HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel 1 Soils Report (Geotechnical)
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~_ ~~~ ~_ ~,~ AIl!h
1 1 I I I
o:l~~
to.
E GEN C . . Soil Engineering. Testing. Constructlon Materials Testing. laboratory Testing.
n o~po~atlon . EnvlronmentalSrreAssessments. HazordousMa1enalsSrteCleonup.
Environmental and Geotechnical Engineering Network Corporation . Speciallnspecflons . Geology. Englneenng Geology .
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING
Temecula Heights Corporate Center
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 24085-2
Winchester Road and Zevo Drive
City ofTemecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T1187C
September 3, 1997
Prepared for:
Temecula Heights Corporate Center, LLC
990 Highland Drive, Suite 202
Solana Beach, California 92075
Corporate Office
41607 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 1
Temecula,CA 92590
(909) 676-3095 f Fax: 676~3294
Web-page address: www.engencorp.com
E-mail address:engencorp@pe.net
\
Orange County Office
2615 Orange Avenue
Santa Ana_ CA 92707
(714)546-4051 {Fax: 546-4052
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
Temecula Heights Corporate Center, LLC
Project No.: T1187C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE
PAGE
1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................1
1.1 Site Location/Description ...................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Description.... ............ ....... .............. ............ .... ...... ....................... ..............2
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................... 2
.2.1 Time of Grading ....................................................................................................2
. 2.2 Equipment..................................................................... ........................................2
. 2.3 Grading Operations.............................................................................................. 2
. 3.0 TESTING ..............................................................................................................3
3.1 Field Testing...................................... ............................................ ... ....................3
3.2 Laboratory Testing.... ............................................ .... .................. .......................... 3
3.3 Moisture-Density Relationship Test ...................................................................... 3
3.4 Expansion Index Test ...........................................................................................3
,4.0 EARTH MA TERIALS............................................................................................ 4
'5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................4
5.1 Foundation Design Recommendations.................................................................4
. 5.2 General................................................................................................................ 4
5.3 Foundation Size.................................................................................................... 4
'5.4 Depth of Embedment............................................................................................5
'5.5 Bearing Capacity .................................................................................................. 5
, 5.6 Settlement............................................................................................................. 5
: 5.7 Lateral Capacity ....................................................................................................5
'5.8 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations .......................................................................6
. 5.9 Interior Slabs......................................................................................................... 6
5.10 Exterior Slabs ....................................................................................................... 7
.5.11 General ................................................................................................................ 7
, 6.0 CLOSURE ............................................................................................................8
APPENDIX
FIELD TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
7,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
....!!Ii <_
~~ ~~~~ - ~"'~~ ,4~_.
, , I , I
-I lit.
=-~.~~
~ JlU tr.\
E GEN C . . Soil Engineering. Testing. Construction Materials Testing. Laooratory Testing .
n orporatlon . Environmental Site Assessments. Hazardous Materials Site Cleanup.
Environmental and Geotechnical Engineering Network Corporation . Speclallnspec1ions . Geology' Engineenng Geology .
September 3, 1997
RECEIVED
SEP 31997
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
: Mr. Dave Dufour
. Temecula Heights Corporate Center, LLC
. 990 Highland Drive, Suite 202
. Solana Beach, California 92075
(619) 792-8800 I FAX (619) 792-1332
~ Regarding: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING
Temecula Heights Corporate Center
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 24085-2
Winchester Road and Zevo Drive
City ofTemecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T1187C
; References: 1. RBF Associates, Precise Grading Plans, Temecula Heights
Corporate Center, PA 97-0029, plans dated August 6, 1997.
2. EnGEN Corporation, Updated Geotechnical Study, Proposed
Structure, Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 24085-2, Winchester Road, City of
Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Project Number T1187-
UGS, report dated June 16,1997.
3. EnGEN Corporation, Grading Plan Check Review, Proposed
Structure, Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 24085-2, Winchester Road,
Temecula, California, Project Number T1187-C, letter dated August 8,
1997.
: Dear Mr. Dufour:
According to your request and signed authorization, EnGEN Corporation has performed
: field observations, sampling, and in-place density testing at the above referenced site.
: Submitted, herein, are the test results and the supporting field and laboratory data.
1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
. 1.1 Site LocationlDescription
The subject property is located on Winchester Road and Zevo Drive, in the City of
Temecula, County of Riverside, California. Topography of the site consisted of
relatively flat previously graded terrain. The site was vacant of any man-made
structures.
CorporateOffico
41607 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 1
Temecula, CA 92590
(909)676-3095/ Fax: 676-3294
Orange County Office
2615 Orange Avenue
Santa Ana_ CA 92707
(714) 546-4051/ Fax: 546-4052
Web~page address: www.engencorp.com
E-mail address: eogencorp@pe.oet
?J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Temecula Heights Corporate Center, LLC
Project No.: T1187C
September 1997
Page 2
1.2 Project Description
The grading of the referenced site consisted of preparing a graded pad for a
200,000 square feet office-warehouse structure. The referenced site was graded
to the elevations as shown on the Reference No. 1 plans.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
2.1 Time of Grading
Grading operations were conducted from August 20, 1997 through August 27,
1997.
2.2 Equipment
The grading operations for the building pad were performed by Blackmore
Company through the use of one (1) CAT 824B dozer, one (1) Caterpillar 12G
blade, two (2) CAT 623B scrapers and one (1) 4000 gallon water truck.
. 2.3 Grading Operations
Grading within the subject site consisted of a cuVfill, overexcavation and
replacement operation. Fill material was generated from the cut portion of the site
and then placed in fill areas to pad grade. In accordance with the
recommendations of the Grading Plan Check Review, it was decided to recompact
the soils in the old washout area within the limits of the footing support zone. As a
result, existing engineered fill materials in the northeast corner of the proposed
structure were overexcavated and then replaced and recompacted to a minimum
relative compaction of 95 percent. Overexcavated bottoms were observed to be in
competent Pauba Formation bedrock. Depths of overexcavation varied up to
approximately 11 feet Fill was placed in lens thicknesses of 6 to 8 inches,
thoroughly moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content then compacted
to a minimum of 90 (95 percent for the overexcavated northeast corner) percent
relative compaction. Moisture conditioning of the on-site soils was performed
during the compaction process through the use of a water truck. The pad area
was generally graded to the elevations noted on the Grading Plan. However, the
actual pad location, dimensions, elevations, slope locations and inclinations, etc.
were surveyed and staked by others and should be verified by the Project Civil
Engineer.
1\
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Temecula Heights Corporate Center, LLC
Project No.: T1187C
September 1997
Page 3
3.0 TESTING
3.1 Field Testing
Field observations and in-place density testing were performed on a part-time, as-
needed basis during the grading operations. Where tests indicate failing results,
the soils were reprocessed until at least 95 percent relative compaction was
achieved in the footing overexcavation area, or at least 90 percent relative
compaction in other fill areas. Test locations were randomly selected in the areas
receiving fill and were recorded using approximate locations and elevations as
could be determined in the field. Field in-place density and moisture content
testing were performed during the placement of the fill materials during the rough
grading operations in general accordance with the following ASTM test
procedures:
Test Method for Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate in Place by Nuclear
Test Methods (Shallow Depths) - ASTM 02922-81(1990).
Test Method for Water Content of Soil and Rock in Place by Nuclear
Methods (Shallow Depth) - ASTM D3017-88.
The test results indicate that soils were compacted to a minimum of 95 percent
relative compaction in the footing overexcavation area, and a minimum of 90
percent relative compaction in all other fill areas.. Test results are presented in the
Appendix. The locations of the in-place density tests are presented on the Rough
Grading Report Site Plan in the Appendix.
3.2 Laboratory Testing
The following laboratory tests were performed as part of our services during the
rough grading of the subject site. The test results are presented in the Appendix.
3.3 Moisture-Density Relationship Test
Maximum dry density - optimum moisture content relationship tests were
conducted on samples of the materials used as fill. The tests were performed in
general accordance with ASTM 01557-91 procedures. The test results are
presented in the Appendix (Summary of Optimum Moisture Content I Maximum
Dry Density Relationship Test Results).
3.4 Expansion Index Test
A soil sample was obtained for expansion potential testing from the building pad 1>
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Temecula Heights Corporate Center, LLC
Project No.: T1187C
September 1997
Page 4
area upon completion of rough grading of the subject site. The expansion test
procedure utilized was the Uniform Building Code Test Designation 18-2. The
material tested consisted of silty fine to coarse sand with clay, which had an
Expansion Index of 1, which is classified as very low expansion potential. The
results are presented in the Summary of Expansion Index Results in the Appendix.
.4.0 EARTH MATERIALS
The natural earth materials encountered on-site generally consisted of sands and
silty sands.
'5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
'5.1 Foundation Design Recommendations
'5.2 General
Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional column footings
and continuous wall footings founded upon competent bedrock or upon properly
compacted fill. The recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for
foundation design and construction are based on geotechnical characteristics and a
very low expansion potential for the supporting soils and should not 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.
'5.3 Foundation Size
Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches. Continuous
footings should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of two (2) NO.4 steel
reinforcing bars located near the top and two (2) No. 4 steel reinforcing bars
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. Column
footings should have a minimum width of 18-inches by 18-inches and be suitably
reinforced, based on structural requirements. A grade bearn, founded at the same
depths and reinforced the same as the adjacent footings, should be provided
across doorway entrances.
EnGEN Corporation
(p
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Temecula Heights Corporate Center, LLC
Project No.: T1187C
September 1 997
Page 5
5.4 Depth of Embedment
Exterior and interior footings founded in competent bedrock or properly compacted
fill should extend to a minimum depth of 18-inches below lowest adjacent finish
grade for the structure.
5.5 Bearing 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 2000 psf for
continuous footings and 2000 psf for column footings in properly compacted fill
material. 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 andlor dynamic
loading such as wind or seismic forces.
: 5.6 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 0.5-inches or a
differential settlement of 0.25-inches in properly compacted fill.
~ 5.7 Lateral Capacity
Additional foundation design parameters based on compacted fill for resistance to
static lateral forces, are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Compacted Fill - 150 pet
Undisturbed Bedrock - 350 pet
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
,Compacted Fill - 0.25
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 undisturbed,
properly, compacted fill material. The above values are allowable design values
EnGEN Corporation
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Temecula Heights Corporate Center, LLC
Project No.: Tl187C
September 1997
Page 6
and have safety factors of at least 2.0 incorporated into them 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
andlor 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.
: 5.8 Slab-en-Grade Recommendations
The recommendations for concrete slabs, both interior and exterior, excluding PCC
pavement, are based upon the anticipated building usage and upon a very low
expansion potential for the supporting material as determined by Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code. 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 waterlcement ratio) of the concrete andlor
irnproper 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.
'5.9 Interior Slabs
Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4.0-inches in thickness
and be underlain by a minimum of 1.0 inch of clean coarse sand or other approved
granular material placed on properly prepared subgrade. Minimum slab
reinforcement should consist of #3 reinforcing bars placed 24-inches on the center
in both directions, or a suitable equivalent The reinforcing should be placed at
mid-depth in the slab. The concrete section andlor 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
EnGEN Corporation
<'C>
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Temecula Heights Corporate Center, LLC
Project No.: Tl187C
September 1997
Page 7
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 by a 1.0-inch minimum layer of clean, moist (not
.
saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures.
'5.10 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 be underlain by a minimum of 12.0-inches of soil that has been
properly prepared. 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 6.0-inches and proof cornpacted to a minimum of 90 percent
relative compaction based on ASTM D1557-91 procedures immediately before
placing aggregate base material or placing the concrete.
: 5.11 General
Based on the observations and tests performed during grading, the subject site in
the areas noted has been completed in accordance with the project plans and
References Geological Study, and the Grading Code of the Temecula. The
graded site in the areas noted as graded is determined to be adequate for the
support of a typical [commercial] and or [residential structure] and appurtenant
facilities. Any subsequent grading for development of the subject property should
be performed under engineering observation and testing performed by EnGEN
Corporation. Subsequent grading includes, but is not limited to, any additional 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 prior to installation of concrete forms andlor
reinforcing steel so as to verify andlor modify, if necessary, 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 development of subject site should be performed by EnGEN
Corporation. If any of the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical
EnGEN Corporation
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Temecula Heights Corporate Center, LLC
Project No.: Tl187C
September 1997
Page 8
conditions are not performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the safety and
performance of the development is limited to the actual portions of the project
observed andlor tested by EnGEN Corporation.
6.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described
above. It mayor may not contain sufficient information for other parties or
purposes. The findings and recommendations expressed in this report are based
on field and laboratory testing performed during the rough grading operation and
on generally accepted engineering practices and principles. No further warranties
are implied or expressed beyond the direct representations of this report.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services. If you should have any
questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your
convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
EnGEN Corporation
Thomas Dewey, CEG 1
Principal Engineering Geologist
Expires 11-30-97
TD/OB:ch
Distribution: (4) Addressee
Tom/EnGEN/D/ReportsfT1187C Temecul. Heights
EnGEN Corporation
'>P
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX
TEST RESULTS
Temecula Heights Corporate Center, LLC
Project No.: T1187C
Appendix Page 1
EnGEN Corporation
'V\
---
I I Temecula Heights Corporate Center, LLC
Project No.: T1187C
I Appendix Page 2
FIELD TEST RESULTS
I (Summary of Field In-Place Density Test Results)
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
I Test Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
No. Date Test Elev. Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
(1997) Locations (FT) (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%)
I NE Pad 1073 1 127.4 9.6
1 8-20 117.8 92.5 90
I 2 8-20 E Pad (mid. 1074 1 127.4 11.0 121.2 95.1 90
Section)
3 8-20 sw Comer Pad 1074 1 127.4 6.7 119.8 94.0 90
I 4 8-20 NE Pad 1075 1 127.4 11.4 122.1 95.8 90
5 8-22 ~Pad 1074 1 127.4 9.2 122.7 96.3 90
6 8-22 ~OIX 1069 1 127.4 8.9 123.1 96.6 95
I 7 8-23 N Comer Pad 1068 1 127.4 9.6 118.7 93.2 95
8 8-23 Retest of 7 1068 1 127.4 9.9 121.3 95.2 95
9 8-23 N Comer Pad 1069 1 127.4 9.8 116.3 91.3 95
I 10 8-23 Retest of 9 1069 1 127.4 9.8 121.1 95.1 95
11 8-23 N Comer Pad 1071 1 127.4 9.7 121.3 95.3 95
I 12 8-23 N Comer Pad 1070 1 127.4 10.8 121.3 95.2 95
13 8-25 SE Comer 1073 1 127.4 10.5 120.2 94.3 90
14 8-25 NE Comer 1072 1 127.4 9.9 121.3 95.2 90
I 15 8-28 NE Comer F.G. 1 127.4 8.1 117.5 92.2 90
16 8-28 NW Comer F.G. 1 127.4 9.3 118.6 93.1 90
I 17 8-28 sw Comer F.G. 1 127.4 6.5 121.3 95.2 90
18 8-28 SE Comer F.G. 1 127.4 7.7 122.7 96.3 90
19 8-28 Middle Pad F.G. 1 127.4 9.1 120.2 94.3 90
I
I (FG) indicates Finish Grade
I
I
I
I
I \1---
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Temecula Heights Corporate Center, lLC
Project No.: Tl187C
Appendix Page 3
SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT I
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS
ASTM 01557-91
Optimum
Soil Maximum Moisture
Soil Description Dry Density Content
Type (USCS Symbol) (PCF) (%)
1 SP 127.4 9.5
EnGEN Corporation
\?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Temecula Heights Corporate Center, LLC
Project No.: T1187C
Appendix Page 4
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
Moisture Moisture
Condition Condition
Soil Depth Dry Density Before Test (%) After Test (%) Expansion
Type (FT) (PCF) Index
Silty Sand 0.5 120.4 7.4 12.5 1
EnGEN Corporation
\'\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
DRAWINGS
Temecula Heights Corporate Center, LLC
Project No.: Tl187C
Appendix Page 5
EnGEN Corporation
v6