The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGeotechnical/GeologicalEngineeringStudy(Oct.30,2000) I ~EN COfRoratlon JiJI ~/ -//Jle I I -Soil Engineering and Consulting Services e Engineering Geoiogy .CompaclionTesting .lnspeclions-ConslructionMalerialsTesting. LaboraloryTesting.PercolationTesting -Geology. Water Resource Stooies . Phasal&1I Environmental SileAssessments ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK I I I GEOTECHNICAUGEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Structure, Medical Building Lots 23 and 24 of Tract 23172 Vail Ranch area of Riverside County, California Project Number: T2183-GS I October 30, 2000 I I I I I I I I Prepared for: I ."1;;" Don Veasey Construction 27574'Commerce Center Drive, Suite 131 Temecula, California 92590 ~~,.,.,..""., , . .' " " ..- \- \ F . . , . . , , . , . " . I~---'- ----;--------7 "......._.~ -, - - '"" , - :,1:, --- II ," -- , -- , , , .' _ _. I ' __ I ,r -."_ I ';,.....1.;,' ".1 ; / ~~ - ',->", /-;;....;;:;,,';,;..--.~....I. '-'-"~;~'~""'S'-' "-, 'C/_:.-" " ;,;~jjiiii~~~~ ._ ~~~~(;Et~Jl[ E mti:1tjj;p~!rcleN! rt ;:siJiiel';'emiipl!l?rtAg.2~90' phone: (909) 296-2230' fax: (909) 296-2237 ~"' . . .~~~~tJ:&fmO.@n"@ I ;_~~=~~~~ :PPC~T . ::~~~~~;:'~'c~~;~:~:~.~~:~:.::~1 . fax: (714) 546-4052 / ,-, - '- "-- -' \ I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I Don Veasey Construction Project No: T2183-GS TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Number and Title PaQe 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARy................................................................................................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ..... ...... ... .......... ....... ....... ....... ............. ............. ...... ...... ............................2 2.1 Authorization .......................... .................................. ............. ......... ........ ........ ........ 2 2.2 Scope of Study....................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Previous Site Studies.............................................................................................2 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT I PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................ 2 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 3 4.1 Location ................ ................................... .......................... .................. ........ ..........3 4.2 Topography............................................................................................................ 3 4.3 Vegetation.............................................................................................................. 3 4.4 Structures............................................................................................................... 3 5.0 FIELD STUDY .................................................................................................................3 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING................................................................................................. 3 6.1 General .................................................................................................................3 6.2 Classification.......................................................................................................... 4 6.3 In-Situ Moisture Content and Density Test ............................................................ 4 6.4 Maximum Dry Density I Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test................. 4 6.5 Consolidation Test ................................................................................................. 4 6.6 Direct Shear Test................................................................................................... 5 6.7 Expansion Test ...................................................................................................... 5 7.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY......................................................................... 5 7.1 Geologic Setting.....................................................................................................5 7.2 Faulting................................................................................................................. 5 7.3 Seismicity............................................................................................................... 6 7.4 Earth Materials....................................................................................................... 6 7.4.1 Engineered Fill......................................................................................... 6 7.4.2 Alluvium................................................................................................... 6 7.5 Groundwater.......................................................................................................... 7 7.6 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity................................................................ ....7 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................. 7 8.1 General ................................................................................................................. 7 8.2 Earthwork Recommendations.................. ....... ... ... .......... ... ...... ....... ........... ............8 8.2.1 General.................................................................................................... 8 8.2.2 Clearing.................................................................................................... 8 8.2.3 Excavation Characteristics....................................................................... 8 8.2.4 Suitability of On-Site Materials as FilL.................................................... 8 8.2.5 Removal and Recompaction.................................................................... 8 8.2.6 Fill Placement Requirements ................................................................... 9 8.2.7 Compaction Equipment............................................................................ 9 z; EnGEN Corporation I I I I I I I I I I !I I I I I I I I I Don Veasey Construction Project No: T2183-GS TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Number and Title Paae 8.2.8 Shrinkage and Subsidence .................................................................... 10 8.2.9 Fill Slopes ... ............................................................ ........... .......... ........... 10 8.2.10 Subdrains ... ................. .......... .................... .................. ........................... 10 8.2.11 Observation and Testing ........................................................................10 8.2.12 Soil Expansion Potential......................................................................... 11 8.3 Foundation Design Recommendations................................................................ 11 8.3.1 General.................................................................................................. 11 8.3.2 Foundation Size ..................................................................................... 11 8.3.3 Depth of EmbedmenL.......................................................................... 12 8.3.4 Bearing Capacity....................................................................................12 8.3.5 Settlement.............................................................................................. 12 8.3.6 Lateral Capacity ..................................................................................... 13 8.3.7 Soluble Sulfate Content ......................................................................... 13 8.4 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations ......................................................................13 8.4.1 Interior Slabs ........................ ....... ............. ..................................... ......... 14 8.4.2 Exterior Slabs.............................. ....... ... ... ....... ............. ...... ... ........ ......... 14 8.5 Utility Trench Recommendations .........................................................................14 8.6 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations............................................................... 15 8.7 Planter Recommendations...................................................................................15 8.8 Temporary Construction Excavation Recommendations..................................... 16 8.9 Retaining Wall Recommendations....................................................................... 17 8.9.1 Earth Pressures ....................................................................................... 17 8.9.2 Foundation Design...................................................................................17 8.9.3 Subdrain................................................................................................... 17 8.9.4 Backfill...................................................................................................... 18 8.9.5 Pavement Design Recommendations ..................................................... 18 9.0 PLAN REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 19 10.0 PRE-BID CONFERENCE ...... ........ ....... .............. ............. ....... ................... ........... ...... ..... 20 11.0 PRE-GRADING CONFERENCE ..................................................................................... 20 12.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING..................................................... 20 13.0 CLOSURE..................................................................................................................... 21 APPENDIX: TECHNICAL REFERENCES SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS AND SLABS EXPLORATORY BORING LOG SUMMARIES LABORATORY TEST RESULTS DRAWINGS EnGEN Corporation I~ = ," ~-'. . -....." "i.. ^" . "",:, I~EN I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COf1~oration . Soil Engineefing and Consulling Services e EngineeringGeology-Comp action Testing -Inspections e ConstructionMalerialsTestiIljj.laboraloryTesting-Per colationTesting . Geology. Water Resource Studies . Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessments ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK October 30, 2000 Don Veasey Construction 27574 Commerce Center Drive, Suite 131 Temecula, California 92590 (909) 694-1957 / FAX (909) 694-1398 Attention: Mr. Don Veasey Regarding: GEOTECHNICAUGEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Structure, Medical Building Lots 23 and 24 ofTract 23172 Vail Ranch area of Riverside County, California Project Number: T2183-GS Reference: HLC Civil Engineering, Preliminary Grading Plan, Lots 23 and 24, Tract No. 23172, plans dated August 30, 1999. Geocon, Inc., Report of Testing and Observation Services During Remedial Grading for Vail Ranch Commercial Site, Tentative Tract No. 23172, Temecula, California, report dated September 2, 1994. 1. 2. Dear Mr. Veasey: According to your request and signed authorization, we have performed a Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study for the subject project. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the existing geologic and geotechnical conditions within the subject property with respect to recommendations for fine grading of the site and design recommendations for foundations, slabs on-grade, etc., for the proposed development. Submitted, herewith, are the results of this firm's findings and recommendations, along with the supporting data. 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A geotechnical study of the subsurface conditions of the subject site has been performed for the proposed development. Exploratory excavations have been completed and earth material samples subjected to laboratory testing. The data has been analyzed with respect to the project information furnished to us for the proposed development. It is the opinion of this firm that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical/geologic standpoint, provided that the recomme~dations presented in this report are followed in the design and construction of the project. , . I' ,'"-----,. " . , . \ ~ ' - '/ " '.. , , ~ ,- - - \ / , ,,. / , " . . .' \ - - - \.r . - -- \ /... , . -- , " , ,.I :...-' ~ \ \ \ ' ,.. _. I / - - i .' I ,. i _.~__ .~....f- . __.L- ~,,,,,~,-_~,,,<,___,~___, ' ,.~J,~-,:..-.":-.'_"..> ", ,....,..1."'... ". .,',,',..>',>.'.':. .:...:..-.. :, ~;;.::~;;;~~ €;.'J;!;,mIiice.4A~w E ~i,p~,j;;kcl~ N "t' Svli<i.;l;jerii~vla" CA 92g,90'-phone: (~Q9j 2.9~:2230' fax: (909) 296-2237 ,~~~T:Wi:~!\~N&~i~?}JN~~~~ IJiJ~T~~~ :ir::p:~f~~~~~~:~;t~~~~;~e:~:1~c:~'c~~1 . fax: 1714) 546-4052 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.0 Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS October 2000 Page 2 INTRODUCTION Authorization: This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study performed on the subject site for the proposed development. Authorization to perform this study was in the form of a signed proposal. Scooe of Study: The scope of work performed for this study was designed to determine and evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions within the subject site with respect to geotechnical characteristics, and to provide recommendations and criteria for use by the design engineers and architect for the development of the site and for design and construction of the proposed development. The scope of work included the following: 1) site reconnaissance and surface geologic mapping; 2) subsurface exploration; 3) sampling of on-site earth materials; 4) laboratory testing; 5) engineering analysis of field and laboratory data; and 6) the preparation of this report. Previous Site Studies: The site was previously graded (see the Referenced NO.2 report). PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT / PROJECT DESCRIPTION Precise grading and building plans were not available at the time of this report. When these plans become available, they should be reviewed by this office in order to make additional recommendations (if necessary). It is understood that the proposed improvements will consist of a medical building with one and/or two stories, slab-on-grade type structure with associated landscape and hardscape improvements. Grading from existing elevations to proposed elevations is expected to be minimal. It is assumed that relatively light loads will be imposed on the foundation soils. The foundation loads are not anticipated to exceed 2,500 pounds per lineal foot (pit) for continuous footings. The above project description and assumptions were used as the basis for the field and laboratory exploration and testing programs and the engineering analysis for the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report. This office should be notified if structures, foundation loads, grading, and/or details other than those represented herein are proposed for final development of the site so a review can be performed, supplemental evaluation made, and revised recommendations submitted, if required. ~ EnGEN Corporation I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4.0 4.1. 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.0 6.0 6.1 Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS October 2000 Page 3 SITE DESCRIPTION Location: The site is on the southeast side of State Highway 79 South and George Cushman Court in the Vail Ranch area of Riverside County. Topoaraphv: The topography of the site at the time of this study was relatively flat. VeCletation: At the time of the field study, vegetation across the site was light to moderate and consisted of grasses, weeds and brush. Structures: At the time of the field study, there were no existing structures. FIELD STUDY Site observations and geologic mapping were conducted on October 17, 2000 by our Staff Geologist. A study of the property's subsurface condition was performed to evaluate underlying earth strata and the presence of groundwater. Two (2) exploratory borings were excavated on the study site. The borings were performed by Cal-Pac Drilling, using a truck- mounted drill rig equipped with 8.0-inch outside diameter hollow-stem augers. The maximum depth explored was approximately 50-feet below the existing land surface at the boring locations. Bulk and relatively undisturbed samples of the earth materials encountered were obtained at various depths in the exploratory borings and returned to our laboratory for verification of field classifications and testing. Bulk samples were obtained from cuttings developed during the excavation process and represent a mixture of the soils within the depth indicated on the logs. Relatively undisturbed samples of the earth materials encountered were obtained by driving a thin-walled steel sampler lined with 1.0-inch high, 2.42-inch inside diameter brass rings. The sampler was driven with successive drops of a 140-pound weight having a free fall of approximately 30-inches. The blow counts for each successive 6.0- inches of penetration, or fraction thereof, are shown in the Exploratory Boring Log Summaries presented in the Appendix. The ring samples were retained in close-fitting moisture-proof containers and returned to our laboratory for testing. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings and pits are denoted on the Geotechnical Study Site Plan. The exploratory borings were backfilled with cuttings. LABORATORY TESTING General: The results of laboratory tests performed on samples of earth material obtained during the field study are presented in the Appendix. Following is a listing and brief explanation of the laboratory tests which were performed. The samples obtained during the ~ EnGEN Corporation I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS October 2000 Page 4 field study will be discarded 30 days after the date of this report. This office should be notified immediately if retention of samples will be needed beyond 30 days. Classification: The field classification of soil materials encountered in the exploratory borings and pits were verified in the laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System, ASTM D2488-90, Standard Practice for Determination and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures). The final classification is shown in the Exploratory Boring Log Summaries presented in the Appendix. In-Situ Moisture Content and Density Test: The in-situ moisture content and dry density were determined in general accordance with ASTM D2216-90 and D2937-83(1990) procedures, respectively, for each selected undisturbed sample obtained. The dry density is determined in pounds per cubic foot and the moisture content is determined as a percentage of the oven dry weight of the soil. Test results are shown in the Exploratory Boring Log Summaries presented in the Appendix. Maximum Dry Density I Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test: Maximum dry density I optimum moisture content relationship determination were performed on samples of near-surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM D1557 -91 procedures using a 4.0-inch diameter mold. Samples were prepared at various moisture contents and compacted in five (5) layers using a 10.pound weight dropping 18-inches and with 25 blows per layer. A plot of the compacted dry density versus the moisture content of the specimens is constructed and the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content determined from the plot. Consolidation Test: Settlement predictions of the on-site soil and compacted fill behavior under load were made, based on consolidation tests that were performed in general accordance with ASTM D2435-90 procedures. The consolidation apparatus is designed to receive a 1.0-inch high, 2.416-inch diameter ring sample. Porous stones are placed in contact with the top and bottom of each specimen to permit addition and release of pore water and pore pressure. Loads normal to the face of the specimen are applied in several increments in a geometric progression under both field moisture and submerged conditions. The resulting changes in sample thickness are recorded at selected time intervals. Water was added to the test apparatus at various loads to create a submerged condition and to measure the collapse potential (hydroconsolidation) of the sample. The resulting change in sample thickness was recorded. ~ EnGEN Corpor.tion I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6.6 6.7 7.0 7.1 7.2 Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS October 2000 Page 5 Direct Shear Test: Direct shear tests were performed on selected samples of near-surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM D3080-90 procedures. The shear machine is of the constant strain type. The shear machine is designed to receive a 1.0-inch high, 2.416-inch diameter ring sample. Specimens from the sample were sheared at various pressures normal to the face of the specimens. The specimens were tested in a submerged condition. The maximum shear stresses were plotted versus the normal confining stresses to determine the shear strength (cohesion and angle of internal friction). Expansion Test: Laboratory expansion tests were performed on samples of near-surface earth material in general accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard. In this testing procedure, a remolded sample is compacted in two (2) layers in a 4.0-inch diameter mold to a total compacted thickness of approximately 1.0-inch by using a 5.5-pound weight dropping 12-inches and with 15 blows per layer. The sample should be compacted at a saturation between 49 and 51 percent. After remolding, the sample is confined under a pressure of 144 pounds per square foot (pst) and allowed to soak for 24 hours. The resulting volume change due to the increase in moisture content within the sample is recorded and the Expansion Index (EI) calculated. The expansion test result is presented on the UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results sheet. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY Geoloaic Settina: The site is located in the Northern Peninsular Range on the southern sector of the structural unit known as the Perris Block. The Perris Block is bounded on the northeast by the San Jacinto Fault Zone, on the southwest by the Elsinore Fault Zone, and on the north by the Cucamonga Fault Zone. The southern boundary of the Perris Block is not as distinct, but is believed to coincide with a complex group of faults trending southeast from the Murrieta, California, area. The Peninsular Range is characterized by large Mesozoic age intrusive rock masses flanked by volcanic, metasedimentary, and sedimentary rocks. Various thicknesses of colluvial/ alluvial sediments derived from the erosion of the elevated portions of the region fill the low lying areas. Engineered fill and alluvium underlie the site. The earth materials encountered on the subject site are described in more detail in subsequent sections of this report. Faultina: The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Elsinore Fault Zone: The Elsinore Fault Zone (Wildomar Fault) is located approximately 12,000 feet to the southwest of the site. The Elsinore Fault Zone is a major right lateral "\ EnGEN Corporation I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS October 2000 Page 6 strike-slip fault system, which has experienced strong earthquakes in historical times (1856, 1894, and 1910) and exhibits late Quaternary movement. San Jacinto Fault Zone: The San Jacinto Fault Zone is located approximately 18 miles northeast of the subject site and trends northwest-southeast. The San Jacinto Fault is a major right lateral strike-slip fault, which has displayed surface rupture and associated seismic ground shaking in 1899, 1918, 1923, 1934, 1937, 1942, and 1954. San Andreas Fault Zone: The southem segment of the San Andreas Fault Zone is located approximately 28 miles northeast of the site, and trends northwest-southeast across the southwestern front of the San Bernardino Mountains. The San Andreas Fault is a major right lateral strike-slip fault, which exhibited major surface rupture in 1857 during the Fort Tejon earthquake and again in 1868 during the Dos Palmas Earthquake. 7.3 Seismicity: Based on computer software by Thomas F. Blake (EQSEARCH), the maximum peak ground acceleration experienced at the site since 1800 was approximately 0.26g from a magnitude 6.8 earthquake in 1918. The estimated peak ground acceleration for the site is 0.60g. The following factors apply: Fault Type: Type B Fault Closest Distance to Known Fault: 3.5 KM Soil Profile Type: SD 7.4 Earth Materials: A brief description of the earth materials encountered in the exploratory excavations is presented in the following sections. A more detailed description of the earth materials encountered is presented on the Exploratory Boring Log Summaries presented in the Appendix. The earth material strata as shown on the logs represent the conditions in the actual exploratory locations and other variations may occur between the excavations. Lines of demarcation between the earth materials on the logs represented the approximate boundary between the material types; however, the transition may be gradual. 7.4.1 Engineered Fill: Approximately five (5) feet of engineered fill was placed on the site in 1994 (Referenced No. 2 report). Engineered fill encountered consisted of silty sand that was found to be damp and medium dense to dense. 7.4.2 Alluvium: Alluvial materials were encountered below the engineered fill materials to the maximum depth explored (50-feet). Alluvium consisted of sand and silty sand that was found to be slightly moist to wet and loose to dense in-place. 'a EnGEN Corporation II I I I I I I I I I I" I I I I I I I I I 7.5 7.6 8.0 8.1 Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS October 2000 Page 7 Groundwater: Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 29-feet below ground surface. Secondarv Effects of Seismic Activitv: The secondary effects of seismic activity normally considered as possible hazards to a site include various types of ground failure and induced flooding. The probability of occurrence of each type of ground failure depends on the severity of the earthquake, the distance of the site from the zone of maximum energy release of the quake, the topography of the site, the subsurface materials at the site, and groundwater conditions beneath the site, besides other factors. Due to the overall favorable geologic structure and topography of the area, the potential for earthquake- induced landslides or rockfalls is considered low. Due to the lack of active faulting on the site, the potential for hazards associated with fault rupture is considered low. The potential for hazards associated with liquefaction exists. However, the potential for hazards associated with liquefaction should be mitigated if the earthwork and foundation recommendations made in this report are adhered to. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General: The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the results of field and laboratory data obtained from the exploratory excavations located across the property, experience gained from work conducted by this firm on projects within the property and general vicinity, and the project description and assumptions presented in the Proposed Development I Project Description section of this report. Based on a review of the field and laboratory data and the engineering analysis, the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical I geologic standpoint. The actual conditions of the near- surface supporting material across the site may vary. The nature and extent of variations of the surface and subsurface conditions between the exploratory excavations may not become evident until construction. If variations of the material become evident during construction of the proposed development, this office should be notified so that EnGEN Corporation can evaluate the characteristics of the material and, if needed, make revisions to the recommendations presented herein. Recommendations for general site grading, foundations, slab support, pavement design, slope maintenance, etc., are presented in the subsequent paragraphs. EnGEN Corporation <\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8.2 8.2.1 8.2.2 8.2.3 8.2.4 8.2.5 Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS October 2000 Page 8 Earthwork Recommendations General: The grading recommendations presented in this report are intended for: 1) the use of a conventional shallow foundation system and concrete slabs cast on-grade; and 2) the rework of unsuitable near-surface earth materials to create an engineered building pad and suitable support for exterior hardscape (sidewalks, patios, etc.) and pavement. If pavement subgrade soils are prepared at the time of rough grading of the building site and the areas are not paved immediately, additional observations and testing of the subgrade soil will have to be performed before placing aggregate base material or asphaltic concrete or PCC pavement to locate areas which may have been damaged by construction traffic, construction activities, and/or seasonal wetting and drying. The following recommendations may need to be modified and/or supplemented during rough grading as field conditions require. Clearinll: All debris, roots, grasses, weeds, brush and other deleterious materials should be removed from the proposed structure, exterior hardscape and pavement areas and areas to receive structural fill before grading is performed. No disking or mixing of organic material into the soils should be performed. Man-made objects encountered should be overexcavated and exported from the site. Wells (if encountered) should be abandoned in accordance with County/City regulations. Excavation Characteristics: Excavation and trenching within the subject property is anticipated to be relatively easy in the near-surface earth materials. Suitability of On-Site Materials as Fill: In general, the on-site earth materials present are considered suitable for reuse as fill. Fill materials should be free of significant amounts of organic materials and/or debris and should not contain rocks or clumps greater than 6-inches in maximum dimension. Removal and Recompaction: As mentioned above, precise grading and building plans were not available at the time of this report. When these plans become available, they should be reviewed by this office in order to make additional recommendations, if necessary. All existing undocumented fills, incompetent alluvium, and/or unsuitable, loose, or disturbed near-surface soil in areas which will support structural fills, structures, exterior hardscape (sidewalks, patios, etc.), and pavement should be removed. The following recommendations are based on field and laboratory results: . To mitigate for the potential hazards associated with liquefaction, removals below the proposed structure area should extend to a depth of ten (10) feet below proposed pad EnGEN Corporation \'0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS October 2000 Page 9 grade. Horizontal extent of removals should be a minimum of ten (10) feet beyond the perimeter footings. . All hardscape areas to receive fill (and shallow cuts of less than 12-inches) should be scarified 12-inches, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture and then recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Hardscape areas with greater than 12-inches of proposed cut need no special remedial grading unless otherwise specified by the Soil Engineer's Representative. . All exposed removal bottoms should be inspected by the Soil Engineer's representative prior to placement of any fill. . The approved exposed bottoms of all removal areas should be scarified 12-inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction before placement of fill. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for compacted materials should be determined according to ASTM D1557-91 procedures. 8.2.6 Fill Placement Reauirements: All fill material, whether on-site material or import, should be approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative before placement. All fill should be free of vegetation, organic material, debris, and oversize material. Import fill should be no more expansive than the existing on-site material. Approved fill material should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 10-inches in compacted thickness and watered or aerated to obtain near optimum moisture content (:t2.0 percent of optimum). Each lift should be spread evenly and should be thoroughly mixed to ensure uniformity of soil moisture. Structural fill should meet a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for compacted materials should be determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-91 procedures. Moisture content of fill materials should not vary more than 2.0 percent from optimum, unless approved the Project Geotechnical Engineer. 8.2.7 Comoaction Eauioment: It is anticipated that the compaction equipment to be used for the project will include a combination of rubber-tired and sheepsfoot rollers to achieve proper compaction. Compaction by rubber-tired or track-mounted equipment, by itself, may not be sufficient. Adequate water trucks, water pulls, and/or other suitable equipment should be available to provide sufficient moisture and dust control. The actual selection of equipment is the responsibility of the contractor performing the work and should be such that uniform and proper compaction of the fill is achieved. EnGEN Corporation \\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS October 2000 Page 10 8.2.8 Shrinkaae and Subsidence: There will be a material loss due to the clearing and grubbing operations. Shrinkage of existing alluvium that is excavated and replaced as compacted fill should be anticipated. It is estimated that the average shrinkage of these soils will be on the order of 10 to 15 percent, based on fill volumes when compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. A higher relative compaction would mean a larger shrinkage value. No shrinkage is expected from existing engineered fill materials. 8.2.9 Fill Slopes: Finish fill slopes should not be inclined steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Fill slope surfaces should be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction based on a maximum dry density for the soil as determined by ASTM D1557-78(90) procedures to the face of the finished slope. Fill slopes should be constructed in a skillful manner so that they are positioned at the design orientations and slope ratio. Achieving a uniform slope surface by subsequent thin wedge filling should be avoided. Any add-on correction to a fill slope should be conducted under the observation and recommendations of the Project Geotechnical Engineer. The proposed add-on correction procedures should be submitted in writing by the contractor prior to commencement of corrective grading and reviewed by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. Compacted fill slopes should be backrolled with suitable equipment for the type of soil being used during fill placement at intervals not exceeding 4.0 feet in vertical height. As an alternative to the backrolling of the fill slopes, over-filling of the slopes will be considered acceptable and preferred. The fill slope should be constructed by over-filling with compacted fill a minimum of 3.0 feet horizontally, and then trimmed back to exposed the dense inner core of the slope surface. 8.2.10 Subdrains: Although the need for subdrains is not anticipated at this time, final recommendations should be made during grading by the Project Geologist. 8.2.11 Observation and Testina: During grading, observation and testing should be conducted by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative to verify that the grading is being performed according to the recommendations presented in this report. The Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative should observe the scarification and the placement of fill and should take tests to verify the moisture content, density, uniformity and degree of compaction obtained. Where testing demonstrates insufficient density, additional compaction effort, with the adjustment of the moisture content where necessary, should be applied until retesting shows that satisfactory relative compaction has been obtained. The results of observations and testing services should be presented in a formal Finish Grading EnGEN Corporation \1/ I I I I I I I I I I I I , I II I I I I I Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS October 2000 Page 11 Report following completion of the grading operations. Grading operations undertaken at the site without the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative present may result in exclusions of the affected areas from the finish grading report for the project. The presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative will be for the purpose of providing observations and field testing and will not include any supervision or directing of the actual work of the contractor or the contractor's employees or agents. Neither the presence and/or the non-presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his field representative nor the field observations and testing shall excuse the contractor in any way for defects discovered in the contractor's work. 8.2.12 Soil Expansion Potential: Upon completion of fine grading of the building pad, near- surface samples should be obtained for expansion potential testing to identify the expansion potential for each pad and assign appropriate foundation and slab-on-grade recommendations for construction. The results of recent testing indicate a very low expansion potential (EI=O). However, expansion potential may change at the completion of grading. Therefore, design recommendations to deal with various degrees of expansion potential are presented in the Summary of Recommendations for Conventional Foundation and Slabs in the Appendix of this report. 8.3 Foundation Desion Recommendations: 8.3.1 General: Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional column footings and continuous wall footings founded upon properly compacted fill. The recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and construction are based on geotechnical characteristics and a low expansion potential for the supporting soils and are not intended to preclude more restrictive structural requirements. The Structural Engineer for the project should determine the actual footing width and depth to resist design vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces. 8.3.2 Foundation Size: Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches. Continuous footings should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of one (1) NO.4 steel reinforcing bar located near the top and one (1) NO.4 steel reinforcing bar located near the bottom of the footings to minimize the effects of slight differential movements which may occur due to minor variations in the engineering characteristics or seasonal moisture change in the supporting soils. In the case of concrete tilt-up or masonry structures when the wall and footing combine to form a deep beam system, the Structural Engineer may alter the EnGEN Corporation \~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-G5 October 2000 Page 12 reinforcing as necessary. Final foundation size and reinforcing should be determined based on the expansive potential of the supporting soils in accordance with the Summary of Recommendations for Conventional Foundations and Slabs presented in the Appendix of this report. Column footings should have a minimum width of 18-inches by 18-inches and be suitably reinforced, based on structural requirements. A grade beam, founded at the same depths and reinforced the same as the adjacent footings, should be provided across doorways, garage or any other types of perimeter openings. 8.3.3 Depth of Embedment: Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill should extend to a minimum depth of 18-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for single story structures and two story structures. Deeper footings may be necessary for expansive soils purposes in accordance with the Summary of Recommendations for Conventional Foundation and Slabs in the Appendix of this report, depending on the final determination of each lots expansive potential. 8.3.4 Bearina Capacity: Provided the recommendations for site earthwork, minimum footing width, and minimum depth of embedment for footings are incorporated into the project design and construction, the allowable bearing value for design of continuous and column footings for the total dead plus frequently-applied live loads is 2,000 psf for continuous footings and 2,000 psf for column footings in properly compacted fill. The allowable bearing value has a factor of safety of at least 3.0 and may be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading such as wind or seismic forces. Once grading is completed, the nature of the imported soils can be tested to determine if increases in the allowable bearing value is justified. 8.3.5 Settlement: Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values for continuous and column footings, respectively, and the maximum assumed wall and column loads are not expected to exceed a maximum settlement of 0.75-inch or a differential settlement of 0,25-inch between adjacent column loads under static load conditions in properly compacted fill. An evaluation of settlement due to possible liquefaction has been made based on SPT values, fines content and potential earthquake magnitude. The results indicate a possibility of potential seismically induced settlement on the order of 7 .1-inches due to an earthquake event of magnitude 6.8 on the Elsinore Fault. As a result, potential differential settlement on the order of Yz of the total may be experienced across the building length. The probability of such an occurrence is considered remote. However, the Project EnGEN Corporation 'A I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS October 2000 Page 13 Structural Engineer should be conservative in providing tension ties at the roof connections to promote the concept of "life safety" design and minimize the potential of roof collapse in the event of liquefaction. 8.3.6 Lateral Capacity: Additional foundation design parameters for resistance to static lateral forces, are as follows: Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case: Compacted Fill - 250 pcf Allowable Coefficient of Friction: Compacted Fill - 0.35 Lateral load resistance may be developed by a combination of friction acting on the base of foundations and slabs and passive earth pressure developed on the sides of the footings and stem walls below grade when in contact with properly compacted fill. The above values are allowable design values and may be used in combination without reduction in evaluating the resistance to lateral loads. The allowable values may be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading, such as wind or seismic forces. For the calculation of passive earth resistance, the upper 1.0-foot of material should be neglected unless confined by a concrete slab or pavement. The maximum recommended allowable passive pressure is 5.0 times the recommended design value. 8.3.7 Soluble Sulfate Content: Excessive amounts of soluble sulfates were not detected in the representative sample used for chemical analysis. As a result, normal Type II cement can be used for all concrete in contact with native soils at the site. 8.4 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations: The recommendations for concrete slabs, both interior and exterior, excluding PCC pavement, are based upon the expansion potential for the supporting material. Concrete slabs should be designed to minimize cracking as a result of shrinkage. Joints (isolation, contraction, and construction) should be placed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. Special precautions should be taken during placement and curing of all concrete slabs. Excessive slump (high water / cement ratio) of the concrete and/or improper curing procedures used during either hot or cold weather conditions could result in excessive shrinkage, cracking, or curling in the slabs. It is recommended that all concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be performed in accordance with ACI recommendations and procedures. EnGEN Corpor3tion \"5' I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS October 2000 Page 14 8.4.1 Interior Slabs: Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4.0-inches actual in thickness and be underlain by a 1.0 to 2.0 inches of clean coarse sand or other approved granular material placed on properly prepared subgrade per the Earthwork Recommendations Section of this report. Slabs subjected to crane loads for tilt-up purposes should bea minimum of 5-inches in thickness. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of #3 bars @24-inches on center each way, or a suitable equivalent, as determined by the Project Structural Engineer. Varying degrees of expansive potential require additional slab reinforcing and thickness in accordance with the Summary of Recommendations for Conventional Foundation and Slabs presented in the Appendix of this report. Final lot identification and slab construction requirements will be presented in the compaction report upon completion of grading. It is essential that the reinforcing be placed at mid-depth in the slab. The concrete section and/or reinforcing steel should be increased appropriately for anticipated excessive or concentrated floor loads. In areas where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slab, we recommend the use of a polyethylene vapor barrier with a minimum of 6.0 mil in thickness be placed beneath the slab. The moisture barrier should be overlapped or sealed at splices and covered top and bottom by a 1.0-inch to 2.0-inch minimum layer of clean, moist (not saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures. 8.4.2 Exterior Slabs: All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks, etc., with the exception of PCC pavement) should be a minimum of 4.0-inches nominal in thickness and should be underlain by a minimum of 12.0-inches of soil that has been prepared in accordance with the Earthwork Recommendation section of this report. Reinforcing in the slabs and the use of a compacted sand or gravel base beneath the slabs should be according to the current local standards. Subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content to a depth of 12.0-inches and proof compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D1557-91 procedures immediately before placing the concrete. 8.5 Utilitv Trench Recommendations: Utility trenches within the zone of influence of foundations or under building floor slabs, exterior hardscape, and/or pavement areas should be backfilled with properly compacted soil. All utility trenches within the building pad and extending to a distance of 5.0-feet beyond the building exterior footings should be backfilled with on-site or similar soil. Where interior or exterior utility trenches are proposed to pass EnGEN Corporation \IP I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8.6 8.7 Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS October 2000 Page 15 beneath or parallel to building, retaining wall, and/or decorative concrete block perimeter wall footings, the bottom of the trench should not be located below a 1: 1 plane projected downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing unless the utility lines are designed for the footing surcharge loads. It is recommended that all utility trenches excavated to depths of 5.D-feet or deeper be cut back according to the "Temporary Construction Cut" section of this report or be properly shored during construction. Backfill material should be placed in a lift thickness appropriate for the type of backfill material and compaction equipment used. Backfill material should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction by mechanical means. Jetting or flooding of the backfill material will not be considered a satisfactory method for compaction unless the procedures are reviewed and approved in writing by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill material should be determined according to ASTM D1557-91 procedures. Finish Lot Drainaae Recommendations: Positive drainage should be established away from the tops of slopes, the exterior walls of structures, the back of retaining walls, and the decorative concrete block perimeter walls. Finish lot surface gradients in unpaved areas should be provided next to tops of slopes and buildings to guide surface water away from foundations and slabs and from flowing over the tops of slopes. The surface water should be directed toward suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of surface water should not be allowed next to structures or on pavements. In unpaved areas, a minimum positive gradient of 2.0 percent away from the structures and tops of slopes for a minimum distance of 5.0-feet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the property in a nonerosive manner should be provided. Landscape trees and plants with high water needs should be planted at least 5.0- feet away from the walls of the structures. Downspouts from roof drains should discharge to a surface which slopes away from the structure a minimum of 5.0-feet from the exterior building walls. In no case should downspouts from roof drains discharge into planter areas immediately adjacent to the building unless there is positive drainage away from the structure at a minimum gradient of 2.0 percent, directed onto a permanent all-weather surface or subdrain system. Planter Recommendations: Planters around the perimeter of the structures should be designed to ensure that adequate drainage is maintained and minimal irrigation water is allowed to percolate into the soils underlying the buildings. EnGEN Corporation \1. I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8.8 Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS October 2000 Page 16 Temporarv Construction Excavation Recommendations: Temporary construction excavations for rough grading, foundations, retaining walls, utility trenches, etc., more than 5.0-feet in depth and to a maximum depth of 15-feet should be properly shored or cut back to the following inclinations: Earth Material Inclination Alluvium or Compacted Fill 1.5: 1 No surcharge loads (spoil piles, earthmoving equipment, trucks, etc.) should be allowed within a horizontal distance measured from the top of the excavation slope equal to 1.5 times the depth of the excavation. Excavations should be initially observed by the project Geotechnical Engineer, Geologist and/or their representative to verify the recommendations presented or to make additional recommendations to maintain stability and safety. Moisture variations, differences in the cohesive or cementation characteristics, or changes in the coarseness of the deposits may require slope flattening or, conversely, permit steepening upon review by the project Geotechnical Engineer, Geologist, or their representative. Deep utility trenches may experience caving which will require special considerations to stabilize the walls and expedite trenching operations. Surface drainage should be controlled along the top of the slope to preclude erosion of the slope face. If excavations are to be left open for long periods, the slopes should be sprayed with a protective compound and/or covered to minimize drying out, raveling, and/or erosion of the slopes. For excavations more than 5.0- feet in depth which will not be cut back to the recommended slope inclination, the contractor should submit to the owner and/or the owner's designated representative detailed drawings showing the design of shoring, bracing, sloping, or other provisions to be made for worker protection. If the drawings do not vary from the requirements of the OSHA Construction Safety Orders (CAL OSHA or FED OSHA, whichever is applicable for the project at the time of construction), a statement signed by a registered Civil or Structural Engineer in the State of California, engaged by the contractor at his expense, should be submitted certifying that the contractor's excavation safety drawings comply with OSHA Construction Orders. If the drawings vary from the applicable OSHA Construction Safety Orders, the drawings should be prepared, signed, and sealed by a Registered Civil or Structural Engineer in the State of California. The contractor should not proceed with any excavations until the project owner or his designated representative has received and acknowledged the properly prepared excavation safety drawings. EnGEN Corporation \'t1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8.9 8.9.1 8.9.2 8.9.3 Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS October 2000 Page 17 Retaining Wall Recommendations: Earth Pressures: Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive granular soil (EI=O) or very low expansive potential materials (Expansion Index of 20 or less) within a zone extending upward and away from the heel of the footing at a slope of 0.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter can be designed to resist the following static lateral soil pressures: Condition Level Backfill 2:1 Slope Active 30 pet 45 pcf At Rest 58 pcf -- The on-site materials that exhibit low expansivity may be used as backfill within the active / at-rest pressure zone as defined above. Walls that are free to deflect 0.001 radian at the top should be designed for the above-recommended active condition. Walls that are not capable of this movement should be assumed rigid and designed for the at-rest condition. The above values assume well drained backfill and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure. Surcharge loads, dead and/or live, acting on the backfill within a horizontal distance behind the wall equal to height of the wall, should also be considered in the design. Uniform surcharge pressures should be applied as an additional uniform (rectangular) pressure distribution. The lateral earth pressure coefficient for a uniform vertical surcharge load behind the wall is 0.50. Foundation Design: Retaining wall footings should be founded to the same depths into properly compacted fill, or firm, competent, undisturbed, natural soil as standard foundations and may be designed for the same average allowable bearing value across the footing (as long as the resultant force is located in the middle one-third of the footing),and with the same allowable static lateral bearing pressure and allowable sliding resistance as previously recommended. When using the allowable lateral pressure and allowable sliding resistance, a factor of safety of 1.0 may be used. If ultimate values are used for design, an approximate factor of safety of 1.5 should be achieved. Subdrain: A subdrain system should be constructed behind and at the base of all retaining walls to allow drainage and to prevent the buildup of excessive hydrostatic pressures. Typical subdrains may include weep holes with a continuous gravel gallery, perforated pipe surrounded by filter rock, or some other approved system. Gravel galleries and/or filter rock, if not properly designed and graded for the on-site and/or import materials, should be enclosed in a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute in order to prevent infiltration of fines and clogging of the system. The perforated pipes should be at least 4.0 inches in diameter. Pipe perforations should be placed downward. Gravel filters EnGEN Corporation \<:t.. I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS October 2000 Page 18 should have volume of at least 1.0 cubic foot per lineal foot of pipe. Subdrains should maintain a positive flow gradient and have outlets that drain in a non-erosive manner. In the case of subdrains for basement walls, they need to empty into a sump provided with a submersible pump activated by a change in the water level. 8.9.4 Backfill: Backfill directly behind retaining walls (if backfill width is less than 3 feet) may consist of 0.5 - to 0.75-inch diameter, rounded to subrounded gravel enclosed in a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute or a clean sand (Sand Equivalent Value greater than 50) water jetted into place to obtain proper compaction. If water jetting is used, the subdrain system should be in place. Even if water jetting is used, the sand should be densified to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. If the specified density is not obtained by water jetting, mechanical methods will be required. If other types of soil or gravel are used for backfill, mechanical compaction methods will be required to obtain a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. Backfill directly behind retaining walls should not be compacted by wheel, track or other rolling by heavy construction equipment unless the wall is designed for the surcharge loading. If gravel, clean sand or other imported backfill is used behind retaining walls, the upper 18-inches of backfill in unpaved areas should consist of typical on-site material compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in order to prevent the influx of surface runoff into the granular backfill and into the subdrain system. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill materials should be determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-78 (90) procedures. 8.9.5 Pavement Desian Recommendations: Preliminary pavement recommendations are presented based on R-Value testing of soils obtained from the site and an assumed future traffic loading expressed in terms of a Traffic Index (TI). Pavement sections have been determined in general accordance with CAL TRANS design procedures based on a (TI) of 5.0 for automobile areas, a (TI) of 6.0 for truck traffic areas, and an R-Value of 63. Tvpe of Traffic Traffic Index Pavement Section Automobile 5.0 3 inch AC/4.0 inches AB Truck 6.0 3 inch AC/4.0 inches AB Automobile 5.0 Portland Cement Pavement Alternative: 5 inch PCC/95 percent SubQrade Truck 6.0 Portland Cement Pavement Alternative: 6 inch PCC/95 oercent Subarade EnGEN Corporation 1P I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9.0 Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS October 2000 Page 19 The project designer should choose the appropriate pavement section for the anticipated traffic pattern and delineate the respective areas on the site plan. Since actual calculations may, at times, conflict with City/County adopted standards, the AC pavement sections and the Portland Cement pavement section, are subject to review and approval by the City/County. Asphalt concrete pavement materials should be as specified in Section 39 of the current CAL TRANS Standard Specifications or a suitable equivalent. Aggregate base should conform to Class 2 material as specified in Section 26-1.02B of the current CAL TRANS Standard Specifications or a suitable equivalent. The subgrade soil, including utility trench backfill, should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The aggregate base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for subgrade and aggregate base materials should be determined according to ASTM D1557-91 procedures. In dumpster pick- up areas, and in areas where semi-trailers are to be parked on the pavement such that a considerable load is transferred from small wheels, it is recommended that rigid Portland Cement concrete pavement with a minimum thickness of 7.0 inches be provided in these areas. This will provide for the proper distribution of loads to the subgrade without causing deformation of the pavement surface. Special consideration should also be given to areas where truck traffic will negotiate small radius turns. Asphaltic concrete pavement in these areas should utilize stiffer emulsions or the areas should be paved with Portland Cement concrete. In areas where Portland Cement concrete is to be placed directly on subgrade, the subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. If pavement subgrade soils are prepared at the time of rough grading of the building site and the areas are not paved immediately, additional observations and testing will have to be performed before placing aggregate base material, asphaltic concrete, or PCC pavement to locate areas that may have been damaged by construction traffic, construction activities, and/or seasonal wetting and drying. In the proposed pavement areas, soil samples should be obtained at the time the subgrade is graded for R-Value testing according to California Test Method 301 procedures to verify the pavement design recommendations. PLAN REVIEW Subsequent to formulation of final plans and specifications for the project, but before bids for construction are requested, grading plans for the proposed development should be reviewed by EnGEN Corporation to verify compatibility with site geotechnical conditions EnGEN Corporation z;.. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS October 2000 Page 20 and conformance with the recommendations contained in this report. If EnGEN Corporation is not accorded the opportunity to make the recommended review, we will assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of the recommendations presented in this report. 10.0 PRE-BID CONFERENCE It may be desirable to hold a pre-bid conference with the owner or an authorized representative, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, the Project Geotechnical Engineer, and the proposed contractors present. This conference will provide continuity in the bidding process and clarify questions relative to the grading and construction requirements of the project. 11.0 PRE-GRADING CONFERENCE Before the start of grading, a conference should be held with the owner or an authorized representative, the contractor, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, and the Project Geotechnical Engineer present. The purpose of this meeting should be to clarify questions relating to the intent of the grading recommendations and to verify that the project specifications comply with the recommendations of this geotechnical engineering report. Any special grading procedures and/or difficulties proposed by the contractor can also be discussed at that time. 12.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Rough grading of the property should be performed under engineering observation and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Rough grading includes, but is not limited to, overexcavation cuts, fill placement, and excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN Corporation should observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be made before installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel to verify and/or modify the conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations of overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other earthwork completed for the subject development should be performed by EnGEN Corporation. If the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions are not performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the performance of the development is limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by EnGEN Corporation. If parties other than EnGEN EnGEN Corporation z$' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Don Veasey Construction Project No; 2183-GS October 2000 Page 21 Corporation are engaged to perform soils and materials observations and testing, they must be notified that they will be required to assume complete responsibility for the geotechnical aspects of the project by concurring with the recommendations in this report or providing alternative recommendations. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his field representative, nor the field observations and testing, shall excuse the contractor in any way for defects discovered in the contractor's work. The Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative shall not be responsible for jOb or project safety. Job or project safety shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor. 13.0 CLOSURE This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described in this document. It mayor may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes. In the event that changes in the assumed nature, design, or location of the proposed development as described in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions and recommendations of this report modified or verified in writing. This study was conducted in general accordance with the applicable standards of our profession and the accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, implied or expressed beyond the representations of this report, is made. Although every effort has been made to obtain information regarding the geotechnical and subsurface conditions of the site, limitations exist with respect to the knowledge of unknown regional or localized off-site conditions which may have an impact at the site. The recommendations presented in this report are valid as of the date of the report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or to the works of man on this and/or adjacent properties. If conditions are observed or information becomes available during the design and construction process which are not reflected in this report, EnGEN Corporation should be notified so that supplemental evaluations can be performed and the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report can be modified or verified in writing. This report is not intended for use as a bid document. Any person or company using this report for bidding or construction purposes should perform such independent studies and explorations as he deems necessary to satisfy himself as to the surface and subsurface conditions to be encountered and the procedures to be used in the performance of the work on this project. EnGEN Corporation z.!P I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS October 2000 Page 22 Changes in applicable or appropriate standards of care or practice occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge and experience. Accordingly, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report may be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes outside the control of EnGEN Corporation which occur in the future. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our services. If we can be of further service or you should have questions regarding this report, please contact this office at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, EnGEN Corporation Thomas Dewey, CEG 19 Senior Engineering Geol Expires 11-30-01 TD/OB:rr Distribution: (4) Addressee FILE: EnGEN\Reporting\T2183-GS Don Veasey Construction, Geotechnical Report EnGEN Corporation zA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS Appendix Page 1 APPENDIX EnGEN Corporation vr I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS Appendix Page 2 TECHNICAL REFERENCES 1. Allen, CR., and others, 1965, Relationship between seismicity and geologic structure in the southern California region: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 55, no. 4, p. 753-797. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1954, Geology of southern California, Bulletin 170. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1969, Geologic map of California, San Bernardino Sheet, Scale 1:250,000. Department of Conservation, Geology map of the Santa Ana 1:100,000 Quadrangle, California, Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 91-17. Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1970, Regional geologic map of San Andreas and related faults in eastern San Gabriel Mountains and vicinity: U.S. Geologic Society, Open-File Map, Scale 1 :125,000. Engel, R., 1959, Geology of the Lake Elsinore Quadrangle, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 146. Envicom Corporation, 1976, Seismic safety and safety elements, Technical report for County of Riverside Planning Department. Hart, E. W., 1992, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Department of Conservation, Special Publication 42, 9 p. Hileman, JA, Allen, C.R. and Nordquist, J.M., 1973, Seismicity of the southern California region, 1 January 1932 to 31 December 1972: Seismological Laboratory, California Institute ofTechnology. Housner, G.w., 1969, Earthquake Engineering, Weigel, R. L. (ed.), Prentice Hall, Inc., 1970, Chap. 4. Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault map of California with locations of volcanoes, thermal springs and thermal wells, 1 :750,000: California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map NO.1. Jennings, C.W., 1985, An explanatory text to accompany the 1 :750,000 scale fault and geologic maps of Califomia: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 201, 197p., 2 plates. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and character of faulting along the Elsinore fault zone in southern Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 131,12 p., 1 plate, scale 1:24,000. Lamar, D.L., Merifield, P.M. and Proctor, R.J., 1973, Earthquake Recurrence Interval on Major Faults in Southern California, in Moran, Douglas E., et. ai, 1973, Geology, Seismicity & Environmental Impact, Association of Engineering Geology, Special Publication. Leeds, D.J., 1973, Geology, Seismicity & Environmental Impact, Association of Engineering Geology, Special Publication. Mann, J.F., Jr., October 1955, Geology of a portion of the Elsinore fault zone, California: State of California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, Special Report 43. Riverside County Planning Department, June 1982 (Revised December 1983), Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan - Dam Inundation Areas - 100 Year Flood Plains - Area Drainage Plan, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles. EnGEN Corporation 1f, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I !I I I 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-G8 Appendix Page 3 TECHNICAL REFERENCES IContiunedl Riverside County Planning Department, January 1983, Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan - County Seismic Hazards Map, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles. Riverside County Planning Department, February 1983, Seismic - Geologic Maps, Murrieta - Rancho California Area, Sheet 146, Sheet 147 (Revised 11-87), Sheet 854B (Revised 11- 87), and Sheet 854A (revised 11-87), Scale 1" = 800'. Rogers, T.H., 1966, Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, Santa Ana Sheet, CDMG. Schnabel, P.B. and Seed, H.B., 1972, Accelerations in rock for earthquakes in the western United States: College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 72-2. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1970, A simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential: College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Volume 5 of a Series Titled Engineering Monographs on Earthquake Criteria, Structural Design, and Strong Motion Records. South Coast Geological Society, Geology and Mineral Wealth of the California Transverse Ranges, 1982. State of California, January 1, 1980, Special Studies Zones, Elsinore Quadrangle, Revised Official Map, Scale 1" = 2 Mi. State of California Department of Water Resources, Water Wells and Springs in the Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Bulletin No. 91-21. Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Edition. EnGEN Corporation ~:1 I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I I I I I I Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS Appendix Page 4 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS AND SLABS Expansion Index 0-20 21 - 50 51-90 91-130 Expansive Potential Very Low Low Medium High Minimum Footing Depth Below Lowest 18" 18" 18" 24" Adjacent Finish Grade Minimum Footing Width 12" 12" 18" 18" Minimum Continuous Footing 1-#4 Top 1-#4 Top 2-#4 Top 2-#4 Top Reinforcement 1-#4 Bottom 1-#4 Bottom 2-#4 Bottom 2-#4 Bottom Minimum Slab Reinforcement 6X6-10/10 #3 @ 24" OC #3@ 18"OC #4@18"OC Welded Wire Mesh Minimum Concrete Slab Thickness 4" Nominal 4" Nominal 4" Actual 4" Actual Minimum Moisture Content of Subgrade No Requirement Opt. + 4% to a Opt. + 5% to a Opt. + 6% to a Immediately Prior to Placing Moisture Depth of 18" Depth of 18" Depth of 24" Barrier or Pouring Concrete Visqueen Moisture Barrier 6mil 6mil 6 mil 6mil Notes: .. Reinforcing slabs to be in both directions and tied into the foundation. EnGEN Corporation ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXPLORATORY BORING LOG SUMMARIES (B-1 through B-2) Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS Appendix Page 5 EnGEN Corporation '2- <\. Project: Don Veasey Construction Surface Elev.: Logged By: C8M I Ii Sample I uscs I (ll Depth Ul I EnGEN Corporation I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG !I Project Number: T2183-GS Boring Number: 8-1 Date: 10/17/00 Soil I Graphic I I tE!l.b. ... ... ,. SM ,I Description -0 I .... ... I ... ....... Silty sand, light olive brown, damp, medium dense, fine grained sand, slightly micaceous ALLU~ Silty sand, light brown, damp, medium dense. very fine to fine grained, micaeous SM .... .... ... I 'I' , 5 ~ I ,1-10 ~ SM I I ,1-15 ~ I : Sand, light grayish tan, damp, loose, fine grained, ~I staining '~ :i :1 SP . . . .' : 20 SP I I : Fine to medium grained sand, clean, medium dense ...., ] ... . L ..... I 25 SP I t" .-:::.- ., :::'.: :1 ...... .1 '.:<1 Fine to coarse grained sand contains pebble size rock, subrounded to round medium dense L i'" L I ....... ., .1 '1 Groundwater at 30 feet Sandy silt, gray, moist, loose fine grained sand, micaceous ML I r ,(35 ~ SM I Interbedded with fine grained silty sands and medium coarse grained sand, medium dense. : :1,: I Notes: II EnGEN Corporation Blow Count 3,5,7 4,5,6 2,3,4 4,8,11 5,10,11 2,4,4 2,4,10 .......,-.."., I Dry Density I In-Situ I Moisture Content 19.3 2.2 35.9 26.4 10.4 7.7 3.0 Maximum Density Optimum Moisture Content JP .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number: T2183-GS Project: Don Veasey Construction Boring Number: B-1 Surface Elev.: Date: 10/17100 Logged By: CBM Sol] I I ~I samp]el I Blow I Ory In-Sllu I Maximum Optimum Graphic Description ~ Depth uses Count Density Moisture Density Moisture U) Content Content 1 ~ ..j..... IT - mil Moist to very moist, medium i,l40 SM 14,20,19 19.2 dense. :':[1 '-- I . . I' . . ... ....1'1 ::1::::': I I'll iJ I III :::::::1 Sand, light 9ray, moist, 45 SP 5,7,8 23.5 . .... ," medium dense, fine to medium ......... grained, micaceous. - ..,. .. ....... .... .," . .... ," I _'........c~_. Medium dense, color change to SP 9,16,12 17.1 ......... light brown. I .... . .... - , I ~ Total Depth 50 feet -50 I I I Groundwater at 30 feet I I I I I I -55 I I I I i " I I 60 I 1 I ! r I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I 1 I I r I ~ 65 I I I , I , i I I I . I I I I 70 I I I '1 Notes: 1 ~\ I; EnGEN Corporation 1f I I I I I I I I EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG I Project Number: T2183-GS Boring Number: B-2 Date: 10/17/00 Project: Don Veasey Construction Surface Elev.: mT "LE!LL.. . .1. ::h Silty sand, light brown, damp, ; :: :;1:1 dense, fine grained, sand, : :: ':i.:i....2!!.qhtIY micaceous :: : :i:~UQIUM '",1,1 i1: . . . . "'1 Silty sand, light olive brown, . . . ..!.. mOist, dense '" ''I'I .. "1:1 .. "I"" ": ::I:l . . . .Ii ~ . .... ::1 "::',::; r77 /7 Interbedded Silty clay to ''i'/~ sand, light gray to dark gray, ~ :::",~ '" "^" ,,," . .' :;1 Silty sand, light gray, damp, . ":'.'.-:j loose, fine grained sand. "::',::: .....1 I Soil Graphic II I I I I I ........., :,::i . ';::.::i . .. "I :::"':1 I I I I .......1 .,', .." t:.-:.::.:: '.::::::1 -.---. : :.::: .::1 I ........ : :::: ::: I :.-.:::.'.'1 I r . " .. '" tl:'::: :ii: II Ii I II i 'I I I .. ..1 I Notes: I Description Logged By: CBM I ~' I I I~! Sample uses I &ll Depth 1 I SM I ~ iSM .- ' I ~ 5 I SM I , I I 110 .- : I I ~ ~'" : ~ 20 I .- 1 SP , i : [ I ~" I" I I i.s:zL ~I 130 ! L ro SM Sand, light gray grown, damp, dense, fine to medium grained sand, slightly micaceous. SP CL Sand, light gray, damp, medium dense, fine to medium coarse grained sands. Groundwater at 29 feet Silty sand, gray-brown, moist, loose, fine grained sand, slightly micaceous. SM Becomes dark gray, very moist. ~'" 11 SM EnGEN Corporation Blow Gount 12,30,37 11,22,27 9,16,25 9,17,18 2,2,3 4,6,8 6,11,17 4,6,9 3,13,15 I Ory Density 119.7 118.4 123.0 108.6 65.4 93.3 105.9 88.6 104.2 I In-Situ I Moisture Content 14.5 43.4 11.8 31.3 23.2 5.7 10.7 12.6 3.2 Maximum Density I Optimum Moisture Content ., 1- ~ :i ;,-z... ~ ji I I EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG I Project Number: T2183-GS Boring Number: B-2 Date: 10/17/00 I Soil Graphic I :... I :.: :1 :: :1 ....:.. 'j T I I I I I I I I I I I I Notes: I Description III ~~ Sand, light gray-brown, very moist. very dense, fine to medium to coarse grained sand, micaceous, contains large specs of muscovite. I ~ I r 45 No recovery, sampler sand locked for 1 hour. Total Depth 46.5 feet Groundwater at 29 feet ;-60 , ~ I r ~ 165 r f" r ~ Project: Don Veasey Construction Surface Elev.: Logged By: CBM Sample I uses Depth SP I [ l 1-50 1-55 EnGEN Corporation Blow Count 13,34,44 23.35,32 I Dry Density 108.2 /ln9Situ Moisture Content 19.2 Maximum Density I Optimum Moisture Content ;,~ 31; -~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS Appendix Page 6 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS EnGEN Corporation ~ I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT 122 -~-\- I , I , , I , - , --~ I I ! ------- -- -.- I . I I i I ! I ! I I . - , , /' ."\ I I I i , I -- L___ I -I , .\ , ! : -----~ --..---.--- , ~ , : n. -~- -~_.~---- I I ~ , i , I H i \\ I : \\ I I , , I i : , , I I -- j : , I I i \; , , , ! , , , I I , \\ i I I , I , . \\ : i i , , \ i I , , , , I I I i I i\ \' I I I I , : i \ , , I , , I I I : , i I i , . I ! i : i\. , I I i I I I , I -- r ~\- I I , , ! i i -- I ------'--'------ -----~- I I i I i I , - , \ , , I \ I I , I 130 128 126 U a. i::' 'in c: OJ u ~ 0 124 120 4 ZAVfor Sp.G. = 2.58 16 6 8 10 Water content, % 12 14 Test specification: ASTM D 1557-91 Procedure A Modified Elevl De pth Classification uses AASHTO Nat. Moist. %> NO.4 %< NO.200 Sp.G. LL PI SM 3.1 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SILTY SAND,GREY Maximum dry density = 128.1 pcf Optimum moisture = 9.4 % Project No. T2183-GS Client: DON VEASEY Project: MEDICAL PLAZA Remarks: SAMPL BI @0-5 CaLL BY CBM COLL ON 10-17-00 . Location: HIGHWAY 79 S. ... Environmental and Geotechnical . .._ ...._._. . Engineering Nehuork Corporation Plate I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results Job Number: T2183-GS Job Name: DON VEASEY Location: HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH Sample Source: 81 @ 0-5 Sampled by: C8M (10-17-00) Lab Technician: RW Sample Descr: SIL TV SAND,GREY ::.:'::::::::.:':: Wet Compacted WI.: 607.2 RingWt.: 195.3 Net Wet WI.: 411.9 Wet Density: 124.4 Wet Soil: 227.3 Dry Soil: 210.2 Initial Moisture (%): 8.1% Initial Dry Density: 115.0 % Saturation: 47.3% Final WI. & Ring WI.: 627.4 Net Final WI.: 432.1 DryWl.: 380.9 Loss: 51.2 Net Dry WI.: 378.4 Final Density: 114,3 Saturated Moisture: 13.5% Dial Change Time Reading 1: 0.100 N/A 8:45 Reading 2: 0.100 0.000 9:00 Reading 3: 0.100 0.000 9:15 Reading 4: 0.100 0.000 20-0ct Expansion Index: o Adjusted Index: (ASTM D482910.1.2) -1.0 EnGEN Corporation 41607 Enterprise Circle North Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 676-3095 Fax: (909) 676-3294 .... >'Il< 7'" ~ jj; ~ 1<7 .. .. I I. .3000 RESULTS C, pst q" deg TAN ~ 271 .35.2 0.70 o I I ~ Ul Q. 2000 (f1 (f1 w '" f- (f1 w '" 1000 ::> --' H <( LL I I 'I 5000 6000 I I 2 .3 10.5 10.5 10.5 115.2 115.2 115.2 67.7 67.7 67.7 0..398 0..398 0..398 2.42 2.42 2.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 0,0 0.0 115.2 115.2 115.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0..398 0..398 0..398 2.42 2.42 2.42 1,00 1.00 1,00 1000 2000 .3000 929 1770 2338 0.10 0.10 0.08 I I I I I I 0.2000 0.2000 Q.2000 I SAMPLE TYPE: DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND, GREY CLIENT: DON VEASEY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT: I SPECIFIC GRAVITY= 2.58 REMARKS: SAMPLE Bl@ 0-5 COLLECTED BY C.M. (10/17/00) SAMPLE LOCATION: HWY. 79 SOUTH I PROJ. NO.: T218.3-GS DIRECT SHEAR DATE: 10/24/00 TEST REPORT ~." 1 Fig _ No.: EnGEN Corporation I ;':;;,,4~~"':c:'H"' ^= 4 !IIi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 80 60 <JJ ::J o > I 0:: 40 20 R-VALUE TEST REPORT 100 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Exuda t ion Pressure - psi Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure - ASTM D 2844 Compoc t . Expansion Horizontal Sample Exud. R Density Mo i st. R No. Pressure Pressure Press. psi Height Pressure Value pcf % Value psi psi @ 160 psi in. psi Carr. 1 350 126.2" 9.7 3.33 38 2.55 387 68 69 2 250 127.8 10.3 2.12 45 2.53 286 62 62 3 150 128.3 10.6 0.00 93 2.51 91 28 28 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION R-Valwe @ 300 psi exudation pressure 63 SILTY SAND, GREY Project No.: T2183-GS Project: DON VEASEY CONSTRUCTION Location: HWY. 79 SOUTH Tested by: J.H. Checked by: J.T.O. Remarks: SAMPLE B2@ 0-5 COLLECTED BY C.M. COLLECTED ON (10/17/00) Date: 10-24-1900 R-VALUE TEST REPORT Environmental and Geotechnical Engineering Network Corporation Fig. No. ~ jj I I I I I '-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 19 CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT I i 20 I I I ' I I , I I I I I I i 21 WATER ADDED I i , , I I 22 , , I I I I I I 23 I , I I , I I c I .~ Ci5 t c: 24 , <ll I I f:! <ll a. I I I 25 I I 26 I I I 27 I I I , I I I , I i 28 I I , I I I I I I 29 .1 .2 .5 1 Applied Pressure - ksf Natural Dry Dens. LL Sp. Overburden Pc Cc PI Sat. Moist. (pc!) Gr. (ks!) (ks!) 76.9 % 10.7% 118.4 2.58 0.75 0.03 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FINE-SAND, BROWN Project No. T2183-GS Client: DON VEASEY Project: MEDICAL PLAZA I , I I I , I I ! I I I I I I I I I i ! t I I I , I I I I I , i t I I I i I , I I I i i ! I I 2 5 Swell Press. Swell (ks!) % eo Cr 0.360 USCS AASHTO SP Remarks: COLLECTED BY C.M. COLLECTED ON (10117/00) Source: CONSOLS Sample No.: B2 5 Environmental and Geotechnical Engineering Network Cotporation '" q- ..~ 3'\ ~ j 2:',d;;~. _ .., '>~~"i:""" ~,_~"'~ ,,;r-; J "! ' I -,','. - .1 '. I I ,'" -. - -.,.""--.....,,......=---1llJ~r.mY~G..--- Plate I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT ,0 ,. - - I , , I 2 I I 3 4 c 'm ~ 1i5 c 5 (J) e (J) 0- 6 , I I I I I I I I ! 7 8 9 10 .1 .2 .5 1 Applied Pressure - ksf Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden Pc Cc LL PI Sat. Moist. (pcf) Gr. (ksf) (ksf) 105.0 % 12.6% 123.1 2.58 0.47 0.01 2 5 Cr Swell Press. Swell eo (ksf) % 0.309 ~ USCS AASHTO SM Remarks: COLLECTED BY C.M. COLLECTED ON (10/17/00) .it MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SILTY SAND, BROWN Project No. T2183-GS Project: MEDICAL PLAZA Client: DON VEASEY Source: CONSOLS Sample No.: B2 7.5 Environmental and Geotechnical Engineering Network Corporation Plate A,o ~,_ '<:.:.'::./'_~~_~..w.;: J~~< ~- r.L~rr.L~L~~~:-~:- .~ I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~I o 2 3 4 c .~ Ci5 C 5 Q) e Q) 0- 6 7 8 9 I I CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . i I . .:-t-+-l-" " . I I , : ii' I ,. I I I , I I , I I I II I I I i , I I .; I I I I I,.~:I WATER A~~) I I I I I I , I I , i , I I I , i I I I I I I I , I , , I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I , . t ! I , , .2 I I , , , I t ! I 10 .1 Natural Sat. Moist. 77.4 % 14.5 % .5 1 Applied Pressure. ksf Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Gr. (ks!) (ks!) 2.58 0.48 0.02 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION , 2 5 Cr Swell Press. Swell eo (ks!) % 0.482 USCS AASHTO SM Remarks: COLLECTED BY C.M. COLLECTED ON (10/17/00) Dry Dens. (pc!) 108.7 LL PI Project No. T2183.GS Project: MEDICAL PLAZA SILTY SAND, BROWN Client: DON VEASEY Source: CONSOLS Sample No.: B2 10 Environmental and Geotechnical Engineering Network Corporation ~..f:.._ ... ,,-?:r..~ _~:.~~~...:i -I : I i -I -,- - .L 1. I 1-,' . -~~~-'lr.l:z!,"""~r.~~ Plate ~ ...... HI" ,~. # I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -1 CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT I' I o , , 2 3 c .~ 1i5 .- 4 c <1> l:! <1> 0- 5 ! I I I ! I I 6 , , I i I I 7 8 9 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 Applied Pressure - ksf Natural Dry Dens. LL PI Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr Swell Press. Swell eo Sat. Moist. (pel) Gr. (ksl) (ksl) (ksl) % 2.58 0.59 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS ML AASHTO Project No. T2183-GS Project: MEDICAL PLAZA SANDY SILT, DARK-BROWN Client: DON VEASEY Remarks: :i WATER ADDED AT START OF ~ TEST ';' COLLECTED BY C.M. COLLECTED ON (10117/00)" ~:~ Source: CONSOLS Sample No.: B2@ 15 ~ Environmental and GeotechniCfJI Engineering Network Corporation Plate ~- ~_ ",-,"!,-::~"''>u:. _~~_~:'':1~'j'" - jY~~-, I .; '-I ---,- . '1- - ~,I i ' ~ --, ~ ) '- " -"""~""""'=-ll?Il~~~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 c: 'm ~ Ci5 'E 5 Q) (J ~ Q) a. 6 o CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT 2 3 7 6 9 10 .1 .2 ~ 1 Applied Pressure - ksf Overburden Pc (ksf) (ksf) I I I I I. I I i ! I I I I , I , I I ! I , I I , , , I I , , I I I I I , - , , , i , I , I I ! I -""""- , , i , I i Iii Ii i I , , i , , I : I i I , I I , , I , I I , I I I I:~ I I I I i I i , I I ! WATER ADDED . i I I i , I ! , , : , , I I ~. I I , I I I I ! i I , , - I I I I , I , I , I i , I I I , , I , , , , , I I , I , , I , I I , , i , I I I I , I , , I i , I I I I I , , I I , I : i , I , , , I , , i I , , , I I I I , I I I I I ! ! , i , , I i I I , , : I , i I , I i i I I I , I I I I ! I , , I I , , I i I I I ! I i , , I i I I , I , , i I I I I I I I I I I ! I I , i I I I I , I I ! I I , I ! I I I : I , , I I I I ! I I i I I I i I I I i I , , I I , I I I I , I I I , I , I i I I I i I I I I I i I I I I I , I I I I ! I I I I , I I , I I ; I I I I , I I I I I , I I I I I I ! I i I i i I I ! I I I I I I I I I , I I I , I I , I I I i , I I I I i I I ! I I I I I I ! , I I I I I i I I I I I i , I , I I I I . , ! , I I I I , I I I i I I I i I I , , i I I I , , I i i I I I I I ! I : , I I : I I I , I , , I , , I I I I I , , I I i I I , , , : I , - , I I I I I I I I I , I , , , I I , ! I , , I I , , I I I I , , i I , I i i I I I i I , , I I I I , I I I , I I Natural Sat. Moist. 41.8% 11.8% Sp. Gr. 2.58 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Dry Dens. (pcf) 93.3 LL PI Project No. T2183-GS Project: MEDICAL PLAZA FINE-SAND, GREY Client: DON VEASEY ~Z:= -':"'~?>YA u~,,"~;iitJk~ - i ~. ~ j : l ~ ~,r- ~ '~l ! I ~'!:. -J-.,.':"<...!.....,11.l!oil."'..ll:~..< -~ Sample No.: 82 20 Environmental and Geotechnical Engineering Network Corporation Source: CONSOLS 2 6 Cc Swell Press. Swell (ksf) % eo Cr 0.63 0.726 I AASHTO 1: 0.04 USCS SP .. COLLECTED BY C.M. . COLLECTED ON (10/17/00)' I 4!; t ".m ~ i Remarks: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -1 CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT ~' o 2 3 c '00 ~ Ui C 4 OJ u ~ OJ 0- 5 5 7 8 9 .1 .2 .5 1 Applied Pressure - ksf Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden Pe Ce LL PI Sat. Moist. (pef) Gr. (ksf) (ksf) 98.9 % 31.3 % 88.7 2.58 0.58 0.09 2 5 Cr Swell Press. Swell eo (ksf) % 0.816 USCS AASHTO ML MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SANDY SILT, BROWN Project No. T2183-GS Project: MEDICAL PLAZA Client: DON VEASEY Remarks: WATER ADDED AT START OF TEST COLLECTED BY C.M. COLLECTED ON (10117/00) Source: CONSOLS Sample No.: B2@ 30 Environmental and Geotechnical Engineering Network Corporation Plate APt ~ t. ~~<..,~~""~~~ , . I . I .~..~--- '1' i I: ;,,--,,-' _:::~d:_"'_1lII:t!~-"'~ 4 ,d_~ ill I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Particle Size Distribution Report 5 . 0 5 5 : .~ , ,. . n ~ - " 100 90 .";! i ;' .. 80 ---- . i, : ii , 70 -- .,11, " ,I, ] , a:: i 60 . W Z .' u:: I l- so - z , w u a:: w 40 -.-------. 0- 30 - ; . , I' I , i: 20 1'1 ' I : . . 10 'I I .11 '1 , . ill; I 0 I I' 500 100 I % COBBLES I I 0.0 I SIEVE PERCENT SIZE FINER #4 100.0 #8 100,0 #16 99,9 #30 99.4 #50 80.9 #100 24.4 #200 6.9 (no specification provided) Sample No.: BI@ IS Location: . I . I I , 10 % GRAVEL 0.0 SPEC: PERCENT ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~:~i......... - - --1~--~, u "" '. . . I I I I . I I i I. I , . -----~~- ------r. . , '~' !',.; Ii ';:' : I ! ~ ! I , ~ I 1 GRAIN SIZE - mm % SAND 93.1 % SILT 0.1 I PASS? (X=NO) Soil Descriotion FINE-SAND, BROWN PL= AtterberQ Limits LL 085= 0.322 030= 0,163 Cu= 2.27 Coefficients D60 0.230 015= 0,123 Cc= 1.13 Classification AASHTO= uscs= SP Remarks COLLECTED BY C,M, COLLECTED ON (10/17/00) Source of Sample: SIEVES ,I, 'Iii: ~ : i : : I , I I I I ~ Ii! ~ : " ',,11 :1111 II" IIIII I 0.01 0.001 I %CLAY I 6.9 I PI= 050= 0.206 010= 0,102 Date: 10/24/00 Elev./Depth: ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: DON VEASEY Project: MEDICAL PLAZA ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Proiect No: T2183-GS Plate D6d ~l ~. ,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Particle Size Distribution Report .s 0 0 o. ~ 8 ~ 0 .s .5 .5 0 0 2 ~ 0 0 0 . M N - ;; ~ ~ ~ ;; . . ~ 'i1 ;; ;; ~ 100 , I '\ , I' ; I 90 -,- II!" I I" I ; I, . I I 80 , \ 1111: , I m__~____ \ ---~ ijl: I I!i: I 70 -_._-~ -----~. ~, , - I. I I I IY I W 60 -- . --- -- \ I I Z ". ,:'1 u: .--- --\-- -- '1 f- , Z 50 ~ W ,I 'I , ., u , IY , W 40 0- \ , , I.' ". , i 30 " , \ , I ; : i, 'II ' , " I 'i'l I 20 \----- :;I! I' ! , 1,.1 , "I' ::il: I . . ili,': " 10 II 1'1 I ". I I: i: 1111; ; I I . . ,I: ! :'1: 1 i 'I 'I :I!, I , , 0 I i::I' , I I:' II!II I I , 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm r % COBBLES ,- % GRAVEL ,- % SAND I %, SILT % CLAY I T I 93.3 I 6.4 I SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.' PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) SAND, GREY #4 99.7 #8 97.0 #16 83.2 #30 54.9 AtterberCl Limits #50 25.0 #100 11.2 PL= LL- PI= #200 6.4 Coefficients DSS= 1.25 Deo- 0.669 DSO= 0.541 D30= 0.345 D1S= 0.199 DlO= 0.133 Cu= 5.04 Cc= 1.34 Classification USCS= SP AASHTO= Remarks COLLECTED BY Cvl. COLLECTED ON (10117/00) . (no specification provided) Sample No.: Bl@20 Source of Sample: SIEVES Date: 10/24/00 Location: Elev.lDepth: ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: DON VEASEY Project: MEDICAL PLAZA ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Prolect No: T2183-GS Plate .,.. ~i j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Particle Size Distribution Report c 0 c c c 0 0 0 0 0 0 , .. . .S . 0 0 ~ s ~ . ~ . . ;; . . N - . . . 100 . ':1' --- 90 . 1,,1 - I, Iii , "~ "" , I I" " , , ; I I :. . I I::: ' 80 I " " ' , , ' . 1;1' i :1, '. \ 1,,11 , 11:1 I I 70 " '\ I 1:1; i , I " - I II!I i I " .' 'III cc ." , , W 60 Z i , : j!il! Ll. , I f- 50 "11 ' , z . , ,1'1 i W I ,. , , '" u ,. , :1 I cc " W 40 '.: J ,., D- ", "1' . , ~ I i I , I I " , :::1 I. I". 30 i \ " i' , " " , ., I'. , II' '. , i " ',1: I 20 - " :11'1 I ":i i i . I' '~ ' : , 10 -' '-...;: !: I ! , :11 :I,! I 0 , I" , 1.,11 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm I % COBBLES I % GRAVEL I % SAND % SILT I 0/0 CLAY I I I I 84.1 3.5 I SIEVE PERCENT SPEC: PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) GRAVELYSAND,GREY #4 87,6 #8 73.3 #16 51.4 #30 30.7 Atterberq Limits #50 14.5 #100 6.3 PL= LL- PI= #200 3.5 Coefficients 085= 4,10 060- 1.53 050= 1.13 030= 0,585 015= 0.308 010= 0.222 Cu= 6.87 Cc= 1.01 Classification uses= SP AASHTO= Remarks COLLECTED BY C.M. COLLECTED ON (10/17/00) ,. (no specification provided) Sample No.: BI@25 Source of Sample: SIEVES Date: 10/24/00 Location: Elev./Depth: ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: DON VEASEY Project: MEDICAL PLAZA ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Proiect No: T2183-GS Plate ..~'. A, 1.4 'f -$ :I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Particle Size Distribution Report < c:! c: C c:. ~ c: ~ ~ ~ s ~ il :3 0 g ;; .. ~ ;; ;; -- o 0 0 ~ \Z ;{ "- .. ..\::; . -\ 1:1 ' , \ 1:1:: i <,~ i' , \: i , !' . , ~: ,! j' " ,.' 100 , 90 I;' ':! . 'I' I: 80 I ,.1 70 . .;:, . ill) I!I' cr: ".' W 60 'I Z LJ.. f- 50 - , Z W "11 U 'I cr: " W 40 - " (l. I i i:' I , 30 " I I. I 20 ! I 1'1 I'i I 10 : ! ~ , 1'1 . , I i I 0 ! Iii: I I , 500 100 I % COBBLES I 0.0 SIEVE PERCENT SIZE FINER #4 100,0 #8 100.0 #16 99,8 #30 99.3 #50 96.2 #100 76.1 #200 55.0 " I'll, f i'l' I I :!:I' ' rll:: , I, I!: , I' , IIil: i : ~ : . t .,' ,'I. i'r ;11' , ' . ! ! ~ j , ;' iii, ' I" ' '" "Ii, , ': . 10 ., I I 1 iii' , " I , , : 1" ill: I I liii i , , I I , 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm % SAND I % SILT I % CLAY I 45.0 I 55.0 I % GRAVEL 0.0 SPEC: PASS? PERCENT (X=NO) Soil Description SANDY SILT, BROWN AtterberQ Limits LL- PL= PI= 085= 0.202 030= Cu= Coefficients 060- 0.0883 D15= Cc= Classification AASHTO= D50= 010= USCS= ML Remarks COLLECTED BY C.M. COLLECTED ON (10/17/00) (no specification provided) Sample No.: B I@ 30 Location: Source of Sample: SIEVES Date: 10/24/00 Elev.lDepth: ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: DON VEASEY Project: MEDICAL PLAZA .:i *' 4~:' I j ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Project No: T2183-GS Plate I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Particle Size Distribution Report < .5 .5 < s < < ~ s ~ : . N - il c c c o . c _ _ N . . . c " ceo .. ~ .;; 100 90 ... - " 80 70 cr: 60 W Z U- f- 50 Z W U cr: W 40 Cl. I --- --~---~------_. ~ 'I i: ' " II '-- ., ! , , , ! ! ! , I I , I , : I , ! I I : , ! , ! I. ! , ! . I , : i i ! , I ! , I ! , ! I i I , I j, ii: 30 ! i .il . , 20 1"1' iljl !. , I '---'---- i" t , ! ! " j',11 I . . ! ! 111-1 I 0.01 0.001 %SILT I % CLAY I 24.6 I 10 ; , ~ . , ! " I I . I ~ illl" III. I Iii iii" I: I ';1, IIII! I !II,: ' 100 " ., !. o 500 :'1 10 1 GRAIN SIZE - mm % SAND 74.6 0.1 I % COBBLES I % GRAVEL I I I I I SIEVE SIZE #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 SPEC.' PASS7 PERCENT (X=NO) Soil Description SILTY SAND, BROWN PERCENT FINER 99.2 93.5 83.0 71.3 52.3 34.3 24.6 AtterberQ Limits ll= Pl= PI= 085= 1.34 D30= 0.117 Cu= Coefficients 060= 0.390 D1S= Cc= Classification AASHTO= 050= 0.277 010= uses= SM Remarks COLLECTED BY C.M. COLLECTED ON (10/20/00) * (no specification provided) Sample No.: BI@35 Location: Source of Sample: SIEVES Date: 10/24/00 Elev.lDepth: ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: DON VEASEY Project: MEDICAL PLAZA .;if. ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION 4p.,1 ,13 ,J Proiect No: TZI83-GS Plate I I I I I I '1 I I I I I I I I I I I I Particle Size Distribution Report c .5 M , C 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 , 5 , ;; M . ~ 0 ; M " ;; ;; . " M - c; . . . . . - 100 -~~-- .... ---'~ 90 - - _n_~____ , Ii.! : :!:: : 80 1111 illl \ :11; : iil! , '" ,'.' :'Ii , , J. 70 , .' , I I I ~ , 'I" , Ii' i, I ,I: , , I, " , I II ' 0:: .' i," I 60 'III W ,. I:!: ; z " u.. '. i "I 'il f- " I ~ ' I Z 50 ,Ii'i W :i; , , I'll , U '!I; , I :ill' 0:: 1III I :111 . w 40 0- .j. :;1' 'III ;;1 " : i ; I I ' ., I' , , ~ ,., I, ':!I. I!i I " , 30 \ I !,l I', , , \ I' , , :!!I: , 20 ---~~---- ------ ---,._~.~ , :1 " , :!:I: illll t , ~ I 1 . ! 10 i, --.----- ,;1' , ~I , [,.' , ". ii, , 1:11 , li'.1 J' 0 'I', i : , ,I' , 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm r- % COBBLES I' % GRAVEL I %. SAND I % SILT % CLAY I r- 0.0 I' 0.0 T 95.9 I 4.1 I SIEVE PERCENT SPEC: PASS7 Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) SAND, BROWN #4 100.0 #8 99.6 #16 96.9 #30 77.2 AtterberQ Limits #50 32.4 #100 10.1 PL= LL- PI= #200 4.1 Coefficients D85= 0.711 060= 0.456 050= 0.395 030= 0.287 015= 0.192 010= 0.149 Cu= 3.06 Cc= 1.21 Classification USCS= SP AASHTO= Remarks COLLECTED BY C.M. COLLECTED ON (10/17/00) . (no speciticD.tion provided) Sample No.: BI@45 Source of Sample: SIEVES Date: 10/24/00 Location: Elev./Depth: ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: DON VEASEY Project: MEDICAL PLAZA ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORA liON Proiect No: T2183-GS Plate . -'~1. 'f" 50,~: '.. j I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Particle Size Distribution Report .~ .s .~ e .!E .5 .s ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 il ~ ~ 8 : " " : ~ . " ~ - . 100 III1 ; :' --........- i" , 'I -" ': "j "Ii 90 III! : O"j' , " Illi' Ilil II 1'1 " I,I, ' illl' 80 II" , , ' 'I,; , " 'I lilT Illi 1:11 I 1'1' i .' I I , I, '1 I ' , , II " , Iii: ,. 70 , , 111'1 , , :I;i' III' , , ,. ii: I .,11 ' I,.. ill: ' , " , a:: I I' I ! i ! ~ : ! ~ : : 60 , ,II, j ,II. , W I;: ., " Z I I ! ~ . I:, 'I' :11 u: !,I ' 'I '11'1 " , i,1 l- so il! :11 : , . , , Z I' I' I. , 1:1 W ." . III: ' I :i I111 I,; () II, Iii a:: 1111, I! , , , Ii;: ':1 II : , w 40 a. , I IIII! ';1 I III I II' 1,'11' I 11II I " , :!I: i , J :11 30 11'1 , ,I' I' , " I " ", 1 II \ i I ~ 11I1I I III II III: .' . 1111' I II, I I: ! ,I ;:1 ' I , 20 ill:l: ! '111 , , Iii 'I" , I II ' I '" I : III 'I I, III , , 'Iii, I', I I , '!I' : " 10 1III I ;11' I , 'I II'-! ' , II!! ) I ! I I I II I III , III I I Iii: : , illl I I I' I, I '0 , ,. II' 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY 90.3 9.1 SIEVE SIZE #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 SPEC: PERCENT SAND, BROWN PERCENT FINER 99.4 97.6 90.0 69.8 37.7 17.1 9.1 PASS? (X=NO) Soil Description AtterberQ Limits PL= LL= PI= D85= 0.943 030= 0.245 Cu= 5.77 Coefficients D60- 0.483 015= 0.132 Cc= 1.49 Classification AASHTO= D50= 0.393 010= 0.0837 uscs= SP Remarks COLLECTED BY C.M. COLLECTED ON (10/17/00) ...r;;" ''I' ... (no specification provided) Sample No.: Bl@48.5 Location: Source of Sample: SIEVES Date: 10/25/00 Elev./Depth: ~ ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: DON VEASEY Project: MEDICAL PLAZA ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Pro ect No: T2183-GS Plate I I I I I I I I I I I I I I: I' I i I: I I 10/27/2000, NO. 039 ~02 E.S.BRBCOCK & SONS, INC. ~ 2962237 12:28 Environmental LallOmlaty Col1lllcaVon 11156 6'00 Quall Vallsv Court R..._. CA 92507.0704 P.O. _ 432 _. CA!I2S/l200432 PH (9091 &53.3351 FAll (909) sss.l662 e-mail: _s@aol.ccrn lWNI.b'''QocI(Isb9.com ~ i I i i E.S. BABCOCK 6. SONS,INC. E8'1'lriIlUaI!Dl_ Laboratory Results 2860-791 client: Engen. Inc. Tom Dewey 41607 Enterprise Circle N. Temecula,CA 92590-5614 Client I.D.: B1@Q-S Site: PRJ#T2183-GS- Description: 1'i~Jl1?~;;&~"~;lai,';~,i"i' 'll.[..:;"..",.,~~t"'>;;:&"'ft"'~^.f'"'' . ,cUZ~":P:,..,;:.:::.~t:N~~"';';'U~:::;U~~-:::'-:-;: Date Reported: 10/27/00 Collected By' Date: Time: Submitted By: GSO Date: 10/20/00 Time: 0935 Matrix: soil-ag Ccmat;!t1aOAt Rooult lIetllo4 RL Date / Analyst 00102S/lCCS Water Extractable sulfate 220 Ion Chro1I\, 10 ppm NO c None detected at RL (Reporting Limit). RL units eame as result. Results reported in ppm expressed an an air-dried soil basie. cc; ~ t>" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -. . Don Veasey Construction Project No: 2183-GS Appendix Page 7 DRAWINGS ?~ EnGEN Corporation