Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout60-62 W Civic Center Plaza - Soils ReportICG --/ incorporated Corporate Office: 15 Mason Irvine, CA 92718 714/951-8686 fax 714/951-7969 September 25, 1992 Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Orange County Offices·Log No: 2-2662 Construction Inspection and Testing:City of Santa Ana, 2992 La Palma,Public Works Agency; Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 P.O. Box 1988 M-21 714/632-2980 Santa Ana, California 92702 fax: 714/632-9209 Geotechnical: 15 Mason Irvine, CA 92718 714/951-8686 fax: 714/951-7969 Inland Empire Office: 1906 Orange Tree Lane, i Suite 240 1 Redlands, CA 92374 714/792-4222 fax: 714/798-1844 Attention: SUBJECT: REFERENCES: Mr. David Niknafs, P.E. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Detention Facility Santa Ana, California See Appendix A San Diego County Office: 9240 Trade Place, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92126 619/536-1102 fax: 619/536-1306 Gentlemen: 1.INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose a.This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed Detention Facility near the intersection of Santa Ana Boulevard and Ross Street in the City of Santa Ana. b. The purpose of our Geotechnical Investigation is to provide geotechnical design parameters and recommendations for development of the site. Geotechnical Services, Construction Inspection and Testing *U ·"f'P ?'142 M 29 - 09 City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 2 Our conclusions and recommendations relating to site grading,foundations,slabs-on-grade, retaining structures and pavements are presented herein. C.For our investigation we were supplied with the following plans: i. Site Plan,Detention Facility,Santa Ana, California,scale 1 inch:8 feet,dated September 3,1992, prepared by Fibrebond Corporation. ii.Grading Plan, Detention Facility, Santa Ana, California,scale 1 inch:16 feet,dated September 3,1992, prepared by ,Fibrebond Corporation. This plan was used as a base for our Boring Location Plan, Figure 3. d. Preliminary recommendations were supplied to you upon completion of the field exploration and laboratory testing. 1.2 Site Location/Description a. The Detention Facility building, with associated improvements, including asphalt concrete pavement and landscape areas, is to be located on Ross Street; northwest of the intersection with Santa Ana Boulevard.(See Figure 1, Location Map). h!, li ...+ -1 ¥/.1 -!6910115#EL.,1 '49 9 Mri SY¢.022 21 I8 -1*_14 in 2 9-Ip 14 I c,„n. a ,2 M -4 2 Mr" =5T I LTI11 & " 27" PAL• 51 , Fe•11 ·-*.0ae4m,2- 1000 C- 1 ' - "O 8((0 JALNUT OF'Pl :PE HE! ™11 Z •C•Or,U, :A¥ t' _t 3 1 -5 a---Tri--14&-i= 4,-d-*M . 9* 1 ./DUM . m Mfv , I. 5 wet..,A - § 0[VERLY . - .L ... , A- 4 1 1 12 -cum= .8 - 100 i 1 - I MCFADDEP *-1 /f*0 2 0 r =w E t.15*· -7, - +. 5 = 8 81.5-1 - 10 R 1 z x S @ 1 ST rf -). 4 1 :2 .4 *-J. 92'.a ¥ E[ ING 0 1 Ay -1 EDINGEM STINFC'ID ST d . ST •010., BERKEL :Y / Occlo;• 0/1,0/•TAL U -- -I-- ---& _E-zjh -_-5:.94+ , -GLE••000 Gl --8 .ED = 1 , a F k Im i.0.- . 9744 0 Mc:ADDO 6 18 RUSS[U IM Wili 110. r 7; Pr rIE raill 71 /8- 16 -**re. - I . .V H A 1- 1 - 0.= Z AV SYCAWORE WARNER .1 1. 4 0 GRAND 61 4 I .2. 1/0 .Al RIm,00 .0 --61-1 @68 4-116-.AD.2# 5-"' il.01jS&.- --14:-f= 13-§47*41;*2E:*.- -2- + i-lar*n- =,F, 2 +4. t /4...'· ·9?-40:47.6277 N 0 2000 4000 . FEET SOURCE: ORANGE COUNTY 1989 THOMAS GUIDE. PAGE 23 LOCATION MAP --JOB NO.:DATE:FIGURE: 01-3058-002-01-00 SEPTEMBER 1992 1 ICG Incorporated -- -0 City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 3 b.The subject site is approximately 3/4 of an acre in size, and was previously occupied by a Police Station Annex, which has been demolished. The site has recently been regraded to a near-level condition and site grades are at approximately the same elevation as Ross Street.Low height (<10 feet) down-slopes border the property on the south and west. c. i. The regrading was done under the observation and testing of NorCal Engineering.Their report, Reference 13, was received by us on September 24, 1992. ii.The report states that the site was overexcavated to competent material,, and that fill was then placed to grade, a minimum relative compaction of 90% being achieved in the fill. d.A retaining wall, with a maximum retained height of approximately 5 feet, is present along a portion of the west margin of the site. 1.3 Proposed Development It is our understanding that the proposed Detention Facility will consist of 2-story pre-fabricated concrete jail cells, with a 1-story administration building of conventional construction, slab-on-grade floors and paved parking areas. -- -I - .*-. City of Santa Ana . Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 4 1.4 Scope of Services The scope of services provided during the course of this investigation included: a.Review of previous geotechnical and seismological reports and maps pertinent to the subject site. b.A subsurface investigation consisting of the drilling of 3 exploratory boreholes by our Geotechnical Engineer, which included obtaining soil samples for laboratory testing. C.Laboratory testing of soil samples considered representative of subsurface conditions. d.Soil engineering and geologic analyses of field and laboratory data. e.Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations. 1.5 Authorization This investigation, as outlined in our Proposal No. P-OR- 2-3034,dated September 4,1992,was performed in accordance with the written authorization dated September 16, 1992. City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 5 2.FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM a.The field exploration program, and the Logs of Borings, are presented in Appendix A. b. The approximate location of the borings are shown on the Boring Location Plan, Figure 3. 3.LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Selected samples considered representative of surface and subtsurface conditions were tested to obtain or derive relevant soil engineering properties.Descriptions of the tests, and the results, are given in Appendix C. 4.GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 4.1 General a.The site was previously graded to its existing condition which is at approximately the same elevation as Ross Street. b.The site is relatively level. 4.2 Fill a.The entire site is underlain by compacted fill soils.Fill encountered in our borings ranged from 3 to 4.5 ft in depth.Noreal Engineering reported - City of Santa Ana Job No:01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 6 placing fill to a maximum depth of 8 ft (Reference 13).The range could therefore be from 3 to 8 ft. b. Fill materials generally consist of silty sand, moderately moist and medium dense which appears to be compacted to at least 90 percent of relative compaction in the building area.However in the proposed parking lot, the upper layer of fill appeared to be loose at the time of our field work. 4.3 Natural Ground The natural ground below the fill at the site consists generally of silty sand, sandy silt and fine sand to a depth of at least 40 feet, the maximum depth drilled in our subsurface exploration. , 5.SEISMICITY 5.1 General The site is located in the seismically active Southern California region.There are, however, no known active faults on or immediately adjacent to the site. The site is located outside of any fault hazard zones as designated by the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972.Figure 2 shows the site in relation to known active faults. --4 *- -- -- - A- --- i --i-Ill i ---I-- - 0 OIL••0 1.4 '... 1••Ilt,• , .••t••'11,0 >5 J (If)-1 1 0 -9 1 ..21. il JFD 1 1 ·li 1 \ ...0 2....:\ ?f .....1, 10 __...Ci76-1 /•41• ./U' ...0. VICTOMV*,0 0 WI•10• •000 L••1 ...Or'.0 •ID 110 .IA. A CI1¥*000,AND AIN .·S-46.0.......01/00 ....101 0 ..L. D...., ,•&0 r.cLI.1.,1 SITE ..t,0. 10i >. i SCO•Di,O1 -4--- (>4232 -i - :Sqx1...40 1 0 /20 I i 1.1- 4 % JOB NO.:DATE:FIGURE:01-3058-002-01-00 SEPTEMBER 1992 2 -iia,co REGIONAL FAULT MAP ICG Incorporated \Ah h\\ City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 7 5.2 Earthquake Effects 5.2.1 Surface Fault Rupture As previously mentioned, no active faults are known to cross or lie within the limits of the property.Therefore, the hazard of surface fault rupture at the site is considered to be nil. 5.2.2 Earthquake Accelerations a.We have analyzed the possible earthquake accelerations at the site and determined that,for the intended use, the most significant event would be a 6.9 magnitude earthquake occurring in the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone (Everndon, 3.¥.and Thomson,J.M.,1985;and Wesnousky,S.G.,1986).The accelerations produced at the site by a maximum credible magnitude 6.9 earthquake on this fault would equal or exceed in intensity and duration those of events on any other known fault. b.A magnitude 6.9 earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone could produce a peak ground acceleration on the order of 0.35g at the site (See H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1982) with the duration of strong motion exceeding 30 seconds (Bolt, City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 8 B.A., 1973).Peak acceleration is not, however, always representative of the accelerations for which structures are actually designed (Ploessel, M.R., and Slosson, J.E., 1974).Repeatable high ground acceleration from a 6.9 magnitude earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is estimated to be on the order of 0.23g. C.Estimated seismic parameters for other major, regionally active and potentially active faults are summarized on Table 1, Seismicity for Major Faults. 6.GROUNDWATER Groundwater was not encountered during our field investigation. Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Log No: 2-2662 SEISMICITY FOR MAJOR FAULTS TABLE 1 Duration ofDistance (km)Maximum Probable Earthquake Maximum Credible Earthquake Strong Ground Modifiedand MercalliMotiorFaultDirectionl 3 Peak 5 Repeat 6 4 5Peak Repeat (sec.)Intensity8MagAccel(g)Accel(g)Mag Accel(g)Accel(g)6 Newport-Inglewood 7.4 SWZ 6.5 .30 .20 6.9 .35 .23 30 VI 11 Whittier-Elsinore 20 NE 6.7 .21 .14 7.3 .25 .17 30 vIII Palos Verdes 24 SW 6.4 .19 .13 7.0 .23 .15 25 vII Malibu Coast/Santa 47 SW 6.6 .10 .10 6.9 .14 .14 23 VIIMonica/Raymond Sierra Madre/San 55 NW 6.5 Fernando 4 .08 .08 6.63 .09 .09 15 VII San Jacinto 62 NE 7,04 .10 .10 7.23 .11 .11 24 VII San Andreas 68 NE 8.2 .15 .15 8.2 .15 .15 30 VII 1. Jennings, C.W., 1975 2, Barrows, A.G., 1974 3. Everndon, J.F., and Thomson, J.M., 1985 4. Wesnousky, S.G., 1986 5. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1982; and Seed, H.B. et al, 1975 6. Ploessel, M.R. and Slosson, J.E., 1974 7. Bolt, B.A., 1973 8. Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants . · ' • - -01.'127·'- ,. City of Santa Ana ..f.;' .:. P., U. f.Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 71%7 September 25, 1992 : :1.-14.Log No: 2-2662 Page 9 . . . 1.4-44.' 7.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 General :1 • i•. 2.i:. 4.4 .. 4 a.Based on the results of: . our review, it is' our . 2·20£'4 opinion that the proposed development is feasible:., 04>·:; 11.from a geotechnical engineering standpdint,1 , 2.-0 ; provided that the recommendations of this report iti]' are implemented during design,grading .and f :RE:.6 construction. b.We are of the opinion that the proposed structures .4 i can be supported on shallow pad and continuous . ·i .footings founded in compacted fill. «6 ir C.We consider that the anticipated grading will not adversely affect, nor be adversely affected by, adjoining property, with due precautions being taken. d.The design recommendations in this report should be reviewed during the grading phase when soil conditions in the excavations become exposed. e.The foundation plans/design loads,should be reviewed by the Soil Engineer. f. General geotechnical considerations applicable to site grading and recommendations for the design and construction of the project are discussed'below. 4- ··; .4*. *i, *ma@eiCity of Santa Ana Job No: 01-30584002,01.-00 :'-3.02' 1 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 .. Page 10 7.2 Grading 7.2.1 General .'..0.: I ,z I .····-· 2..·If·.-·-P .-9 All grading and earthwork shouldf i .be .3 0 * -accomplished in accordance :with .. the 9.4:h recommendations herein and the grading requirements of the regulating agency. i·>5:Z 7.2.2 Site Clearing a.Prior to grading,the areas to be , developed for structures, pavements and other improvements should be stripped of any vegetation and cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, including any existing foundations,utility lines, basements,septic tanks,pavements, stockpiled fills, and miscellaneous debris. b.All pipelines encountered during grading should be relocated as necessary and be completely removed from construction areas or be cut and plugged according to applicable code requirements. C.Debris and rubble from clearing operations should be removed from the site. 40 1.:. 4 -I .t,-- City of Santa Ana September 25, 1992 ; 2 - ./ Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Log No: 2-2662 Page 11 7.2.3 Preparation of On-Site Soils 3-4. a. ,Reworking of the :existing on-site , soils will not be required within building areas:subject . to review during construction and to the recommendations in b and c below, and in Subsection 7.4b (Notes). b.There should be at least 1 foot of compacted fill material under slabs and under footings, extending at least 1 foot beyond the perimeter of footings.The intent of the above recommendation is to provide uniform bearing characteristics within the building area.It is anticipated that this requirement will be met by the existing in-place fill. C.In the proposed parking area,we recommend that the upper 12 to 18 inches of the subgrade soil should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. d.Any loosening of reworked or native material, consequent to the passage of construction traffic, weathering, etc., should be made good prior to further construction. e.The depths of reworking should be /----m2 -v-/0-- -r- .....1- ·----Il --I-*-I.- ---I-.Il ---- ----). t 4 City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002201-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 12 reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer during the actual construction. .Any surface or subsurface obstructions;.or questionable material encountered during grading, should be brought immediately to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer for proper exposure, removal and processing as directed. 7.2.4 Fill Placement and Compaction a.Material to be compacted or reworked should be moisture-conditioned or dried to achieve near-optimum conditions, and compacted to attain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, based on ASTM: D 1557.The placement moisture content of import material should be evaluated prior to grading. b. Fill should be compacted by mechanical means in uniform horizontal loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. c. All fills should be placed and all grading performed in accordance with the requirements of the regulating agency. 7.2.5 Fill Material a. Both imported and existing on-site soils to be used as fill should be free of i ©-4. f .· 1 .1 9 :.. .. .A T7 .. 1. .:. 4 - t... City of Santa Ana -1 I. -·70Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 4,€Log No: 2-2662 Page 13 debris, , organics (exceeding 31 %) and cobbles, > over 6 inches in maximum dimen- sion. r b. Imported. fill material should be approved by the Soil-Engineer prior to importing. Soils having a significant expansion potential should not be used as import fill. ·The Soil Engineer should be notified not less than 72 hours in advance of the location of any soil or base course material proposed for import. Each proposed import source should be sampled, tested and approved by the Soil Engineer prior to delivery of soils for use on the site. 7.2.6 Excavating Conditions a.We anticipate that excavation of on-site materials may be accomplished with stan- dard earthmoving or trenching equipment. b. Groundwater was not encountered in the course of this investigation, and is not expected to affect grading operations. 7.2.7 Expansive Soils a. Based on the tested Expansion Index, the Expansivity of the on-site soils is rated Very Low. - I 7--• .--Ill- .-1-Il. ------ .-Ii--*- --- City of Santa Ana r Job No: 01-3058-002-01-0 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 14 b.The design/construction recommendations should be reviewed critically if significantly higher Expansion Indices . . 1 -4are obtained.) 7.2.8 Sulfate Content Laboratory tests performed on representative samples of the on-site soils indicate that the sulfate content of the surface soils is less than the 0.2 percent which is indicative of an adverse sulfate condition.Type II cement is therefore considered adequate for concrete in contact with on-site soil. 7.2.9 Utility Trenches a.Bedding material should consist of sand with an SE not less than 30, which may then be jetted.(Jetting may not be effective if adequate drainage is not available.) b.Existing soils may be utilized for trench backfill,provided they are free of organic materials and rocks over 6 inches in diameter. C.Backfill of all exterior and interior trenches should be compacted to achieve a relative compaction of not less than 90 percent, the compaction standard being - Ill--0. 4- - I.--*.£*.:D *14'f City of Santa Ana c Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 15 obtained per ASTM: D 1557.Care should be taken not to damage utility lines. d. Alternatively, backfill may be jetted if sand of an SE not less than 30 is used. (Jetting may not be effective if adequate drainage is not available.)However, jetting is not permissible if the trench is located on a slope face. e.Trenches should be capped with 1.51 feet of relatively impermeable soil. f. Jetting in trenches adjacent to buildings or slopes should be carried out only under the specific approval of the Soil Engineer. 7.2.10 Surface Drainage a.Pad drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from structures to approved drainage facilities.A minimum gradient of 21 percent should be maintained,and drainage should be directed toward approved swales or drainage facilities. b.Drainage patterns approved at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life Of proposed structures. -r . I- City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 1 Log No: 2-2662 Page 16 7.3 Slabs-On-Grade a.Concrete floor slabs · may be : founded on the existing compacted fill soils.The' subgrade should be proof- rolled just prior to construction to provide a firm, relatively unyielding surface, especially if the surface has been loosened by the passage of construction traffic. b. If a floor covering that would be critically affected by moisture is to be used, a 10-mil plastic vapor barrier is recommended.This sheeting should be covered with 2 inches of sand. C.The subgrade should be presoaked as follows; With Very High and High expansivity soil -5 percentage points above optimum, or to 125% of optimum,whichever is greater; to 2 feet depth. With Medium expansivity soil -5 percentage points above optimum, or to 125% of optimum, whichever is greater; to 1.5 feet depth With Low expansivity soil -4 percentage points above optimum, or to 120% optimum, whichever is greater; to 1 foot depth d. Slabs should be at least 4 inches thick (nominal). Joints should be provided per usual practice. e. Slabs should be underlain by 6 inches of granular base, with subgrade soils of Very High Expansivity.4 inches .-I .-I.-- -. City of Santa Ana - Job No: 01-3058-002201-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 17 of granular base should be provided with soils of Medium and High expansivity, and 2 inches of granular base with subgrade soils of Low expansivity.(Aggregate base is recommended to be used where the thickness of the base layer is greater than 2 inches.)The base is separate from the sand layer recommended in b. above. f. Minimum steel should be provided in slabs-on-grade, as follows: With Very High expansivity soil - 4x4-W4xW4 WWF With Medium to High expansivity soil - 6x6-W2.9xW2.9 WWF With less expansive soil - 6x6-Wl.4xWl.4 WWF (Note: Though the expansivity of the soils in the upper layer has been rated Very Low, recommendations for soils of higher expansivities have been provided as a contingency measure.) 7.4 Foundations The proposed structures of the type anticipated, can be founded on shallow spread footings.The criteria presented below should be adopted: 4- -- + 4City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-'01-00 September 25, 1992 · 1- ' .Log No: 2-2662 Page 18 a.Dimensions/Embedment Depths Min. Embedment Minimum Minimum below lowest Width Thickness -adjacent grade (ft)(in) (ft) Expansivity Verv Low-Low Medium High Verv High Equivalent 1-story 1 6 exterior 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 wall footings interior 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 (supporting 1 floor) Equivalent 2-story 1.25 7 exterior 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 footings interior 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 (supporting 2 floors) Retaining walls -Per (to 5 feet in height)Structural 1.5 1.5 2.0 2:5 5 + to 8 feet Design 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 8 + to 12 feet 2.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 Square column footings - (to 50 kip)2.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 b. Allowable Bearing Capacity Embedment Allowable Bearing (ft)Capacity (lb/ft2) 1.0 1 2.0 2 ,500 ,000 (The minimum recommended depth of embedment is 2 feet forexterior wall footings.) (Notes: o The values obtained per item b. above may beincreased by one-third in the case of short- duration loads, such as induced by wind or seismicforces. L-* -I .......... I.---Il- ---I--* Wil--*.- City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002101-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 19 o The values obtained per item b. above apply to both square pad footings and shallow strip footings, although they are slightly conservative for the strip footing case. o Provide minimum steel in continuous footings as follows: With Very High expansivity soil - 4x#5 bars, 2 on top and 2 at the bottom. With High expansivity soil - 4x#4 bars, 2 on top and 2 at the bottom. With less expansive soil - 2x#4 bars, 1 on top and 1 at the bottom. o Bearing capacities should be re-evaluated when loads have been obtained and footings sized. o In the event that footings are founded in ' structural fill consisting of imported materials, the allowable bearing capacities will depend on the type of these materials,and should be re- evaluated. o A concrete moisture cutoff barrier, consisting of a tie beam or thickened slab edge extending to a corresponding minimum depth of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade, should be provided between exterior individual footings. o The heavier column footings should be connected by grade beams. o Planter areas should not be sited adjacent to walls:otherwise, measures should be implemented to contain irrigation water and prevent it from seeping into walls and under foundations. o Embedment depths should not be allowed to be affected adversely,such as through erosion, softening, digging, etc. o Footing excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer. o Foundation plans and loads should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer. ... City of Santa Ana AJob No: 01-3058-002-01-00 .1.-· September 25, 1992 U,og No: 2-2662 Page 20 o Foundations adjacent to downslopes should be located at a depth such that the horizontal setback of the leading edge of the bottoms of footings from the competent face of the slope is 1/2 x slope height, and at least 6 feet. The distance need not exceed 15 feet. 0 In the event that cut-fill transitions occur due to uneven topography, embedment depths of footings, modifications to construction plans or for any other reasons,the structural area should be overexcavated and recompacted to a depth of 3 feet below pad grade, and to at least 1 foot below footings: extending to 5 feet beyond the building perimeter.) 7.5 Settlements Total and differential settlements due to footing loads are not expected to exceed 1 inch, and 1/2 in. for the anticipated column spacings and loads, respectively. These preliminary estimates have been obtained by analysis, and should be reviewed by the Soil Engineer when foundation plans for the proposed structures are finalized. (The recent regrading did not result in significant surcharge load being applied to the underlying soil, inasmuch as the fill which had been in place previously was overexcavated and recompacted.) 7.6 Retaining Structures/Lateral Forces a. The following lateral pressures are recommended for the design of retaining structures with backfill soils of expansivity not higher than Medium. .,f. .-I City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002201-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 21 Soil Pressure - flb/ftz/ft depth) Soil Rigidly Type Profile Unrestrained Wall Supported Wall Active Pressure Level 45 - 2:1 upslope 60 At-Rest Pressure Level 70 2:1 upslope 100 Passive Resistance Level 350 150 (ignore upper 0.5 ft)2:1 downslope 175 75 b. Friction coefficient - 0.40 c. Where both friction and the passive resistance are utilized for sliding resistance, either of the values indicated should be reduced by 1/3. d. These are ultimate values. e.Pressure due to any surcharge loads from adjacent footings,traffic,etc.,should be analyzed separately. Pressures due to these'loadings can be supplied upon receipt of the appropriate plans and loads. 7.7 Backfill a.Backfill should be placed under engineering control. b. It is recommended that granular, or relatively low- expansivity, backfill be utilized, for a width equal to approximately 1/3 x wall height, and not less than 1.5 feet, subject to review during -il---- -Ii- City of Santa Ana September 25, 1992 Job No: 01-3058-062 Log No: 2-2662 Page 22 -bi-00 construction.(This is to reduce lateral pressures.) C.The granular backfill should be capped with at least 18 inches of relatively impermeable material. d.Backfill should be compacted to achieve a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, the compaction standard being obtained in accordance with ASTM: D 1557. e.Precautions should be taken to ensure that heavy compaction equipment is not used immediately adjacent to walls, so as to prevent undue pressures against, and movement of, the walls. f. The use of water-stops/impermeable barriers should be considered for any basement construction, and for building walls which retain earth. 7.8 Backfill Drainaqe a. i. Subdrains should be provided in the backfill, or weepholes/weepslits should be provided in retaining walls.(It is recommended that subdrains be provided for walls over 51 feet high, for retaining walls which form part of a building structure, and where any staining or efflorescence due to dripping from weepholes/weepslits would be aesthetically unacceptable.) L-- &--- ..'--Il. -- ------ *./.I.*.- .. 1. . 1. 1 Jr•9 1 City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002201-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 23 ii.Weepholes/weepslits should be per OCEMA Standard Plans. 4 5 'f -L iii. Subdrains should be per Subsections b) to f) ' below. b.Subdrains should consist of 4-inch diameter Schedule 40, PVC pipe or equivalent, embedded in approximately 3 ft3/linear foot of Class 2 Permeable Material or equivalent, with the pipe being 61 inches above the trench bottom; a gradient of 11% being provided to the pipe and trench bottom;discharging into suitably protected outlets. C.3/4-inch down open-graded gravel, enveloped in Supac 5NP geofabric filter or equivalent, may be used instead of the Class 2 Permeable Material. d. Perforations in subdrains are )recommended as follows:3/8-inch diameter, in 2 rows at the ends of a 120' arc, at 3-inch centers in each row, staggered between rows, placed downward. e.Subdrains placed behind retaining walls should be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to the placement of fill. f. An unobstructed outlet should be provided at the lower end of each segment of subdrain.The outlet should consist of an unperforated pipe of the same diameter, connected to the perforated pipe and L- --- S: AS5,1.Wr:* A ,- City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01400 3%September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 1. ., Page 24 extended to a protected outlet at a lower -,lie..' ' elevation, on a continuous gradient of at least:41 104.- UL percent. 7.9 Footings - Retaining Walls ..1 1 196.r a.Footings should be embedded to minimum depths below 21.7 lowest adjacent grade, as indicated in Subsection 13- j r- 7.4. b.Setbacks from tops of slopes should be as indicated in Subsection 7.4.b, Notes. c. The allowable bearing capacity may be taken as indicated in Subsection 7.4.b.,subject to stability requirements. d.Retaining walls situated at the tops of slopes should be reviewed/analyzed for overall slope stability.Setbacks,embedmen't depths and allowable bearing pressures may need to be modified accordingly. 7.10 Seismicitv Structures should be designed for seismic forces in accordance with UBC Section 2312, for Zone 4: or in terms of Subsection 5.2.2, whichever is considered applicable by the designer. .1.InG'' k...h - -- -I - -- -- *- - --- -- ------- -- City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 25 7.11 Pavements 7.11.1 Asphalt Concrete Pavement a.Based on an R-Value of 25 and on the Traffic Indices (TI) provided by you, the following pavement sections are recommended: Crushed AC Aggregate Surface Course Base Location/Pavement Utilization TI fin)Course(in) Auto Parking/Driveways 5.5 4 7 (Note: With the TI of 5.5, the minimum pavement section required would be 4 inch of AC, over 6 inch of AB; however the indicated section is based on yourrecommendations for the type of facility proposed.) b.The subgrade should be compacted to achieve a relative compaction of at least 90 percent through the upper 12 inches. C.The Aggregate Base should be compacted to achieve a relative compaction of at least 95 percent. d. Base material should meet the require- ments of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book) for Crushed Aggregate Base.Compaction standards for the subgrade and the base course should be obtained in accordance with ASTM: D 1557. L- -. I- ---.0 -:. 1,<lf .... 4 4, City of Santa Ana ' No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 ·''72' :-3, fy*No: 2-2662 Page 26 e. The R-value should be obtained at the conclusion' ofagrading and the design paving secti6n, should then be reviewed. 1. r 7.11.2 Exterior Concrete Flatwork a. The long-term performance of exterior concrete flatwork at the site will be influenced by any expansive soils. Positive drainage and maintaining soil moisture at above optimum conditions prior to pouring concrete will help improve the performance of concrete flatwork at the site. b.Concrete flatwork should be divided into as nearly square panels as possible. Frequent joints should be provided to give articulation to the concrete panels. Landscaping and planters adjacent to concrete flatwork should be designed in such a manner as to direct drainage away from concrete areas to approved outlets. C.It is assumed that flatwork will be sub- jected only to pedestrian traffic. -- - I-' -City of Santa Ana „ Job No: 01-3058-002101-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 27 A , ·- r 7.12 Subsequent Grading Operations Prior to the commencement of additional grading opera- tions on-site, including precise grading of building and pavement areas, as well as backfilling of trenches, the Soil Engineer should be notified to provide appropriate recommendations and observation and testing services as required. l f 84 4City of Santa Ana b No: 01-3058-002601 September 25, 1992 g No: 2-2662 -00 L Page 28 8. LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION lit'... 44MZDE € 1 , T e .a. Our investigation was performed in accordance with the 12*''r.usual and current standards .of the profession, as they relate to this and similar localities.No other warranty, expressed or implied, is provided as' to the conclusions and professi6nal advice presented in this report. b.The samples taken and tested, and the observations made, are considered to be representative of the site; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between sample locations. C.As in most projects,conditions revealed during construction excavation may be at variance with preliminary findings.If this occurs, the changed con- ditions must be evaluated by the Project Soil Engineer and the Geologist, and revised recommendations be pro- vided as required. d. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility Of the Owner,or of his Representative,to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the Architect and Engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and that it is ensured that the Contractor and Subcontractors implement such recommendations in the field. e. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering.We do not direct the Contractor's--I. .--- -.- 292·,, .t. , ...In City of Santa Ana September 25, 1992 r Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Log No: 2-2662 Page 29 operations, and we are not responsible for other than our own personnel on the site; therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the Contractor.The Contractor should notify the Owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. f. The findings of this report are considered valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a site can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural events or to human activities on this or adjacent sites. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate codes and standards may occur, whether they t result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. g. Accordingly, this report may become invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are identified. L----- Ill-- .%.Ivill --i-I-- Il.--- I-* --- - - - City of Santa Ana - Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 30 The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, ICG INCORPORATED \ r. HUGH A.«.1 MARLEY 3* 6. #67 .,1Hugh A. Marley@h.Rp.,C1RE39*»95C , Thomas G. Hill, C.E.G. 1100GE 2034 #GE 2934 ;i; Vice President/Chief Geologist President/Chie'A ungineer f '; Registration expires 6/30/95Registration e*kih;s:b 9/30/95,72,1,/ Z 0 r r n Men 4 1 4 Ame. .,0 Project Engineer TGH:ADE:HAM:gof Attachments: 1.Figure 1 - Location Map 2.Figure 2 - Regional Fault Map 3. Table 1 - Seismicity for Major Faults 4.Figure 3 - Boring Location Plan 5.Appendix A - References 6. Appendix B - Field Exploration Programs 7.Appendix C - Laboratory Testing Programs Distribution:(4)Addressee L---- -/ I- - 1- - - 6. . 'Al ... 0,4 I·175 kfiG*I--' , ' .2.OCUU NANK_ --:*--i j lNli lill i li ill i i lit .Illill/114*/ "' /4.4 o»»f.·.s-.DC· y .:*0;*88* 99 111,L!11 1 11'111!11!11111111111111111111Th N F=-AM#4M*F J. .1.b /1 } ..S - ' il te I -'.Al./-95:ip 94·322ft 2.#ik·.i,1'lk - ,6 4 ./.6 • 9 1.y'..4 ,!.,.13'!' 2LE:-- ....6....... ...1 f.. 91111NHIIHII r, -- i / 41 Ed\,5 4 - C exs, cs».s-.sc'..) / € exer co#*'280== ROSS STREET EXPLANATION APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING 0 40 80 1 i-* FEET SOURCE: GRADING PLAN PREPARED BY FIBREBOND CORPORATION, DATED 3 SEPT. 92, JOB NO. 92-257, SHEET SP2 OF 20 SHEETS .. BORING LOCATION PLAN-PROPOSED DETENTION FACILITY-SANTA ANA JOB NO.:DATE:FIGURE:01-3058-002-01-00 SEPTEMBER 1992 31, Incorporated' 54.. 61*AddtwAL,*p# d.:.4 '40*Ulk UZi,L.., 44*6 4 -- e :(445*'9: - ,/EN¥>4102 4¢'.:2-,1 '.'jitl '.1. C .20.€. L. 4 r Job No: 01-3058-002-01-04 Log No: 2-2662 0 »idr' '- 74 -?#900 41... 114. 1 ...... 1 , APPENDIX A ' . 4. - .*)'4. 4 , 41 /4.9* .'4·.1.·461 · : 1' r.• 1 - 1 42 14 I REFERENCES .y *1 : 998'iii L- .- i I .1 •17;, . .. Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 ·CE*¥'ti*f ·j*li , , Log No:.2-266,2C-i, 1:.w#8?te -4 · -, pagk *2 ' . 4/m,41.,l-?.2 - 94'91:liqxlial"WWK#ij>'*;t„.1}es '.1 :49*fr,re'4,- 6*c.·N,·,i p - Wrk gem=*,€»gl»-1 REFERENCES'-f' ·ip lor0 1 '1-- ..ft '*6i.f.ffi. kift..2.84 4. 44, 1. Barrows, A.G., 1974, A Review of' thel Geology and Earthquakd ' 9#ff.2,6 History of the Newport-Inglewood, Structural zone, Southern ip., . California, California Division'.off: Mikies and Geology*Speciai Report, 114.7 9 -' ··'?·' *--·· >·*,t.41.,1.14·. t... · . 4;4• :t't' 4-4..'. ,G'02.1;NAL- .'...26, 1,-4 '*C 2. M,¥0, -'·(-6'*>9,4 - 71¥ 1,44 *.Bolt, B.A., 1973, DurationfofFStrong¢,Ground Motion:': P*6< Fifth World Conference on Earthquake}}Engineering, Paper 292, Rome €' 3 2 2.06 1.-,.r ; 4 t' rr 3. Evenden, J. F. and Thomson,+J.,M., '1985, =Predicting< SeismicIntensities," Evaluating Earthquake<' Hazards in the Los,*99>,349**%4244Angeles Region - An Earth Science Perspective, Ziony.'. J.94****81¢: Aed., U.S. Geological Survey Prof: Paper 1360, pp. 174-175'.4:31'(*'71:<f:-··> 4. Hileman, J. A., Allen, C. R., and Nordquist, J. M., 1973, Seismicity of the Southern California Region, 1 Jan. 1932 to .,<ib; iff31 Dec. 1972: Calif. Inst. Tech. Geol. & Planet. Sciences;:it #99·©4'Contkibution #2385, 64 pp./42 ' -' -,1, 5. Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault Map of California, California 11Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 1. 6. Miller, R. V. and Tan, S. S., 1976:Geology and EngineeringGeologic Aspects of the South Half Tustin Quadrangle, Orange County, California; C.D.M.G. Special Report 126; Pp. 28. 7. Ploessel, M. R. and Slossen, J. E., 1974, "Repeatable High Ground Accelerations from Earthquakes," California Geology, September, pp.195-199. 8. Seed, H.B., Murarka, R., Lysmer, J., Idriss, I.M., 1975, Relationships Between Maximum Acceleration, Maximum Velocity, Distance from Source and Local Site Conditions For Moderately Strong Earthquakes:Earthquake EngineeringResearch Center Report No. 75-17, Berkeley, California. ----- - I- 'J>:EA ·69 /·,·1*Ft ,·jie--:f. Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Log No:- 2-2662 24 Page A-3 4 -y». 7,3, .1*buRRA&+V* REFERENCES (Continued) ti.· C 9. Sprotte, E. C. et al, 1980:Classification and Mapping of Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits for Purposes of Seismic Zonation, South Coastal Los Angeles Basin, Orange County, Cali fornia; CDMG Open File Report 80-19L.A.; pp. 268. £/.4,£ ' 10. Wesnousky, S. G., 1986: Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazard in Southern California; Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 91, No. 812, p. 12,587-12,631.14 ·th 4 , f'I -4 . 11.Yerkes, R.F., McCulloh, T.H., Schoellhamer, J.E., and Vedder, J.G., 1965, Geology of the Los Angeles Basin California - An Introduction: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-A. 12.Ziony, J. I. and Yerkes, R. F., 1985, "Evaluating Earthquake and Surface-Faulting Potential," Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region - An earth science perspective, Ziony, J. I.ed., U.S.Geological Survey Prof.Paper 1360, p. 43. 13.NorCal Engineering, 1992: Observation and Testing of Grading Operations Project No. 3966-92/August 10, 1992. t -- Job No: 01-3058-002-01 Log No:22-2662.1 *f., 4*s<' APPENDIX/B <:i.I. 1; 1 •'T. -,4 941 14 84» r ,''V *Umy, FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM .: 1 .g t>4 1.Sections B-1 to B-8 Field Exploration Procedures -/ Page 8-2 *,·f 2.Figure B-0 Key to Logs 3.Figures B-1.1 through B-3.1 Logs of Borings B-1 through B-3 l L. .-I -- #--i--I--- i--I--I- :t-,to. 4-4 ·ftffit f-/ Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Page B-2 , r 1 99.t.12 1. . h FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES 1 .C 59 B-1. The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling 3 bucket-auger borings, to a depth ranging from 6 to 40 feet below ; 48¢41 iexisting grade. The approximate location of the borings, are <* 4 shown on the Boring Location Map, Figure 3, attached.:The 34.J-.; r..,4,99,7 1.field exploration was performed under the supervision' of:.'our i? 9*, :.: .Engineer who maintained a continuous log of the subsurface 69!30, f soils encountered and obtained samples for laboratory testing: 1-i:944 .B-2. Subsurface conditions are summarized on the log of borings: Di**44The soils encountered were classified in general accordance ' -At 4.- with the Unified Soil Classification System (see Key to Logs, Figure B-0). B-3. Drill holes were located in the field by pacing, working from ' '41 known locations on a map. B-4. The following sampling and testing techniques were used to evaluate the subsurface conditions: a. ' Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a 3- inch outside diameter California sampler lined with brass rings, each 1 inch long and 2-1/2 inch inside diameter. The brass rings were transferred into a plastic bag and sealed in a plastic tube immediately upon extraction from the borings. b. The corresponding drive energies per foot of penetration (ft-kip/ft) are indicated on the logs.These energies provide a measure of the relative density or consistency Of the materials encountered.The weights of the separate kellys for the bucket auger borings are shown on the Key to Logs, Figure B-0. C.Bulk samples were also obtained. B-5. The soils were classified based on field observations and laboratory tests. B-6. Groundwater was not observed during the investigation of this site. I- %.-1-*.*- ....=-Ill -- - ..- --- --I --- r Job No: 01-3058·3002,-01-00 07'*%.fg ; ,v Log No: 2-26623 Page B-3 1. 41 - 4.·..f ttl 2. ; M . ¥*.il, Mmy?..14497 9, 4 I :f,#:fitI .,9.- j> l 444*. 39;21; i FIELD EXPLORATION& PROCEDURES ,* £+ ¢·P * 9' ,· .7...2- ..1'A.01 I , B-7. The : boringse weret i ba&]dE 1 drill cuttings at L, the completion, of drilling. 14 r '.1. ·18**ta I.B-8. Strati fication¢ linest ont,thetlbg representl f theR approxiate K boundaryabetweent fill< andlt'soi] E*es. . Minort layers, vor <differing>, material' typestmayb# r contained within the/ strata *, and in some;instances, 6: gradualt trainsition should be expected ;S:*-2-· betweeni}-stpataL>li·42*5et· '1· ,-- .441*KN1}t·i- 1 , :...0.h "u,·.:44,1.i.. -: 3 4' . .'Q U.,4 I-...* .-I-*-I-- ..1--- -I 1 PRIMARY DIVISIONS GRAVELS HORE THAN DIALF 0/ COARSE RACTION 18 LARGER THAN ; NO. 4 SIEVE ; SANDS i MORE THAN HALF OF COARSE HACTION IS IMALLER THAN NO. 4 SIEVE DEFINITION OF TERMS ./4.*.*..ci,43*6 4.-14:'*i? SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS CLEAN -B GW WA/**4/0*gm'*1u**MwiLIMul GRAVELS 4,f.-- (LESS THAN --,0 Gp P..4 -•44/•- •'/•••-a•' -at•-4 Ne•• -8% FINES) ii<I ..... ORAVEL G,A SM,v /-04 ,•ves,---t *It..... n.-0.... WITH FINES '4 GC cove, .""I. ,""-"'"'-", =-0.... -.: CLEAN SANDS SW w-0-/-.4--4 -I# m- --,6. (LESS THAN 8% FINES)Sp ...4 9",6- e.- - grave. ./.,4 ... or -1-0. SANDS SM sm, 8-4 -0- f./4 -1-m - WITH FINES 18%. 81LTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS LESS THAN SOS ML "-foa#C 81"8 Ini via '.0 •••1-· '•ck "'-· 0444 - Ch¥- 1//- 88-8 - C.¥e¥ 8.8 ./.S"/00/0/0/"m/*/V. SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS IMEATER THAN 600 1111 lilli. - •Illy 00•le. 0.'tle '11'L ====E •Ma. d HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS 11£ P. P... ....hi h..4 ore...../ GRAIN SIZES SAND GRAVELSILTS AND CLAYS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES BOULDERS 200 40 10 4 U.1 STANDARD SERIES SIEVE 3,40 30 12' CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPEN-al RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY SANDS. GRAVELS AND CLAVS AND NON-PLASTIC SILTS BLOWS/FOOT*STRENGTH ..BLOWS/FOOT'PLASTIC SILTS VERY LOOSE 0-4 LOOSE 4 - 10 MEDIUM DENSE 10 -30 DENSE SO -80 VERY DENSE OVER .0 VERY SOFT O- 1/4 0-2 SOFT 1/4 - 1/2 2-4 Fl..1/2 - 1 4-0 ST"/1-2 . -1. VERY STIFF 2 - 4 f :1.-32 HARD OVER 4 OVER 32 *NUMBER OF BLOWS 0/ 140 POUND HAMMER FALLING 30-INCHES TO DRIVE A 2-INCH 0.0. (1-3/8-INCH LOJ SPLIT SPOON (AST• D-*580). **UNCON/mED COUPRESSIVE STRING™ 1• TONS/SO. FT. AS DETERMINED BY LABORATOR¥ TESTING OR AP-OXIMATED B¥ THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM O-1080). POCKET PENETROMETER. TORVANE. OR VISUAL OISERVATION BULK SAMPLE CALIFORNIA RING SAMPLE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DRILLING NOTES: 1. SAMPLING AND BLOW COUNTS RING SAMPLER - DRIVE ENERGY (ft-klo/fl of pon•li•,lon) STANDAAD PENETRATION TEST -NUMBER OF BLOWS PER 12 INCHES SHOWN 2. NR - NO RECOVEREY 1 N - N-VALUE BUCKET AUGER KELLY WEIGHTS: 2150 ID to 26 ft. 1350 Ib to 47 ft KEY TO LOGS JOB NO D AT E:FIGURE: 01-3058-002-01-00 SEPTEMBER 1992 B-0 SCO Incorporated li ---1--* - -I-- ¥ ". I ¥r y,¢ e 2, DATE OBSERVED: 9-9-92 ·T"·' »«4IRTHO „9 - ' lr BUCKETAUGER·»« 'f » t ,-1 - 41 '411 :LIlli'' 11..'.1 L ....'..6': · +LOGGED BY: ADE GROUND EI,EVATION:" :"'4., 0 "'.·ILOCATION: 424 6 SEE BORING LOC MAP ' 6 1 0.42 04'h.ktH 02 12 U OCM 49 I nG OFBORING NO. B-1 3 1 0-iftti.¢0910 480 >Wa 0,-t ... --6 INA u. zk •- 1- wr :'?''l .11'03 g'*21*·4844 (D- \ W W '-9 00 .: ..-, :.i-..z *443}#PShe:VF<101 ·2 · 0;· r.. Z...3 1;6-t€·,L. 1.;:M##94;· irt·,v:--Pe REMARKS 1.1 W U 21 12 ii; ¢ razm . ; 1 " i * pa .,FIC:k£ DESCRIPTIONO HO .74.0.. . , . # FH j f :. - -'·,··.· e ·, 1, 284*'.*,6 , 4+ FE- e. . Silty SAND, brown, moderately moist, medium -2 6 15.1 83 1189 dens& to'de: ?ic, 4. .."rse,4.'44 '" i F '07 4.1 ; * - · 3 -' 4 *7* Compaction 923 . 9...' ID 09DRILLING: 37% 1.9 99.4 AUUmIMj*:P<01'·.4·11.-fft.. 2%49..1 .4...44.17?9*.. Fine SAND, yellowish brown, dry, medium dense. 1 ' f >...... 3.€ r 63 29 95.7 Same as above, increase in silt content, brown, moist, loose/medium stiff. [5 -3 8.6 163 101.6 Sandy SILT, some clay, porous, dark brown, moist,soft to firm. 20-5 12.9 13.1 107.4 Sandy SILT, with clay, brown, moist, firm to stiff. ' D-•I 25-9 213 133 105.6 Sandy SILT, trace of clay, light brown, moist, stiff to very stiff. '0 3 :.:- 7 10.8 Silty SAND, light brown, moist, medium dense. --------------------------------- Sandy SILT, light, brown, moist. 35 -12 173 Sandy SILT, light brown, moist, very stiff. 0--------------------------------Fine SAND, light brown, moist. r., ---------------------0-0---0----- . Silty fine SAND, brown, moist, medium dense. -4: i, 4 1- 593· 25 35.1 Fine SAND, light brown, moderately moist, dense. JOB NO4 01-3058-002-01-00 ICG INCORPORATED FIGURE: B-1.1 -------- --I- -----il-- *.---*< --I--- 4.--------- -.I*) - . n . DATE OBSERVED:9-9-92 METHOD OF DRILLING:18 BUCKET AUGER LOGGED BY:ADE GROUND ELEVATION:LOCATION:SEE BORING LOC. MAP ul ' -d- ww= 20 LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 ...,-,t *...g %5 WS A %Z wt WH j WH Sheet 2 of 2 REMARKS a...1 Ez n--DESCRIPTION .i ' 4. 1 **45 W Uo O gE & 8 zw ·?. r:* r-i -/•a .-1 0 U TOTAL DEFI'H AT 40 FT- 1 93.-; I,......12=4NO GROUNDWATER .. ;<i f.*1% 304:92:ler . NO CAVING t. 4 2 .. W.,tr '. 11:....0 I. Elz·i· - HOLE BACKFILLED 2 c 1/ -36:·St' 45- t 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- -CE '. 56-·. 4 3.-1 7.,24 ..1. t. 75 JOB NO.:01-3058-002-01-00 B-1.2 ICG INCORPORATED FIGURE: =, ,.f:4. <-a<Vip,FLE¥* ./.0»*.0. 1DATE OBSERVED:9-9-92 ·t, METHOD OKI 222 18= Bucket Auger,NA·Ye' : . 4,14£Ast./.--:. . LOGGED BY: ADE GROUND ELEVATION:17 »:1„* IA}CAJ1-ION:SEE BORING LOC MAF' 7 14!2Witt,K - >- '4 * ' '-/ lic·'--el ·. i.··G Az § EE E 59 2 ZE . : ft LOG OF BORING NO. B-2 1 k.5 *0 LL z.e 1- oH W.'4 ·07 -i . ,> •14'14;9':+F>**k . .#/ 14. 41 1.Sheet; lof 1 4.,sr?fr:k W0 1 WB 4 GE <S T''I,.,/4 i le '.1/<19.tEMARKS'· »- £ HZ Jv 2.·4' >,• 6 DESCRIPTION . 4 ".,u- ·-3.,>29·*44-3?. 0. .EILUSilty SAND, dark brown, moist. 14 34 m ... ALLUviUM L..... 5--I -¢..: 4 10.8 6.9 105.9 Silty fine SAND, light browi¢moderately moist - - ..C =---medium dens£ i ..64:41.4 fandy-SiEr, GAvn, moistf 10-FUS 4 63 18.4 993 Sandy SILT, brown, moist, soft to medium stiff. v i 1 15 2 63 17.6 962 Same as above, increase in silt content, with some -..·r , NU J · & clay, moist, soft to medium stiff.?2... .. 20 3 8.6 16.6 101.6 Sandy SILT, light brown, moist, soft to firm. TOTAL DEFI'H 21 FT tNO GROUNDWATER - NO CAVING - HOLE BACKFILLED 25- 30- 35- JOB NO.:FIGURE:.01-3058-002-01-00 ICG INCORPORATED B-2.1L-* ./-/-0 - -* ---II-- -1-----v *---I.- I.--- --- -- --* *- ----- --- P., DATE OBSERVED:9-9-92 METHOD OF DRILLING:18' Bucker Auger LOGGED BY:ADE GROUND ELEVATION: A 8 m u. E wi 0&2 w tb 140 LL Z£ ,_ W ul H LLI tz (-'a2 2* 9 w¥ i' ¤w 32a. Ju M 8 0 0 Q¢ E 2% ;0 LOCATION:SEE BORING LOC MAP LOG OF BORING NO. B-3 Sheet 1 of 1 DESCRIPTION REMARKS' U F[LL: Silty SAND, dark brown, moderately moist, ,-.loose to medium dense. - -0-5 2 3 8.6 63 105.4 -.. 2 Alillylul 63 6.2 96.1 Silty SAND, brown, moist, loose/medium stiff. TOTAL DEPTH 6 Fr NO GROUNDWATER NO CAV[NG HOLE BACKFILLED 15- 20 - 25- 30- j 35 JOB NO.:ICG INCORPORATED FIGURE:01-3058-002-01-00 B-3.1L-* , 0 -126).8 J 4.?;04?iti; 7 .' 4- ..•'AP,Of!2G4t**•1·t,.:& . .·-zwr,1@-1:E ' Log No': 2.-2662'-I: 3-0 rf,4 . r.. e.z<JER,18. ' -1/milit;VAO 110--'*1:.- A ....4 g ...... .1 '-45-11%9*al ENDIX* CM P CIa.4 4 41: ··"' .Lut/Z.MT#94-*F LABORATORY* TESTING#PROGRAM 1,'. - t'.1,6.3.u* 1 1 Pe 2-<.9-5,?·'...... 1. Sections C-1 to C-7 29* 4 Laboratorywesting Procedures 1.;'' 1. 1 .L)2.0: 39.1-A<,4 2. Table C-1 ;Optimum Moisture Content/Maximum Dry¢ DensityATest Result C-4 3.Table C-2 Expansion.Test Result C-4 4.Table C-3 Sulfate"Content Test Result C-4 5.TaRle C-4 R-Value,.Test' Result C-4 6. Table C-5 Direct Shear'Test Result C-5 7. Figure C-1 and C-2 Consolidation Test Results 1 LE' 4 -- -0---1- .I-*-----* .--- ------ -- -- ------- --r.. I.., :1: il'. :U-: - -1" .1-1 , .., 2,,4.64*k,;124:Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Log No: 2-2662 Glf,0,1 c Page C-2 LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES C-1. Classification a.Soils were classified visually, generally according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Moisture content and dry density determinations were made for representative, undisturbed samples.G /®*2.7 b.Results of moisture-density determinations, together with classifications, are shown on the Logs of Borings, in Appendix B. C-2. Optimum Moisture Content/Maximum Dry Density The maximum dry density/optimum moisture content relationship was determined for representative samples of the on-site materials.The laboratory standard used was ASTM: D 1557. The results are presented in Table C-1. h . C-3. Expansion Index An Expansion Index test was performed on a representative remolded sample of the on-site materials in accordance with ASTM 4829.The test results are shown in Table C-2. C-4. Sulfate Content A water soluble sulfate content test was performed on a representative sample of the on-site soils.The laboratory standard used was California 417.The test result is presented in Table C-3. C-5. R-Value An R-Value test was performed on a representative sample of the near-surface on-site soils in accordance with California 301.The test result is presented in Table C-4. C-6. Direct Shear a.Direct shear tests were performed on a representative, relatively undisturbed sample of the on-site materials. To simulate possible adverse field conditions, the sample was saturated prior to shearing. A saturating device was used which permitted the sample to absorb moisture while preventing volume change. The test results are presented in Table C-5. ·0 .t 9 - 4 14'01 -:''Spi *te¢,Nk , '. Job No: 01-3058-002-01-0009.H,·19*365ur:- ii 07--4: ....el 4.*·*rs, lp.i haTBW,Ki¢;1,7;, 9444 01'I·kf ' 2%4 LABORATORY TESTINGN#PROCEDURES M *30•<4*4Ififyfd.*05#alli 'O:22*26621-9-41.ii Page, C-3 .- eb¥ pekformed 4*43·flqkf·' r 44· C-7. Consolidation ff-%42,94%.,- 0 .- 4 Consolidation :. tests.viwer fon frepresentative'; ' relatively. undisturbed') sampIes#*og*hh underl¥*044€Oi?3*totdetermine compressibility charhdteristics 40 Theo sampiestlere t saturated duringithe .tests;lE€stiI*jipossible/'adirersefidldconditions. The·test;results: are.Dresented in Ficruresid-1.bandzC-2. , - ,I. :,W...., , t , S· li -I - .- £- ¥-thit. f 0 461 jii_. 1 '4 '. 4»7'' I,4 ;6< · Job No: 01-3058-002-01 -00- t: ' Log No: 2-2662 Page C-4 f€401,.1.f·. TABLE C-1 OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT/MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY TEST RESULT ..1 Optimum Test Location Classification Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density . *'0 4 ·PREW 1 (lb/ft') 0 4 79-7 79. f '2-..1 1.f B-1 @ 1-3'Silty SAND 9.0 128.5 . ' - 42 '-' + i>· r TABLE C-2 EXPANSION TEST RESULT Soil Expansion Expansion Test Location Classification Index Potential B-1 @ 1-3'Silty SAND 1 Very Low TABLE C-3 WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT TEST RESULT Test Location Soil Classification Soluble Sulfate (%) B-1 @ 1-3'Silty SAND 0.0555 TABLE C-4 R-VALUE TEST RESULT Test Location Soil Classification R-Value B-1 @ 1-3'Silty SAND 25 -----i- ---I. -- --.I. - I---*Ii- -; 4-Ill--- ..0.-.- . 1 '41 ;. ' - ?*434+91-r Job No: 01-3058-002,0 3 :(t.. 242.6621.:,f,ft, .page-C-5 31**t. 2 ' : . ..·..·- .··.··.. . --,0 . '<BA/%.' ' "9,rit -6 TABLE c-·'4· u.•,.4.-, DIRECT SHEAR TESTLRESULT Test Pit i. 1..,:11*6 6 .9/*5.:i¢,-' ;it'<*Rshear.stringth Parametbk·st:N Sample : F.. MateViallij j·,4Pekkit# , <;. Residualt# Depth D." : ' Type'43-- .I.,4.11.... (ft)0 1 ':71-:I. c... 6;,Rf 4.1., .e i . i iy¢ 8,00 (lb/fd),4 8-2 5 Silty SAND ' *,9 100 U Undisturbed sample -- '-I'--4 ----A t------ -- ------2 -'.-Id //I/* ;1.. ...., (0)(lb/ft2)431 2.6. 0 ':4{t; f. * · '; 2 ·.2.8.6'73'0:. i ' 0 ..12,(.,..Ld:*44,4+4142'f;?' BORING DEPTH NO.(FEET)SYMBOL SOIL TYPE EXPLANATION , 4, '' SILTY B-2 5.0 SM FINE SAND FIELD MOISTURE SAMPLE SATURATED REBOUND4.0 ...''d/: 3.0 ...b. A t *7.. 4*4· 2.0 1.0 1,51 ...>c .419. ... 0 L 1.0 )-/4 2.0 \ 3.0 4.0 -i 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 O 000 0 0 000 0 0 000 00 0 000 0 0 000 0 0 00 0cy MY 60 0 0 000 2 0 0 00 0m M *10 0 0 000 0 N O I 10 0 NORMAL LOAD (PSF) JOB NO.:CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE:01-3058-002-01-00 C-1 ICQ Incorporated , ANDY 50.-,·4 (96) NOISNVdX3 41!fl'S- ·17*4 BORING DEPTH i€h EXPLANATION k' »*1;2.4'*, r INO. (FEET) SYMBOL ].i- t»7.70.9. - D FIELD MOISTURE 04.8-2 10.0 , ML S ,/ ' .,r , : at# IC-SAMPLE SATURATED 43*f REBOUND ' ·' ' VE ..1-'f4.0 4.3, 14/, ., 3.0 %4 2.0 4 1.0 0 1.0 -1 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 -\ 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 O 0 000 0 O 0 000 0 61 M *10 0 i:2*2/ 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 O 00 0 0 0 O 00 0 0 3000 40000008 NORMAL LOAD (PSF) JOB NO.: 01-3058-002-01-00 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE: C-2 ICQ Incorporated .A 1-* I...Il.- , I-...Ii-- -- --- I I /13 r OCT 19 '92 14:59 ICG C P.2/3 incorporated Orange County Oftices; Geotechnkal: 15 Mason IMM. CA 92718 714/951-8686 tax 714/951-7969 Conatruction Ingpeclion and Testing: . 2992 La Palma, Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 7144832·2980 tax 714/632·9209 Inland Empire Offica- 1900 Orange Tree Larle, Suite 240 Redlands. CA 92374 714/792-4222 fax 714/798·1844 San Diego Counry Office: 9240 Trade PIA(:8. Suite 100 San Diego. CA 92126 619/538·1102 fax 619/536-1306 Coachella Valley Omce: 77-564 Country Club Dr. Suite 400 8 Palm Desert. CA 92260 619/772-3182 Comorale Office: 15 Mason. irvine. CA 92n8 714/951·8688 fax 714/951·7969 October 16, 1992 Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Log No: 2=2673 City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency P.O. Box 1988 M-21 Santa Ana, California 92702 Attention:Mr. David Niknafs, P.E. SUBJECT: .AMENDMENT: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Proposed Detention Facility Santa Ana, California REFERENCE:ICG Incorporated,1992,Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Detention Facility, Santa Ana, California, September 25, 1992, Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00, Log No: 2-2662. Gentlemen: Subsection 7.4.b (Allowable Bearing Capacity) of our above referenced report has a typographical error.The first part of the subsection should read as follows: ,;- Embedment Allowable Bearing (ft)caoacity (lb/fth 1.5 1,500 2 2,000 (The change is in the first Embedment depth: from 1.0 ft to 1.5 ft.) Gectechnical Services. Construction Inspection and lesting OCT 19 '92 15:00 ICG C P.3/3 3 City of Santa Ana October 16, 1992 Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Log No; 2-2673 Page 2 If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, ICG INCORPORATED '4 HUGH A. MARLEY 1/j r'r-7 #GE 2034 1.1 il Hugh A. Marle*, Wh.D., PE GE 2034 U*Ykn>=,6%7,Pres ident/Chi e le-·'NUU;:6:m #'-d.<4, HAM:ADE:gof Distribution: 1.Addressee (4) (including 1 copy for Mr. Shambhu Kayastha: please copy to any Consultant/Contractor as you consider relevant.) ... . r- - A A f A-- - 1. ICG - incorporated Corporate Office: 15 Mason Irvine, CA 92718 714/951-8686 fax: 714/951-7969 . 1 September 25, 1992 Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Orange County Offices:Log No: 2-2662 Construction Inspection and Testing.City of Santa Ana, 2992 La Palma,Public Works AgencySuite A Anaheim, CA 92806 P.O. Box 1988 M-21 714/632-2980 Santa Ana, California 927O2 fax: 714/632-9209 Geotechnical:Attention:Mr. David Niknafs, P.E. 15 Mason Irvine, CA 92718 714/951-8686 fax: 714/951-7969 SUBJECT:GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Detention FacilityInland Empire Office:Santa Ana, California1906 Orange Tree Lane. Suite 240 Redlands, CA.92374 714/792-4222 REFERENCES:See Appendix Afax: 714/798-1844 San Diego County Office: 9240 Trade Place, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92126 619/536-1102 fax: 619/536-1306 Gentlemen: 1.INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose a.This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed Detention Facility near the intersection of Santa Ana Boulevard and Ross Street in the City of Santa Ana. b. The purpose of our Geotechnical Investigation is to provide geotechnical design parameters and recommendations for development of the site. Geotechnical Services, Construction Inspection and Testing -- City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 2 Our conclusions and recommendations relating to site grading,foundations,slabs-on-grade, retaining structures and pavements are presented herein. c. For our investigation we were supplied with the following plans: i. Site Plan,Detention Facility,Santa Ana, California,scale 1 inch:8 feet,dated September 3,1992, prepared by Fibrebond Corporation. ii.Grading Plan, Detention Facility, Santa Ana, California,scale 1 inch:16 feet,dated September 3,1992,prepared by ,Fibrebond Corporation. This plan was used as a base for our Boring Location Plan, Figure 3. d. Preliminary recommendations were supplied to you upon completion of the field exploration and laboratory testing. 1.2 Site Location/Description a. The Detention Facility building, with associated improvements, including asphalt concrete pavement and landscape areas, is to be located on Ross Street; northwest of the intersection with Santa Ana Boulevard.(See Figure 1, Location Map). I. A ¥8 U LJ ]Avi 1 -1'-t·-1 T.,..EMul:=:EN:Al#!1 T Avrei , ·%1-1&41 mis AV 2 - 8 =° 64.u, ¤F#1 :,00 i .. , M .00 1 ....d • c"ct"u' "-17 Tel ...l[ R &A,1 -8., In =-0-i -6=L 1, Tir- IALLS.....1-------·G iP -gle.oc» s ,..Dul .EV[¥XI culo. ir/ --p IC rADDJ .-82£21. . CU •09 cr li -8- - F=szcirr AAN £8GJ 6 4.Id/-1811'N:wmc.4=£12! ap AVI \mi . f. Mok-Hp, . 1/ I I. - E[·INGE :d N 0. i I MCFADDEN 1,00 .. La F. m 123£2 - sT •c»«ON, SEEKIL -AZ--,1 1,6122 5747.-* 2,-ti Qi£./4 111 yr11 6 0 m occ.wrAL ST 7. YARNE AV 3CNVIO = Fot:.,i g P ADAY 1 0/ OAMYj,6 EVE.GREEN 64-i GRANDlp.00 11€ •20,) I U©-1-K .... t CENT lk- 1- 1 ;•e-Z- =£z i '_11/»L /'t % r„7 91.--2,92&1\9. U- --1 .fv.d :=952 10 Z• AV l.ie gl U AC 127 0 2000 4000 . FEET SOURCE: ORANGE COUNTY 1989 THOMAS GUIDE. PAGE 23 LOCATION MAP JOB NO.:DATE:FIGURE: 01-3058-002-01-00 SEPTEMBgR 1992 1 ICG Incorporated City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 3 b.The subject site is approximately 3/4 of an acre in size,and was previously occupied by a Police Station Annex, which has been demolished.The site has recently been regraded to a near-level condition and site grades are at approximately the same elevation as Ross Street.Low height (<10 feet) down-slopes border the property on the south and west. c. i. The regrading was done under the observation and testing of NorCal Engineering.Their report, Reference 13, was received by us on September 24, 1992. ii.The report states that the site was overexcavated to competent material,, and that fill was then placed to grade, a minimum relative compaction of 90% being achieved in the fill. d. A retaining wall, with a maximum retained height of approximately 5 feet, is present along a portion of the west margin of the site. 1.3 Proposed Development It is our understanding that the proposed Detention Facility will consist of 2-story pre-fabricated concrete jail cells, with a 1-story administration building of conventional construction, slab-on-grade floors and paved parking areas. -. r City of Santa Ana . Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 4 1.4 Scope of Services The scope of services provided during the course of this investigation included: a.Review of previous geotechnical and seismological reports and maps pertinent to the subject site. b.A subsurface investigation consisting of the drilling of 3 exploratory boreholes by our Geotechnical Engineer, which included obtaining soil samples for laboratory testing. C.Laboratory testing of soil samples considered representative of subsurface conditions. d. Soil engineering and geologic analyses of field and laboratory data. e.Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations. 1.5 Authorization This investigation, as outlined in our Proposal No. P-OR- 2-3034,dated September 4,1992,was performed in accordance with the written authorization dated September 16, 1992. t City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 5 2.FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM a.The field exploration program, and the Logs of Borings, are presented in Appendix A. b.The approximate location of the borings are shown on the Boring Location Plan, Figure 3. 3.LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Selected samples considered representative of surface and subsurface conditions were tested to obtain or derive relevant soil engineering properties.Descriptions of the tests, and the results, are given in Appendix C. 4.GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 4.1 General ' a.The site was previously graded to its existing condition which is at approximately the same elevation as Ross Street. b. The site is relatively level. 4.2 Fill a.The entire site is underlain by compacted fill soils.Fill encountered in our borings ranged from 3 to 4.5 ft in depth.NorCal Engineering reported -- - City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 6 placing fill to a maximum depth of 8 ft (Reference 13).The range could therefore be from 3 to 8 ft. b. Fill materials generally consist of silty sand, moderately moist and medium dense which appears to be compacted to at least 90 percent of relative compaction in the building area.However in the proposed parking lot, the upper layer of fill appeared to be loose at the time of our field work. 4.3 Natural Ground The natural ground below the fill at the site consists generally of silty sand, sandy silt and fine sand to a depth of at least 40 feet, the maximum depth drilled in our subsurface exploration. 5.SEISMICITY 5.1 General The site is located in the seismically active Southern California region.There are, however, no known active faults on or immediately adjacent to the site. The site is located outside Of any fault hazard zones as designated by the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972.Figure 2 shows the site in relation to known active faults. ..--- 0-'ll -4 -*-- --Il -- -* -- .-- r ii 0 01...0 15•Ul•' 4 3 41 4- ...O , 48 4, 0 - 4/V R.! i 1 $ ...0.VIC,0-1,LE '40 0 0 ...„1*000 i A••08•'•0 110 0-. CITY .,tOM 14N LO ANG.I 0 .1,1.*10, NN,N 0 Di...1 C,WE. \-NIP Xk N«-4 1•Dll •111,1 1,4 59,1........*I 07- / Nt.C".1.,1 UESITE C ilioc 3101 0 I.L..0 1 5. 1 •CO.D.De ... 0 4 1 V..C ••0'00/0/ B.'EIST, .1. 11....0 \-IC ..., ml \I USA 93% REGIONAL FAULT MAP JOB NO.:DATE:FIGURE:01-3058-002-01-00 SEPTEMBER 1992 2 ICG Incorporated , City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 7 5.2 Earthquake Effects 5.2.1 Surface Fault Rupture As previously mentioned, no active faults are known to cross or lie within the limits of the property.Therefore, the hazard of surface fault rupture at the site is considered to be nil. 5.2.2 Earthquake Accelerations a. We have analyzed the possible earthquake accelerations at the site and determined that,for the intended use, the most significant event would be a 6.9 magnitude earthquake occurring in the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone (Everndon, 3.¥.and Thomson,J.M.,1985;and Wesnousky,S.G.,1986).The accelerations produced at the site by a maximum credible magnitude 6.9 earthquake on this fault would equal or exceed in intensity and duration those of events on any other known fault. b.A magnitude 6.9 earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone could produce a peak ground acceleration on the order of 0.359 at the site (See H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1982) with the duration of strong motion exceeding 30 seconds (Bolt, City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 8 B.A., 1973).Peak acceleration is not, however, always representative of the accelerations for which structures are actually designed (Ploessel, M.R., and Slosson, J.E., 1974).Repeatable high ground acceleration from a 6.9 magnitude earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is estimated to be on the order of 0.23g. C.Estimated seismic parameters for other major, regionally active and potentially active faults are summarized on Table 1, Seismicity for Major Faults. 6.GROUNDWATER Groundwater was not encountered during our field investigation. Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Log No: 2-2662 SEISMICITY FOR MAJOR FAULTS TABLE 1 Duration of Distance (km)Maximum Probable Earthquake Maximun Credible Earthquake Strong Ground Modified and Mot i or MercalliFaultDirectionl Peak Repeat Peak Repeat (sec.)Intensity83 6 Accel(g)Accel(g)4 5 6MagAccel(g)5 Accel(g)Mag Newport-Inglewood 7.4 SWZ 6.5 .30 .20 6.9 .35 .23 30 Vill Whittier-Elsinore 20 NE 6.7 .21 .14 7.3 .25 .17 30 ' Vill Palos Verdes 24 SW 6.4 .19 .13 7.0 .23 .15 25 Vll Malibu Coast/Santa 47 SW 6.6 .10 .10 6.9 .14 .14 23 VIIMonica/Raymond Sierra Madre/San 55 NW 6.5 Fernando 4 .08 .08 6.63 .09 .09 15 VII San Jacinto 62 NE 7,04 .10 .10 7.23 .11 .11 24 VII San Andreas 68 NE 8.2 .15 .15 8.2 .15 .15 30 VII 1. Jennings, C.W., 1975 2, Barrows, A.G., 1974 3. Everndon, J.F., and Thomson, J.M., 1985 4. Wesnousky, S.G., 1986 5. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1982; and Seed, H.B. et al, 1975 6. Ploessel, M.R. and Slosson, J.E., 1974 7. Bolt, 8.A., 1973 8. Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants 4 i City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002201-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 9 7.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 General a.Based on the results of our review, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, provided that the recommendations of this report are implemented during design,grading and construction. b.We are of the opinion that the proposed structures can be supported on shallow pad and continuous footings founded in compacted fill. C.We consider that the anticipated grading will not adversely affect, nor be adversely affected by, adjoining property, with due precautions being taken. d. The design recommendations in this report should be reviewed during the grading phase when soil conditions in the excavations become exposed. F /NAL Fee puu,J-}De-r,g,a FL·04 9 , F 1-'66 06-34A l.,6/)r 1 e.The foundation plans/design loads,should be , reviewed by the Soil Engineer. f. General geotechnical considerations applicable to site grading and recommendations for the design and construction of the project are discussed below. 6.- .I: 4 ...1 City of Santa Ana September 25, 1992 . 4 t 9'/Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 : «Log No: 2-2662 Page 10 7.2 Grading 7.2.1 General All grading and 2'earthwork should be accomplished in «.accordance with the recommendations herein and the grading requirements of the regulating agency. 7.2.2 Site Clearing a.Prior to grading,the areas to be i developed for structures, pavements and other improvements should be stripped of any vegetation and cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, including any existing foundations,utility lines, basements,septic tanks,pavements, stockpiled fills,and miscellaneous debris. b. All pipelines encountered during grading should be relocated as necessary and be completely removed from construction areas or be cut and plugged according to applicable code requirements. C.Debris and rubble from clearing operations should be removed from the site. 4=.4 :---sm -.- 0- *P-- - - - --#- - -- t City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 11 7.2.3 Preparation of On-Site Soils a.Reworking of the existing on-site soils will not be required within building areas:subject to review during construction and to the recommendations in b and c below, and in Subsection 7.4b (Notes). b.There should be at least 1 foot of compacted fill material under slabs and under footings, extending at least 1 foot , beyond the perimeter of footings.The intent of the above recommendation is to provide uniform bearing characteristics within the building area.It is anticipated that this requirement will be met by the existing in-place fill. C.In the proposed parking area,we recommend that the upper 12 to 18 inches of the subgrade soil should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. d.Any loosening of reworked or native material, consequent to the passage of construction traffic, weathering, etc., should be made good prior to further construction. e.The depths of reworking should be 4*-* •----CS - 1. '- · · . 4 .4..St 41?City of Santa Ana . :,«Job No: 01-3058-0024,01>-00 September 25, 1992 ..: 0<106 No: 2-2662 .C .. ...... i j Pige 12 reviewed .by 4eD Geotechnical Engine;-14*tiduring thes actual construction. 4':Any?--1- surface or ' subsurface obstructions i?809: questionable material encountered during 430©2.4 f grading, should:bh brought immediately to fili.22YX . the attentiont; of the Geotechnical 2.15Krf:-: -:U'Q; Engineer for proper exposure, removal and /7 132<, . processing as directed. 7.2.4 Fill Placement and Compaction a.Material to be compacted or reworked should be moisture-conditioned or dried /· 1 .:f to achieve near-optimum conditions, and compacted to attain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, based on ASTM: D 1557.The placement moisture content of import material should be evaluated prior to grading. b.Fill should be compacted by mechanical means in uniform horizontal loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. C.All fills should be placed and all grading performed in accordance with the requirements of the regulating agency. 7.2.5 Fill Material a. Both imported and existing on-site soils to be used as fill should be free of -I r=--' . t 1.U* c.*61·.t TB.4,4£.' ·.amt,2. -1 City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 13 ' ' /' ' I. :tt&4&-5-*+9** debris, organics (exceeding 31 %) and : cobbles over 6 inches in maximim dimen-4 4.9 9.· . . . ... I sion.....2 4 . .;4 . P....}.A. f.14.'f. t, b.Imported fill material should be approved- by the Soil Engineer prior to importing .. c·.*yi :...·-/:· :it//211;A.p,£,dESoils having a significant expansion -':.-74» t potential should not be used as import ·- - 2,v- fill.The Soil Engineer should be notified not less than 72 hours in- advance of the location of any soil or base course material proposed for import. Each proposed import source should be sampled, tested and approved by the Soil Engineer prior to delivery of soils for use on the site. 7.2.6 Excavating Conditions a.We anticipate that excavation of on-site materials may be accomplished with stan- dard earthmoving or trenching equipment. b.Groundwater was not encountered in the course of this investigation, and is not expected to affect grading operations. 7.2.7 Expansive Soils a. Based on the tested Expansion Index, the Expansivity of the on-site soils is rated Very Low. 6. I . .Ii./- ....*..= -- City of Santa Ana September 25, 1992 'r. b. 76 2. 6. 4.4 *23Jobl No: 01-3058-002-'01-00 aitiliLog No: 2-2662 -Page 14 41·44*99 The design/construction recommendations.· 4...3 should .be 2, ;refiewed critically y :·,if' <62.- ..significantly*chigher Expansion Indices i i ·4%(8 )-; ..4 ,are obtained: ) 0 4%../72....?. .. irt.:20 .... 1 7.2.8 t Sul fate Content -4 23 + · .-- ......:3 ...1 gy,«.1... Laboratory tests performed on representative · ·* ..' -,4 samples of the on-site soils indicate that the fy.- r sulfate content of the surface soils is less than the 0.2 percent which is indicative of an adverse sulfate condition.Type II cement is therefore considered adequate for concrete in contact with on-site soil. i 7.2.9 Utility Trenches a.Bedding material should consist of sand with an SE not less than 30, which may then be jetted.(Jetting may not be effective if adequate drainage is not available.) b.Existing soils may be utilized for trench backfill,provided they are free of organic materials and rocks over 6 inches in diameter. C.Backfill of all exterior and interior trenches should be compacted to achieve a relative compaction of not less than 90 percent, the compaction standard being .-I I.V.V '.1 1.: •L.al-Ff<,.·A - 0 .2 City of Santa Ana September 25, 1992 In ...Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Log No: 2-2662 Page 15 obtained per. ASTM: D 1557.Care should be taken not' to damage utility lines. d. Alternatively, backfill may be jetted if sand of an SE not less than 30 is used. (Jetting may not be effective if adequate -7, drainage is not available.)However, jetting is not permissible if the trench is located on a slope face. e.Trenches should be capped with 1.51 feet of relatively impermeable soil. f. Jetting in trenches adjacent to buildings or slopes should be carried out only under the specific approval of the Soil Engineer. 7.2.10 Surface Drainaqe a.Pad drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from structures to approved drainage facilities.A minimum gradient of 21 percent should be maintained,and drainage should be directed toward approved swales or drainage facilities. b. Drainage patterns approved at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of proposed structures. . .---- -- ---- City of Santa Ana . Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 16 7.3 Slabs-On-Grade a.Concrete floor slabs may be founded on the existing compacted fill soils.The subgrade should be proof- rolled just prior to construction to provide a firm, relatively unyielding surface, especially if the surface has been loosened by the passage of construction traffic. b.If a floor covering that would be critically affected by moisture is to be used; a 10-mil plastic vapor barrier is recommended.This sheeting should be covered with 2 inches of sand. C.The subgrade should be presoaked as follows; With Very High and High expansivity soil -5 percentage points above optimum,or to 125%of optimum,whichever is greater; to 2 feet depth. With Medium expansivity soil -5 percentage points above optimum, or to 125% of optimum, whichever is greater; to 1.5 feet depth With Low expansivity soil -4 percentage points above optimum, or to 120% optimum, whichever is greater; to 1 foot depth d. Slabs should be at least 4 inches thick (nominal). Joints should be provided per usual practice. e. Slabs should be underlain by 6 inches of granular base, with subgrade soils of Very High Expansivity.4 inches t.,, ·· City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002201-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 17 of granular base should be provided with soils of Medium and High expansivity, and 2 inches of granular base with subgrade soils of Low expansivity.(Aggregate base is recommended to be used where the thickness of the base layer is greater than 2 inches.)The base is separate from the sand layer recommended in b. above. f. Minimum steel should be provided in slabs-on-grade, as follows: With Very High expansivity soil - 4x4-W4xW4 WWF With Medium to High expansivity soil - 6x6-W2.9xW2.9 WWF With less expansive soil - 6x6-Wl.4xWl.4 WWF (Note: Though the expansivity of the soils in the upper layer has been rated Very Low, recommendations for soils of higher expansivities have been provided as a contingency measure.) 7.4 Foundations The proposed structures of the type anticipated, can be founded on shallow spread footings.The criteria presented below should be adopted: 6- 6-/.- ----Il- --I.* City of Santa Ana - Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 18 a.Dimensions/Embedment Depths Min. Embedment Minimum Minimum below lowest Width Thickness adjacent grade (ft)fin)(ft) Expansivity Verv Low-Low Medium High Verv High Equivalent 1-story 1 6 exterior 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 wall footings interior 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 (supporting 1 floor) Equivalent 2-story 1.25 7 exterior 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 footings interior 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 (supporting 2 floors) Retaining walls -Per (to 5 feet in height)Structural 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 5 + to 8 feet Design 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 8 + to 12 feet 2.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 Square column footings - (to 50 kip)2.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 b.Allowable Bearing Capacity Embedment Allowable Bearing (ft)Capacity (lb/ft2) 1.0 1,500 2.0 2,000 (The minimum recommended depth of embedment is 2 feet for exterior wall footings.) (Notes: o The values obtained per item b. above may be increased by one-third in the case of short- duration loads, such as induced by wind or seismic forces. - 4,1City of Santa Ana September 25, 1992 fJob No: 01-3058-002101-00 Log No: 2-2662 Page 19 o The values obtained per item b. above apply to both square pad footings and shallow strip footings; although they are slightly conservative for the strip footing case. o Provide minimum steel in continuous footings as follows: With Very High expansivity soil - 4x#5 bars, 4, 2 on top and 2 at the bottom. With High expansivity soil - 4x#4 bars, 2 on top and 2 at the bottom. With less expansive soil - 2x#4 bars, 1 on top and 1 at the bottom. 70 0 Bearing capacities should be re-evaluated whenloads have been obtained and footings sized. o In the event that footings are founded in structural fill consisting of imported materials, the allowable bearing capacities will depend on the type of these materials, and should be re- evaluated. o A concrete moisture cutoff barrier, consisting of a tie beam or thickened slab edge extending to a corresponding minimum depth of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade, should be provided between exterior individual footings. o The heavier column footings should be connected by grade beams. o Planter areas should not be sited adjacent to walls:otherwise, measures should be implemented to contain irrigation water and prevent it from seeping into walls and under foundations. o Embedment depths should not be allowed to be affected adversely,such as through erosion,softening, digging, etc. v/< o Footing excavations should be observed by theGeotechnical Engineer. 44 0 Foundation plans and loads should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer. .WEr ·--.7.- . • I ...-i- *.I--I-- *.-.--I--. ./--I. -- 9 .3 ' City of Santa Ana '..4. :./.-0 ft · .:,d Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 20 1 7.5 9 7.6 o Foundations adjacent to downslopes should be located at a depth such that the horizontal setback of the leading edge of the bottoms of footings from the competent face of the slope is 1/2 x slope...82 4 .height, and at least 6 feet. The distance need not -i)3'193+1 exceed 15 feet. o In the event that cut-fill transitions occur due to ( 1uneven topography, embedment depths of footings, 544*4 modifications to construction plans or for any other reasons,the structural area should be..j '' -- overexcavated and recompacted to a depth of 3 feet r below pad grade, and to at least 1 foot below . ·i .footings: extending to 5 feet beyond the building ' perimeter.) Settlements Total and differential settlements due to footing loads are not expected to exceed 1 inch, and /2 in') for the anticipated column spacings and loads, respectively. These preliminary estimates have been obtained by analysis, and should be reviewed by the Soil Engineer when foundation plans for the proposed ' structures are finalized. (The recent regrading did not result in significant surcharge load being applied to the underlying soil, inasmuch as the fill which had been in place previously was overexcavated and recompacted.) Retaining Structures/Lateral Forces a. The following lateral pressures are recommended for the design of retaining structures with backfill soils of expansivity not higher than Medium. 6-- City of Santa Ana ' Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 21 Soil Pressure - (lb/ftz/ft depth) Soil Rigidly TVDe Profile Unrestrained Wall Supported Wall Active Pressure Level 45 - 2:1 upslope 60 - At-Rest Pressure Level -70 2:1 upslope -100 Passive Resistance Level 350 150 (ignore upper 0.5 ft)2:1 downslope 175 75 b. Friction coefficient - 0.40 C.Where both friction and the passive resistance are utilized for sliding resistance, either of the values indicated should be reduced by 1/3. d. These are ultimate values. e.Pressure due to any surcharge loads from adjacent footings,traffic,etc.,should be analyzed separately. Pressures due to these'loadings can be supplied upon receipt of the appropriate plans and loads. 7.7 Backfill a.Backfill should be placed under engineering control. b.It is recommended that granular, or relatively low- expansivity, backfill be utilized, for a width equal to approximately 1/3 x wall height, and not less than 1.5 feet, subject to review during L..4 ........... -- .-I 1. } 4 1 r*'G. City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 22 construction.(This is to reduce lateral pressures.) C.The granular backfill should be capped with at least 18 inches of relatively impermeable material. d.Backfill should be compacted to achieve a mihimum 90 percent relative compaction, the compaction standard being obtained in accordance with ASTM: D 1557. e.Precautions should be taken to ensure that heavy compaction equipment is not used immediately adjacent to walls, so as to prevent undue pressures against, and movement of, the walls. f. The use of water-stops/impermeable barriers should be considered for any basement construction, and for building walls which retain earth. 7.8 Backfill Drainaqe a. i. Subdrains should be provided in the backfill, or weepholes/weepslits should be provided in retaining walls.(It is recommended that subdrains be provided for walls over 51 feet high, for retaining walls which form part of a building structure, and where any staining or efflorescence due to dripping from weepholes/weepslits would be aesthetically unacceptable.) L- -/ I- . : 4 9 L. . 95- .:'...P#,City of Santa Ana ·Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 23 ii.Weepholes/weepslits should be per OCEMA Standard Plans. iii. Subdrains should be per Subsections b) to f) below. b.Subdrains should consist of 4-inch diameter Schedule 40, PVC pipe or equivalent, embedded in approximately 3 ft3/linear foot of Class 2 Permeable Material or equivalent, with the pipe being 61 inches above the trench bottom; a gradient of 11% being provided to the pipe and trench bottom;discharging into suitably protected outlets. C.3/4-inch down open-graded gravel, enveloped in Supac 5NP geofabric filter or equivalent, may be used instead of the Class 2 Permeable Material. d. Perforations in subdrains are tecommended as follows:3/8-inch diameter, in 2 rows at the ends of a 120' arc, at 3-inch centers in each row, staggered between rows, placed downward. e.Subdrains placed behind retaining walls should be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to the placement of fill. f. An unobstructed outlet should be provided at the lower end of each segment of subdrain.The outlet should consist of an unperforated pipe of the same diameter, connected to the perforated pipe and L-=. I- -.l City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 24 extended to a protected outlet at a lower..A elevation, on a continuous gradient of at least 1 :+ percent. ...'t 7.9 Footings - Retaining Walls a. Footings should be embedded to minimum depths below lowest adjacent grade, as indicated in Subsection 7.4. b.Setbacks from tops of slopes should be as indicated in Subsection 7.4.b, Notes. c. The allowable bearing capacity may be taken as indicated in Subsection 7.4.b., subject to stability requirements. d.Retaining walls situated at the tops of slopes should be reviewed/analyzed for overall slope stability.Setbacks,embedment depths and allowable bearing pressures may need to be modified accordingly. 7.10 Seismicitv Structures should be designed for seismic forces in accordance with UBC Section 2312, for Zone 4: or in terms of Subsection 5.2.2, whichever is considered applicable by the designer. L-4 -' I- , i '·•k ; 1 ·I :4X 17'245 h,9.3 City of Santa Ana September 25, 1992 · ·.ip Job No: 01-3058-002-01 Log No: 2-2662 Page 25 7.11 Pavements 7.11.1 Asphalt Concrete Pavement 2 4. R a. Based on an R-Value of 25 and on the 6- u Tra f f ic Indices (TI) provided by you, .the-. 494 following ; pavement sections .are -.6 recommended: 4 Crushed AC Aggregate Surface Course Base Location/Pavement Utilization TI (in)Course(in) Auto Parking/Driveways 5.5 4 7 (Note: With the TI of 5.5, the minimum pavement section required would be 4 inch of AC, over 6 . inch of AB; however the indicated section is based on yourrecommendations for the type of facility proposed.) b. The subgrade should be compacted to achieve a relative compaction of at least 90 percent through the upper 12 inches. C.The Aggregate Base should be compacted to achieve a relative compaction of at least 95 percent. d. Base material should meet the require- ments of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book) for Crushed Aggregate Base.Compaction standards for the subgrade and the base course should be obtained in accordance with ASTM: D 1557. I-/ - I - -- - -' I- ly' : $-; .btfi' 1 -City of Santa Ana - Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 26 e.The R-value should be obtained at . the conclusion of grading and the design paving section should then be reviewed. 7.11.2 Exterior Concrete Flatwork a. The long-term performance of exterior concrete flatwork at the site will be influenced by any expansive soils. Positive drainage and maintaining soil moisture at above optimum conditions prior to pouring concrete will help improve the performance of concrete flatwork at the site. b. Concrete flatwork should be divided into as nearly square panels as possible. Frequent joints should be provided to give articulation to the concrete panels. Landscaping and planters adjacent to concrete flatwork should be designed in such a manner as to direct drainage away from concrete areas to approved outlets. C.It is assumed that flatwork will be sub- jected only to pedestrian traffic. - i. City of Santa Ana September 25, 1992 Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Log No: 2-2662 Page 27 7.12 Subsequent Grading Operations Prior to the commencement of additional grading opera- tions on-site, including precise grading of building/and pavement areas, as well as backfilling of trenches, the Soil Engineer should be notified to provide appropriate recommendations and observation and testing services as required. L-- -- AD •. 093*4':....,.1 . ff f f /4 I r **kli.Iif/41.·: · 4/ahCity of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 9. ·"4 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 .... Page 28 8. LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION a.Our investigation was performed in accordance with the ..usual and current standards of the profession, as<ItheySY relate to this and similar localities.No : other , warranty, expressed or implied, is provided as to the k conclusions and professional advice presented in.-this report. b. The samples taken and tested, and the observations made, are considered to be representative of the site; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly , between sample locations. e4 C.As in most projects,conditions revealed during construction excavation may be at variance with preliminary findings.If this occurs, the changed con- ditions must be evaluated by the Project Soil Engineer and the Geologist, and revised recommendations be pro- vided as required. d. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner,or of his Representative,to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the Architect and Engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and that it is ensured that the Contractor and Subcontractors implement such recommendations in the field. e.This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering.We do not direct the Contractor's -' -I. - -8 .- -i.*-I-* ill----1 City of Santa Ana September 25, 1992 r Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Log No: 2-2662 Page 29 operations, and we are not responsible for other than our own personnel on the site; therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the Contractor.The Contractor should notify the Owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. f. The findings of this report are considered valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a site can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural events or to human activities on this or adjacent sites. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate codes and standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. g. Accordingly, this report may become invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are identified. I.-Ii- ----1.- illill-. lill -- - Il. Ill. I-- -.-1- 't . ¢/ 4, T City of Santa Ana . Job No: 01-3058-002 September 25, 1992 Log No: 2-2662 Page 30 -'01 -00 The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any:: questions, do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, ICG INCORPORATED ,AS9152§12,42:X 131 234>/ Hugh A. Marleyh 1Rp.,DIREm!*Slgi Thomas G. Hill, C.E.G.1100 GE 2034 1 . #GE 2034 ,i; Vice President/Chief Geologist President/Chie* 4pgineer W 09 Registration expires 6/30/95Registration e]km_9/30/Ve';/37 '4*%90/ 1 J\ HUGH A. MARLEY 69772, er D. Espili Project Engineer TGH:ADE:HAM:gof Attachments: 1.Figure 1 - Location Map 2. Figure 2 - Regional Fault Map 3.Table 1 - Seismicity for Major Faults 4.Figure 3 - Boring Location Plan 5.Appendix A - References 6.Appendix B - Field Exploration Programs 7. Appendix C - Laboratory Testing Programs Distribution:(4)Addressee ...........'.'ll' - 6- '- .-I -............t '4 ..:' - 'th 4. It,6 .. OCE]U :11,f-'·0 11:, 9 . 1/4/1 1%:L 7!U/u//il////////////li,6 illl'll ...........5/ j gr i-,»52;40•-'a.41™*=, 1 ,illill/mu,UX Ill'1111 / 1 . &/ mlihwumim#t JN r ,. - .-4.2{»tf. f 1.4 -'r\. el, ...*-9-=ru--F---_r,-- \\1 \ \1-; i 1/ k. C.RUI_2222.f Qist= , \1 .C)·*f.11'· ROSS STREET EXPLANATION APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING 0 40 80 1 -6 FEET SOURCE: GRADING PLAN PREPARED BY FIBREBOND CORPORATION, DATED 3 SEPT. 92, JOB NO. 92-257, SHEET SP2 OF 20 SHEETS BORING LOCATION PLAN-PROPOSED DETENTION FACILITY-SANTA ANA JOB NO..DATE:FIGURE:01-3058-002-01-00 SEPTEMBER 1992 3 Incorporated £24'4 b •91 - 1 '9? Nt'.'·, ···i. st·•tH*+AhJob No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Log No: 2-2662 - f! 9 G. .i -L APPENDIX A .: k luck. .1 REFERENCES T i,7 9 .4 , -, f.,94), 3"Ifr;.:Pipt.1 L.- h.-.-I- &-Ill-.* I.-I.I.- ---Ill.- ..Il.-- .i.Ii i--- I--I-pl* --I- -----' 4., 5 'fy Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 REFERENCES Log No: , 2-2662 whit->22 31 Page A--2 , ;"- '04'ts...t:5€4. 2 4!S..4'·I·2·:A.';4*.4 -44 5:44%414 i fL, 1 34 " J i ' 'k: i :.,f*ft! 1. Barrows, A.G., 1974, A Review of the Geology and EarthquakeHistory of the Newport-Inglewood Structural zone, SouthernCalifornia, California Division of Mines and Geology Special,21***fjReport, 114. 1; ?:. . C ':4'.1...?42.4 4.8:' *,*4}P+4.2. Bolt, B.A., 1973, Duration of Strong Ground Motiont Procka'imm<WPAM 292, Rome. .'.L :f''SP..''il. S-*I -8-Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering;YJ'ap,g,.8(2-: 44%iz*3 3.Evenden, J. F. and Thomson, J. M., 1985, "Predicting Seismi81*jt:44Intensities," Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los '-4 ';'·i-:·fxid:P:%4Angeles Region - An Earth Science Perspective, Ziony. J. -:·--I,'t¢**1*4(If,.3ed., U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 1360, pp. 174-175.4470 4 1.4. Hileman, J. A., Allen, C. R., and Nordquist, J. M., 1973, Seismicity of the Southern California Region, 1 Jan. 1932 to31 Dec. 1972: Calif.Inst. Tech. Geol. & Planet. Sciences, Contribution #2385, 64 pp. ¢ t ·-4 -'i:i<*ff 712':w.%4 1 5. Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault Map of California, CaliforniaDivision of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 1. 6. Miller, R. V. and Tan, S. S., 1976: Geology and Engineering Geologic Aspects of the South Half Tustin Quadrangle, OrangeCounty, California; C.D.M.G. Special Report 126; pp. 28. 7. Ploessel, M. R. and Slossen, J. E., 1974, "Repeatable High Ground Accelerations from Earthquakes," California Geology, September, pp.195-199. 8. Seed, H.B., Murarka, R., Lysmer, J., Idriss, I.M., 1975,Relationships Between Maximum Acceleration, Maximum Velocity, Distance from Source and Local Site Conditions For Moderately Strong Earthquakes:Earthquake EngineeringResearch Center Report No. 75-17, Berkeley, California. -- .4- - --- t t t/' #U.C-' . .: --2 -1.,R.V· LIN.: I · Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Log No: 2-2662 4..1 4 - Page A-3 2..,t /'.'' /1'·-4*** 7430414 REFERENCES (Continued)31.. ' g. -: 9. Sprotte, E. C. et al, 1980:Classification and Mapping of Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits for Purposes of Seismic Zonation, South Coastal Los Angeles, Basin, Orange County, 70 :Il:L-* h -1 California; CDMG Open File Report 80-19L.A.; pp. 268. :33 .· , 1642.t- E.-r d 14 7, 1,1 e; 1 .7 .:, i '1Nt:'.i- 12 10. Wesnousky, S. G., 1986: Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and ,4.f '4 Seismic Hazard in Southern California; Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. i*91, No.4812, p. 12,587-12,631.' ht:ifitfi, -1.., ... 1 . 124 - ..A+3 tri: 11.Yerkes, R.F., McCulloh, T.H., Schoellhamer, J.E., and 2/ 01.51 1Vedder, J.G., 1965, Geology of the Los Angeles Basin -.. California - An Introduction: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-A. 12.Ziony, J. I. and Yerkes, R. F., 1985, "Evaluating Earthquake and Surface-Faulting Potential," Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region - An earth science perspective, Ziony, J. I. ed., U.S.Geological Survey Prof.Paper 1360, p. 43. 13.NorCal Engineering, 1992: Observation and Testing of Grading Operations Project No. 3966-92/August 10, 1992. 6- '-' Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Log No:92-2662 APPENDIX B tr. J 1, FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM . 1.Sections B-1 to B-8 Field Exploration Procedures Page B-2 2.Figure B-0 Key to Logs 3.Figures B-1.1 through B-3.1 Logs of Borings B-1 through B-3 L. -I.... - - .--.--P- -- I-' - --I .t F.r Job No: 01-3058-002-01 t.· 934......9 Page B-2 ; 14€ 4·'rpi: £92 FIELD EXPLORATION'PROCEDURES a ..>; 8.k-*2 ·445*4}6· 1 B-1. The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling 3 bucket- auger borings, to a depth v rangingf,from 6 to 40 feet' below existing grade. The approximate Blocation of the borings are i shown on the Boring Location :,Map/ Figure 3, attached. Thel - - field exploration was performe* under.the supervision>oftiouriav,e,: w:, Engineer who maintained a continuousflog of the subsurface $4*'GT'soils encountered and obtained samples for laboratory testing. i#* *.:44: / te f :'·.e·; '11:it·F·hi -'. . B-2. Subsurface conditions are: summarizedf on the log of borings. 19#4The soils encountered were classified in general accordance 4. *96?37*4.with the Unified Soil Classification System (see Key to Logs, 4%442 . f :':1.1Figure B-0). B-3. Drill holes were located in the field by pacing, working from ·' known locations on a map. B-4. The following sampling and testing techniques were used to evaluate the subsurface conditions: a. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a 3- inch outside diameter California sampler lined with brass rings, each 1 inch long and 2-1/2 inch inside diameter. The brass rings were transferred into a plastic bag and sealed in a plastic tube immediately upon extraction from the borings. b. The corresponding drive energies per foot of penetration (ft-kip/ft) are indicated on the logs.These energies provide a measure of the relative density or consistency Of the materials encountered.The weights of the separate kellys for the bucket auger borings are shown on the Key to Logs, Figure B-0. C.Bulk samples were also obtained. B-5. The soils were classified based on field observations and laboratory tests. B-6. Groundwater was not observed during the investigation of this site. 1 Ig Nof 2-2 66: ige B-3 ..../.411Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Lc FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES '. 1 hil , 11..4 -B-7. The borings were backfilled with drill, cuttingst. at#theisSjE 3?t ...2 .- , .,4;,3?E912*1 .·,4,-completion of drilling. ;, ,r.. :-·.,·%11 -...... 2,2 1,1 1 , t.! .1.4, 1 '.6 14 , fF''Al:"0€. B-O.stratification lines on the logs represent#thet; Appirdxiniate, #4**boundary between fill and soil types.. Minorlayers>'oft·*79«4di ffering material types may be contained within„the# stratat mlf,- 1411*4: Sp·.:,491«4,and in some instances a gradual transition should be e*pecte : -ir k between strata. .-I - 32.<A: 1- M·£• t·; :: 4..7?k . 01 " DEFINITION OF TERMS*+ ,................ PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMIOLS .SECONDARY DIVISIONS 4999>' CLEAN -:t ¥4*1GRAVELS --G W ,- MORE TMAN .RAVELS 4, ....1. A. 222 HALF OF (LESS THAN -I ap :·c:z·-• Ira··• - ef·"·-0,/ ·•a-,- ·•,0 - 1 .-i f62;ffO--8% FINES) COARSE !!! ozi LA"Qi. THAN 6. C- NO. 4 SIEVE 23=- glf SANDS w 5 0-MONE THAN .ZE MALF O. 01.5 COA•Il HACTION I GRAVEL '6 W.TH FINES 0 CLEAN SAND. CLESS TMAN. SANDS F WITH FINE. M tD'' -- 1.0.- SW W- 91*4 al,alla. /,-ly Bal,4 m = I Ihl. ':2, SM Sily laille. OU/-,H, m,molle, Ilglllilelle Ille& ,...,1 :.d·*.St >:.dr L. 8!LTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS LESS THAN GO L_ i Ct.,4 8-4 clave. I... c.".:lilli:. SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT I. IREATER TMAN *00 - OH 01-- ®-0 0 -••0- m ¥.I .,..u.,6 IYII, ./1,8- HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS VE P, P- -4/....44 04.- .4 GRAIN SIZES SAND GRAVELSILTS AND CLAYS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES BOULDERS 200 40 .4 Ul STANOAMO SERES SIEVE 2,4- 3' 12' CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPEN-al RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY SANDS. GRAVELS AND CLAYS AND NON-PLASTIC SILTS BLOWS/FOOT*PLASTIC SILTS STRENGTH ..BLOWS/OOT' VERY LOOSE 0-4 LOOSE 4-10 MEDIUM DENSE .-30 DENSE SO -GO VERY DENSE OVER .0 VERY SOFT 0- 1/4 0-2 SOFT 1/4 - 1,2 2-4 FIR.1/2 - 1 4-0 ST./1-2 . -1. VERY ST/F 2-4 1,1.- 32 HARD OVER 4 OVER 32 *NUMBER OF OLOWS OF 140 POUNO HAMMER FALLING 30-INCHES TO DRIVE A 2-INCH O.O. (1-3/0-INCH LOJ SPLIT SPOON (ASTIO D-,ele)* **UNCON/mED COMPIESSIVE STRENGTH IN TONS/SO. FT. AS DETER•INED BY LASOMATOR¥ TESTING OR APPROXIMATED BY THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTW D-ISIO). POCKET PENETROMETER. TORVANE. OR VISUAL OISERVATION BULK SAMPLE CALIFORNIA RING SAMPLE | || | STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DRILLING NOTES: 1. SAMPLING AND BLOW COUNTS RING SAMPLER - DRIVE ENERGY (ft-*10/11 of penetration) STANDARD PENETRATION TEST -NUMBER OF BLOWS PER 12 INCHES SHOWN 1 NA - NO RECOVEREY 1 N - N-VALUE IUCKET AUGER KELLY WEIGHTS: 2150 ID 10 26 n. 1350 tb to 47 fl KEY TO LOGS -0 JOB NO.:D ATE:FIGURE: 01-3058-002-01-00 SEPTEMBER 1992 B ICQ Incorpo,•ted '14 ..=, + ti-t -I .- 7 7:rr• DATE OBSERVED:9-9-92 METHOD OF DRILLING: .180 BUCKEr AUGER?irit,H *s,• r. .a + LOGGED BY:ADE GROUND ELEVATION:LOCATION:SEE BORING LOC MAPV-* 0.. -»;7'f Y - - 4- 12 - >--|0 *z § mt » w 8 ZE LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 2 -Ii: :.- ,*A}92ftLLU-ou.z> )- 3¤ W\Sheet lor 2 '.- ''.7 *I'3?1¢ .f,iJ>•a:i '41#1.- UM 1 WA w D-G oc Z €" € 1 -¥ J =0 29E 50 9 >A & ozC W& 68 Z DESCRIPTION ' 1.-1 0 -0 fILL: Silly SAND, brown, moderately moist, medium :· i&46 15.1 83 118.9 dense to dense.-e· .... lilli. .7 -J , t.eR919*91*14 fedidpaction 92.5, 0 I. , 1.. 4. 5--9.>X 4 10.8 1.9 99.4 ALLUVIUM , r a'. Fine SAND, yellowish brown, dry, medium dense ©t Tc I -----------0------0---0----- Silty fine SAND, brown, moist, medium dense. . 10-- : ·2 63 12.9 95.7 Same as above, increase in silt content, brown, moist, loose/medium stiff. 4'4. 54%0*** t€4*yel. . 1-7 I A- . .,7 f. ' 1 r PIC- 15 3 8.6 16.5 101.6 Sandy SILT, some clay, porous, dark brown, moist, soft to firm. '' 20-5 12.9 13.1 107.4 Sandy SILT, with clay, brown, moist, firm to stiff. 1 25 9 213 133 105.6 Sandy SILT, trace of clay, light brown, moist, stiff to very stiff. 30- . 7 10.8 Silty SAND, light brown, moist, medium dense. -------I-------------------1------- Sandy SILT, light, brown, moist. 35-12 17.5 ---9-I---Ill-------il-----------I----I-Il Sandy SILT, light brown, moist, very stiff. Fine SAND, light brown, moist. 2:· 3 25 35.1 Fine SAND, light brown, moderately moist, dense. JOB No.:ICG INCORPORATED FIGURE:01-3058-002-01-00 B-1.1 5, Wl:·NO.Re/LE,£01#21*0·.4 .4 *14.. . ' I '.'I .... : 4*49-,4=0"Or:/7.1- 39'fir€ t : , ': 1 ...4 ..... DATE OBSERVED:9-9-92 ,METHOD OF DRIUING:18' BUCKET AUGER LOGGED BY: ADE GROUND ELEVA'rION;*¥" LOCATION: SEE BORING LOC MAP k- w . >--w i a # 0- Wj ES LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 ,rk j**2¥:··,12 Wz 9 gle n SL w :v WB \ w#i w t=5 0=7 €. 1.9- ¥.(10,1,1,Sheet k 2 of 2 r SE ig w¥ J *m Ed REMARKS £ 30 q >A & 0 a.N u 15 g ER z -3' DESCRIPTION - HO -40- TOTAL DEPTH AT 40 Fr NO GROUNDWATER ' i - NO CAVING - HOLE BACKFILED 45- 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 75 JOB NO.:01-3058-002-01-00 B-1.2 ICG INCORPORATED FIGURE: > rt r}M.y. C.+444. P.,1. 1 DATE OBSERVED:9-9-92 METHOD OF,DRILLING:, 18*Bucket Auger . 1...., D. .. . Sit ..1, 1 1 At..'*:,: 0, LOGGED BY:ADE GROUND ELEVATION:LOCATION:SEE BORING LOC MAP w B - £ mt & 28 =2 LOG OF BORING NO. B-2 [45 2 Wk A 91- W:Sheet 1 of 1 - " * REMARKS .... dci 9 3.- E 25 a.z DESCRIPTION .. 00 0 0ily 5- 10- 15- j 20 - 25- 30- (1333) Hld30 0 FILL: Silty SAND, dark brown, moist. Alll]YIUAL r I - I' /: 4 10.8 6.9 105.9 Silty fine SAND,light brown, moderately moist, #t@** i.94-1i -f* medium dense. . Sandy SILT, brown, moist. :.-2- -:'.1 *:?114&.ia 2....4 PUS H 6.5 18.4 993 Sandy SILT, brown, moist, soft to medium stiff. 1 - . 7€· 4 r 2 63 17.6 962 Same as above, increase in silt content, with some clay, moist, soft to medium stiff...f 3 8.6 16.6 101.6 Sandy SILT, light brown, moist, soft to firm. TOTAL DEFTH 21 Fr NO GROUNDWATER NO CAVING HOLE BACKFILLED 35 JOB NO.:ICG INCORPORATED FIGURE: B-2.101-3058-002-01-00 :42.4 ; : , - 4 i...2.1.4· p-'@42.0i . . .4 -di .5 11'mf N.:1 - '19 ..2 .44,144.W:fit*I .,, : 7.17€ it*?..:,22, 3 } DATE OBSERVED:9-9-92 , METHOD OF DRILLING:.* 18' Bucker Auger 1- 11 - LOGGED BY: ADE GROUND ELEVATION: '' ,$ LOCATION: SEE BORING LOC MAP ''- g E Az g *E E Ne EF LOG OF BORING NO. B-3 c ..t:44:4<: 08 1 E6 1.1 t; z WS .7,2,Sheetttlor 1. ·ic.'F'. 1 9 REMARKSii! g f -ivck- Ju 9 Ar r -Z 'Lz5 -8 zw0 HO -f ·i,; 14:£:0E?,3,7,PTION 0 , i FILL: Silty SAND, dark brown, moderately moist, loose to medium dense , f 63 105.4 --. AI.LI.rm,IM- . * 3 t. · f'*41;2 63 62 96.1 Sitty SAND, brown, moist; lobse/medium stiff TOTAL DEFI'H 6 FT 1 2 k"NO GROUNDWATER ·'. NO CAVING A HOLE BACKFILLED /2' - JOB NO.:ICG INCORPORATED FIGURE:01-3058-002-01-00 B-3.1 ;- --i---- - Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Log' No:.92,26623*94*3·M 43.4 7.P .,/£.S APPENDIX C 95*241 , f 6,--4,?.:43.1 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM ' 524 55* .- .44· t i f f {4 6 ., Page 0*4..,. 1. Sections C-1 to C-7 Laboratory Testing Procedures 1 + C-2 1.. 4... 2. Table C-1 Optimum Moisture Content/Maximum »c Dry Density Test Result 4 C-4 3. Table C-2 Expansion Test Result C-4 4. Table C-3 Sulfate Content Test Result 1' C- A 5. Table C-4 R-Value Test Result C-4 6. Table C-5 Direct Shear Test Result C-5 7. Figure C-1 and C-2 Consolidation Test Results ..t &--#. -4.4,- :;AtdJAWLW.'· 41,- Job No: 01-3058-002-01-06 Xy Log No: 2Ti€*272713'1 Page C-2 "f€,61 9 LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES 1 :, C-1. Classification M> 1 ' '6'i:r»A<i·ti. A ¤tt··*39 a. Soils were classified visually,'.f'generally according to 1 4403*the Unified Soil Classification* System. Moisture content --1#24:.t#e and dry density determinations were made,4·: for i*;if:i:ti:f Mr.representative, undisturbed samples. .311*· 9 V : - 3.-t:i ;':j..7,1: b. Results of moisture-density diterminations, together with classifications, are shown onithe Logs of Borings, in Appendix B. ; .'7£ ... Uswk. C-2. Optimum Moisture Content/Maximum Drv Densitv The maximum dry density/optimum moisture content relationship -.vi: 4< » - was determined for representative samples of the on-site L The laboratory standard used was ASTM: D 1557. The results are presented in Table C-1. C-3. Expansion Index An Expansion Index test was performed on a representative remolded sample of the on-site materials in accordance with ASTM 4829.The test results are shown in Table C-2. C-4. Sulfate Content A water soluble sulfate content test was performed on a representative sample of the on-site soils.The laboratory standard used was California 417.The test result is presented in Table C-3. C-5. R-Value An R-Value test was performed on a representative sample of the near-surface on-site soils in accordance with California 301.The test result is presented in Table C-4. C-6. Direct Shear a.Direct shear tests were performed on a representative, relatively undisturbed sample of the on-site materials. To simulate possible adverse field conditions, the sample was saturated prior to shearing. A saturating device was used which permitted the sample to absorb moisture while preventing volume change. The test results are presented in Table C-5. -............. t ·· j5'BiB UJU, ..4....4.-1.1 4 1496 9.; " 6 *&7<21 U.P.. - Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Log No: 2-26629' 65 * Page C-3 464 LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES ...., C-7. Consolidation i..;. 4144%·. ·.i.,. 0*·7.:e#Fi-.itF,VEFT*74#/%M · -.,ir·¢ I .. . L - h Consolidation tests were performed on representative, * 4,*4-,3*irelatively undisturbed samples of the underlyingffioils*to;i>lailltdetermine compressibility characteristics. 1 Ther samples wireif>204%14 Plisaturated during the tests to simulate possible' adverse. fieldlit'*conditions. The test results are presented in Figures ..C-1'and.'.iql&:tw C-2.t. ...9. 1'.?11.1 :,1. 1 ail,5051:-0 ¢9':e.... :9%-6.t • +5·49 - - :Armt 1 'ff *··'»F? ' I;41*i f.-1.'·' Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 2/4' 1-' 9 • •L t '7 .-2 Log No: 2-2662 Page C-4 - '4;v %$ .,/Fl'/- TABLE C-1 OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT/MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY TEST RESULT , 2*U. 61 --1 Optimum Maximum Dry . I.., 41Test Location Classification ;Moisture Density.,? '.. .#.7,-1.·,a Content (%)(lb/fV)'" ' ,Li·. 13P B-1 @ 1-3' Silty SAND 9.0 128.5.... ,·,: ' '92:S TABLE C-2 EXPANSION TEST RESULT Soil Expansion Expansion Test Location Classification Index Potential 8-1 ,@ 1-3 'Silty SAND 1 Very Low TABLE C-3 WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT TEST RESULT Test Location Soil Classification Soluble Sulfate (%) B-1 @ 1-3'Silty SAND 0.0555 TABLE C-4 R-VALUE TEST RESULT Test Location Soil Classification R-Value B-1 @ 1-3'Silty SAND 25 . 4 - I- . hff Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Log No: 2-2662. 72&34 TABLE C-4 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULT pag€;*5*1 . 4, I# 49,*·:,ii ·:+,1:,r,492.3 'fA¢P Shear Strength Parantetbrs Sample Material Peak Test Depth Type Pit (ft) C 0(lb/ft2) <0 t· *46*%0444*- E .Ilf: U Undisturbed sample C 2. U 5-4 f. lb/ ft') 4 B-2 5 Silty SAND 100 32.5 U L.* --i.- -- I ,d, '4 . . „ ': 114 . i. 1. .1 r . -„0 ..TI. 1, 2/ 71 .A.*d...,P :47*'tt',• .· ·,i'.!j,,•·7. ·1 BORING DEPTH NO.(FEET)SYMBOL SOIL TYPE 9 3 ''ti EXPLANATION SILTY FIELD MOISTURE B-2 5.0 f. s. . ¢FINE 4 SAMPLE SATURATEDSAND' REBOUND4.0 f •,I n 3.0 , . f·:2· t, . I. 2.0 . 7.4 .4 1.0 05 , 91'i %: 0 L 1.0 ---/0 2.0 3.0 4.0 -i 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0O 0 000 g O 000 0 0 000 0O 0 000 O 000 0 0 000 0N M. 10 0 0000 0 0 000 0W MY It) O 0000 0 61 0 .0 0 NORMAL LOAD (PSF) JOB NO.: 01-3058-002-01-00 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE: C-1 ICQ Incorporated ..4.--- -----1 -- 6 BORING DEPTH NO.(FEET) B-2 10.0 4.0 SYMBOL ML SOIL TYPE SANDY SILT .. 44;'4.Ut.·*i<1,„ , 0 : ' *-1-927 7 71'L EXPLANATION r. > , : i. ·' *p.b .21'-49 FIELD MOISTURE , rf#.,". . SAMPLE SATURATED 2 3 . L REBOUND 3.0 2.0 ·,2(3¢A· 1.0 .:10 0 EXPANSIO 2.0 79 46 · -€549 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 J 9.0 10.0 0 0 g 0 0 0 gg 0 0 0 1000 0002 0008 000'0009 00003 0000£00004 00009 000001 NORMAL LOAD (PSF) JOB NO.: 01-3058-002-01-00 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE: C-2 JU S .li,«26 ICQ IncorporatedL- '- 4 From:1 ./bele FIBREBOND CORPORATION 8010 State Line Rd., Leawood, Kansas 6620- (913) 642-5245 (913) 642-2847 (Fax) 9136422847 'I P, Or ' To: Fax:1 14-/ 4,41-5815 Date: Time: .ding this ccver). Please call illegible. LIJ I {4{J '10- 4 Signed:( V Transmitted herewit are (5> pages (inelu (913) 642-5245 if transmission is incomplete or Message:f>UP'.Ll,Ht 1 +41£4 0 /4,wr E,fli 1831C.A/l C e¥,bl Ki *,J- f'-t <·€·,1b A-7-A €/A, C /4*1 ell,Gj 10& 1401.,2.3 Ill-23 . a.&.1 k -f-3 1,4,4 b di'<- 4 0.1 Ot Ate€u:- 64Al-- Av 4r Qi.1. tt-'11. FIBREBOND CORPORATION 1300 DAVENPORT DRIVE • MINDEN. LOUISIANA 71055 . (318) 377.1030 . FAX 377-5756 FAX NE #150 0. ... ., 1 .-5,1*ki,t*·24»t·.,;149.1,1.1-,t.···.4. 1. (14.1., r DEC- 4-92 FRI 8:13 KANSAS CITY RECEIVED LEAWOOD, KANSAS incorDorated DEC 2 1992 Corporate Office: ; 15 Mason 1 Irvine, CA 92718 [ 714/951-8686 B lax: 714/351-7969 M!<TO PROP-.9FN2201uu,Fovember 23, 1992CONSTA---- CORR. COY Job No: 02-9025-001-01-10 Orange County Offices Construction Inspection and Testing 2992 La Pairna, Suite A Anal'e m, CA 92806 714/632-2980 fax: 714/632-9209 Log No: 2-2696 Inspection Engineering & Testing 43114 Black Deer Loop, Suite H Temecula, CA 92590 Attention:Mr. Bill McCarty Geolechnical. 15 Mason SUBJECT: Irvine, CA 92718 714'951-8686 fax: 714/951-7969 Inland Emp;re Olfice REFERENCE: 1906 Orarge Tree Lane, Suite 240 Redlands, CA 92374 74/792-4222 fax: 714/798-1844 FOUNDATION/STRUCTURAL PLAN REVIEW Proposed Detention Facility Santa Ana, California ICG, Inc., 1992, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Detention Facility,Santa Ana, California, dated September 25, 1992, Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00, Log No: 2-2662. San Diego County Office Gentlemen: 9240 Trade Place, Suite 100 San D:ego, CA 92126 619/536-1102 1. INTRODUCTIONfax. 6.9/536-1306 a.This report presents the results of our review of the Foundation/Structure Plans and Footing/Column f Loads for the subject Detention Center, from theF geotechnical aspect. b. i. The Foundation Structural Plans, Sheets SO through S6, dated July 23, 1992, prepared by Johnson Burkholder Associates, were reviewed by us in preparation of this report. ii.The footing and column loads were hand written on the reviewed plans by the Structural Engineer. Geolechnical Services, Construction Inspection and Testing -MIM I , , I ./ We reviewed the Foundations/Structural Plans with respect the following: 0 Inspection Engineering & Testing Job No: 02-9025-001-01-10 November 23, 1992 Log No: 2-2696 Page 2 2.SCOPE OF REVIEW a. i. Footing width, depth and soil-expansivity related reinforcing. ii.Footing/column loads,as related to bearing capacity. b. Slab thickness, reinforcing and vapor barrier (all as related to soil expansivity and moisture). C.The presence under the proposed building of the following existing utility lines: i. PacBell conduit ii.Sewer line iii. 6-inch diameter P.V.C. pipe, the purpose of which is unknown. 3. OBSERVATIONS. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Footings The footings and loads, as shown, have been designed in accordance with the recommendations in the referenced report, in our opinion. 1 - 4-92 FRI 8:15 KANSAS CITY --------FAX NO, 9138422847 Inspection Engineering & Testing Job No: November 23, 1992 Log No: Page 3 3.2 Slabs a.The vapor barrier under the The slabs have been designed substantially as in the referenced report, with the followin Sheet Sl to be 6 mil in thickness. b. As given in the referenced report,the vapor barrier should be 10 mil in thickness. 3.3 Utility Lines Crossings These utility lines were not previously indicated on plans supplied to us. a.Roc Bell Conduit i. We understand, through a conversation with Mr. Marshall Andrews of PacBell, that PacBell will design and construct an encasement to protect the conduit from any excessive pressure imposed by the building footings onto the conduit. ii. The only problem would be if, as a result of a planned survey of the conduit elevations verses those of the planned footings, it were ascertained that the conduit was too shallow to allow for clearance under the footings. P, 04 02-9025-001-01-10 2-2696 recommended g exception: s has been shown on 4-92 FRI 8:18 KANSAS CITY FAX NO, 9136422847 05 Inspection Engineering & Testing Job No: 02-9025-001-01-10 November 23, 1992 Log No: 2-2696 Page 4 iii. The encasement should be sufficiently rigid to not allow any settlement of the subgrade soils. under the footings, as well as to protect the conduit from excessive pressure due to the planned footings. b. Sewer Line i. We understand from Mr. Pat Johnson of Johnston Burkholder Associates, that the existing sewer line is at least 8 feet below finished floor elevation. ii.Per the loads indicated on the Foundation Plan, the maximum pressure exerted by the footings above the sewer line will be 200 lb/lin. foot, or 133 lb/ft2, based on the indicated footing width of 1.5 foot. iii. Using the Westergaard analysis for pressure exerted beneath footings, we have estimated the maximum pressure on the sewer line due to the planned footings to be 201 lb/ftz. iv.We therefore expect that the sewer pipe should not be significantly influenced by construction of the proposed footings, in our opinion. C.6-inch PVC Pine The purpose and present use of the existing 6-inch DEC- .. - 4-92 FRI 8:18 KANSAS CITY FAX NO. 9138422847 PVC pipe are not known, at this time. P. 06 -001-01-10 ;ed and The of the ssible. Inspection Engineering & Testing Job No:02-9025 November 23, 1992 Log No: 2-2696 Page 5 i. We recommend that this pipe be expos examined at the time of construction purpose/use, size, location and depth pipe should be determined, if at all po ii.Results should be given to the Geotechnical and Structural Engineers to determine whether any remedial measures are necessary.Possible .solutions include removal Of the pipe, encasement of the pipe or redesign of the footings. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated.If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, ICG INCORPORATED ,1 Robeft P. Dennis, R.G.E. 266 Amer D. Espili Associate Engineer Project Engineer Registration expires 9/30/93 RPD:ADE:gof Distribution: 1. 2. 3. Addressee (4) Johnson Burkholder Associates Attn: Mr. Pat Johnston (1) Pacific Bell Telephone Co. Attn: Mr. Marshall Andrews (1) X ' ....f,-1 L1 ICG incotporated Orange County Offices: Geotechnical: 15 Mason Irvine, CA 92718 714/951-8686 fax 714/951-7969 October 16, 1992 Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Log No: 2 -:'2673 City of Santa Ana Construction Inspection Public Works Agency and Testing: 2992 La Palma,P.O. Box 1988 M-21 Suite A Santa Ana, California 92702 Anaheim, CA 92806 714/632-2980 fax 714/632-9209 Attention: Inland Empire Office: 1906 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 240 Redlands, CA 92374 ·SUBJECT: 714/792-4222 fax 714/798-1844 San Diego County Office: 9240 Trade Place, Suite 100 REFERENCE: San Diego, CA 92126 619/536-1102 fax 619/536-1306 Coachella Valley Office: 77-564 Country Club Dr., Suite 400 B Palm Desert, CA 92260 619/772-3182 Gentlemen: Mr. David Niknafs, P.E. AMENDMENT: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Proposed Detention Facility Santa Ana, California ICG Incorporated,1992,Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Detention Facility, Santa Ana, California, September 25, 1992, Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00, Log No: 2-2662. Corporate Onice: 15 Mason, Irvine, CA 92718 714/95143686 fax 714/951 -7969 Subsection 7.4.b (Allowable Bearing Capacity) of our above referenced report has a typographical error.The first part of the subsection should read as follows: Embedment Allowable Bearing (ft)Capacity (lb/ft2) 1.5 1 2 2 /500 ,000 (The change is in the first Embedment depth: from 1.0 ft to 1.5 ft.) Geotechnical Services, Construction Inspection and Testing City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 October 16, 1992 Log No; 2-2673 Page 2 If there are any questions, please do notchesitate··toficontactiour office. Very truly =yours,: ...6=... D.9 00 S :2_- 0 ICG INCORPORATED 0+6<-ESSIO A ---=.·--lit&' HUGH Ac.l'EQI .MARLEY 4/1 1\- "0% Att/ ,8211*1 Axp. Datele*2 Hugh A. Marl.&. DU-:RE -v-/* .- ..:--7.1,-GE 2034President/Chi€* ..Registra-tforir'exAA . ....J Geotechnical Division.'-u. fortru**L# 0- HAM:ADE:gof Distribution:. .1.Addressee (4) (including 1 copy for Mr. Shambhu Kayastha: please copy to any Consultant/Contractor as 6.==-=22-n N..1 .you..consider= relevant. )-. -- - E=Deamenc ·- G L ... -1.9 t\\ -- .- 'TM ICG incorporated Orange County Offices: Geotechnlcal: 15 Mason Irvine, CA 92718 714/951-8686 fax 714/951-7969 Construction Inspection and Testing: 2992 La Palma, Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 714/632-2980 fax 714/632-9209 Inland Empire Office: 1906 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 240 Redlands, CA 92374 714/792·4222 fax 714/798-1844 San Diego County Office: 9240 Trade Place, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92126 619/536-1102 fax 619/536-1306 Coachella Valley Office: 77-564 Country Club Dr., Suite 400 B Palm Desert, CA 92260 619/772-3182 Corporate Office: 15 Mason, Irvine, CA 92718 714/951-8686 fax 714/951-7969 I I October 16, 1992 Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Log No: 222673 City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency P.O. Box 1988 M-21 Santa Ana, California 92702 Attention:Mr. David Niknafs, P.E. SUBJECT:AMENDMENT: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Proposed Detention Facility Santa Ana, California REFERENCE:ICG Incorporated,1992,Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Detention Facility, Santa Ana, California, September 25, 1992, Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00, Log No: 2-2662. Gentlemen: Subsection 7.4.b (Allowable Bearing Capacity) of our above referenced report has a typographical error.The first part of the subsection should read as follows: - Embedment Allowable Bearing (ft)Capacity (lb/fth 1.5 1,500 2 2,000 (The change is in the first Embedment depth: from 1.0 ft to 1.5 ft.) Gentechnical Services- Construction Insoection and Testino City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 October 16, 1992 Log No; 2-2673 Page 2 If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, ICG INCORPORATED 5»777 Hugh A. MarleM..Vh. D. GE 2034 -UttorPresident/Chief-gptia Registration expr¥*: Geotechnical Division HAM:ADE:gof Distribution: 1.Addressee (4) (including 1 copy for Mr. Shambhu Kayastha: please copy to any Consultant/Contractor as you consider relevant.) MARLEY N-'61 Exp. Datelemz29 - 11#GE 2034 jj OCT 19 '92 14:59 I CG - ICG it inco*orated Orang, County Offic- Gootechn-I: 15 Mason Irvine. CA 92718 714,951-6686 fax: 714/351-7969 FACSIMILE ME88AGE ICG, INC. CORPORATE FAX #951-6813 Coristrl.Calon *Spection and Tes: ng 2992 La Palma: Suite A Ananam CA 92806 714,632-2980 fax: 714,'632-9209 DATE:0(j- A , <09% 1/TIME: vi .19 fly' Inland Empire Or?,ce;eAge Tree Lane, .*0 i +1 0-11 3 0 4-f 6 AAECOMPANY NAME:Reclanss. CA 92374 714,792-4222 tax. 714,798-·1844 San Diego C:unry Or..e 9240 Tra j.. Fic{ Suite 100 Sal' 0,¢go. ¢, 92'.26 619'536·1102 V ATTENTION: NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover page) #ax 619.536-1306 Corporate Office 15 1ason Irvine. CA 92718 714/951-13686 tax- 7 14 ilil SENDER RPIMARKS: AS .re-%--uufo k , - 14-A« 4-0,162- This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us via the U.S. Postal Service.Thank you. 1 6. Geolechnical Ser¢Ices, Constructton Inspection and Testing >All OCT Q 19 '92 14::59 I-- -LG l ICG incorporated October 16, 1992 Orange County OMIC®s. Geolechnical: 15 Mason Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 Irvine, CA 92718 714/951 -8686 Log No: 2=2673 fax 714951 -7969 City of Santa Ana Const<.letion Inspectirn Public Works Agencyand Testing: 2992 La Palma,P.O. Box 1988 M-21 Suite A Santa Ana, California 92702 Anaheim, CA 928C6 714/532·29.90 tax 714,632·9209 Attention: Intar.d Empire Olljoa 1906 Orange Tree Lane, Sune 240 Redlands, CA 92374 SUBJECT: 714/792·4222 :a* 714/738.1 644 San Diego Cow.[y 0#oe: 9240 Trade Place, Suite 100 REFERENCE: San Diego, CA 92'26 619:536·1102 fax 61 &536-1306 Coachella 'ialley DIT:re· 77-564 Country Club Dr. Suite 400 B Pairn De>ert. CA 92260 619/772-3182 Gentlemen: Mr. David Niknafs, P.E. AMENDMENT: GEOTECMNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Proposed Detention Facility Santa Ana, California ICG Incorporated,1992,Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Detention Facility, Santa Ana, California, September 25, 1992, Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00, Log No: 2-2662. ./ %. 1.-r 7,411 Cof:>ora:e C'thie: 15 F.lason. irv.ne. CA 32718 714/95,1 ·8685 faX 7'.4,951 -7969 Subsection 7.4.b (Allowable Bearing Capacity) cf our above referenced report has a typographical error. The first part of the subsection should read as follcws: Embedment Allowable Bearing (ft)Capacity ( lb/:tz) 1.5 1,500 2 2,000 (The change is in the first Embedment depth: from 1.0 ft 12 1.5 ft.) .10%1..- Geotechnical Sennces, Const,uction tnspeaton and lasting e=91., <'4 ICT 19 '92 15:00 ICG 6 P.3/3 City of Santa Ana Job No: 01-3058-002-01-00 October 16, 1992 Log No; 2-2673 Page 2 If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, IcG INCORPORATED»Of-EsC f ifr MABLEHUOH A N,332'.: /:r-7\. IM2 ----- :*. 6:32 >-fLExp. Datotaps-(IN, 3L/- ,'lutz Z J.1-1 f;Hugh A. Marll 1.D., PE GE 2034 %>....49,(. il16 President/Chi,0<0*P I ... N. 9Registration i. ... 1* 077939 Geotechnical D.lvisiiNn·---r-z.„ A Pyn HAM:ADE:gof Distribution:1. Addressee (4) (including 1 copy for Mr. Shambhu Kayastha: please copy to any Consultant/Contractor as you consider relevant.) r .h VI a 1392-10-19 15:04 PAGE = UJ