~ CHJ Consultants

1355 E. Cooley Drive. Suite C. Colton, CA-92324 Phone(909) 824-7311 Fax (909).5031136
15345Anacapa Road, SuiteD, Victorville, CA 92392 Phone {760) 2430506 fax(760) 243-1225
77-564A Country Club Drive, Suite 122, 'Palm Desert, CA 92211 Phone (760) 772-8234 Fax (909) 503c1136
County of Riverside
Economic Development Agency
3403 1Oth Street, Suite 500
Riverside, California 92501
Attention: Mr. Rizaldy Balayot
Dear Mr. Balayot:
April1, 2013
Job No. 13143-3
This letter transmits six copies of our Geotechnical Investigation report for the proposed East County
Detention Center parking structure, to be located southeast of the intersection of Oasis Street and
Plaza A venue in the City of Indio, California
We appreciate this opportunity to provide geotechnical services for this project. If you have
questions or comments concerning this report, please contact this firm at your convenience.
FY:lb
Distribution: County of Riverside (6)
Respectfully submitted,
CHJCONSULTANTS
Fred Yi, Ph.D., G.E.
Chief Engineer

PROPOSED EAST COUNTY DETENTION CENTER
PARKING STRUCTURE
SOUTHEAST OF OASIS STREET
AND PLAZA A VENUE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
ECONONUCDEVELOPMENTAGENCY
JOB NO. 13143-3
~ * ~ CHJ Consultants
~ 1355 E. Cooley Drive, Suite C. Colton, CA 92324 Phone (909) 824-7311 Fax (909) 503-1136
15345 Anacapa Road, Suite D, Victorville, CA 92392 Phone (760) 243-0506 Fax (760) 243-1225
77 -564A Country Club Drive, Suite 122, Palm Desert, CA 92211 Phone (760) 772-8234 Fax (909) 503-1136
County of Riverside
Economic Development Agency
3403 1Oth Street, Suite 500
Riverside, California 92501
Attention: Mr. Rizaldy Balayot
Dear Mr. Balayot:
April 1, 2013
Job No. 13143-3
Attached herewith is the Geotechnical Investigation report, prepared for the proposed East County
Detention Center parking structure, to be located southeast of the intersection of Oasis Street and
Plaza A venue in the City of Indio, California.
This report was based upon a scope of services generally outlined in our proposal, dated March 5,
2013, and other written and verbal communications.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide geotechnical services for this project. If you have
questions or comments concerning this report, please contact this finn at your convenience.
FY:lb
Respectfully submitted,
CHJCONSULTANTS
~
Fred Yi, Ph.D., G.E.
Chief Engineer
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING + MATERIALS TESTING + CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION + ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................... 2
SCOPE OF SERVICES......................................................................................................... 2
SITE DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................ 3
FIELD INVESTIGATION.................................................................................................... 3
LABORATORY INVESTIGATION.................................................................................... 4
SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS........................................... 5
FAULTING............................................................................................................................ 6
Fault Rupture Hazard Potential..................................................................................... 7
Local and Regional Faults ............................. ..... ..... .. .......... ....... ... ....... ............ ............ 7
San Andreas Fault Zone ........... .............. .......... ..... ....... ................. .......... .. ............ 7
San Gorgonio Pass Fault Zone.............................................................................. 8
Eureka Peak and Burnt Mountain Faults............................................................... 9
Brawley Seismic Zone........................................................................................... 9
San Jacinto Fault Zone.......................................................................................... 9
Pinto Mountain Fault............................................................................................. 10
HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES......................................................................................... 10
DESIGN ACCELERATION PARAMETERS...................................................................... 11
GROUNDWATER................................................................................................................ 12
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT...................................... 13
SLOPE STABILITY AND LANDSLIDE POTENTIAL..................................................... 16
FLOODING........................................................................................................................... 17
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL................................................................................................ 17
HYDROCONSOLIDATION................................................................................................. 18
CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................... 18
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................... 21
Seismic Design Considerations..................................................................................... 21
General Site Grading..................................................................................................... 21
Initial Site Preparation . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . .... . ... 22
Preparation of Fill Areas............................................................................................... 23
Compacted Fills............................................................................................................ 24
Lateral Loading............................................................................................................. 25
Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure..................................................................................... 27
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Potential Erosion........................................................................................................... 28
Expansive Soils............................................................................................................. 28
Soil Corrosion............................................................................................................... 28
Preliminary Flexible Pavement Design . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .............. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . .. . . . 29
Preliminary Rigid Pavement Design............................................................................. 30
SHALLOW FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................... 32
Preparation of Footing Areas........................................................................................ 32
Foundation Design........................................................................................................ 32
Modulus ofSubgrade Reaction..................................................................................... 33
Slabs-on-Grade............................................................................................................. 34
DEEP FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................. 34
Allowable Axial Pile Capacities................................................................................... 35
Lateral Pile Analysis..................................................................................................... 36
Pile Spacing and Group Efficiency............................................................................... 3 7
CIDH Pile Installation................................................................................................... 39
Pre-Job Conference....................................................................................................... 40
Construction Observation ........ ......... ..... ........ ........ ................. ....... ....... ............ .. .......... 40
LIMITATIONS ............ :......................................................................................................... 41
CLOSURE 42
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................... 43
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED............................................................................. 48
TABLE OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX "A" - GEOTECHNICAL MAPS
Index Map........................................................................................................... "A-1"
Site Plan.............................................................................................................. "A-2"
Geologic Index Map........................................................................................... "A-3"
Regional Fault Map............................................................................................ "A-4"
Earthquake Epicenter Map................................................................................. "A-5"
APPENDIX "B"- EXPLORATORY LOGS
Key to Logs ....................................................................................................... .
Engineering Properties from SPT Blows .......................................................... .
Soil Classification Chart .................................................................................... .
Exploratory Boring Logs, East County Detention Center Parking Structure .... .
APPENDIX "C"- LABORATORY TESTING
Particle Size Distribution (ASTM D422) .......................................................... .
Compaction Curves (ASTM D1557) ................................................................ .
Consolidation Tests (ASTM D2435) ................................................................ .
Direct Shear Tests (ASTM D3080) ................................................................... .
Test Data Summary ........................................................................................... .
Corrosivity Test Results .................................................................................... .
R-Value Test. ..................................................................................................... .
AC & PCC Structural Section Design ............................................................... .
APPENDIX "D" - GEOTECHNICAL CALCULATIONS
Liquefaction Potential - SPT Data ..................................................................... .
Seismic Settlement Potential - SPT Data .......................................................... .
Earth Pressures .................................................................................................. .
APPENDIX "E"- PILE CALCULATIONS
Pile Results, 24-Inch Pile .................................................................................. .
Pile Results, 30-Inch Pile .................................................................................. .
Pile Results, 36-Inch Pile .................................................................................. .
Downward Pile Capacity ................................................................................... .
Uplift Pile Capacity ........................................................................................... .
"B" (1 of3)
"B" (2 of3)
"B" (3 of3)
"B-1 "-"B-9"
"C-1"
"C-2"
"C-3"
"C-4"-"C-11 II
"C-12"
"C-13"
"C-14"
"C-15"
"D-1 "-"D-3"
"D-4 II-"D-6"
"D-7"
"E-1 II- "E-3"
"E-4" - "E-6 II
"E-7" - "E-9"
"E-10"
"E-ll"
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED EAST COUNTY DETENTION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
SOUTHEAST OF OASIS STREET AND PLAZA A VENUE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JOB NO. 13143-3
INTRODUCTION
During March and April of 2013, a geotechnical investigation was performed by this firm for the
proposed East County Detention Center (ECDC) parking structure, to be located southeast of the
intersection of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue in the City of Indio, California. The purposes of this
investigation were to explore and evaluate the geotechnical engineering/engineering geologic
conditions of the site and to provide appropriate geotechnical engineering and engineering geologic
recommendations for design and construction of the proposed development.
To orient our investigation at the site, an electronic copy of the 30-scale ECDC Parking Structure
Space Plan, dated January 22, 2013, prepared by Holt Architecture, was provided to us. Google
Earth's aerial imagery was also utilized. The approximate location of the proposed facility is shown
on the attached Index Map (Appendix "A").
C.H.J., Incorporated performed a geotechnical investigation for the County Administrative
Center/Law Library improvement project in 2008 (Job No. 08659-3, dated October 17, 2008). A
geotechnical investigation was performed by CHJ Consultants, Inc. for the ECDC project in 2012
(Job No. 12643-3, dated October 23, 2012), proposed for construction northwest of the intersection of
Plaza A venue and Oasis Street. Information obtained for these investigations was referenced during
the preparation of this report.
The results of our investigation, together with our conclusions and recommendations, are presented in
this report.
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
Page No.2
Job No. 13143-3
It is our understanding, based on the Parking Structure Space Plan (dated January 22, 2013, prepared
by Holt Architecture), that a three-level, multi-bay structure is being added to ECDC. The proposed
parking structure will include 330 stalls per level with dimensions of approximately 240 feet
east-west and 474 feet north-south. The total footprint will occupy approximately 113,760 square
feet.
The site is currently occupied by a paved parking lot.
Project grading plans were not available at the time of our investigation. However, observation of
site topography and of adjacent developments indicates that development of this site will entail minor
cuts and fills. The final project grading plan should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services provided during this geotechnical investigation included the following:
Review of published and unpublished geologic literature, maps and prior pertinent
geotechnical/geologic reports prepared by C.H.J., Incorporated, CHJ Consultants and others
Review of aerial photographs flown between 1974 and 2011
Field reconnaissance of the site and surrounding area
Marking of exploration locations in the field and notification of Underground Service Alert
Geophysical investigation of the proposed boring locations to avoid utility conflicts
Placement of nine exploratory borings within the anticipated parking structure area
Logging and sampling of the nine exploratory borings for testing and evaluation
Laboratory testing on selected samples
Evaluation of geologic hazards
Page No.3
Job No. 13143-3
Evaluation of the geotechnical data to develop site-specific recommendations for site grad-
ing, shallow and deep foundation design, preliminary asphalt concrete (AC) and Portland
cement concrete (PCC) pavement structural section design, and mitigation of potential
geotechnical concerns and hazards, such as liquefaction and seismic settlement
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located east of Oasis Street and south of Plaza A venue in the City of Indio, Riverside
County, California, and is developed as an existing parking lot with associated infrastructure. The
site is relatively level and is approximately 11 feet below mean sea level (msl). Evidence of
underground utilities was observed throughout the site.
In the reviewed aerial photographs dated 1974, 1980 and 1984, the site appears to be largely
undeveloped, although several structures are present in the center and northern portions of the site.
At those times, none of the subject site was paved. Aerial images dated 1996 show the site to be in
its approximate present condition. No evidence of faulting or other geologic hazards was seen in the
aerial photographs reviewed or at the site during the geologic reconnaissance.
No other surface features pertinent to this investigation were noted.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The soil conditions underlying the subject site were explored by means of nine hollow-stem auger
borings drilled with a truck-mounted CME 75 drill rig equipped for soil sampling. The exploratory
borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 76-112 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs).
The approximate locations of our exploratory borings are indicated on the attached Site Plan
(Enclosure "A-2").
Page No.4
Job No. 13143-3
Continuous logs of the subsurface conditions, as encountered within the exploratory borings, were
recorded at the time of drilling by a staff geologist from this firm. Both a standard penetration test
(SPn sampler (2-inch outer diameter and 1-3/8-inch inner diameter) and a modified California sam-
pler (3-inch outer diameter and 2-3/8-inch inner diameter) were utilized in our investigation.
Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by driving the modified California sampler (a
split-spoon ring sampler) ahead of the borings at selected levels. The penetration resistance was
recorded on the boring logs as the number of hammer blows used to advance the sampler in 6-inch
increments (or less if noted). Samplers are driven with an automatic hammer that drops a
140-pound weight 30 inches for each blow. After the required seating, the sampler is advanced up
to 18 inches, providing up to three sets of blowcounts at each sampling interval. The recorded
blows are raw numbers without any corrections for hammer type (automatic vs. manual cathead) or
sampler size (California sampler vs. SPT sampler). Relatively undisturbed as well as bulk samples
of typical soil types obtained were returned to the laboratory in sealed containers for testing and
evaluation.
Our exploratory boring logs, together with our in-place blowcounts per 6-inch increment, are pre-
sented in Appendix "B". The stratification lines presented on the boring logs represent approximate
boundaries between soil types, which may include gradual transitions.
LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
Included in our laboratory testing program were field moisture content tests on all samples returned
to the laboratory and field dry density tests on all relatively undisturbed ring samples. The results
are included on the boring logs. Optimum moisture content - maximum dry density relationships
were established for typical soil types. Direct shear tests were performed on selected relatively
undisturbed and remolded samples in order to provide shear strength parameters for bearing capacity,
earth pressure and settlement evaluations. Consolidation tests were performed on selected relatively
undisturbed samples in order to provide parameters for settlement and hydroconsolidation evaluations.
Sieve analyses were performed on selected samples as an aid to classification and to provide fines
Page No.5
Job No. 13143-3
contents for liquefaction and seismic settlement analyses. Atterberg limits testing was conducted on
selected clay-like soils as an aid to classification. An expansion index test was performed on a
selected sample to evaluate the expansion potential of the on-site soils.
Sieve analyses, sand equivalent tests and R-value tests were performed on probable pavement sub-
grade soils to develop criteria for preliminary pavement design recommendations. Selected samples
of materials were delivered to HDRISchiff for chemical/corrosivity testing.
Summaries of the laboratory test results appear in Appendix "C". Soil classifications provided in
our geotechnical investigation report are generally per the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS).
SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS
The site is located in the central Coachella Valley in the Colorado Desert geomorphic province. The
Coachella Valley extends southeastward from the San Gorgonio Pass to the Salton Sea region and is
traversed by segments of the San Andreas fault zone. The lowland of the Coachella Valley accumu-
lates sediments from surrounding highlands in the form of alluvial and eolian (wind-deposited)
materials. The valley in the area of the site is bounded on the southwest by the San Jacinto and
Santa Rosa mountains and on the northeast by the Indio Hills. The channel of the Whitewater River
is located about 1-1/4 miles northeast of the site. According to published geologic mapping
(Dibblee, 2008, Enclosure "A-3"), the site is underlain by alluvial sand and clay.
Data from our exploratory borings indicate that the soil profile at the site typically consists of
silt/sandy silt (ML) with interlayered silty sand (SM) to depths ranging from approximately 60 to
65 feet bgs, underlain by silty sand (SM) and/or sand (SP-SM, SP) to the maximum depths explored.
The soils encountered generally ranged from loose to medium dense, generally increasing in density
with depth. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are shown on the attached Site
Plan (Enclosure "A-2").
Page No.6
Job No. 13143-3
Fill classified as silty sand (SM) was encountered in all of our exploratory borings to depths ranging
from approximately 3 to 7 feet bgs.
Groundwater was encountered within Exploratory Boring Nos. 1, 2 and 3 at depths of 70, 70, and
69 feet bgs, respectively.
Refusal to further advancement of the drill auger was not experienced in any of the exploratory
borings.
Bedrock was not encountered within the exploratory borings.
No caving of the boring walls in the upper 10 feet of the borings was observed upon removal of the
augers.
A graphic depiction of the subsurface soil conditions encountered is presented on the attached boring
logs (Appendix "B ").
Expansion testing performed on samples of silt-bearing soil indicated a "very low" potential for
expansion when tested as per ASTM D4829.
The results of corrosivity testing are discussed in the "Soil Corrosion" section of this report.
FAULTING
The following section describes and summarizes the regional and local hazards related to faults and
fault-related phenomena for the site.
FAULT RUPTURE HAZARD POTENTIAL:
PageNo. 7
Job No. 13143-3
The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (APZ) designated by the State
of California for active faults. According to the County of Riverside General Plan (2005) and City
of Indio General Plan (2006), faults are not located beneath the site. The closest APZ, designated
for faults of the Coachella segment of the San Andreas fault zone, is located approximately 4 kilome-
ters (2.5 miles) northeast of the site. Active faults are not mapped within or projecting through the
site, and evidence of faulting was not observed in the aerial imagery reviewed. Therefore, the
potential for fault rupture beneath the site is considered low.
LOCAL AND REGIONAL FAULTS:
The tectonics of the Southern California area are dominated by the interaction of the North American
plate and the Pacific plate, which are sliding past each other in a translational manner. Although
some of the motion may be accommodated by rotation of crustal blocks such as the western Trans-
verse Ranges (Dickinson, 1996), the San Andreas fault zone is thought to represent the major surface
expression of the tectonic boundary and to be accommodating most of the translational motion
between the Pacific plate and the North American plate. However, some of the plate motion is
accommodated by other northwest-trending, strike-slip faults that are thought to be related to the San
Andreas system, such as the San Jacinto fault and the Elsinore fault. Local compressional or exten-
sional strain resulting from the translational motion along this boundary is accommodated by
left-lateral, reverse and normal faults (Matti and others, 1992; Morton and Matti, 1993). A map
showing the site in relation to regional faults is presented in Appendix "A" (Enclosure "A-4").
San Andreas Fault Zone
The San Andreas fault zone (SAFZ) traverses the eastern side of the Coachella Valley along the
southwest flank of the Indio Hills located to the northeast of the site. The SAFZ begins a "bend" in
the northwest portion of the Coachella Valley where it assumes a more westerly trend as it bounds the
southern flank of the San Bernardino Mountains region. This bend results in a complex interaction
of faults in the region northwest of the site, with compressional, translational and extensional styles
of faulting of varying age. Closer to the site, the northwest-trending San Andreas fault zone consists
Page No.8
Job No. 13143-3
of two main sub-parallel strands. The closest mapped trace of the San Andreas fault is located
approximately 4.3 kilometers (2-3/4 miles) northeast of the site. The San Andreas fault is character-
ized by youthful fault scarps, vegetational lineaments, springs and offset drainages. The Working
Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (1995) tentatively assigned a 28 percent (13 percent)
probability to a major earthquake occurring on the San Bernardino Mountains segment of the San
Andreas fault between 1994 and 2024. More recent studies of the southern segment of the San
Andreas fault, which includes the portion located near the site, suggest that the southern segment is
capable of producing a large earthquake (Fialko, 2006).
The Mission Creek, Banning and Gamet Hill segments of the San Andreas fault zone branch from the
Coachella Valley segment at a point located approximately 7 kilometers (4-1/2 miles) north of the
site. Multiple fault strands distributed across a zone approximately 500 meters wide with conc.en-
trated faulting in a 200-meter-wide zone are interpreted for the Mission Creek fault in the Desert Hot
Springs area based on seismic imaging studies (Catchings et al., 2009). Near-surface strands of the
Mission Creek fault form a groundwater barrier and converge at depth into a vertical to
southwest-dipping fault zone (Catchings et al., 2009). The Banning fault dips toward the Mission
Creek fault located to the northeast, forming a single fault zone at depth (Catchings et al., 2009).
The SAFZ is considered the most important fault with respect to the potential to produce strong
ground shaking at the site.
San Gorgonio Pass Fault Zone
The active San Gorgonio Pass fault zone (SGPFZ), located in the San Gorgonio Pass area approxi-
mately 40 kilometers (25 miles) northwest of the site, is a youthful, east-west-trending system of
thrust and reverse faults that has been overprinting and lies south of the Banning fault. This fault
system forms a portion of the southern boundary of the Transverse Ranges and is also associated with
the San Andreas fault zone. The SGPFZ is characterized by several discontinuous,
northwest-trending, en echelon faults. These faults form a zone approximately 1 mile wide in early-
to mid-Holocene age alluvial fan deposits and are evidence of an active system of strike-slip/thrust
Page No.9
Job No. 13143-3
faults that roughly parallel Interstate 10 and bound the mountain front between Banning and
Whitewater River (Yule and Sieh, 2003).
Eureka Peak and Burnt Mountain Faults
The Eureka Peak and Burnt Mountain faults were revealed as a result of surface rupture along the
southern portion of the Landers earthquake rupture system. The faults are located approximately
29 kilometers (18 miles) north-northwest of the site and are thought to be significant in transferring
slip from the SAFZ into the Eastern California shear zone. Geologic investigations suggest that the
last pre-Landers earthquake to occur on the Eureka Peak fault was more than 11,000 years before the
present (Yucca Valley, 1995).
Brawley Seismic Zone
The Brawley seismic zone is a linear zone of seismicity that includes surface and concealed faults
located approximately 1 05 kilometers ( 66 miles) south-southeast of the site. The Brawley seismic
zone is associated with a right step between the Imperial fault zone and San Andreas fault zone,
forming an inferred spreading center segment beneath the Imperial Valley (Treiman, 1999). Earth-
quake swarms associated with the Brawley zone occurred in 1975, 1981, 2005 and most recently in
August/September 2012.
San Jacinto Fault Zone
The San Jacinto fault zone is a system of northwest-trending, right-lateral strike-slip faults. The
Anza/Clark segment of the San Jacinto fault zone is located approximately 35 kilometers (22 miles)
southwest of the site and is associated with the moment magnitude (Mw) 6.4 San Jacinto earthquake
of 1954. The most recent surface rupture along the San Jacinto fault zone occurred in 1968 along
the Coyote Creek segment during an Mw 6.5 earthquake. More large historic earthquakes have
occurred on the San Jacinto fault than any other fault in Southern California (Working Group on
California Earthquake Probabilities, 1988). The Working Group on California Earthquake
Probabilities (1995) tentatively assigned a 37 percent (17 percent) probability of a major earthquake
Page No. 10
Job No. 13143-3
on the San Bernardino Valley segment of the San Jacinto fault for the 30-year interval from 1994 to
2024.
Pinto Mountain Fault
The Pinto Mountain fault is a left lateral, strike-slip fault system trending eastward approximately
28 kilometers (45 miles) from the eastern San Bernardino mountains to the Twentynine Palms area
(Jennings, 1994). The closest portion of the fault to the site is located approximately 48 kilometers
(29 miles) northwest of the site. This fault exhibits Holocene-age activity and experienced triggered
slip during the 1992 Landers earthquake event. Portions of the Pinto Mountain fault are included
within Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones designated by the State of California.
IDSTORICAL EARTHQUAKES
A map of recorded earthquake epicenters is included as Enclosure "A-5" (Epi Software, 2000). This
map includes the California Institute of Technology database for earthquakes with magnitudes of 4.0
or greater from 1932 through 2011.
The Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (1988) lists seven Mw 6.0 or greater
earthquakes that have occurred on the San Jacinto fault since 1899, although they acknowledge that
several of the earlier episodes may have occurred on other nearby faults. The Clark segment of the
San Jacinto fault zone is associated with the Mw 6.4 San Jacinto earthquake of 1954. The most
recent surface rupture along the San Jacinto fault zone occurred in 1968 along the Coyote Creek seg-
ment during an Mw 6.5 earthquake. Two earthquakes took place in the San Bernardino Valley.
An Mw 6.5 event in 1899 near Lytle Creek and an Mw 6.2 event in 1923 near Lorna Linda may have
occurred on the San Jacinto fault. However, Fife and others (1976) and Matti and Carson (1991)
suggest that the 1923 event took place on an unnamed fault parallel to and east of the San Jacinto
fault.
Page No. 11
Job No. 13143-3
The Coachella Valley segment of the San Andreas fault was the locus for the 1948 Mw 6.5 earth-
quake in the Desert Hot Springs area and for the 1986 Mw 5.6 earthquake in the North Palm Springs
area. Surface rupture occurred on the Mojave segment of the San Andreas fault in the great 1857
Fort Tejon earthquake. Using dendrochronological evidence, Jacoby and others (1987) inferred that
a great earthquake on December 8, 1812, ruptured the northern reaches of the San Bernardino Moun-
tains segment. Recent trenching studies have revealed evidence of rupture on the San Andreas fault
at Wrightwood within this time frame (Fumal and others, 1993). Comparison of rupture events at
the Wrightwood site and Pallett Creek, and analysis of reported intensities at the coastal missions, led
Fumal and others (1993) to conclude that the December 8, 1812, event ruptured the San Bernardino
Mountains segment of the San Andreas fault largely to the southeast of Wrightwood, possibly extend-
ing into the San Bernardino Valley.
Surface slip/rupture occurred on the Burnt Mountain and Eureka Peak faults during the Landers
earthquake sequence in 1992. These relatively short faults are postulated to produce moderate
earthquakes of magnitude 6.4 to 6. 7 during independent earthquake events.
Significant historic earthquakes have not specifically been attributed to the Pinto Mountain fault or
San Gorgonio Pass fault zone. The magnitude 7.3 Landers earthquake occurred June 28, 1992,
approximately 64 kilometers ( 40 miles) northwest of the site. The Mw 7.1 Hector Mine earthquake
occurred on October 16, 1999, approximately 97 kilometers (60 miles) north of the site.
DESIGN ACCELERATION PARAMETERS
Based on the geologic setting and anticipated earthwork for construction of the proposed project, the
soils underlying the site are classified as Site Class "D", according to the 2010 California Building
Code (CBC) and ASCE 7-05.
The design acceleration parameters are summarized in the following table.
Table 1
PageNo.12
Job No. 13143-3
Design Acceleration Parameters
Mapped Spectral Acceleration Parameters Ss = 1.71 and S1 = 0.69
Site Coefficients Fa= 1.0 and Fv = 1.5
Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake
SMs = 1.71 and SM1 = 1.04
Spectral Response Parameters
Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters Sos = 1.14 and Sm = 0.69
The corresponding value of peak ground acceleration (PGA) from the design response spectrum is
0.46g. Based on the design spectral acceleration parameters and ASCE 7-05, the project is consid-
ered Seismic Design Category "D".
GROUNDWATER
The site is located in Section 26 of Township 5 South, Range 7 East in the Thermal subarea of the
Whitewater subbasin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. Groundwater data in the vicinity
of the site are summarized in the following table.
Table 2
Depth to
Water
Location
Date Surface
DataiD
Measured
Water
Elevation
of Reference
(feet)
{feet)
Data Point
1961 Contour Map
1961 20 -30
DWR(1964)
Contour Map
1978-1988 10 to 30 -20 to -40 Regional Mapping CVWD(2010)
Boring 2 (CHJ 13143-3)
10-01-2012 69.3 -79.3 On-site
Boring 5 (CHJ 13143-3)
10-02-2012 70.5 -80.5 On-site
CHJ (2012)
Boring 10 (CHJ 13143-3)
10-03-2012 72.0 -82.0 On-site
Boring 1 (CHJ 08659-3)
10-03-2008 62.0 -72.0 On-site CHJ (2008)
Page No. 13
Job No. 13143-3
Groundwater was encountered at depths of 70, 70, and 69 feet bgs in Boring Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in our
current borings at the site.
Based on the available historic and recent groundwater data for the site and the anticipated groundwa-
ter conditions during the project lifetime, the depth to historic high groundwater is 20 feet bgs.
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT
According to the County of Riverside (2012) and the City of Indio (2006), the site is located within
an area identified as having a potential for liquefaction based on the potential for shallow
groundwater.
Liquefaction is a process in which strong ground shaking causes saturated soils to lose their strength
and behave as a fluid (Matti and Carson, 1991). Ground failure associated with liquefaction can
result in severe damage to structures. Soil types susceptible to liquefaction include sand, silty sand,
sandy silt and silt, as well as soils having a plasticity index (PI) less than 7 (Boulanger and Idriss,
2006). Loose soils with a PI less than 12 and moisture content greater than 85 percent of the liquid
limit are also susceptible to liquefaction (Bray and Sancio, 2006). For sandy soils, the geologic
conditions for increased susceptibility to liquefaction are: 1) shallow groundwater (generally less
than 50 feet in depth), 2) the presence of unconsolidated sandy alluvium, typically Holocene in age,
and 3) strong ground shaking. All three of these conditions must be present for liquefaction to
occur.
For clayey soils, recent studies indicate that deposits of clays and plastic silts (i.e., cohesive soils)
have also experienced failure during earthquakes (ldriss and Boulanger, 2008). This kind of failure
is called cyclic softening. "The term 'cyclic softening is used in reference to strength loss and
deformation in clays and plastic silts, while the term 'liquefaction' is used in reference to strength loss
and deformation in saturated sands and other cohesionless soils. As such, the terms 'cyclic
Page No. 14
Job No. 13143-3
softening' and 'liquefaction' can also be used in reference to the engineering procedures that have
been developed for these respective soil types" (Idriss and Boulanger, 2008).
Due to the potential for the presence of shallow groundwater beneath the site (20 feet), the
liquefaction potential of the site has been evaluated based on the SPT and cone penetrometer test
(CPT) data obtained and using the simplified procedure described by Seed and Idriss (1982), Seed
and others (1985), modified in the 1996 National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
(NCEER) and 1998 NCEER!National Science Foundation (NSF) workshops (Youd and ldriss, 2001)
and recently summarized by ldriss and Boulanger (2008). The method of evaluating liquefaction
potential consists of comparing the cyclic stress ratio (CSR) developed in the soil by the earthquake
motion to cyclic resistance ratio (CRR), which will cause liquefaction of the soil for a given number
of cycles. In the simplified procedure, the CSR developed in the soil is calculated from a formula
that incorporates ground surface acceleration, total and effective stresses in the soil at different depths
(which in turn are related to the location of the groundwater table), non-rigidity of the soil column
and a number of simplifying assumptions.
For sandy soils, the CRR that will cause liquefaction is related to the relative density of the soil,
expressed in terms of SPT blowcounts (N1)6o (Seed and Idriss, 1982; Seed and others, 1985; Youd
and Idriss, 2001; Idriss and Boulanger, 2008), cone penetration resistance (qciN) (Robertson and
Wride, 1998; Youd and ldriss, 2001; Idriss and Boulanger, 2008) or shear wave velocity (V
51
)
(Andrus and Stokoe, 2000; Youd and ldriss, 2001; Andrus and others, 2004), all normalized for an
effective overburden pressure of 1 ton per square foot and corrected to equivalent clean sand
resistance. For clayey soils, the CRR is related to cyclic undrained shear strength ratio, suiGvc'
(Idriss and Boulanger, 2008). For this investigation, SPT blowcounts were obtained and utilized in
the analysis. A projected future depth to groundwater of 5 feet bgs was utilized to calculate the
liquefaction potential in the area. The recommended design PGA of 0.46g and a deaggregated
earthquake magnitude of 7.65 were utilized as input into the liquefaction analysis program GeoSuite
2008, version 2.2 (Yi, 2013).
Page No. 15
Job No. 13143-3
Prediction of seismic-induced settlement is also very important. Seismic-induced settlement
includes settlement that occurs both in dry sands and saturated sands (California Geological Survey,
2008). Severe seismic shaking may cause dry sands to densify, resulting in settlement expressed at
the ground surface. Seismic settlement in dry soils generally occurs in loose sands and silty sands,
with cohesive and fine-grained soils being less prone to significant settlement. For saturated soils,
significant settlement is anticipated if the soils exhibit liquefaction during seismic shaking.
The methods for evaluating seismic settlement in saturated sands can generally be classified into two
groups. The method for the first group was developed during the 1970s and 1980s, generally based
on the relationship between cyclic stress ratio, CNt)6o, and volumetric strain (Silver and Seed, 1971;
Lee and Albaisa, 1974; Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987). The method for the second group was
developed in the early 1990s with the paper by Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992) as the first publication
in the category, modified and improved by various researchers (Robertson and Wride, 1998;
Yoshimine et al., 2006; Idriss and Boulanger, 2008; and Yi, 2010a), and is generally based on the
relationship between volumetric strain and the factor of safety for liquefaction. ldriss and
Boulanger (2008) modified the methods to incorporate both SPT and CPT data. Yi (2010b, 2010c)
modified the methods to incorporate shear wave velocity data.
Research related to the estimation of dry sand settlement during earthquake excitation was initiated in
the early 1970s by Silver and Seed (1971), followed by the works of several researchers (Seed and
Silver, 1972; Pyke et al., 1975; Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987; Pradel, 1998). A simplified method of
evaluating earthquake-induced settlements in dry, sandy soils based on the Tokimatsu and Seed
procedure has been developed by Pradel (1998) and is recommended by Martin and Lew (1999) as
one of the standard methods for the estimation of earthquake-induced settlements of dry sands in
California. All of these methods generally utilize SPT data.
The procedures and corrections recently summarized by Idriss and Boulanger (2008) were utilized to
evaluate the liquefaction potential and seismic settlement of saturated sandy soils for SPT data. The
seismic settlement of dry sands was evaluated based on the Pradel's method (Pradel, 1998) and Yi's
Page No. 16
Job No. 13143-3
modified method for CPT data (Yi, 2010a). All of these methods were incorporated into a
liquefaction and seismic settlement program, GeoSuite 2008, version 2.2 (Yi, 2013).
Liquefaction potential was evaluated for the soil profiles encountered in exploratory borings using an
SPT sampler. Seismic settlement was estimated for the same soil profiles utilized in the liquefaction
analyses. The results of liquefaction potential and seismic settlement evaluations are shown in
Enclosures
11
D-1
11
through
11
0-6
11

Our calculations indicate that liquefaction could occur within thin localized layers. However, over-
all, liquefaction potential is considered to be insignificant. Our analysis indicates that seismic settle-
ment (including liquefaction-induced settlement and dry sand settlement) could range from approxi-
mately 1.3 to 2.0 inches based on SPT data soil profiles using the Idriss and Boulanger (2008)
method. We estimate a maximum seismic settlement of 2 inches and a maximum seismic
differential settlement of 3/8 inch over 40 feet. Seismic settlement will generally occur in soil layers
below 20 feet bgs to as deep as 65 feet bgs.
Examination of the liquefaction analysis results indicates that the maximum thickness of the liquefia-
ble layer (H
2
) was 5 feet. According to Ishihara (1985), the surface manifestation of liquefaction
(such as boils, ground fissure, etc.) can be minimized by adequate thickness of the non-liquefiable
crust (H
1
) at the site. For the thickness of the liquefiable layer (H
2
) of 5 feet, Ishihara's charts indi-
cates that the surface manifestation effects on the structure will be absent if the non-liquefiable crust
is thicker than 13.5 feet for a maximum ground acceleration of0.4 to 0.5g. Based on these data, it is
the opinion of this firm that the surface manifestation effects of liquefaction on the structure will be
negligible. However, seismic settlement and differential settlement are anticipated.
SLOPE STABILITY AND LANDSLIDE POTENTIAL
The relatively flat-lying topography of the site precludes the potential for slope instability or land-
slides. Temporary slopes for construction should be managed according to applicable safety and
Page No. 17
Job No. 13143-3
parking structure regulations. The soils on-site are considered to be Type C with regard to CAL
OSHA excavation standards. The potential for landsliding or lateral spreading is considered to be
very low.
FLOODING
Evidence of recent flooding of the site and surrounding area was not observed on the aerial photo-
graphs reviewed. As depicted on Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06065C2253G (FEMA, 2008)
dated August 28, 2008, the site is located in a shaded zone "X". This zone is described in the map
legend as:
"Zones B and X (shaded) are areas of 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain, areas of
1-percent-annual-chance (base flood) sheet flow flooding with average depths of less than 1
foot, areas of base flood stream flooding with a contributing drainage area of less than 1
square mile, or areas protected from the base flood by levees. No Base Flood Elevation (BFEs)
or depths are shown in this zone, and insurance purchase is not required."
According to the County of Riverside (2012), the site is not located within a potential inundation
zone for seismically induced dam/reservoir failure from dams or reservoirs. The site is not located
in a coastal area. No large water storage facilities are known to exist within the area of the site.
Therefore, the potential for precipitation-induced or seismically induced flooding due to dam failure
or seiche to affect the site is considered to be low.
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL
Subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal is documented in the vicinity of the site and in other areas
of the Coachella Valley (Sneed et al., 2001; Sneed et al., 2002; Sneed and Brandt, 2007; CVWD,
2010; Sneed, 2010). According to the Coachella Valley Water District (2010), the demand for
water has exceeded the deliveries of imported surface water to the East Valley area of the Coachella
Page No. 18
Job No. 13143-3
Valley since the 1970s, resulting in increased groundwater pumping and groundwater level declines.
By 2005, levels in many wells in the East Valley area had declined 50 to 100 feet.
Land subsidence studies by Ikehara and others (1997) reported that subsidence may have been as
much as 1/2 foot in the southern parts of Coachella Valley between 1930 and 1996. A more recent
study (Sneed, 2010) documented three main areas of subsidence in the Coachella Valley: the Palm
Desert, Indian Wells and La Quinta areas. The site is not located within a documented subsidence
area. The 2007 report did not establish a direct relation between subsidence and groundwater
pumping/declining water levels; however, the 2010 report suggests a direct relationship between
water level declines and subsidence in the Coachella Valley region.
Ground subsidence alone is not expected to pose a significant hazard to the project. Ground
cracking may be a potential hazard should significant subsidence occur in the future. The potential
for significant subsidence during the lifetime of the project is considered to be low to very low.
HYDROCONSOLIDATION
To evaluate the potential deformation that may be caused by the addition of water, hydroconsolida-
tion tests were performed on selected, representative relatively undisturbed samples. The results are
shown in Enclosure "C-3". Based on the test results, the site soils have moderate
hydroconsolidation potential.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of our research and field and laboratory investigations, it is the opinion of this firm that
construction of the proposed East County Detention Center parking structure is feasible from a
geotechnical engineering standpoint, provided the recommendations contained in this report are
implemented during planning, grading and construction.
Moderate to severe seismic shaking can be expected at the site.
Page No. 19
Job No. 13143-3
No evidence of recent significant flooding of the site was observed dwing the field reconnaissance or
on the aerial images reviewed. The upper soils encountered within the site consist of silty sands and
silt that are moderately susceptible to erosion by wind and water.
Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 69 to 70 feet bgs in our exploratory borings at
the site. The historical high groundwater depth for this site is 20 feet. Liquefaction could occur
within localized thin layers during the design earthquake. Because of the adequate thickness of the
non-liquefiable crust at the site, surface manifestation effects of liquefaction on the structure will be
minimal. However, seismic settlement and differential settlement are anticipated.
Refusal to further advancement of the drilling augers was not experienced.
Slight caving was noted within the exploratory borings utilized for this investigation; trenches, larger
diameter borings or excavations that remain open for longer periods of time may be subject to caving.
Bedrock was not encountered in any of our exploratory borings.
Fill classified as silty sand (SM) was encountered to depths of 3 to 7 feet below existing grade in the
exploratory borings. Additional areas of fill may be present between boring locations within the
site.
Based on the classification and density of and the lack of significant soil cementation exhibited by the
soils encountered in our exploratory borings, site grading and utility trenching are expected to be
feasible with conventional heavy grading and trenching equipment, respectively.
Conditions conducive to landsliding or lateral spreading (lurching) are not present at the site. No
significant slopes are proposed.
Page No. 20
Job No. 13143-3
The site is not within a documented subsidence area. Should significant subsidence occur in the
future, ground cracking may be a potential hazard. The hazard is considered to be low to very low.
Based on the expansion index test results, significant expansion is not anticipated.
Hydroconsolidation test results indicate moderate hydrocollapse potential.
Based upon our field investigation and test data, it is our opinion that the near-surface soils, undocu-
mented fill and underlying native soils in their present condition will not provide uniform or adequate
support for the proposed structure or other site improvements.
Settlement resulting from seismic shaking may be on the order of 2 inches and 3/8 inches over 40 feet
differentially. Static settlement from anticipated foundation loading may result in a total settlement
on the order of 1 inch and a differential settlement of approximately one half of the total. Due to the
presence of relatively deep undocumented fills and loose native soils, we are recommending
subexcavation of the upper 8 feet of existing soils and replacement as properly compacted fill within
the proposed parking structure area if the structure is to be supported by conventional shallow
foundations.
Subexcavation to a minimum depth of 3 feet within remaining settlement-sensitive areas to be graded
(parking areas, hardscape areas and any other settlement-sensitive areas) is recommended. This
recommended subexcavation operation should include removal of any undocumented fills and
observation of the exposed surface by the project geologist or geotechnical engineer prior to pro-
cessing for fill placement. The removed and cleaned soils may be reused as properly compacted fill.
Prior to replacement of the excavated soil, the bottom of the excavation should be observed and
approved by the project geologist, scarified to a depth of approximately 12 inches, moistened to near
optimum moisture content and recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent (as per
ASTM D1557). The excavation should then be refilled with properly compacted fill. The limits of
Page No. 21
Job No. 13143-3
the structure pad area include the parking structure area to a distance of 10 feet beyond footings,
where possible.
The mandatory removal and replacement of the upper 8 feet of existing soil will accommodate foot-
ings as deep as 5 feet below existing grade. If footings extending beyond a depth of 5 feet are pro-
posed, additional removal and replacement will be necessary to provide the recommended fill mat
thickness.
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
Based on the geologic setting and anticipated earthwork for construction of the proposed project, the
soils underlying the site are classified as Site Class "D, stiff soil profile", according to the 2010 CBC
and ASCE 7-05. The design acceleration parameters are summarized in the table below.
Table3
Design Acceleration Parameters
Mapped Spectral Acceleration Parameters ss = 1.71 and sl = 0.69
Site Coefficients
F = 1.0 and F = 1.5
a v
Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake
SMs = 1.71 and SM
1
= 1.04
Spectral Response Parameters
Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters
S
05
= 1.14 and S
01
= 0.69
The corresponding value for the design PGA is 0.46g.
GENERAL SITE GRADING:
It is imperative that no clearing and/or grading operations be performed without the presence of a
representative of the geotechnical engineer. An on-site, pre-job meeting with the owner, the
contractor and the geotechnical engineer should occur prior to all grading-related operations.
Page No. 22
Job No. 13143-3
Observation, testing, documenting and reporting of the grading operation should be performed by the
geotechnical engineer of record. A final compaction report should be issued by the geotechnical
engineer of record at the completion of the grading operation. Operations undertaken at the site
without the geotechnical engineer present may result in exclusion of affected areas from the fmal
compaction report for the project.
Grading of the subject site should be performed, at a minimum, in accordance with these
recommendations and with applicable portions of the 2010 CBC. The following recommendations
are presented for your assistance in establishing proper grading criteria.
INITIAL SITE PREPARATION:
All areas to be graded should be stripped of significant vegetation and other deleterious materials.
These materials should be removed from the site for disposal. Any existing utility lines should be
traced, removed and rerouted from areas to be graded.
Any existing undocumented fills encountered during grading should be completely removed from all
areas to be graded and cleaned of significant deleterious materials; they may be reused as compacted
fill.
To assist in undocumented fill and/or loose native soil identification and removal, it is our opinion
that all areas to be graded should be subexcavated to a minimum depth of 3 feet bgs. Depending on
the foundation type selected, additional removal may be necessary. If conventional shallow founda-
tions are utilized, all loose material in the parking structure pad area should be completely removed.
A minimum removal of 8 feet should be performed. The removal should extend beyond the footing
at the bottom of the excavation to a distance of 10 feet, where possible. For areas where the
removal width is less than 10 feet, lateral retaining structures, such as sheet piles installed during
excavation, should remain permanently.
Page No. 23
Job No. 13143-3
Removal depths greater than 8 feet may be necessary. An engineering geologist from this firm
should be present during the subexcavation operation prior to scarification and refilling in order to
identify existing fills or loose soils extending below this depth. A relative compaction of at least
85 percent may be utilized as preliminary quantitative criteria to supplement the engineering
geologist's qualitative evaluation of suitable base of excavation. The bottoms of all excavations
should be observed and approved by the engineering geologist.
If deep foundations are utilized, all undocumented fill in the parking structure pad area should be
completely removed. A minimum removal of 3 feet should be performed. The removal should
extend beyond the foundation edge at the bottom of the excavation to a distance of 10 feet, where
possible.
In addition, it is our recommendation that all existing undocumented fills and loose soils under any
proposed paved or other flatwork areas be removed and replaced with properly compacted and
controlled fills. If this is not done and any undocumented fills are left, premature structural distress
of the paved and flatwork areas can be expected.
Cavities created by removal of subsurface obstructions should be thoroughly cleaned of loose soil,
organic matter and other deleterious materials; shaped to provide access for construction equipment;
and backfilled as recommended for site fill.
PREPARATION OF FILL AREAS:
The bottoms of the excavations should be observed by the engineering geologist to verify the
complete removal of undocumented fill material and loose/disturbed native soils. Following
approval, the bottoms should be scarified to a depth of approximately 12 inches, brought to near
optimum moisture content and recompacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM
D1557).
COMPACTED FILLS:
Page No. 24
Job No. 13143-3
The on-site soils should provide adequate quality fill material, provided they are free from organic
matter and other deleterious materials.
Import fill, if needed, should be inorganic, non-expansive, granular soil free from rocks or lumps
greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension. Sources for import fill should be observed and
approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to their use.
Fill should be spread in near-horizontal layers, approximately 8 inches in thickness. Thicker lifts
may be approved by the geotechnical engineer if testing indicates that the grading procedures are ade-
quate to achieve the required compaction. Each lift should be spread evenly, thoroughly mixed dur-
ing spreading to attain uniformity of the material and moisture in each layer, brought to near optimum
moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent in accordance with
ASTM 01557. Our experience on nearby projects with similar soil conditions indicates that proper
mixing of the soils to obtain the desired moisture content is critical in obtaining the desired
compaction.
It should be noted that very moist soils were encountered during our investigation. These soils were
generally deeper than the anticipated excavation depths; however, very moist, near-surface soils may
be encountered during grading. Such soils will require specialized grading techniques such as
spreading, drying and mixing to obtain the recommended moisture content.
Based upon the relative compaction of the native soils tested during this investigation and the relative
compaction anticipated for compacted fill soils, we estimate a compaction shrinkage of approxi-
mately 1 0 to 15 percent. Therefore, 1.10 to 1.15 cubic yards of in-place soil material would be
necessary to yield 1 cubic yard of properly compacted fill material. In addition, we would anticipate
subsidence of approximately 0.1 foot. These values are exclusive of losses due to stripping, tree
removal or the removal of other subsurface obstructions, if encountered, and may vary due to differ-
ing conditions within the project boundaries and the limitations of this investigation.
Page No. 25
Job No. 13143-3
Values presented for shrinkage and subsidence are estimates only. Final grades should be adjusted
and/or contingency plans to import or export material should be made to accommodate possible
variations in actual quantities during site grading.
It is crucial that the geotechnical engineer be present to observe these operations. Further
recommendations may be made in the field, depending on the actual conditions encountered.
LATERAL LOADING:
Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by passive earth pressure and base friction. For footings
bearing against compacted fill, passive earth pressure may be considered to be developed at a rate of
350 pounds per square foot (psf) per foot of depth. Base friction may be computed at 0.36 times the
normal load. Base friction and passive earth pressure may be combined without reduction.
Other than conservative soil modeling, the lateral passive earth pressure and base friction values
recommended do not include factors of safety. If the design is to be based on allowable lateral
resistance values, we recommend that minimum factors of safety of 1.5 and 2.0 be applied to the fric-
tion coefficient and passive lateral earth pressure, respectively. The resulting allowable lateral
resistance values are:
Table 4
Ultimate Allowable Factor of Safety
Passive Lateral Earth Pressure (psf/ft) 350 175 2.0
Base Friction Coefficient 0.36 0.24 1.5
For preliminary retaining wall design, a lateral active earth pressure developed at a rate of 3 5 psf per
foot of depth and 20 degrees from horizontal should be utilized for unrestrained conditions (resulting
in a horizontal component of 33 psf and a vertical component of 12 psf per foot of depth). The
Page No. 26
Job No. 13143-3
typical earth pressure distributions are included in Enclosure "D-7" for an assumed wall height of
15 feet.
For restrained conditions, an at-rest earth pressure of 60 psf per foot of depth should be utilized.
The "at-rest" condition applies toward braced walls that are not free to tilt. The "active" condition
applies toward unrestrained cantilevered walls where wall movement is anticipated. The structural
designer should use judgment in determining the wall fixity and may utilize values interpolated
between the "at-rest" and "active" conditions where appropriate.
For walls 10 feet high or less, a uniform construction surcharge load of 72 psf or an alternative traffic
surcharge load of 100 psf should be applied in addition to active earth pressure. For walls higher
than 1 0 feet, a uniform construction surcharge load of 72 psf or an alternative traffic surcharge load
of 100 psf should be applied only up to 10 feet. The resulting additional surcharge pressure should
be applied to the wall as a rectangular distribution, from top to bottom, or 10 feet, whichever is
smaller.
These values should be verified prior to construction when the backfill materials and conditions have
been determined. These values are applicable only to level, properly drained backfill with no addi-
tional surcharge loadings and do not include a factor of safety other than conservative modeling of
the soil strength parameters. If inclined backfills are proposed, this firm should be contacted to
develop appropriate active earth pressure parameters. If import material is to be utilized for backfill,
an engineer from this fum should verify the backfill has equivalent or superior strength values.
Backfill behind retaining walls should consist of a soil of sufficient granularity that the backfill will
properly drain. The granular soil should be classified per the USCS as GW, GP, SW, SP, SW-SM
or SP-SM. Surface drainage should be provided to prevent ponding of water behind walls. A
drainage system should be installed behind all retaining walls consisting of either of the following:
Page No. 27
Job No. 13143-3
1. A 4-inch diameter perforated PVC (Schedule 40) pipe or equivalent at the base ofthe stem
encased in 2 cubic feet of granular drain material per linear foot of pipe or
2. Synthetic drains such as Enkadrain, Miradrain, Hydraway 300 or equivalent.
Perforations in the PVC pipe should be 3/8 inch in diameter. Granular drain material should be
wrapped with filter cloth such as Mirafi 140 or equivalent to prevent clogging of the drains with fines.
Wails should be waterproofed to prevent nuisance seepage. Water should outlet to an approved
drain.
SEISMIC LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE:
The seismic earth pressure acting on a cantilevered retaining wall was calculated by the
Mononobe-Okabe ("M-0") method (Okabe, 1926; Mononobe and Matsuo, 1929). It is recom-
mended by AASHTO (LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Fifth Edition, 2010, Section Cll.8.6)
that the pseudostatic horizontal seismic coefficient (kh) be taken equal to kh=0.50xPGA=0.23g. The
pseudostatic vertical seismic coefficient (kv) is usually taken as one-half of kh. For retaining walls
with on-site soils as backfill materials, a unit weight of 119 pounds per cubic foot (pet) and a friction
angle of 30 degrees were utilized in the calculation. These values should be verified prior to
construction when the backfill materials and conditions have been determined and are applicable only
to level, properly drained backfill with no additional surcharge loadings.
A total lateral active seismic earth pressure (including static active earth pressure) developed at a rate
of 55 psf per foot of depth (psf/ft) and 20 degrees from horizontal should be utilized for unrestrained
conditions (resulting in a horizontal component of 51 and a vertical component of 19 psflft). A
triangular distribution of total seismic earth pressure should be used in the design (Atik and Sitar,
201 0). Refer to Enclosure "D-7".
Page No. 28
Job No. 13143-3
The above lateral earth pressures are for level backfill. If inclined backfills are proposed, this firm
should be contacted.
POTENTIAL EROSION:
The potential for erosion should be mitigated by proper drainage design. Water should not be
allowed to flow over graded areas or natural areas so as to cause erosion. Graded areas should be
planted or otherwise protected from erosion by wind or water.
EXPANSIVE SOILS:
Silty soil materials tested during this investigation exhibited a "very low" potential for expansion
(expansion index of 2) in accordance with ASTM D4829. The results of these tests are presented in
the Appendix "C". Based on these results, it is the opinion of this firm that special structural design
and/or construction procedures to specifically mitigate the effects of expansive soil movements are
not necessary. Requirements for reinforcing steel to satisfy structural criteria are not affected by
this recommendation. Additional evaluation of soils for expansion potential should be conducted by
the geotechnical engineer during construction.
SOIL CORROSION:
Selected samples of material were delivered to our subconsultant, HDRISchiff, for soil corrosivity
testing. Laboratory testing consisted of pH, resistivity and major soluble salts commonly found in
soils. The results of the laboratory tests appear in Enclosure "C-13 ". These tests have been
performed in order to screen the site for potentially corrosive soils.
Values from the soil tested indicate that the soils are "mildly corrosive" and "corrosive" to ferrous
metals at as-received and saturated conditions, respectively. Specific corrosion control measures,
such as coating of pipe with non-corrosive material or alternative non-metallic pipe material, are
considered to be needed if there is a potential for saturated soils.
Page No. 29
Job No. 13143-3
Results of the soluble sulfate testing indicate a "negligible" anticipated exposure to sulfate attack, as
indicated in Appendix "C". Based upon the criteria from Table 4.3.1. of the American Concrete
Institute Manual of Concrete Practice (2000), no special measures, such as specific cement types,
water-cement ratios, etc., will be needed for this "negligible" exposure to sulfate attack.
Soluble chloride content of soil was not at levels high enough to be of concern with respect to corro-
sion of ferrous materials. It was, however, at levels high enough to be of concern with respect to
corrosion of reinforcing steel. The results should be considered in combination with the soluble
chloride content of the hardened concrete in determining the effect of chloride on the corrosion of
reinforcing steel.
Ammonium contents did not indicate a concern with respect to corrosion of buried copper, while
nitrate contents did.
CHJ Consultants does not practice corrosion engineering. If further information concerning the
corrosion characteristics or if interpretation of the results submitted herein is required, then a
competent corrosion engineer should be consulted.
PRELIMINARY FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN:
The following recommended structural sections were calculated based on traffic indices (Tis) pro-
vided in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual for Safety Roadside Rest Areas (Caltrans, 2008).
Based upon our preliminary sampling and testing, the structural sections tabulated below should pro-
vide satisfactory AC pavement.
Usage
Auto Parking Areas
Auto Roads
~
Truck Parking Areas
Truck Ramps and Roads
HMA = hot mix asphalt
Table 5
TI R-value
5.0 50
5.5 50
6.0 50
8.0 50
AB = aggregate base
Page No. 30
Job No. 13143-3
Recommended Structural Section
0.25' HMA/0.35' Class 2 AB
0.25' HMA/0.35' Class 2 AB
0.25' HMA/0.35' Class 2 AB
0.40' HMA/0.45' Class 2 AB
Recommended structural sections were calculated based on Tis and our preliminary sampling and
testing. For other Tis, the structural sections provided in Enclosure "C-15" should provide
satisfactory AC pavement.
The structural sections are predicated upon proper compaction of the utility trench backfills and the
subgrade soils, with the upper 6 inches of subgrade soils and all aggregate base material brought to a
minimum relative compaction of95 percent in accordance with ASTM D1557 prior to paving. The
aggregate base should meet Caltrans requirements for Class 2 base.
PRELIMINARY RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN:
Based upon an R-value of 50, we recommend the following PCC pavement designs. These designs
are based upon the ACI "Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots" (ACI 330R).
Table 6
Design Area Recommended Section
Car Parking and Access Lanes
4.5" PCC/Compacted Soil
ADTI = 1 (Category A)
Truck Parking Areas
Multiple Units 6.0" PCC/Compacted Soil
ADTT = 25 (Category B)
ADTT = Average Daily Truck Traffic
Page No. 31
Job No. 13143-3
The recommended concrete sections are based on a design life of 20 years, with integral curbs or
thickened edges. In addition, the above structural sections are predicated upon proper compaction
of the utility trench backfills and the subgrade soils, with the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils
brought to a uniform relative compaction of95 percent (ASTM 01557).
Slab edges that will be subject to vehicle loading should be thickened at least 2 inches at the outside
edge and tapered to 36 inches back from the edge. Typical details are given in the ACI "Guide for
Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots" (ACI 330R). Alternatively, slab edges subject
to vehicle loading should be designed with dowels or other load transfer mechanisms. Thickened
edges or dowels are not necessary where new pavement will abut areas of curb and gutter, parking
structures or other structures preventing through-vehicle traffic and associated traffic loads.
The concrete sections may be placed directly over a compacted subgrade prepared as described above.
The concrete to be utilized for the concrete pavement should have a minimum modulus of rupture of
550 pounds per square inch (psi). This approximates a 28-day compressive strength of 3,500 psi.
However, the design strength should be based upon the modulus of rupture and not the compressive
strength. Contraction joints should be sawcut in the pavement at a maximum spacing of 30 times
the thickness of the slab, up to a maximum of 15 feet. Sawcutting in the pavement should be per-
formed within 12 hours of concrete placement, preferably sooner. Sawcut depths should be equal to
approximately one-quarter of the slab thickness for conventional saws or 1 inch when early-entry
saws are utilized on slabs 9 inches thick or less. The use of plastic strips for formation of jointing is
not recommended. The use of expansion joints is not recommended, except where the pavement
will adjoin structures. Construction joints should be constructed such that adjacent sections butt
directly against each other and are keyed into each other or the joints are properly doweled with
smooth dowels. It should be noted that distributed steel reinforcement (welded wire fabric) is not
necessary, nor will any decrease in section thickness result from its inclusion.
The pavement designs were based upon the results of preliminary sampling and testing and should be
verified by additional sampling and testing during construction when the actual subgrade soils are
Page No. 32
Job No. 13143-3
exposed. CHJ Consultants does not practice traffic engineering. We recommend that the ADTI
Tis used for this project be reviewed by the project civil engineer or traffic engineer to verify that
they are appropriate for this project.
SHALLOW FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed parking structure may be supported by shallow foundations, including conventional
spread footings and grade beams, provided the recommendations contained in this report are
implemented during planning, grading and construction.
PREPARATION OF FOOTING AREAS:
All footings should rest entirely upon at least 36 inches of properly compacted fill material. The
mandatory removal and replacement of the upper 8 feet of existing soil will accommodate footings as
deep as 5 feet below existing grade. Additional removal and replacement will be required for
footings deeper than 5 feet. This subexcavation operation should include removal of all
undocumented fill and loose upper native soils existing within the areas to be graded, even though
planned filling will be sufficient to satisfy compacted fill thickness requirements.
FOUNDATION DESIGN:
If the site is prepared as recommended, the proposed structure may be safely founded on conven-
tional spread foundations, either individual spread footings and/or continuous wall footings, bearing
on a minimum of 36 inches of properly compacted soil. Footings should be a minimum of 24 inches
wide and should be established at a minimum depth of 24 inches below lowest adjacent fmal
subgrade level. For the minimum width and depth, footings may be designed for a maximum safe
net soil bearing pressure of 2,300 psf for dead plus live loads. This maximum net allowable bearing
pressure may be increased to 7,000 for footing widths up to 11 feet. Compacted fill was assumed to
be of a wet unit weight of 119 pcf, internal frictional angle of 30 degrees and cohesion strength of
0 psf, based on our laboratory test results of on-site near-surface materials. A constrained modulus
Page No. 33
Job No. 13143-3
of 1,000 tons per square foot (tsf) was also assumed for recompacted fill. These parameters should
be confirmed during grading.
The allowable net bearing pressures are based on a factor of safety of 3 against shear failure or an
allowable settlement of 112 inch, whichever is less. The allowable bearing pressures are net values.
If needed, 380 psf can be added to the net values to obtain total allowable bearing pressure.
These bearing values may be increased by one-third for wind or seismic loading.
For footings thus designed and constructed, we would anticipate a maximum static settlement of
112 inch or less. Differential settlement between similarly loaded adjacent footings is expected to be
approximately one-half the total settlement. These settlement estimates do not include seismically
induced settlement.
With the recommended 8 feet of removal and recompaction, and provided that measures will be taken
to minimize water infiltration into the underlying soils, it is our opinion that hydroconsolidation
settlement will be negligible. As such, total differential settlement (including static,
hydroconsolidation and seismic) on the order of 3/4 inch over 40 feet should be considered in the
design.
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION:
We recommend that a modulus of subgrade reaction, kv, of 150 kips per cubic foot (kef) be used for
design of reinforced concrete floor and mat foundations with widths up to 18 feet. If using the
pseudo-coupled method of mat design, the kv values for the perimeter should be twice the central val-
ues, and the integral of all the values over the area of the mat should be equal to the average. CHJ
Consultants should be contacted if additional kv recommendations are necessary for the
pseudo-coupled method.
SLABS-ON-GRADE:
Page No. 34
Job No. 13143-3
To provide adequate support, concrete slabs-on-grade should bear on a minimum of 36 inches of
compacted soil. Concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness. The soil
should be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction. The final pad surfaces should be rolled to
provide smooth, dense surfaces.
Slabs to receive moisture-sensitive coverings should be provided with a moisture vapor retarder.
We recommend that a vapor retarder be designed and constructed according to the American Con-
crete Institute 302.1R, Concrete Floor and Slab Construction, which addresses moisture vapor
retarder construction. At a minimum, the vapor retarder should comply with ASTM E1745 and
have a nominal thickness of at least 10 mils. The vapor retarder should be properly sealed, per the
manufacturer's recommendations, and protected from punctures and other damages. One inch of
sand under the vapor retarder may assist in reducing punctures.
DEEP FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
As an alternative to using shallow foundations (with the necessary removal and recompaction), the
proposed structure could be supported by pile foundations. For purposes of our analyses, a concrete
cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) pile foundation was assumed in order to develop preliminary conclusions
regarding pile capacity and depth. Alternative pile foundations could include driven pre-cast
concrete or steel "H" piles. Pile-type selection should be based on environmental considerations,
constructability and cost. Pile driving will induce localized ground vibration and is generally much
noisier than CIDH construction. Groundwater may be a concern during CIDH pile installation.
See the section of this report titled "CIDH Pile Installation".
Pile calculations were performed for 24-, 30- and 36-inch-diameter CIDH piles. A pile length of
50 feet was targeted.
ALLOW ABLE AXIAL PILE CAP A CITIES:
Page No. 35
Job No. 13143-3
Both upward and downward allowable axial capacities were calculated (Allpile Version 7.13f) for
24-, 30- and 36-inch-diameter concrete CIDH piles as a function of embedment depth.
Enclosures "E-1 0" and "E-ll" show the summaries of downward and uplift pile capacities,
respectively. The embedment depths shown on the capacity vs. depth charts are measured from the
bottom of the pile cap, which has been assumed to be approximately 6 feet bgs. Axial capacity
calculations, including soil profile, pile data and vertical capacities, are shown in Enclosures "E-1 ",
"E-4" and "E-7". The soil profile was generated based on Exploratory Boring No. 3. Greater or
lesser pile cap elevations should result in a corresponding decrease or increase in pile depth.
The recommended capacities apply to the total of dead plus live loads and are gross values at the pile
head. Both ultimate and allowable capacities are presented in Table 7. The design engineer should
select capacities according to the design method. If the "strength design" method is selected,
ultimate capacities should be utilized. Alternatively, if the "working stress design" method is used,
allowable capacities should be selected. The nominal resistance is provided for use in load and
resistance factor design (LRFD). The design engineer should apply performance factors in
accordance with corresponding design specifications.
The maximum allowable downward capacity utilized a factor of safety of 2.0 for skin friction and 3.0
for tip bearing. The maximum allowable uplift capacity utilized a factor of safety of 3.0 for skin
friction and 2.0 for pile weight. Utilizing these values, the combined dead plus live loads should be
limited to the values presented in Table 7. We have also included ultimate downward capacities for
piles should calculations utilizing other factors of safety be desired. These capacities may be
increased by one-third for wind or seismic loading. The capacities provided are based on soil
strengths. Structural capacities of piles must be verified by the design engineer.
The pile lengths shown in Table 7 are based on the assumption that the top of the pile will be
approximately 6 feet bgs. Stopping the pile short of the minimum depth of embedment will reduce
pile capacity.
Page No. 36
Job No. 13143-3
For properly installed piles, it is anticipated that a total settlement of less than 1/4 inch will be
required to mobilize allowable capacity.
LATERAL PILE ANALYSES:
As part of our lateral pile capacity evaluation, we analyzed the behavior of CIDH piles embedded
into the representative soil profiles in the proposed structure area for both free- and fixed-head condi-
tions. In each case, base shear forces were applied at the top of the pile, which was assumed to be at
the bottom of the footing. The graphed results, showing pile deflection and force distribution and
lateral load vs. head deflection or maximum moment, are included in Enclosures "E-2" and "E-3",
"E-5" and "E-6", and "E-8" and "E-9". Based on these results, we have estimated the allowable lat-
eral loads as shown in Table 7, considering Section 1810.3.3.2 of the 2010 CBC.
The structural engineer should use judgment when modeling the degree of fixity. If a "semi-fixed"
condition is considered, the lateral deflections should be re-estimated.
Table 7
Axial and Lateral Pile Capacities
ITEM
Soil Profile B-3
Pile Length (ft.) 50 50 50
Pile Diameter (in.) 24 30 36
Section Rigidity (E.I.) (x 10
7
kipin
2
) 4.895 11.94 24.8
[/)
Ultimate Downward Capacity (kips) 427 645 899
Q)
:.a
~ Ultimate Uplift Capacity (kips)
g.
179 238 294
u Nominal Downward Resistance (kips) 279 408 553
"il
()
Nominal Uplift Resistance (kips) 93 126 156
'
Q)
Allowable Downward Capacity (kips)
>
186 272 369
ITEM
Soil Profile B-3
Allowable Uplift Capacity (kips) 62 84 104
Ultimate*, Free Head 106 140 180
Nominal, Free Head 79 105 135
I'll
. ~
Allowable, Free Head 53 70 90 .t::
~
Point of 0 Deflection (below pile cap, ft.) 11.5 14.6 17.3

u
-; Ultimate*, Fixed Head 230 300 378
....
0
3
Nominal, Fixed Head 172 225 283
Allowable, Fixed Head 115 150 189
Point of 0 Deflection (below pile cap, ft.) 15.9 19.6 23.1
*Assumes a maximum lateral deflection of 1 inch at pile head
PILE SPACING AND GROUP EFFICIENCY:
Page No. 37
Job No. 13143-3
Both axial and lateral capacities recommended in the above sections are for single piles. In the case
of grouped piles, the total capacity will be subjected to pile spacing. Per the 2010 CBC, group
effects should be considered for axial downward capacities where the center-to-center spacing is less
than 3D and for lateral capacities where the center-to-center spacing is less than 8D, where Dis the
pile diameter or width. For pile groups subjected to uplift, the allowable working uplift load for the
group should be the lesser of:
a The proposed individual pile uplift working load times the number of piles in the
group.
b. Two-thirds of the effective weight of the pile group and the soil contained within a
block defmed by the perimeter of the group and the length of the pile. An average
unit weight of 1 08 pcf may be utilized in the calculation of soil weight.
We recommend the following group effects in accordance with the current AASHTO (2010) and
FHW A (20 1 0) design guidelines.
Group Eff'ects fOr Downward Capacity o(Dril/ed Group Shafts
Page No. 38
Job No. 13143-3
The individual downward capacity of each shaft in the pile group should be reduced by a group
efficiency factor 11 taken as:
11 =0.65 for a center-to-center spacing of2.5 diameters
11 =1.0 for a center-to-center spacing of 4.0 diameters or more
For intermediate spacings, the value ofT) may be determined by linear interpolation.
Group Eff'ects for Lateral Capacity of Drilled Group Shafts
For general design of foundations composed of groups of drilled shafts, the P-multiplier, PM, values
provided in Table 8 are suggested.
The following publications can also be referenced for the necessary group efficiency to be considered
in the design of group piles.
AASHTO, 2010, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 5th Edition
FHWA, 2010, Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods, Publication
No. FHWA-NHI-10-016
Table 8
Page No. 39
Job No. 13143-3
Recommended P-multiplier, PM, Values for Design by Row Position
Design P-multiplier, PM
Pile Spacing (center-to-center) 3D 4D 5D ~ 6 D
Lead Row 0.7 0.85 1.0 1.0
Second Row 0.5 0.65 0.85 1.0
Third Row and Higher 0.35 0.5 0.7 1.0
CIDH PILE INSTALLATION:
The installation of the CIDH piles should be observed by the geotechnical engineer to verify the soil
condition and that the desired diameter and depth of pile are achieved. CIDH piles should be true
and plumb.
Because of the granular nature of the soils encountered and the anticipated diameter of the drilled
holes, it is anticipated that caving could occur during the drilling and the construction of piles within
the on-site soils. Appropriate precautions should therefore be taken during the construction of piles
to reduce caving and raveling.
The drilling speed should be reduced as necessary to minimize vibration and caving of the sandy
materials. Based on the data developed during our investigation, drilling for the piles may proceed
without the need for casing. However, should caving soils be encountered, the contractor should be
prepared to use casing or other approved means to prevent caving.
Closely spaced piles should be drilled and filled alternately, allowing the concrete to set at least eight
hours before drilling the adjacent pile. All excavations should be filled with concrete as soon after
drilling as possible. In no event should pile holes be left open overnight. The concrete should be
Page No. 40
Job No. 13143-3
placed with appropriate equipment, so that the concrete is not allowed to fall freely more than 5 feet
and to prevent concrete from striking the walls of the shaft, thus causing caving. All loose materials
should be cleared from the bottom of the pile excavation. This is especially important because end
bearing has been considered in determining the provided pile capacities. If casing is necessary and
is utilized, then the casing should be withdrawn concurrently with the concrete placement.
Prior to concrete placement, any disturbed soils under and within the area of the grade beams or at the
sides of pile caps should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM 01557).
PRE-JOB CONFERENCE:
It is imperative that no clearing and/or grading operations be performed without the presence of a
representative of the geotechnical engineer. An on-site pre-job meeting with the owner, the contrac-
tor and the geotechnical engineer should occur prior to all grading-related operations. It should be
stressed that operations undertaken at the site without the presence of the geotechnical engineer may
result in exclusion of affected areas from the final compaction report for the project.
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION:
All grading operations, including site clearing and stripping, should be observed by a representative
of the geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer's field representative will be present to
provide observation and field testing and will not provide any supervising or directing of the actual
work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Neither the presence of the geotechnical engineer's
field representative nor the observations and testing by the geotechnical engineer shall excuse the
contractor in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that the geotechnical
engineer will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project, which will be the sole
responsibility of the contractor.
LIMITATIONS
Page No. 41
Job No. 13143-3
CHJ Consultants has striven to perform our services within the limits prescribed by our client and in a
manner consistent with the usual thoroughness and competence of reputable geotechnical engineers
and engineering geologists practicing under similar circumstances. No other representation, express
or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended by virtue of the services performed
or reports, opinion, documents, or otherwise supplied.
This report reflects the testing conducted on the site as the site existed during the investigation, which
is the subject of this report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the
passage of time, due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties.
Changes in applicable or appropriate standards may also occur whether as a result of legislation,
application or the broadening of knowledge. Therefore, this report is indicative of only those condi-
tions tested at the time of the subject investigation, and the findings of this report may be invalidated
fully or partially by changes outside of the control of CHJ Consultants. This report is therefore sub-
ject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of one year.
The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based upon observations performed and data
collected at separate locations, and interpolation between these locations, carried out for the project
and the scope of services described. It is assumed and expected that the conditions between loca-
tions observed and/or sampled are similar to those encountered at the individual locations where
observation and sampling was performed. However, conditions between these locations may vary
significantly. Should conditions that appear different from those described herein be encountered in
the field by the client or any firm performing services for the client or the client's assign, this firm
should be contacted immediately in order that we might evaluate their effect.
If this report or portions thereof are provided to contractors or included in specifications, it should be
understood by all parties that they are provided for information only and should be used as such.
Page No. 42
Job No. 13143-3
The report and its contents resulting from this investigation are not intended or represented to be
suitable for reuse on extensions or modifications of the project or for use on any other project.
CLOSURE
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust this report provides the information desired
at this time. Should questions arise, please do not hesitate to contact this firm at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
CHJ CONSULTANTS
John Romano
Staff Geologist
VJR/FY/JJM/ADE:lb
4-t-.;to\3
Fred Yi, Ph.D., G.E. 2967
Chief Engineer
G o o ( ) ~ - - -
Allen D. Evans, G.E. 2060
Vice President
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute, 2000, Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 3, Table 4.3.1.
Page No. 43
Job No. 13143-3
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2006, Minimum design loads for parking structures
and other structures, ASCE standard 7-05.
Andrus, D. A., Piratheepan, P., Ellis, B.S., Zhang, J., and Juang, C. H., 2004, "Comparing Liquefac-
tion Evaluation Methods Using Penetration-VS Relationships", Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, Volume 24, Issues 9-10, October 2004, Pages 713-721.
Andrus, D. A., and Stokoe, K. H., 2000, "Liquefaction Resistance of Soils from Shear Wave Veloc-
ity", Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume 126, No. 11, Pages
1015-1025.
Atik, L., and Sitar, N., 2010, Seismic Earth Pressures on Cantilever Retaining Structures, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume 136, No. 10, October 1, 2010, Pages
1324-1333.
Boussinesq, J., 1885, Application des Potentiels a L'Etude de L'Equilibre et du Mouvement des
Solides Elastiques, Gauthier-Villars, Paris (in French).
California Department of Water Resources, 1964, Coachella Valley Investigation, Bulletin 108.
California Department of Water Resources, 2012, http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1974, State of California Special Studies Zones Map,
Indio Quadrangle, Official Map, dated July 1, 1974.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 2008, Guidelines for evaluating and mitigating seismic
hazards in California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117.
Catchings, R.D., Rymer, M.J., Goldman, M.R., and Gandhok, G., 2009, Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, v. 99, no. 4, pp.-2190-2207.
CHJ Consultants, 2012, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed East County Detention Center,
Southwest of Highway 111 and Oasis street, Indio, California prepared for County of Riverside
Econ9mic Development Agency, CHJ Consultants Job No. 13143-3, dated October 23, 2012.
C.H.J., Incorporated, 2008, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Indio CAC/Law Library Improve-
ments, 46209 Oasis Street, Indio, California prepared for County of Riverside Department of Facili-
ties Management, CHJ Job No. 08659-3, dated October 17,2008.
REFERENCES
Page No. 44
Job No. 13143-3
Coachella Valley Water District, 2010, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update -
Draft Report, dated December 2010.
Coduto, D.P., Yeung, M. R., and Kitch, W. A., 2010, Geotechnical Engineering Principles and Prac-
tices, 2nd Edition, Pearson Higher Education, Inc., New Jersey.
Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 2008, Geologic map of the Palm Desert & Coachella 15-rninute quadrangles,
Riverside County, California, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-373.
Dickinson, W. R., 1996, Kinematics of transrotational tectonism in the California Transverse Ranges
and its contribution to cumulative slip along the San Andreas transform fault system: Geological
Society of America Special Paper 305.
Epi Software, 2000, Epicenter Plotting Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2008, FIRM Map Panel No. 06065C2253G dated
August 28, 2008.
Fialko, Y., 2006, Interseisrnic strain accumulation and the earthquake potential on the southern San
Andreas fault system, Nature, 441, 968-971.
Fife, D.L., Rodgers, D.A., Chase, G.W., Chapman, R.H., and Sprotte, E.C., 1976, Geologic hazards
in southwestern San Bernardino County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology
Special Report 113.
Fumal, T.E., Pezzopane, S.K., Weldon, R.J., and Schwartz, D.P., 1993, A 100-year average recur-
rence interval for the San Andreas fault at Wrightwood, California: Science, v. 259, p. 199-203.
Ikehara, M.E., Predmore, S.K., and Swope, D.J., 1997, Geodetic network to evaluate historical
elevation changes and to monitor land subsidence in Lower Coachella Valley, California, 1996: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4237.
ldriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W., 2008, "Soil Liquefaction During Earthquake", Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, EERI Publication MN0-12.
Indio, City of, 2006, General Plan.
International Conference of Parking structure Officials, 2010, California Parking structure Code,
Whittier, California.
Ishihara, K., and Yoshimine, M., 1992, Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefac-
tion during earthquakes, Soils and Foundations 32(1), Pages 173-88.
REFERENCES
Page No. 45
Job No. 13143-3
Jacoby, J. C., Sheppard, P.R., and Sieh, K. E., 1987, Irregular recurrence of large earthquakes along
the San Andreas fault: Evidence from trees, in Earthquake geology, San Andreas fault system, Palm
Springs to Palmdale: Association of Engineering Geologists, Southern California Section, 35th
Annual Meeting, Guidebook and Reprint Volume.
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California Division of
Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No.
Johnson, J. A., Blake, T. F., Schmid, B. L., and Slosson, J. E., 1992, Earthquake site analysis and
critical facility siting: Short Course, Association of Engineering Geologists, Annual Meeting,
October 2-9, 1992.
Lee, K. L., and Albaisa, A., 1974, Earthquake induced settlements in saturated sands, J. Soil Mechan-
ics and Foundations Div., ASCE 100(4), Pages 387-406.
Martin, G. R. and Lew, M., 1999, "Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special
Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards In California", South-
em California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California.
Matti, J. C., and Carson, S. E., 1991, Liquefaction susceptibility in the San Bernardino Valley and
vicinity, southern California- A regional evaluation: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1898.
Matti, J. C., Morton, D. M., and Cox, B. F., 1992, The San Andreas fault system in the vicinity of the
central Transverse Ranges province, Southern California: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report
92-354.
Mononobe, N., and Matsuo, H., 1929, "On the determination of earth pressures during earthquakes".
Proceedings World Engineering Congress, Volume 9.
Morton, D. M., and Matti, J. C., 1993, Extension and contraction within an evolving divergent
strike-slip fault complex: The San Andreas and San Jacinto fault zones at their convergence in
Southern California: in Powell, R.E. and others, The San Andreas Fault System: Palinspastic
Reconstruction, and Geologic Evolution: Geological Society of America Memoir 178.
Okabe, S., 1926, "General theory of earth pressure," Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 12,
No.1, Tokyo.
Pradel, D., 1998, "Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlement in Dry Sand Soils", Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume 124, No.4.
Pyke, R., Seed, H. B., Chan, C. K., 1975, "Settlement of sands under multidirectional shaking", J.
Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 101 (4), Pages 379-398.
Risk Engineering, 2012, EZFRISK computer program, version 7.62.
REFERENCES
Page No. 46
Job No. 13143-3
Riverside County Land Information System, 2012,
http://www3.tlma.co.riverside.caus/pa/rclis/index.html, accessed March 26, 2013.
Robertson, P. K., and Wride, C. E., 1998, "Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone
penetration test", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35: 442-459.
Robertson, P.K., 2009, "Interpretation of Cone Penetration Tests- a unified approach", Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Volwne 46. pp. 1337-1355.
Rogers, T.H., 1965, Geologic Map of California- Santa Ana sheet, California Division of Mines and
Geology.
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M., 1982, Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes:
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Monograph Series, Monograph No.5.
Seed, H. B., and Silver, M. L., 1972, "Settlement of dry sands during earthquakes," J. Soil. Mechan-
ics and Foundations Div., ASCE, 98 (4), Pages 381-397.
Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. M., 1985, Influence of SPT procedures in
soil liquefaction resistance evaluations: Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Volume III,
No.12.
Silver, M. L., and Seed, H. B., 1971 Volume changes in sand during cyclic loading, J. Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Div., ASCE 97(SM9), Pages 1171-182.
Sneed, M., 2010, Measurement of Land Subsidence Using Interferometry, Coachella Valley,
California, Proceedings of EISOLS 2010, Queretaro, Mexico, 17-22 October 2010, IAHS Publ. 339,
2010.
Sneed, M., and Brandt, J., 2007, Detection and Measurement of Land Subsidence Using Global
Positioning System Surveying and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, Coachella Valley,
California, 199fr2005, United States Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007- 5251.
Sneed, M., Ikehara, M. E., Galloway, D. L., and Amelung, F., 2001, "Detection and measurement of
land subsidence using global positioning system and interferometric synthetic aperture radar,
Coachella Valley, California, 1966-98," U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 01-4193.
Sneed, M., Stork, S.V., and Ikehara, M.E., 2002, Detection and measurement of land subsidence
using global positioning system and interferometric synthetic aperture radar, Coachella Valley,
California, 1998-2000, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 02-4239.
Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H. B., 1987, "Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shak-
ing", Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Volume 113, No. 8.
REFERENCES
Page No. 47
Job No. 13143-3
Treiman, J., Jerome, compiler, 1999, Fault number 124, Brawley Seismic Zone, in Quaternary fault
and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website,
http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regionallqfaults, accessed 10/05/2012.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1988, Probabilities of large earthquakes
occurring in California on the San Andreas fault: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 88-398.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1995, Seismic hazards in southern California:
Probable earthquakes, 1994 to 2024: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Volume 85,
No.2, Pages 379-439.
Yi, F., 2013, "GeoSuite 2008, version 2.2 - A Comprehensive Package for Geotechnical and Civil
Engineers", GeoAdvanced.
Yi, F., 2010a, "Case Studies of CPT Interpretation and the Application in Seismic Settlement Evalua-
tion", The 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Huntington Beach, California,
May 9-11,2010.
Yi, F., 2010b, "Procedure to Evaluate Seismic Settlement Based on Shear Wave Velocity- Part I,
Saturated Sands", The 9th U.S. National and lOth Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering
(9USN/10CCEE), Toronto, Canada, July 25-29, 2010.
Yi, F., 2010c, "Procedure to Evaluate Seismic Settlement Based on Shear Wave Velocity- Part II,
Unsaturated Sands", The 9th U.S. National and lOth Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineer-
ing (9USN/10CCEE), Toronto, Canada, July 25-29,2010.
Yoshimine, M., Nishizaki, H., Amano, K., and Hosono, Y., 2006, Flow deformation of liquefied sand
under constant shear load and its application to analysis of flow slide in infinite slope, Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Eng. 26, Pages 253-264.
Youd, T. L., and Idriss, I. M., 2001, "Liquefaction Resistance of Soil: Summary Report from the
1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEERINSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils",
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume 127, No. 10.
Yucca Valley, Town of, 1995, General Plan.
Yule, D. and Sieh, K., 2003, Complexities of the San Andreas fault near San Gorgonio Pass:
implications for large earthquakes, J. Geophyical Res., v. 108.
Zhang, G., Robertson, P. K., and Brachman, R. W. I. (2002) "Estimating liquefaction-induced ground
settlements from CPT for level ground" Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Ottawa, 39: 1168-1180.
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED
Page No. 48
Job No. 13143-3
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, June 20, 1974, black and white
aerial photograph nos. 635 and 636.
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, April 15, 1980, black and white
aerial photograph no. 669.
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, January 20, 1984, black and white
aerial photograph nos. 865 and 866.
Google Earth, 2012, imagery dated September 25, 1996; May 5, 2002; November 16, 2004;
November 16, 2006; June 5, 2009; and September 16, 2011.

APPENDIX "A"

GEOTECHNICAL MAPS

APPENDIX "B"

EXPLORATORY LOGS

Enclosure "B" (1 of 3)
Job No. 13143-3


KEY TO LOGS


LEGEND OF LAB/FIELD TESTS:

Blows A measure of the penetration resistance of soil expressed as the number of hammer
blows required to advance the indicated sampler 6 inches (or less if noted).
Samplers are driven with an automatic hammer that drops a 140-pound weight 30
inches for each blow. After the required seating, samplers are advanced up to 18
inches ahead of the boring, providing up to three sets of blows per drive.

Bulk Indicates Disturbed or Bulk Sample

Consol. Consolidation Test (ASTM D 2435)

Cor. Chemical/Corrosivity Tests

Dist. Indicates Disturbed Sample

DS Direct Shear Test (ASTM D 3080)

EI Expansion Index

MDC Maximum Density Optimum Moisture Determination (ASTM D 1557)

N.R. Indicates No Recovery of Sample

P #200 Wash through #200 Screen

PI Plasticity Index

Ring Indicates Relatively Undisturbed Ring Sample. Relatively Undisturbed Ring
Samples are obtained with a "Modified California Sampler" (3.25" O.D. and 2.42"
I.D.) lined with rings driven with a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches.

SA Sieve Analysis (ASTM D 422)

SE Sand Equivalent Test (ASTM D 2419)

SPT Indicates a sample obtained with an unlined Standard Penetration Test sampler (2"
O.D. and 1-3/8" I.D.).


Enclosure "B" (2 of 3)
Job No. 13143-3


ENGINEERING PROPERTIES FROM SPT BLOWS


Relationship of Penetration Resistance to Relative Density for Cohesionless Soils*
(After Mitchell and Katti, 1981)

Number of
SPT Blows (N
60
)
Descriptive
Relative Density
Approximate
Relative Density (%)
<4 Very Loose 0-15
4-10 Loose 15-35
10-30 Medium Dense 35-65
30-50 Dense 65-85
>50 Very Dense 85-100

* At an effective overburden pressure of 1 ton per square foot (100 kPa)


Approximate Values of Undrained Shear Strength for Cohesive Soils
(Terzaghi and Peck, 1967)

Number of
SPT Blows (N
60
)
Approximate
Soil Consistency
Undrained
Shear Strength (psf)
<2 Very Soft Less Than 250
2-4 Soft 250-500
4-8 Medium Stiff 500-1000
8-15 Stiff 1000-2000
15-30 Very Stiff 2000-4000
>30 Hard More Than 4000



Enclosure "B" (3 of 3)
Job No. 13143-3



Asphalt Concrete, 3"
Aggregate Base, 4.5"
(SM) Silty Sand, fine with medium, brown
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, light brown
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, light brown, with interbedded sand
and silt lenses
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, brown
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, brown
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, brown
3
6
11
4
3
4
4
8
8
2
3
6
3
3
6
5
11
12
5
10
10
Pass #200,
SPT
Cor.,
MDC, RV,
SA
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Fill
Native
3.8
6.2
5
10
15
20
25
30
L
O
G
D
R
I
V
E
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
Job No.
13143-3 B-1a
Enclosure
SAMPLES
D
R
Y

U
N
I
T

W
T
.
(
p
c
f
)
L
A
B
/
F
I
E
L
D
T
E
S
T
S
F
I
E
L
D
M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

(
%
)
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
U
N
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
B
U
L
K
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
D
E
P
T
H

(
f
t
)
B
L
O
W
S
/
6

I
N
.
INDIO DETENTION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 1
Client: County of Riverside EDA Date Drilled: 3/21/13
Equipment: CME 75 Truck Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 130 lbs./ 30"
Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: VJR Measured Depth to Water(ft): 70.0
B
O
R
I
N
G

L
O
G

-

N
O

E
Q
U
I
V

&

B
L
O
W

P
E
R

6

I
N


1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
G
P
J


C
H
J
.
G
D
T


4
/
1
/
1
3
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, brown
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, brown
(SM) Silty Sand, fine with medium, brown, with
interbedded sand and silt lenses
8
7
9
8
15
16
8
15
16
5
8
10
6
8
11
5
10
12
10
8
16
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Smoky
Auger
40
45
50
55
60
65
L
O
G
D
R
I
V
E
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
Job No.
13143-3 B-1b
Enclosure
SAMPLES
D
R
Y

U
N
I
T

W
T
.
(
p
c
f
)
L
A
B
/
F
I
E
L
D
T
E
S
T
S
F
I
E
L
D
M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

(
%
)
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
U
N
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
B
U
L
K
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
D
E
P
T
H

(
f
t
)
B
L
O
W
S
/
6

I
N
.
INDIO DETENTION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 1
Client: County of Riverside EDA Date Drilled: 3/21/13
Equipment: CME 75 Truck Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 130 lbs./ 30"
Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: VJR Measured Depth to Water(ft): 70.0
B
O
R
I
N
G

L
O
G

-

N
O

E
Q
U
I
V

&

B
L
O
W

P
E
R

6

I
N


1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
G
P
J


C
H
J
.
G
D
T


4
/
1
/
1
3
END OF BORING
NO REFUSAL, NO BEDROCK
FILL TO 5', NO CAVING IN UPPER 10'
GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED AT 70'
4
8
16
8
26
39
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
75
80
85
90
95
100
L
O
G
D
R
I
V
E
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
Job No.
13143-3 B-1c
Enclosure
SAMPLES
D
R
Y

U
N
I
T

W
T
.
(
p
c
f
)
L
A
B
/
F
I
E
L
D
T
E
S
T
S
F
I
E
L
D
M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

(
%
)
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
U
N
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
B
U
L
K
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
D
E
P
T
H

(
f
t
)
B
L
O
W
S
/
6

I
N
.
INDIO DETENTION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 1
Client: County of Riverside EDA Date Drilled: 3/21/13
Equipment: CME 75 Truck Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 130 lbs./ 30"
Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: VJR Measured Depth to Water(ft): 70.0
B
O
R
I
N
G

L
O
G

-

N
O

E
Q
U
I
V

&

B
L
O
W

P
E
R

6

I
N


1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
G
P
J


C
H
J
.
G
D
T


4
/
1
/
1
3
Asphalt Concrete, 3"
Aggregate Base, 7"
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, brown
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, brown
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, brown, with thin sandy lenses
5
4
4
2
3
4
8
10
8
2
5
7
3
6
6
4
8
9
6
8
9
Pass #200,
SPT
Cor.,
MDC, RV,
SA
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Fill
Native
3.3
4.0
4.4
5
10
15
20
25
30
L
O
G
D
R
I
V
E
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
Job No.
13143-3 B-2a
Enclosure
SAMPLES
D
R
Y

U
N
I
T

W
T
.
(
p
c
f
)
L
A
B
/
F
I
E
L
D
T
E
S
T
S
F
I
E
L
D
M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

(
%
)
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
U
N
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
B
U
L
K
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
D
E
P
T
H

(
f
t
)
B
L
O
W
S
/
6

I
N
.
INDIO DETENTION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 2
Client: County of Riverside EDA Date Drilled: 3/21/13
Equipment: CME 75 Truck Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 130 lbs./ 30"
Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: VJR Measured Depth to Water(ft): 70.0
B
O
R
I
N
G

L
O
G

-

N
O

E
Q
U
I
V

&

B
L
O
W

P
E
R

6

I
N


1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
G
P
J


C
H
J
.
G
D
T


4
/
1
/
1
3
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, brown, with thin silt lenses
(SP-SM) Sand, fine to medium, few silt, brown
7
8
9
8
8
7
2
7
11
6
8
10
6
12
23
6
12
18
9
10
6
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
40
45
50
55
60
65
L
O
G
D
R
I
V
E
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
Job No.
13143-3 B-2b
Enclosure
SAMPLES
D
R
Y

U
N
I
T

W
T
.
(
p
c
f
)
L
A
B
/
F
I
E
L
D
T
E
S
T
S
F
I
E
L
D
M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

(
%
)
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
U
N
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
B
U
L
K
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
D
E
P
T
H

(
f
t
)
B
L
O
W
S
/
6

I
N
.
INDIO DETENTION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 2
Client: County of Riverside EDA Date Drilled: 3/21/13
Equipment: CME 75 Truck Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 130 lbs./ 30"
Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: VJR Measured Depth to Water(ft): 70.0
B
O
R
I
N
G

L
O
G

-

N
O

E
Q
U
I
V

&

B
L
O
W

P
E
R

6

I
N


1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
G
P
J


C
H
J
.
G
D
T


4
/
1
/
1
3
(SP-SM) Sand, fine, with silt, dark brown
END OF BORING
NO REFUSAL, NO BEDROCK
FILL TO 7', NO CAVING IN UPPER 10'
GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED AT 70'
5
17
27
15
15
32
Pass #200,
SPT
SPT Plug in
Auger
75
80
85
90
95
100
L
O
G
D
R
I
V
E
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
Job No.
13143-3 B-2c
Enclosure
SAMPLES
D
R
Y

U
N
I
T

W
T
.
(
p
c
f
)
L
A
B
/
F
I
E
L
D
T
E
S
T
S
F
I
E
L
D
M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

(
%
)
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
U
N
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
B
U
L
K
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
D
E
P
T
H

(
f
t
)
B
L
O
W
S
/
6

I
N
.
INDIO DETENTION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 2
Client: County of Riverside EDA Date Drilled: 3/21/13
Equipment: CME 75 Truck Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 130 lbs./ 30"
Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: VJR Measured Depth to Water(ft): 70.0
B
O
R
I
N
G

L
O
G

-

N
O

E
Q
U
I
V

&

B
L
O
W

P
E
R

6

I
N


1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
G
P
J


C
H
J
.
G
D
T


4
/
1
/
1
3
Asphalt Concrete, 3.5"
Aggregate Base, 9.5"
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, gray-brown
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, light brown
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, light brown
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, light brown
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, brown
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, brown
3
4
6
1
4
4
5
14
17
2
3
5
3
4
7
4
7
9
4
5
10
Pass #200,
SPT
Cor.,
MDC, RV,
SA
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Fill
Native
4.5
7.3
5
10
15
20
25
30
L
O
G
D
R
I
V
E
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
Job No.
13143-3 B-3a
Enclosure
SAMPLES
D
R
Y

U
N
I
T

W
T
.
(
p
c
f
)
L
A
B
/
F
I
E
L
D
T
E
S
T
S
F
I
E
L
D
M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

(
%
)
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
U
N
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
B
U
L
K
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
D
E
P
T
H

(
f
t
)
B
L
O
W
S
/
6

I
N
.
INDIO DETENTION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 3
Client: County of Riverside EDA Date Drilled: 3/21/13
Equipment: CME 75 Truck Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 130 lbs./ 30"
Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: VJR Measured Depth to Water(ft): 69.0
B
O
R
I
N
G

L
O
G

-

N
O

E
Q
U
I
V

&

B
L
O
W

P
E
R

6

I
N


1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
G
P
J


C
H
J
.
G
D
T


4
/
1
/
1
3
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, brown
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, brown
(SP) Sand, fine to medium, few silt, brown
7
7
6
7
12
11
2
3
7
7
10
11
6
7
14
2
6
12
13
18
11
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
Pass #200,
SPT
40
45
50
55
60
65
L
O
G
D
R
I
V
E
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
Job No.
13143-3 B-3b
Enclosure
SAMPLES
D
R
Y

U
N
I
T

W
T
.
(
p
c
f
)
L
A
B
/
F
I
E
L
D
T
E
S
T
S
F
I
E
L
D
M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

(
%
)
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
U
N
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
B
U
L
K
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
D
E
P
T
H

(
f
t
)
B
L
O
W
S
/
6

I
N
.
INDIO DETENTION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 3
Client: County of Riverside EDA Date Drilled: 3/21/13
Equipment: CME 75 Truck Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 130 lbs./ 30"
Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: VJR Measured Depth to Water(ft): 69.0
B
O
R
I
N
G

L
O
G

-

N
O

E
Q
U
I
V

&

B
L
O
W

P
E
R

6

I
N


1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
G
P
J


C
H
J
.
G
D
T


4
/
1
/
1
3
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, brown
END OF BORING
NO REFUSAL, NO BEDROCK
FILL TO 4', NO CAVING IN UPPER 10'
GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED AT 69'
2
7
13
1
4
14
Pass #200,
SPT
SPT
75
80
85
90
95
100
L
O
G
D
R
I
V
E
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
Job No.
13143-3 B-3c
Enclosure
SAMPLES
D
R
Y

U
N
I
T

W
T
.
(
p
c
f
)
L
A
B
/
F
I
E
L
D
T
E
S
T
S
F
I
E
L
D
M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

(
%
)
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
U
N
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
B
U
L
K
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
D
E
P
T
H

(
f
t
)
B
L
O
W
S
/
6

I
N
.
INDIO DETENTION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 3
Client: County of Riverside EDA Date Drilled: 3/21/13
Equipment: CME 75 Truck Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 130 lbs./ 30"
Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: VJR Measured Depth to Water(ft): 69.0
B
O
R
I
N
G

L
O
G

-

N
O

E
Q
U
I
V

&

B
L
O
W

P
E
R

6

I
N


1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
G
P
J


C
H
J
.
G
D
T


4
/
1
/
1
3
Asphalt Concrete, 2.5"
Aggregate Base, 4.5"
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, brown
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, light brown, with interbedded sand
lenses
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, brown, with interbedded silt and
sand lenses
4
7
9
11
14
14
12
26
4
10
15
18
16
37
41
17
22
23
Cor.,
MDC, RV,
SA
Ring
Cor., DS,
Exp.,
MDC, PI,
SA
DS, Ring
Ring
Ring
Ring
Ring
Fill
Native
98
101
105
104
121
100
5.6
3.1
5.6
7.7
8.9
8.2
3.8
9.9
5
10
15
20
25
30
L
O
G
D
R
I
V
E
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
Job No.
13143-3 B-4a
Enclosure
SAMPLES
D
R
Y

U
N
I
T

W
T
.
(
p
c
f
)
L
A
B
/
F
I
E
L
D
T
E
S
T
S
F
I
E
L
D
M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

(
%
)
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
U
N
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
B
U
L
K
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
D
E
P
T
H

(
f
t
)
B
L
O
W
S
/
6

I
N
.
INDIO DETENTION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 4
Client: County of Riverside EDA Date Drilled: 3/22/13
Equipment: CME 75 Truck Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 130 lbs./ 30"
Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: VJR Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
B
O
R
I
N
G

L
O
G

-

N
O

E
Q
U
I
V

&

B
L
O
W

P
E
R

6

I
N


1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
G
P
J


C
H
J
.
G
D
T


4
/
1
/
1
3
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, light brown
(SP-SM) Sand, fine with medium, with silt, light brown
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, light brown
END OF BORING
NO REFUSAL, NO BEDROCK
FILL TO 6', NO CAVING IN UPPER 10'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
15
21
28
13
17
22
12
30
41
8
13
22
Ring
Ring
Ring
Ring
101
N.R.
106
95
4.6
3.5
N.R.
4.9
5.8
8.3
40
45
50
55
60
65
L
O
G
D
R
I
V
E
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
Job No.
13143-3 B-4b
Enclosure
SAMPLES
D
R
Y

U
N
I
T

W
T
.
(
p
c
f
)
L
A
B
/
F
I
E
L
D
T
E
S
T
S
F
I
E
L
D
M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

(
%
)
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
U
N
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
B
U
L
K
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
D
E
P
T
H

(
f
t
)
B
L
O
W
S
/
6

I
N
.
INDIO DETENTION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 4
Client: County of Riverside EDA Date Drilled: 3/22/13
Equipment: CME 75 Truck Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 130 lbs./ 30"
Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: VJR Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
B
O
R
I
N
G

L
O
G

-

N
O

E
Q
U
I
V

&

B
L
O
W

P
E
R

6

I
N


1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
G
P
J


C
H
J
.
G
D
T


4
/
1
/
1
3
Asphalt Concrete, 3"
Aggregate Base, 8"
(SP-SM) Sand, fine, with silt, brown
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, brown, with interbedded sand and
silt lenses
(ML) Silt, with sand, fine, brown
(SM) Silty Sand, fine with medium, brown, with
interbedded sand and silt lenses
8
11
17
7
8
8
3
7
8
4
7
11
10
16
15
4
18
23
Cor.,
MDC, RV,
SA
Ring
DS, Ring
Ring
Ring
Ring
Ring
Fill
Native 110
105
89
94
112
100
6.0
9.3
3.9
14.0
29.7
25.8
30.0
27.1
13.9
14.3
20.0
5
10
15
20
25
30
L
O
G
D
R
I
V
E
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
Job No.
13143-3 B-5a
Enclosure
SAMPLES
D
R
Y

U
N
I
T

W
T
.
(
p
c
f
)
L
A
B
/
F
I
E
L
D
T
E
S
T
S
F
I
E
L
D
M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

(
%
)
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
U
N
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
B
U
L
K
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
D
E
P
T
H

(
f
t
)
B
L
O
W
S
/
6

I
N
.
INDIO DETENTION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 5
Client: County of Riverside EDA Date Drilled: 3/22/13
Equipment: CME 75 Truck Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 130 lbs./ 30"
Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: VJR Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
B
O
R
I
N
G

L
O
G

-

N
O

E
Q
U
I
V

&

B
L
O
W

P
E
R

6

I
N


1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
G
P
J


C
H
J
.
G
D
T


4
/
1
/
1
3
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, brown
(SP-SM) Sand, fine, with silt, light brown
(ML) Silt, with sand, fine, brown
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, gray brown
END OF BORING
NO REFUSAL, NO BEDROCK
FILL TO 5', NO CAVING IN UPPER 10'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
8
13
14
11
22
24
5
14
32
7
19
36
Ring
Ring
Ring
Ring
106
N.R.
102
N.R.
3.3
13.0
N.R.
18.2
4.2
N.R.
27.7
40
45
50
55
60
65
L
O
G
D
R
I
V
E
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
Job No.
13143-3 B-5b
Enclosure
SAMPLES
D
R
Y

U
N
I
T

W
T
.
(
p
c
f
)
L
A
B
/
F
I
E
L
D
T
E
S
T
S
F
I
E
L
D
M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

(
%
)
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
U
N
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
B
U
L
K
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
D
E
P
T
H

(
f
t
)
B
L
O
W
S
/
6

I
N
.
INDIO DETENTION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 5
Client: County of Riverside EDA Date Drilled: 3/22/13
Equipment: CME 75 Truck Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 130 lbs./ 30"
Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: VJR Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
B
O
R
I
N
G

L
O
G

-

N
O

E
Q
U
I
V

&

B
L
O
W

P
E
R

6

I
N


1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
G
P
J


C
H
J
.
G
D
T


4
/
1
/
1
3
Asphalt Concrete, 3"
Aggregate Base, 4"
(SP-SM) Sand, fine with medium, with silt, brown
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, light brown
(SP) Sand, fine, few silt, light brown
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, brown, with interbedded sand
lenses
(ML) Silt, few sand, fine, brown
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, light brown
7
11
15
7
7
6
12
20
50
4
6
11
6
11
11
5
8
14
9
20
27
Ring
Cor.,
MDC, RV,
SA
Ring
Cor., DS,
Exp.,
MDC, PI,
SA
Ring
Ring
DS, Ring
Ring
Ring
Fill
Native
104
87
N.R.
92
96
105
109
6.8
3.8
16.6
7.6
N.R.
27.5
22.6
19
15.5
25.2
1.8
5
10
15
20
25
30
L
O
G
D
R
I
V
E
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
Job No.
13143-3 B-6a
Enclosure
SAMPLES
D
R
Y

U
N
I
T

W
T
.
(
p
c
f
)
L
A
B
/
F
I
E
L
D
T
E
S
T
S
F
I
E
L
D
M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

(
%
)
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
U
N
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
B
U
L
K
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
D
E
P
T
H

(
f
t
)
B
L
O
W
S
/
6

I
N
.
INDIO DETENTION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 6
Client: County of Riverside EDA Date Drilled: 3/22/13
Equipment: CME 75 Truck Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 130 lbs./ 30"
Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: VJR Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
B
O
R
I
N
G

L
O
G

-

N
O

E
Q
U
I
V

&

B
L
O
W

P
E
R

6

I
N


1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
G
P
J


C
H
J
.
G
D
T


4
/
1
/
1
3
(SP-SM) Sand, fine, gray-brown
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, brown
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, brown
END OF BORING
NO REFUSAL, NO BEDROCK
FILL TO 5', NO CAVING IN UPPER 10'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
13
15
17
11
30
47
6
9
18
11
29
42
Ring
Ring
Ring
Ring
N.R.
106
101
103
N.R.
12.7
4.5
2.4
24.6
18.6
3.8
40
45
50
55
60
65
L
O
G
D
R
I
V
E
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
Job No.
13143-3 B-6b
Enclosure
SAMPLES
D
R
Y

U
N
I
T

W
T
.
(
p
c
f
)
L
A
B
/
F
I
E
L
D
T
E
S
T
S
F
I
E
L
D
M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

(
%
)
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
U
N
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
B
U
L
K
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
D
E
P
T
H

(
f
t
)
B
L
O
W
S
/
6

I
N
.
INDIO DETENTION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 6
Client: County of Riverside EDA Date Drilled: 3/22/13
Equipment: CME 75 Truck Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 130 lbs./ 30"
Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: VJR Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
B
O
R
I
N
G

L
O
G

-

N
O

E
Q
U
I
V

&

B
L
O
W

P
E
R

6

I
N


1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
G
P
J


C
H
J
.
G
D
T


4
/
1
/
1
3
Asphalt Concrete, 3"
Aggregate Base, 4"
(SP-SM) Sand, fine, with silt, dark brown
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, brown
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, light brown
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, light brown
(SP-SM) Sand, fine, with silt, light brown
4
8
11
4
8
8
11
19
21
8
13
15
5
11
11
10
31
43
20
24
29
Ring
Cor.,
MDC, RV,
SA
Cor., DS,
Exp.,
MDC, PI,
SA
Ring
Ring
Ring
Ring
Ring
DS, Ring
Fill
Native
104
91
107
88
N.R.
120
108
8.0
7.1
6.1
22.3
1.4
9.3
2.1
N.R.
7.5
5.1
10.1
5
10
15
20
25
30
L
O
G
D
R
I
V
E
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
Job No.
13143-3 B-7a
Enclosure
SAMPLES
D
R
Y

U
N
I
T

W
T
.
(
p
c
f
)
L
A
B
/
F
I
E
L
D
T
E
S
T
S
F
I
E
L
D
M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

(
%
)
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
U
N
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
B
U
L
K
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
D
E
P
T
H

(
f
t
)
B
L
O
W
S
/
6

I
N
.
INDIO DETENTION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 7
Client: County of Riverside EDA Date Drilled: 3/22/13
Equipment: CME 75 Truck Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 130 lbs./ 30"
Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: VJR Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
B
O
R
I
N
G

L
O
G

-

N
O

E
Q
U
I
V

&

B
L
O
W

P
E
R

6

I
N


1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
G
P
J


C
H
J
.
G
D
T


4
/
1
/
1
3
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, brown
(SP-SM) Sand, fine with medium, with silt, light brown
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, brown
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, light brown
END OF BORING
NO REFUSAL, NO BEDROCK
FILL TO 4', NO CAVING IN UPPER 10'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
8
15
17
12
21
30
8
15
33
8
18
22
Ring
Ring
Ring
Ring
90
N.R.
109
99
15.4
3.5
N.R.
18.9
15.9
5.4
4.4
40
45
50
55
60
65
L
O
G
D
R
I
V
E
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
Job No.
13143-3 B-7b
Enclosure
SAMPLES
D
R
Y

U
N
I
T

W
T
.
(
p
c
f
)
L
A
B
/
F
I
E
L
D
T
E
S
T
S
F
I
E
L
D
M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

(
%
)
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
U
N
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
B
U
L
K
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
D
E
P
T
H

(
f
t
)
B
L
O
W
S
/
6

I
N
.
INDIO DETENTION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 7
Client: County of Riverside EDA Date Drilled: 3/22/13
Equipment: CME 75 Truck Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 130 lbs./ 30"
Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: VJR Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
B
O
R
I
N
G

L
O
G

-

N
O

E
Q
U
I
V

&

B
L
O
W

P
E
R

6

I
N


1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
G
P
J


C
H
J
.
G
D
T


4
/
1
/
1
3
Asphalt Concrete, 3"
Aggregate Base, 7"
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, few gravel to 1", light brown
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, brown
(SP-SM) Sand, fine, with silt, light brown
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, light brown
END OF BORING
NO REFUSAL, NO BEDROCK
FILL TO 3', NO CAVING IN UPPER 10'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
8
16
26
6
10
9
12
24
27
6
9
12
10
15
24
15
23
27
17
19
50
Ring
Cor.,
MDC, RV,
SA
Cor., DS,
Exp.,
MDC, PI,
SA
Consol.,
Ring
Ring
Ring
Ring
Ring
Ring
Fill
Native
102
92
110
95
92
114
107
1.2
1.5
3.7
6.7
1.2
1.4
7.7
6.7
8.9
1.3
6.8
1.5
5
10
15
20
25
30
L
O
G
D
R
I
V
E
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
Job No.
13143-3 B-8
Enclosure
SAMPLES
D
R
Y

U
N
I
T

W
T
.
(
p
c
f
)
L
A
B
/
F
I
E
L
D
T
E
S
T
S
F
I
E
L
D
M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

(
%
)
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
U
N
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
B
U
L
K
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
D
E
P
T
H

(
f
t
)
B
L
O
W
S
/
6

I
N
.
INDIO DETENTION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 8
Client: County of Riverside EDA Date Drilled: 3/21/13
Equipment: CME 75 Truck Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 130 lbs./ 30"
Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: VJR Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
B
O
R
I
N
G

L
O
G

-

N
O

E
Q
U
I
V

&

B
L
O
W

P
E
R

6

I
N


1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
G
P
J


C
H
J
.
G
D
T


4
/
1
/
1
3
Asphalt Concrete, 3"
Aggregate Base, 6"
(SP-SM) Sand, fine, with silt, brown
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, brown
(SP) Sand, fine with medium, few silt, brown
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, brown, with interbedded sand
lenses
(SP-SM) Sand, fine, with silt, light brown
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine, brown
END OF BORING
NO REFUSAL, NO BEDROCK
FILL TO 4', NO CAVING IN UPPER 10'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
10
15
16
7
10
11
10
12
14
4
7
12
7
10
12
12
18
26
8
14
25
Ring
Cor.,
MDC, RV,
SA
Cor., DS,
Exp.,
MDC, PI,
SA
Ring
Ring
Ring
Consol.,
Ring
Ring
Ring
Fill
Native
104
99
103
102
83
107
106
2.5
2.3
8.3
10.0
1.4
7.9
20.3
15.7
15.2
2.5
2.0
17.3
5
10
15
20
25
30
L
O
G
D
R
I
V
E
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
Job No.
13143-3 B-9
Enclosure
SAMPLES
D
R
Y

U
N
I
T

W
T
.
(
p
c
f
)
L
A
B
/
F
I
E
L
D
T
E
S
T
S
F
I
E
L
D
M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

(
%
)
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
U
N
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
B
U
L
K
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
D
E
P
T
H

(
f
t
)
B
L
O
W
S
/
6

I
N
.
INDIO DETENTION CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 9
Client: County of Riverside EDA Date Drilled: 3/21/13
Equipment: CME 75 Truck Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 130 lbs./ 30"
Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: VJR Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
B
O
R
I
N
G

L
O
G

-

N
O

E
Q
U
I
V

&

B
L
O
W

P
E
R

6

I
N


1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
G
P
J


C
H
J
.
G
D
T


4
/
1
/
1
3


APPENDIX "C"

LABORATORY TESTING

Project:
Location:
Job Number: Engineer: Enclosure:
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION (ASTM D422)
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 fy C-1
LabSuite Version 4.0.2.24. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright 2002 - 2013 GeoAdvanced. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 3/28/2013 2:38:35 PM
G
:
\
2
0
1
3
\
1
3
1
4
3
-
3

C
o

o
f

R
iv
e
r
s
id
e
,

E
D
A
,

I
n
d
io

D
e
t
e
n
t
io
n

C
e
n
t
e
r

P
a
r
k
in
g

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
\
la
b
\
L
a
b
S
u
it
e
_
1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
c
s
v
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETER
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
P
E
R
C
E
N
T

P
A
S
S
I
N
G
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
P
E
R
C
E
N
T

R
E
T
A
I
N
E
D
Clay 200 100 60 40 20 10 4 3/8" 3/4" 2" 3"
SCREEN (IN) / SIEVE NO. - U.S.A. Standard Series (ASTM D422)
Clay Silt
Sand Gravel
Cobbles & Boulders
Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse
Sample No. Depth Gravel Sand Fines Clay D
10
D
30
D
50
D
60
C
u
C
c
1A to 9A 0.5 - 1.5 1.3 71.0 27.7 0.080 0.14 0.18
(SM) Silty sand, fine
4B & 6B to 9B 3 - 8 0.4 48.9 50.7 0.07 0.09
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine
Project:
Location:
Job Number: Engineer: Enclosure:
COMPACTION CURVES (ASTM D1557)
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 fy C-2
LabSuite Version 4.0.2.24. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright 2002 - 2013 GeoAdvanced. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 3/28/2013 2:38:35 PM
G
:
\
2
0
1
3
\
1
3
1
4
3
-
3

C
o

o
f

R
iv
e
r
s
id
e
,

E
D
A
,

I
n
d
io

D
e
t
e
n
t
io
n

C
e
n
t
e
r

P
a
r
k
in
g

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
\
la
b
\
L
a
b
S
u
it
e
_
1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
c
s
v
0 5 10 15 20
WATER CONTENT (%)
100
110
120
130
D
R
Y

D
E
N
S
I
T
Y

(
p
c
f
)
Sample No. Depth (ft) USCS Classification
dmax
(pcf) w
o
(%)
G
s =
2
.
4
G
s
=
2
.
5
G
s
=
2
.
6
G
s
=
2
.
7
G
s
=
2
.
8
X
1A to 9A 0.5 - 1.5 (SM) Silty sand, fine 118.2 11.1
X
4B & 6B to 9B 3 - 8 (ML) Sandy Silt, fine 118.3 12.0
Project:
Location:
Job Number: Engineer: Enclosure:
CONSOLIDATION TESTS (ASTM D2435)
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 fy C-3
LabSuite Version 4.0.2.24. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright 2002 - 2013 GeoAdvanced. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 3/28/2013 2:38:35 PM
G
:
\
2
0
1
3
\
1
3
1
4
3
-
3

C
o

o
f

R
iv
e
r
s
id
e
,

E
D
A
,

I
n
d
io

D
e
t
e
n
t
io
n

C
e
n
t
e
r

P
a
r
k
in
g

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
\
la
b
\
L
a
b
S
u
it
e
_
1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
c
s
v
100 1000 10000
Normal Stress (psf)
0
5
10
15
C
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n

S
t
r
a
i
n

(
%
)
Boring No. Depth (ft) USCS Classification
d
(pcf) w (%) HCS (%)
P
c
'
C
c
1+e
0
C
r
1+e
0
P
E
'
8 6 (ML) Sandy silt, fine 88.2 7.6 2.3
3730 7.415 0.497
9 20 (ML) Sandy silt, fine 84.5 12.4 2.2
1517 9.479 0.592
Project:
Location:
Job Number: Engineer: Enclosure:
DIRECT SHEAR TESTS (ASTM D3080)
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 fy C-4
LabSuite Version 4.0.2.24. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright 2002 - 2013 GeoAdvanced. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 3/28/2013 2:38:35 PM
G
:
\
2
0
1
3
\
1
3
1
4
3
-
3

C
o

o
f

R
iv
e
r
s
id
e
,

E
D
A
,

I
n
d
io

D
e
t
e
n
t
io
n

C
e
n
t
e
r

P
a
r
k
in
g

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
\
la
b
\
L
a
b
S
u
it
e
_
1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
c
s
v
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Normal Stress (psf)
0
1000
2000
3000
S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
p
s
f
)
Boring No. Depth (ft)
d
(pcf) w (%) C
pk
(psf)
pk
() C
rs
(psf)
rs
()
4 5 98.0 3.1 151.8 32.3 108.2 30.3
(ML) Sansy silt, fine / Undisturbed
5 10 105.0 14.0 26.0 31.4 0.0 29.9
(SM) Silty sand / Undisturbed
Project:
Location:
Job Number: Engineer: Enclosure:
DIRECT SHEAR TESTS (ASTM D3080)
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 fy C-5
LabSuite Version 4.0.2.24. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright 2002 - 2013 GeoAdvanced. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 3/28/2013 2:38:35 PM
G
:
\
2
0
1
3
\
1
3
1
4
3
-
3

C
o

o
f

R
iv
e
r
s
id
e
,

E
D
A
,

I
n
d
io

D
e
t
e
n
t
io
n

C
e
n
t
e
r

P
a
r
k
in
g

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
\
la
b
\
L
a
b
S
u
it
e
_
1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
c
s
v
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Normal Stress (psf)
0
1000
2000
3000
S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
p
s
f
)
Boring No. Depth (ft)
d
(pcf) w (%) C
pk
(psf)
pk
() C
rs
(psf)
rs
()
6 20 96.0 19.0 153.7 23.3 74.1 23.3
(ML) Sandy silt, fine / Undisturbed
7 30 108.0 5.1 308.5 35.7 97.5 30.3
(SP-SM) Sand with silt, fine / Undisturbed
Project:
Location:
Job Number: Engineer: Enclosure:
DIRECT SHEAR TESTS (ASTM D3080)
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 fy C-6
LabSuite Version 4.0.2.24. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright 2002 - 2013 GeoAdvanced. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 3/28/2013 2:38:35 PM
G
:
\
2
0
1
3
\
1
3
1
4
3
-
3

C
o

o
f

R
iv
e
r
s
id
e
,

E
D
A
,

I
n
d
io

D
e
t
e
n
t
io
n

C
e
n
t
e
r

P
a
r
k
in
g

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
\
la
b
\
L
a
b
S
u
it
e
_
1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
c
s
v
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Normal Stress (psf)
0
1000
2000
3000
S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
p
s
f
)
Boring No. Depth (ft)
d
(pcf) w (%) C
pk
(psf)
pk
() C
rs
(psf)
rs
()
4B & 6B to 9B 3 - 8 107.0 12.0 233.1 29.8 119.7 30.7
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine / Remolded (RC=90%)
Project:
Location:
Job Number: Engineer: Enclosure:
DIRECT SHEAR TESTS (ASTM D3080)
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 fy C-7
LabSuite Version 4.0.2.24. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright 2002 - 2013 GeoAdvanced. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 3/28/2013 2:38:35 PM
G
:\2
0
1
3
\1
3
1
4
3
-
3

C
o

o
f
R
iv
e
r
s
id
e
,
E
D
A
,
In
d
io

D
e
te
n
tio
n

C
e
n
te
r

P
a
r
k
in
g

S
tr
u
c
tu
r
e
\la
b
\L
a
b
S
u
ite
_
1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.c
s
v 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Normal Stress (psf)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
p
s
f
)
Boring No. Depth (ft) USCS
d
(pcf) w (%) C
pk
(psf)
pk
() C
rs
(psf)
rs
()
4 5 (ML) Sansy silt, fine / Undisturbed 98.0 3.1 151.8 32.3 108.2 30.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Shear Deformation ( in)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
p
s
f
)
Project:
Location:
Job Number: Engineer: Enclosure:
DIRECT SHEAR TESTS (ASTM D3080)
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 fy C-8
LabSuite Version 4.0.2.24. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright 2002 - 2013 GeoAdvanced. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 3/28/2013 2:38:35 PM
G
:\2
0
1
3
\1
3
1
4
3
-
3

C
o

o
f
R
iv
e
r
s
id
e
,
E
D
A
,
In
d
io

D
e
te
n
tio
n

C
e
n
te
r

P
a
r
k
in
g

S
tr
u
c
tu
r
e
\la
b
\L
a
b
S
u
ite
_
1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.c
s
v 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Normal Stress (psf)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
p
s
f
)
Boring No. Depth (ft) USCS
d
(pcf) w (%) C
pk
(psf)
pk
() C
rs
(psf)
rs
()
5 10 (SM) Silty sand / Undisturbed 105.0 14.0 26.0 31.4 0.0 29.9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Shear Deformation ( in)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
p
s
f
)
Project:
Location:
Job Number: Engineer: Enclosure:
DIRECT SHEAR TESTS (ASTM D3080)
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 fy C-9
LabSuite Version 4.0.2.24. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright 2002 - 2013 GeoAdvanced. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 3/28/2013 2:38:35 PM
G
:\2
0
1
3
\1
3
1
4
3
-
3

C
o

o
f
R
iv
e
r
s
id
e
,
E
D
A
,
In
d
io

D
e
te
n
tio
n

C
e
n
te
r

P
a
r
k
in
g

S
tr
u
c
tu
r
e
\la
b
\L
a
b
S
u
ite
_
1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.c
s
v 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Normal Stress (psf)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
p
s
f
)
Boring No. Depth (ft) USCS
d
(pcf) w (%) C
pk
(psf)
pk
() C
rs
(psf)
rs
()
6 20 (ML) Sandy silt, fine / Undisturbed 96.0 19.0 153.7 23.3 74.1 23.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Shear Deformation ( in)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
p
s
f
)
Project:
Location:
Job Number: Engineer: Enclosure:
DIRECT SHEAR TESTS (ASTM D3080)
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 fy C-10
LabSuite Version 4.0.2.24. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright 2002 - 2013 GeoAdvanced. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 3/28/2013 2:38:35 PM
G
:\2
0
1
3
\1
3
1
4
3
-
3

C
o

o
f
R
iv
e
r
s
id
e
,
E
D
A
,
In
d
io

D
e
te
n
tio
n

C
e
n
te
r

P
a
r
k
in
g

S
tr
u
c
tu
r
e
\la
b
\L
a
b
S
u
ite
_
1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.c
s
v 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Normal Stress (psf)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
p
s
f
)
Boring No. Depth (ft) USCS
d
(pcf) w (%) C
pk
(psf)
pk
() C
rs
(psf)
rs
()
7 30 (SP-SM) Sand with silt, fine / Undisturbed 108.0 5.1 308.5 35.7 97.5 30.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Shear Deformation ( in)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
p
s
f
)
Project:
Location:
Job Number: Engineer: Enclosure:
DIRECT SHEAR TESTS (ASTM D3080)
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 fy C-11
LabSuite Version 4.0.2.24. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright 2002 - 2013 GeoAdvanced. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 3/28/2013 2:38:35 PM
G
:\2
0
1
3
\1
3
1
4
3
-
3

C
o

o
f
R
iv
e
r
s
id
e
,
E
D
A
,
In
d
io

D
e
te
n
tio
n

C
e
n
te
r

P
a
r
k
in
g

S
tr
u
c
tu
r
e
\la
b
\L
a
b
S
u
ite
_
1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.c
s
v 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Normal Stress (psf)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
p
s
f
)
Boring No. Depth (ft) USCS
d
(pcf) w (%) C
pk
(psf)
pk
() C
rs
(psf)
rs
()
4B & 6B to 9B 3 - 8 (ML) Sandy Silt, fine / Remolded (RC=90%) 107.0 12.0 233.1 29.8 119.7 30.7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Shear Deformation ( in)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
p
s
f
)
Project:
Location:
Job Number: Engineer: Enclosure:
TEST DATA SUMMARY
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 fy C-12
LabSuite Version 4.0.2.24. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright 2002 - 2013 GeoAdvanced. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 3/28/2013 2:38:35 PM
G
:
\
2
0
1
3
\
1
3
1
4
3
-
3

C
o

o
f

R
iv
e
r
s
id
e
,

E
D
A
,

I
n
d
io

D
e
t
e
n
t
io
n

C
e
n
t
e
r

P
a
r
k
in
g

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
\
la
b
\
L
a
b
S
u
it
e
_
1
3
1
4
3
-
3
.
c
s
v
Boring No. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Boring No. 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Boring No. 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Boring No. 3 3 3 3 3 3
Depth (ft) 1 5 10 15 - 25 25 30 - 40 40 45 50
Depth (ft) 55 60 - 76.5 1 10 15 - 25 30 35 40 - 55 55 - 65
Depth (ft) 65 70 - 76.5 1 5 10 15 - 25 25 30 - 40 40
Depth (ft) 45 50 55 60 65 70 - 76.5
Fine Contents (%) 22 88 44 85 20 78 14 63 81
Fine Contents (%) 84 39 22 20 60 59 90 50 35
Fine Contents (%) 9 9.3 22 64 29 79 37 76 14
Fine Contents (%) 84 61 69 57 4.7 23
Classification SM ML SM ML SM ML SM ML ML
Classification ML SM SM SM ML ML ML SM SM
Classification SP - SM SP - SM SM ML SM ML SM ML SM
Classification ML ML ML ML SP SM
FINES CONTENT (ASTM C117)
Sample No. 4B & 6B to 9B
Depth (ft) 3 - 8
Initial Moisture (%) 12.1
Final Moisture (%) 20.5
Degree of Saturation (%) 50
Expansion Index 2
Expansion Potential Very low
EXPANSION INDEX (ASTM D 4829)
Sample No. 1A to 9A
Depth (ft) 0.5 - 1.5
Classification SM
Sand Equivalent -
R-value 64
R-VALUE (CALTRANS 301)
431 West Baseline Road Claremont, CA 91711
Phone: 909.626.0967 Fax: 909.626.3316 Page 1 of 1
www.hdrinc.com
Corrosion Control and Condition Assessment (C3A) Department
Sample ID
1A to 9A 4B +6B to 9B
Resistivity Units
as-received ohm-cm 18,000 21,200
saturated ohm-cm 1,160 1,400
pH 7.3 8.0
Electrical
Conductivity mS/cm 0.37 0.30
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium Ca
2+
mg/kg 161 66
magnesium Mg
2+
mg/kg 23 5.7
sodium Na
1+
mg/kg 150 272
potassium K
1+
mg/kg 66 22
Anions
carbonate CO
3
2-
mg/kg 9.0 51
bicarbonate HCO
3
1-
mg/kg 78 174
fluoride F
1-
mg/kg 2.5 8.4
chloride Cl
1-
mg/kg 112 120
sulfate SO
4
2-
mg/kg 362 234
phosphate PO
4
3-
mg/kg ND ND
Other Tests
ammonium NH
4
1+
mg/kg ND ND
nitrate NO
3
1-
mg/kg 244 53
sulfide S
2-
qual na na
Redox mV na na

Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract.
mg/kg =milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox =oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
ND =not detected
na =not analyzed
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Your #13143-3, HDR|Schiff #13-0262LAB
27-Mar-13
C.H.J. Consultants
Enclosure "C-13"
5.0 A B C D
250 350 350
4.3 4.3 4.3
90 75 70
8.8 7.4 6.7
MOISTURE AT COMPACTION % 13.1 11.7 11.0
2.47 2.45 2.49
WET WEIGHT OF BRIQUETTE 1070 1059 1085
116.1 117.3 118.9
25 22 20
40 38 35
4.90 4.60 4.20
60 64 68
150 280 760
0.63 0.58 0.51
0 0.1 2
0.00 0.00 0.07
R-Value: 63
Depth (ft) SE w
0
(%)
0.5 to 1.5 4.3
Sample No.
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
1A to 9A
THICK. INDICATED BY STAB.
COMPACTOR AIR PRESSURE P.S.I.
INITIAL MOISTURE %
WATER ADDED, ML
WATER ADDED %
Location:
HEIGHT OF BRIQUETTE
DENSITY LB. PER CU.FT.
STABILOMETER PH AT 1000 LBS.
2000 LBS.
Traffic Index (T.I.)
Soil/Sample Type
DISPLACEMENT
R-VALUE
EXUDATION PRESSURE
Job No.:
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
EXPANSION PRESSURE
THICK. INDICATED BY E.P.
13143-3 Enclosure: C-14
(SM) Silty sand
R-VALUE TEST
Project:
60
64
68
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
E
X
U
D
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
E
S
S
U
R
E

P
S
I
R-VALUE
EXUDATION CHART
CHJ LabSuite ver3.07_con. Programmed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE Copyright C.H.J. Incorporated 2005 - 2013. All right reserved Prepared at 3/27/2013

NOTE: MIN. A.C. THICKNESS IS 0.25' MIN. A.B. THICKNESS IS 0.35'
All thicknesses arerounded to the nearest 0.05 foot.
The above values may not reflect applicable county or city minimum standards.
A safety factor of 0.20 for the G.E. of the A.C. is included as per Caltrans.
The values also include a safety factor of 0.10 for A.C./ native soil.
Some agencies do not permit placing A.C. over native soil.
R-Value
50
1.30' AC / Native
1.35' AC / Native
1.40' AC / Native
0.95' AC / Native
1.00' AC / Native
1.05' AC / Native
1.10' AC / Native
1.20' AC / Native
1.25' AC / Native
0.55' AC / 0.65' AB Class 2
0.70' AC / 0.90' AB Class 2
0.70' AC / 0.95' AB Class 2
0.50' AC / Native
0.55' AC / Native
0.65' AC / Native
0.70' AC / Native
0.75' AC / Native
0.80' AC / Native
0.90' AC / Native
13.00
13.50
14.00
0.30' AC / 0.40' AB Class 2
0.35' AC / 0.45' AB Class 2
0.40' AC / 0.45' AB Class 2
0.40' AC / 0.50' AB Class 2
0.45' AC / 0.55' AB Class 2
0.45' AC / 0.60' AB Class 2
0.50' AC / 0.65' AB Class 2
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
0.35' AC / Native
Recommended Street Sections
0.25' AC / 0.35' AB Class 2 0.40' AC / Native
Traffic Index (T.I.)
5.00
5.50
0.25' AC / 0.35' AB Class 2
Enclosure: C-15
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
AC & PCC STRUCTURAL SECTION DESIGN
Project:
Location:
Job No.: 13143-3
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
0.55' AC / 0.70' AB Class 2
0.60' AC / 0.75' AB Class 2
0.60' AC / 0.80' AB Class 2
0.65' AC / 0.85' AB Class 2
0.65' AC / 0.90' AB Class 2
A
11.50
12.00
12.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
0.25' AC / 0.35' AB Class 2 0.45' AC / Native
0.30' AC / 0.35' AB Class 2
8.00
50 R-Value used
Traffic Category ADTT PCC Section (in)
Flexural Strength, M
r
(psi)
530
Concrete Compressive Strength, f
c
(psi)
3500
A-1
A-1
B
700
B
C
C
C
6
D
0
1
10
25
300
100
300
700
7
ASPHALT CONCRETE STRUCTURAL SECTION DESIGN
PARKING LOT PCC SECTION DESIGN
6.5
6.5
7
7
4
4.5
5.5
CHJ LabSuite ver3.07_con. Programmed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE Copyright C.H.J. Incorporated 2005 - 2013. All right reserved Prepared at 3/27/2013


APPENDIX "D"

GEOTECHNICAL CALCULATIONS

Project:
Location:
Job Number: Boring No.: Enclosure:
Liquefaction Potential - SPT Data
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 B-1
GeoSuite2008 Version 2.2.0.105. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright 2002 - 2013 GeoAdvanced. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 3/27/2013 12:21:42 PM
G
:\2
0
1
3
\1
3
1
4
3
-
3

C
o

o
f
R
iv
e
r
s
id
e
,
E
D
A
,
In
d
io

D
e
te
n
tio
n

C
e
n
te
r

P
a
r
k
in
g

S
tr
u
c
tu
r
e
\liq
u
\G
e
o
S
u
ite
_
1
3
1
4
3
-
3
_
B
-
1
.c
s
v
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
Project GW
Boring GW
Target Depth
SM
ML
SM-ML
ML-SM
Earthquake & Groundwater Information:
Magnitude = 7
Max. Acceleration = 0.46 g
Project GW = 20 ft
Maximum Settlement = 1.25 in
Settlement at Target Depth = 1.25 in
Liquefaction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
M correction: [Sand] Boulanger & Idriss(2004)
v correction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Stress reduction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
SM
ML
SM-ML
ML
SM
ML
SM
ML-SM
SM
ML
SM-ML
USCS
0 20 40
N
60
|(N
1
)
60
N
60
(N
1
)
60
0 40 80
D
R
(%)
0 2 4 6 8
OCR
0 0.4 0.8

av
(tsf)
0 0.5 1
CSR
7.5
|CRR
7.5
CSR
7.5
CRR
7.5
0 1
FS
D-1
Project:
Location:
Job Number: Boring No.: Enclosure:
Liquefaction Potential - SPT Data
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 B-2 D-2
GeoSuite2008 Version 2.2.0.106. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright 2002 - 2013 GeoAdvanced. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 3/28/2013 8:12:48 AM
G
:\2
0
1
3
\1
3
1
4
3
-
3

C
o

o
f
R
iv
e
r
s
id
e
,
E
D
A
,
In
d
io

D
e
te
n
tio
n

C
e
n
te
r

P
a
r
k
in
g

S
tr
u
c
tu
r
e
\liq
u
\G
e
o
S
u
ite
_
1
3
1
4
3
-
3
_
B
-
2
.c
s
v
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
Project GW
Boring GW
Target Depth
SM
ML-SM
ML
SM-ML
SP-SM
Earthquake & Groundwater Information:
Magnitude = 7
Max. Acceleration = 0.46 g
Project GW = 20 ft
Maximum Settlement = 1.91 in
Settlement at Target Depth = 1.90 in
Liquefaction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
M correction: [Sand] Boulanger & Idriss(2004)
v correction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Stress reduction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
SM
SM
ML-SM
ML-SM
ML
SM-ML
SM-ML
SP-SM
SP-SM
USCS
0 20 40
N
60
|(N
1
)
60
N
60
(N
1
)
60
0 40 80
D
R
(%)
0 2 4 6
OCR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

av
(tsf)
0 0.5 1
CSR
7.5
|CRR
7.5
CSR
7.5
CRR
7.5
0 1
FS
Project:
Location:
Job Number: Boring No.: Enclosure:
Liquefaction Potential - SPT Data
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 B-3
GeoSuite2008 Version 2.2.0.105. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright 2002 - 2013 GeoAdvanced. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 3/27/2013 12:38:16 PM
G
:\2
0
1
3
\1
3
1
4
3
-
3

C
o

o
f
R
iv
e
r
s
id
e
,
E
D
A
,
In
d
io

D
e
te
n
tio
n

C
e
n
te
r

P
a
r
k
in
g

S
tr
u
c
tu
r
e
\liq
u
\G
e
o
S
u
ite
_
1
3
1
4
3
-
3
_
B
-
3
.c
s
v
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
Project GW
Boring GW
Target Depth
SM
ML-SM
ML
SM-ML
SP
Earthquake & Groundwater Information:
Magnitude = 7
Max. Acceleration = 0.46 g
Project GW = 20 ft
Maximum Settlement = 2.02 in
Settlement at Target Depth = 2.01 in
Liquefaction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
M correction: [Sand] Boulanger & Idriss(2004)
v correction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Stress reduction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
SM
ML-SM
SM
ML
SM-ML
ML
SM
ML
ML-SM
ML
ML-SM
SP
SM
USCS
0 20 40
N
60
|(N
1
)
60
N
60
(N
1
)
60
0 40 80
D
R
(%)
0 2 4 6
OCR
0 0.4 0.8

av
(tsf)
0 0.5 1
CSR
7.5
|CRR
7.5
CSR
7.5
CRR
7.5
0 1
FS
D-3
Project:
Location:
Job Number: Boring No.: Enclosure:
Seismic Settlement Potential - SPT Data
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 B-1
GeoSuite2008 Version 2.2.0.105. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright 2002 - 2013 GeoAdvanced. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 3/27/2013 12:21:42 PM
G
:\2
0
1
3
\1
3
1
4
3
-
3

C
o

o
f
R
iv
e
r
s
id
e
,
E
D
A
,
In
d
io

D
e
te
n
tio
n

C
e
n
te
r

P
a
r
k
in
g

S
tr
u
c
tu
r
e
\liq
u
\G
e
o
S
u
ite
_
1
3
1
4
3
-
3
_
B
-
1
.c
s
v
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
Project GW
Boring GW
Target Depth
SM
ML
SM-ML
ML-SM
Earthquake & Groundwater Information:
Magnitude = 7
Max. Acceleration = 0.46 g
Project GW = 20 ft
Maximum Settlement = 1.25 in
Settlement at Target Depth = 1.25 in
Liquefaction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
M correction: [Sand] Boulanger & Idriss(2004)
v correction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Stress reduction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
SM
ML
SM-ML
ML
SM
ML
SM
ML-SM
SM
ML
SM-ML
USCS
0 20 40
N
60
|(N
1
)
60
N
60
(N
1
)
60
0 40 80
D
R
(%)
0 2 4 6 8
OCR
0 0.4 0.8

av
(tsf)
0 0.5 1
CSR
7.5
|CRR
7.5
CSR
7.5
CRR
7.5
0 1
FS
0 1 2 3

max
(%)
Pd
0 0.2 0.4 0.6

v
(%)
Pd
0 0.5 1
S
i
(in)
Pd
D-4
Project:
Location:
Job Number: Boring No.: Enclosure:
Seismic Settlement Potential - SPT Data
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 B-2 D-5
GeoSuite2008 Version 2.2.0.106. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright 2002 - 2013 GeoAdvanced. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 3/28/2013 8:12:48 AM
G
:\2
0
1
3
\1
3
1
4
3
-
3

C
o

o
f
R
iv
e
r
s
id
e
,
E
D
A
,
In
d
io

D
e
te
n
tio
n

C
e
n
te
r

P
a
r
k
in
g

S
tr
u
c
tu
r
e
\liq
u
\G
e
o
S
u
ite
_
1
3
1
4
3
-
3
_
B
-
2
.c
s
v
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
Project GW
Boring GW
Target Depth
SM
ML-SM
ML
SM-ML
SP-SM
Earthquake & Groundwater Information:
Magnitude = 7
Max. Acceleration = 0.46 g
Project GW = 20 ft
Maximum Settlement = 1.91 in
Settlement at Target Depth = 1.90 in
Liquefaction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
M correction: [Sand] Boulanger & Idriss(2004)
v correction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Stress reduction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
SM
SM
ML-SM
ML-SM
ML
SM-ML
SM-ML
SP-SM
SP-SM
USCS
0 20 40
N
60
|(N
1
)
60
N
60
(N
1
)
60
0 40 80
D
R
(%)
0 2 4 6
OCR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

av
(tsf)
0 0.5 1
CSR
7.5
|CRR
7.5
CSR
7.5
CRR
7.5
0 1
FS
0 5 10 15

max
(%)
Pd
0 1 2

v
(%)
Pd
0 0.5 1 1.5
S
i
(in)
Pd
Project:
Location:
Job Number: Boring No.: Enclosure:
Seismic Settlement Potential - SPT Data
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 B-3
GeoSuite2008 Version 2.2.0.105. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright 2002 - 2013 GeoAdvanced. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 3/27/2013 12:38:16 PM
G
:\2
0
1
3
\1
3
1
4
3
-
3

C
o

o
f
R
iv
e
r
s
id
e
,
E
D
A
,
In
d
io

D
e
te
n
tio
n

C
e
n
te
r

P
a
r
k
in
g

S
tr
u
c
tu
r
e
\liq
u
\G
e
o
S
u
ite
_
1
3
1
4
3
-
3
_
B
-
3
.c
s
v
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
Project GW
Boring GW
Target Depth
SM
ML-SM
ML
SM-ML
SP
Earthquake & Groundwater Information:
Magnitude = 7
Max. Acceleration = 0.46 g
Project GW = 20 ft
Maximum Settlement = 2.02 in
Settlement at Target Depth = 2.01 in
Liquefaction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Settl.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
M correction: [Sand] Boulanger & Idriss(2004)
v correction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Stress reduction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
SM
ML-SM
SM
ML
SM-ML
ML
SM
ML
ML-SM
ML
ML-SM
SP
SM
USCS
0 20 40
N
60
|(N
1
)
60
N
60
(N
1
)
60
0 40 80
D
R
(%)
0 2 4 6
OCR
0 0.4 0.8

av
(tsf)
0 0.5 1
CSR
7.5
|CRR
7.5
CSR
7.5
CRR
7.5
0 1
FS
0 1 2 3

max
(%)
Pd
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

v
(%)
Pd
0 1 2
S
i
(in)
Pd
D-6
Project:
Location:
Job Number: Boring No.: Enclosure:
Earth Pressures
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 B-1 D-7
GeoSuite2008 Version 2.2.0.106. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright 2002 - 2013 GeoAdvanced. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 3/28/2013 3:24:02 PM
G
:\2
0
1
3
\1
3
1
4
3
-
3

C
o

o
f
R
iv
e
r
s
id
e
,
E
D
A
,
In
d
io

D
e
te
n
tio
n

C
e
n
te
r

P
a
r
k
in
g

S
tr
u
c
tu
r
e
\liq
u
\G
e
o
S
u
ite
_
1
3
1
4
3
-
3
_
B
-
1
.c
s
v

0 10
H=15 (ft)
H1=4.0 (ft)
=0 ()
=20.0 ()
k
H
=0.23
k
V
=0.115 Mat 1
= 119 (pcf)
c = 0 (psf)
= 30 ()
Mat 2
= 112 (pcf)
c = 0 (psf)
= 30 ()
Mat 3
= 120 (pcf)
c = 0 (psf)
= 30 ()
H (ft)
Zc(ft)
Total
Hori.
Vert.
()
Restrained (Level Backfill)
Base Friction Coefficient
PpL Pa PaE PpR
4 15 15 15
- 0 0 -
357 35 55 357
357 33 51 357
- 12 19 -
30.00 56.00 39.75 29.75
60
0.36
357H1
(a) Passive (L)
35H
(b) Active
20.0
55H
(c) Seismic
20.0 357H
(d) Passive (R)
23H
(e) Apparent Pressure
Project:
Location:
Job Number: Boring No.: Enclosure:
Bearing Capacity vs. Footing Width - SPT Data
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 B-1 D-8
GeoSuite2008 Version 2.2.0.106. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GECopyright 2002 - 2013 GeoAdvanced. All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 3/28/2013 3:24:02 PM
G
:
\
2
0
1
3
\
1
3
1
4
3
-
3

C
o

o
f

R
iv
e
r
s
id
e
,

E
D
A
,

I
n
d
io

D
e
t
e
n
t
io
n

C
e
n
t
e
r

P
a
r
k
in
g

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
\
liq
u
\
G
e
o
S
u
it
e
_
1
3
1
4
3
-
3
_
B
-
1
.
c
s
v
0 5 10 15 20
Footing Width, B (ft)
0
10
20
30
N
e
t

B
e
a
r
i
n
g

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
,

q
'

(
k
s
f
)
Bearing Capacity vs. Footing Width
q
a
'
=0.25"
=0.5"
=0.75"
=1"
=1.5"
=2"
=2.5"
=3"
q
u
'
B 1
6.06
2.02
143.64
2
7.02
2.34
154.52
3
7.98
2.66
167.17
5
12.38
4.13
191.36
11
28.21
7.49
179.70
19
41.79
6.22
149.24
qu'(ksf)
qa'(ksf)
kv(kcf)
1. Net Bearing Capacity, Terzaghi (1943).
2. FS=3 or =0.50 in.
3. Footing shape = Square.
4. Effective Stress at footing depth,
Df
= 0.24ksf.
5. Compression Deformation: Nonlinear (Yi 2011)
De=0.0
Df =2.0
T=3.0
=119.0 pcf
c=0.0 psf
=30.0

Df

Df
M=1100 tsf


APPENDIX "E"

PILE CALCULATIONS



Loads:
Load Factor for Vertical Loads= 1.0
Load Factor for Lateral Loads= 1.0
Loads Supported by Pile Cap= 0 %
Shear Condition: Cyclic
Number of Cycles: 15
(with Load Factor)
Vertical Load, Q= 200.0 -kp
Shear Load, P= 130.0 -kp
Moment, M= 0.0 -kp-f
Profile:
Pile Length, L= 50.0 -ft
Top Height, H= -6 -ft
Slope Angle, As= 0
Batter Angle, Ab= 0
Free Head Condition
Soil Data:
Depth Gamma Phi C K e50 or Dr Nspt
-ft -lb/f3 -kp/f2 -lb/i3 %
0 114 30.3 .1 166.7 0.80 12
10 115.6 29.9 0 134.8 60.29 25
15 117.7 23 .074 59.5 1.19 14
20 61.5 23 .074 76.1 0.68 24
40 56.2 30 .097 82.8 60.75 25
45 59 30 .097 76.1 0.62 16
50 63.4 32 .2 795.6 0.39 38
60 62.3 32 .2 616.8 0.44 31
65 56.1 33 0.00 86.6 62.29 27
70 62.7 34 0.00 104.7 69.20 34
Pile Data:
Depth Width Area Per. I E Weight
-ft -in -in2 -in -in4 -kp/i2 -kp/f
0.0 24 507.2 75.4 16325.7 3000 0.486
50.0
Vertical Capacity:
Weight above Ground= 0.00 Total Weight= 17.23-kp *Soil Weight is not included
Side Resistance (Down)= 263.375-kp Side Resistance (Up)= 162.388-kp
Tip Resistance (Down)= 164.082-kp Tip Resistance (Up)= 0.000-kp
Total Ultimate Capacity (Down) Qult= 427.456-kp Total Ultimate Capacity (Up)= 179.618-kp
Total Allowable Capacity (Down) Qallow= 186.381-kp Total Allowable Capacity (Up) Qallow= 62.744-kp
N/G! Qallow < Q
Settlement Calculation:
At Q= 200.00-kp Settlement= 0.08202-in
At Xallow= 1.00-in Qallow= 369.84030-kp
Note: If the program cannot find a result or the result exceeds the upper limit. The result will be displayed as 99999.
VERTICAL ANALYSIS
Drilled Pile (dia <=24 in. or 61 cm)
13143-3 Proposed Indio Detention Center Parking Structure
B-3, 24in CIDH Piles, Free Head
Enclosure "E-1"
Depth (Zp)
from
Pile Top-ft
Depth (Zp)
from
Pile Top-ft
0 0
10 10
20 20
30 30
40 40
50 50
60 60
Pile below Ground (not to scale)
Tip yt=1.76E-6 Top yt=9.89E-1
Max. yt=9.89E-1
Top St=-1.14E-2
0 -1.00 +1.00
yt=0 at 11.5-ft
St=0 at 15.4-ft
Top Moment=0.0
Max. Moment=390.8
0 -500 +500
Top Shear=106.0
Max. Shear=106.0
0 -200 +200
G-lb/f3 Phi C-kp/f2 k-lb/i3 e50 %
not to scale
114 30.3 .1 166.7 0.80
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=16326
115.6 29.9 0 134.8
Sand/Gravel
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=16326
117.7 23 .074 59.5 1.19
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=16326
61.5 23 .074 76.1 0.68
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=16326
56.2 30 .097 82.8
Sand/Gravel
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=16326
59 30 .097 76.1 0.62
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=16326
63.4 32 .2 795.6 0.39
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=16326
DEFLECTION, yt -in MOMENT -kp-f SHEAR -kp
Single Pile, Khead=2, Kbc=1
PILE DEFLECTION & FORCE vs DEPTH
ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to
13143-3 Proposed Indio Detention Center Parking Structure
B-3, 24in CIDH Piles, Free Head
Enclosure "E-2"
Depth (Zp)
from
Pile Top-ft
Depth (Zp)
from
Pile Top-ft
0 0
10 10
20 20
30 30
40 40
50 50
60 60
Pile below Ground (not to scale)
Tip yt=1.9E-6 Top yt=9.79E-1
Max. yt=9.79E-1
Top St=-9.16E-18
0 -1.00 +1.00
yt=0 at 15.9-ft
St=0 at 19.6-ft
Top Moment=-1050.0
Max. Moment=1050.0
0 -2000 +2000
Top Shear=230.0
Max. Shear=230.0
0 -500 +500
G-lb/f3 Phi C-kp/f2 k-lb/i3 e50 %
not to scale
114 30.3 .1 166.7 0.80
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=16326
115.6 29.9 0 134.8
Sand/Gravel
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=16326
117.7 23 .074 59.5 1.19
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=16326
61.5 23 .074 76.1 0.68
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=16326
56.2 30 .097 82.8
Sand/Gravel
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=16326
59 30 .097 76.1 0.62
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=16326
63.4 32 .2 795.6 0.39
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=16326
DEFLECTION, yt -in MOMENT -kp-f SHEAR -kp
Single Pile, Khead=5, Kbc=2
PILE DEFLECTION & FORCE vs DEPTH
ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to
13143-3 Proposed Indio Detention Center Parking Structure
B-3, 24in CIDH Piles, Fixed Head
Enclosure "E-3"
Loads:
Load Factor for Vertical Loads= 1.0
Load Factor for Lateral Loads= 1.0
Loads Supported by Pile Cap= 0 %
Shear Condition: Cyclic
Number of Cycles: 15
(with Load Factor)
Vertical Load, Q= 200.0 -kp
Shear Load, P= 150.0 -kp
Moment, M= 0.0 -kp-f
Profile:
Pile Length, L= 50.0 -ft
Top Height, H= -6 -ft
Slope Angle, As= 0
Batter Angle, Ab= 0
Free Head Condition
Soil Data:
Depth Gamma Phi C K e50 or Dr Nspt
-ft -lb/f3 -kp/f2 -lb/i3 %
0 114 30.3 .1 166.7 0.80 12
10 115.6 29.9 0 134.8 60.29 25
15 117.7 23 .074 59.5 1.19 14
20 61.5 23 .074 76.1 0.68 24
40 56.2 30 .097 82.8 60.75 25
45 59 30 .097 76.1 0.62 16
50 63.4 32 .2 795.6 0.39 38
60 62.3 32 .2 616.8 0.44 31
65 56.1 33 0.00 86.6 62.29 27
70 62.7 34 0.00 104.7 69.20 34
Pile Data:
Depth Width Area Per. I E Weight
-ft -in -in2 -in -in4 -kp/i2 -kp/f
0.0 30 775.3 94.2 39822.8 3000 0.755
50.0
Vertical Capacity:
Weight above Ground= 0.00 Total Weight= 26.70-kp *Soil Weight is not included
Side Resistance (Down)= 345.096-kp Side Resistance (Up)= 212.049-kp
Tip Resistance (Down)= 300.594-kp Tip Resistance (Up)= 0.000-kp
Total Ultimate Capacity (Down) Qult= 645.690-kp Total Ultimate Capacity (Up)= 238.753-kp
Total Allowable Capacity (Down) Qallow= 272.746-kp Total Allowable Capacity (Up) Qallow= 84.035-kp
OK! Qallow > Q
Settlement Calculation:
At Q= 200.00-kp Settlement= 0.06141-in
At Xallow= 1.00-in Qallow= 561.96234-kp
Note: If the program cannot find a result or the result exceeds the upper limit. The result will be displayed as 99999.
VERTICAL ANALYSIS
Drilled Shaft (dia >24 in. or 61 cm)
13143-3 Proposed Indio Detention Center Parking Structure
B-3, 30in CIDH Piles, Free Head
Enclosure "E-4"
Depth (Zp)
from
Pile Top-ft
Depth (Zp)
from
Pile Top-ft
0 0
10 10
20 20
30 30
40 40
50 50
60 60
Pile below Ground (not to scale)
Tip yt=-2.33E-5 Top yt=9.88E-1
Max. yt=9.88E-1
Top St=-9.19E-3
0 -1.00 +1.00
yt=0 at 14.6-ft
St=0 at 19.2-ft
Top Moment=0.0
Max. Moment=616.7
0 -1000 +1000
Top Shear=140.0
Max. Shear=140.0
0 -200 +200
G-lb/f3 Phi C-kp/f2 k-lb/i3 e50 %
not to scale
114 30.3 .1 166.7 0.80
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=39823
115.6 29.9 0 134.8
Sand/Gravel
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=39823
117.7 23 .074 59.5 1.19
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=39823
61.5 23 .074 76.1 0.68
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=39823
56.2 30 .097 82.8
Sand/Gravel
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=39823
59 30 .097 76.1 0.62
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=39823
63.4 32 .2 795.6 0.39
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=39823
DEFLECTION, yt -in MOMENT -kp-f SHEAR -kp
Single Pile, Khead=2, Kbc=1
PILE DEFLECTION & FORCE vs DEPTH
ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to
13143-3 Proposed Indio Detention Center Parking Structure
B-3, 30in CIDH Piles, Free Head
Enclosure "E-5"
Depth (Zp)
from
Pile Top-ft
Depth (Zp)
from
Pile Top-ft
0 0
10 10
20 20
30 30
40 40
50 50
60 60
Pile below Ground (not to scale)
Tip yt=-6E-5 Top yt=9.88E-1
Max. yt=9.88E-1
Top St=-9.16E-18
0 -1.00 +1.00
yt=0 at 19.6-ft
St=0 at 23.9-ft
Top Moment=-1683.3
Max. Moment=1683.3
0 -2000 +2000
Top Shear=300.0
Max. Shear=300.0
0 -500 +500
G-lb/f3 Phi C-kp/f2 k-lb/i3 e50 %
not to scale
114 30.3 .1 166.7 0.80
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=39823
115.6 29.9 0 134.8
Sand/Gravel
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=39823
117.7 23 .074 59.5 1.19
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=39823
61.5 23 .074 76.1 0.68
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=39823
56.2 30 .097 82.8
Sand/Gravel
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=39823
59 30 .097 76.1 0.62
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=39823
63.4 32 .2 795.6 0.39
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=39823
DEFLECTION, yt -in MOMENT -kp-f SHEAR -kp
Single Pile, Khead=5, Kbc=2
PILE DEFLECTION & FORCE vs DEPTH
ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to
13143-3 Proposed Indio Detention Center Parking Structure
B-3, 30in CIDH Piles, Fixed Head
Enclosure "E-6"
Loads:
Load Factor for Vertical Loads= 1.0
Load Factor for Lateral Loads= 1.0
Loads Supported by Pile Cap= 0 %
Shear Condition: Cyclic
Number of Cycles: 15
(with Load Factor)
Vertical Load, Q= 200.0 -kp
Shear Load, P= 180.0 -kp
Moment, M= 0.0 -kp-f
Profile:
Pile Length, L= 50.0 -ft
Top Height, H= -6 -ft
Slope Angle, As= 0
Batter Angle, Ab= 0
Free Head Condition
Soil Data:
Depth Gamma Phi C K e50 or Dr Nspt
-ft -lb/f3 -kp/f2 -lb/i3 %
0 114 30.3 .1 166.7 0.80 12
10 115.6 29.9 0 134.8 60.29 25
15 117.7 23 .074 59.5 1.19 14
20 61.5 23 .074 76.1 0.68 24
40 56.2 30 .097 82.8 60.75 25
45 59 30 .097 76.1 0.62 16
50 63.4 32 .2 795.6 0.39 38
60 62.3 32 .2 616.8 0.44 31
65 56.1 33 0.00 86.6 62.29 27
70 62.7 34 0.00 104.7 69.20 34
Pile Data:
Depth Width Area Per. I E Weight
-ft -in -in2 -in -in4 -kp/i2 -kp/f
0.0 36 1100.0 113.1 82537.2 3000 1.082
50.0
Vertical Capacity:
Weight above Ground= 0.00 Total Weight= 38.19-kp *Soil Weight is not included
Side Resistance (Down)= 417.937-kp Side Resistance (Up)= 256.652-kp
Tip Resistance (Down)= 482.017-kp Tip Resistance (Up)= 0.000-kp
Total Ultimate Capacity (Down) Qult= 899.954-kp Total Ultimate Capacity (Up)= 294.847-kp
Total Allowable Capacity (Down) Qallow= 369.641-kp Total Allowable Capacity (Up) Qallow= 104.648-kp
OK! Qallow > Q
Settlement Calculation:
At Q= 200.00-kp Settlement= 0.05685-in
At Xallow= 1.00-in Qallow= 743.49396-kp
Note: If the program cannot find a result or the result exceeds the upper limit. The result will be displayed as 99999.
VERTICAL ANALYSIS
Drilled Shaft (dia >24 in. or 61 cm)
13143-3 Proposed Indio Detention Center Parking Structure
B-3, 36in CIDH Piles, Free Head
Enclosure "E-7"
Depth (Zp)
from
Pile Top-ft
Depth (Zp)
from
Pile Top-ft
0 0
10 10
20 20
30 30
40 40
50 50
60 60
Pile below Ground (not to scale)
Tip yt=-1.28E-4 Top yt=9.9E-1
Max. yt=9.9E-1
Top St=-7.79E-3
0 -1.00 +1.00
yt=0 at 17.3-ft
St=0 at 22.6-ft
Top Moment=0.0
Max. Moment=900.0
0 -1000 +1000
Top Shear=180.0
Max. Shear=180.0
0 -200 +200
G-lb/f3 Phi C-kp/f2 k-lb/i3 e50 %
not to scale
114 30.3 .1 166.7 0.80
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=82537
115.6 29.9 0 134.8
Sand/Gravel
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=82537
117.7 23 .074 59.5 1.19
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=82537
61.5 23 .074 76.1 0.68
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=82537
56.2 30 .097 82.8
Sand/Gravel
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=82537
59 30 .097 76.1 0.62
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=82537
63.4 32 .2 795.6 0.39
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=82537
DEFLECTION, yt -in MOMENT -kp-f SHEAR -kp
Single Pile, Khead=2, Kbc=1
PILE DEFLECTION & FORCE vs DEPTH
ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to
13143-3 Proposed Indio Detention Center Parking Structure
B-3, 36in CIDH Piles, Free Head
Enclosure "E-8"
Depth (Zp)
from
Pile Top-ft
Depth (Zp)
from
Pile Top-ft
0 0
10 10
20 20
30 30
40 40
50 50
60 60
Pile below Ground (not to scale)
Tip yt=3.9E-5 Top yt=9.94E-1
Max. yt=9.94E-1
Top St=9.16E-18
0 -1.00 +1.00
yt=0 at 23.1-ft
St=0 at 28.1-ft
Top Moment=-2500.0
Max. Moment=2500.0
0 -5000 +5000
Top Shear=378.0
Max. Shear=378.0
0 -500 +500
G-lb/f3 Phi C-kp/f2 k-lb/i3 e50 %
not to scale
114 30.3 .1 166.7 0.80
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=82537
115.6 29.9 0 134.8
Sand/Gravel
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=82537
117.7 23 .074 59.5 1.19
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=82537
61.5 23 .074 76.1 0.68
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=82537
56.2 30 .097 82.8
Sand/Gravel
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=82537
59 30 .097 76.1 0.62
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=82537
63.4 32 .2 795.6 0.39
Silt (Phi + C)
E -kp/i2=3000
I'-in4=82537
DEFLECTION, yt -in MOMENT -kp-f SHEAR -kp
Single Pile, Khead=5, Kbc=2
PILE DEFLECTION & FORCE vs DEPTH
ALL-PILE CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com Licensed to
13143-3 Proposed Indio Detention Center Parking Structure
B-3, 36in CIDH Piles, Fixed Head
Enclosure "E-9"


Downward Pile Capacity
Project:
Location
Job Number
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 Enclosure E-10
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 200 400 600 800
D
e
p
t
h

B
e
l
o
w

P
i
l
e

C
a
p

(
f
t
)
Ultimate Downward Pile Capacity (kips)
24 in
30 in
36 in
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 100 200 300 400
D
e
p
t
h

B
e
l
o
w

P
i
l
e

C
a
p

(
f
t
)
Allowable Downward Pile Capacity (kips)
24 in
30 in
36 in
Existing Gound Surface Existing Gound Surface


Uplift Pile Capacity
Project:
Location
Job Number
Proposed East County Detention Center Parking Structure
Southeast of Oasis Street and Plaza Avenue, Indio, California
13143-3 Enclosure E-11
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
D
e
p
t
h

B
e
l
o
w

P
i
l
e

C
a
p

(
f
t
)
Ultimate Upward Pile Capacity (kips)
24 in
30 in
36 in
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
D
e
p
t
h

B
e
l
o
w

P
i
l
e

C
a
p

(
f
t
)
Allowable Upward Pile Capacity (kips)
24 in
30 in
36 in
Existing Gound Surface Existing Gound Surface