I ligh Hazard
High hazard exist where potential collapse magnitudes are
undesirably high (CP values 5-201/o) and the probability of
occurrence is high.
Due to the anticipated low in -place density, non -uniformity, and undocumented nature of the
existing fill soils for the pad and access road. it is our opinion that these fills represent a
moderate to high hazard for collapse. The collapse potential is commonly mitigated by
recompaction of a zone beneath building pads or utilization of deep foundations.
The on -site granitic bedrock is considered to exhibit "no" hazard with respect to collapse
(settlement) potential.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 11 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
3.5 Expansive Soils
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume change (shrink or
swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from
rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or
other factors, and may cause unacceptable settlement or heave of structures, concrete slabs
supported -on -grade, or pavements supported over these materials. Depending on the extent and
location below finished subgrade, expansive soils can have a detrimental effect on structures.
Based on our laboratory testing and experience with the project site and the granular nature of
soil deposits encountered, the expansion potential of the onsite soils is typically "very low" as
defined by ASTM D 4829. Expansion Index testing should be performed on the as -graded site
soils prior to structure construction to confirm or modify these findings.
3.6 Corrosivity
One sample of the near -surface soil within the proposed building site area was tested for
potential to corrosion of concrete and ferrous metals. The tests were conducted in general
accordance with the California Standard Test Methods [CTM] to evaluate pH, resistivity, and
water-soluble sulfate and chloride content. The test results are presented in Appendix B. These
tests should be considered as only an indicator of corrosivity for the sample tested. Other earth
materials found on site may be more, less, or of a similar corrosive nature. Water-soluble
sulfates in soil can react adversely with concrete. ACI 318 provides the relationship between
corrosivity to concrete and sulfate concentration, presented in the table below:
Table 3
Sulfate Corrosion Correlations
Water -Soluble Sulfate in Soil
(ppm)
Corrosivity to Concrete
0-1,000
Negligible
1.000 — 2,000
Moderate
2,000 — 20.000
Severe
Over 20,000
Very Severe
Based on the findings of studies presented in ASTM STP 1013 titled "Effects of Soil
Characteristics on Corrosion" (February, 1989). the approximate relationship between soil
resistivity and soil corrosivity to buried metals was developed as shown in Table 4.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 12 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
Table 4
Resistivity Corrosion Correlations
Soil Resistivity
(Ohm -cm)
Corrosivity to Ferrous Metals
0 to 900
Very Severely Corrosive
900 to 2.300
Severely Corrosive
2,300 to 5,000
Moderately Corrosive
5,000 to 10.000
Mildly Corrosive
10.000 to >100,000
Very Mildly Corrosive
Test results (presented in Appendix B) show a pH value of 9.21. chloride content of 95.7 ppm,
sulfate content of 11.5 ppm, and a minimum resistivity of 11,236 Ohm -cm. Although Earth
Systems does not practice corrosion engineering, the corrosion values from the soil tested are
normally considered as being very mildly corrosive to buried metals and as possessing a
"negligible" exposure to sulfate attack for concrete as defined in American Concrete Institute
(ACI) 318, Section 4.3. The above values can potentially change based on several factors, such
as importing soil from another job site and the quality of construction water used during grading
and subsequent landscape irrigation. As such, we recommend an engineer competent in
corrosion mitigation review these results and design corrosion protection appropriately. Soil
corrosivity testing should be performed on the as -graded site soils prior to structure construction
to confirm or modify these findings.
3.7 Geologic Hazards
Geologic hazards that may affect the region include primary seismic hazards (ground shaking
and surface fault rupture), secondary seismic hazards (soil liquefaction, ground subsidence,
tsunamis, and seiches), and other hazards (slope instability and rockfall, erosion potential, and
flooding). A discussion follows on the hazards specific to this site.
3.7.1 Primary Seismic Hazards
Seismic Sources: Several active faults or seismic zones lie within 62 miles (I00 kilometers) of
the project site as shown on Table 1 in Appendix A. The primary seismic hazard to the site is
strong ground shaking from earthquakes along the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults. The
Mean Magnitude Earthquake listed is from published geologic information available for each
fault (CGS, 2008).
Surface Fault Rupture: The project site does not lie within a currently delineated State of
California, Alyuisl-Priolo Earthquake Fault "Lone ( Bryant and Hart, 2007). Well -delineated
active fault lines cross through this region as shown on California Geological Survey [CGS]
maps (Jennings, 1994); however, no active faults are mapped in the immediate vicinity of the
site. 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.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 13 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
Localized shear zones within the bedrock are present and are characterized by crushed rock or
gouge zones approximately one to 12 inches wide. The most common orientation is north-
northwest with steep dips to then northeast. These shear zones are not considered active faults
and are considered remnant structures associated with the up lift of the Santa Rosa Mountains.
These localized faults are not geomorphically expressed, do not have apparent surface
expression, or preserved scarps in bedrock exposures.
Historic Seismicity: The project site is in a historically active seismic area with approximately
40 magnitude 5.5 or greater earthquakes occurring with 60 miles of the project since 1854. Six
historic seismic events (5.9 M or greater) have significantly affected the Indian Wells area in the
last 100 years. They areas follows:
• Desert Hot Springs Earthquake — On December 4, 1948, a magnitude 6.5 ML (6.OMW)
earthquake occurred east of Desert Hot Springs. This event was strongly felt in the Indian
Wells area.
• 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 Coachella Valley area and caused
structural damage, as well as injuries.
• Joshua Tree Earthquake - On April 22, 1992, a magnitude 6.1 Mi. (6.1 Mw) earthquake
occurred in the mountains 19 miles east of Indian Wells. Structural damage and minor
injuries occurred in the Coachella Valley as a result of this earthquake.
• Landers and Big Bear Earthquakes — Early on June 28, 1992, a magnitude 7.5 ML (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 Mi. (6.4Mw)
earthquake occurred near Big Bear Lake. No significant structural damage from these
earthquakes was reported in the Indian Wells area.
• Hector Mine Earthquake — On October 16, 1999, a magnitude 7.1 Mw earthquake occurred
on the Lavic Lake and Bullion Mountain faults north of Twentynine Palms. While this event
was widely felt, no significant structural damage has been reported in the Indian Wells area.
Seismic Risk: While accurate earthquake predictions are not possible, various agencies have
conducted statistical risk analyses. in 2002 and 2008, the California Geological Survey [CGS]
and the United States Geological Survey [USGS] completed of probabilistic seismic hazard
maps. We have used these maps in our evaluation of the seismic risk at the site. The recent
Working Group of California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP, 2008) estimated a 59%
conditional probability that a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake may occur between 2008 and
2038 along the southern segment of the San Andreas fault.
The primary seismic risk at the site is a potential earthquake along the San Andreas fault that is
about 7 miles from the site and is considered as fault Type A CGS. Geologists believe that the
San Andreas fault has characteristic earthquakes that result from rupture of each fault segment.
The estimated characteristic earthquake is magnitude 7.7 for the Southern Segment of the fault
(USGS, 2002) with an estimated magnitude of 8.2 for a multi -segment rupture. This segment
has the longest elapsed time since rupture of any part of the San Andreas fault. The last rupture
occurred about 1680 AD, based on dating by the USGS near Indio (WGCEP, 2008). This
segment also ruptured on about 1020, 1300, and 1450 AD, with an average recurrence interval of
about 220 years. The San Andreas fault may rupture in multiple segments, producing a higher
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 14 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
magnitude earthquake. Recent paleoseismic studies suggest that the San Bernardino Mountain
Segment to the north and the Coachella Segment may have ruptured together in 1450 and
1690 AD (WGCEP, 1995).
Site Acceleration: The potential intensity of ground motion may be estimated by the horizontal
peak ground acceleration (PGA), measured in " g" forces. Ground motions are dependent
primarily on the earthquake magnitude and distance to the seismogenic (rupture) zone.
Accelerations are also 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. The following table provides the probabilistic estimate of the PGA taken from the
California Geologic Survey seismic hazard map.
Table 5
Estimate of PGA from CGS
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Man
Risk
Equivalent Return
Period ears
PGA '
10% exceedance in 50 years
475
z 0.48
Notes:
Based on a soft rock site: Soil Profile Type C.
2010 CBC Seismic Coefficients: The California Building Code [CBC] seismic design
parameters criteria are based on a Design Earthquake that has an earthquake ground motion 2/3 of
the lesser of 2% probability of occurrence in 50 years or 150% of mean deterministic limit. The
PGA estimate given above is provided for information on the seismic risk inherent in the CBC
design. The seismic and site coefficients given in the 2010 California Building Code are
provided in Section 5.7 of this report.
Seismic Hazard Zones: The site does not lie within a liquefaction or subsidence potential zone
designated by the 2003 Riverside County Integrated Project because of shallow bedrock. This
portion of Riverside County has not been mapped by the California Seismic Hazard Mapping
Act (Ca. PRC 2690 to 2699).
3.7.2 Secondary Hazards
Secondary seismic hazards related to ground shaking include soil liquefaction, seismic
settlement. ground subsidence, slope instability, tsunamis, and seiches.
Soil Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading: Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength from sudden
shock (usually earthquake shaking), causing the soil to become a fluid mass. Lateral spreading is
the movement of a soil on a liquefied or seismically softened zone of soil. In general, for the
effects of liquefaction to be manifested at the surface, groundwater levels must be within 50 feet
of the ground surface and the soils within the saturated zone must also be susceptible to
liquefaction. The potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading to occur at this site is
considered nil due to the presence of shallow or exposed bedrock and lack of saturated soils.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 15 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
Seismic Settlement: Due to the loose nature of the shallow fill soils at the site, the potential for
seismically induced ground subsidence is considered to be moderate to high at this site. Dry
sands tend to settle and densify when subjected to strong earthquake shaking.
The amount of subsidence/settlement is dependent on relative density of the soil, ground motion.
and earthquake duration. Due to the limited distribution and thickness of the pad fills, mitigation
of subsidence/settlement should include removal and recompaction of the existing fills with
properly compacted engineered fill.
Tsunamis and Seiches: The site is far inland, and there are no water storage reservoirs on or near
the site, so the hazards from tsunamis and seiches are nil.
3.7.3 Other Geologic Hazards
Slone Instabilitv
Bold and steep bedrock outcrops adjacent to the pad were evaluated with respect to Code
conformance and the required static Factor of Safety of 1.5 and pseudo -static (seismic) factor of
safety of I.I. Rock strength parameters were estimated using methods by Bieniawski (1989),
field measurements of slip angles for rock -on -rock experiments, and laboratory direct shear
testing of remolded soil samples. The presence of vertical cut faces afforded the opportunity to
use back -calculation methods to refine shear parameters based upon on -site existing conditions
and calibrate slope stability computer models.
Two methods of slope stability analysis were utilized for this project. The first method or
kinematic analysis compares structural orientations of joints, fractures, and bedding with
proposed orientations of cut slopes. The second method utilized computer stability programs
modeling the proposed slopes and inputting soil and bedrock engineering characteristics to
derive a factor of safety against failure.
Kinemalic Analysis: The strength of a rock mass is usually determined by the nature of the
weaknesses, or discontinuities, within it. A discontinuity is a roughly planar zone of structural
weakness along which movement of the rock mass can occur. Discontinuities can result from
fractures, joint sets, faults or shear zones, foliation, and bedding planes. The physical
characteristics of these discontinuities influence the mechanism of failure of the rock mass.
Information about the discontinuities is collected in the field, and then analyzed.
Discontinuity data for this project were analyzed using the program RockPack III, created by C.
F. Watts (2001) and distributed by Rocscience of Toronto, Ontario. In RockPack III,
discontinuity attitude data are plotted on an equal-area stereonet. A stereonet is the projection of
a three-dimensional hemisphere, called the reference sphere, onto a two-dimensional plane (the
paper). This allows easy visualization of the orientations of planes in three-dimensional space.
When looking at a stereonet in plan view, it is like looking down into a spherical bowl. Planes
are commonly represented by a great circle, pole, or dip vector. Great circles represent the
intersection of dipping planes with the reference sphere. A pole is the point of intersection of a
line perpendicular to the plane and passing through the center of the stereonet with the reference
sphere. A dip vector is the point of intersection of a line along the plane and passing through the
center of the stereonet with the reference sphere. The dip vector is the midpoint of the great
circle. Dip vectors allow an easy visualization of the plane's orientation in space. The friction
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 16 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
angle of the rock mass is displayed on the stereonet as a circle; the radius of the circle is related
to the friction angle.
Upon plotting, discontinuity data usually exhibit a clustering of vectors. unless the rock mass is
severely fractured. This clustering represents discontinuity sets, and can reveal the tectonic
history of the rock.
For this locality, the rock exhibits moderate to high rock strengths. Therefore, failure of the rock
mass will most likely occur along discontinuities rather than through the rock. When this is the
case, Markland's test is performed. Kinematic analyses require two conditions for plane failure
to occur: 1) the dip angle of the discontinuity (0) must be steeper than its friction angle (cp), and
2) the discontinuity must daylight from the slope -face in a down -dip direction. These two
conditions are plotted on the stereonet as a crescent -shaped critical zone. The critical zone is
bounded on one side by the great circle of the slope face, and on the other by the friction angle.
Dip vectors which plot within the critical zone represent discontinuities along which plane
failures can occur. This procedure is referred to as Markland's test. Markland's test assumes
zero cohesion, and that discontinuities are continuous, so, therefore, it is conservative.
A wedge failure can occur when the plunge of a line defined by two discontinuity planes lies
within the critical zone. This means the line plunges steeper than the friction angle, but less
steeply than the slope face. Markland's test for wedge failure involves plotting great circles
representing clusters of discontinuities. When these great circles intersect in the critical zone,
then these conditions have been met and a wedge failure is kinematically possible.
A topple failure is possible when interlayer slip occurs, which is in turn controlled by the friction
angle yj. Goodman (1980, p265) states that toppling will occur "if the normals to the toppling
layers are inclined less steeply than a line inclined (pi degrees above the plane of the slope."
Also, the toppling potential is maximized when the discontinuities strike within 30 degrees of the
slope face. The Markland kinematic analysis tests for toppling by plotting a triangular -shaped
critical zone defined by the above criteria. Discontinuities whose dip vectors plot within this
critical zone are subject to toppling. Refer to Plates D-1 and D-2 for depictions of the stereonets
and kinematic analysis. Dip vectors and wedge failure intersects generally fall within the critical
zones for the plotted near vertical driveway slopes slopes. Apparent dip wedge conditions are
summarized for each evaluated slope.
Based upon the kinematic analysis, there is ample opportunity for wedge and topple failures in
steep exposures and vertical bedrock cuts. South facing cut slopes (vertical) are especially prone
to wedge and topple failure. The existing driveway cut exhibits small-scale wedge failures with
recent evidence of popouts and surficial failures, substantiating the kinematic analysis.
Computer Modeling and Analysis: Gross (global) stability analyses were performed using the
STABL6H computer program. The soil and bedrock unit weights and shear strength values for
the slope stability analyses were selected based on results of the laboratory testing, field tests,
rock strength correlations, and back -calculation described herein. Note that the shear parameters
were derived from test samples of the granitic bedrock remolded to near the averaged in -place
density. Therefore, the laboratory shear results are, in our opinion, conservative or understated,
especially for the granitic rock, as the cementation of the material is not taken into account.
Additional correlation for rock strength was based upon back -calculation using existing near
vertical cut slopes, comparative strength parameters from the laboratory and field tests, and
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 17 File No.: 12124-01
11 4 aM1 191 lhjut
correlations suggested by Bieniawski (1989). Back -calculations assumed a factor of safety of
1.0 for existing conditions. Analysis iterations were repeated by adjusting the shear parameters
and slip orientations within the computer model until a factor of safety near 1.0 was attained.
The following geotechnical parameters were used in the slope stability analyses discussed below:
Unit Unit Weight Cohesion (psf) Internal Friction
(pcf) Angle (deg)
Bedrock — (gr) 161 450 41
Bedrock along 161 250 35
jointing
Mulitple stability sections were modeled based upon Cross Sections A -A' (southwest native
slope), Section B-B' (south pad outcrop), and D-D' (slope east of pad), as well as the 5 to 8 feet
high access road vertical cut slopes. Both static and pseudostatic analyses were performed to
evaluate the stability the slopes under static conditions and under seismic motions.
Conservatively, saturated unit weights were utilized in all the analysis. Further, the bedrock
strengths were modeled using anisotropic conditions where differing shear strengths were
modeled (based upon the back -calculations) to address shear parameters along jointing and
across jointing. Wedge and block failure models were considered.
Results of the stability analysis are included in Appendix C. A summary of shear parameters and
stability analysis results are included herein as Table 6.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 18 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF STABILITY ANALYSIS
Material Unit Weight (pef) Shear Parameter Condition Static FS Seismic FS
Saturated o/Cohesion (psf) (1.5* Required) (1.1 * Required)
Fill 139 360/280 2:1 Surfccial 2.06 --
Bedrock 161
410/468 Remolded Lab
Bedrock
161
330
Rock on Rock Slip Test
Bedrock
161
350
Beniawski Rock Analysis
Bedrock
161
350/225
Back Calculation
1.0
410/450
8' Vertical Cut
Bedrock
161
350/225
5' Vertical Cut
1.48
1.27
410/450
Bedrock
161
350/225
8' Vertical Cut
1.46
1.27
410/450
With 1.5k Tieback
Bedrock
161
350/225
Section A -A'
3.91
2. ; 7
410/450
Southwest Pad Slope
Bedrock
161
350/225
D-D'
2.25
1.44
410/450
East Natural Slope
Bedrock
161
350/225
B-B'
1.37
0.98
410/450
@ Outcrop
* Limitations of the computer modeling dictate resultant factors of safety are rounded to one significant digit.
Surficial stability analysis was performed for the proposed fill slopes utilizing "infinite slope"
methods. An infinite slope with slippage parallel to the slope surface, and a minimum 4-foot
deep seepage zone was assumed under irrigated conditions. Granitic bedrock cuts are not
analyzed due to their dense nature with presumably less than 6 inches of loose material. Results
of the analysis indicate that proposed engineered fill slopes constructed to 2:1 (11:V) would have
a factor of safety of approximately 2.0 against surficial slope instability. The County of
Riverside requires a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 for static surficial conditions. Refer to
Appendix C for results of the slope stability analyses.
A pseudostatic analysis was completed using the STABL6H computer program with a seismic
coefficient of 0.3g horizontal and 0.1 g vertical to account for anticipated high ground motions in
the event of a local San Andreas event. Factors of safety ranging from 0.98 to over 2.0 were
computed. Analyzed slopes, except the bold outcrop at B-B' (south of the existing pad) had
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 19 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
seismic factors of safety in excess of 1.1, as required. At the 13-13' outcrop, the seismic factor of
safety is less than 1.0, thus a structure setback is recommended from the top of this outcrop.
For the proposed pad location, topographic and geologic conditions generally preclude instability
issues. Some bold outcrops east and north of the pad do exhibit some topple hazards, but these
hazards are readily mitigated by removal or adjustment of the loose boulders or rock.
Failing/Rolling Rock I lazards: Precariously perched boulders on outcrops north of the access
road pose future falling rock hazards. Considerable talus has collected as far as the existing
access road at two locations; one near the west portion of the access road and at the bend in the
access road (See Plate 3).
Rock fall analysis was performed using the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (Version
4.0). Two areas were analyzed to estimate the potential for rockfall hazards at the two identified
hazard areas along the driveway. Cross sections were developed using the topographic maps
provided by The Altum Group. Calibration of the model was estimated by observation of the
size, angularity and distribution of boulders on the talus slopes above the access road.
Calibration by rolling rocks down the slope was not performed due to safety issues and
proximity of offsite improvements. For the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed that
some rocks would roll onto the access road, as empirical evidence indicates boulders at the toe of
the slope. Past grading and installation of utilities has masked or removed any boulders that
might have existing prior to the site improvements.
For the lower part of the access road, our analysis, included in Appendix C. suggests the need for
a retention system at least 7 feet high adjacent to the lower access road area. A retention system
3 feet high is suggested for the second hazard area higher up the access road. The retention
systems could include a wall, berm, ditch, boulder row, or combination of these to achieve the
desired mitigation height.
In summary, portions of the access road are considered highly susceptible to rolli»�
boulder/falling rock hazards which pose a significant life/safety hazard and a high hazard tier
obstruction of access to the site. The pad area is not, in our professional opinion, susceptible to
significant falling rock hazards, provided the loose or perched rocks above the pad are relocated
or removed.
Erosion Potential: The project is located in an area where seasonal rainfall and runoff can be
intense, especially within defined drainage courses and swales. Shallow exposed soils are highly
susceptible to erosion.
Flooding: The project building site (existing graded pad) does not lie within a designated flood
zone. Seasonal flooding can occur within and adjacent to existing drainage courses. Sheet
flooding and erosion can also occur. Appropriate project design, construction, and maintenance
can minimize flooding potentials.
Debris Flow Potential: Debris flow potential is considered low within and immediately adjacent
to the flood control channel. Debris flow potentials at the currently proposed building site are
considered low due to the absence of well-defined swales topographically above the building
site. However, drainage control will be required at the pad for the upgradient area/swale at the
north edge of the pad. Shallow bedrock occurs in this area, such that the generation of mudflows
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 20 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
is unlikely. Surface water control will be required to direct runoff away from constructed site
improvements.
Fissures: The project site is not in an area where earth fissures related to groundwater
withdrawal and subsequent areal subsidence is considered possible, due to the presence of
shallow bedrock. The project site is not located within a documented area of areal subsidence.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 21 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
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.
General:
From a geotechnical perspective, the site is suitable for the proposed development.
provided the recommendations in this report are followed in the design and construction
of this project.
The primary geologic hazard is moderate to severe ground shaking from earthquakes
originating on local and regional faults, including the nearby San Andreas fault and
proximal San Jacinto fault. Engineered design and earthquake -resistant construction
increase safety and allow development of seismic areas.
;w A secondary geologic hazard includes rolling boulders and falling rocks near the access
road. Rock fall hazards will be exacerbated by moderate to strong earthquake ground
motions.
;o The existing access road near the lot entrance is, in our professional opinion, subject to
rolling boulders and falling rock hazards, which may pose a risk to the health, welfare,
and safety of occupants, including impairment of access for emergency vehicles.
Bedrock outcrops and over -steepened cut slopes are susceptible to shallow rockfall and
block failures.
➢ Granitic bedrock ranges from soft to hard depending upon weathering and intensity of
jointing. Shallow bedrock underlies the pad, driveway area, and much of the area
anticipated for future construction and utility installation. We anticipate that hard ripping
during grading with D-9 and D-10 equipment is likely in the vicinity of the pad, the upper
2/3 of the access road, and for underground utility lines. Excavation of utility trenches
within bedrock will be difficult and may require specialty equipment to jack hammer
excavations. Due to the proximity of residential structures, we anticipate that blasting is
not going to be allowed.
- Ripping of the bedrock will result in abundant oversize rock (+6" material). For
utilization in engineered fill, the oversize rock will require crushing. Note that removal
and off -site disposal of over -size rock will dramatically affect shrinkage values.
➢ The underlying geologic condition for seismic design is Site Class C. A qualified
professional should design any permanent structure constructed on the site. The
minimum seismic design should comply with the 2010 California Building Code.
Other geologic hazard potentials, including fault rupture, liquefaction, seismically -
induced subsidence, tsunamis, and seiches arc considered low to nil on this site.
The site is not within a currently designated 100-year flood zone. However, seasonal
high -intensity rainfall can result in short term flooding within the on -site drainages and
swales.
Shallow site soils are considered to be moderately to highly susceptible to wind and water
erosion. Preventative measures to reduce the effects of seasonal flooding, erosion, and
dust generation should be incorporated into grading plans and site maintenance.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 22 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
Shallow soils are predominantly sand, silty sands, and sand with silt and contain
significant gravel, cobbles, and boulders.
Shallow site soils may exhibit moderate to high collapse potentials whereby permanent
buildings will require remedial grading to reduce settlement potentials, if located within
fill areas on conventional shallow foundations.
The site soils are generally considered to be predominantly "very low" in expansion
potential.
Y Site fill soils appear to have low to mild corrosive properties. See Section 3.6.
Remedial site grading that includes over -excavation and recompaction is recommended
to provide uniform support for spread foundations and slabs -on -grade that will support
structures.
Depending upon the structure layout and site grading, portions of the residential structure
foundations may extend where bedrock and engineered fill exist. This poses a
differential settlement hazard, due to unlike bearing materials. Recommendations are
provided to mitigate this potential.
v Portions of the existing access road are bounded by a vertical to near vertical cut face
exposing bedrock. This cut face exhibits small-scale raveling and wedge/block failures
due to the fracturing and jointing of the bedrock. Stability analysis suggests that the cut
slope at five feet high or less is statically and seismically stable from a gross stability
standpoint. The higher vertical cut face (8' high) does not have the mandated 1.5 factor
of safety and should be retained with a retaining wall or be regraded to a flatter slope.
The access road cut does exhibit shallow raveling. Small rock popouts and rock debris
will continue to occur on these exposed cut slopes. Recommendations are provided for a
small debris wall to contain rock debris.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 23 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
Section 5
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Site Development — Grading for Building Structures
Earth Systems assumes that conventional shallow foundations are proposed for the one-story
residential structure. Preliminary recommendations are based on the assumption.
A representative of Earth Systems should observe site clearing, grading, bedrock cuts and
stabilization fills, and the bottoms of excavations before placing fill. Local variations in soil or
rock conditions may warrant increasing the depth of recompaction and over -excavation where
applicable to the specific construction scenario. Observation during grading by the Geotechnical
Engineer of Record should be in conformance with Section 1704.7 of the 2010 California
Building Code. California Building Code requires full time observation by the geotechnical
consultant during fill placement. Additionally, the California Building Codes requires the testing
agency to be employed by the project owner or their representative (i.e. architect) and not the
contractor.
The following grading recommendations are provided:
Clearing and Grubbing: At the start of site grading, existing vegetation, undocumented fill,
construction debris, trash, and abandoned underground utilities should be removed from the
proposed building and grading areas. Areas disturbed during demolition and clearing should be
properly backtilled and compacted as described below.
NOTE: Depending upon the actual extent of access road grading, the existing access road fill
within the lower half of the ascending portion of the driveway may remain. Refer to later
sections of the report for more specific recommendations pertaining to the access road.
Subsequent to stripping and grubbing operations, areas to receive fill should be stripped of loose
or soft earth materials until a firm subgrade is exposed, as evaluated by the geotechnical engineer
or geologist. On sloping areas, fills should be keyed and benched into firm native materials.
Prior to the placement of fill or subsequent to cutting to rough grade, the existing surface soils
within the buildings pad areas and areas to receive fill should be over -excavated as follows:
5.1.1 Mass Grading -(Conventional Cut/Fill Level Pad)
Permanent Building and Pad Fill Areas: The existing site soils within building areas (assuming
conventional shallow foundations) and areas to receive till in excess of three feet thick should be
over -excavated to remove all fill soils and expose weathered bedrock (complete removal).
Structure foundations should consist of conventional foundations and a slab -on -grade. The base
of the excavation should be nearly level and scarified an additional 12 inches.
The over -excavation should extend horizontally for at least 5 feet beyond the outer edge of
exterior footings or limits of fill. The lateral limits of over -excavation should equal the depth of
fill to achieve finished pad grade. Fill compacted to a minimum 90% compaction relative to
ASTM D 1557 should be placed to finished grade.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 24 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
In pad transition areas (cut to fill), the cut side of the pad may need extra over -excavation. Fill
thickness differentials should not be less than 50% of the maximum fill thickness (5 foot
minimum thickness) under the building pad area (Plate A-7).
Where bedrock is shallow, deep conventional foundations may be suitable that extend into
bedrock, whereby the depth of cut -side over -excavation may be reduced. Actual remedial
grading recommendations will depend on the structure size with respect to the pad area, and
distribution of existing tills.
5.1.2 Non Building Pad and General Grading Recommendations
Cut and Fill Slopes: Cut slopes in bedrock should be evaluated on a slope by slope basis by the
project engineering geologist to review joint and other structural discontinuity attitudes for the
potential of wedge and translational block instability. In general, cut slopes in bedrock should be
preliminarily designed at a 1'/z:1 or flatter slope. Steeper slopes may be feasible depending on
the local geologic conditions. A swale at the top of bedrock cut slopes should be constructed to
divert runoff away from the slope face.
The Swale should discharge to a non -erosive location. If cut slopes are deemed too rocky, where
the potential for raveling of boulders from the cut face may pose a hazard to downslope facilities
or personnel, we recommend low debris walls, mesh covering, or other methods to control minor
raveling.
Compacted fill slopes should be finished at a 2:1 slope or flatter. Fills placed on natural slopes
steeper than 5:1 should be keyed and benched into firm natural ground (See Plate A-6). A berm
should be constructed and maintained at the top of all fill slopes to divert runoff away from the
slope face. Fill slopes should be over -built and trimmed back to finished grade.
In fill slope areas where landscape irrigation or water structures are proposed, subdrains should
be installed during fill slope grading within the keyway and benches to minimize the potential
for slope saturation. Grading plans should be reviewed and approved by the project engineering
geologist relative to subdrain locations, spacing, and outlets.
All over -excavations should extend to a depth where the project geologist, engineer or his
representative has deemed the exposed subgrade as being suitable for receiving compacted fill.
The materials exposed at the bottom of excavations should be observed by a geotechnical
engineer or geologist from our office prior to the placement of any compacted fill soils.
Additional removals may be required as a result of observation and/or testing of the exposed
subgrade subsequent to the required over -excavation.
Oversize Rock Disposal: It is recommended that all oversize rock (greater than 6 inches in
diameter) be removed front the fill material. Larger boulders should be removed or stockpiled
for use as riprap or decorative landscaping. Excess oversize material should be removed from
grading areas.
Pavement Area Preparation: In improved access road areas and permanent parking areas, the
subgrade should be over -excavated, scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least
95% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) for a depth of two feet below native soil subgrades
(lower portion of access road adjacent to Loma Vista). Where bedrock is encountered within the
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 25 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
remedial grading excavation, the depth of remedial grading can be reduced to the depth of
competent rock, as determined by the project engineering geologist. Compaction should be
verified by testing.
Access Road: The existing access road near the entrance to the lot is subject to falling rock and
rolling boulder hazards. For the existing access road cut slope, we recommend that for portions
of the cut face where the slope is five feet high or less, that a low debris wall be constructed near
the toe of the slope to collect the occasional dislodged material. The debris wall should be a
minimum of three feet high and have enough space behind it to allow for manual removal of
collected debris.
For portions of the existing cut face greater than five feet high, a retaining wall is recommended
to support the cut face. Refer to the retaining wall section of this report for specific
recommendations for wall design.
Engineered Fill Soils: The native soil is suitable for use as engineered fill and utility trench
backfill provided it is free of significant organic or deleterious matter, and oversize rock. Within
areas to receive foundations and slabs -on -grade the fill should be "very low" in expansion
potential.
All fill should be placed in maximum 8-inch lifts (loose thickness) and compacted to at least 90
% relative compaction in general accordance with ASTM D 1557 (current edition). In parking
and drive areas the upper two feet of subgrade and aggregate base (if any) should be compacted
to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. Compaction should be verified by testing. In
general, rocks larger than 6 inches in greatest dimension should be removed from fill or backfill
material. Rocks larger than 3 inches in greatest dimension should be removed from fill or
backfill material in the upper 3 feet below finish grade in areas to receive structures or utility
lines.
All soils should be moisture conditioned prior to application of compactive effort. Moisture
conditioning of soils refers to adjusting the soil moisture to near the optimum moisture content.
If the soils are overly moist so that instability occurs, or if the minimum recommended
compaction cannot be readily achieved, it may be necessary to aerate to dry the soil to optimum
moisture content or use other means to address soft soils.
NOTE: We anticipate that actual site development schemes may differ completely or use a
combination of the scenarios postulated above. Therefore we recommend that the project
geotechnical consultant review site grading and foundation plans and where necessary
provide site specific recommendations for grading and foundation design. Additional site
exploration may be warranted to refine soil characteristics and depth to bedrock.
Rockfall Mitigation for Upper Access Road Rockfall Hazard Area: Refer to Plate 3 for the
location of this hazard area. At this location a 3-feet high retention system should be deployed.
We recommend that large boulders (>4' in diameter) be selectively positioned and centered
approximately five feet upslope from the top of the cut face. Each boulder should be embedded
into finished grade a minimum of 12 inches. Boulder placement can be staggered for a more
natural appearance; however gaps with a direct path to the access road should not be permitted.
The boulder alignment should be clearly delineated on grading and/or site development plans.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 26 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
Rockfall Mitigation for the Lower Access Road Hazard Area: Refer to Plate 3 for location of
this hazard area. At this location a 5 to 7-feet high retention systems should be deployed. The
retention systems may be a combination of berms, walls, ditches, stacked boulders as deemed
appropriate for the project. We suggest that earth berms and ditches be utilized on the uphill side
of the system to absorb impact and decelerate moving boulders. Sacrificial retaining walls are
not recommended for impact resistance due to the need for repairs after a rockfall incident.
Actual design of the retention systems should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant for
conformance to the height and impact load criteria.
Heights presented are based upon current site grades. Changing grades will affect retention
system heights.
5.2 Excavations and Utility Trenc lies
Excavations should be made in accordance with OSHA requirements. Using the OSHA
standards and general soil information obtained from the field exploration, classification of the
near surface on -site soils will likely be characterized as Type C. Bedrock excavations may be
Type B depending upon the orientation of fractures and joints. Actual classification of site
specific soil type per OSHA specifications as they pertain to trench safety should be based on
real-time observations and determinations of exposed soils by the contractors Competent Person
(as defined by OSHA) during grading and trenching operations.
Excavated trenches or temporary construction cut slopes in alluvium are anticipated to be
globally stable at temporary cut orientations of 1 1/Z:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter, assuming
non -saturated conditions. Due to the cohesionless site soils encountered, caving and running
surficial soils should be anticipated in non -bedrock areas.
Our site exploration and knowledge of the general area indicates there is a moderate to high
potential for caving and slaking of site excavations (over excavation areas, utilities, footings,
etc.) when in soil, including existing fill deposits. Where excavations over 4 feet deep are
planned, lateral bracing or appropriate cut slopes of 1.5:1 (horizontal/vertical) should be
provided. No surcharge loads from stockpiled soils or construction materials should be allowed
within a horizontal distance measured from the top of the excavation slope and equal to the depth
of the excavation. Soils are susceptible to caving such that shallower excavated slopes may be
required for site safety. Additionally, depending on the utility alignment, bedrock may be
encountered at shallow depth.
Excavations which parallel structures, pavements, or other flatwork, should be planned so that
they do not extend into a plane having a downward slope of 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical) from the
bottom edge of the footings, pavements, or flatwork. Shoring or other excavation techniques
may be required where these recommendations cannot be satisfied due to space limitations or
foundation layout.
The contractor should carefully perform their own assessment of potential construction
difficulties, and methods should be selected accordingly. The method of excavation and support
is ultimately left to the contractor with guidance and restrictions provided by the designer and
owner.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 27 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
A representative from our firm should be present during all site clearing and grading operations
to monitor site conditions; substantiate proper use of materials; evaluate compaction operations,
and verify that the recommendations contained herein are met.
Utility Trenches: Backfill of utilities within roads or public right-of-ways should be placed in
conformance with the requirements of the governing agency (water district, public works
department, etc.). Utility trench backfill within private property should be placed in
conformance with the provisions of this report. In general, service lines extending inside of
property may be backfilled with native soils compacted to a minimum of 90% relative
compaction per ASTM D 1557.
Where utilities cross unpaved access roads, we recommend that buried utilities be placed at least
3 feet below the roadway surface and be able to accommodate an increase in stress from
vehicular loads of 3.400 psf (factor of safety = 2). Alternatively, if the utility cannot
accommodate the increased stress, we recommend they be encased by at least 1-foot of 2 sack
cement -sand slurry (at least 1-foot as measured from the top of pipe). Backfill operations should
be observed and tested to monitor compliance with these recommendations. The trench bottom
should be in a firm condition prior to placing pipe, bedding, or fill.
In general, coarse -grained sand and/or gap graded gravel (i.e. %-inch rock or pea -gravel, etc.)
should not be used for pipe/conduit or trench zone backfill due to the potential for soil migration
into the relatively large void spaces present in this type of material and water seepage along
trenches backfilled with coarse -grained sand and/or gravel. Loss of soil may cause damaging
settlement. NOTE: Rocks greater than 3 inches in diameter should not be incorporated within
utility trench backfill.
Under pavement sections, the upper 24 inches of trench backfill soil below the pavement section
should be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). Backfill materials
should be brought up at substantially the same rate on both sides of the pipe or conduit.
Reduction of the lift thickness may be necessary to achieve the above recommended compaction.
Mechanical compaction is recommended; ponding or jetting is not recommended.
Utility excavations in bedrock will be difficult. Specialized equipment and/or alternate
excavation techniques may be necessary to excavate utility trenches in bedrock.
5.3 Foundations
In our professional opinion, foundations for the residential structure proposed can be supported
on shallow spread and/or continuous footings. To minimize the potential for differential
settlement, foundations should bear on similar geologic units, ie on bedrock or fill, but not both.
Foundation design is the responsibility of the Structural Engineer, considering the structural
loading and the geotechnical parameters given in this report. A representative of Earth Systems
should observe foundation excavations before placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. Loose
soil or construction debris should be removed from footing excavations before placement of
concrete.
Footing design of widths, depths, and reinforcing are the responsibility of the Structural
Engineer, considering the structural loading and the geotechnical parameters given in this report.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 28 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
A minimum footing depth of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade should be maintained. A
representative of Earth Systems should observe foundation excavations before placement of
reinforcing steel or concrete. Loose soil or construction debris should be removed from footing
excavations before placement of concrete.
Structure Setbacks: Structures should be setback from the top or toes of natural, cut, or fill
slopes in accordance with Section 18 of the 2010 CBC.
Conventional Spread Foundations: Allowable soil bearing pressures are given below for
foundations bearing on recompacted soils as described in Section 5.1.1 or entirely on bedrock.
Allowable bearing pressures are net (weight of footing and soil surcharge may be neglected).
For Engineered Fill Bearing Condition:
➢ Continuous wall foundations, 12-inch minimum width and 12 inches below lowest adjacent
grade (grade within 3 feet laterally):
2,000 psf for dead plus design live loads
Allowable increases of 300 psf for each additional 0.5-foot of footing depth may be used up
to a maximum value of 2,100, psf.
Isolated pad foundations, 2 x 2-foot minimum in plan and 12 inches below grade:
2,000 psf for dead plus design live loads
Allowable increases of 300 psf per each additional 0.5-foot of footing depth may be used up
to a maximum value of 2,900 psf.
For Bedrock Bearing Condition:
➢ Continuous wall foundations, 12-inch minimum width and 12 inches below lowest adjacent
grade (grade within 3 feet laterally):
6,000 psf for dead plus design live loads
Allowable increases of 300 psf for each additional 0.5-foot of footing depth may be used up
to a maximum value of 6,900, psf.
I- Isolated pad foundations, 2 x 2-foot minimum in plan and 12 inches below grade:
6,000 psf for dead plus design live loads
Allowable increases of 300 psf per each additional 0.5-foot of footing depth may be used up to a
maximum value of 6,900 psf.
Bearing Capacity — Wind and Seismic Increases: A one-third ('/3) increase in the allowable
bearing pressures may be used when calculating resistance to wind or seismic loads. The
allowable bearing values indicated are based on the anticipated maximum loads. If the
anticipated loads exceed these values, the geotechnical engineer must reevaluate the allowable
bearing values and the grading requirements.
At a minimum, foundations should be designed by the structural engineer for the specific static
and seismic settlement conditions presented. Due to the granular nature of the site soils, the total
static settlement is expected to occur during and shortly after construction.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 29 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
5.4 Estimated Settlements
Total static settlement of the foundation will vary depending on the plan dimensions of the
foundation and the actual load supported. Based upon the foundation dimensions presented
within and the assumed maximum loads provided, it is our opinion that estimated total static
settlement of the proposed shallow/continuous foundations should be less than 3/4 inch.
Differential settlement between bearing members should be less than 1/2-inch, expressed in a
post -construction angular distortion ratio of 1:480 or less. Within soils completely graded as
recommended (complete removals), differential settlement, expressed as an angular distortion, is
expected to be on the order of 1:480.
At a minimum, foundations should be designed by the structural engineer for the specific static
and seismic settlement conditions presented. Due to the granular nature of the site soils, the total
static settlement is expected to occur during and shortly after construction.
5.5 Slabs
Sub rg ade: Slabs -on -grade should be designed as conventional slabs (minimum 4 inches thick
with #3 reinforcing bar 16 inches on center each way) supported by compacted soil placed in
accordance with Section 5.1 of this report. Non-structural flatwork (i.e. patios) should be
supported by compacted soil placed in accordance with Section 5.1 of this report.
Vapor Retarder: In areas of moisture -sensitive floor coverings, an appropriate vapor retarder
should be installed to reduce moisture transmission from the subgrade soil to the slab.
For these areas, a vapor retarder (minimum 10-mil thickness) should underlie the floor slabs. If a
Class A vapor retarder (ASTM E 1745) is specified, the retarder can be placed directly on non
expansive soil and the retarder should be covered with a minimum of 2 inches of clean sand.
If a less durable vapor retarder is specified (i.e. ASTM E 1745, Class B or C), a minimum of 4
inches of clean sand should be provided, and the retarder should be placed in the center of the
clean sand layer. Clean sand is defined as well or poorly -graded sand (ASTM D 2488) of which
less than 3% passes the No. 200 sieve. The site soils do not fulfill the criteria to be considered
clean sand. The sand should be lightly moistened just prior to placing the concrete. Low -slump
concrete should be used to help reduce the potential for concrete shrinkage. The effectiveness of
the membrane is dependent upon its quality, the method of overlapping, its protection during
construction. and the successful sealing of the membrane around utility lines. Capillary breaks
beneath equipment pads should consist of a minimum of 4 inches of open/gap-graded gravel.
The following minimum slab recommendations are intended to address geotechnical concerns
such as potential variations of the subgrade and are not to be construed as superseding any
structural design. The design engineer and/or project architect should ensure compliance
with SB800 with regards to moisture and moisture vapor.
Slab Thickness and Reinforcement: We recommend slabs -on -grade may be designed as
conventional slabs (minimum 4 inches thick with #3 reinforcing bar 16 inches on center each
way). Reinforcing bar should be placed upon positive spacers (dobies) at mid slab height.
Reinforcing bar should not be lifted into place during slab concrete placement.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 30 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
Slab thickness and reinforcement of slabs -on -grade are contingent on the recommendations of
the structural engineer or architect in accordance with the requirements of the 2010 CBC. ACI
Section 4.3. Table 4.3.1 should be followed for recommended cement type, water cement ratio,
and compressive strength. The project architect or geotechnical engineer should continually
observe all reinforcing steel in slabs during placement of concrete to check for proper location
within the slab.
Control Joints: Control joints should be provided in all conventional (non-structural) concrete
slabs -on -grade at a maximum spacing of 36 times the slab thickness (12 feet maximum on -
center, each way) as recommended by American Concrete Institute [AC1] guidelines. All joints
should form approximately square patterns to reduce the potential for randomly oriented
shrinkage cracks. Expansion joints in the slabs should be tooled at the time of the concrete
placement or saw cut ('/4 of slab depth) as soon as practical but not more than 8 hours from
concrete placement.
Construction (cold) joints should consist of thickened butt joints with '/2-inch dowels at 18 inches
on center or a thickened keyed -joint to resist vertical deflection at the joint. All control joints in
exterior flatwork should be sealed to reduce the potential of moisture or foreign material
intrusion. These procedures will reduce the potential for randomly oriented cracks, but may not
prevent them from occurring.
Curing and Quality Control: The contractor should take precautions to reduce the potential of
curling of slabs in this and desert region using proper batching, placement, and curing methods.
Curing is highly affected by temperature, wind, and humidity. Quality control procedures may
be used, including trial batch mix designs, batch plant inspection, and on -site special inspection
and testing. Curing should be in accordance with ACI recommendations for hot weather
conditions.
5.6 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls
The following table presents lateral earth pressures and coefficients of friction. The values are
given as equivalent fluid pressures without surcharge loads or hydrostatic pressure.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013
1 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
Fable 10
Lateral Pressures and Sliding Resistance
On -site Materials
Passivc Pressure
350 pcf - level ground
Active Pressure (cantilever walls)
Use when wall is permitted to rotate 0.1 to 0.2% of wall
40 pcf - level ground
height for granular backfill
At -Rest Pressure restrained walls
60 pcf - level ground
Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressure"'
Acting at 0.33H,
20 pcl-
Where H is measured from the base of the wall
(Mav use a 1.0 Load Factor, 2010 CBC
Concrete Poured Against Earth
Base Lateral Sliding Resistance
0.4
Dead load x Coefficient of Friction:
Pre -Cast Concrete Against Earth
Base Lateral Sliding Resistance
0.25
Dead load x Coefficient of Friction:
Notes:
I ) Dynamic pressures are additive to active earth pressure. Walls retaining less than 12 feet of soil
or walls designed using at -rest pressures need not consider this increased pressure (reference:
Seismic Earth Pressures on Deep Building Basements, M. Lew, et al, 2010 Structural Engineers
Association of California Convention proceedings).
2) Dynamic loading noted above is considered for soil backfill only. Where retaining walls retain
rock outcrops or bedrock cuts, additional analysis by the geotechnical engineer should be
provided on a case by case basis.
Upward sloping soil backfill, or surcharge loads from nearby footings can create larger lateral
pressures. Should any walls be considered for retaining sloped backfill (or rock) or placed next
to foundations, our office should be contacted for recommended design parameters. Surcharge
loads should be considered if they exist within a zone between the face of the wall and a plane
projected 45 degrees upward from the base of the wall.
The increase in lateral earth pressure should be taken as 35% of the surcharge load within this
zone. Retaining walls subjected to traffic loads should include a uniform surcharge load
equivalent to at least 2 feet of native soil (140 pcf unit weight). Retaining walls should be
designed with a minimum factor of safety of 1.5.
For an 8-foot high wall, a surcharge point load of 1.5 kips applied at 2/3 of the wall height
(measured from the top of the foundation) should be applied. Other wall heights will require
separate evaluations.
Frictional and Lateral Coefficients: Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction on the base of
foundations and by passive resistance of the soils acting on foundation walls.
Allowable coefficients of friction and passive earth pressures are given in the table above. These
values include a factor of safety of 1.5. Lateral passive resistance is based on the assumption that
backfill next to foundations is properly compacted. Design based upon 2010 CBC may utilize
coefficients based upon SP/SM type soil designations.
Drainage: A backdrain or an equivalent system of backfill drainage should be incorporated into
the retaining wall design, whereby the collected water is conveyed to an approved point of
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 32 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
discharge (See Plate A-9). Design should be in accordance with Section 1805.4.2 and 1805.4.3
of the 2010 California Building Code. Drain rock should be wrapped in filter fabric such as
Mirafi 140N as a minimum. Backfill immediately behind the retaining structure should be a free -
draining granular. Waterproofing should be according to the designer's specifications. Water
should not be allowed to pond or infiltrate near the top of the wall. To accomplish this, the final
backfill grade should be such that water is diverted away from the retaining wall.
Backfill and Subarade Compaction: Soil compaction on the retained side of the wall within a
horizontal distance equal to one wall height (to a maximum of 6 feet) should be performed by
hand -operated or other lightweight compaction equipment (90% compaction relative to ASTM D
1557 at near optimum moisture content). This is intended to reduce potential locked -in lateral
pressures caused by compaction with heavy grading equipment. Foundation subgrade
preparation should be as specified in Section 5.1.
5.7 Seismic Design Criteria
This site will be subject to strong ground shaking due to future fault movements along regional
faults, including the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults. Engineered design and earthquake -
resistant construction increase safety and allow development of seismic areas. The minimum
seismic design should comply with the 2010 edition of the CBC using the seismic coefficients
given in the table below. Based upon our analysis, the site is classified as CBC Site C.
2010 CBC (ASCE 7-05) Seismic Parameters
Site Class: C
Maximum Considered Earthquake IMCE) Ground Motion
Short Period Spectral Response S$:
1.500 g
1 second Spectral Response, SI:
0.600 g
Site Coefficient, Fe:
1.00
Site Coefficient, Fv:
1.30
Design Earthquake Ground Motion
Short Period Spectral Response, Sps
1.000 g
1 second Spectral Response, Sot
0.520 g
The intent of the CBC lateral force requirements is to provide a structural design that will resist
collapse to provide reasonable life safety from a major earthquake, but may experience some
structural and nonstructural damage.
A fundamental tenet of seismic design is that inelastic yielding is allowed to adapt to the seismic
demand on the structure. In other words, damage is allowed. The CBC lateral force
requirements should be considered a minimum design. The owner and the designer may evaluate
the level of risk and performance that is acceptable. Performance based criteria could be set in
the design. The design engineer should exercise special care so that all components of the design
are fully met with attention to providing a continuous load path. An adequate quality assurance
and control program is urged during project construction to verify that the design plans and good
construction practices are followed.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013
5.8 Site Drainage and Maintenance
33 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
Positive drainage should be maintained away from the structures (5-percent for 5 feet minimum)
to prevent ponding and subsequent saturation of the foundation soils. Gutters and downspouts in
conjunction with a 2-percent site grade should be considered as a means to convey water away
from foundations if increased fall is not provided.
Drainage should be maintained for paved and improved areas. Water should not pond on or near
paved areas or foundations. The following recommendations are provided in regard to site
drainage and structure performance:
• It is highly recommended that landscape irrigation or other sources of water be collected
and conducted to an approved drainage device. In yard areas where shallow bedrock
underlies the yard. French drains, yard drains, and other subdrain systems should be
employed to minimize yard or fill saturation due to over -irrigation and water perching on
the impermeable bedrock under the fill.
• Landscaping grades should be lowered and sloped such that water drains to appropriate
collection and disposal areas. All runoff water should be controlled, collected, and
drained into proper drain outlets. Control methods may include curbing, ribbon gutters.
'V' ditches, or other suitable containment and redirection devices.
• In no instance should water be allowed to flow or pond against structures, slabs,
foundations or over graded slopes. Adequate provisions should be employed to control
and limit moisture changes in the subgrade beneath foundations or structures to reduce
the potential for soil saturation. Landscape borders should not act as traps for water
within landscape areas. Potential sources of water such as piping, drains, broken
sprinklers, etc, should be frequently examined for leakage or plugging. Any such leakage
or plugging should be immediately repaired.
• Permanent swales at the top of cut slopes and berms at the top of fill slopes should be
constructed and maintained to divert runoff away from graded slope faces to reduce the
potential for slope face saturation and erosion.
• The drainage pattern should be established at the time of final grading and maintained
throughout the life of the project. Additionally, drainage structures should be maintained
(including the de -clogging of piping) throughout their design life. Structural performance
is dependent on many drainage -related factors such as landscaping, irrigation, lateral
drainage patterns and other improvements.
• Maintenance of drainage systems can be the most critical element in determining the
success of a design. They must be protected and maintained from sediment -laden water
both during and after construction to prevent clogging of the surficial soils and filter
medium.
• Roads should be maintained to provide adequate drainage to reduce the adverse effects of
long term standing water. Prolonged standing water will saturate the upper soils which
may become weak, allowing plastic deformation. Water control and conveyance is
possibly the most important factor in the life of a roadway. Roadway crown and site
drainage should be maintained both during project construction and over the entire life of
the project. Runoff water should be collected and diverted away from the roadway
surface and into drainage ditches that convey the water away from the roadway and
adjacent descending fill slopes.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013
34 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
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 described. 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.
The planning and construction process is an integral design component with respect to the
geotechnical aspects of this project. Because geotechnical engineering is an inexact science due
to the variability of natural processes and because we sample only a small portion of the soil and
material affecting the performance of the proposed structure, unanticipated or changed
conditions can be disclosed during demolition and construction. Proper geotechnical observation
and testing during construction is imperative to allow the geotechnical engineer the opportunity
to verify assumptions made during the design process and to verify that our geotechnical
recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented during construction.
Therefore, we recommend that Earth Systems be retained during the construction of the proposed
improvements to observe compliance with the design concepts and geotechnical
recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions or
methods of construction differ from those assumed while completing this investigation. If we
are not accorded the privilege of performing this review, we can assume no responsibility for
misinterpretation of our recommendations. The above services can be provided in accordance
with our current Fee Schedule.
Our evaluation of subsurface conditions at the site has considered subgrade soil and groundwater
conditions present at the time of our study. The influence(s) of post -construction changes to
these conditions such as introduction or removal of water into or from the subsurface will likely
influence future performance of the proposed project. It should be recognized that definition and
evaluation of subsurface conditions are difficult. Judgments leading to conclusions and
recommendations are generally made with incomplete knowledge of the subsurface conditions
due to the limitation of data from field studies. The availability and broadening of knowledge
and professional standards applicable to engineering services are continually evolving. As such,
our services are intended to provide the Client with a source of professional advice, opinions and
recommendations based on the information available as applicable to the project location, time of
our services, and scope. If the scope of the proposed construction changes from that described in
this report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are not considered
valid unless the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions of this report are modified or
approved in writing by Earth Systems.
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 standards
occur, whether they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, findings
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 35 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
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.
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 architect and 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 verify that the general contractor and all subcontractors follow such recommendations. It is
further understood that the owner or the owner's representative is responsible for submittal of
this report to the appropriate governing agencies.
As the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for this project, Earth Systems has striven to provide
our services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this
locality at this time. No warranty or guarantee, express or implied, is made. This report was
prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and the Client's authorized agents.
Earth Systems 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 Earth Systems is not accorded
the privilege of making this recommended review, we can assume no responsibility for
misinterpretation of our recommendations. The owner or the owner's representative has the
responsibility to provide the final plans requiring review to Earth Systems' attention so that we
may perform our review.
Any party other than the client who wishes to use this report shall notify Earth Systems of such
intended use. Based on the intended use of the report, Earth Systems may require that additional
work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these
requirements by the client or anyone else will release Earth Systems from any liability resulting
from the use of this report by any unauthorized party.
Although available through Earth Systems, the current scope of our services does not include an
environmental assessment or an 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 Earth Systems will be retained to provide a program
of client consultation, plan review, construction monitoring, and testing during the final design
and construction phases to check compliance with these recommendations. Maintaining Earth
Systems 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
These services are 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:
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013
36 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
• Consultation during the final design stages of the project.
• A review of the building foundation and grading plans to observe that recommendations
of our report have been properly implemented into the design.
• Observation and testing during site preparation. grading, pile excavation. and placement
of engineered fill.
• Consultation as needed during construction.
-000-
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 37 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute [ACI], 2004, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, Parts I through 5.
American Concrete Institute (2004) "Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05).
American Society of Civil Engineers [ASCE], 2006. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures, ASCE 7-05.
American Society for Testing Materials, 2011, Annual Book of Standards
American Society for Testing Materials, 1989, STP 1013, Effects of Soil Characteristics on
Corrosion (February, 1989).
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989, Engineering Rock Mass Classifications. New York: Wiley.
Bowles, J.E., 1988, Foundation Analysis and Design. Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Bryant, W.A. and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Division of
Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42.
Butler, Dwain K., Editor, 2005, Near -Surface Geophysics, Society of Exploration Geophysicists
Investigations in Geophysics Series, No. 13, Tulsa, OK, 732 pages.
California Department of Water Resources, 2013, Groundwater Level Data.
http://wd1.water.ca.gov/gw/
California Geologic Survey, 2008. "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in
California," CGS Special Publication 117A.
California Geologic Survey, 2013, Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page,
http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamap.asp.
Caterpillar Tractor Co., 1984, Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Edition 15, CAT Publications,
Peoria, Illinois, 600 pages.
Coduto, D.P., 2000, Foundation Design: Principles and Practices (2nd Edition).
Colorado Department of Transportation, 2000, Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program, Version
4.0, 127 p.
Dept. of the Navy, 1986, NAVFAC DM 7.01: Soil Mechanics,_ Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, Alexandria, Virginia.
Dept. of the Navy, 1986, NAVFAC DM 7.02: Foundations and Earth Structures, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, Virginia.
Dobrin, Milton B., 1976, Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill,
Inc., 630 pages.
Envicom Corporation and the County of Riverside Planning Department, 1976, Seismic Safety
and Safety General Plan Elements Technical Report, County of Riverside.
FEMA, 2011, Map Service Center website http://msc.fema.gov/
International Code Council [ICC], 2010, California building Code.
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
March 26, 2013 38 File No.: 12124-01
Doc. No.:13-03-737
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.
Occupational Safety and Health Standards — Excavations, Final Pub. 1989.
Rogers, T.H., 1966, Geologic Map of California - Santa Ana Sheet, California Division of Mines
and Geology Regional Map Series, scale 1:250,000.
Southern California Earthquake Center (S.C.E.C.), 1999. Recommended Procedures for
Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and
Mitigating Liquefaction in California: available at web site: httl2://www.seecdc.scec.orL,.
Southwest Geophysics, Inc., 2013, Seismic Refraction Survey. 77-210 Loma Vista, La Quinta,
California, Project No. 1 ] 3077. dated March 6, 2013
Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due To Earthquake
Shaking, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, August 1987.
United States Geological Survey, 2008, Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States
National Seismic Hazard Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 2008-1128,
61 p.
Wallace, R. E., 1990, The San Andreas Fault System, California: U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1515.283 p.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2008, The Uniform California
Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 [UCERF 21: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File
Report 2007-1437 and California Geological Survey Special Report 203, 104 p.
-000-
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
APPENDIX A
Plate A-1 - Site Location
Plate A-2 - Regional Geologic Map
Plate A-3 - Site Plan & Geologic Map
Plates A-4 & A-5 - Geologic Cross Sections
Plate A-6 - Fill Slope Construction
Plate A-7 - Pad Transition Condition
Plate A-8 - Alluvial Cut Slope Stabilization Fill
Plate A-9 - Retaining Wall Backdrain Details
Table A-1 - Fault Parameters
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
Approximate
Site Area
T
A T
r
O
♦ W
a
a
G r 1' ,
Reference! La Quinla. Cabrornia NE/4 Palm Desen 15' Quadrangle dated 1959. Pholorcviscd 1980
LEGEND Plate A-1
Site Vicinity Map
�1 Swenson Residence
Approximate Site Area 77-210 Loma Vista
La Quinta, Riverside County. California
Approximate Scale: I" = 1 Mi I � Earth Systems Southwest
0 1 Mi 2 Mi 3/26/2013 File No.: 12124-01
on
-sue • • :�•'•� — —
OC
t
-9r Rto •f grmSq _ r _ 194M N.
. —
`ai . •� } ,, 'Aid'. is$wa
9r
^ \.'9r� ,• `t`,:r _tip: a n•w�,
0' •�
arr :qK 9 Via• is
Source: Geologic Atlas of California - Santa Ana Sheet (1985)
Approximate Scale: P = 4 Miles
LEGEND
Qs - Quaternary Dunes Sand
0 co
• Qal - Quaternary Alluvium
oc Ql - Quaternary Lake Deposits
Qc - Quaternary Pliestocene
`<p~ Nonmarine
OAH LA yy
-'7 °a• O�Pl C i
ti Qp - Quaternary Plio-Pleistocene
Nonmarine
'pUIL,t Pc -Tertiary Undivide Pliocene
Nonmarine
0 ftt'
AR'TIN _ , °a' gr - Mesozoic Granitic Rock
I N DtAN
tESERV IONp _ !
�"' -0 Ms - Pre -Cretaceous Metamorphic
Rock
86 ,.•, ,
Fault: Dashed Where
Approximate, Dotted
Where Concealed,
n - - , - Queried Where
Conjectural
y ypc C^6CARCOOI
( poi 'UFA
J I •• ♦�- i AS OEPOS:TS'
10
2()
NE
tP
�1
r-1k U _ 1 W
LEGEND
of - Artificial Fill
�1- - Gneissic granitic rock
Approximate Scale: l" = 20'
(� 20' 4O'
plate:l-4
Geologic Cross Section"
Swenson Resid�n��
77-? 10 Loma Vista
La Quints. Riverside County, Calitorn►a
�l•� Earth Systems
U Southwest
File Diu.: 1212
Ltd
40
C
ui SE
I(
SO
20 40 60
C-C9
0
W InI
D-DI)
East
I(H)
I H12140 15u
\1)
LEGEND
of - Artificial Fill
gr - Gneissic granitic rock
Approximate Scale: I" = 20'
0 20' 40'
Plate A-5
Geologic Cross Section%
S%kenson Residencc
77-210 Lama Vista
La Qui ma. Ri%erside County. CaIitorn 6
Earth Systems
Southwest
�(• Ill; I I,. v, I I '-w
SWENSON RESIDENCE
GEOTECHNICAL EXHIBIT
A'
1 Geologic Cross Section
Strike of Vertical Joint
Strike/Dip of Joint
79
Strike/Dip of Foliation
79
Strike/Dip of Fault
79
af, Fill - Cobbles, boulders, and sand
af= Fill - Sand
Cobble/Boulder channel gr
af, lining with sand
Qt Talus - Rock rubble
Q,I*$ Colluvium
gr
gr
52 � --
/�65 't�e72 1
gr T 4
78 71 14 66
c86 89
Min 3' High 72 78 62 .%
I Mitigation 35 �� 62 �.
56
gr 79, ! 79 80 �8
- ..- 79 F 88 72
80 i�
�$� -- ---_79 9 56 82 79 78 *768
82
Min 7' gh ?S $6 g 74 72Mitigatio 62 _ 780 �2 gr
_ 36 75
gr Gneissic granitic rock Rockfall Hazard - - i _ - , 6 _ - I)
Area . , � o l - - - - af' W -of - , g z,
89
gr Min 5' High . , r ` LOT ,
X,
Mitigation , �. �;� ' `�\ 74 9 (3.16 A Qt of
gr
LEGEND
Approximate Scale: P' = 50'
0 50, 100,
sm
af= TRACT 0. 28 5-R Z a f
' i
B 2W 2- r r
6
N gr
l
79
82 1
a f \•a, 78 86
73 72 af;
af, 82
.L 7
-��----r---2f —
N
Plate A-3
Site Plan & Geologic Map
Swenson Residence
77-210 Loma Vista
La Quinta, Riverside County. California
Earth Systems
1 26 2013 1 File No_: 12124-01
Additional bench backdrains, as
recommended by Engineer'
Geologist during construction.
Compacted fill
Maximum Slope: 2:1 unless \
otherwise recommended by
Engineer'Geologist
Dept
fieh to be determined in l
field by Enginea/Geologist
Natural slope
,a
Toe of Slope
2' min.
t !. Rock or firm soil
Keyway back drain
10'rnin.
Permeable synthetic filter fabric —
per Calttans Standard Specification
88-1.03 for edge drains
Free Draining Gravel. —
minimum 5 cu. flAinear ft.
4" min. dia. solid, rigid —
PVC outlet pi spaced as
rr recomended�by
EngincedGeologist
Fill Slope
Compacted Fill J�
-a
4" min. dia. riggid perforated -
PVC pipe, perforatiuns down,
/. 2% min. gradient to low point
Note: A prefabncated panel drainage system (Advanedge, Miradrain, etc.)
may be substituted for the gravel / pipe system, provided it is
installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations
Subrain Notes:
1. Solid Pipe Outlets should be provided every 100' laterally.
2. Filter material may also consist of clean, free -draining gravel wrapped in
filter fabric (Mirifi 140 N or equivalent.
3. Backdrain pipe should have 8 uniformly spaced perforations per foot pla
with 90 degree offsets on underside of pipe. Outlet pipes should be non
perforated.
Grading Detail -Fill Over Natural Slope
Plate A-6
27-210 Loma Vista, La Quinta, California
Project No.: 12124-01
Earth Systems
C� F Southwest
Structure
red Gta'Orn '�,,.
F
D: Depth of over -excavation of cut side of pad, as specified in report.
Typically 1/3 to ';z the deepest thickness of fill under the structure
foundation (F).
original Ground Surface
Over -Excavation Detail
Transition Condition
Plate A-7
77-210 Loma Vista, La Quinta, California I
File No. 12124-01:
Earth Systems
WW Southwest
na\ G(°unOle
d ,
e
N 10
d ► Level benches cut into firm natural ground.
� w ►
5' minimum width.
Subdrains required if underlying native material is relativ
impermeable (see Plate A-6 for subdrain details).
Protect No. 12124-011
Grading Detail: Reconstructed Cut Slope
d = Minumum downslope key depth into fim natural ground approved Stabilization Fill
by project engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer. Plate A-8
Swenson Residence
w = Width of key:Half the slope height or 10' minimum. �� 2io Loma vista
pg I a C)uinfa Rivc+rcirin rnimty California
Earth Systems
��` Southwest
WALL DRAIN OPTION A: SYNTHETIC GEODRAIN
DRAIN PII
(AS DISCUSSE
DRAINAGE SWALE (CONCRETE
OR OTHER NON -EROSIVE MATERIAL)
)DRAIN ('MIRADRAIN" OR EQUIVALENT)
.ET PIPE
WALL DRAIN OPTION B: GRAVEL DRAIN
DRAINAGESWALE
(CONCRETE OR OTHER
NON -EROSIVE MATERIAL)
+/- 6' GRAVEL DRAIN MATERIAL
BETWEEN PIPE AND f1NlSHEQ RAQ
R��
WALL AND BASE OF
i FT MINIMUM
GRAVEL DRAIN WRAPPED IN
FOUNDATION _
f�
FILTER FABRIC
FILTER FABRIC SPECS DEPEND
•
ON TYPE OF ADJACENT FILL
'♦
SOIL
�•
/
BACKFILL
\
(NOTE 3)
/
\OUTLET PIPE
MINIMUM 4• DIAMETER PVC OR ABS SCH 40
L J�
PLASTIC PIPE WITH MIN 6 UNIFORMLY SPACED
3/16' - 316• PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE
-
INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS AT BOTTOM
SLOPE AT MIN I% TO OUTLET PIPE
NOTE 1)
GRAVEL DRAIN MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF CLEAN PEA GRAVEL OR It. -
GRAVEL WRAPPED IN APPROPRIATE FILTER FABRIC' OR CALIFORNIA
CLASS II PERMEABLE MATERIAL
NOTE 2)
USE DRAINAGE SWALE OR GRADE TO DRAIN AWAY FROM WALL
NOTE 3)
ENGINEERED BACKFILL COMPACTED AS RECOMMENDED IN
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SPECIAL PROVISIONS WILL APPLY TO
MODERATELY OR HIGHLY EXPANSIVE BACKFILL
NOTE 4)
WEEP HOLES IN BASE BLOCK COURSE ARE RECOMMENDED
CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN THAT WEEPHOLES ARE NOT COVERED BY
EXTERIOR GRADE OR PAVING
NOT TO SCALE
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Results
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
File No.: 12124-01 March 26, 2013
Lab Number: 13-0018
MAXIMUM DENSITY / OPTIMUM MOISTURE ASTM D 1557-09 (Modified)
Job Name: Swenson Residence Procedure Used: B
Sample ID: 1 Preparation Method: Moist
Location: Rock Slope Rammer Type: Mechanical
Date Sampled: 2/22/2013
Description: Dark Brown Gravelly Fine to Coarse Sand w/Silt (SW-SM)
Sieve Size % Retained (Cumulative)
Maximum Density: 136.7 pcf 3/4" 11.6
Optimum Moisture: 6.4% 3/8" 16.0
Corrected for Oversize (ASTM D4718) #4 25.2
140
135
130
125
p115
110
105
100 4-
0
<----- Zero Air Voids Lines,
sg =2.65, 2.70, 2.75
5 10 15 20 25
Moisture Content, percent
30 35
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
SPECIFIC GRAVITY & DENSITY ASTM D 6473-" (2005)
Using Coated Samples
Project:
Swenson Residence
File No.:
12124-01
Date:
3/26/2013
Tested By:
1
2
3
Sample I.D.
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
A
Unit Weight of Water
62.319
62.319
62.319
B
Weight in Air grams
3293
4616
1920
C
Weight Immersed grams
2016
2858
1185
D
Weight SSD grams
3297
4636
1923
E
Difference
1281
1778
738
F
Bulk Specific Gravity
2.57
2.61
2.61
G
Unit Weight (pcf)
160.4
162.5
162.4
H
Average Unit Weight
161.8
File No.: 12124-01
March 26, 2013
EXPANSION INDEX ASTM D-4829, UBC I8-2
Job Name: Swenson Residence
Sample 1D: Rock Slope
Soil Description: Gravelly Sand w/Silt (SW-SM)
Initial Moisture, %:
Initial Compacted Dry Density, pcf
Initial Saturation, %:
Final Moisture, %:
Volumetric Swell, %:
8.1
118.0
52
12.7
-0.3
Expansion Index, El: 0 very Low
Adjusted to El at 50 % saturation according to Section 10.1.2 of ASTM D4829
EI
UBC Classification
0-20
Very Low
21-50
Low
5 l -90
Medium
91-130
High
>130
Very High
EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST
File No.: 12124-01
Lab No.: 13-0018
SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSES
Job Name: Swenson Residence
Job No.: 12124-01
Sample ID: Rock Slope
Sample Depth, feet: DF
Sulfate, mg/Kg (ppm): 12 20
(ASTM D 4327)
Chloride, mg/Kg (ppm): 96 20
(ASTM D 4327)
pH, (pH Units): 9.21 1
(ASTM D 1293)
Resistivity, (ohm -cm): 11,236 ---
Conductivity, (µmhos -cm): 89
(ASTM D 1125)
Note: Tests performed by Subcontract Laboratory:
Truesdail Laboratories, Inc.
14201 Franklin Avenue
Tustin. California 92780-7008 Tel: (714) 730-6462
3/26/2013
DF: Dilution Factor
RL: Reporting Limit
N.D.: Not Detectable
RL
10.00
4.00
2.00
General Guidelines for Soil Corrosivity
Chemical Agent
Amount in Soil
Degree of Corrosivity
Soluble
0 -1,000 mg/Kg (ppm) [ 0-.1%]
Low
Sulfates'
1,000 - 2,000 mg/Kg (ppm) [0.1-0.2%]
Moderate
2,000 - 20,000 mg/Kg (ppm) [0.2-2.0%]
Severe
> 20,000 mg/Kg m >2.0%
Very Severe
Resistivity2
0- 900 ohm -cm
Very Severely Corrosive
900 to 2,300 ohm -cm
Severely Corrosive
2,300 to 5,000 ohm -cm
Moderately Corrosive
5,000-10,000 ohm -cm
Mildly Corrosive
10,000+ ohm -cm
Progressively Less Corrosive
1 - General corrosivity to concrete elements. American Concrete Institute (ACI) Water Soluble Sulfate
in Soil by Weight, ACI 318, Tables 4.2.2 - Exposure Conditions and Table 4.3.1 - Requirements for
Concrete Exposed to Sulfate -Containing Solutions. It is recommended that concrete be proportioned in
accordance with the requirements of the two ACI tables listed above (4.2.2 and 4.3.1). The current ACI
should be referred to for further information.
2 - General corrosivity to metallic elements (iron, steel, etc.). Although no standard has been developed
and accepted by corrosion engineering organizations, it is generally agreed that the classification shown
above, or other similar classifications, reflect soil corrosivity. Source: Corrosionsource.com. The
classification presented is excerpted from ASTM STP 1013 titled "Effects of Soil Characteristics on
Corrosion" (February, 1989)
O(H)
350� �
500
0
1000,
10*1
/
/
/
Pe4o, /
/
/
/
Residual
timate /
/
/
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 35M 4000 t-011
Normal Load in psf
4
000 7
3.5M
3000
c 25M
q 1.
d 2000 ,
1 /
1500 /
1000
Li I
500
I 3r.
0
000 0.05
010 0 15 0.20 025 0.30
0.35 0.40
0.45 0.50
Horizontal Displacement (in.)
— 1000
—2000 — 4000
— Reshear 1000A
— Reshear ]OOOB
—+—Reshear1000C
—Reshear2000A--Reehear2000B
—Reshear2000C
Reshear4000A
j Reahear 4000B
Reshear 4000C Reshear WOOD
Reshem 2000D
Reshear 4000D
DIRECT SHEAR DATA`
Sample Location: Rock Slope Remolded Rock Material
Material: Gravelly Sand w/Silt (SW-SM)
Dry Density (pcf): 150.9
Inlial % Moisture: 6.5
Average Degree of Saturation: 94.2
Shear Rate (in/min): 0.01
Peak Ultimate Residual
0 Angle of Friction (degrees). 41 34 33
c Cohesive Strength (psf): 468 60 0
Test Type: Peak, Ultimate and Residual Shear (5 passes)
'Test Method ASTM 0-3080
4500
4000
c 3500
3000
N
m 2500
2000
C
m 1500
m
Uf 1000
500
0
C
n
500
N
N
d
N
Q1
C :�f�I ICI
1000
500
of
0
/
/
/
/
/
• PEoC
/ ULTIMATE
/
Air
Normal Load (psf)
IWO p - 2000 psr 000 Pat]
000 0 05 010 015 020 0.25 030 0.35 0.10 0.45 0,50
Horizontal Displacement (in.)
DIRECT SHEAR DATA"
Sample Location: Rock Slope
Material: Gravelly Sand w/Silt (SW-SM)
Dry Density (pcO: 123.0 90% Compaction
111dial
Emal
Moisture Content (%):
4.8
12.5
Saturation (%):
36
100
Perak
Ultimate
p Angle of Fnction (degrees)
36
32
c Cohesive Strength (psf):
280
130
Test Type: Peak and Ulilimate
Shear Rate (in/min): 0.01
' Test Method. ASTM D-3080
APPENDIX C
Seismic Refraction Survey
i
th
KX
FAR I I I SYS 11AMS SM I I I IWFST
SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEY
77-210 LOMA VISTA
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:
Earth Systems Southwest
79-811 B Country Club Drive
Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203
PREPARED BY:
Southwest Geophysics. Inc.
8057 Raytheon Road, Suite 9
San Diego, CA 92111
March 6. 2013
Project No. 113077
-AA/\ SOUTHWEST
f GEOPHYSICS. INC.
YOUR SUBSURFACE SOLUTION
March 6, 2013
Project No. 113077
Mr. Mark Spykerman
Earth Systems Southwest
79-811B Country Club Drive
La Quinta, CA 92203
Subject: Seismic Refraction Survey
77-210 Loma Vista
La Quinta, California
Dear Mr. Spykerman:
In accordance with your authorization, we have performed a seismic refraction survey pertaining
to the property located at 77-210 Loma Vista in La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Spe-
cifically. our survey consisted of performing four seismic refraction traverses across the project
site. The purpose of our study was to develop subsurface velocity profiles of the areas surveyed,
evaluate the apparent rippability of the subsurface materials, and estimate the depth of artificial
fill beneath the building pad and access road. This data report presents our survey methodology,
equipment used, analysis, and results.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions
related to this report, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Sincerely,
SOUTHWEST GEOPHYSICS, INC.
P.G., P.Gp.
physicist
JEM/HV/hv
Distribution: Addressee (electronic)
l�Glii�n v AGt�7 � "
Hans van de Vrugt, C.E. ., P.Gp.
Principal Geologist/Geophysicist
���No
Oy'y��,
a nw2 �� cn
tz E.P_4y
8057 Raytheon Road, Suite 9 - San Diego - California 92111 • Telephone 858-527-0849 - Fax 858-225-0114
77-210 Loma Vista
La Quinta, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
March 6, 2013
Project No. 113077
Page
1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES............................................................................................................1
3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................................1
4. SURVEY METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................
5. RESULTS.................................................................................................................................
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................4
7. LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................I........
8. SELECTED REFERENCES....................................................................................................7
Tables
Table 1 — Rippability Classification..................................................................................................
Table 2 — Seismic Traverse Results.................................................................................................4
Figures
Figure 1 —
Site Location Map
Figure 2 —
Line Location Map
Figure 3 —
Site Photographs
Figure 4a —
Seismic Profile, SL-1
Figure 4b —
Seismic Profile, SL-2
Figure 4c —
Seismic Profile, SL-3
Figure Q —
Seismic Profile, SL-4
77-210 Loma Vista
La Quinta, California
1. INTRODUCTION
March 6, 2013
Project No. 113077
In accordance with your authorization, we have performed a seismic refraction survey pertaining
to the property located at 77-210 Loma Vista in La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Spe-
cifically, our survey consisted of performing four seismic refraction traverses across the project
site. The purpose of our study was to develop subsurface velocity profiles of the areas surveyed,
evaluate the apparent rippability of the subsurface materials, and estimate the depth of artificial
fill beneath the building pad and access road. This data report presents our survey methodology,
equipment used, analysis, and results.
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of services included:
• P-wave data acquisition along four seismic refraction traverses.
• Compilation, processing, and analysis of the collected data.
• Preparation of this report presenting our results and conclusions.
3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located to the northeast of the cul-de-sac at the northwest end of Loma Vista in
La Quinta, Riverside County, California (Figures 1 and 2). The site consists of a building pad
consisting of undocumented artificial fill, surrounded by moderately steep rock outcrops and ta-
lus slopes. Vegetation in the project area consists of scattered native desert brush. Outcrops of
weathered granitic rock were observed at and near the project site. Figures 2 and 3 depict the
general site conditions in the study area.
Based on our discussions with you, it is our understanding that the proposed project will include
the construction of a custom single-family residence, and that site preparation is expected to in -
elude cuts into some of the surrounding rock outcrops.
77-210 Loma Vista March 6, 2013
La Quinta, California Project No. 113077
4. SURVEY METHODOLOGY
A seismic P-wave (compression wave) refraction survey was conducted across portions of the
site to evaluate the apparent rippability characteristics of the subsurface materials and to develop
approximate subsurface velocity profiles of the areas surveyed. The seismic refraction method
uses first -arrival times of refracted seismic waves to estimate the thicknesses and seismic veloci-
ties of subsurface layers. Seismic P-waves generated at the surface, using a hammer and plate,
are refracted at boundaries separating materials of contrasting velocities. These refracted seismic
waves are then detected by a series of surface vertical -component geophones, and recorded with
a 24-channel Geometries StrataView seismograph. The travel times of the seismic P-waves are
used in conjunction with the shot-to-geophone distances to obtain thickness and velocity infor-
mation for the subsurface materials. Four seismic profiles (labeled SL-1 through SL-4) were
conducted at the site. The general locations were selected by your office. Figure 2 depicts the
approximate location of the lines. Please note that measured down -line distances were not slope
corrected; therefore, line lengths shown in Figure 2 may appear to be less than the actual length.
Shot points (signal generation locations) were generally conducted at five equally spaced loca-
tions along the lines.
The seismic refraction method requires that subsurface velocities increase with depth. A layer
having a velocity lower than that of the layer above (velocity inversion) may not be detectable by
the seismic refraction method and, therefore, could lead to errors in the depth calculations of
subsequent layers. In addition, lateral variations in velocity, such as those caused by core stones,
intrusions, boulders, etc. can result in the misinterpretation of the subsurface conditions.
In general, seismic wave velocities can be correlated to material density and/or rock hardness.
The relationship between rippability and seismic velocity is empirical and assumes a homoge-
nous mass. Localized areas of differing composition, texture. and/or structure may affect both the
measured data and the actual rippability of the mass. The rippability of a mass is also dependent
on the choice of excavation equihmcnt and on the skill and experience of the equipment operator.
2
77-210 Loma Vista March 6, 2013
La Quinta, California Project No. 113077
The rippability values presented in Table 1 are based on our experience with similar materials
and assume that a Caterpillar D-9 dozer or similar equipment ripping with a single shank will be
used. We emphasize that the cutoffs in this classification scheme are approximate and that rock
characteristics, such as fracture spacing and orientation, play a significant role in determining
rock rippability. These characteristics may also vary with location and depth. For trenching op-
erations, the rippability values should be scaled downward. For example, velocities as low as
3,500 feet/second may indicate difficult ripping during trenching operations. In addition, the
presence of boulders, which can be troublesome in a narrow trench, should be anticipated.
Table 1 — Rippability Classification
Seismic P-wave Velocity
Ri pabilit%
0 to 2,000 feet/second
Easy
2,000 to 4,000 feet/second
Moderate
4,000 to 5,500 ieet/second
Difficult, Possible Blasting
5,500 to 7,000 feet/second
Very Difficult, Probable Blastin
Greater than 7,000 feet/second
Blasting Generally Required
It should be noted that the rippability cutoffs presented in Table 1 are slightly more conservative
than those published in the Caterpillar Performance Handbook (Caterpillar, 2011). Accordingly,
the above classification scheme should be used with discretion, and contractors should not be
relieved of making their own independent evaluation of the rippability of the on -site materials
prior to submitting their bids.
5. RESULTS
As previously indicated, four seismic traverses were conducted as part of our study. The col-
lected data were processed using SIPwin (Rimrock Geophysics, 2003) a seismic interpretation
program and analyzed using both SIPwin and SeisOpt Pro (Optim, 2008). Both programs use
first arrival picks and elevation data to produce subsurface velocity models. SIPwin uses layer -
based modeling techniques to produce layered velocity models, where changes in velocities are
depicted as discrete contacts. SeisOpt Pro uses a nonlinear optimization technique called adap-
tive simulated annealing. The resulting velocity models provide a tomography image of the
3
77-210 Loma Vista March 6, 2013
La Quinta, California Project No. 113077
estimated geologic conditions. Both vertical and lateral velocity information is contained in the
tomography models. Changes in layer velocity are revealed as gradients rather than discrete con-
tacts, which typically are more representative of actual conditions.
Table 2 lists the approximate P-wave velocities and depths calculated from the seismic refraction
traverses using the layered modeling method. The approximate location of the seismic refraction
traverses are shown on the Line Location Map (Figure 2). The velocity profiles are included in
Figures 4a through 4d. It should also be noted that, as a general rule, the effective depth of
evaluation for a seismic refraction traverse is approximately one-third to one -fifth the length of
the refraction line.
Table 2 — Seismic Traverse Results'
Traverse No.
P-wave Velocity
Approximate Depth to
And Length
feet/second
Bottom of Layer in feet
Apparent Rippability2
SL-1
V 1 = 2,410
1-6
Moderate
125 feet
V2 = 7,040
---
Blastin Generally Required
SL-2
V 1 = 1,660
1 — 5
Easy
125 feet
V2 = 6,110
---
Very Difficult, Probable Blasting
SL-3
VI = 1,660
2-9
Easy
125 feet
V2 = 5,040
---
Difficult, Possible Blasting
SL-4
V 1 = 1,510
3-6
Easy
125 feet
V2 = 7,820
---
Blastin Generally Re uired
I Results ha%cd on the nwdel generated using SIP. 2003
2 Rippabilm criteria hased on the use of a Cate itlar U-9 dozer ripping with a single shank
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The results from our seismic survey revealed distinct layers/zones in the near surface that likely
represent artificial till and soil (topsoil and colluvium) overlying granitic bedrock with varying
degrees of weathering. Figures 4a through 4d provide the velocity models calculated from both
SIPwin and SeisOpt Pro, respectively. In general, the two models are similar; however, distinct
lateral velocity variations are evident in the tomography profiles. Specifically, localized high ve-
locity zones are evident in the tomography profiles.
4
77-210 Loma Vista March 6, 2013
La Quinta, California Project No. 113077
Lines SL-1 and SL-2 were surveyed with the lower station numbers on the building pad where
some artificial fill is expected and the higher numbers located in an area underlain by native soil
/granitic rock. Line SL-3 was surveyed with the lower station numbers in native soil/granitic
rock and the higher station numbers on the building pad. Line SL-4 was surveyed along the out-
board side of the access road where the artificial fill is expected to be the thickest. It should be
noted that the surficial soils along Lines SL-1, SL-2, and SL-3 (and perhaps SL-4) vary from ar-
tificial soils to native soils and that the reported Layer 1 velocities are an average from these two
materials (especially in the Layer Models). The Layer I velocities for the artificial fill are likely
higher than those for native, as noted in Line SL-4, which is expected to be predominantly under-
lain by artificial fill soil in the near surface.
As previously indicated significant lateral velocity variations are evident in the tomography
models both in the near surface and at depth. These variations are likely related to the presence
of boulders and differential weathering. Therefore, variability in the excavatability (including
depth of rippability) of the subsurface materials should be expected across the project area.
Based on our results, difficult conditions where blasting may be required will likely be encoun-
tered depending on the excavation depth, location, and desired rate of production. In addition,
oversized materials should be expected. A contractor with excavation experience in similar diffi-
cult conditions should be consulted for expert advice on excavation methodology, equipment and
production rate.
7. LIMITATIONS
The field evaluation and geophysical analyses presented in this report have been conducted in
general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised by consultants per-
forming similar tasks in the project area. No warranty, express or implied, is made regarding the
conclusions and opinions presented in this report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to re-
veal every subsurface condition. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described
in this report may be present. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced
5
77-210 Loma Vista
La Quinta, California
March 6, 2013
Project No. 113077
through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface surveying will be performed
upon request.
This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is
designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Southwest Geophys-
ics, Inc. should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions
regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document. This report is
intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings, conclusions, and/or
recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at said parties' sole
risk.
6
77-210 Loma Vista
La Quinta, California
8. SELECTED REFERENCES
March 6, 2013
Project No. 113077
Caterpillar, Inc., 2011, Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Edition 41, Caterpillar, Inc., Peoria,
Illinois.
Earth Systems Southwest, 2013, Swenson Residence Geotechnical Exhibit, Geologic Map, dated
February 13, 2013.
Mooney, H.M., 1976, Handbook of Engineering Geophysics, dated February.
Optim, 2008, SeisOpt Pro Seismic Data Interpretation Program, Version 5.0.
Rimrock Geophysics, 2003, Seismic Refraction Interpretation Programs (SIPwin), V-2.76.
Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., Sheriff, R.E., and Keys, D.A., 1976. Applied Geophysics, Cam-
bridge University Press.
I E kamon rto
GsrslQ,�
Frsnk Snsms Dr
LA
$ Country like L7r
X
Indian Rrdt?e T
ovlev In E Country Glob
,� l3ermuAa
orrnes
U
gFrci Wwng Dr =red Vvarmgz�
eSert
Indian Weal tit 4
R
Vintep Club
s
Ave 'i0 N 541h Ave
Mountain View ;
X. Coto" Ckib
S,(4Ave to
52nd Ave
La Quetta
54tn Ave
5bn Ave
Lot I! �
The Palms
:aAuwria PGA West Golf Club
Indio *s
r�
r<
T L1
Aare 90
1
v
7 1
O
(A 7
A(purt Blvd
3
_ N
A
N 77210 Loma Vista SOUTHW:
SITE LOCATION MAP La Qurnta. California
Protect No 113077 Date 03113 Figure 1
THWEST0 ioo zoo
_4\ Figure 2 approximate scale in feet
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
49
30
-19
-2•
Layer Model
r
w
� r
C r-
2411 f t
7444 ft/e
• 2• 4• f•
Distance (R)
Tomography Model
20
C _
O
0
W j
n
0
-20
••
40
30
20
1•
-10
20
1111111 120
0
-''0
L
-40 -40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Distance (R)
21000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Velocity (tt/s)
SEISMIC PROFILE
SL-1
—*-m- JTH WEST
Figure 4a
Layer Model
_ --43
2
~ if
or
1659 !t/•
6114 We
10
20
4•
L•
Distance (R)
Tomography Model
is
-2i
iA 10• 12•
11116
aw_p-
on
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Distance (n)
1000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Velocity (ttls)
SEISMIC PROFILE
SL-2
_�'�` V 1THWEST
Figure 4b
20
-20
Layer Model
U F
1659 ft /s
r
5041 Et/s
20 40
60 0•
Distance (ft)
Tomography Model
10 10
0 0
0
0
-10 -10
a
-20 -20
-30 -30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Distance (ft)
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Velocity (fts)
SEISMIC PROFILE
SL-3
20
10
0
-10
OUTH
Figure 4c
30
20
w 10
0
w�
m—
n
0 0
Of
-10
-20
t
20 40
W
0
w�
o—
-20
Layer Model
7817 ft /s
60 80
Distance (ft)
Tomography Model
1e0 120
20
,17
KC
-40 -40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Diana (ft)
2-1000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Velocity (Ws)
SEISMIC PROFILE
SL-4
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
SOUTH WEST
Figure 4d
Kinematic Analysis
Plates D-1 & D-2
Slope Stability Analysis
Surficial and Gross
Rockfall CRSP Analysis
EARTH SYS'1'I-.MS SOUTHWEST
a
Main Pad East Native Slope
85 Degree Rock Outcrop
Assumed phi: 33 degrees
Granitic rock
Adverse Joint Planes
Topple Hazard
Apparent Dip Wedge Conditions:
23, 45,and 63 degrees
N
Driveway: South Vertical Cut Slope
Near Vertical Cut Face
Assumed phi: 33 degrees
Granitic rock
Adverse Joint Planes
Topple Hazard
Apparent Dip Wedge Conditions:
35, 45, 50, 62, and 73 degrees
North Grading Area -South Facing Backcut
Near Vertical Cut Face
Assumed phi: 33 degrees
Granitic bedrock
Adverse Joint Planes
Low Topple Hazard
Apparent Dip Wedge Conditions
31, 36, 40, 62, 66, and 71 Degrees
Main Pad- Southwest Slope
40 Degree Averaged Slope
Assumed phi: 33 degrees
Granitic rock
Adverse Joint Planes
Topple Hazard
Apparent Dip Wedge Conditions:
28, 38,and 48 degrees
North Grading Area- East Facing Backcut
Near Vertical Cut Face
Assumed phi: 33 degrees
Granitic rock
Adverse Joint Planes
Topple Hazard
Apparent Dip Wedge Conditions:
35, 45, 60, and 63 degrees
North Grading Area -West Facing Backcut
Near Vertical Cut Face
Assumed phi: 33 degrees
Granitic bedrock
Adverse Joint Planes
Topple Hazard
Apparent Dip Wedge Conditions
35, 46, 67, and 76 Degrees
16(
CRSP Input File -C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01 Loma
Vista\CRSP\A-A 4ftx5ft Cyl.dat
Input File Specifications
Units of Measure: U.S.
Total Number of Cells: 12
Analysis Point 1 X-Coordinate: 215
Analysis Point 2 X-Coordinate:
Analysis Point 3 X-Coordinate:
Initial Y-Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 195
Initial Y-Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 190
Remarks:
Cell Data
Cell
No. S.R.
Tang. C.
Norm. C.
Begin X
Begin Y
End X
End Y
1
3
.65.
. 1.2
0
195
10
195
2
3
.65
.12
10
195
15
150
3
3
.65
.12
15
150
38
125
4
3
.65
.12
38
125
48
115
5
3
.65
.12
48
115
60
105
6
3
.65
.12
60
105
86
85
7
3
.65
.12
86
85
100
75
8
3
.65
.12
100
75
143
45
9
3
.65
.12
143
45
166
30
10
3
.65
.12
166
30
192
15
11
3
.65
.12
192
15
215
5
12
.1
.9
.8
215
5
260
0
CRSP Simulation Specifications: Used with C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-
Projects\12124-01 Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 4ftx5ft Cyl.dat
Total Number of Rocks Simulated: 100
Starting Velocity in X-Direction: 1 ft/sec
Starting Velocity in Y-Direction: -1 ft/sec
Starting Cell Number: 1
Ending Cell Number: 12
Rock Density: 161.4 lb/ft^3
Rock Shape: Cylindrical
Diameter: 4 ft
Length: 5 ft
CRSP Analysis Point 1 Data -
C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01
Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 4ftx5ft
Cyl.dat
Analysis Point 1: X = 215,
Y = 5
Total Rocks Passing Analysis
Point:
19
Cumulative Probability
Velocity
(ft/sec)
Energy (ft-lb)
Bounce Ht. (ft)
50%
10.37
29099
0.02
75%
14.06
46367
8.56
90%
17.37
61899
16.23
95%
19.36
71224
20.84
98%
21.59
81690
26.02
Velocity (ft/sec)
(ft-lb)
Maximum: 19.34
Average: 10.37
Minimum: 2.67
Std. Dev.: 5.46
Remarks:
Bounce Height (ft) Kinetic Energy
Maximum: .38 Maximum: 79176
Average: .1 Average: 29099
G. Mean: .02 Std. Dev.: 25575
Std. Dev.: 12.64
CRSP Data Collected at End of Each Cell - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-
Projects\12124-01 Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 4ftx5ft Cyl.dat
Velocity Units: ft/sec Bounce Height Units: ft
Cell # Max. Vel. Avg. Vel. S.D. Vel. Max. Bounce Ht. Avg.
Bounce Fit.
1 No rocks past end of cell
2 50 29 7.9 33
3 38 23 6.06 6
4 42 26 7.61 5
5 37 22 6.47 4
6 37 21 6.94 5
7 33 20 6.23 5
24
2
1
1
1
1
8
31
17
6.75
3 0
9
36
16
6.74
4 0
10
25
12
4.9
2 0
11
19
10
5.46
0 0
12
20
17
2.69
0 0
CRSP Rocks Stopped Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01
Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 4ftx5ft Cyl.dat
X Interval
Rocks Stopped
0 To
10 ft
1
10 To
20 ft
0
20 To
30 ft
0
30 To
40 ft
0
40 To
50 ft
0
50 To
60 ft
0
60 To
70 ft
0
70 To
80 ft
0
80 To
90 ft
0
90 To
100 ft
0
100 To
110 ft
0
110 To
120 ft
0
120 To
130 ft
0
130 To
140 ft
0
140 To
150 ft
3
150 To
160 ft
2
160 To
170 ft
2
170 To
180 ft
12
180 To
190 ft
6
190 To
200 ft
28
200 To
210 ft
19
210 To
220 ft
11
220 To
230 ft
3
230 To
240 ft
2
240 To
250 ft
0
250 To
260 ft
0
15(
CRSP Input File -C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01 Loma
Vista\CRSP\A-A 4ftx5ft Cyl Mit.dat
Input File Specifications
Units of Measure: U.S.
Total Number of Cells: 15
Analysis Point 1 X-Coordinate: 215
Analysis Point 2 X-Coordinate:
Analysis Point 3 X-Coordinate:
Initial Y-Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 195
Initial Y-Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 190
Remarks:
Cell Data
Cell No. S.R. Tang. C. Norm. C
End Y
1
3
.65
.12
195
2
3
.65
.12
150
3
3
.65
.12
125
4
3
.65
.12
115
5
3
.65
.12
105
6
3
.65
.12
7
3
.65
.12
8
3
.65
.12
9
3
.65
.12
10
3
.65
.12
11
3
.65
.12
12
.1
.9
.8
13
.1
.9
.8
14
.1
.9
.8
15
.1
.9
.8
Begin X
Begin Y
End X
0
195
10
10
195
15
15
150
38
38
125
48
48
115
60
60
105
86
85
86
85
100
75
100
75
143
45
143
45
166
30
166
30
192
15
192
15
205
8
205
8
210
15
210
15
215
15
215
15
225
3
225
3
260
0
CRSP Simulation Specifications: Used with C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l--
Projects\12124-01 Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 4ftx5ft Cyl Mit.dat
Total Number of Rocks Simulated: 100
Starting Velocity in X-Direction: 1 ft/sec
Starting Velocity in Y-Direction: -1 ft/sec
Starting Cell Number: 1
Ending Cell Number: 15
Rock Density: 161.4 lb/ft^3
Rock Shape: Cylindrical
Diameter: 4 ft
Length: 5 ft
CRSP Analysis Point 1 Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\1-Projects\12124-01
Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 4ftx5ft Cyl Mit.dat
Analysis Point 1: X = 215, Y = 15
NO ROCKS PAST ANALSYSIS POINT 1
CRSP Data Collected at End of Each Cell - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-
Projects\12124-01 Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 4ftx5ft Cyl Mit.dat
Velocity Units: ft/sec Bounce Height Units: ft
Cell # Max. Vel. Avg. Vel. S.D. Vel. Max. Bounce Ht
Bounce Ht.
1
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
2
51
28
6.88
32
3
39
23
5.86
6
4
42
26
7.27
6
5
39
23
6.94
5
6
42
22
7.48
4
7
37
21
6.76
5
8
39
17
6.9
5
9
38
14
6.61
3
10
28
12
5.91
4
11
26
12
5.53
2
12
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
13
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
14
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
15
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
Avg.
CRSP Rocks Stopped Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01
Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 4ftx5ft Cyl Mit.dat
25
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
X Interval Rocks Stopped
0 To 10 ft
10 To 20 ft
20 To 30 ft
30 To 40 ft
40 To 50 ft
50 To 60 ft
60 To 70 ft
70 To 80 ft
80 To 90 ft
90 To 100 ft
100 To 110 ft
110 To 120 ft
120 To 130 ft
130 To 140 ft
140 To 150 ft
150 To 160 ft
160 To 170 ft
170 To 180 ft
180 To 190 ft
190 To 200 ft
200 To 210 ft
210 To 220 ft
220 To 230 ft
230 To 240 ft
240 To 250 ft
250 To 260 ft
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
1
0
2
0
4
10
11
17
54
0
0
0
0
0
CRSP Input File -C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01 Loma
Vista\CRSP\B-B 6inxlft Cyl.dat
Input File Specifications
Units of Measure: U.S.
Total Number of Cells: 10
Analysis Point 1 X-Coordinate: 135
Analysis Point 2 X-Coordinate:
Analysis Point 3 X-Coordinate:
Initial Y-Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 97
Initial Y-Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 92
Remarks:
Cell Data
Cell
No. S.R.
Tang. C.
Norm. C.
Begin X
Begin Y
End X
End
Y
1
0.7
.65
.12
0
97
7.5
90
2
0.7
.65
.12
7.5
90
20
80
3
0.7
.65
.12
20
80
49
60
4
0.7
.65
.12
49
60
74
40
5
0.7
.65
.12
74
40
89
30
6
0.7
.65
.12
89
30
106
20
7
0.7
.65
.12
106
20
124
9
8
0.7
.65
.12
124
9
130
5
9
.1
.9
.8
130
5
131
0
10
.1
.9
.8
131
0
150
0
CRSP Simulation Specifications: Used with C:\Users\jomck\Documents\1-
Projects\12124-01 Loma Vista\CRSP\B-B 6inxlft Cyl.dat
Total Number of Rocks Simulated: 100
Starting Velocity in X-Direction: 1 ft/sec
Starting Velocity in Y-Direction: -1 ft/sec
Starting Cell Number: 1
Ending Cell Number: 10
Rock Density: 161.4 lb/ft"3
Rock Shape: Cylindrical
Diameter: 0.5 ft
Length: 1 ft
CRSP Analysis Point 1 Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01
Loma Vista\CRSP\B-B 6inxlft Cyl.dat
Analysis Point 1: X = 135, Y = 0
Total Rocks Passing Analysis Point: 16
Cumulative Probability
Bounce Ht. (ft)
50%
75%
900
9506
98a
Velocity (ft/sec)
(ft-lb)
Maximum: 25.86
Average: 13.46
Minimum: 3.92
Std. Dev.: 7.77
Remarks:
Velocity (ft/sec) Energy (ft-lb)
13.46
141
1.35
18.71
233
2.8
23.42
316
4.1
26.25
366
4.89
29.43
422
5.77
Bounce Height (ft)
Maximum: 3.83
Average: 1.68
G. Mean: 1.35
Std. Dev.: 2.15
Kinetic Energy
Maximum: 392
Average: 141
Std. Dev.: 136
CRSP Data Collected at End of Each Cell - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-
Projects\12124-01 Loma Vista\CRSP\B-B 6inxlft Cyl.dat
Velocity Units: ft/sec Bounce Height Units: ft
Cell # Max. Vel. Avg. Vel
Ht.
1
15
2
21
3
25
4
35
5
24
6
24
7
27
8
20
9
22
10
13
S.D. Vel. Max. Bounce Ht. Avg. Bounce
8
2.61
1 0
12
3.48
2 0
13
4.67
2 0
16
5.72
2 0
13
5.08
3 0
13
5.63
2 0
12
6.62
2 0
13
5.13
3 0
16
4
8 4
9
4.2.6
2 0
CRSP Rocks Stopped Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01
Loma Vista\CRSP\B-B 6inxlft Cyl.dat
X Interval
Rocks Stopped
0 To
10 ft
31
10 To
20 ft
1
20 To
30 ft
1
30 To
40 ft
6
40 To
50 ft
2
50 To
60 ft
0
60 To
70 ft
1
70 To
80 ft
2
80 To
90 ft
5
90 To
100 ft
14
100 To
110 ft
7
110 To
120 ft
6
120 To
130 ft
6
130 To
140 ft
5
140 To
150 ft
4
CRSP Input File -C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01 Loma Vista\CRSP\B-B
6inxlft Cyl 3ft Wall.dat
Input File Specifications
Units of Measure: U.S.
Total Number of Cells: 13
Analysis Point 1 X-Coordinate: 135
Analysis Point 2 X-Coordinate:
Analysis Point 3 X-Coordinate:
Initial Y-Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 97
Initial Y-Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 92
Remarks:
Cell Data
Cell
No. S.R.
Tang. C.
Norm. C.
Begin X
Begin Y
1
0.7
.65
.12
0
97
2
0.7
.65
.12
7.5
90
3
0.7
.65
.12
20
80
4
0.7
.65
.12
49
60
5
0.7
.65
.12
74
40
6
0.7
.65
.12
89
30
7
0.7
.65
.12
106
20
8
0.7
.65
.12
124
9
9
.1
.9
.8
129
5.7
10
.1
.9
.8
129.1
8.7
11
.1
.9
.8
130
8.7
12
.1
.9
.8
130.1
5
13
.1
.9
.8
131
0
End X End Y
7.5 90
20 80
49 60
74 40
89 30
106 20
124 9
129 5.7
129.1 8.7
130 8.7
130.1 5
131 0
150 0
CRSP Simulation Specifications: Used with C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-
01 Loma Vista\CRSP\B-B 6inxlft Cyl 3ft Wall.dat
Total Number of Rocks Simulated: 100
Starting Velocity in X-Direction: 1 ft/sec
Starting Velocity in Y-Direction: -1 ft/sec
Starting Cell Number: 1
Ending Cell Number: 13
Rock Density: 161.4 lb/ft^3
Rock Shape: Cylindrical
Diameter: .5 ft
Length: 1 ft
CRSP Analysis Point 1 Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\1-Projects\12124-01 Loma
Vista\CRSP\B-B 6inx1ft Cyl aft Wall.dat
Analysis Point 1: X = 135, Y = 0
NO ROCKS PAST ANALSYSIS POINT 1
CRSP Data Collected at End of Each Cell - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-
01 Loma Vista\CRSP\B-B 6inxlft Cyl 3ft Wall.dat
Velocity Units: ft/sec Bounce Height Units: ft
Cell # Max. Vel. Avg. Vel. S.D. Vel. Max. Bounce Ht.
1
16
2
21
3
22
4
29
5
30
6
26
7
24
8
26
9
No rocks
10
No rocks
11
No rocks
12
No rocks
13
No rocks
9
2.36
1
12
3.78
2
12
5.28
2
16
6.03
3
14
6.63
2
13
5.13
2
12
5.82
2
13
6.07
3
past
end
of
cell
past
end
of
cell
past
end
of
cell
past
end
of
cell
past
end
of
cell
Avg. Bounce Ht.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CRSP Rocks Stopped Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01 Loma
Vista\CRSP\B-B 6inxlft Cyl 3ft Wall.dat
X Interval
Rocks Stopped
0 To
10 ft
32
10 To
20 ft
2
20 To
30 ft
4
30 To
40 ft
8
40 To
50 ft
2
50 To
60 ft
0
60 To
70 ft
0
70 To
80 ft
0
80 To
90 ft
4
90 To
100 ft
9
100 To
110 ft
1.0
110 To
120 ft
4
120 To
130 ft
25
130 To
140 ft
0
140 To
150 ft
0
CRSP Input File -C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01 Loma Vista\CRSP\B-B
1ftx2ft Cyl.dat
Input File Specifications
Units of Measure: U.S.
Total Number of Cells: 10
Analysis Point 1 X-Coordinate: 135
Analysis Point 2 X-Coordinate:
Analysis Point 3 X-Coordinate:
Initial Y-Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 97
Initial Y-Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 92
Remarks:
Cell Data
Cell
No. S.R.
Tang. C.
Norm. C.
Begin X
Begin Y
End X
End Y
1
1.4
.65
.12
0
97
7.5
90
2
1.4
.65
.12
7.5
90
20
80
3
1.4
.65
.12
20
80
49
60
4
1.4
.65
.12
49
60
74
40
5
1.4
.65
.12
74
40
89
30
6
1.4
.65
.12
89
30
106
20
7
1.4
.65
.12
106
20
124
9
8
1.4
.65
.12
124
9
130
5
9
.1
.9
.8
130
5
131
0
10
.1
.9
.8
131
0
150
0
CRSP Simulation Specifications: Used with C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-
01 Loma Vista\CRSP\B-B lftx2ft Cyl.dat
Total Number of Rocks Simulated: 100
Starting Velocity in X-Direction: 1 ft/sec
Starting Velocity in Y-Direction: -1 ft/sec
Starting Cell Number: 1
Ending Cell Number: 10
Rock Density: 161.4 lb/ft^3
Rock Shape: Cylindrical
Diameter: 1 ft
Length: 2 ft
CRSP Analysis Point 1 Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\1-Projects\12124-01 Loma
Vista\CRSP\B-B 1ftx2ft Cyl.dat
Analysis Point 1: X = 135, Y = 0
Total Rocks Passing Analysis Point: 17
Cumulative Probability
Velocity
(ft/sec)
Energy (ft-lb)
(ft)
50,10
15.93
1522
0.84
750
21.79
2566
2.85
90%
27.05
3505
4.65
95%
30.22
4069
5.74
98b
33.77
4701
6.95
Velocity (ft/sec)
Maximum: 34.69
Average: 15.93
Minimum: 6.02
Std. Dev.. 8.68
Remarks:
Bounce Ht.
Bounce Height (ft) Kinetic Energy (ft-lb)
Maximum: 2.53 Maximum: 5455
Average: 1.16 Average: 1522
G. Mean: .84 Std. Dev.: 1545
Std. Dev.: 2.97
CRSP Data Collected at End of Each Cell - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-
01 Loma Vista\CRSP\B-B lftx2ft Cyl.dat
Velocity Units: ft/sec Bounce Height Units: ft
Cell #
Max. Vel.
Avg. Vel.
S.D. Vel. Max.
Bounce Ht.
Avg. Bounce Ht.
1
14
9
2.67
1
0
2
22
12
3.98
1
0
3
25
12
4.58
2
0
4
27
15
5.36
3
0
5
25
12
5.47
2
0
6
26
13
6.4
1
0
7
24
13
7.34
2
0
8
29
13
7.04
2
0
9
30
15
5.8
6
4
10
2.3
11
7.09
1
0
CRSP Rocks Stopped Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01 Loma
Vista\CRSP\B-B lftx2ft Cyl.dat
X Interval Rocks Stopped
0 To
10
ft
36
10 To
20
ft
3
20 To
30
ft
3
30 To
40
ft
4
40 To
50
ft
4
50 To
60
ft
0
60 To
70
ft
0
70 To
80
ft
0
80 To
90
ft
2
90 To
100
ft
13
100 To
110
ft
10
110 To
120
ft
3
120 To
130
ft
4
130 To
140
ft
2
140 To
150
ft
2
CRSP Input File -C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01 Loma Vista\CRSP\B-B
3ftx4ft Cyl.dat
Input File Specifications
Units of Measure: U.S.
Total Number of Cells: 10
Analysis Point 1 X-Coordinate: 135
Analysis Point 2 X-Coordinate: 0
Analysis Point 3 X-Coordinate: 0
Initial Y-Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 97
Initial Y-Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 92
Remarks:
Cell Data
Cell
No. S.R.
Tang. C.
Norm. C.
Begin X
Begin Y
End X
End Y
1
2.9
.65
.12
0
97
7.5
90
2
2.9
.65
.12
7.5
90
20
80
3
2.9
.65
.12
20
80
49
60
4
2.9
.65
.12
49
60
74
40
5
2.9
.65
.12
74
40
89
30
6
2.9
.65
.12
89
30
106
20
7
2.9
.65
.12
106
20
124
9
8
2.9
.65
.12
124
9
130
5
9
.1
.9
.8
130
5
131
0
10
.1
.9
.8
131
0
150
0
CRSP Simulation Specifications: Used with C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-
01 Loma Vista\CRSP\B-B 3ftx4ft Cyl.dat
Total Number of Rocks Simulated: 100
Starting Velocity in X-Direction: 1 ft/sec
Starting Velocity in Y-Direction: -1 ft/sec
Starting Cell Number: 1
Ending Cell Number: 10
Rock Density: 161.4 lb/ft^3
Rock Shape: Cylindrical
Diameter: 3 ft
Length: 4 ft
CRSP Analysis Point 1 Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01 Loma
Vista\CRSP\B-B 3ftx4ft Cyl.dat
Analysis Point 1: X = 135, Y = 0
Total Rocks Passing Analysis Point: 14
Cumulative Probability
Velocity
(ft/sec)
Energy (ft-lb)
(ft)
50.
10.29
12626
1.33
750
14.41
21776
2.44
90%
18.12
30007
3.44
95%
20.35
34948
4.03
98%
22.85
40493
4.71
Velocity (ft/sec)
Maximum: 22.43
Average: 10.29
Minimum: 3.06
Std. Dev.: 6.11
Remarks:
Bounce Height (ft)
Maximum: 2.18
Average: 1.47
G. Mean: 1.33
Std. Dev.: 1.64
Bounce Ht.
Kinetic Energy (ft-lb)
Maximum: 42679
Average: 12626
Std. Dev.: 13551
CRSP Data Collected at End of Each Cell - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-
01 Loma Vista\CRSP\B-B 3ftx4ft Cyl.dat
Velocity Units: ft/sec Bounce Height Units: ft
Cell #
Max. Vel.
Avg. Vel.
S.D. Vel. Max.
Bounce Ht.
Avg. Bounce Ht.
1
15
10
2.48
1
0
2
20
12
3.95
2
0
3
23
13
4.69
3
0
4
24
16
4.25
4
0
5
23
13
5.09
3
0
6
22
11
5.22
1
0
7
18
10
4.38
1
0
8
21
10
4.75
1
0
9
23
15
3.13
6
3
10
15
8
4.07
1
0
CRSP Rocks Stopped Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\1-Projects\12124-01 Loma
Vista\CRSP\B-B 3ftx4ft Cyl.dat
X Interval
0 To 10 ft
10 To 20 ft
20 To 30 ft
30 To 40 ft
40 To 50 ft
50 To 60 ft
60 To 70 ft
70 To 80 ft
80 To 90 ft
Rocks Stopped
27
1
7
6
9
1
0
1
4
90 To
100 ft
10
100 To
110 ft
14
110 To
120 ft
2
120 To
130 ft
2
130 To
140 ft
4
140 To 150 ft
CRSP Input File -C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01 Loma Vista\CRSP\B-B
lftx2ft Cyl 3ft Wall.dat
Input File Specifications
Units of Measure: U.S.
Total Number of Cells: 13
Analysis Point 1 X-Coordinate: 135
Analysis Point 2 X-Coordinate:
Analysis Point 3 X-Coordinate:
Initial Y-Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 97
Initial Y-Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 92
Remarks:
Cell Data
Cell
No. S.R.
Tang. C.
Norm. C.
Begin X
Begin Y
1
1.4
.65
.12
0
97
2
1.4
.65
.12
7.5
90
3
1.4
.65
.12
20
80
4
1.4
.65
.12
49
60
5
1.4
.65
.12
74
40
6
1.4
.65
.12
89
30
7
1.4
.65
.12
106
20
8
1.4
.65
.12
124
9
9
.1
.9
.8
129
5.7
10
.1
.9
.8
129.1
8.7
11
.1
.9
.8
130
8.7
12
.1
.9
.8
130.1
5
13
.1
.9
.8
131
0
End X End Y
7.5 90
20 80
49 60
74 40
89 30
106 20
124 9
129 5.7
129.1 8.7
130 8.7
130.1 5
13l 0
150 0
CRSP Simulation Specifications: Used with C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-
01 Loma Vista\CRSP\B-B lftx2ft Cyl aft Wall.dat
Total Number of Rocks Simulated: 100
Starting Velocity in X-Direction: 1 ft/sec
Starting Velocity in Y-Direction: -1 ft/sec
Starting Cell Number: 1
Ending Cell Number: 13
Rock Density: 161.4 lb/ft^3
Rock Shape: Cylindrical
Diameter: 1 ft
I_,ength: 2 ft
CRSP Analysis Point 1 Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01 Loma
Vista\CRSP\B-B lftx2ft Cyl 3ft Wall.dat
Analysis Point 1: X = 135, Y = 0
NO ROCKS PAST ANALSYSIS POINT 1
CRSP Data Collected at End of Each Cell - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-
01 Loma Vista\CRSP\B-B Iftx2ft Cyl 3ft Wall.dat
Velocity Units: ft/sec Bounce Height Units: ft
Cell #
Max. Vel. Avg.
Vel.
S.D.
Vel. Max.
Bounce Ht.
1
16
10
2.78
1
2
21
12
4.55
2
3
25
13
4.71
2
4
31
16
6.19
3
5
31
13
5.61
3
6
21
12
5.14
2
7
26
12
5.85
2
8
25
14
5.98
1
9
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
10
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
11
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
12
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
13
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
Avg. Bounce fit.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CRSP Rocks Stopped Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01 Loma
Vista\CRSP\B-B 1ftx2ft Cyl 3ft Wall.dat
X Interval Rocks Stopped
0 To
10 ft
30
10 To
20 ft
2
20 To
30 ft
5
30 To
40 ft
5
40 To
50 ft
4
50 To
60 ft
0
60 To
70 ft
0
70 To
80 ft
2
80 To
90 ft
1
90 To
1.00 ft
12
100 To
110 ft
4
110 To
120 ft
9
120 To
130 ft
26
130 To
140 ft
0
140 To
150 ft
0
CRSP Input File -C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01 Loma Vista\CRSP\B-B
3ftx4ft Cyl 3ft Wall.dat
Input File Specifications
Units of Measure: U.S.
Total Number of Cells: 13
Analysis Point 1 X-Coordinate: 135
Analysis Point 2 X-Coordinate:
Analysis Point 3 X-Coordinate:
Initial Y-Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 97
Initial Y-Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 92
Remarks:
Cell Data
Cell
No. S.R.
Tang. C.
Norm. C.
Begin X
Begin Y
End X
End Y
1
2.9
.65
.12
0
97
7.5
90
2
2.9
.65
.12
7.5
90
20
80
3
2.9
.65
.12
20
80
49
60
4
2.9
.65
.12
49
60
74
40
5
2.9
.65
.12
74
40
89
30
6
2.9
.65
.12
89
30
106
20
7
2.9
.65
.12
106
20
124
9
8
2.9
.65
.12
124
9
129
5.7
9
.1
.9
.8
129
5.7
129.1
8.7
10
.1
.9
.8
129.1
8.7
130
8.7
11
.1
.9
.8
130
8.7
130.1
5
12
.1
.9
.8
130.1
5
131
0
13
.1
.9
.8
131
0
150
0
CRSP Simulation Specifications: Used with C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-
01 Loma Vista\CRSP\B-B 3ftx4ft Cyl 3ft Wall.dat
Total Number of Rocks Simulated: 100
Starting Velocity in X-Direction: 1 ft/sec
Starting Velocity in Y-Direction: -1 ft/sec
Starting Cell Number: 1
Ending Cell Number: 13
Rock Density: 161.4 lb/ft^3
Rock Shape: Cylindrical
Diameter: 3 ft
Length: 4 ft
CRSP Analysis Point 1 Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\1-Projects\12124-01 Loma
Vista\CRSP\B-B 3ftx4ft Cyl aft Wall.dat
Analysis Point 1: X - 135, Y -- 0
NO ROCKS PAST ANALSYSIS POINT 1
CRSP Data Collected at End of Each Cell - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-
01 Loma Vista\CRSP\B-B 3ftx4ft Cyl aft Wall.dat
Velocity Units: ft/sec Bounce Height Units: ft
Cell #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Max. Vel. Avg.
Vel.
S.D.
Vel. Max.
Bounce Ht
14
10
2.4
1
20
12
4.11
2
20
10
4.15
1
28
15
5.63
2
22
12
5
3
21
11
4.35
1
17
9
4.69
1
17
10
4.06
1
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
Avg. Bounce Ht.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CRSP Rocks Stopped Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01 Loma
Vista\CRSP\B-B 3ftx4ft Cyl 3ft Wall.dat
X Interval Rocks Stopped
0 To
10 ft
28
10 To
20 ft
0
20 To
30 ft
9
30 To
40 ft
6
40 To
50 ft
11
50 To
60 ft
1
60 To
70 ft
1
70 To
80 ft
1
80 To
90 ft
6
90 To
100 ft
7
100 To
110 ft
6
110 To
120 ft
9
120 To
130 ft
15
130 To
140 ft
0
140 To
150 ft
0
CRSP Input File -C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01 Loma
Vista\CRSP\A-A 6inxlft Cyl.doc
Input File Specifications
Units of Measure: U.S.
Total Number of Cells: 12
Analysis Point 1 X-Coordinate: 215
Analysis Point 2 X-Coordinate:
Analysis Point 3 X-Coordinate:
Initial Y-Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 195
Initial Y-Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 190
Remarks:
Cell Data
Cell
No. S.R.
Tang. C.
Norm. C.
Begin X
Begin Y
End X
End
Y
1
0.5
.65
.12
0
195
10
195
2
0.5
.65
.12
10
195
15
150
3
0.5
.65
.12
15
150
38
125
4
0.5
.65
.12
38
125
48
115
5
0.5
.65
.12
48
115
60
105
6
0.5
.65
.12
60
105
86
85
7
0.5
.65
.12
86
85
100
75
8
0.5
.65
.12
100
75
143
45
9
0.9
.65
.12
143
45
166
30
10
1.1
.65
.12
166
30
192
15
11
1.1
.65
.12
192
15
215
5
12
.1
.9
.8
215
5
260
0
CRSP Simulation Specifications: Used with C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-
Projects\12124-01 Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 6inxlft Cyl.doc
Total Number of Rocks Simulated: 100
Starting Velocity in X-Direction: 1 ft/sec
Starting Velocity in Y-Direction: -1 ft/sec
Starting Cell Number: 1
Ending Cell Number: 12
Rock Density: 161.4 lb/ft^3
Rock Shape: Cylindrical
Diameter: 0.5 ft
Length: 1 ft
CRSP Analysis Point 1 Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\1-Projects\12124-01
Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 6inx1ft Cyl.doc
Analysis Point 1: X = 215, Y = 5
Total Rocks Passing Analysis Point: 6
Cumulative Probability
Bounce Ht. (ft)
50%
75%
90%
95%
98%
Velocity (ft/sec)
(ft-lb)
Maximum: 25.74
Average: 16.61
Minimum: 3.26
Std. Dev.: 7.38
Remarks:
Velocity (ft/sec) Energy (ft-lb)
16.61
205
0.04
21.59
293
18.54
26.07
373
35.17
28.76
421
45.16
31.78
475
56.37
Bounce Height (ft) Kinetic Energy
Maximum: 2.76 Maximum: 414
Average: .6 Average: 205
G. Mean: .04 Std. Dev.: 131
Std. Dev.: 27.39
CRSP Data Collected at End of Each Cell - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\1-
Projects\12124-01 Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 6inxlft Cyl..doc
Velocity Units: ft/sec Bounce Height Units: ft
Cell #
Max. Vel. Avg.
Vel.
S.D. Vel. Max.
Bounce Ht. Avg.
Bounce
Ht.
1
No rocks
past
end of cell
2
52
32
8.02
32
21
3
38
26
5.7
5
2
4
40
27
6.72
5
1
5
40
26
6.33
5
1
6
39
24
6.53
7
1
7
35
22
6.11
5
1
8
40
22
7.14
4 1
9
36
18
7.52
4 0
10
33
15
7.8
3 0
11
26
17
7.38
3 0
12
20
15
6.93
2 0
CRSP Rocks Stopped Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01
Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 6inx1ft Cyl.doc
X
Interval
Rocks Stopped
0 To
10 ft
1
10
To
20 ft
0
20
To
30 ft
0
30
To
40 ft
0
40
To
50 ft
0
50
To
60 ft
0
60
To
70 ft
0
70
To
80 ft
0
80
To
90 ft
0
90
To
100 ft
0
100
To
110 ft
0
110
To
120 ft
0
120
To
130 ft
0
130
To
140 ft
0
140
To
150 ft
1
150
To
160 ft
7
160
To
170 ft
22
170
To
180 ft
23
180
To
190 ft
9
190
To
200 ft
17
200
To
210 ft
14
210
To
220 ft
0
220
To
230 ft
0
230
To
240 ft
0
240
To
250 ft
0
250
To
260 ft
0
CRSP Input File -C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01 Loma
Vista\CRSP\A-A 6inxlft Cyl Mit.dat
Input File Specifications
Units of Measure: U.S.
Total Number of Cells: 15
Analysis Point 1 X-Coordinate: 215
Analysis Point 2 X-Coordinate:
Analysis Point 3 X-Coordinate:
Initial Y-Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 195
Initial Y-Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 190
Remarks:
Cell Data
Cell
No. S.R.
Tang. C.
Norm. C.
Begin X
Begin Y
End X
End
Y
1
.5
.65
.12
0
195
10
195
2
.5
.65
.12
10
195
15
150
3
.5
.65
.12
15
150
38
125
4
.5
.65
.12
38
125
48
115
5
.5
.65
.12
48
115
60
105
6
.5
.65
.12
60
105
86
85
7
.5
.65
.12
86
85
100
75
8
.5
.65
.12
100
75
143
45
9
.9
.65
.12
143
45
166
30
10
.9
.65
.12
166
30
192
15
11
1.1
.65
.12
192
15
205
8
12
.1
.9
.8
205
8
210
15
13
.1
.9
.8
210
15
215
15
14
.1
.9
.8
215
15
225
3
15
.1
.9
.8
225
3
260
0
CRSP Simulation Specifications: Used with C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-
Projects\12124-01 Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 6inxlft Cyl Mit.dat
Total Number of Rocks Simulated: 100
Starting Velocity in X-Direction: 1 ft/sec
Starting Velocity in Y-Direction: -1 ft/sec
Starting Cell Number: 1
Ending Cell Number: 15
Rock Density: 161.4 lb/ft^3
Rock Shape: Cylindrical
Diameter: .5 ft
Length: 1 ft
CRSP Analysis Point 1 Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\1-Projects\12124-01
Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 6inxlft Cyl Mit.dat
Analysis Point 1: X = 215, Y = 15
NO ROCKS PAST ANALSYSIS POINT 1
CRSP Data Collected at End of Each Cell - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-
Projects\12124-01 Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 6inxlft Cyl Mit.dat
Velocity Units: ft/sec Bounce Height Units: ft
Cell # Max. Vel. Avg. Vel. S.D. Vel. Max. Bounce Ht
Bounce Ht.
1
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
2
52
32
8.13
32
3
41
27
6.01
6
4
45
29
6.61
7
5
41
28
6.65
6
6
41
27
6.54
6
7
42
24
7.56
6
8
40
22
6.83
5
9
34
17
7.55
4
10
28
13
7.03
4
11
23
14
7.51
2
12
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
13
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
14
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
15
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
Avg.
CRSP Rocks Stopped Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01
Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 6inx1ft Cyl Mit.dat
19
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
X Interval Rocks Stopped
0 To
10 ft
1
10 To
20 ft
0
20 To
30 ft
0
30 To
40 ft
0
40 To
50 ft
0
50 To
60 ft
0
60 To
70 ft
0
70 To
80 ft
0
80 To
90 ft
0
90 To
100 ft
0
100 To
110 ft
0
110 To
120 ft
0
120 To
130 ft
0
130 To
140 ft
0
140 To
150 ft
0
150 To
160 ft
17
160 To
170 ft
18
170 To
180 ft
17
180 To
190 ft
10
190 To
200 ft
19
200 To
210 ft
18
210 To
220 ft
0
220 To
230 ft
0
230 To
240 ft
0
240 To
250 ft
0
250 To
260 ft
0
16(
CRSP Input File -C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01 Loma
Vista\CRSP\A-A 3ftx3ft Cyl.dat
Tnput File Specifications
Units of Measure: U.S.
Total Number of Cells: 12
Analysis Point 1 X-Coordinate: 215
Analysis Point 2 X-Coordinate:
Analysis Point 3 X-Coordinate:
Initial Y-Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 195
Initial Y-Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 190
Remarks:
Cell Data
Cell
No. S.R.
Tang. C.
Norm. C.
End
Y
1
1.7
.65
.12
195
2
1.7
.65
.12
150
3
1.7
.65
.12
125
4
1.7
.65
.12
115
5
1.7
.65
.12
105
6
1.7
.65
.12
7
1.7
.65
.12
8
1.7
.65
.12
9
1.7
.65
.12
10
1.7
.65
.12
11
1.7
.65
.12
12
.1
.9
.8
Begin X
Begin Y
End X
0
195
10
10
195
15
15
150
38
38
125
48
48
115
60
60
105
86
85
86
85
100
75
100
75
143
45
143
45
166
30
166
30
192
15
192
15
215
5
215
5
260
0
CRSP Simulation Specifications: Used with C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-
Projects\12124-01 Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 3ftx3ft Cyl.dat
Total Number of Rocks Simulated: 100
Starting Velocity in X-Direction: 1 ft/sec
Starting Velocity in Y-Direction: -1 ft/sec
Starting Cell Number: 1
Ending Cell Number: 12
Rock Density: 161.4 lb/ft^3
Rock Shape: Cylindrical
Diameter: 3 ft
Length: 3 ft
CRSP Analysis Point 1 Data -
C:\Users\jomck\Documents\1-Projects\12124-01
Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 3ftx3ft
Cyl.dat
Analysis Point 1: X = 215,
Y = 5
Total Rocks Passing Analysis
Point:
16
Cumulative Probability
Velocity
(ft/sec)
Energy (ft-lb)
Bounce Ht. (ft)
50%
8.98
7340
0.03
750
11.55
11083
9.84
90%
13.86
14451
18.66
95%
15.25
16473
23.95
98%
16.8
18742
29.9
Velocity (ft/sec)
(ft-lb)
Maximum: 15.59
Average: 8.98
Minimum: 3.14
Std. Dev.: 3.81
Remarks:
Bounce Height (ft) Kinetic Energy
Maximum: 2.24 Maximum: 20052
Average: .29 Average: 7340
G. Mean: .03 Std. Dev.: 5544
Std. Dev.: 14.52
CRSP Data Collected at End of Each Cell - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\1-
Projects\12124-01 Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 3ftx3ft Cyl.dat
Velocity Units: ft/sec Bounce Height Units: ft
Cell # Max. Vel. Avg. Vel. S.D. Vel. Max. Bounce Ht. Avg.
Bounce Ht.
1 No rocks past end of cell
2 50 30 7.88 32
3 40 24 5.93 5
4 38 25 5.22 5
5 38 23 6.29 5
6 38 22 6.87 5
7 38 21 6.41 4
23
1
1
1
1
1
8
38
17
6.32
4 0
9
31
16
5.46
4 0
10
25
12
5.16
2 0
11
16
9
3.81
2 0
12
18
13
2.49
1 0
CRSP Rocks Stopped Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01
Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 3ftx3ft Cyl.dat
X Interval Rocks Stopped
0 To
10 ft
1
10 To
20 ft
0
20 To
30 ft
0
30 To
40 ft
0
40 To
50 ft
0
50 To
60 ft
0
60 To
70 ft
0
70 To
80 ft
0
80 To
90 ft
0
90 To
100 ft
0
100 To
110 ft
0
110 To
120 ft
0
120 To
130 ft
0
130 To
140 ft
0
140 To
150 ft
0
150 To
160 ft
0
160 To
170 ft
1
170 To
180 ft
0
180 To
190 ft
9
190 To
200 ft
31
200 To
210 ft
34
210 To
220 ft
8
220 To
230 ft
0
230 To
240 ft
0
240 To
250 ft
0
250 To
260 ft
0
CRSP Input File -C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01 Loma
Vista\CRSP\A-A 3ftx3ft Cyi Mit.dat
Input File Specifications
Units of Measure: U.S.
Total Number of Cells: 15
Analysis Point 1 X-Coordinate: 215
Analysis Point 2 X-Coordinate:
Analysis Point 3 X-Coordinate:
Initial Y-Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 195
Initial Y-Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 190
Remarks
Cell Data
Cell No. S.R. Tang. C. Norm. C.
End Y
1
1.7
.65
.12
195
2
1.7
.65
.12
150
3
1.7
.65
.12
125
4
1.7
.65
.12
115
5
1.7
.65
.12
105
6
1.7
.65
.12
7
1.7
.65
.12
8
1.7
.65
.12
9
1.7
.65
.12
10
1.7
.65
.12
11
1.7
.65
.12
12
.1
.9
.8
13
.1
.9
.8
14
.1
.9
.8
15
.1
.9
.8
Begin X Begin Y End X
0
195
10
10
195
15
15
150
38
38
125
48
48
115
60
60
105
86
85
86
85
100
75
100
75
143
45
143
45
166
30
166
30
192
15
192
15
205
8
205
8
210
15
210
15
215
15
215
15
225
3
225
3
260
0
CRSP Simulation Specifications: Used with C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-
Projects\12124-01 Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 3ftx3ft Cyl Mit.dat
Total Number of Rocks Simulated: 100
Starting Velocity in X-Direction: 1 ft/sec
Starting Velocity in Y-Direction: -1 ft/sec
Starting Cell Number: 1
Ending Cell Number: 15
Rock Density: 161.4 lb/ft^3
Rock Shape: Cylindrical
Diameter: 3 ft
Length: 3 ft
CRSP Analysis Point 1 Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01
Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 3ftx3ft Cyl Mit.dat
Analysis Point 1: X = 215, Y = 15
NO ROCKS PAST ANALSYSIS POINT 1
CRSP Data Collected at End of Each Cell - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-
Projects\12124-01 Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 3ftx3ft Cyl Mit.dat
Velocity Units: ft/sec Bounce Height Units: ft
Cell # Max. Vel. Avg. Vel. S.D. Vel. Max. Bounce Ht. Avg.
Bounce Ht.
1
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
2
51
30
7.37
32
3
36
25
5.42
6
4
42
25
6.13
5
5
40
25
6.62
5
6
38
22
6.88
4
7
37
20
6.37
5
8
33
19
6.51
4
9
34
16
5.71
4
10
28
13
5.06
2
11
23
11
4.95
2
12
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
13
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
14
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
15
No rocks
past
end
of
cell
CRSP Rocks Stopped Data - C:\Users\jomck\Documents\l-Projects\12124-01
Loma Vista\CRSP\A-A 3ftx3ft Cyl Mit.dat
23
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
X Interval Rocks Stopped
0 To 10 ft
10 To 20 ft
20 To 30 ft
30 To 40 ft
40 To 50 ft
50 To 60 ft
60 To 70 ft
'10 To 80 ft
80 To 90 ft
90 To 100 ft
100 To 110 ft
110 To 120 ft
120 To 130 ft
130 To 140 ft
140 To 150 ft
150 To 160 ft
160 To 170 ft
170 To 180 ft
180 To 190 ft
190 To 200 ft
200 To 210 ft
210 To 220 ft
220 To 230 ft
230 To 240 ft
240 To 250 ft
250 To 260 ft
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
9
6
11
70
0
0
0
0
0