The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTract Map 15421 Parcel 2 Islamic Center Field Density Tests -'_Geso 1Vtat, GeoMat Testing laboratories, Inc. Soil Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Materials Testing, Geology ' October 29, 2012 Project No. 11077-02 LD12-052GR TO: RAM CAM Engineering Group ' 670 East Parkridge Avenue Suite 101 Corona, California 92879 ' ATTENTION: Mr. Alex Irsheid SUBJECT: Results of Laboratory and Field Density Test Results Performed during Rough Grading of the Proposed Phase I Building Pad ICTV Facility, PAO8-0241, Southwest Corner of Nicolas Road and Calle Calibri Road, PM 15421, Parcel 2, City of Temecula, California REFERENCES: GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, ' Proposed ICTV Facility, PAOM241, Southwest Corner of Nicolas Road and Calle Calibri Road, PM 15421, Parcel 2, City of Temecula, California" Report Dated April 23, 2012, Project No. 11077-01. ' RAMCAM Engineering Group"ICTV, Phase I, Precise Grading Plan, Sheet 4.1. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. "Foundation Plan Review, Proposed ICTV Facility, PAO8-0241, Southwest Comer of Nicolas Road and Calle Calibri Road, PM 15421, Parcel 2, City of Temecula, California" Report Dated September 12, 2012, Project No. 11077-01. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. "Basic Infiltration Testing Report in General Accordance with ASTM 3385-03 Test Method, Property at the Southwest Corner of Nicolas Road and Calle Calibri Road, City of Temecula, California." August 28, 2012, Project No. 11077-01. ' Introduction We have prepared this report containing results of field density and laboratory testing performed during rough grading of the subject building pad. Refer to Figure 1 for site location. We have utilized a copy of the ' referenced precise grading plan as our Field Density Test Location Map, Plate 1. Summary of Work Performed ' Observation of excavated bottom and compaction testing was conducted by GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Rough grading was generally performed in accordance with the above referenced preliminary soil investigation report dated April 23, 2012 and our recommendations in the field during construction The building pad's overexcavated bottom was observed to expose firm and competent native soil with at least 85% relative compaction. Minimum overexcavation extended to at least 3 feet below existing ground ' surface. The excavated bottom was then scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 of the maximum dry density. 9980 Indiana Avenue • Suite 14 • Riverside • California • 92503 • Phone (951) 688-5400 • Fax (951)688-5200 1 www.geomatiabs.com,contact: e-mail: geomatlabs@sbcglobal.net ' ICTV Facility, PM 15421, Parcel 2 Project No. 11077-02 City of Temecula, California October 29, 2012 ' Fill was placed using a dozer and the compaction was conducted by repeated passes of a sheeps foot roller. The fill was placed at near optimum moisture content. Water was applied by a fire hose. Fills were placed in 6-to-8-inch loose lifts; moisture conditioned, mixed and compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Maximum dry densities were determined in accordance with ASTM D1557 Test Method. Field density ' testing was conducted utilizing the Nuclear Gauge(ASTM 2922)Test Method. Summary of Laboratory Tests Results Field Density Test Results are presented in Appendix A and B, respectively. Conclusions ' • Test results in compacted fill indicate a relative compaction of at least 90% of the maximum dry density. ' • Based on soil classification of granular material, the anticipated expansion potential is very low(EI<21). • No groundwater and/or seepage were encountered during grading. The potential for rain or irrigation water moving along coarse,grained soils and locally seeping through from adjacent areas cannot be precluded. Our experience indicates that surface or near-surface groundwater conditions can develop in areas where groundwater conditions did not exist prior to site development, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation. We therefore ' recommend that landscape irrigation be kept to the minimum necessary to maintain plant vigor and any leaking pipes/sprinklers, etc. should be promptly repaired. The depth to the groundwater may fluctuate with seasonal ,changes and from one year 'to the next. We have no way of predicting"future groundwater levels or perched water due to increase in surface water infiltration from rainfall or from ' landscape irrigation. Subdrains, horizontal drains or other devices may be recommended for graded areas that exhibit groundwater, past evidence for shallow water, or areas with a potential for future shallow water, • Recommendations presented in the above referenced reports should be followed during construction. A summary,of the foundation recommendation is repeated below. ' Recommendations ' The use of shallow continuous footings founded in certified compacted fill is feasible. Footing excavations should be observed by the soil engineer before the forms and reinforcement is set. Maximum allowable bearing values of 2500 psf is tentatively recommended for continuous and pad footings. This bearing pressure has been established based on the assumption that the footings will be embedded in soils at least ' 24 inches below lowest firm grade. The bearing values may be increased by one third for temporary (wind or seismic) loads. ' Footing reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer, however, minimum reinforcement of two No 5 bar at the top and two No 5 bar at the bottom of continuous footings is recommended. Openings should be tied with grade beams. These recommendations should not preclude more restrictive structural requirements. The structural engineer should determine the actual footing sizes and reinforcement to resist vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces under static and seismic conditions. Reinforcement and size recommendations presented in this report are considered the minimum necessary for the soil conditions present at foundation level and are not intended to supersede the design of the project structural engineer or criteria of the governing agencies for the project. 1 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 2 1 1 ICTV Facility, PM 15421, Parcel 2 Project No. 11077-02 City of Temecula, California October 29, 2012 ' Foundations should be designed by a qualified structural engineer in accordance with the latest applicable building codes. Structural considerations may govern. Foundation design is under purview of structural engineer. ' Settlement ' For footings designed according to the recommendations described in this report, we estimate the static settlement to be less than0.25 inch. Dynamic settlement resulting from a moderate seismic event was estimated to be less than 0.50 inch. Total differential settlement may be taken as 2/3 of the above total settlements(static+seismic). Please note that foundation design is under the purview of the structural engineer. Foundation should be reviewed/designed by a qualified structural engineer in accordance,with the latest applicable building codes ' and structural considerations may govern. Concrete Slabs Subarade: ' Slabs-on-grade should have a thickness of at least six inches. Floor slabs should be reinforced with at least No. 4 rebar at 12 inches on center each way. Floor slab thickness and reinforcement should be evaluated by the structural engineer and designed in compliance with applicable codes for the proposed loading. A ' modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 tcf for compacted fill may be used in the design of flatworks. Care should be taken by the contractor to insure that reinforcement is placed,at slab midneight. The use of concrete spacers to maintain proper'concrete cover is highly recommended. Slabs-on-grade should be provided with a 10-mil Visqueen moisture barrier properly protected with at least two inches of clean sand above the Visqueen and two inches of compacted clean sand below the Visqueen. All concrete flat work including slabs subgrade should be firm, unyielding;compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, and should be verified to contain 1.2 times the optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches prior to placement of slab building materials. Moisture content should be tested in the field by the soil engineer. Portions of the subgrade that will not compact readily when rolled or tamped ' should be removed and replaced with suitable materials. All utility trenches and structure excavations should be backfilled to finish grade with soils like those surrounding the trench and should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Excess soils from foundation excavations should not be placed on building pads without proper moisture and compaction. The joints spacing for concrete slabs should be determined by the project architect. Joints should be laid out to form approximately square panels(equal transverse and longitudinal joint spacings). Rectangular ' panels, with the long dimension no more than one-and-one-half times the short, may be used when square panels are not feasible. The depth of longitudinal and transverse joints should be one-fourth the depth of the slab thickness. Joint layout should be adjusted so that the joints will line up with the comers of structures, small foundations, and other built-in structures. Acute angles or small pieces of slab curves as a result of joints layout should not be permitted. ' Fresh concrete should be cured by protecting it against loss of moisture, rapid temperature change, and mechanical injury for at least 3 days after placement. Moist curing, waterproof paper, white polyethylene sheeting,white liquid membrane compound,or a combination thereof may be used. After finishing ' operations have been completed, the entire surface of the newly placed concrete should be covered by whatever curing medium is applicable to local conditions and approved by the engineer. ' GeoMat resting Laboratories, Inc. Page 3 1 ' ICTV Facility, PM 15421, Parcel 2 Project No. 11077-02 City of Temecula, California October 29, 2012 The edges of concrete slabs exposed by the removal of forms should be protected immediately to provide these surfaces with continuous curing treatment equal to the method selected for curing the slab surfaces. The contractor should have at hand and ready to install before actual placement begins the equipment needed for adequate curing of the concrete. The potential for slab cracking may be lessened by the addition of fiber mesh in the concrete, and careful ' control of water/cement ratios. The use of mechanically compacted low slump concrete (approximately four inches at the time of placement) is recommended. Lateral Earth Pressures ' The following lateral earth pressures and soil parameters in conjunction with the above-recommended bearing values. may be used for design of foundation and retaining walls with free draining compacted ' backfills. If passive earth pressure and friction are combined to provide required resistance to lateral forces, the value of the passive pressure should be reduced to two-thirds the following recommendations. Lateral Pressure Condition Soil Condition Equivalent Fluid Pressure c At Rest Case Drained Level Native Soil 55 Active Case Drained Level Native Soil 37 Passive Case Drained Level Native Soil 220 to a maximum of 2500 ' Horizontal Coefficient of Friction 0.38 Unit Soil Weight 110 pcf For sloping backfill add 1 pcf for every 2 degrees for active case and add 1.5 pcf forevery 2 degrees ' for at rest case Retaining Wall Drainage ' All retaining walls and block wall footings should be founded in compacted or firm native soils and should be provided with waterproofing and atleast 6 to 18 inches of free board for slough protection in sloping ground condition. An open "V"ditch should be placed behind the wall in sloping ground so that all upslope flows are directed around the structure. We recommend drainage for retaining walls to be provided in accordance with Plate 4 presented in the above referenced report dated April 23, 2012. Drainage pipes and ditches should be connected to an approved drainage device. Maximum precautions ' should be taken when placing drainage materials and during backfilling. Wall backfill should be properly compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Onsite soils are suitable for wall backfill. Back-cut distance behind the top of wall should be at least equal to one-third to half of the wall height but not less ' than 18 inches to facilitate compaction. If this cannot be achieved (no sufficient free drainage behind wall), an additional 45 pcf equivalent fluid pressure should be added to the above soil pressures. In this case, the allowable bearing pressure and ' passive pressure should be reduced by 50 percent and soil friction beneath footing should be neglected. Slope Creep if to occur is the result of poor drainage and water flowing over the slope. Soil creep can be reduced with drainage control. ' Surcharge Loading The term %surcharge" refers to an additional loading on the proposed wall. Thus term usually refers to loading that is in proximity to the wall system. Use the Spangler Method of analysis (area load of finite length) or Boussinesq Method of analysis to determine the lateral pressure caused by the surcharge loading. Geohfat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 4 ICTV Facility, PM 15421, Parcel 2 Project No. 11077,-02 City of Temecula, California October 29, 2012 ' The uniform vertical surcharge is usually given a value of 250 psf or an equivalent height of fill. A uniform surcharge of at least 250 psf is always assumed at the top of a wall that has a level backfill. This should be multiplied with appropriate earth pressure coefficient to determine the resulting horizontal pressure on ' the wall. Additional static lateral pressures due to other surcharge loadings in the vicinity of the wall can be estimated using the guidelines provided in Plate 5 presented in the above referenced report dated April 23, 2012. ' Site Drainage Positive drainage should be provided and maintained for the life of the project around the perimeter of all structures (including slopes and retaining walls) and all foundations toward streets or approved drainage devices to minimize water infiltrating into the underlying natural and engineered fill soils, and prevent errosion. In addition, finish subgrade adjacent to exterior footings should be sloped down (at least 5%) and away to facilitate surface drainage. Roof drainage should be collected and directed away from foundations via nonerosive devices. Water, either natural or by irrigation, should not be permitted to pond or saturate the foundation soils. Planter areas and large trees adjacent to the foundations are not recommended. All planters and terraces should be provided with drainage devices. A concrete lined brow ditch should be ' constructed along the top of slopes. Internal drainage should be directed to approve drainage collection devices, per the civil engineer recommendations. Over the-slope drainage should be prevented. Location of drainage device should be in accordance with the design civil engineers drainage and erosion control recommendations. The owner should be made aware of the potential problems, which may develop when drainage is altered.through construction of retaining walls, patios and other devices. Ponded water, leaking irrigation systems, over watering or other conditions which could lead to ground saturation should be avoided. Surface and subsurface runoff from adjacent properties should be controlled. Area drainage ' collection should be directed toward the existing street through approved drainage devices. All drainage devices should be properly maintained. All slopes should be protected with suitable erosion control measures such as jute matting, hydroseeding, etc. As a minimum, the slope maintenance guidelines in Appendix G presented in the above referenced report dated April 23,,2012 should be utilized. Soil Corrosively To evaluate the corrosion potential of the surficial soils at the site we tested a sample collected during ' our subsurface investigation for soluble sulfate, chloride, pH, and resistivity. The results are shown in Appendix A and summarized below. Location Sulfate Chloride pH Minimum Estimated Estimated Estimated ' (%) (%) Resistivity Corrosivity Sulfate Chloride (Ohm-cm) Based on Attack on Attack on Resistivity Concrete Metal Pad 0.0090 0.0048 7.2 2180 severely corrosive negligible negligible Many factors can affect the corrosion potential of soil including soil moisture content, resistivity, permeability, and pH, as well as chloride and sulfate concentration. In general, soil resistivity, which is a measure of how easily electrical current flows through soils, is the most influential factor. Based on test results and the correlation table in Appendix c the soils may be classified as severely corrosive. ' Sulfate ion concentrations, and pH appear to play a roles in affecting corrosion potential. Sulfate ions in the soil can lower the soil resistivity and can be highly aggressive to Portland cement concrete by combining chemically with certain constituents of the concrete, principally tricalcium aluminate. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 5 ' ICTV Facility, PM 15421, Parcel 2 Project No. 11077-02 City of Temecula, California October 29, 2012 This reaction is accompanied by expansion and eventual disruption of the concrete matrix. Potentially high sulfate content could also cause corrosion of the reinforcing steel in concrete. California Building Code (CBC)provides requirements for concrete exposed to sulfate-containing solutions as shown on the ' sulfate test form in Appendix A. Acidity is an important factor of soil corrosivity. The lower the pH (the more acidic the environment),the higher the soil corrosivity with respect to buried metallic structures. As soil pH increases above 7 (the neutral value), the soil is increasingly more alkaline and less corrosive to buried steel structures due to protective surface films which form on steel in high pH environments. A pH between 5 and 8.5 is generally considered relatively passive from a corrosion standpoint. 1 From the CBC guidelines, sulfate exposure to Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) may be considered negligible for the sampled materials. Accordingly we recommend Type II cement for all concrete in contact ' with earth material. Shoring/Trench Backfill ' Trenches greater than five feet in depth should be shored or sloped at 1:1 (horizontal to vertical)or flatter in compliance with California OSHA requirements. In our opinion the onsite soils may be classified in accordance with Cal OSHA as Soil Type"B". ' Onsite soils derived from trench excavations can be used as trench backfill. Backfills should be placed in thin lifts and compacted by mechanical means. Material with sand equivalent of at least 30 may be utilized ' for the pipe zone. No jetting, ponding, or flooding should be permitted within the building area or where trenches are in zone of influence of footing loads. Excavated material from footing trenches should not be placed in slab-on-grade areas unless properly compacted and tested. 1 Tentative Pavement Design for Parking Area The onsite exposed soils are visually classified as silty sand. Based on the visual classification the ' estimated R-value is on the order of 40. Considering this the recommended tentative pavement sections are outlined as follows: AREA TRAFFIC INDEX ASPHALT CLASS 2 estimated CONCRETE AGGREGATE BASE Auto Parking Area 5.0 i 4" 4" Driveways 6.0 4" 4" Subgrade Uniformity Parking area proposed for fill grading should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 12 below existing grade. The exposed subgrade should be moisture conditioned (dried or moistened)to near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 prior to placement of fill. 1 1 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 6 1 ICTV Facility, PM 15421, Parcel 2 Project No. 11077-02 City of Temecula, California October 29, 2012 Parking area proposed for cut grading should be overexcavated in the following manner: ' Proposed Cut Grading Remedial Grading One Foot or Less Overexcavate one foot after reaching proposed grade, scarify, moisture condition and recom act to at least 90% relative compaction ,. After reaching proposed grade, scarify subgrade to at least 12 inches in depth, More than one foot moisture condition, and recompact subgrade to at least 90% relative compaction The subgrade for pavement support must be firm, unyielding, and uniform with no abrupt horizontal changes in degree of support. The subgrade soils should be uniform materials and density. Soft spots should be ' excavated and recompacted with the sametype,of soil as found in adjacent subgrade. Aggregate'Base The aggregate•base.should conform to Caltraris,Standard Specificationsand should:be firm, unyielding and without pumping conditions prior to'placement of concrete. Aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95.percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. ' Pavement Drainape/Erosion Surface drainage should be provided and collected to approved drainage devices. Ponding of water and "bird baths"can result in early deterioration of the pavement and should not be permitted. Excessive planter watering should not be permitted in order to prevent water infiltration below the pavements, eroding the subgrade; and/or create subgrade pumping conditions under the wheel loading. ' Additional Observations and/or Testing GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. should observe and/or.test at followingstages of construction. • During any additional grading. During moisture presoaking of slabs subgrade. 1 During all footing excavations(buildings,walls, etc.) before placement of concrete. During retaining wall backfill and utility trench backfill and compaction. • When any unusual conditions are encountered. ' Limitation GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. 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 soils engineers 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 grading operation, which is the subject of this report. However, changes in conditions can occur with the passage of time, due to natural processes or the work 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 conditions tested at the time testing was performed, and the findings of this report may be invalidated fully or partially by changes outside of the control of GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 7 ICTV Facility, PM 15421, Parcel 2 Project No. 11077-02 City of Temecula, California October 29, 2012 This report should not be relied upon after the period of one year or when changes occur. The test results presented herein represent an independent sample of the compaction achieved by the contractor who performed the actual compaction operation. Certain information concerning the foundation depth and location of the buildings and site fills tested was furnished by persons representing themselves as knowledgeable of those conditions. In many cases, independent verification of that information furnished to us by others, or the knowledge of that information by any person representing themselves as knowledgeable, is not possible. That information is relied upon during the performance of these tests. The contractor performing the work on this project remains primarily responsible and liable for the compaction achieved at this project. On-call compaction testing by our firm in no way relieves the -contractor from his obligation to properly perform the work, and this report does not serve as a warranty or guarantee of the contractor's work or of the information supplied to us by the contractor. The results in this report are based only upon testing performed. It is assumed and expected that the conditions between test locations of tests are similar to those encountered at the individual locations where testing was performed. However, ' conditions between these locations may vary significantly. Should conditions be encountered in the field, by the client or any firm performing services for the client or the client's assign, that appears different than those described herein, 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 only be used as such. This report and its contents are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse on extensions or ' modifications of the project, or for use on any other project. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to call this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. ' Submitted for GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. w F E IO Haytham Nabilsi, GE 2375 Project Engineer 'I(13 No.2375 rn cr Exp. 31 T ' 0)ECHN�,,, uF CA4�Fy�' Distribution: [3] Addressee Attachments: Figure 1 Site Location Map Plate 1 Field Density Test Location Map Appendix A Laboratory Test Results Appendix B Field Density Test Results 1 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 8 • " Topo USA€6.0 HUNTER RD )/ BOREL RD RLh=RP 1 11 SPARROW MAY F. ]e � 2, O O �O 3a I' a .gip a Y � s a y ]® COMMERCE CT • '�'" p O zr Q O x o !y OP9 n O � N (S y p P fy GATLIN_31067Niml.Rd n q RITA WAY NIC-LEAS �y NICOIAS �M,i LH rc n C m WATER S y RRlD '� p0 CALLE CHAFOS Y x P A L c ALLE SARAG02A -z+ N n � Q)q z a cOpT S R o gDIZEI, DA SOMA �... DE �= kL ' m0y, vv§` L's C M r�P ��\�QES,F po 4RER Gy U COROlY , �?� u` v KpNWeARDo'. £ - ♦� FELE�Ci(A RD v,l .. P� AVENIDA DEL RERDSO is T k/ /77�� AMA tT �' �cT L�4 MPOtAi �F DE rnOLF yT L REY RD k1v_Off' n sl N y j•"C SAN PASQUAL nO SCE 'A �r CROCUS CIR LAUREL YALVkY CiR Data use subject to license. it (0 2006 Delorme.Topo USAE16.0. V" 0 BW 160� 2400 32�0 40� w✓rw.delorme.com MN(122-E) Data Zoom 1M 1 1 I ?.e +em' 1 a r 41 1 ¢1 0 irs r s,.i ro cs ww. i . +„10 ��E ..I.I. �u COiwov� IfixisFn of iov I \ 1 • N 1a x tt B$ae 0. CCwuN �. cavnnox 8 1) es.e �. Fv3 I ov n PHASE I r++ +3 c a r I, A-A 1 .50I — IW ESTR zz 5 0 ow4xp EEn., mum C. iWVIE 1 rrII =S N U 9 fi:: i warW. j NIA 3 iZ 8 f 5 Po I� 21 i G'me e III...rrrJJJ e p Ie c s .� 3fi ]SOi i W.SSiS / TC rC fi 1 iC iC ,.CO 11 S i 5113iC L . iC IDtt j \ A / x. 6s.uFc F'^— S.Nit W.16FC f \ / GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. 5, ,` Field Density Test Location Map .o*c oe3cvr w io,a.er Plate 1 c s.nrc L—� S�.r � �T fi�' ® Project No. 11077-02 & October 29,2012 ADA PATH OF ze pproximate Location of Field Density Test TRAVEL SYMBOL LO11-O51GiP +m Bottom Elevation BU/LO/NCANOSAAFTY .ram' SCALE: 1"=20' reE 24 ra+c vtiVKE L,+ i nnc za FN CO .lcctzE Wa aver TTi PHASE I wo� ' LLY.SIFLC'IgV RCWPo OIIE BY MK3CN5 .1ll10 UT tklwYl M15: SCV! 0R.c.r. tMnP+e1� By' vbJ MI a R per a,e C/TY OF TE.NWil" DfvAWWW ov vu %1;FwsSEE COVER sue,m ISLAMIC CENTER OF TEMECULA VALLEY PHASE I vlSHEET R. SAMMY SALEM [bfe 0a.27.2012 4ttxvrza�erco vrtn mrz vnM03a1 ve+uszvrarec3 I'a.cc ae.orozPRECISE GRADING Av.. 52762 ' GRADE ELEVATIONS :D" �� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX A 1 1 1 1 1 1 -Ge-o Mat,- 1 1 ICTV Facility, PM 15421, Parcel 2 Project No. 11077-02 City of Temecula, California October 29, 2012 f ` ' SUMMARY OF LABORATORY.TEST RESULTS 1 SAMPLE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY c OPTIMUM MOISTURE % 1 119.1 10.7 2 123.6 12.5 Sample Compacted Compacted Flnal Volumetric Expansion Expansion Moisture D DensityMolsture Swell Index Classification 1 11.1 110.2 18.9 1.8 18 V. Low EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS 1 1, 1 1 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix A � eo l�®GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. -, Soil Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Materials Testing, Geology . SOLUBLE SULFATE AND CHLORIDE TEST RESULTS Project Name ICTV Facility Test Date 10/27/11 Project No. 11077-01 Date Sampled 10/25/11 Project Location Building Pad, Phase I Sampled By GL ' Location in Structure B-2 Q 0-2' Sample Type Bulk Sampled Location Clayey sand Tested By AM TESTING INFORMATION Sample weight before drying 400 grams Sample weight after drying Not recorded Sample Weight Passing No. 10 Sieve 100 grams Mixing Dilution Sulfate Sulfate Chloride Chloride Ratio Factor Reading Content Reading Content pH m m % ppm m 3 1 30 90 0.009 16 48 0.0048 7.2 ' Average Average Avera e ACI.318-05 Table 4.3.1 Re uirements for Concrete Exposed to Sulfate-Containing Solutions Water-Soluble Sulfate{SO4) Maximum Minimum Design ' Sulfate Sulfate , Exposure In Soil, In Water Cement Type w/cm Compressive Strength h° tiy Mass ppm by Mass fc, MPa(psi) ' Negligible <0.10 < 150 No Special Type — — I I Moderate IP(MS), IS(MS), (see water) 0.10 to 0.2.0 150 to 1500 P(MS), 0.50 28(4000) ' I(PM)(MS), ISM MS to Severe 0.20 to 2.00 1500 10 000 V 0.45 31 (4500) ' VerySevere > 2.00' >10 000 V+ ou 0.45 31 4500 Caltrans classifies a site as corrosive to structural concrete as an area where soil and/or water contains>500pp chloride,>2000ppm sulfate,or has a pH<5.5. A minimum resistivity of less than 1000 ohm-an indicates the potential for corrosive environment requiring testing for the above criteria. ' The 2007 CBC Section 1904A references ACI 318 for material selection and mix design for reinforced concrete dependant on the onsite corrosion potential,soluble chloride content,and soluble sulfate content in soil ' Comments: 1 The information in this form is not intended for corrosion Signature Date ' engineering design. If corrosion is critical,a corrosion specialist should be contacted to provide further recommendations. Print Name Title 1 9980 Indiana Avenue•Suite 14°Riverside°California•92503• Phone(951)688-6400•Fax(951)688-5200 www.goomatiabs.com,contact:e-mail:geomatlabs@sbcglobal.net � geo ®GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Soil Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Materials Testing, Geology RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS Project Name ICTV Test Date. 10/27/11 ' Project No. 11077-01 Date Sampled .10/25/11 Project Location SW of Nicolas and Calle Calibri Road, Temecula Sampled By GL ' Sample Location Building Pad, Phase I Sample Type Bulk Sample Classification Silty Sand Tested By AM ' Definition Soil Resistivity is a measure of how easily electrical current flows through soils Sample Preparation Sieve sample through No.8 sieve and split out t130 for small soil box or 1300gr m for large soil box. Sample Weight Sample Weight after Sample Weight Passing before Drying 250 grm Drying(450Ct150) 250 grm No.8 Sieve 1 250 gnn Moist Weight 250 grim Dry Weight. 230 gm1 Initial Moisture Content 8.7% Trial Trial Trial ' 2 3 RESISTENCE vs MOISTURE Soil Box Constant cm 1 t t Water Added ml 28.8 48 67.2 Moisture % 11.5 19.2 26.9 CONTENT Meter Dial Reading 3.15 1.9 1.9 Multiplier Setting Ohm 10o0 1000 1000 3500 Resistance Ohms 3150 1900 1 1900 3300 I ' Min. Resistivity(Ohre-cm) 2180 3100 Temperature("C) 30'C E 2900 Rrriin ts.s=[R va.r(24.5+T)]/40 !boxand 590 r 0 2700 Water increment : 100-150 ml for large 5-15 ml for 4) 2500 small box cResistivity=Resistance X Soil Box Cons2300 Large Soil Box Constant=6.67 an 'NSmall Soil Box Constant= I an z 210) R„,I,,,s.&Corrected Minimum Resistivity tord Ground Temperature of 15.5'C 1900 Soil Corrosivness Resistivity Ohm-cm �— Very Severe Corrosion 0.900 1700 Severely Corrosive 900.2300 1500 ' Moderate) Corrosive 2300-5000 Mild) Corrosive 5000-10000 10 20 30 Ve mildly Corrosive 10,000-100,000 Moisture Content(%) Reference: ASTM STP 1013 titled 'Effects of Soil Characteristics on Corrosion'(February, 1989). ' Comments: Type II cement is recommended 1 ' The information in this form is not intended for corrosion 10/12/2011 engineering design. If corrosion is critical,a corrosion Signature Date specialist should be contacted to provide further ' recommendations. Print Name Title 9980 Indiana Avenue•Suite 14•Riverside•California•92503•Phone(951)6885400•Fax(951)688-5200 ' www.Aeomatiabs.com,contact:e-mail:geomatlabs@sbcglobal.net 1 ! ! ! 1 ! 1 1 ! ! APPENDIX B 1 1 1 1 1 1 -G7eo-= 1 Mat,_ 1 ICTV Facility, PM 15421, Parcel 2 Project No. 11077-02 City of Temecula, California October 29, 2012 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS ' Test Test Dry Density Moisture Relative Test No. Date LOCATION Elev. (Pcf) (%) Compaction Remark (,�a) Method ' Field Maximum Field Opt. A 10/16/12 Building Pad,Phase I, 1150 107.4 119.1 7.6 10.7 85.1 85%Required N B 10/16 Building Pad,Phase 1 1149 102.6 119.1 5.9 10.7 86.2 85%Required N ' C 10/16 Building Pad,Phase 1 1149 102.1 119.1 7.2 10.7 85.7 85%Required N 1 10/17 Building Pad,Phase 1,Bottom 1150 108.0 119.1 9.6 10.7 90.7 N 2 10/17 Building Pad,Phase i,Bottom 1149 108.9 119.1 10.1 10.7 91.4 N ' 3 10/17 Building Pad,Phase 1 1152 109.7 119.1 10.4 10.7 92.1 N 4 10/17 Building Pad,Phase 1 1151 119.3 119.1 9.9 10.7 91.8 N 5 10117 Building Pad,Phase 1 1152 110.3 119.1 11.1 10.7 92.6 N D 101/18 Building Pad.Phase 1 1150 108.5 119.1 8.6 10.7 91.1 85%Required N E 10118 Building Pad,Phase 1 1150 106.8 119.1 8.1 10.7 89.7 85%Required N F 10118 Building Pad,Phase I 1149 102.5 119.1 7.2 10.7 86.1 85%Required N 6 10118 Building Pad,Phase 1 1154 113.3 119.1 10.5 10.7 95.1 N 7 10/18 Building Pad,Phase 1 1154 111.5 119.1 10.0 10.7 93.6 N 8 10/18 Building Pad,Phase 1,Bottom 1150 110.9 119.1 10.1 10.7 93.1 N ' 9 10111 Building Pad,Phase 1,Bottom 1150 108.3 119.1 11.2 10.7 90A N 10 10/19 Building Pad,Phase 1 1152 117.5 123.6 11.9 12.5 95.1 N 11 10/19 Building Pad,Phase 1 1152 115.7 123.6 13.2 12.5 93.6 N G 10/19 Building Pad,Phase 1 1150 113.1 123.6 8.9 12.5 91.5 N N 10/19 Building Pad,Phase 1 1149 106.4 1236 8.2 12.5 86.1 N 12 10/19 Building Pad,Phase 1 1152 114.7 123,6 11.9 12.5 92.8 N 13 10/19 Building Pad,Phase 1 1152 113.6 123.6 13.4 12.5 91.9 N ' 14 10/19 Building Pad,Phase 1 1150 114.2 123.6 10.6 12.5 92.4 N 15 10/19 Building Pad,Phase 1 1149 114.6 123.6 11.2 12.5 92.7 N 16 10122 Building Pad,Phase 1 1152 115.1 123.6 10.7 12.5 93.1 N ' 17 10122 Building Pad,Phase 1 1152 117.0 123.6 11.2 12.5 94.7 N 18 10/22 Building Pad,Phase 1 1154 116.3 123.6 11.7 12.5 94.1 N 19 10/22 Building Pad,Phase I 1154 114.6 123.6 12.3 12.5 92.7 N 2 1023 Building Pad,Phase 1 1154 114.6 123.6 12.6 12.5 92.7 N 21 1023 Building Pad,Phase 1 1154 116.3 123.6 9.8 12.5 94.1 N 22 1023 Building Pad,Phase 1 1154 115.7 123.6 10.2 12.5 93.6 N ' 23 1024 Building Pad,Phase 1 1155 117.3 123.E 11.7 12.5 94.9 N 24 1024 Building Pad.Phase 1 1155 117.8 123.6 11.9 12.5 95.3 25 1024 Building Pad,Phase 1 1155 118.8 123.6 12.7 12.5 96.1 26 1025 Building Pad,Phase I FG 1116.21 123.6 10.7 12.5 94.0 t 27 1025 Building Pad,Phase I FG 1 113.11 123.E 1 11.1 1 12.5 91.5 28 1025 Building Pad,Phase I FG 1119.01 123.6 1 12.4 1 12.5 96.3 ' N: Denotes Nuclear Gage FG: Denotes Finish Grade Test 1 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix B