35646(---111111 ill 11111 5-1
IE
Ll
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED SADDLE CLUB FACILITY
WEST SIDE OF MONROE STREET,
SOUTH OF AVENUE 54
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
- Prepared By-
Sladde.n Engineering
39 -725 Garand Lane; Suite G
Palm Desert, California 92211
-(760) 772 -3893
F:
Sladden Engineering
6782 Stanton Ave., Suite A, Buena Park, CA 90621 (714) 523 -0952 Fax (714) 523 -1369 .
39 -725 Garand Ln., Suite G, Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 772 -3893 Fax (760) 772 -3895
January 25, 2006 Project No. 544 -4402
06 -01 -076
Trans West Housing, Inc.
47 7120 Dune Palms Road, Suite C
La Quinta, California 92253
Attention: Mr. Jeff Nygren
Project: Proposed Griffin Ranch Saddle Club
West Side of Monroe Street,
South of Avenue 54
La Quinta, California
Subject: GeotechnicalInvestigation
Presented herewith is the report of our Geotechnical Investigation conducted for the construction of the
proposed equestrian facility to be located on the west side of Monroe Street just south of Avenue 54 in the
City of La Quinta, California. The investigation was performed in order to provide recommendations for
site preparation and to assist in foundation design for the proposed structures and the related site
improvements.
This report presents the results of our field investigation and laboratory testing along with conclusions
and recommendations for foundation design and site preparation: This report completes our original
scope of services as outlined within our proposal dated January 26, 2006.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide service. to you on this project. If you have any questions
regarding this report, please contact the undersigned
Respectfully submitted,
SLADDEN ENGINEERING
Nicholas S. Devlin
Project Engineer
SER /nd
Copies: 6/Trans West Housing, Inc.
�o
m No. C 45389 Z
Exp. 9/30/06
`�J �•y� ci .
Brett L. Anderson FOFCALtFC�
Principal Engineer
GEOTECHNICAL. INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED GRIFFIN RANCH SADDLE CLUB
WEST SIDE {FMONROU8STREET,
SOUTH C]F AVENUE 54
LA QUI�CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA �'
January 25, 2006
TABLE {FCONTENTS
INTRODUCTION... ............................................................................... ................................................
1
SCOPEOF WORK ..................................................................................................................................
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .----`—_----_---_--_-------------._--_—..l
GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY ............................................... ...............................................................
2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS -..._----'-----.--''--'---_---''--.'_'--3
'
-LIQuEF£C1lLDN............................ .......................................................................................................
3
CONCLUSIONS AND ab[C]&88YbNLAll�)�/b_------------------_...-----A
FoundationI]eobsn----------'''--...............................................................................
5-
Settlements -------. .....................................
LateralDesign ...................................... ................................................................ ...........................
6
RetainingWalls .................................................................................................. ....... ......................
6
ExpansiveSoil ............ ..........................................................................................................................
6
Concrete.--_.--------_----_-.--.--.` .......................................
6�
SolubleSulfates .................................................................................................................. ; ..............
6
TentativePavement Design ...........................................................................................................
6
7
GeneralSite Grading ...... .................................................................. ,................................................
7
___� . ..�—... .. —,—'--_-------..
1. Site ........................................................ ... . . . . —'
7
2. uf and Foundation Areas .................................................................
7
IPlacement b{ Compacted Pill ..................................................................................................
7
4. cf Slab and Pavement. Areas ...........................................................................
8
5. Testing. and Inspection —._----'---'—''--'''-.__.--''--'''.'—''.
�
8
GENERAL....................................................................................................................................................
9
REFERENCES _'—''-----.—_—'_---'—'''''----.-----'—''----_.-----1O
'
APPENDIX A- Site Plan and Boring Logs
Field Exploration
APPBNDIXB -
-Laboratory Testing .
Test Results
APPENDIX C- 2001 California.Building Code with l997DBC Seismic Design Criteria
FRISKSP Attenuation Plots
APPENDIX D-
Liquefaction Analyses
LIQUtFYPRO Output Data
January 25, 2006 -1- Project No. 544 -4402
06 -01 -076
INTRODUCTION
This. report presents the results of our Geotechnical Investigation performed in order to provide
recommendations for site preparation and to assist in the design and construction of the foundations for
the various structures proposed for the Griffin Ranch Saddle Club equestrian facility. The project site is
located on the west side of Monroe Street just south of Avenue 54 in the City of La Quinta, California.
The preliminary plans indicate that the proposed project will include covered arenas, stalls, barns, and
offices along with various associated site improvements. The associated site improvements are expected
to include paved roadways and parking areas, concrete walkways and patios, underground utilities, and
landscape areas.
SCOPE OF WORK
The purpose of our investigation was to determine certain engineering characteristics of the near surface
soil on the site in order to develop recommendations for foundation design and site preparation. Our
investigation included field exploration, laboratory testing, literature review, engineering analysis and
the preparation of this report. Evaluation of hazardous materials or other environmental concerns was
not within the scope of services provided. Our investigation was.-performed in accordance with
contemporary geotechnical engineering principles and practice. We do not make other warranty, either
express or implied.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located on the west side of Monroe, Street just south of Avenue 54 in the City of La
Quinta, California. It is our understanding that the project will consist of an equestrian facility including
covered arenas, stalls, barns, and offices along with various associated site improvements. It is our
understanding that the proposed structures will be of relatively lightweight wood -frame and /or steel -
frame construction and will be supported by conventional shallow spread footings and concrete slabs on
grade. The associated improvements will include paved roadways and parking areas, concrete walkways
and patios, landscape areas and various underground utilities.
The majority of the subject site is presently occupied by a horse ranch containing corrals and fenced
pastures. There is an existing ranch style home occupying the adjacent' property northeast of the site.
The property is level throughout and is near the elevation of the adjacent properties and roadways. The
ranch contains various outbuildings. Fenced pastures occupy most of the ranch. Monroe Street forms the
eastern site boundary. A residential housing tract occupies the adjacent property south of the site. The
Griffin Ranch residential development is under construction to the north and west of the site.
Based upon our previous experience with lightweight structures, we expect that isolated column loads
will be less than 30 kips and wall loading will be less than to 2.0 kips per linear foot. Grading is expected
to include minor cuts and fills to match the nearby elevations and to construct slightly elevated building
pads to accommodate site drainage. This does not include removal and recompaction of the bearing soil
within the building areas. If the anticipated foundation loading or site grading varies substantially from
that assumed the recommendations included in this report should be reevaluated.
Sladden Engineering
January 25, 2006 -2- Project No. 544 -4402
06 -01 -076
GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY
The project site is located .within the central Coachella Valley that is part of the broader Salton Trough
geomorphic province. The Salton Trough is a northwest .trending depression that extends from the Gulf
of California to the Banning Pass. Structurally the Salton Trough is dominated by several northwest
trending faults, most notable of that is the San Andreas system.
A relatively thick sequence of sedimentary rocks have been deposited in the Coachella Valley portion of
.the Salton Trough from Miocene to present times. These sediments are predominately terrestrial in
nature with some lacustrian and minor marine deposits. The mountains surrounding the Coachella
Valley are composed primarily of Precambrian metamorphic and Mesozoic granitic rock.
The Coachella Valley is situated in one of the more seismically active areas of California. The San
Andreas Fault zone is considered capable of generating a maximum credible earthquake of magnitude 8.0
and because of its proximity to the project site it should be considered in design fault for the project.
Based on our review of published and unpublished geotechnical maps and literature pertaining to site,
the San Andreas (Southern) Fault (approximately 10.1 kilometers or 6.3 miles to the northeast of the site)
would probably generate the most severe site ground motions with an anticipated maximum moment
magnitude (MW) of 7.4..In addition to the San Andreas (Southern) Fault, the San Jacinto *(Anza) Fault
presents. a ground rupture hazard and is located approximately 31.1. kilometers or 19.4 miles to the
southwest of the site with an anticipated maximum moment magnitude (MW) of 7.2.
A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) was performed to evaluate the likelihood of future
earthquake ground motions at the site. The computer program FRISKSP Version 4 was used to perform
the analysis (Blake, 2026). Based upon the results of subsurface characterization at the project site, the
attenuation relationships by Abrahamson and Silva (1997), Sadigh, et al. (1997), Boore, et. al. (1997), and
Campbell and Bozorgnia (1997) that is pertinent to shallow crustal earthquakes was used in the PSHA.
We used magnitude weighting to derive the peak ground acceleration as recommended by Martin and
Lew of SCEC (1999) and consistent with the recommendations by NCEER (Youd and Idriss, 1997) for
liquefaction analysis. According to our PSHA, the site could be subjected to peak ground acceleration on
the order of 0.578 for an earthquake having a 10 percent probability of exceeded in 50 years (475 7year
return period).
The site is not located in any Earthquake Fault zones.as designated by. the State but is mapped in the
County's Liquefaction and Ground Shaking Hazard Zone V. Several significant seismic events have
occurred within the Coachella Valley during the past 50 years. The events include.Desert Hot Springs -
1948 (6.5 Magnitude), Palm Springs - 1986 (5.9 Magnitude), Desert Hot Springs - 1992 (6.1 Magnitude),
Landers -1992 (7.5 Magnitude) and Big Bear -1992 (6.6 Magnitude).,
Sladden Engineering
January 25, 2006 -3- Project No. 544 -4402
06- 01 -076.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The soil underlying the site consists primarily of fine- grained silty sand with scattered prominent sandy
clay and sandy silt layers. As is typical for the area, the silty sand and sandy silt layers are inconsistently
interbedded and. vary in thickness. Silty sand was the most prominent soil within our exploratory
borings but several prominent sandy silt and clayey silt layers were also encountered.
The silty sands encountered near the existing ground surface appeared somewhat loose but the deeper
silty sand and sandy silt layers appeared relatively firm. Relatively undisturbed samples indicated dry
density varying from 84 to 111 pcf. Sampler penetration resistance (as measured by field blowcounts)
indicates that density generally increases with depth. The site soil was dry on the surface and moist
below a depth of approximately 5 feet but some silty layers were typically wet. Laboratory testing
indicated moisture content varying from 5 to 35 percent.
Laboratory testing indicates that the surface soil within the upper 5. feet consist primarily of silty sands.
Expansion testing indicates that the surface silty sands are generally non - expansive and are classified as
,'very low" expansion category soil in accordance with Table 18 -I -B of the 1997 Uniform Building Code.
Groundwater was encountered within our borings at a depth of approximately 45 feet below the existing
ground surface. Groundwater should be considered in design and construction.
L-IQUEFACTI.ON
Liquefaction occurs with sudden loss of soil strength because of rapid increases in pore pressures within
cohesionless soil as a result of repeated cyclic loading during seismic events. Several conditions must be
present for liquefaction to occur including; the presence of relatively shallow groundwater, generally
loose soil conditions, the susceptibility of soil to liquefaction based upon grain -size characteristics and the
generation of significant and repeated seismically induced ground accelerations. Liquefaction affects
primarily loose, uniform grained cohesionless sand with low relative densities.
In the case -of this project site, several of the factors required for liquefaction to occur are present. As
previously indicated, groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 45 feet below the
existing .ground surface on the site. Several relatively uniform grained sand and silty sand layers were
encountered within our borings. The site is located near several active fault systems.
The potential consequence of liquefaction of the granular layers is ground surface settlement. Excess pore
pressure generated by ground shaking and leading to liquefaction is associated with the tendency for
loosely compacted, saturated soil to rearrange into a denser configuration during shaking. Dissipation of
that excess pore pressure will produce volume decreases (termed consolidation or compaction) within the
soil that may be manifested at the ground surface as settlement. Spatial variations' in material
characteristics and thickness may cause such settlement to occur differentially. Differential ground
settlement may also occur near sand boil manifestations, because of liquefied materials. being removed
from the depths of liquefaction and brought to the ground surface.
Sladden Engineering
January 25, 2006 -4- Project No. 544 -4402
06 -01 -076
Because of the presence of historically higher groundwater, the potential liquefaction induced settlement
affecting the site was further evaluated. The computer program LiquefyPro Version 4 was used for our
liquefaction and settlement analysis. Several silty sand layers encountered near and below the present
groundwater surface appear susceptible to liquefaction based upon grain -size characteristics.
Liquefaction potential within these silty sand layers was evaluated.
Our analyses suggest that the majority of the silty sand layers encountered within our borings are
generally considered too dense to be susceptible to liquefaction, but isolated silty sand layers appear
potentially liquefiable. In order to estimate the amount of post - earthquake settlement, methods proposed
by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987), Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992) were used for the settlement calculations
that are included in Appendix D of this report. Based on our analysis and considering the estimated
historic groundwater levels, we estimate that the maximum total liquefaction - induced ground
settlements, at the site would be just less than 2 inches during the postulated earthquake. Differential
settlements resulting from liquefaction should be less than 1 inch.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon our field investigation and laboratory testing, it is our.opinion that the proposed golf course,
clubhouse, and residential development is.feasible from a soil meclianic's standpoint provided that the
recommendations included in this report are considered in building foundation design and site
preparation. Because of the somewhat loose condition of the near surface soil, remedial grading is
recommended for the building areas. We recommend that remedial grading within the proposed
building areas include the overexcavation and recompaction of the primary foundation .bearing soil.
Specific recommendations for site preparation are presented in. the Site Grading section of this report.
Based upon the generally dense condition of silty sand layers, our analysis indicates that the potential for
liquefaction impacting the site during a major seismic event on' the nearby Sari Andreas Fault system is
minimal. The potential seismically induced settlements were estimated using methods presented by
Tokimatsu and Seed and suggested within Special Publication 117. The seismic settlement estimates are
presented on the liquefaction potential data sheets included within Appendix C. Our analyses indicate
total liquefaction related settlements of less than 2 inches. The potential differential seismic settlements
should be less than 1 inch: Based upon the nature of the proposed development, specific liquefaction
related mitigation measures in addition to the recommended remedial grading do not appear warranted.
The site is located in one of the more seismically active areas in California. Design professionals should
be aware of the site setting and the potential for earthquake activity during the anticipated life of the
structure should be acknowledged. The accelerations that may be experienced .on the site (as previously
discussed) should be considered in design. The seismic provisions included in the Uniform Building
Code for Seismic Zone 4 should be considered the minimum design criteria. Pertinent 1997 UBC Seismic
Design Criteria is summarized in,Appendix C.
Sladden Engineering
January 25; 2006 -5- Project No. 5444402
06 -01 -076
Caving did occur within our borings and the potential for caving should be expected within deeper
excavations. All excavations should be constructed in accordance with the normal CalOSHA excavation
criteria. On the basis of our observations of the materials encountered, we anticipate that the near surface
silty sands will be classified by CalOSHA as Type C. Soil conditions should be verified in the field by a
"Competent person" employed by the Contractor.
The near surface soil encountered during our investigation was found to be non - expansive. Laboratory
testing indicated an Expansion Index of 0 for the surface silty sands that corresponds with the "very low"
expansion category. in Accordance with UBC Table 18 -I -B.
The following recommendations present more detailed design criteria which have been developed on the
basis of our fie_ ld and laboratory investigation.. The recommendations are based upon non - expansive soil
criteria:
Foundation Design: The results of our investigation indicate that either conventional shallow
continuous footings or isolated pad footings that are supported upon properly compacted soil,
may be expected to provide adequate.support for the proposed structure foundations. Building
pad grading should be performed as described in the Site Grading Section of this report to
provide for uniform and firm bearing conditions for the structure foundations.
Footings should extend at least 12 inches beneath lowest adjacent grade. Isolated square or
rectangular footings should be at least two feet square and continuous footings should be at least
12 inches wide. Continuous footings may be designed using an. allowable bearing value of 1500
pounds per square foot (psf) and isolated pad footings may be designed using an allowable
bearing pressure of 1800 psf. Allowable increases of 250 psf for each additional 1 foot of width
and 250 psf for each additional 6 inches of depth-may be utilized if desired. The maximum
allowable bearing pressure should be 2500 psf. The allowable bearing pressures are applicable to
dead and frequently applied live loads. The allowable bearing pressures may be increased by 1/3
to resist wind and seismic loading. Care should be taken to see that bearing or 'subgrade soil is
not allowed to become saturated from the ponding of rainwater or irrigation. Drainage from the
building area should be rapid arrd complete.
The recommendations provided in the preceding paragraph are based on the assumption that all
footings will be supported upon properly compacted engineered fill soil. All grading should be
performed under the testing and inspection of .the Soil Engineer or his representative. Prior to
the placement of concrete, we recommend that the footing excavations be inspected in order to
verify that they extend into compacted soil and are free of loose and disturbed materials.
Settlements: Settlements resulting from the anticipated foundation loads should be minimal
provided that the recommendations included in this report are considered in foundation design
and construction. The estimated ultimate settlements are calculated to be approximately one inch
when using the recommended bearing values. As a practical matter, differential settlements
between footings can be assumed as one -half of the total settlement.
Sladden Engineering
January 25, 2006 -6- Project No. 544 -4402
06 -01 -076
Lateral Design: Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by a combination of friction acting at
the base of the slabs or foundations and passive earth pressure along the sides of the foundations.
A coefficient of friction of 0.40 between soil and concrete may be used with consideration to dead
load forces only. A passive earth pressure of 250 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth, may
be used for the sides of footings that are poured against properly compacted native or approved
non - expansive import soil. Passive earth pressure should be ignored within the upper 1 foot
except where confined (such as beneath a floor slab).
Retaining Walls: Retaining walls may be necessary to accomplish the proposed construction.
Lateral pressures for. use in retaining wall design can be estimated using an equivalent fluid
weight of 35 pd for level free - draining native backfill conditions. For walls that are to be
restrained at the top, the equivalent fluid weight should be increased to 55 pcf for level free -
draining native backfill conditions. Backdrains should be provided for the full height of the
walls.
Expansive Soil: Because of the prominence of "very low" expansion category soil near the
surface, the expansion potential of the foundation bearing soil should not be a controlling factor
in . foundation or floor slab design. Expansion potential should be reevaluated subsequent to
grading.
Concrete Slabs -on- Grade: All surfaces to receive concrete slabs -on -grade should be underlain by
a minimum compacted non - expansive fill thickness of 24 inches, placed as described in the Site
Grading Section of this report. Where slab's are to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings or
where.dampness of the floor slab is not desired, we recommend the use of an appropriate vapor
barrier or an adequate capillary break. Vapor barriers should be protected by sand in order to
reduce the possibility of puncture and to aid in obtaining uniform concrete curing.
Reinforcement of slabs -on -grade in order to resist expansive soil pressures should not 'be
necessary. However, reinforcement will have a beneficial effect in containing cracking because of
concrete shrinkage. Temperature and shrinkage related cracking should be anticipated in all
concrete slabs -on- grade. Slab reinforcement and the spacing of control joints should be.
determined by the Structural Engineer..
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate. concentrations of the surface soil have not yet been
determined but native soil in the area has been known to be potentially corrosive with respect to
concrete. The use of Type V cement and specialized sulfate resistant concrete mix designs may be.
necessary for concrete in contact with the native soil.
Tentative Pavement Design: All paving should be underlain by a minimum compacted fill
thickness of 12 inches (excluding aggregate. base). This may be performed as described in the Site
Grading Section of this report. R -Value testing was not conducted during our investigation but
based upon the sandy nature of the surface soil, an R -Value of approximately 50 appears
appropriate for preliminary pavement design. The following preliminary onsite pavement
section is based upon a design R -Value of 50.
Sladden Engineering
January 25, 2006 -7- Project No. 544 -4402
06 -01 -076
Onsite Pavement (Traffic Index = 5.0)
Use 3.0 inches of asphalt on 4.5 inches of Class 2 base material
Aggregate base should conform to the requirements for Class 2 Aggregate base in Section 26 of
CalTrans Standard Specifications, January 1992. Asphaltic concrete should conform to Section 39
of the CalTrans Standard Specifications. The recommended sections should be provided with a
uniformly compacted subgrade and precise control of thickness and elevations during placement.
Pavement and slab designs are tentative and should be confirmed at the completion of site
grading when the subgrade soil is in- place. This will include sampling and testing of the actual
subgrade soil and an analysis based upon the specific traffic information
Shrinkage.and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinkage,of the material that is excavated and replaced
as controlled compacted fill should be anticipated. We estimate that this shrinkage could vary
from 20 to 25 percent. Subsidence of the surfaces that are scarified and compacted should be
between 1 and 3 tenths of a foot. This will vary depending upon the type of equipment used, the
moisture content of the soil at the time of grading and the actual degree of compaction attained.
These values for shrinkage and subsidence are exclusive of losses that will occur because of the
stripping of the organic material from the site and the removal of unsuitable material.
General Site Grading: All grading should be performed' in accordance with the grading
ordinance of the City of La Quinta, California. The following recommendations have been
developed on the basis of our field and laboratory testing and are intended to provide a uniform
compacted mat of soil beneath the building slabs and foundations.
1. Site Clearing: Proper site clearing will be very important. Any existing vegetation,
slabs, .foundations, abandoned underground, utilities or irrigation lines should be-
removed from the proposed building areas and the resulting excavations should be
properly backfilled: Soil that is. disturbed during site clearing should be removed and
replaced as controlled compacted fill under the direction of the Soil Engineer.
2. Preparation of Building and Foundation Areas: In order to provide adequate and
uniform bearing conditions, we recommend overexcavation throughout the proposed
residential building areas. The building areas should be overexcavated to a depth of at
least .3 feet below existing grade or 3 feet below the bottom of the footings, whichever is
deeper.. The exposed soil should then be' scarified to a depth of 1 -foot, moisture
conditioned and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The excavated
material may then be replaced as engineered fill material as recommended below.
3. Placement of Compacted Fill: Within the building pad areas, fill materials should be
spread in thin lifts, and compacted at near optimum moisture content to a minimum 'of
90 percent relative compaction. Imported fill material shall have an Expansion Index not
exceeding 20.
Sladden Engineering
January 25, 2006 -8- Project No. 544 -4402
06-01 -076
The contractor shall notify the Soil Engineer at least 48 hours in advance of importing soil
in order to provide sufficient time for the evaluation of proposed import materials. The
contractor shall be responsible for .delivering material to the site that complies with the
project specifications. Approval by the Soil Engineer will be based upon material
delivered to the site and not the preliminary evaluation of import sources.
Our observations of the materials encountered during our investigation indicate that
compaction within the native soil will be most readily obtained by means of heavy
rubber tired equipment and /or sheepsfoot compactors. The moisture content of the near
surface soils was somewhat inconsistent within our borings. In general, the sandy soils
are dry and well below optimum moisture content but some of the deeper silt layers
were wet. It is likely that wet siltkkky layers will be encountered during grading
particularly in irrigated areas where deep cuts are planned. A uniform and near
optimum moisture content should be maintained during fill placement and compaction.
4. Preparation of Slab and Paving Areas: All surfaces to receive asphalt concrete paving or
exterior concrete slabs -on- grade, should be underlain by a minimum compacted fill
thickness of 12 inches. This may be accomplished by a combination of overexcavation,
scarification and recompaction of the surface; and replacement of the excavated material
as controlled compacted fill. Compaction of the slab and pavement areas -should be to a
.minimum of 90 percent relative corimpaction.
5. Testing and Inspection: During grading tests and observations should be performed by
the Soil Engineer or his representative in order to verify that the grading is being
performed in accordance with the project specifications. Field density testing shall be
performed in accordance with applicable ASTM test standards.
The minimum acceptable .degree of compaction shall be 90 percent of the maximum dry
density as obtained by the ASTM D1557 -91 test method. Where testing indicates
insufficient density, additional compactive effort shall be applied until retesting indicates
"satisfactory compaction.
Sladden Engineering
January 25, 2006 -9- Project No. 544 -4402
06 -01 -076
GENERAL
The findings and recommendations presented in this report are based upon an interpolation of the soil
conditions between boring locations and extrapolation of these conditions throughout the proposed
building area. Should conditions. encountered during grading appear different than those indicated in
this report, this office should be notified.
This report is considered to be applicable for use by Trans. West Housing, Inc. for the specific site and
project described herein. The use of this report by other parties or for other projects is not authorized.
The recommendations of this report are contingent upon monitoring of the grading operations by a
representative of Sladden Engineering. All recommendations are considered to be tentative pending our
review of the grading operations and. additional testing, if indicated. If others are employed to perform
any soil testing, this office should be notified prior to such testing in order to coordinate any required site
visits by our representative and to assure indemnification of Sladden Engineering..
We recommend that a pre -job conference be held on the site prior to the initiation' 6f site grading. The
purpose of this meeting Will be to assure a complete understanding of the recommendations'presented in
this report as they apply to the actual grading performed.
Sladden Engineering
January 25, 2006 -10- Project No. 544 -4402
06 -01 -076
REFERENCES
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, April 1074.
Boore, Joyner and Fumal (1994) Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak. Accelerations from North American
Earthquakes, V. S. Geological Survey, Open File Reports 94 -127 and 93 -509.
Finn, W. E. Liam, (1996) Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential for Different Earthquake Magnitudes and Site
Conditions, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research Committee.
Joyner and Boore, (1988) -Measurements, Characterization and Prediction of Strong Ground Motion, ASCE
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Special Publication No. 20.
Lee & Albaisa (1974) "Earthquake Induced Settlements in Saturated Sands ".
Seed and Idriss (1982) Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction. During Earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute Monograph.
Seed, Tokimatsu, Harder and Chung, (1985), Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance
Evaluations, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Volume 111, No. 12, December.
Rogers,.Thomas H.; Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Map Sheet.
Riverside County, 1984, Seismic Safety Element of the Riverside County General Plan.
Sladden Engineering
APPENDIX A
Site Plan
Boring Logs
NORTH
Griffin Ranch - Saddle Club
West -Side of Monroe Street and South of Avenue 54, Coachella
Date: 1/24/2006 Boring No. 1 Job Number: 5444402
0
0
a
0
g
.a
A
v�
U
�q
Description.
°
o
Remarks
0
Native Soil
IwGk�i�
4/6/8
Silty Sand: Fine Grained
SM
93
12
42
-
onplastidGrey in color
4lJ�Yw
"i!fff '
s111!III'�I
415/7
Silty and: Fine Grained
ty
SM
97
19
48
on lastic/Brown in color
P
u!i. hrv'+f
4/5/6
Silty Clay
CL
90
30
84
Low Plasticity/Brown in color
15
-
5/6/6
Sandy Silt
ML
84
27
71
onplastic/Greyi §h Brown
in color
4/5/5
Silty Sand: Fine Grained
SM
14
29
onplasticJGreyish Brown
a=
I, EFY:
!col iiµi,
in color
6aFei
-
4/719
Sand: Fine Grained
SM
93
13
29
onplastic/Greyish Brown
-
in color
-
2/2/3
Silty Clay
CL
35
. 86
Low Plasticity/Brown in color
25.
-
2/4/5
Silty Clay
CL
91
34
84
Low Plasticity/Grey & Brown
-
in color
-
6/7/5
Sand: Fine Grained and Sandy Silt Layers Interbedded
S44
14
37
onplastic/Grey & Brown
in color
30:`
-
415110.
Clay •
CL
91
33
92
• edium Plasticity/Brown in
-
color
7/7/8
Silty Sand: Fine Grained
SM
8
17
Grey in color
35
t ��i�liilr!j
wliruvi
Ir. h.l
-
f iiii,i'!.;i
4/16/21
Silty Sand: Fine Grained
. SM
111
6
12
onplastic/Greyish Brown
;y;Tr
m color
6/9/9 Silty
Sand: Fine Grained
SM
15
27
onplastic/Greyish Brown
ilrlj:
'
In color
40
12/21/30 Silty
Sand: Fine Grained
SM
107
7
12
Grey in color
6L�.N,!iiili!
i�'At�l!:nilil
"r
2/3/5 Silty
Sand: Fine Grained
SM
31
50
Note: The stratification lines
represent theappro:iimate
45 'i;!
GROUNDWATER @ 45 FEET
boundaries between the soil
types; the transition may be
2/2/2 Sandy
Silt
ML
91
31
69
gradual.
-
Total Depth = 50 Feet
50
13/18/21 Sand:
Fine Grained
SP
17
8
Groundwater encountered
-
Bedrock not encountered
Griffin Ranch - Saddle Club
West Side of 14onroe.-Street and South of Avenue 54, Coachella _
Date: 1/24/2006 Boring No. 2 Job Number: 5444402
W
0
0
0
N
o
�
�
A
C40
U
M
Description
°
Remarks
0
alive Soil
-
5/719
Sandy Silt
ML
92
12
60
onplastic/Greyish Brown
'
in color
5
5/6/8
Sil ty Sand: Fine Grained
SM
94
13
47
N.onplastidGr6yish Brown
in color
!!phi
!7 iii; +iJ,
lvp.!'
y
2/3/6
Sand: Fine Grained and Silt Layers Interbedded
SM
17
37
onplastic/Grey & Brown
-
IPj
in. color
'liiiti;ry;;'
15
2/6/13
Sand: Fine Grained
SP
97
5
11
Grey in color
20
K"
6/6/6
Silty Sand: Fine Grained
SM
16
25
onplastic/Greyish Brown
'
in color
IM",
25
gpi,i,;jj;P�
2/3/12
Sand: Fine Grained and Silt Layers Interbedded
SMI
108 •
11
'32
onplastic/Grey & Brown
in color
_
try:ryn:i.j.
11 ill
30
5/6/5
Clayey Silt
ML
27
80
Low Plasticity/Grey & Brown
'
-
in color .
-
California Split -spoon Sample
Total Depth = 30 Feet
35
(
Groundwater not encountered
-
Unrecovered Sample
Bedrock not encountered
-
Penetration Test Sample
Standard
40
-
Note: The stratification lines represent the approximate
_
boundaries between the soil types; the transition may be
45
gradual.
50
Griffin Ranch- Saddle Club
West Side of Monroe Street and South of Avenue 54, Coachella . .
Date: 1/24/2006 Boring No. 3 Job Number: 5444402
U
e
0
°
a
3
4
a.
A
0 U
pq
Desch tion
r°�
o
Remarks
0
u ,;
r Ir i
Native Soil
J71hll:.
3/717
Silty Sand: Fine Grained
SM
98
8
26
on lactic /Gre ish Brown
p Y
in color
5
2/4/5
Silt
ML
98
21
60
Low Plasticity/Brown in color
10
3/6/5
Clayey Silt _
CL
87
27
89
Low plasticity/Grey & Brown
in color
15
6/8/12
Silty Sand: Fine Grained
SM
109
5
] 2
onplastic/Light Brown
5`Iv;yj
In color
20
8/10/12
Sand: Fine Grained
SP
100
3
8
Grey in color
25
30
California Split -spoon Sample
Total Depth =•20 Feet
-
.1
Bedrock not encountered
-
_
Unrecovered Sample
I
Groundwater not encountered
-
Standard Penetration Test Sample
35
40
Note: The stratification lines represent the approximate
-
boundaries between the soil types; the transition may be
_
gradual.
45
50
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Testing
Laboratory Test Results
APPENDDC B
LABORATORY TESTING
Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field and returned to .our
laboratory. for additional observations and testing. Laboratory testing was generally performed in two phases. The
first phase consisted of testing in order to determine the compaction of the existing natural soil an d the general
engineering classifications of the soil underlying the site. This testing was performed in order to estimate the
engineering characteristics of the soil and to serve as a basis for selecting samples for the second phase of testing. The
-second phase. consisted of soil mechanics testing. This testing including consolidation, shear strength and expansion
testing was performed in order to provide a means of developing specific design recommendations based on the
mechanical properties of the soil.
CLASSIFICATION AND COMPACTION TESTING
Unit Weight and Moisture Content Determinations: Each undisturbed sample. was weighed and measured in order
to determine its unit weight. A small portion of each sample was then subjected to testing in order to determine its
moisture content. This was used in order to determine the dry density of the soil in its natural condition. The results
of this testing are shown on the Boring Log.
Maximum Density- Optimum Moisture Determinations: Representative soil types were selected for maximum
density determinations. This testing was performed in accordance with the ASTM Standard D1557 -91, Test Method
A. The results of this test are presented graphically in this appendix. The maximum densities are compared to the
field densities of the soil in order to determine the existing relative compaction to the soil. This is'shown on the
Boring Log, and is useful in estimating the strength and 'compressibility of the soil.
Classification Testing: Soil samples were selected for classification testing. This testing consists of mechanical grain
size analyses and Atferberg Limits determinations. These provide information for developing classifications for the
soil in accordance with the Unified Classification System. This classification system categorizes the soil into groups
having similar engineering characteristics. The results of this test are very useful for detecting variations in the soil
and in selecting samples for further testing.
SOIL MECHANIC'S TESTING
Direct Shear Testing: One bulk sample was selected for Direct Shear Testing. This testing measures the shear
strength of the soil under various normal pressures and is used in developing parameters for foundation design and
lateral design. Testing was performed using recompacted test specimens, which were saturated prior to testing.
Testing was performed using a strain controlled test apparatus with normal pressures ranging from 800 to 2300
pounds per square foot.
Expansion Testing: One bulk sample was selected for Expansion testing. Expansion testing was performed in
accordance with the UBC Standard 18 -2. This testing consists of remolding 4 -inch diameter by 1 -inch thick test
specimens to a moisture content and dry density corresponding to approximately 50 percent saturation. The samples
are subjected to a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and allowed to reach equilibrium. At that point the
specimens are inundated with distilled water. The linear expansion is .then measured until complete.
Consolidation Testing: Four relatively undisturbed samples were selected for consolidation testing. For this testing
one -inch thick test specimens are subjected to vertical loads varying from 575 psf to 11520 psf applied progressively.
The consolidation at each load increment was recorded prior to placement of each subsequent load. The "specimens
were saturated at the 575 psf or 720. psf load increment.
Maximum Density /Optimum Moisture
ASTM D698/D1557
Project Number: 544 -4402 February 1, 2006
Project Name:. Griffen Saddle ASTM D -1557 A
Lab ID Number: Rammer Type: Machine
Sample Location: Boring 1 @ 0 -5'
Description: Silty Sand
Maximum Density: 101 pef
Optimum Moisture: 12.5%
13'.
130
125
120
w
v
a 715
L'
.y
d
A 110
l.r
A
105
100
95
904
0
Sieve Size %Retained
3/4"
3/8"
#4 0.0
< ----- Zero Air Voids Lines,
������Otl�l•�1! = mil =MM=
5_ 10 is
Moisture Content, %
20 25
u
COD
a
o �
3
2(
10
0
10(
February 1, 2006
u.U10 I
Sieve Size, mm 0.001
Gradation
ASTM C117 & C136
Project-Number:
Project Name:
544 -4402
Griffen Saddle
Sample ID:
Bulk 1 @ 0 -5
Sieve
Sieve
Size, in _
Size,n
Percent
25.4
Passing
3/4"
19.1
100.0
1/2"
12.7
100.0
3/8"
9.53
100.0
#4
4.75
100.0
#8
_100.0
#16
1.18
1.18
100.0
#30
0.60
99.0
#50
0.30
99.0
#100
0.15
97.0
#200
0.074
71.0
23.0
lnn
COD
a
o �
3
2(
10
0
10(
February 1, 2006
u.U10 I
Sieve Size, mm 0.001
Gradation
ASTM C117 & C136
Project Number: 544 -4402 February 1, 2006
Project Name: Griffen Saddle
Sample ID: Boring 1 @ 2'
Sieve S
Sieve P
Percent
Size, in S
Size, mm P
Passing
.111 2
25.4 1
100.0
3/4" 1
19.1 1
100.0
1/2" 1
12.7 1
100.0
3/8" 9
9.53 1
100.0
#4 4
4.75 1
100.0
#8 2
2.36 1
100.0
#16 1
1.18 1
100.0
#30 0
0.60 1
100.0
#50 , 0
0.30 9
97.0
#100 0
0.15 8
84.0
#200 0
0.074 4
42.0
HIM ■ ■■IIIIII■iIkEI1111I■■ IIIIII■■i
111111■ HIM ■ ■■IIIIII■■RVIIIIII■■■11111I■■M
IIIIII■■■ HIM
■ ■■111111 ■ ■� \IIIIII■ ■■IIIIII ■ ■■
111111■■■ IIIIII■ ■■111111■■ =IIIIIII■■■11111IOEM
IIIIII■■■ IIIIII■■■ 11111I■■M111111■■i111 ■■M
. , IIIIII ■■■IIIIII ■ ■■111111■■■0IIIII■ ■■111111 ■ ■�
111 111■■iIIIlII ■ ■■111111■■■11111I■ ■■IIIIII■■■
11111I■■■IIIIII■■■11111I ■■■IIIIII■ ■■111111 ■■■
�- , , IIIIII■ ■■IIIIII■ ■■1111 ■ ■■II'�lII■ ■■111111 ■ ■i
IIIIII ■i■ 111111■■ =11111I■ ■■IIIIII■ ■■ HIM IOEM
IIIIII■ ■IIIIII■ ■■111111 ■■■IIIIII■ ■■IIIIII ■ ■■
111111■i�II111I ■i■IIIIiI■ ■■IIIIII■ ■■111111 ■ice
IIIIII■ ■■IIIIII■ ■■111111■ ■■111111■ ■■111111 ■■■
111111■ II111I ■■■111111■ ■■111111■ ■■111111 ■ii
111111 ■■ IIIIIIii■IIIIII■■■IIIIIIi ■■111111 ■ ■■
IIIIII■ ■iI1111Ii ■■111111■ ■■111111■ ■■IIIIII ■ ■�
fill off
, IIIIII ■ ■■ IIIIII■ ■■IIIIII■ ■■IIIIII■ ■■111111 ■ ■■
Gradation
ASTM C117 & C136
Project Number: 544 -4402
Project Name: Griffen Saddle
Sample ID: Boring 1 @ 5'
February 1, 2006
Sieve
Sieve.
Percent
Size, in
Size, mm
Passing
1"
25.4
100.0
3/4"
19.1
100.0
1/211,
12.7
100.0
3/8"
9.53
100.0
#4
4.75
100.0
#8
2.36
100.0
#16
1.18
100.0.
#30
0.60
100.0
#50
0.30
99.0
#100'
0.15
89.0
#200
0.074
48.0
IIIIIeur��1111eur�I1111e\
�u11111euuullllleuuu
. , IIIIIeuuu11111euuuI1111euu
�IIIIIeuuullllleuu®
IIIIIeuuuI1111euuullllleuu
Lii1111euiullllleuuu
IIIIIeuuuI1111euuuI111
leuuu
IIIIIeuuuI1111euuullll
Mill
uullllleuuu
IIIIIeuuu11111e
11111euuullll
INN
uu
IIIIIeuuu11111euuu11111euuu
Hills
uuullllINN
uu
. , IIIIIeuuu11111euuu11111euuu1ll111euuu11
Ilion
uu
IIIIIeuuuI1111euuullllleuuuli111
1euuuli
Ilion
uu
. , IIIIIe
uuuI1111euuullllleuuul1111euuullllleuuu
IIIIIeuuu11111euu
uuullllleuuu
UNION
NINE
leuuu
IIIIIeuuuI1111euuuI1111euuuI1111euu0111
euuu
IIIIIeuuuI1111euuu11111eu
uI1111eMEME
Ilion
lion
HUES
uullllleuuullIlion
uu11111euuulll
lion
uu
IIIIIeuuu11111euuuIl111euuuI1111euuullllleuuu
IIIIIeuuu11111euuu1111aeuuul1111euuullllleuu®
IIIIIeuuuI1111euuuI1III
euu
u11111euuulHill
IIIIIeuuu11111euuuHill euuu11111
ONE
uHill
euuu
1uu.uuu 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
Sieve Size, mm
Job Number: 544 -4402
Job Name:' Griffen Saddle
Sample ID: Boring 1 @ 5'
Soil Description: Silty Sand
1
0
-1
-2
-3
ao
Ix -4
.5
d
o,o
-5'
V
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
One Dimensional Consolidation
ASTM D2435 & D5333
February 1, 2006
Initial Dry Density, pcf. 101.2
Initial Moisture, %: 19
Initial Void Ratio: 0.647
Specific Gravity: '2.67
% Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram
— 0 Before Saturation — A After Saturation
—�— Rebound —E— Hydro Consolidation
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Normal Load (ksf)
('nncnl;Aatinn Sladden EngineerinL I /nn/M
Job Number: 544 -4402
Job Name: Griffen Saddle
Sample ID: Boring 1 @ 10'
.Soil Description: Sandy Silt
1
0
-1
-2
-3
on
a�
k� -4
a
au
-5
U-
0
-6,
-7
-8
-9.
-10
One Dimensional Consolidation
ASTM D2435 & D5333
February 1, 2006
Initial Dry Density, pcf. 87.4
Initial Moisture, %: 30
Initial Void Ratio: 0.906
Specific Gravity: 2.67
% Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram
-�— Before Saturation —A After Saturation .
-�- Rebound - E —Hydro Consolidation
0.1 1.0 10.0
Normal Load (ksf)
100.0
Sladden Engineering RPV;cm i,nnm ,).
Job Number: . 5'44 -4402
Job Name: Griffen .Saddle
Sample ID:. Boring 3 @ 5'
Soil Description: Sandy Silt
1
-0
-1
-2
-3
ao
x -4
-5
U
° -6
-7
-8
-9
-10
0.1
('nnenliAatinn
One Dimensional Consolidation
ASTM D2435 & D5333
February 1, 2006
Initial Dry Density, pcf ' 93.3
Initial Moisture, %: 21
Initial Void Ratio: 0.788
Specific Gravity: 2.67
% Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram
— 0 Before Saturation — A After Saturation
— . Rebound —f— Hydro Consolidation
1.0 10.0
Normal Load (ksf)
Sladden Enp-ineminQ i2 —i —i i innm?
One Dimensional Consolidation
ASTM D2435 & D533 -3
Job Number: 544 -4402 February 1, 2006
Job Name: Griffen Saddle Initial Dry Density, pcf: 85.5
Sample ID: Boring 3 @ 10' Initial Moisture, %: 27
Soil Description: Sandy Silt Initial Void Ratio: 0.949
Specific Gravity: 2.67
Hydrocollapse: 0.4% @ 0.575 ksf
% Change in Height vs Normal Presssure. Diagram
—0 Before Saturation After Saturation
e Rebound -i— Hydro Consolidation
1
0
-1
-2
-3
ao
x 4
c' =5
U
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
0.1 1.0- 10.0
Normal Load (ksf)
('nnenliriatinn Sladden BnLlneerinL - RPvicm 11nnln?
Expansion Index
ASTM D 4829/UBC 29 -2
Job Number: 544 -4402 Date: 2/1/2006
Job Name: Griffen Saddle Tech: Jake
Lab ID:
Sample ID: Bulk 1 @ 0 -5'
Soil Description: Silty Sand
Wt of Soil + Ring:
565.0
Weight of Ring:
179.0
Wt of Wet Soil:
386.0
Percent Moisture:
11%
Wet Density, pcf :.
2/6/2006
117.0
Dry Denstiy, pcf:
0.500
105.4
0.509 "
Saturation: T
49.6
Expansion Rack #
Date /Time
2/6/2006
8:45 AM
Initial Reading
0.500
Final Reading
0.509 "
Expansion Index 9 .
(Final - Initial) x 1000
EI. Sladden Engineering Revised 12/10/02
APPENDIX C
2001 California Building Code with 1997 UBC Seismic Design Criteria
FRISKSP.Attenuation Plots
January 25, 2006 -16- Project No. 544 -4402
06 -01 -076
2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN INFORMATION
The California Code of Regulations, Title 24 (2001 California Building Code) and 1997 Uniform
Building Code, Chapter 16 of this code; contain substantial revisions and additions to earthquake
engineering design criteria. Concepts contained in the code that will be relevant to construction of
the pr6posed'structures are summarized below.
Ground shaking is expected to be the primary hazard most likely to affect the site, based upon
Proximity to significant faults capable of generating large earthquakes. Major fault zones considered
to be most likely to create strong ground shaking at the site are listed below'.
Fault Zone
Approximate. Distance
From Site
Fault Type
(1997 UBC)
San Andreas
10:1. km
A
San Jacinto
31.1 km
A `
Based on our field observations and understanding of local 'geologic conditions, the soil profile type
judged applicable to this site is So, generally described as stiff or dense soil. The site is located within
UBC Seismic Zone 4. The following table presents additional coefficients and factors relevant to seismic.
mitigation for new construction upon adoption of the 1997 code.
Sladden Engineering
Near- Source
Near- Source
Seismic
Seismic
Seismic
Acceleration
Velocity
Coefficient
Coefficient
Source
Factor, Na
Factor, NY
Ca .
C,.
San Andreas
1.0
1.2
0.44Na
0.64N�
San Jacinto
1.0
1.0
0.44Na
0.64Nv
Sladden Engineering
11
100C
me
-101t'
700
.i�
500
400
300
200
100
0
CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP
Griffin Ranch - Saddle Club
-100
-400 - 300 200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
SADIGH ET AL. (1997) DEEP SOIL 1
. 25 yrs 50 yrs
0 0
100
91
80
0
70
60
° 50,
L
40
c
- m 30
a�
a�
x20
X-
.w
10
0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25. 1.50
Acceleration (q)
RETURN. PERIOD vs. ACCELERATION
SADIGH ET AL. (1997) DEEP SOIL 1 -
100000
L 10000
0
N
1000
L
r .W
r
100.
0.00 0.25 0:50 0:75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Acceleration (q)
APPENDIX D
Liquefaction Analyses
LIQUEFYPRO Output Data
Sladden Engineering
544 -4402 Plate A
LIQUEFACTION, ANALYSIS
Griffin Ranch Saddle .Club
Hole No. =B -1
Water Depth. =30.ft
Magnitude =7.4
Acceleration =0, 579
(h)0
Shear Stress Ratio
Factor of Safety Settlement
0
2. 0 1
5 0 (in.) 10
10
20
3,0
40
fs=1
50
CRR — CSR
Wet— Dry=
Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential
S. 1.90 in.
60
Z0
Sladden Engineering
544 -4402 Plate A
S44-4462-1
d...AA.. AddpA d. Addddddppdpd}ddd AQ AdddQ4dddQddddQQdAddd3dddQ} i} Q} dt} i}} ddQd4tS;AA }dQt4dA }diA } }4QdddQAA
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CALCULATION SHEET
copyright by.CivilTech software
www.civiltech.com
(425).453 -6488 Fax (425).453 -5848
ApdddQdpddppddpdAp.... pdp......dd...... *....... QQ -*dddddd. Qddddd dOddA l3QddddAQd....A}dd }AddiAd }ddd
Licensed to , 2/13/2006 10:34 :36 Am
Input File Name: H: \ndevlin \sladden \544- 4402 -1.liq
Title: 'Griffin Ranch saddle Club
Subtitle: 544 -4402
Input Data: -
surface 'Elev.=
Hole NO.-B-1
Depth of Hole =50.0 ft
water Table during Earthquake= 30.0 ft
water Table during In -Situ Testing= 45.0 ft
Max. Acceleration =0.57 g
Earthquake magnitude =7.4
I
Earthquake magnitude =7.4'
2. settlement Analysis method: Tokimatsu / seed
3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: 1driss /Seed (5PT only)
4. Fine Correction for settlement: During Liquefaction*
5. Settlement calculation in: All zones*
6. Hammer Energy Ratio, ce =1.25
7. Borehole Diameter, Cb =1.15
8. Sampelingg Method, Cs =1.2
fs =1, Plbt one .CSR (fs =1)
10. Use curve smoothing: Yes*
a Recommended options
In -situ Test Data:
93.0
Depth
sPr
.Gamma
Fines
ft
1.0
pcf
%
0.0
0.0
93.0
42.0
2.5
9.3
93.0
42.0
5.0
8.0
97.0
48.0
10.0
7.3
90.0.
NOLiq
15.0
8.0
84.0
71.0
17.5
10.0
84.0
29.0
20.0
10.7
93.0
29.0
22.5
5.0
93.0
NoLiq
25.0
6.0
91.0
NoLiq
27.5
12.0
91.0
37.0
30.0
10.0
91.0
NoLiq.
32:5
15.0
91.0
17.0
35.0
24.7
131.0
12.0
37.5
18.0
111.0
•27.0
40.0
34.0
107.0
12.0
42.5
8:0
107.0
50.0
45.0
2.7
' 91.0
69.0
50.0
26.0
91.0
8.0
Output Results:
Calculation segment, dz =0.050 ft
user defined Print interval, dp=1.00 ft
CSR Calculation: gg '
De c
Depth pf a tsfma gamma' sigma' rd_ CSR fs CSRfs
pcf is (user) w /fs
0.00
93.0
0.000
93.0
0.000
1.00
0.37
1.0
0.37
1.00
93:0
0:047
93.0
0.047
1.00
0.37
1:0
0.37
2.00
93.0
0.093
93.0
0.093
1.00
0.37
1.0
0.37
3.00
93.8
0:140
93.8
0.140
0.99
0.37
1.0
0.37
4.00
95:4
0.187
95.4
0.187
0.99
0.37
1.0
0.37
5.00
97.0
0.235
97.0
0.235
0.99
0.37
1.0
0.37
6.00
95.6
0.283
95.6
0.283
0.99
0.37
1.0
0.37
7.00
94.2
0.331
94.2
0.331
0.98
0.36
1.0
0.36
8.00
92.8
0.377
92.8
0.377
0.98
0.36'
1.0
0.36
9.00
91.4
0.423
91.4
0.423
0.98
0.36
1.0
0.36
10.00
90.0
0.469
90.0.
0.469
0.98
0.36
1.0
0.36
11.00
88.8
0.514
88.8
0:514
0.97
0.36
1.0
0.36
12.00
87.6
0.558
87.6
0.558
0.97
0.36
1.0
0.36
13.00
86.4
0.601
86.4
0.601
0.97
0.36
1.0 .
0.36
14.0.0
85.2
0.644
85.2
0.644
0.97
0.36
1.0
0.36
15.00
'84.0
0.686
84.0
0.686
0.97
0.36
1.0
0.36
16.00
84.0
0.528
84.0
0.728
0:96
0.36
1.0
0.36
17.00
84.0
0:770
84.0
0.770
0.96
6.36
1.0
0:36
18.00
85.8
0.813
85.8
0.813
0:96
0.35
1.0
0.35
19.00
89.4
0.856
89.4
0.856
0.96
0.35
1.0
0.35
20.00
93.0
. 0.902
93.0
0.902
0.95
0.35
1.0
0.35
21.00
93.0
0.948
93.0
0.948
0.95
0.35
1.0
0.35
22.00
93.0
0.995
93.0
0.995
0.95
0.35
1.0
0.35
23.00
92.6'
1.041.
92.6
1.041
0.95
0.35
1.0
0.35
24.00
91.8
1.087
91.8
1.087
0.94
0.35
1.0
0.35'
25.00
91.0
1.133
91.0
1.133
0.94
0.35
1.0
0.35
26.00
91.0
1.179
91.0
1.179
0.94
0.35
1.0
0.35
27.00
91.0
1.224
91.0
1.224
0.94
0.35
1.0
0.35
2$.00
91.0
1.270
91.0
1.270
0..93
0.35
1.0
0.35
29.00
91.0
. 1.315
91:0
1.315
0.93
0.35
1.0
0.35
30.00
91.0
1.361
91.0
1.361
0.93
0.34
1.0
0.34
31.00
91.0
1.406
28.6
1.377
0.92
0.35
1.0
0.35
32.00
91.0
1.452
28.6
1.391
.0.91
0.35
1.0
0.35 '
33.00
95.0
1.498
32.6
1.406
0.91
0.36
1.0
0.36
34.00
103.0
1.547
40.6
1.424
0.90
0.36
1.0
0.36
35.00
. 111.0
1.600
48.6
1.446
0.89
0.36
1.0
0.36
36.00
111.0
1.656
48.6
1.470
0.88
0:37
1.0
0.37
37.00
111.0
1.711
48.6
1.495
0.87
0.37
1.0
0.37
38.00
110.2
1.767
47.8
1.519
0.86
0.37
1.0
0.37
39.00
108.6
1.822
46.2
1.542
0.86
0.37
1.0
0.37
.Page 1
544- 4402 -1
40.60 107.0 1.875 44.6 1.565 0.85 0.38 1.0 0.38
41.00 107.g 1.929 44.6 1.587 0:84 0.38 1.0 0.38
42,00 107.0 1.982 44.6 1.610 0.83 0.38 1.0 0.38
43.00 103.8 2.036 41.4 1.632 0.82 0.38 1.0 '0.38
44.00 97.4 2.086 35.0 1.651 0.82 0.38 1.0. 0.38 _
45.00 91.0 2.133 28.6 1.667 0.81 0.38 1.0 0.38
46.00 91.0 2.179 28.6 1.681 0.80 0.38 1.0 0.38.
47.00 91.0 2.224 28.6 1.695 0.79 0.38 1.0 0.38
48.00 91.0 2.270 28.6 1.710 0.78 0.39 1.0 0.39
49.00 91.0 2.315 28.6 1.724 0.78 0.39 1.0 0.39
50.00 91.0 2.361 28.6 1.738 0:77 0.39 1.0 0:39
CSR is based on water table at 30.0 during earthquake
CRR Calculation from 5PT or aPT data:
Depth SPT Cebs Cr siggma' Cn (N1)60 Fines d(N1)60 (N1)60f CRR7.5
ft tsf %
0.00 0.00 1.73 0.75 0.000 1.70 0.00 42.00 5.00 5.00 0.07
1.00 3.73 1.73 '0.75 0.047 1.70 8.21 42.00 6.64 14.85 0.16
2.00 7.46 1.73 0.75 0.093 1.70 16.42 42.00 8.28 24.70 0.28
3:00 9.06 1.73 0.75 0.140 1.70 19.94 43.20 8.99 28.92 0.37
4.00 8.53 1.73 0.75 0.187 1.70 18.77 45.60 8:75 27.52 0.33
5.00 8.00 1.73 0.75 0.235 1.70 17.60 48.00 - 8.52 26.11 0.30
6.00 7.87 1.73 0.75 0.283 1.70 17.30 48.00 8.46 25.76 0.30
7.00 7,73 1.73 0.75 0.331 1.70 17.01 48.00 8.40 25.41 0.29
8.00 7.60 1.73 0.75 0:377 1.63 16.00 48.00 8.20 24.20 0.27
9.00 7.46 1.73 0.85 0.423 1.54 16.82 48.00 8.36 25.18 0.29
10.00 7.33 1.73 0.85 0.469 1.46. 15.70 N004 8.14 23.84 0.26
11.00 7.46 1.73 0.85 0.514 1.40 15.27 NoLiq 8.05 23.33 0.26
12.00 7.60 1.73 0.85 0.558 1.34 14.92 NoLiq 7..98 22.90 0.25
13.00 .7.73 1.73 0.85 0.601 1.29 14,62 NoLiq 7.92 22.55 0.25 .
14.00 7.87 1.73 0.85 0.644 1.25 14.37 NoLiq 7.87 .22.25 0.24
15.00 8.00 1.73 0.95. 0.686 1.21 15,82 71.00 8.16 23.99 0:27
16.00 8.80 1.73 0.95 0.728 1.17 16.90 54.20 8.38 .25.28 0.29
17.00 9.60 1.73 0.95 0.770 1.14 17.92 37.40 8.58 26.51 0.31
18.00 10.13 1.73 0.95 0.813 1.11 18.42 29.00 7.13 25.75 0.30
19.00 10.40 1.73 0.95 0.856 1.08 18.42 29.00 7.33 25.75 0130
20.00 10.67 1.73 0.95 0.902 1.05 18.41 29.00 7.33 25.74 0.30
21.00 8.40 1.73 0.95 0.948 1.03 14.14 29.00 6.70 20.84 0.23
22.00 6.13 1.73 0.95 0.995, .1.00 10.08 29.00 6.11 16.19 0.17
23.00 5.20 1.73 0.95 1.041 0.98 8.35 NoLiq 6:67 15.02 0:16
24.00 5.60 1.73 0.95 1.087 0.96 8.80 NoLiq 6.76 15.56 0.17
25.00 6.00 1.73 0.95 1.133 0.94 9.24 NoLiq 6.85 16.08 0.17
26.00 8.40 1.73 0.95 1.179 0.92 .12.68 NoLiq 7.54 20.21 0.22
27.00 10:80 1.73 0.95 1.224 0.90 16,00 NoLiq 8.20 24.19 0.27
28.00 11.60 1.73 1.00 1.270 0.89 17.76 37.00 8.55 26.31 0.31
29.00 10.80 1.73 1.00 1.315 0.87 16.25 37.00 8.25 24.49 0.27
30.00 10600 1.73 1.00 1.361 0.86 14.79 37:00 7.96 22.75 0.25
31.00 12.00 1.73 1 :00 1.406 0.84 17.46 NoLiq 8.49 25.95 0.30
32.00 •14'.00 1.73 1.00 1.452 0.83 20.04 NoLi4. 9.01 29.05 0.38
33.00 16.93 1.73 1.00 1.498 0.82 23.87 16.00 4.06 27.92 0.34
34.00 20.80 1.73' 1,00 1.547 0.80 28.85 14.00 3.43 32.28 2.00_
35.00 24.67 1.73, 1.00 1.600 0.79 33.64 12.00 2.62 36.25 2.00
36.00. 22.00 1.73 1.00 1.656 0.78 29.49 18.00 5.19 34:69 2.00
37.00 19.33 1.73 1.00 1.711 0.76 25.49 24.00 6.92 32.42 2.00
38.00 21.20 1.73 1.00 1.767 0.75 27.51 24.00 7.14 34:65 2.00
39.00 27, 60 1.73 1.00 1.822 0.74 35.27 18.00 5.58 40.85 2.00
40.00 3'4,00 1.73 1.00 1.875 0.73 42.82 12,00 2.91 45.73 2.00
41.00 23.60 -1.73 1.00 1.929 0.72 29.32 27.19 8.36 37.68 2.00
42.00 13.20 1.73 1.00 1.982 0.71 16.18 42.39 8.24 24.41 0.27
43.00 6.93 1.73 1.00 2.036 0.70 8.38 53.80 6.68 15.06 0.16
44.00 4.80 1.73 1.00 2.086 0.69 5.74 61.40 6.15 11:88 0.13
45.00 2.67 1.73 1.00 2.133 0.68. 3.15 69.00 S.63 8.79 0.10
46.00 7.33. 1.73 1.00 2.149 0:68 8.63 56.81 6.73 15.36 0.17
47.00 12.00 1.73 1.00 2.163 0.68 14.07 44.61 7.81 21.89 0.24
48.00 16.67 1.73 1.00 2.178 0.68 19.48 32.41 8.25 27.73 0.34
49.00 21.33 1.73 1.00 2:192 0.68 24.85 20.21 5.66 30.51 2.00
50.00 26.00 1.73 1:00 2.206 0.67 •30.19 8.01• 0.68'. 30.87 2.00
CRR is based on water table at 45:0 during in -Situ Testing
Factor of safety., Earthquake Magnitude= 7.4:
Depth Si C? CRR7.5 •Ks-igma CRRV MSF CRRM CSRfS F.S.
ft tsf tsf w /fs CRRm /CSRfs
0.00
0.00
0.07
1.00
0.07
1.03
0.07
0.37
5.00
1.00
0.03
0.16
1.00
0.16
1.03
0.17
0.' 37
5.00
2.00
0.06
0.28
1.00
0.28
1.03
0.29
0.37
5.00
3.00
0.09
0.37 -
1.00
0.37
1.03
0.38
0.37
5:00
4.00
0.12
0.33
1.00
0.33
1.03
0.34
0.37
5.00
5.00
0.15
0.30
1.00
0.30
1.03
0.31
0.37
5.00
6.00
0.18
0.30
1.00
030
1.03
0.31
0.37
5.00
7.00
0.21
0.29
1.00
0.29
1.03
0.30
0.36
5'.00
8.00
0.25
0.27
. 1.00
0.27
1.03
0:28
0.36
•'5.00
9.00
0.28
0.29
1.00
0.29
1.03
0.30
0.36
5.00
10.00
0.30
0.26
1.00
0.26
1.03
2.00
0.36
5.00
11.00
0.33
0.26
1.00
0.26
1.03
2.00
0.36
5.00
12.00
0.36
0.25
1.00
0.25
1.03
2.00
0.36
5.00
13.00
0.39
0.25
1.00
0.25
1.03
2.00
0.36.
5.00
14.00
0.42
0.24
1.00
0.24
1.03
2.00
0.36
5.00
15.00
0.45
0.27
1.00
0.27
1.03
0.28
0.36
5.00
16.00
0.47
0.29
1.00
0.29
1.03
0.30
0.36
5.00
17.00
0.50
0.31
1.00
0.31
1.03
0.32
0.36
5.00
18.00
0.53
0.30
1.00
0.30
1.03
0.31
0.35
5.00
19.00
0.56
0.30
1.00
0.30
1.03
0.31
0.35
5:00 .
20.00
0.59
0.30
1.00
0.30
1.03
0.31
0.35
5.00
21.00
0.62
0.23
1.00
0.23
1:03
0.23
0.35
5.00
22.00
0.65
0.17
1.00
0.17
1,03
0.18
0.35
5.00
23.00
0.68
0.16
1.00
0.16
1.03
2.00
•0.35
5.00
24.00
0.71
0.17
1.00
0.17
1.03
2.00
0.35
5.00_
25.00.
0.74
0.17
1.00
0.17
1.03
2.00
0.35
5.00
26.00
0.77
0.22
1.00'
0.22
1.03
2.00
0.35
5.00
27.00
0.80'
0.27
1.00
0.27
1.03
2.00
0,35
5.00
28.00
0.83
0.31
1.00
0.31
1.03
0.32'
0.35
5:00
29.00
0.85
0.27
1.00
0.27
1.03
0.28
0.35
5.00
Page 2
544- 4402 -1
30.00 0.88 0.25 1.00 0.25 1.03 0.26 0.34 S.D0
31.00 0.91 0.30 1.00 0.30 1.03- 2.00 0.35 5.00
32.00 0.94 0.38 1.00 0.38 .1.03 2.00 0.35 5.00
33.00 0:97 0.34 1.00 0.34 1.03 0.35 0.36 0.99 °
34.00 1.01 2.00 1.01 2.01 1.03 2.08 0.36 5.00
35.00 1.04 2.00 1:00 2.00 -1.03 2.07 0.36 5.00
36.00 1.08 2.00 0.99 1:99 1.03 2.06 0.37 5.00
37.00 1.11 2.00 0.99 1.98 1.03 2.05 0.37 5.00
38.00 1.15 2.00 0.98 1.97 1.03 2.03 0.37 5.00
39.00 1.18 2.00 0.98 1.96 1.03' 2.02 0.37 5.00
40.00 1.22 2.00 0.97 1.94 1.03 2.01 0.38 5.00
41.00 1.25 2.00 0.97 1.93 1.03 2.00 0.38 5.00
42.00 1.29 0.27 0.96 0.26 1:03 0.27 0.38 0.72 °
43.00 1.32 0.16 0.96 .0.16 1.03 0.16 0.38 0.42 °
44.00 1.36 0.13 0.95 0.12 1.03 0.13 0.38 0.33 °
45.00 ' 1.39 0.10• 0.95 0.09 '1.03 0.09 0.38 0.25 "
46.00 1.40 0.17 0.95 0.16 1.03 0.16 0.38 0.42 "
47.00 1.41 0.24 0.95 0.23 1.03 0.23 0.38 0.61 °
48.00 1.42 0.34 0.94 0.32 1.03 0.33 0.39 0.85 °
49.00 1.42 2.00 - 0.94 1.89 1.03 1.95 0.39 5.00
50.00 1.43 2.00 0.94 1.88 1.03 1.95 0.39 5.00
° F.S. <1: Liquefaction .Potential zone. (If above water table:-F.S. =5)
(F.S. is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2)
CPT Convert to
SPT for settlement Analysis:
Fines correction for settlement Analysis:
Depth Ic
qC /N60 qcl (N1)60
Fines
d(N1)60
(N1)60s
ft
tsf
%
0.00 -
- - 5.:00
42.0
0.00
5.00
1.00 -
- - 14.85
42.0
0.00
14.85
2.00
- - 24.70
42:0
0.00
24.70
3:00 -
- - 28.92
43.2
0.00
28.92
4.00' -
- - 27.52
45.6
0.00
27.52
5.00 -
- - 26.11
48.0
0.00
26.11
6.00 -
- - 25.76
48.0.
0.00
25.76
7:00 -
- - 25.41
48.0
0.00
25.41
8.00 -
- - 24.20
48.0
0.00
24.20
9.00 -
- - 25.18
48.0
0.00
25.18
10.00 -
- - 23.84
NoLiq
'0.00
23.84
11.00 -
- - 23.33
NoLiq
0.00
23.33
12.00 -
- - 22.90
NoLiq
0.00
22.90
13.00 -
- - 22.55
NoLiq
0.00
22.55
14.00 -
- - 22.25
NoLiq
0.00
22.25
15.00 -
- - 23.99
71:0
0.00
23.99
16.00 -
- - 25.28
54.2
0.00
25.28
17.00 -
- - 26.51
37.4
0.00
26.51
18.00 -
- - 25.75
29.0
0.00
25.75
19.00 -
- - 25:75
29.0
0.00
25.75
20.00 -
- - 25.74
29.0
0.00
25.74
21.00 -
- - 20.84
29.0
0.00
20.84
22.00 -
- - 16.19
29.0
0.00
16.19
23.00 -
- - 15.02.
NoLiq
0.00
15.02
24.00 -
- - 15.56
NoLiq
0.00
15:56
25.00 -
- - 16.08
NoLiq
0.00
16.08
26.00 -
- - 20.21
NoLiq
0.00
20.21
27.00 -
- - 24.19
NoLiq
0.00 -24.19
28.00 -
- - 26.31
37.0
0.00
26.31
29.00 -
- - 24.49
37.0
0.00
24.49
30.00 -
- - 22.75
37.0
.0.00
22.75
31.00 -
- - 25.95
NoLiq
0.00
25.95
32.00 -
- -. 29.05 '
NoLiq
0.00
29.05
33.00 -
- - 27.92
16.0
0.00
27.92
34.00 -
- - 32.28
14.0
0.00
32.28
35.00 -
- - 36.25
12.0
0.00
36.25
36.00 -
- - 34.69
18.0
0.00
34.69
37.00 -
- - 32.42
24.0
0.00
32.42
38.00 -
- - 34.65
24.0
0.00
34.65
39.00 -
- - 40.85
18.0
0.00
40.85
40.00 -
- - 45.73
12.0
0.00
45.73
41.00 -
- - 37.68
27.2
0.00
37.68
42.00 -
- - 24.41
42.4
Q.00'
24.41'
43.00 -
- - 15.06
53.8
0.00
15.06
44.00 -
- 11.88
61.4
0.00
11.88
45.00 -
- 8.79. '69.0
0.00
8.79
46.00 -
- - 15.36
56.8
0.00
15.36
47.00 -
- - 21.89
44.6
0.00
21.49
48.00 -
- - 27.73
.32.4.
0.00
27.73
49.00 -
- - 30.51
20.2
0.00 .
30.51
50.00 -
- - 30.87
8.0
0.00
30.87
(Nl)60s has been fines corrected in liquefaction analysis, therefore d(N1)60 =0.
Fines =NoLiq means the soils are not liquefiable.
settlement of saturated sands:
settlement Analysis Nethbd: Tokimatsu / seed
Depth CSRfs F.S. Fines (N1)60s. Dr ec dsz dsp s
ft w /fs % % % in. in. in.
49.95 0.39 5.00 8.6 30.83 91.97 0.243 1.5E -3 0.001 0:001
49.00 0.39 5.00• 20.2 30.51 91.23 0.338 2.0E -3 0.028 0.029
48.00 0.39 0.85 32.4 27.73 85.15 0.873 5.2E -3 0.074. 0.103
47.00 0.38 0.61 44.6 21.89 73:94 1.3.53 8.1E -3 0.136 0.240
46.00 0.38 0.42 56.8 15.36 61.97 1.877 1.1E -2 0.194 0.434
45.00 0.38 0.25 69.0 8.79 47.53 2.766 1.7E -2 0.274 0.708.
44.00 0.38 0.33 61.4 11.88 54.85 2.274 1.4E -2 0.299 1.007
43.00 0.38 0.42 53.8 15.06 61.40 1.903 1.1E -2 0.248' 1.254
42.00 0.38 0.72 42.4 24.41 78.60 1.173 7.0E -3 0.195 1.449
41.00 0.38 5.00 27.2 37.68 100.00 0.000 0.OEO 0.039 1.489
40.00 0.38 5.00 12.0 45.73 100.00 0.000 0.OEO 0.000 1.489
39.00 0.37 5.00 18.0, 40.85 100.00 0.000 0.OEO 0.000 1.489.
38.00 0.37 5.00 24.0 34.65 100.00 0.000 O.OEO 0.000 1.489
37.00 0.37 5.00 24.0 32.42 95.79 0.110 6.6E -4 0.012 1.501
Page 3
544- 4402 -1
36.00 0.37 5.00 18.0 34.69 100.00 '0.000 O.OEO 0.001 1.502
35.00 0.36 5.00 12.0 36.25 100.00 0.000 O.OEO 0.000 1.502
34.00 0.36 5.00 14.0 32.28 95.45 ' 0.000 0.OEO 0.000 1.502
33.06 0.36 0.99 16.0 27.92 85.55 0.686 4.1E -3' 0.036 1.538
32.00 0.35 5.00 NoLiq 29.05 87.96 0.369 0.OEO 0.049 1.587
31.00 0.35 5.00 NoLiq 25.95 81.55 1.016 O.OEO 0.000 1.587
30.05 0.34 5.00 NoLiq 22.,91 75.80 1.238 0.OEO 0.000 1.587
settlement of Saturated Sands =1.587 in. '
qcl and (N1)60 is after fines correction in liquefaction analysis
dsz is per each segment, dz =0.05 ft
dsp is per each print . interval, dp =1.00 ft
S is cumulated settlement at this depth
Settlement of Dry •Sands:
Depth sigma' sigC' (N1)60s CSRfs Gmax g °Ge /Gm g_eff ec7.5 cec ec dsz dsp s
ft tsf is w /fs tsf % % in. in. in.
30.00 1.36 0.88 • 22.75 0.34' 1190.4 3.9E -4 0.1081 0.0900 1.03 0.0930 1.12E- 3.0.001 0.001
29.00 1.32 0.85 24.49 0.35 1199.6 3.8E -4 0.0979 •0.0740 1.03 0.0764 9.17E -4 0.020 0.021
28.00 1.27 0.83 26.31 0.35 1207.0 3.6E -4 0.0890 0.0611 1.03 0.0631 7.57E -4 0.017 0.038
27.00 1.22 0.80 24.19 0.35 1152.6 3.7E -4 0.0917 0.0704 '1.03 0.0727 O.00EO 0:.007 0.045
26.00 1.18 0.77 20.21 0.35 1065.3 3.9E -4 0.1020 0.0991 1.03 0.1023 O.00EO 0.000 0.045
25.00 1.13 0.74 16.08 0.35 967.9 4.1E -4 0.3130 0.4090 1.03 0.4224 O.00EO 0.000 0.045'
24.00 1.09 0.71 15.56 0.35 937.8 4.1E -4 0.3018 0.4117 1.03 0.4252 O.00EO '0.000 0.045
23.00 1.04 0.68 15.02 0.35 907.0 _4.OE -4 0.2907 0.4150 1.03 0.4286 O.00EO 0.000 0.045.
'22.00 0.99 0.65 16.19 0.35 908.9 3.8E -4 0.2333 0.3023 1.03 0.3122 3.75E -3 0.053 0.098
21.00 0.95 0.62 20.84 0.35 965.3 3.5E -4 0.1473 0.1375 '1.03 0.1420 1.70E -3 0. -050 0.148
20.00 0.90 0.59 25.74 0.35 1009.9 3.2E -4 0.1039 0.0735 1.03 0.0759 9.11E -4 0.025 0.172
19.00 0.86 0.56 25.75 0.35 984.2 3.1E -4 0.0958. 0.0677 1.03 0.0700. 8.40E -4 0.017 0.190
18.00 0:81 0.53 25.75 0.35 958.8 3.0E -4 0.0886 0.0626 1.03 0.0647 7.76E -4 0.016 0.206
17.00 0.77 0.50 26.51 0.36 942.6 2.9E -4 0.0796 0.0541 1.03 0.0558 6.70E -4 0.015 0.220
16.00 0.73 0.47 25.28 0.36 902.1 2.9E -4 0.0772 0.0560 1.03 0.0 .578 6.94E -4 0.014 .0.234
15.00 0.69 0:45 23.99 0.36 860.6 2.9E -4 0.0750 0.0582 1.03 0.0601 7.22E -4 0.014 0.248
14.00 0.64 0.42 22.25 0.36 813.0 2.8E -4 0.0740 0.0633 1.03 0.0655 O.00EO 0.000 0.248
13.00 0.60 0.39 22.55 0.36., 788.9 2.7E -4 0.0666 0.0561 1.03 0.0580 O.00EO MOO 0.248
12.00 0.56 0.36 22.90 0.36 763.8 2.6E -4 0.0597 0.0493 1.03 0.0509 O.00EO 0.000 0.248
11.00 0.51 0.33 23.33 0.36' 737.5 2.5E -4 0.0773 0.0623 1.03 0.0643 O.00EO '0.000 0.248
10.00 0.47 0.30 23.84 0.36 709.7 2.4E -4 0.0609 0.0477 1.03 0.0493 O.00EO .0.000 0.248
9.00 0.42 0.28 25.18 0.36 687.0 2.2E -4 0.0485 0.0354 1.03 0.0365 4.38E -4 ,0.010 0.258
8.00 0.38 0.25 24.20 0. 3j6 640.0 2.1E -4 0.0438 0.0336 1.09 0.0347 4.17E -4 0.008 0.266
7.00 0.33 0.21 25.41 0.36 608.8 2.0E -4 0.0392 0.0282 1.03 0.0291 3.49E 74 0.007 0.274
6.00 0.28 0.18 25.76 0.37 566.0 1.8E -4 0.0348 0.0246 1.03 0.0254 3.04E -4 0:007 0.280
5.00 0.23 0.15 26.11 0.37 517.9 1.7E -4 0.0304 0.0211 1.03 0.0218 2.61E -4 0.006 0.286
4.00 0.19 0.12 27.52 0.37 470.1 1.5E -4 0.0280 0.0181 1..03 0.0187 2t24E -4 0.005 0.291
3.00 0.14 0.09 28.92 0.37 413.1 1.2E -4 0.0230 0.0138 1.03 0.0143 1.71E '-4 0.004 0.295
2.00 0.09 0.06 24.70 0.37 319.9 1.1E -4 0.0222 0:0166 1.03 0.0171 2.06E -4 0.004 0.299
1.00 0.05 0:03 14.85 0.37 191.0 9.0E -5 0.0168 0.0244 1.03 0.0252 3.02E -4 0.005 0.304
0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.37 1.9 1.9E -6 0.0010 0:0048 1.03 0.0049 5.89E 75 0.006 0.310
Settlement of Dry San ds= 0.310'in.
dsz is. per each segment, dz =0.05 ft
dsp is per each p n nt interval, dp =1.00 ft
S is cumulated settlement at this depth
Total settlement of saturated'and Dry Sands-1.897 in.
Differential settlement -0.948 to 1.252 in.
units Depth = ft, stress or Pressure - tsf (atm), unit weight = pcf, settlement in.
SPT Field data from Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
8PT Field data from Becker Penetration Test OPT) '
yyC- Field data' from cone Penetration Test (CPT)
fc Friction from CPT testing
gamma Total unit weight of soil
gamma' Effective unit weight of soil
Fines Fines content [ %)
DSO Mean grain size
or Relative Density ,
sigma Total vertical stress [tsf]
sigma' _Effective vertical stress [tsf]
sigc; Effective confining pressure [tsf]
rd stress reduction coefficient
CSR cyclic stress ratio induced by earthquake
fs user request factor of safety, apply'to CSR
w /fs with user request factor -of safety inside
Csgfs. CSR with user request factor of safety
CRR7.5 cyclic resistance ratio (M -7.5)
Ksigma overburden stress correction factor for CRR7.5
CRRV CRR after overburden. stress correction, CRRV- CRR7.5 r Ksigma
MSF Magnitude scaling factor for CRR (M=7.5)
CRRm After magnitude scaling correction. CRRm =CRRV ° MSF
F.S. Factor of Safety against liquefaction F.S.=cRRm /CSRfs
F.S" user inputed Factor of safety
Cebs Energy Ratio, Borehole. Dia., and sample Method. corrections
cr Rod Length Corrections '
cn overburden Pressure correction
(N1)60 sPi after corrections, (N1)60 =SPT ° Cr ° Cn,•Q Cebs
d(N1)60 Fines correction of SPT
(N1)60f (N1)60 after fines corrections, (N1)60f= (N1)60 + d(N1)60
Cq 'overburden stress correction factor
qcl CPT after overburden stress correction
qcl Fines correction of CPT
gclf CPT after Fines and overburden correction, gclf =qcl + dgcl
gcln CPT after normalization in Robertson's method
Kc Fine correction factor in Robertson's method
gclf CPT after Fines correction' in Robertson's method
is soil type index in Suzuki's and Robertson's methods
(N1)60s (N1)60 after seattlemerit fines corrections
ec volumetric strain for saturated sands
dz calculation segment, dt =0.050 ft
dsz settlement in each segment Az
dp user defined print interdaj
dsp settlement in each print interval, dp
Gmax shear modulus at low strain
g_eff gamma_eff, Effective shear strain
Page 4
544- 4402 -1
g*Ge /Gm gamma_eff ° G_eff /G_max, Strain - modulus ratio
eC7.5 volumetric strain for magnitude -7.5 '
cec Magnitude correction factor for any magnitude
ec volumetrir strain for dry sands,•ec=Cec ° ec7.5
NoLiq No- Liquefy soils
References:
1. NCEER workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of soils. roud, T.L., and Idriss, I.M., eds., Technical. Report 14CEER
97 -0022.
SP117. southern California Earthquake center. Recommended Procedures for Implementation•of DMG Special Publication 117,
Guidelines for
Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California. University.of southern California. March 1999.
2. RECENT ADVANCES IN SOIL LIQUEFACTION ENGINEERING AND SEISMIC SITE RESPONSE EVALUATION, Paper No. SPL -2, PROCEEDINGS: Fourth
International conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and soil Dynamics, San Diego, CA, March, 2001
Exterior Noise Analysis For
TransWest Housing'- Saddle Club
City of La Quinta, California
Report #2006 -161
May 12, 2006
Prepared For:
TransWest Housing
47 -120 Dune Palms Road
Suite C
La Quinta, CA 92253
3151 Airway Ave., Bldg. I -2
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Br,d� � Tel (714) 540 -3120
9 1 Fax (714) 540 -3303
V I ! pA'.A IIO N.A1
www.BridgeNet -Intl. com
Exterior Noise Analysis For
TransWest Housing — Saddle Club
1.0 Introduction
Exterior Noise Analysis
TransWest Housing
-The purpose of this report is to determine compliance of the Saddle Club project with the
City of La Quinta exterior noise standard. The subject project is located east of Madison St.
South of 54ffi Avenue, and west of Monroe St. in the City of La Quinta, California. Refer to
Figure 1 for the location of the project site. The site plan of the project is presented in Figure 2.
This project will generate noise out to the residential community. The scope of , this study
includes the community noise of the Saddle Club ranch and the measures necessary to mitigate
the exterior noise exposure levels to within the applicable noise standards.
2.0 Noise Criteria
Community noise is generally not steady state and varies with time. Under conditions of
non - steady -state noise, some type of statistical metric is necessary in order to quantify human
response to noise. Several rating scales have been developed for the analysis of adverse effects
of community noise on people. They are designed to account for the known effects of noise on
people. Based on these effects, the observation has been made that the potential for a noise to
impact people is dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise. A number of
noise scales have been developed to account for this observation.
2.1 Noise Assessment Metrics
The description, analysis and reporting of community noise levels around communities is
made difficult by the complexity of human response to noise and the variety of noise metrics that
have been developed for describing noise impacts. Each of these metrics attempts to quantify
noise levels with respect to community response. Most of these metrics use the "A- weighted"
noise level to quantify noise impacts on humans. "A- weighting" is a frequency correction that
correlates the overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear.
Noise metrics can be divided into two categories: single event and cumulative. Single
event metrics describe the noise levels from an individual event such as an aircraft flyover or
perhaps a heavy equipment pass -by. Cumulative metrics average the total noise over a specific
time period, which is typically from one to 24 -hours for community noise levels. For non steady
state, transportation related noise sources, cumulative noise metrics are generally used. For
steady- state, non - transportation related noise sources, noise ordinance levels involving the
statistical distribution of measured noise levels is typically used. The energy average noise level
and the statistical distribution of noise levels will be used for analysis of this project.
sm
i
Exterior Noise Analysis
TransWest Housing
ve Avenue 67 Mnd Ave
CO
IE ;�
Project
55th Ave
La OuInta-
q i
PgaVtiles!
3e
Resort GC
O`) •'Atr ott =Blvd �I
� p ` _- part �i9d-
.VieW Dr
a fl
Merion
°
Hermitage— - ,w
58th Ave ���;_Ct�►4Ctaarl�r
jl
7 by �I 3'ii4l `�il
Figure 1
Location of the Project Site
F
Wash Rack/Grooming
Station
Hot Walker
Rnundncn
F -B---]
Stalls
Enclosed Arena
L
-J
J
7.J
Bddy
4
Exterior Noise Analysis
TransWest Housing
T
Arena I
N
Figure 2
Project Site Plan
Exterior Noise Analysis
TransWest Housing
2.2 Cumulative Noise Metrics
Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. These
account for: (1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of
noise on man, (2) the variety of noises found in the environment, (3) the variations in noise
levels that occur as a person moves through the environment, and (4) the variations associated
with the time of day. They are designed to account for the known health effects of noise on
people described previously. Based on these effects, the observation has been made that the
potential for a noise to impact people is dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the
noise. A number of noise scales have been developed to account -for this observation. Two of
the predominate noise scales are the Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ or Leq) and the Community
Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). These scales are described in the following paragraphs.
LEQ is the sound level corresponding to a steady -state sound level containing
the same total energy as a time - varying signal over a given sample period. Leq is
the "energy" average noise level during the time period of the sample. Leq can
be measured for any time period, but is typically measured for 15 minutes, I hour.
or 24- hours. The noise ordinance for the City of La Quinta is established in terms
of the Leq metric.
CNEL is similar to LEQ but is for twenty-four hours, and applies a weighting
factor, which places greater significance on noise events occurring during the
evening and night hours (when sleep disturbance is a concern). CNEL is a 24-
hour, time - weighted annual average noise level. Time - weighted refers to the fact
that noise which occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for
occurring at these times. The evening time period is penalized by 5 dB (7 p.m. to
10 p. m) while nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a. m.) noises are penalized by 10 dB.
Exhibit 1 gives a graphical representation of how the Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL) index is calculated from hourly Leqs, 5 dB and 10 dB
weighting factors.
2.3 Statistical Noise Metrics
L(N), or L %, is a statistical method of describing noise which accounts for the variance in
noise levels throughout a given measurement period. L(N), where N equals a percentage, is a
way of expressing the noise level exceeded for a percentage of time in a given measurement
period. For example, since 15 minutes is 25% of 60 minutes, L(25) is the noise level that is
exceeded for fifteen minutes of a sixty- minute measurement period.
For example, most city, state and county noise ordinances use a daytime standard of 55
dBA for 30 minutes per hour, which is equivalent to an L(50) level of 55 dBA. In other words,
the noise ordinance states that for a residential land use, a piece of equipment not located on the
property will not be allowed to generate a noise level of 55 dBA for more than thirty minutes in
any hour. As the noise level limit increases, the time the noise is allowed to occur within any
hour is reduced.
Exterior Noise Analysis
TransWest Housing
Exhibit 1
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
Additional short-term noise metrics include the maximum noise level and the minimum
noise level. The Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) is the loudest noise level registered during a
noise measurement. The Minimum Noise Level (Lmin) the quietest noise level registered during
a noise measurement. The noise ordinance standards are summarized in Table 1.
3.0 The City of La Quinta Noise Ordinance Standards
In the City of La Quinta Municipal Code (Section 9.60.230 Noise Control) lies the noise
ordinance standard that applies to this mechanical equipment noise analysis.
Noise Control.
A. Purpose. The noise control standards for nonresidential land use districts set forth
in this section are established to prevent excessive sound levels which are detrimental to
the public health, welfare and safety or which are contrary to the public. interest.
B. Noise Standards. Exterior noise standards are set forth below. Residential
property, schools, hospitals, and churches are considered noise sensitive land uses,
regardless of the land use district in which they are located. All other uses shall comply
with the "other nonresidential" standard. All noise measurements shall be taken using
standard noise measuring instruments. Measurements shall be taken within the receiving
property at locations determined by director to be most appropriate to the individual
situation.
6
Exterior Noise Analysis
TransWest Housing
Exterior Noise Standards
70 dBA
Receiving Land Use
Noise Standard
Time Period
Noise sensitive
60 dB(A)
50 dB(A)
7:00 a.m. - -10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. - -7:00 a.m.
C. Noise Limits. It is unlawf tl for any person at any location within the city to create
any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or
otherwise ' controlled by such person, when such noise causes the noise level, when
measured on any adjacent property, to exceed:
1. The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any
hour;
2. The noise standard plus five dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than fifteen
minutes in any hour,
3. The noise standard plus ten dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than five
minutes in any hour;
4. The noise standard plus fifteen O(A) for a cumulative period of more than one
minute in any hour; or
5. The noise standard plus twenty dB(A) for any period of time.
6. For purposes of this section, the term "cumulative period" means the number of
minutes that a noise occurs within any hour; whether such minutes are consecutive or
not.
D. Ambient Noise Level. If the ambient or background noise level exceeds any of the
preceding noise categories, no increase above such ambient noise level shall be
permitted.
Table 1
La Quinta Noise Ordinance - Residential
Daytime Noise Level Nighttime Noise Level Maximum
(7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.) (10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.) Duration L%
80 dBA
70 dBA
NEVER
- -
75 dBA
65 dBA
1 minute
U.7
70 dBA
60 dBA
5 minutes
L8.3
65 dBA
55 dBA
15 minutes
L25
60 dBA
50 dBA
30 minutes
L50
7
Exterior Noise Analysis
TransWest Housing
4.0 Noise Sources and Barriers
Future activities at the project site will generate noise that could possibly impact the
residential land uses adjacent to the project site. The greatest concern for noise will be at the
southern portion of the project, which is adjacent to Mountain View Lane. The operation hours
for Saddle Club Ranch will be between 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. except during the summer hours when
it will open earlier on order to take advantage of the cooler weather during the early hours.
There will also be 24 -hour supervision on -site. These hours have been established to minimize
the amount of dust and order to the adjacent residential land uses. The saddle club will generate
noise from activities within the Barn, Covered Arena, Hot Walkers, Round pen, Turnout
pastures, and wash racks /grooming stations, and from the mechanical equipment which will
include the vacuum units, Koolfog pumps, the fly -spray pumps. Each noise source was taken
from similar field test data to provide the worst -case noise level.
4.1 Noise from the Arena
The Arena lies along the southern portion of the ranch. The covered arena will be built
with 3/4" CDX plywood core with 26 -gauge zincalume sheet steel laminated to one side, and 26-
gauge zincalume embossed steel to the other.side. The covered arena will be 24' -6" tall 150' x
250' with lights and a fan system. From the arena there will be two attached sets of stalls; one
on the north side and one on the south side, each of which will have 17 stalls. Each individual
stall will be 12 feet square which will be connected to a 12 foot square run. The walls located
between the individual stalls and the breezeway will be 7.5 feet in height and solid construction.
Above these walls will be grillwork including for air circulation. The front of the stalls will
include a solid wall, 4.5 feet in height, upon which will be 4.5 feet of grill work for ventilation.
Refer to Figure 3 for the location and heights of the wall barriers. The noise from each horse
within the arena area is expected that the noise level generated will be about 56.9 dBA Leq at a
distance of five (5) feet.
4.2 Noise from the Barn
The barn lies along the northwest side. of the property, it will be built with 3/4" CDX
plywood core with 26 gauge zincalume sheet steel laminated to one side, and 26 gauge
zincalume embossed steel to the other side. The barn will be 204 long by 144 feet wide having
40 stalls (20 stalls on the north side and 20 stalls on the south side). Each individual stall will be
12 feet square which will be connected to a 12 foot square run. The walls located between the
individual stalls and the breezeway will be 7.5 feet in height and solid construction. Above these
walls will be grillwork including. for air circulation. The front of the stalls will include a solid
wall, 4.5 feet in height upon which will be 4.5 feet of grill work for ventilation. Refer to Figure
3 location -and heights of the wall barriers. From each individual horse stall it is expected that
the noise level generated will be about 55.9 dBA Leq at a distance of five (5) feet.
Ext -,rior Noise Analysis
TransWest Housing
7.5 ft solid wall barrier ,
o id wall barrier
'` Figure 3
L�rid.q � A�! Proposed Perimeter Barriers and Heights
N
s
w
w
s
w
s
s
7.5 ft solid wall barrier ,
o id wall barrier
'` Figure 3
L�rid.q � A�! Proposed Perimeter Barriers and Heights
Exterior Noise Analysis
TransWest Housing
4.3 Noise from Hot Walker
The Hot walker will lie on the northwestern part of the property. The Hot walker will be
a 50' round 6- hourse paneled walkers with galvanized panel horse fence having vinyl exterior.
The Hot walker will generate about 56.1 dBA Leq at a distance of thirty (30) feet. .
4.4 Noise from the Round pen
The round -pen will be located on the west side of the barn. It will be fifty (50) feet in
diameter and will have a slanted wall with 4' solid bottom and 4 -rail top -sand footing. Activities
within the round pen are expected to be about 60.8 dBA Leq at a distance of thirty (30) feet.
4.5 Noise from the Turnout Pastures
The turnout pastures will be located along the northeast part of the project site. There
will be eight (8) grass turnout areas, each one will be 100 feet long by 130 feet wide and will be
surrounded by a vinyl railed fence. Activities within each turnout pasture is expected to generate
about 58.8 dBA Leq at a distance of fifty -four (54) feet
4.6 Noise from the Vacuum Unit
The vacuum units will be placed in four different enclosed equipment rooms around the
project site. Two of the vacuum units will be placed within tack rooms in the stalls; one north of
the covered arena and the other south of the covered arena. The other two will be placed in
separate enclosed equipment rooms within the bam. . From field test data of similar types of
equipment, it is expected that the vacuum pump units will generate an unmitigated noise level of
86.3 dBA Leq at a distance of three (3) feet. Since the vacuum units will be located within
enclosed rooms, so the noise level from these units is expected to. be sufficiently mitigated.
Refer to Figure 4 for the location of the equipment rooms containing the vacuum pumps.
4.7 Noise from the Koolfog Spray pump
The Koolfog Spray system will be used to cool down the barn and the enclosed arena.
The Koolfog system is expected to include a total of ten (10) pumps located at three locations
throughout the project site. Six of the pumps will be located within the enclosed arena where
three (3) will be located in an enclosed equipment room in the north set of stalls, and three (3)
will be located in an enclosed equipment room in the south set of stalls. The other four pumps
will be placed inside the barn where there will be two equipment rooms each will have two
pumps. According to discussions with the manufacturer of the Koolfog spray system, the pumps
will generate a noise about 75 dBA Leq at a distance of three (3) feet. The location of the pumps
is presented in Figure 4. It is expected that these units will be located within enclosed rooms,
therefore the noise level from these units is expected to be sufficiently mitigated.
10
Exterior Noise Analysis
TransWest Housing
CL
O Koolfog Spray Pumps
O Vacuum Pumps
® Fly -Spray Pumps
Figure 4
Broefl�2�, Equipment Room Location
wva nnnnr
Exterior Noise Analysis
TransWest Housing
4.8 Noise from the Fly spray pump
The Fly spray pump will be located within separate enclosures both in the arena and the
barn. There will be four pumps total, two of which will be located in the arena are and two will
be in the bam area. Each pump of the Fly spray system is expected to generate approximately 75
dBA Leq at a distance of three (3) feet. Refer to Figure 4 for the location of the Fly spray
pumps. It is expected that these pumps will be located within enclosed rooms, therefore the
noise level from these units is expected to be sufficiently mitigated.
4.9 Noise from the Wash Racks /Grooming stations
There. will be two wash rack/grooming stations which will be located by the southwest
corner of the barn. Each wash rack/grooming station will have be 8' wide by 12' deep with a.10'
wall dividers, the bottom four feet of which will be solid. Activities at the wash rack will
generate a noise level of about 59.8 dBA Leq at a distance of five (5) feet. Activities at the
grooming station we be about 61.7 dBA Leq at a distance of five (5) feet.
All of the noise sources and the corresponding levels used to calculate the projected
noise throughout the project site are listed in Table 2. These values were entered into a noise
model which covers the entire project site in order to calculate the level all around the project.
As a worst case assumption, it was expected that all of the activities listed above would be
occurring at the same time. The results of the calculations are presented as lines, or contours, of
equal loudness plotted over the entire project site, and these contours are presented in Figure 5.
These contours take into account all of the sources and all of the noise barriers described above.
S
Table 2
Source Noise Levels
Source
Noise Level
(Lech
Reference
Distance
Source
Height
Hot Walker.
56.1 dBA
30 feet
3 feet
Wash Racks
59.8 dBA
5. feet
5 feet
Horse in Arena
. 56.9 dBA
4 feet
7 feet
Turn Outs
58.8 dBA
54 feet
5 feet
Grooming Racks
61.7 dBA
6 feet
5 feet
Round Pen
60.8 dBA
30 feet
5 feet
Horse in stall
55.9 dBA
5 feet
5 feet
Fly Spray pump
75.0 dBA
3 feet
3 feet
Koolfog pump
75.0 dBA
3 feet
3' feet
Vacuum (Unit)
86.3 dBA
3 feet
4 feet
12
Exterior poise Analysis
Tran;West Housing
41 --
Figure 5
Brid Total Noise Contours (dBA Leq)
4.10 Total Noise Level
The total noise exposure level will consist of the sum of the noise sources combined on
an energy basis. Figure 5 shows the location of the 45, 50, 55, and 60 dBA Leq noise contours
overlaid on the site plan. The worst case of noise exposure will exist at the southern portion of
the project site and will be less than 50 dBA.
Since the projected noise level from all of the activities at the Saddle Club are expected to
be less than 50 dBA Leq, the nighttime noise ordinance level for residential land uses, exterior
noise mitigation measures will not be required for the project.