HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel 3 Geotechnical Investigation
I
e
EN
e
I
Cor.t~oration
. Soil Engineering and Consulting Services. EIlgineeringGeolll\lY. Compaction Tesling
-Inspections- ConstructionMaterialsTestinge laboratoryTesting. Percolation Tes! ing
. Geology. Water Resource Studies . Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
I
I
D
D
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Toyota of Temecula
Assessor's Parcel Number: 921-680-003
Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 23354
41902 Motor Car Parkway
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2755-GFS
D
D
March 10, 2003
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
Prepared for:
~ ~ ~ rF n \Yl ~~
JUL 1 4 2003 ~
Ry I
I
:iW,~,stfall Construction Company
;,~;; Post Office Box 1550
'Wildomar, California 92595
I " " I "'
, '
, '
.- \ \,"-
\ ~ " ' I
, "
." - -
,
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e
.all Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title
Paqe
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
...1
2.0
INTRODUCTION ...............................
2.1 Authorization.
2.2 Scope of. Study
2.3 Previous Site Studies ......................
..................2
..........2
....................2
............... ...............................2
30
PROPOSED DE:VELOPMENTlPROJECT DESCRiPTION........................ 2
4.0
SITE DESCRIPTION ............. ............
4.1 Location. ............ .................
4.2 Legal Description. ............. ..............
4.3 Topography..................
4.4 Vegetation ............. .........................
4.5 Structures.. .......................
............. .................... ..3
..................3
........ ......................3
..............................................3
........................... 3
................ ....................3
5.0
FIELD STUDY .
........... 3
6.0 LABORATORY ifESTING................................................... .............. .4
6.1 General.................. ........... ....................... ............ .................. .......4
6.2 Classification.......... ................................................ .......................... .........4
6.3 In-Situ Moisture Content and Density Test .............. ................. ...........4
6.4 Consolidation Test........................... ............................. ...... ......... .. ................4
6.5 Maximul\l Dry Density I Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test.. ........5
6.6 Direct Shear Test.. ........................................... .................... ..............5
6.7 Expansion Test........ .................................. ................................... .....5
6.8 Soluble Sulfate Test ............... ........................... ............. ......5
7.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGy............................................ ......................... ....6
7.1 Geologic Setting ............................................... ............ ........................,.....6
7.2 Faulting . ............................................................ .......................................6
73 Seismicity........................ ...... ... ... .............................. ...................................... 6
7.3.1 seismic Design Parameters ........... .................. ...............................8
7.4 Earth Materials................................ .................. .......... .............................. 8
7.4.1 Undocumented Fill (Afu) ............................... ......................... ....... 8
7.4.2 Alluvium (Oal) .... ............................... .............. ....8
7.4.3 Pauba Formation (Ops) ...... ....................... ............... ............. 8
7.5 Groundwater ............................................................. ........... .............9
7.6 Liquefaction Evaluation... ............................ .............................. 9
7.7 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity............................ ................................. 10
8.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......
8.1 General........... ................... .............
8.2 Earthwork Recommendations ...
8.2.1 General..............................
8.2.2 Clearing ...... ...................
82.3 Excavation Characteristics ...........
............ ............ . 10
.............. ................ .................... 10
........... ........... ...................11
..................... ..........11
........................11
...................11
EnGEN Corporation
z.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e
_all Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
Section Number and Title
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Paqe
..11
.12
...... 12
.....13
. ............ 13
.13
....13
........14
. ...........14
..15
. .... 15
.... 15
.15
........... ...... 16
......16
. ......16
. ..... 16
.....17
..17
.18
...18
.....19
.... .20
.......... 20
........ ...20
.................21
...................... .......................21
...........21
............22
22
9.0
8.3
8.4
85
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
8.10
8.2.4 Suitability of On-Site Materials as Fill
8.25 Removal and Recompaction........
8.2.6 Fill Placement Requirements
8.2.7 Compaction Equipment ...............
8.2.8 Shrinkage and Subsidence............
8.2.9 subdrains... ....................................
8.2.10 Observation and Testing
8.2.11 Fill Slope Construction .......... .
8.2.12 Slope Stability.. ............ ............ . ......
8.2.13 Preliminary Soil Expansion Potential.
Foundation Design Recommendations..
83.1 .General.............
8.3.2 Foundation Size.............
8.3.3 Depth of Embedment...
8.3.4 .Bearing Capacity.............
8.3.5 Settlement...............
8.3.6 Lateral Capacity................
Slab-on-Grade Recommendations ....
8.4.1 Interior Slabs..
8.4.2 Exterior Slabs ................ ........
Pavement Design Recommendations.
Utility Trench Recommendations........
Retaining Wall Recommendations..............
8.7.1 Earth Pressures..................................
8.7.2 ~oundation Design................ .................
8.7.3 Subdrain........ ... ........... ..... .... .... ..... ..........
87.4 Backfill ..........................................
Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations..............
Planter Recommendations ............... ................................
Temporary Construction Excavation Recommendations.
PLAN REViEW................
23
.23
... 24
....24
... 25
10..0 PRE-BID CONFERENCE............
11.0
12.0
PRE-GRADING. CONFERENCE
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING.
130 CLOSURE
APPENDIX:
TECHNIOAL REFERENCES
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG SUMMARIES
TABLE A - DISTANCE TO STATE DESIGNATED ACTIVE FAULTS
LABORATORYiTEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
:30
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
D
.
EN Coq~oration
e
-Soil Engineering and Consulting Seroices- EngineeringGeology. Compaction Tes!ing
-Inspections- Conslrudion Materials Tesling e LaboraloryTesling. Percolation Testirl\l
. Geology. Waler Resource Sludies . Phase I & II Environmenlal Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
March 10, 2003
Westfall Construction ,Company
F?ost Office Box 1550
Wildomar, California 92595
(909) 677-7575/ FAX (909) 677-1766
Attention:
Mr. Pat Fay
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Toyota of Temecula
Assessor's Parcel Number: 921-680-003
Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 23354
41902 Motor Car Parkway
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2755-GFS
References: 1.
Steven Urain Architect & Associates, Site Plan, Toyota of Temecula, plan
dated April 22, 2002.
lilear Mr. Fay:
In accordance with your request and signed authorization, we have performed a Geotechnical
Ffeasibjljty 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,
pavements, etc., for th~ 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 ~tudy of the subsurface conditions of the subject site has been performed for
the proposed development. Exploratory excavations have been performed and selected
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, providedtl)~~~;~ recommendations presented in this report are followed in the
design and construdiRP6fff~e project.
'/ , ,-
, ,
" ,
" ,
, ,
, ,
, '
, '
, '
- - \ - ~ -
\ ~ ' ,
" ,
" '
, .
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
e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Numbe".12i55-GI'S
March 2003
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
Authorization: This report presents the results of the geotechnical feasibility study
performed on the subject site for the proposed development. Authorization to perform this
study was in the form of a signed proposal.
Scope 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: No previous studies are known to exist for the subject site. The
site was previously sheet graded, however, no documentation of the grading could be
located aUhe Ci,ty of Temecula or at the County of Riverside Building and Safety offices.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTlPROJECT DESCRIPTION
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 our understanding that cuts of approximately, 6 to 8-
feet will be made in the northern and eastern portions of the site. Excess soil will be
exported off-site. It is our understanding that the proposed improvements will consist of four
(4) one- or two-story service buildings and associated service bays. It is our understanding
that these buildings will be wood-framed, masonry or tilt-up structures, with slab-on-grade
foundations with. associated landscape and hardscape improvements. The foundation loads
are not anticipated to exceed 2,000 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
EnGEN Corporation
-5"
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
4.5
5.0
e
e .
Westfall Construclion Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 3
proposed for final development of the site so a review can be performed, supplemental
evaluation made" and revised recommendations submitted, if required.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Location: The site encompasses approximately 3-acres and is located north of the corner
of Motor Car Parkway and Solana Way, in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside,
California.
Leqal Description: Assessor's Parcel Number: 921-680-003, Parcel 3 of Parcel Map
23354.
Topoqraphv: The site was previously sheet graded relatively flat with drainage to the
southwest at approximately 5 percent. A 2:1 fill slope with an approximate height of 8 to 10-
feet exists on the northern side of the site. The adjacent properties are also sheet graded.
No documentation of any of the fill was available.
Veqetation: The fill slope on the northern side of the site has a dense cover of low bushes
The remainder of the site is paved.
Structures: No structures were present on site at the time of the field study. The site is
paved with approximately 3-inches of asphalt and is serving as a vehicle storage parking lot.
Several street lights are located on the lot. The adjacent properties are similarly developed.
FIELD STUDY
Site observations and geologic mapping were conducted on February 4, 2003, by our
Geologist. A study of the property's subsurface condition was performed to evaluate
underlying earth, strata and the presence of groundwater. Five (5) exploratory borings were
excavated on the study site. The borings were performed by Martini Drilling, using a truck-
mounted CME 75 drill rig equipped with hollow-stem augers. The maximum depth explored
was approximately 51.5-feet below ground surface (bgs). Bulk and relatively undisturbed
samples of the, earth materials encountered were obtained at various depths in the
exploratory borif)gs 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 sal\lpler lined with 1.0-inch high, 2.42-inch inside diameter brass rings. The
EnGEN Corporation
(...
'--I
I I
!
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 4
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 60-inches of penetration, or
fraction thereof, I 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
excavations are denoted on the Geotechnical Site Plan. The exploratory boring excavations
were backfilled with excavated soil.
LABORATORY ifESTING
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
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 was verified in the laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soils
Classification System, ASTM D 2488-93, Standard Practice for Determination and
Identification of, Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures). The Standard Method has been
modified to include the moisture classification of slightly moist as a means to differentiate
between soils otflerwise classified as dry or moist. The final classification is shown in the
Exploratory Borif)g 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 D 2216-98 and ASTM D 2937-94
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.
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 withlASTM D 2435-96 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
EnGEN Corporation
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.5
66
6.7
e
_all Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 5
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 loads ranging from 800 psf to 6,400 psf to create a
submerged condition and to measure the collapse potential (hydroconsolidation) of the
sample. The resulting change in sample thickness was recorded.
Maximum Dry Densitv/Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test: Maximum dry
density/optimum. moisture content relationship determination was performed on samples of
near-surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 1557-91 (1998) procedures
using a 4.0-inch ,diameter mold. Samples were prepared at various moisture contents and
compacted in five (5) layers using a 1 O-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.
Direct Shear Test: Direct shear tests were performed on selected samples of near-surface
earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 3080-98 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 ASTM 0 4829-95. 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.
EnG EN Corporation
@.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.8
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.2.1
e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 6
Soluble Sulfate Test: Samples of near-surface earth material were obtained for soluble
sulfate testing for the site. The concentration of soluble sulfates was determined in general
conformance with California Test Method 417 procedures. The test results indicate a low
percentage of water-soluble sulfates (0.0011 % by weight). As a result, sulfate resistant
concrete is not necessary.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
Geoloqic :Settin~: The site is located in the Northern Peninsular Range on the southern
sector of the strl;lctural 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 Pauba Formation,
alluvium, and undocumented fill underlie the subject property and surrounding area. The
earth materials encountered on the subject site are described in more detail in subsequent
sections of this report.
Faultinq: Regionally the site is located in an area of active and potentially active faults.
The nearby Elsinore Fault Zone, Temecula Segment (Wildomar Fault Zone) is considered
active and is included within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ). The
southwesternmost limit of the site is located approximately 750-feet from the
northeastern most limit of the EFZ. Therefore, our review of available published and
unpublished reports and field investigations indicate that there are no known active faults
within the site pr,oposed for development; and therefore, the proposed project is not located
within an EFZ (Hart and Bryant, 1997).
Elsinore Fault Zone: The Elsinore Fault Zone is a prominent and youthful structural
boundary between the Perris Block to the northeast and the Santa Ana mountains to the
southwest. The Elsinore Fault system is a major right lateral strike-slip fault system that has
experienced strong earthquakes in historical times, (1856, 1894, and 1910), and exhibits
Holocene movement.
EnGEN Corporation
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
T.3
e
e .
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 7
Seismicity: The project lies within an active area of faulting and seismicity in the
Southern California region. This predominance of seismic activity has been associated
with the San Jacinto Fault Zone along its southeast section in the vicinity of the Salton
Sea, and within ,the northwest portion near its junction with the San Andreas Fault Zone.
The predominance of the remaining recorded activity has been associated with the San
Andreas Fault Zone. A list of faults designated active by the State of California within 62
miles (100 kilometers) of the site are shown on Table A in the Appendix. Based on
computer software by Thomas F. Blake (EOSEARCH, Blake 2000a, b, c), the maximum
peak ground acceleration experienced at the site since 1800 was approximately 0.15g
from a magnitude 68 earthquake on the San Jacinto Fault Zone in 1918 located
approximately 18 miles to the northeast.
Although no known active faults exist within the project limits, the site will experience
ground motion and effects from earthquakes generated along active faults located
off-site.
To estimate the potential ground shaking, EnGEN Corporation has analyzed the seismic
parameters using the deterministic ground motion analysis. The deterministic ground
motion analysis, requires information regarding fault geometry, the magnitude of the
maximum credible earthquake on each fault, and the regional attenuation equation, which
relates the consi.dered seismic parameters to the magnitude and the source-site distance.
To perform this analysis EnGEN Corporation utilized the computer software EOSEARCH
developed by Thomas F. Slake (Blake, 2000a, b, c).
The attenuation relationships by Boore et. al. (1997) for soil type So (stiff soil -
shear wave velocity 250 m/s) was utilized. For a complete discussion of the
software and deterministic methods the reader is referred to Blake (2000a, b, c).
The intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon the
earthquake magnitude, distance from the source (epicenter). and the site response
characteristics. The Elsinore Fault (Temecula segment) is potentially capable of
producing the most intense ground acceleration at the site, due to its proximity and
maximum credible earthquake magnitude of 6.8 Such an earthquake near the site could
EnGEN Corporation
\0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.3.1
74
74.1
74.2
e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 8
produce seismic shaking with an estimated maximum credible peak horizontal ground
acceleration of 0.55g. The maximum credible earthquake is the maximum earthquake
that appears capable of occurring under the presently known tectonic framework.
In sum, these results are based on many unavoidable geological and statistical
uncertainties, but are consistent with current standard-of-practice. As engineering
seismology evolves, and as more fault-specific geological data are gathered, more
certainty and different methodologies may also evolve.
Seismic Desiqn Parameters: The design fault for the site with respect to seismicity is the
Elsinore Fault Zone (Wildomar Fault).
The following seismic design parameters apply:
Name of Fault: Elsinore Fault (Temecula Segment)
Type of Fault: Type B Fault
Closest Distance to Active Fault: Less than 2 Km
Soil Profile Type: So
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. The
interpreted surficial distribution of earth materials is shown on the site geologic map
presented as Plate 1.
Undocumented Fill (Afu): Existing fills are located across the site. The thickness ranges
from approximately 4 to 13-feet. No documentation of the fill was available from the City of
Temecula or the County of Riverside Building and Safety Offices.
Alluvium (Qal): Alluvial materials were encountered at varying thicknesses of
approximately 3 to 20-feet. The depositional environment is fluvial with numerous channels
and other erosional and depositional structures. It should be understood that there will be
EnGEN Corporation
\\
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
D
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
7A.3
7..5
7..6
e
_all Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 9
variations between the materials encountered at any two points on the site due to this
depositional environment. Alluvial materials consist of poorly graded sand, silty fine-grained
sand, and sandy' silt that was found to be moist and medium dense to very dense in-place.
Pauba Formation Bedrock (Ops): Pauba Formation Sandstone/Siltstone underlies the
alluvium. The Pauba Formation is generally massive with near horizontal bedding. It was
found to consist- of fine- to medium-grained poorly graded sand, silty fine-grained sand,
sandy silt and clayey sand, and was moist and medium dense to very dense in-place.
Groundwater: Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depth explored of 51.5-
feet bgs.
Liquefaction Evaluation: Liquefaction is a phenomenon where a sudden large decrease
of shearing resistance takes place in fine-grained cohesion less and/or low plasticity
cohesive soils due to the cyclic stresses produced by earthquakes causing a sudden, but
temporary, incre.ase of porewater pressure. The increased porewater pressure occurs
below the water table, but can cause propagation of groundwater upward into overlying soil
and possibly to the ground surface and cause sand boils as excess porewater escapes.
Potential hazards due to liquefaction include significant total and/or differential settlements
of the ground sur;face and structures as well as possible collapse of structures due to loss of
support of 'foundations. It has been shown by laboratory testing and from the analysis of
soil conditions at, sites where liquefaction has occurred that the soil types most susceptible
to liquefaction are saturated, fine-grained sand to sandy silt with a mean grain size ranging
from approximately 0.075mm to 0.5mm. These soils derive their shear strength from
intergranular friction and do not drain quickly during earthquakes. Published studies and
field and laboratory test data indicate that coarse-grained sands and silty or clayey sands
beyond the above-mentioned grain size range are considerably less vulnerable to
liquefaction. To a large extent, the relative density of the soil also controls the susceptibility
to liquefaction for a given number of cycles and acceleration levels during a seismic event.
Other characteristics such as confining pressure and the stresses created within the soil
during a seismic event also affect the liquefaction potential of a site. Liquefaction of soil
does not generally occur below depths of 40 to 50-feet bgs due to the confining pressure at
that depth. The. potential for liquefaction of the site is considered to be low due to the
following conditions:
EnGEN Corporation
\'Z-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.7
8.0
8.1
e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 10
. There is a lack of groundwater or evidence of past groundwater within at least 51.5-
feet bgs.
. High relative densities were encountered in the alluvium and in the bedrock, and are
therefore not considered liquefiable.
Secondary 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 earthquake, the topography of the site, the subsurface materials at the site,
and groundwater conditions beneath the site, besides other factors. Since there are no
active faults on the site, the possibility of hazards associated with ground surface rupture is
considered low. Due to the overall favorable geologic and topographic conditions of the
area, the potential for earthquake-induced landslides or rockfalls is considered low.
Earthquake-induced surface flooding due to seiches is considered low since there are no
nearby large bodies of water.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General: Grading and building plans were not available a 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. 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 DevelopmenUProject Description
section of this, report. Based on a review of the field and laboratory data and the
engineering anCjlysis, the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical/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.
EnGEN Corporation
l~
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
82.3
8.24
e
_all Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 11
Recommendations for general site grading, foundations, slab support, pavement design,
slope maintenance, etc., are presented in the subsequent paragraphs. Specific earthwork
and foundation recommendations for each parcel should be made when specific grading
and foundation plans become available.
Earthworl< Recommendations:
General: The grading recommendations presented in this report are intended for; 1) the
use of a convel)tional 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.
Clearinq: All debris, grasses, weeds, brush, trees, stockpiles, man-made materials, and
other deleterious materials should be removed from the proposed building, exterior
hardscape and. pavement areas and areas to receive structural fill before grading is
performed. Nodiscing or mixing of organic material into the soils should be performed.
Man-made objects encountered should be overexcavated and exported from the site.
Excavation Characteristics: Excavation and trenching within the subject property is
anticipated to be relatively easy in the alluvial and fill areas. Excavation in the bedrock
areas of the site ,will be somewhat more difficult due to the increased density. However, the
bedrock has been found to be rippable by conventional grading and excavating equipment
in the vicinity of the site.
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 6.0-
inches in maximum dimension.
EnGEN Corporation
1"\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
82.5
8.2.6
:e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 12
Removal and Recompaction
1. All undocumented fills and man-made materials encountered in proposed building areas
should be removed and replaced as engineered fill. Undocumented fills may be reused
in the engineered fill, existing undocumented fill thicknesses are approximately 4 to 13-
feet. Removal should extend to at least 5-feet outside building footprint limits or to a
distance equal to the depth of removal, whichever is greater.
2. All removal bottoms should be inspected by the Project Engineering Geologist or the
Project Geotechnical Engineer, or their representatives. Prior to placing fill, the exposed
surface should be scarified 12-inches, brought to within 2.0 percent of optimum moisture
content, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction before
placement offill according to ASTM D 1557-91 (1998) procedures.
3. Oversize materials greater than 6 to 8-inches in diameter should not be used in the fill.
4. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for compacted materials should be
determined according to ASTM D 1557-91 (1998) procedures.
5. Structures may be founded in compacted fill or bedrock, but not a combination of both.
It is assumed that a native cut/fill transition will be located on-site. Structures that
straddle the cut/fill transitions must be overexcavated in the cut and shallow fill portions
to a depth equal to half the fill thickness. The overexcavation must extend outside the
perimeter of the structure to a distance equal to the overexcavation depth. The actual
amount of overexcavation should be determined once final grading plans become
available.
6. Undocumented fill in parking and hardscape areas should be removed and
recompacted to a minimum of 2-feet below subgrade elevation. Any local
inconsistencies encountered should be chased out to expose a firm bottom.
Fill Placement Requirements: 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 from vegetation, organic material, debris, and oversize
material. Import fill should be no more expansive than the existing on-site material as
determined by ASTM procedures. Approved fill material should be placed in horizontal lifts
not exceeding 10-inches in compacted thickness and watered or aerated to obtain near
EnGEN Corporation
\5"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
.
I
8.2.7
8.2.8
8.29
8.210
e
e .
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 13
optimum moisture content (:t2.0 percent of optimum). Each lift should be spread evenly and
should be thoroljghly 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 D 1557-91
(1998) procedures. Moisture content of fill materials should not vary more than 2.0 percent
from optimum, unless approved the Project Geotechnical Engineer.
Compaction Equipment: 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.
Shrinkaqe and Subsidence: There will be a material loss due to the clearing and grubbing
operations. Shrinkage of approximately 10 percent of alluvium that is excavated and
replaced as compacted fill should be anticipated. Subsidence as a result of the placement
of fill is expected to be negligible. Some secondary consolidation, however, is expected to
be realized as long-term settlement, but due to the depth of recompaction is projected as
being relatively uniform, not needing special design considerations.
Subdrains: Although the need for subdrains is not anticipated at this time, final
recommendations should be made during grading by the Project Engineering Geologist.
Observation and Testinq: 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
Report following :completion of the grading operations. Grading operations undertaken at
EnGEN Corporation
Ie;.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e
_all Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 14
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.
8.2.11 Fill Slope Construction: 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 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. Add-on
correction to a fill slope should be conducted under the observation and recommendations
of the project Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Geologist The proposed add-on
correction proc\3dures should be submitted in writing by the contractor before
commencement of corrective grading and reviewed by the project Geotechnical Engineer or
Engineering Geologist. Compacted fill slopes should be backrolled with suitable equipment
for the type of soil being used during fill placement at intervals not exceeding 40-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
expose the dense inner core of the slope surface.
8.2.12 Slope Stability
Fill Slopes: All gesign fill slopes should be constructed at a slope ratio no steeper than 2: 1
(horizontal to veljtical). It is our opinion that properly constructed fill slopes below 30-feet in
height generally: possess gross and surficial stability in excess of generally accepted
minimum engineering criteria (Factor of Safety at least 1.5) and are suitable for their
intended purpose, provided that proper slope maintenance procedures are maintained.
These procedures include but are not limited to installation and maintenance of drainage
devices, and planting of slope faces to protect from erosion in general accordance with
County of Riverside Grading Codes.
EnGEN Corporation
11
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.2.13
8.3
8.3.1
8.3.2
e
All Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 15
Cut Slopes: All cut slopes should be constructed at a slope ratio of not steeper than 2: 1
(horizontal to vertical). The cut slopes should be surficially inspected by the Project
Engineering Geologist. No adversely oriented joints or planes of weakness should be
observed during our inspection. It is our opinion that properly constructed cut slopes below
30-feet in height generally possess gross and surficial stability in excess of generally
accepted minimum engineering criteria (Factor of Safety at least 1.5) and are suitable for
their intended purpose. Cut slopes which expose significant amounts of alluvium or
colluvium, however, may be considered unstable and may require flattening or buttressing
Preliminary Soil Expansion Potential: Upon completion of fine grading of the building
pads, near-surface samples should be obtained for expansion potential testing to verify the
preliminary expaflsion test results and the foundation and slab-on-grade recommendations
presented in this report. The results of recent testing of the on-site soils indicates an
Expansion Index,of 5, which is classified as a very low expansion potential.
Foundation Desiqn Recommendations:
General: Final: foundation recommendations should be made when proposed building
plans become available and after additional Expansion Index sampling. The following
foundation-recommendations are tentative and are minimums based on field and laboratory
data obtained from this investigation; these recommendations are not intended to be used in
the final design without verification through additional Expansion Index determination at the
time of grading. Foundations for the proposed structures may consist of conventional
column footings, and continuous wall footings founded upon properly compacted fill or
bedrock. 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 reinforcing as
necessary. The recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation
design and construction minimums 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.
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
EnGEN Corporation
lib
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.3.3
8.3.4
8.3.5
8.3.6
e
_all Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 16
near the bottom of the footings to minimize the effects of slight differential movements which
may OCCUI' due to minor variations in the engineering characteristics or seasonal moisture
change in the sLjpporting soils. 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 doorway and garage entrances.
Depth of Embedment: Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill or
bedrock should extend to a minimum depth of 12-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade
for one story structures and 18-inches below lowest adjacent footing for two story
structures.
Bearinq 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 2,500 psf for footings in
properly compacted fill or bedrock. This value may be increased by 10 percent for each
additional foot of depth and/or foot of width to a maximum of 2.0 times the designated
allowable value. 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.
Settlement: Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values 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 0.50-inch in properly compacted fill or
bedrock under static load conditions.
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- 200 pcf
Bedrock - 400 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction
Compacted Fill or Bedrock - 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
EnGEN Corporation
\~
-----,-
m_r.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
84
84.1
Ie
_all Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 17
and stem walls ,below grade when in contact with undisturbed, properly, compacted fill or
competent bedr.ock material. The above values are allowable design values and have
safety factors ofiat 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 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.
Slab-on-Grade I Recommendations: The recommendations for concrete slabs, both
interior and exterior, excluding PCC pavement, are based upon a very low expansion
potential for the ,supporting material as determined by 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 water/cement ratio) of the concrete and/or
improper curing procedures used during either hot or cold weather conditions could result in
excessive shrin~age, 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.
Interior Slabs: Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4.0-inches in
nominal 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 per the Earthwork
Recommendations Section of this report. If floor slabs are to be subjected to crane loads
for the purpose of tilting panels, the minimum slab thickness should be 5-inches actual, and
minimum slab reinforcement should consist of No. 3 reinforcing bars placed 18-inches on
center in both directions, or a suitable equivalent. Slab reinforcing in areas not subject to
crane loads may consist of NO.3 reinforcing bars placed 24-inches on center, each way.
The reinforcing, should 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
EnGEN Corporation
2.()
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
R
I
I
.
.
.
.
I
I
8.4.2
8.5
e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 18
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.
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 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 6.0-inches and proof compacted to a
minimum of 95 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D 1557-91 (1998) procedures
immediately before placing aggregate base material or placing the concrete
Pavement Desiqn Recommendations: The following recommendations for the structural
pavement section for the proposed parking and driveway areas for the subject development
are presented for preliminary design purposes only. The pavement section has been
determined in general accordance with CAL TRANS design procedures and is based on an
assumed Traffic.'lndex (TI) and an assumed R-Value of 25. The R-Value of any imported fill
material may vary from the assumed value thereby changing the proposed pavement
section design. In areas where normal loads (cars, pickup trucks) are anticipated, the
assumed TI is' 5.0. In areas where heavy loads (large trucks, trash trucks, heavy
machinery, etc.)lare anticipated, the assumed TI is 6.0.
The recommended sections are presented below:
Area Traffic Index Recommended Section
Automobile 5.0 3.0-inches Asphalt Concrete over 6.5-inches Crushed
traffic Aggregate Base.
OR
. .
.An equivalent of a minimum of 7-inches Portland
Cement Concrete over properly prepared subgrade.
Heavy truck 6.0 3.0-inches Asphalt Concrete over 95-inches Crushed
traffic Aggregate Base.
OR
.An equivalent of a minimum of 8-inches Portland
Cement Concrete over properly prepared subgrade.
EnGEN Corporation
2.\
....
I I
! I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
I
H
I
D
I
86
e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 19
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 26-1.028 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 D 1557-91 (1998) procedures. 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 90-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. If pavement
subgrade soils are prepared at the time of rough grading of the building site and the areas
are not paved iGlmediately, additional observations and testing will have to be performed
before placing 'ilggregate 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.
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
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 5.0-feet or deeper be cut back according to the Temporary
EnGEN Corporation
2-'Z-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, D
I
I
I
I
.
.
8.7
8.7.1
8.7.2
e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 20
Construction Ex.cavation Recommendations 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 Ellgineer. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill
material should be determined according to ASTM D 1557-91 (1998) procedures.
Retaininq 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 pcf 45 pet
At Rest 60 pcf
The on-site materials may be used as backfill within the active/at-rest pressure zone as
defined above. Walls that are free to deflect 0.01 radian at the top may be designed for the
above-recommended active condition. Walls that need to be restricted from such
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
should also be should considered in the design.
Foundation Desiqn: 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.
EnGEN Corporation
z:?>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.73
8.74
8.8
e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 21
Subdrain: A subdrain system should be constructed behind and at the base of all retaining
walls to allow d.rainage 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 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 pUI\lP activated by a change in the water level.
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 D 1557-91 (1998) procedures.
Finish Lot Drainaqe Recommendations: Positive drainage should be established away
from the tops ot 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
EnGEN Corporation
'2..~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
89
8.10
e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 22
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 minifTIum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the property in a non-erosive 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 ,permanent all-weather surface which slopes away from the structure a
minimum of 5.0Tfeet 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 and the 5.0-foot minimum discharge distance
criteria is followed.
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. The planters should drain
directly onto surrounding paved areas or into a properly designed subdrain system.
Temporary 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
Compacted Fill or Bedrock
Alluvium
Inclination
1:1
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 15
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 illake 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
EnGEN Corporation
2.->
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I -- ---
e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 23
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 tile 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 dryirg 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 worke, 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 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.
9.0 PLAN REVIEW
Subsequent to formulation of final plans and specifications for the project, but before bids
for construction ,are requested, grading and foundation plans for the proposed development
should be reviewed by EnGEN Corporation to verify compatibility with site geotechnical
conditions 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-BIDCONFiERENCE
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 tile proposed contractors present. This conference will provide continuity in
EnGEN Corporation
2.'-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11.0
12.0
Ie
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 24
the bidding process and clarify questions relative to the grading and construction
requirements of the project.
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.
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 s.hould be made before installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing
steel to verify I 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 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
EnGEN Corporation
2.:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
no
'e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 25
his representative shall not be responsible for job or project safety. Job or project safety
shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor
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. 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.
EnGEN Corporation
2.~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
March 2003
Page 26
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our services. If we can be of further service or you should
have questions regardiflg this report, please contact this office at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
EnGEN Corporation
G/~ yl/(a1f7
Colby Matthews
Staff Geologist
CM/OB:hh
Distribution: (4) Addressee
FILE EnGEN\Reporting\GFS\T275q-GFS Westfall Construction, Geotechnical Feasibility
EnGEN Corporation
z.. C\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
Appendix Page 1
APPENDIX
EnGEN Corporation
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
n
I
D
I
R
I
D
I
I
1.
2.
3.
4.
c
v.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1:0.
1:1
1'2.
1'3
114.
1.5.
16.
17.
e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
Appendix Page 2
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
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.
Bartlett and Youd, 1995, Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No.4, April 1995.
Blake, TF., 1998, Liquefy2, Interim Version 1.50, A Computer Program for the Empirical
Prediction of Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction Potential.
Blake, T. .F, 2000a, EQ Fault for Windows, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program for
Horizontal-Acceleration from Digitized California Faults.
Blake, T. F., 2000b, EQ Search for Windows, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program for the
Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from California Historical Earthquake Catalogs.
Blake, TF., 2000c, FRISKSP for Windows, Version 400, A Computer Program for the
Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults
as Earthquake Sources.
Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, TE., 1997, Equations for Estimating Horizontal
Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A
Summary of Recent Work, Seism%gical Research Letters, Vol. 68, No.1, pp. 128-153.
Bray, J. D., 1990, The Effects of Tectonic Movements on Stresses and Deformations in
Earth Embankments, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, California.
Bray, J. D., Seed, R. B., Cluff, L. S., Seed, H. B., 1994, Earthquake Fault Rupture
Propagation Through Soil, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, No.3,
543-561
Bray, J. D., Seed, R. B., Seed, H. B., 1994, Analysis of Earthquake Fault Rupture
Propagation Thr,?ugh Cohesive Soil, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120,
No.3, 562-580.
California Buildifl9 Code, 1998, State of California, California Code of Regulations, Title 24,
1998, California Building Code: International Conference of Building Officials and California
Building Standards Commission, 3 Volumes.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1954, Geology of southern California,
Bulletin 170.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117.
County of Riverside, 2000, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Technical
Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical and Geologic Reports, 2000 Edition.
County of Riverside, 1978, Seismic Safety/Safety Element Policy Report, June 1978, by
Envicom.
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
1125,000
EnGEN Corporation
~\
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.
28.
29
30.
31.
e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
Appendix Page 3
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued)
Engel, R, 1959"Geology of the Lake Elsinore Quadrangle, California: California Division of
Mines and Geology, Bulletin 146.
Gastil, R. G., and Miller, R. H., 1983, Pre-Batholithic Terranes of Southern and Peninsular
California, U.S.A. and Mexico: Status Report, Pre-Jurassic Rocks in Western North
American Suspect Terranes, Society of Economic Paleontologists & Mineralogists, p. 49-61.
Hart, Earl W., and Bryant, William A, Revised 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in
California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone
Maps: State of california, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 38
pages.
Hileman, J.A., Allen, CR. and Nordquist, J.M., 1973, Seismicity of the Southern California
Region, 1 January 1932 to 31 December 1972: Seismological Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology.
Hull, A G., 1990, Seismotectonics of the Elsinore-Temecula Trough, Elsinore Fault Zone,
Southern California, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Ishihara & Yoshimine, 1992, Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following
Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Soil and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil
Mechanics and li'oundation Engineering, Vol. 32, No.1, pg. 173-188.
Jennings, C.w., 11975, 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 California: 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, RJ., 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.
Magistrale, H. and Rockwell, T., 1996, The Central and Southern Elsinore Fault Zone,
Southern California, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Volume 86, No.6, pp.
1793-1803, December 1996
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.
Morton, D. M., 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' x 60'
Quadrangle, Southern California, version 1.0., Open File Report 99-172,
Petersen, M.D., Bryant, w.A, Cramer, C.H., Coa, T Reichle, M.S, Frankel, AD.,
Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.A. and Schwartz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment for the State of California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File
Report 96-706.
EnGEN Corporation
~t.
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
n
U
I
D
U
I
I
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42
43.
44.
45
46
47.
48
e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
Appendix Page 4
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued)
Pradel, 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No.4, April 1998.
Riverside County Planning Department, June 1982 (Revised December 1983), Riverside
County Compre~ensive General Plan - Dam Inundation Areas - 100 Year Flood Plains _
Area Drainage P,lan, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
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 Califoqlia Area, Sheet 147 (Revised 11-87), Scale 1" = 800'.
Rogers, T:H., 1966, Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, Santa Ana Sheet,
CDMG.
S.CE.D.C, 2002, Southern California Earthquake Data Center Website,
http://www.scecdc.scec.org.
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 Res.earch 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 MOflographs on Earthquake Criteria, Structural Design, and Strong Motion
Records.
South Coast Ge.ological Society, Geology and Mineral Wealth of the California Transverse
Ranges, 1982.
Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Recommended Procedures for
Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating
Liquefaction Hazards in California, March 1999.
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.
Tokimatsu and Seed, 1984, Simplified Procedures for the Evaluation of Settlements in
Clean Sands, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, October 1984.
Tschebotarioff, G. P., 1973, Foundations, Retaining and Earth Structures, The Art of Design
and Construction and Its Scientific Basis in Soil Mechanics, 2"' ed., McGraw-Hili Book
Company, 642p.
Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Edition.
Vaughan, Thorup and Rockwell, 1999, Paleoseismology of the Elsinore Fault at Agua Tibia
Mountain, Southern California, Bulletin of the Seismology Society of America, Volume 89,
No.6, pg. 1447,~457, December 1999.
EnGEN Corporation
~~
U
I
R
D
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
49
50.
51
52.
e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
Appendix Page 5
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued)
Waring, G. A., :1919, Groundwater in the San Jacinto and Temecula Basins, California,
United States Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 429.
Weber, Jr., F. H., 1977, Seismic Hazards Related to Geologic Factors, Elsinore and Chino
Fault Zones, Northwestern Riverside County, California, California Division of Mines and
Geology Open File Report 77-4.
Wells, D. L., Coppersmith, K. J., 1994, New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude,
Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement, Bulletin of the
Seismology Society of America, Volume 84, No.4, pg. 974-1002, August 1994.
Yeats, R. S., Sieh, K., and Allen, C. R., 1997, The Geology of Earthquakes, Oxford
University Press, 568p.
EnGEN Corporation
3A.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
Appendix Page 6
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG SUMMARIES
(B-1 through B-5)
EnGEN Corporation
?5
.-.--r
I
I
I
I
. : : :: :' ELIJo
I
I
I
.
I
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Notes:
I
I
I
e
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Description
Silty fine-grained sandstone with clay, light olive
brown, moist, medium dense.
Total depth 16.5 feet.
No groundwater,
Project: Westfall Construction Company - T oyola ofT emecula
Surface Elevation:
Logged By: C.M.
.
u Sample
~ Depth
<n
In-Situ
Moisture
Content
I
pjoject Number: T2755-GFS
Boring' Number: B-1
D~te: 2-4-03
,
~ Soil I
a; Graphic
W
Silty medium-grained sand, yellowish brown, moist, SM 4-7-11 120.9 8.8 128.0 10A
medium dense, trace gravel.
.... ALLUVIUM
.... ".iClayeycoarsesand, light yellowish brown (10yR 6/4) 5 SC 8-16-25 127.8 9.2
:::::::~moist, dense.
.. .... BEDROCK (PAUBA FORMATION) ML 5-4-8 96.5
Sandy siltstone, olive, moist, stiff. 28A
Very stiff 10 ML 4-10-18 101.6 23.8
uses
Blow Count
Dry
Density
o
15
SM
5-8-13
117.6
10A
20
25
30
35
EnGEN Corporation
Maximum
Density
Optimum
Moisture
Content
?h
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Notes:
I
I
e
e
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Description
ALLUVIUM
Silty medium sand, strong, brown (7.5yR 4/6) moist,
dense, slightly porous,
BEDROCK (PAUBA FORMATION)
Silty coarse sandstone, light olive brown, moist, very
dense.
Project: Westfall Construction Company - Toyota ofTemecula
Surface Elevation:
Logged By: C.M.
"
i5.. Sample
~ Depth
"
o
-15
-20
-25
-30
uscs
Blow Count
I
p,liect Number: T2755-GFS
Bdring ;Number: B-2
I
Da,te: 2-4,03
'il!
~ HI SOil
i Gcaph"
I ~I. fLU
~ !: ~ : I
Ij .,. Silty fine sand, pale olive, /Tloist, dense.
Ii
SM
9-17-26
5
SM
7-13-19
SM
23-50
10
ML
11-14-22
35
EnGEN Corporation
Dcy
Density
126.4
127.5
124.3 81
In-Situ
Moisture
Content
97.3 17.4
Maximum
Density
9.4
128.0
7.5
Optimum
Moisture
Content
10.4
31
I
I
,
I
p+ject Number: T2755-GFS
Boring,Number: B-3
I
D~te: 2-4-03
g I: .
75 ! Soli Description
iU iGraphic
W
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
n
I
I
I
R
I"
I::'
,.
I::
...
...
.....
e
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
FILl"
Silty medium-grained sand, dark yellowish brown,
moist, dense, 2" rock in sampler
Silty fine-grained sand, dark yellowish brown, moist,
medium dense.
Light olive brown, moist, dense.
Silty medium-grained sand, dark gray, moist, dense
(organic smell).
Project: Westfall Construction Company - Toyota of T emecula
Surface Elevation:
Logged By: C.M.
"
u Sample
~ Depth
U)
1-0
1
11-5
1
11-10
ALLUVIUM
Silly medium-grained sand, olive gray (5y 5/2) moist, l15
dense.
:: :: : Medium-grained sand, pale yellow (5y 7/3) moist,
. "': ':'.: very dense.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Notes:
I
,
I
......
.... ..
:I.
~v
....
....
....
....
: Medium-grained sand, oli~e gray (5y 5/2) interbedded
.: with clayey sill, dark grayish brown (2.5y 4/2) moist,
", stiff
Silly fine-grained sand, light yellowish brown (2.5y 6/
4) moist. dense.
BEDROCK (PAUBA FORMATION)
.' .' : Medium-grained sand, yellow, moist, very dense.
~35
EnGEN Corporation
uscs
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
20
SP
25
SP-ML
30
SM
SP
Blow Count
12-24-25
10-11-13
8-9-21
7.14,16
6-17-28
16-36-47
11-11-10
3-10-23
15-30-50
Dc;
Density
124.4
111.3
123.6
118.5
114.4
1148
In-Situ
Moisture
Content
9.8
15.2
130
13.4
16.6
86
117.0 10.8
120.0
116.5
156
6.1
Maximum
Density
129.0
129.0
129.0
129.0
Optimum
Moisture
Content
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
~~
I'
e
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
pr~jeCI Number: T2755-GFS Project: Westfall Construction Company - Toyota ofTemecula
sJring' Number: B-3 Surface Elevation:
,
I 2-4-03 Logged By: C.M.
D~te:
c ID In-Situ
0 Optimum
1'5 Soil "- Sample Ory Maximum
DesGription E uses Blow Count Moisture Moisture
> G" phic Depth Density Density
w ro Content Content
OJ '"
~\:
. .' .' .
.... ...
....
". ."
..' ..
....
,'",
.... ...
... ..
". ."
.... .. 40
.. SP 14,23,34 99.7 3.7
....
.... ....
.... ..
". ."
.... ..
....
....
.... :::1
.... ..,
....
.... ....
.... ..
". ....
.... '" 45
Silty fine-grained sandstone, light yellowish brown, SM 9-19-25 122.9 15.9
moist. dense.
..
....
..
..
..
..
Fine- to medium-grained sand, light gray, moist, very 50 SP 31-30-41 110.2 7.8
..' '; :' ': dense.
:
... "" Total Depth 51.5 feet
T
No groundwater
- 55
-60
1-65
1-70
I
Notes: 3f\
I EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
e
,
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
prrj ect Number: T2755-GFS Project: Westfall Construction Company - Toyota ofT emecula
Bori ng' Number: B-4 Surface Elevation:
I
D~t e: 2-4-03 Logged By: C.M.
e , ID In-Situ Optimum
Q Soil 1i Sample D'Y Maximum
ro Description USCS Blow Count Moisture Moisture
> Graphic ~ Depth Density Density
ID Content Content
W <Il
I FILL -0
0,
: : : ~ I: ~
:Y:' Silty medium-grained sand, light yellowish brown, SM 10-13-30 123.7 10.4 129.0 10.0
.. moist, dense.
....
... 1-5
SM 10-15-27 119.2 9.4 129.0 10.0
'. ...
I Grayish brown, moist, medium dense. 1 SM
I::. 19-8-17 120.3 10.7 129.0 10.0
I ..
...
..
...
.. 11-10
... Dark gray, moist, dense. SM 11-16-21 120.6 130 129.0 10.0
...
.. ..
..
...
... ALLUVIUM
illl Silty fine- to medium-grained sand, dark yellowish ...15 8-11-15 125.5 11.8
..... brown (10yR 4/4) moist, medium dense, slightly
.. ",0'
. .. porous.
...
....
...
.. ...
.. ...
..
.....
....
....
.. ....
.... Silty medium sand, light olive brown (2. 5y 5/4) moist, 20 SM 19-33-28 118.4 6.2
...
... very dense.
...
...
..,
.. ., 25
Dense SM 6-13-19 123.1 13.3
0
III BEDROCK (PAUBA FORMATION)
.. Silty medium-grained sandstone, light olive brown,
.. moist, very dense. 30
. .. SM 15-27-51 116.7 7.8
: : : ~
..
Total Depth 31.5 feet.
No groundwater.
-35
Notes: ~O
I EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e
I
i
I
JojeCI Number:
I
Sbring Number:
I
D~le: 2-4-03
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
I
T2755-GFS
B-5
Project: Westfall Construction Company - Toyota of Temecula
Surface Elevation:
Logged By: C.M.
I
0'
01
~ i So!!
~ . Graphic
Ui!
Description
:;;
a. Sample
~ Depth
'"
uses
Blow Count
Diy
Density
In-Situ
Moisture
Content
Maximum
Density
Optimum
Moisture
Content
I
FILL
o
I
I ~ :
i"
Silty medium-grained sand, light yellowish brown,
moist, dense.
SM 15-17-25 1232 4.9 1290 10.0
IH SC 10-17-20 1200 8.2
1 ML 11-8-13 94.8 30.8
1>-10 ML 2-5-12 101.6 23.6
I
y;-:,/ Clayey medium- to coars/;!-grained sand, yellowish
0:i/// brown (10yR 5/4) moist, qense.
.. ../../
. ...~ .
Sandy silt, olive brown (2.5y 4/3) moist. stiff.
I
Olive (5y 4/3) moist, firm.
I
Total Depth 11.5 feet.
No groundwater.
I
>- 15
I
I
>-20
I
I
- 25
I
1-30
I
D
>-35
I
Notes:
I
EnGEN Corporation
A\
I
I
S~O:l
I
Strata
,
J
~
Misc.
Description
symbols
Silty sand
Clayey sand
Silt
Poorly graded sand
EY TO SYMBOLS
Poorly graded silty fine sand
Symbols
Bottom of boring
Boring continues
I
Soil Samplers
California s~pler
Notes:
I
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on 2-4-03 using a continuous
I
flight power auger.
I
2, Water was not encountered at the time of drilling.
I . .
3, Boring locations were measured from existing features
I
4. These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and
iecommendations in this report,
I
5. ~esults of tests conducted on samples recovered are reported
on the logs.
"z..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
n
.
I
e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
Appendix Page 7
TABLE A
EnGEN Corporation
-,\'0
---,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
Appendix Page 8
TABLE A
DISTANCE TO STATE DESIGNATED ACTIVE FAULTS
ABBREVIATED APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM
FAULT NAME DISTANCE EARTHQUAKE
Mi Km MAG (Mw)
Elsinore - Temecula 02 0.2 6.8
Elsinore - Julian 12.6 20.2 7.1
Elsinore - Glen Ivy 14.2 22.9 6.8
San Jacinto - San Jacinto Valley 20.6 33.2 6.9
San Jacinto - Anza 20.6 33.2 7.2
Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) 28.2 45.4 6.9
Rose Canyon 30.9 49.7 6.9
CGhino - Central Avenue (Elsinore) 32.1 51.7 6.7
San Jacinto - San Bernardino 34.9 562 6.7
Whittier 36.4 58.5 6.8
San Jacinto - Coyote Creek 37.4 60.2 6.8
San Andreas - Southern 378 60.8 7.4
San Andreas - San Bernardino 37.8 60.8 7.3
Earthquake Valley 40.3 64.8 6.5
Newport - Inglewood (LA Basin) 44.8 72.1 6.9
Pinto Mountain 44.9 72.3 7.0
Coronado Bank 45.2 72.7 7.4
Palos Verdes 48.0 77.3 7.1
San Andreas - Coachella 48.4 77.9 7.1
Cucamonga 48.9 78.7 7.0
Elysian Park Thrust 49.3 794 6.7
North Frontal Zone (West) 49.8 80.2 7.0
Compton Thrust 51.1 822 6.8
San Jose 51.4 82.8 6.5
North Frontal Zone (East) 52.7 84.8 6.7
Cleghorn 52.8 849 6.5
Burnt Mountain 53.7 864 6.4
Sierra Madre 53.8 86.6 7.0
Eureka Peak 565 91.0 6.4
San Andreas - Mojave 59.0 95.0 7.1
San Andreas - 1857 Rupture 59.0 95.0 7.8
Elsinore - Coyote Mountain 59.4 95.6 68
San Jacinto - Borrego 59.5 95.7 6.6
Helendale - S. Lockhardt 61.3 98.6 7.1
l.canders 61.6 99.2 7.3
EnGEN Corporation
itA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
e
Westfall Construction Company
Project Number: T2755-GFS
Appendix Page 9
EnGEN Corporation
4;S'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e
e
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
't
a.
~
c:
Q)
"0
1=-
o
I \
\
\
/ " \ I
"
I \ \
I ,\
I
I II \1\ I
I I .\
J 1\'
II \1\
1'-
J ~
I ~\
I \
\
I~
\
\
\
130
128
126
124
122
120
5
ZAV for
Sp.G. =
2.66
17
7
9
11
Water content, %
13
15
Test specification: ASlM D 1557-98 Procedure A Modified
I Elovl
Depth
I
I
clai;slflcatlon
uses AASHTO
Nat.
Moist.
.%>
%<
Sp.G.
LL
PI
No.4
No,2OQ
SM
5.6
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SIL IT SAND,BROWN
. MaXimum dry density = 128.0 pcf
Optimum moisture = 10.4 %
:ProJect No. T2755-GFS Client: WESTFALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
:ProJect: TOYOTA OF TEMECULA
Remarks:
SAMPLE B 1 @ 0-5
COLL BY CM
COLL ON 2-4-03
. L..ocatlon: MOTOR CAR P ARKW A Y
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Plate
~
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
n
I
B
I
I
e
e
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
't;
9-
ii-
'ill
c
<IJ
"0
?:-
o
I I \ I I
I I I
I 1\ I I I
\ I
,
I I
1\ I
\ I
,
--k I
"' i
, I ,
,I , !
I/' , I
/ I
I ,
) I
,I"
, ~\
I \' I
I
,,\
, I I
1\
\
1\
2 I
132
130
128
126
124
12
ZAVfor
Sp.G.=
2.65
17
5
7
9
11
Water content, %
13
15
rest,Specification: ASlM D 1557-98 Procedure A Modified
I Eleil/
Depth
I
I
I
Maximum dry density = 129.0 pef
I. .
pptnnum mOlSlure = 10.0 %
~roJect.No. T2755-GFS Client: WESTFALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
rOJect: TOYOTA OF illMECULA
. Location: MOTOR CAR PARKWAY
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Cla<\slficatlon
Nat.
Moist.
,0/0 >
%<
Sp.G,
LL
PI
uses
AASHTO
NO.4
No.200
SM
6.0
I TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SILTY SAND,BROWN
Remarks:
SAMPLE B3 @ 0-5
COLL BY CM
COLL ON 2-4-03
Plate
A.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e
e
I use Laboratory Expansion Test Results
Job Number: T2755-GFS
Job Name: WESTFALL
Location: MOTOR CAR PARtwVAY
Sample Source: B1 @ 0-5
Sampled by: CM (2-4-03)
Lab Technician: PB
Sample Descr: SILTY SAND,BROWN
2/11/03
I
we1 Compacted Wt.: 624"'"
Ring WI.: 199.3
Net Wet Wt.: 425.2
W Delilsity: 128.4
We Soil: 206.3
Dry Soit. 189.3
Initial Moisture (%): 9.0%
I niti~1 Dry Density: 117.8
I
% Saturation: 56.4%
Fin11 WI. & Ring Wt.. 643.0
~Final Wt.: 443.7
I 390,2
DryIWt.:
Loss: 53,5
I 387.0
Net DryIWt.:
Finkl Density: 116.9
Sat~rated Moisture: 13.8%
Dial Change Time
Reading 1: 0.100 N1A 8:30
Reading 2: o HE 0,003 8:45
Reading 3: 0.104 0.004 9:00
Reading 4: 0.105 0.005 11-Feb
Expansion Index:
5
Adjusted Index:
(ASTM D 4832-95)
7,7
EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92690
(909) 296-2230
Fax: (909) 296-2237
49>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
I
I
e
3000
o
RESULTS
C, pst
q" deg
TAN q,
502
33.6
0.67
~
Ul
0. 2000
([j
([j
w
(}'
f--
([j
w
(}'
:::>
.J
H
<(
LL
1000
o
o
1000
3000
~
Ul
Q.
2500
2000
CJl
CJl
<11
L
~
([j
1500
L
g 1000
.c
([j
500
0.1 0.2 0.3
Ho r i z. D'i sp I ., in
S~MPLE TYPE:
DESCRIPTION:
SILTY SAND,BROWN
SFECIFIC GRAVITY= 2.66
RrMARKS: SAMPLE B1 @ 0-5
COLL BY CM
COLL ON 2-4-03
I
F;g. No.:
I
I
e
2000
3000
4000
Normal Stress, psf
SAMPLE NO. :
WATER CONTENT, %
~ DRY DENSITy, pet
~ SATURATION, %
~ VOID RATIO
H
DIAMETER, in
12.0
115.0
71.8
5000
12.0
115.0
71.8
6000
2
3
12.0
115.0
71.8
0.444 0.444 0.444
2.42
1.00
0.0
115.0
0.0
0.444
2.42
1.00
1000
1125
0.15
HEIGHT, in
WATER CONTENT, %
f-- DRY DENSITY, pet
(I]
W SATURATION, %
f--
VOID RAnD
0.4
f--
<( DIAMETER, I n
HEIGHT in
NORMAL STRESS, pst
FAILURE STRESS, pst
DISPLACEMENT, In
ULTIMATE STRESS, pst
DISPLACEMENT, in
Strain rate, in/min
0.2000
CLIENT: WESTFALL
PROJECT: TOYOTA OF TEMECULA
2.42
1.00
0.0
115.0
0.0
0.444
2.42
1.00
2000
1917
0.15
0.2000
SAMPLE LOCATION: MOTOR CAR PARKWAY
PROJ. NO.: T2755-GFS
2.42
1.00
0.0
115.0
0.0
0.444
2.42
1.00
3000
2455
0.16
0.2000
DATE: 2-12-03
DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT
EnGEN Corporation
~o..
I
e e
i R-VALUE TEST REPORT
100
r-
80 -
~
60 -
Q
::J
-
0 -
>
I
0:: 40
-
-
20 - ~
-
0 -, "1""1",,1,,,1,,,,1 "1""1,,,,1,, ,I"" , " I , I " " 1 " ,
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
Exuda t ion Pressure - pSI
Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure - Cal Test 301
I ,Compact. Expansion Her i zonta I Sample Exud. R
Density, Moist. R
No. .p ressu re Pressure Press. psi Height Pressure Value
I pcf % Value
psi psi @ 160 psi in. psi Cor r.
j 100 126.0 12.2 2.73 120 2.52 210 18 18
,
2 225 129.2 11.0 8.49 85 2.48 406 33 33
!3 300 131.3 10.1 11.52 70 2.46 570 49 49
I
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SILTY SAND,LIGHT BROWN
R-Volue @ 300 psi exudat ion pressure = 25
Project No. : T2755-GFS Tested by: DB
Projec: : WESTFALL Checked by: RW
Loc.ation: MOTOR CAR PARKWAY Remarks:
SAMPLE B5 @ 0-5
TEMECULA COLL BY CM
Date: 2-10-03 CaLL ON 2-4-03
R-VALUE TEST REPORT 50
Environmental and Geotechnical
Engineering Network Corporat ion Fig. No.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
n
n
I
I
I
I
I
e e
:CONSOLlDA TION TEST REPORT
0 -
-:' ---
....... ..............
1
2 WATER ADDED "
3 ~ ----
4 "
\
c
.~
U5
,
C 5 \
<V
{)
~
<V
0-
6
7
8
9
10 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural Dry Dens. LL PI Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr Swell Press. Swell eo
[Sat. Moist. (pcf) Gr. (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) %
$2.9 % 9.2% 127.7 2.65 1.65 0.07 0.295
[ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
,
I SILTY COARSE SAND(W/CLA Y),BROWN SM
~roject No. T2755-GFS Client: WESTFALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Remarks:
rOject: TOYOTA OF TEMECULA SAMPLEBI@5
COLL BY CM
COLI. ON 2-4-03
'-',ocation: MOTOR CAR PARKWAY
1 CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRO~MENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL 6\
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e
CONSOLlDA TION TEST REPORT
0
, -
-- --.
1
"
2 WATER ADDED ~
3 1--
~ I
4 \\
c
'm
~
~
c 5 \
Q)
u
Qi
at
\
6 "'
7
8
9
10 .1 .2 5 1 2 5 10 20
Applied Pressure - ksf
[ Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr Swell Press. Swell
LL PI eo
[Sat. Moist. (pC(l Gr. (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) %
46.8 % 7.5 % 127.6 2.65 3.72 0.08 0.297
I MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
I SILTY COARSE SAND(W/CLA Y),BROWN SM
11roject No. T1755-GFS Client: WESTFALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Remarks:
~roject: TOYOTA OF TEMECULA SAMPLE B2 @ 5
Jocation: MOTOR CARPARKWA Y COLL BY CM
COl.L ON 2-4-03
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIROI)IMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL 5z...
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
e e
CONSOLlDA TION TEST REPORT
0
-
-, ---.
1 ~~
WATER ADDED
2 ~
3
~\
4
\
"
'iij \
~
0
C1 5
ill
8
ill
ill
6
7
8
9
10 _1 2 .5 1 2 5 10 20
Applied Pressure - ksf
I Natural Dry Dens. LL PI Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr Swell Press. Swell eo
[Sat Moist (pcf) Gr. (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) %
9,8.5 % ICi.6% 114.4 2.65 2.33 0.08 0.446
[ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
SilTY SAND,BROWN SM
Project No. T2755-GFS C,lient: WESTFAll CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Remarks:
P~Oject: TOYOTA OF TEMECUlA SAMPLE 133 @ 15
Jcatlon: MOTORCAR PARKWAY COlL 13Y CM
COll ON 2-4-03
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL 52>
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e e
CONSOLlDA TION TEST REPORT
0,-----
-~
"
1 WATERADOED "-
I.....
2 """
3
""~
4 i'
0:
'm
~
iJ5
..L 5
0:
'"
'"
~
'"
a.
6
7
8
9
10 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural Dry Dens. PI Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr Swell Press. Swell
LL eo
1 Sat. Moist. (pc!) Gr. (ks!) (ks!) (ks!) %
151.9 % 8.6% 114.7 2.65 0.49 0.04 0.442
I MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
I
I SAND,L1GHT BROWN SP
Project No. T2755-GFS ,Client: WESTFALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Remarks:
I
Project: TOYOTA OF TEMECULA SAMPLE B3 @ 20
I COLL BY CM
I COLL ON 2-4-03
,Location: MOTOR CAI{ PARKWAY
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ~
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~- - ----.- ------ --------- ----
e
,CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
0
,-
-- I----,
1 I~
WATER ADDED
2 ~,
3 '"
"
4
.E
ro
~
ijj
.j... 5
c
W
~
w
a
6
7
8
9
10 .1 .2 5 1 2 5 10 20
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr Swell Press. Swell
LL PI eo
Sat. Moist. (pcf) Gr. (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) %
69.3% 10.8% 117.1 2.65 6.68 0.05 0.413
I MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
[ SILTY SAND,BROWN SM
IProject No. T2755-GFS ,Client: WESTFALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Remarks:
iProject: TOYOTA OF TEMECULA SAMPLE B3 @ 25
COLL BY eM
iLocation: MOTOR CAR PARKWA Y COLL ON 2-4-03
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL -5~
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e e
I CONSOLlDA TION TEST REPORT
I 0
-
---........
WATER ADDED ....... ~
1 ""
2 .'"
3 \\
4 \
:!
'n;
~ \
ii5
,
C 5 \
'"
(J
~
'"
O!
6
7
8
9
101.1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr Swell Press. Swell
LL PI eo
Sat. Moist. (pcf) Gr. (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) %
1109.5,% 15.6% 120.0 2.65 4.24 0.09 0.379
I MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
I SILTY SAND,BROWN SM
lroject ,No. T2755-GFS Client: WESTFALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Remarks:
I'Oject: TOYOTA OF TEMECl)LA SAMPLE 83 @ 30
COLL BY CM
Jocation: MOTOR CAR PARKWA Y COLL ON 2-4-03
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
EN,VIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ~
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
e
I 0 CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
-
-~
- ............
1
, WATER ADDED I~
2 .~
3 "\
4
co \
ro
~
~ 5
"
ill
U
~
ill
a.!
6
7
8
9
10 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20
Applied Pressure - ksf
I Natural Dry Dens. PI Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr Swell Press. Swell eo
LL
Sat. Moist. (pcf) Gr. (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) %
198.2'% 11.8% 125.5 2.65 5.82 0.07 0.319
I MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
I SILTY SAND,BROWN SM
Project No, T2755-GFS ,Client; WESTFALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Remarks:
Project: TOYOTA OF TEMECULA SAMPLE 134 @ 15
COLL BY CM
iLocation; MOTOR CAR PARKWA Y COLI. ON 2-4-03
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL :>1
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e e
CONSOLlDA TION TEST REPORT
0 -
-, ----
WATER ADDED ........ .............
1
2 L,.
~"
3
"'"
4
'\
c: "-
.~
0
C 5
OJ
"'
OJ
0-
6
7
8
9
I
10 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural Dry Dens. LL PI Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr Swell Press. Swell
Sat. Moist. (pcf) Gr. (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) % eo
[41.6% 6.2 % 118.3 2.65 1.15 0.05 0.398
I MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
I SILTY SAND,L1GHT BROWN SM
Project No. T2755-GFS client: WESTFALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Remarks;
I
Project: TOYOTA OF TEMECULA SAMPLE B4 @ 20
I COLL BY CM
!-ocation: MOTOR CAR PARKWA Y COLI. ON 2-4-03
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT 5'0
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e e
:CONSOLlDA TION TEST REPORT
0
-
C" ____
- ~
1 ~,
WATER ADDED
2 "',
3 '\
"-
4
c
["
U5
C 5
OJ
0
ID
0..
I
,
, 6
I
!
,
7
I ,
:
I
8
I
I
,
i
r
!
,
I
,
10 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20
Applied Pressure - ksf
, Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr Swell Press. Swell
LL PI eo
Sat. Moist. (pcf) Gr. (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) %
102.8 % 13.3% 123.1 2.65 3.76 0.05 0.344
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
SILTY SAND,BROWN SM
Project No, T2755-GFS , Client: WESTFALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Remarks:
Project: TOYOTA OF TEMECULA SAMPLE B4 @ 25
COLL BY CM
Location: MOTOR CAR PARKWA Y COLI. ON 2-4-03
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ~
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
I
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
2
3
4
c
.~
U5
..L 5
c
'"
e
'"
a.
G
7
8
9
10 .1
e
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
----
WATER ADDED
.2
.5
2 5
Applied Pressure - ksf
20
Natural Dry Dens.
Sat. Moist. (pcf)
'09.4'% 30.8 %
LL
Sp.
Gr.
2.65
Overburden
(ksf)
SANDY CLA Y(W/SIL T),OLlVE GREEN
Project No. T2755-GFS Client: WESTFALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
I
[roiect: TOYOTA OF TEMECJjLA
. ocation: MOTOR CAR PARKWA Y
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRQ,NMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
PI
94.8
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
10
Pc
(ksf)
4.41
Swell Press.
(ksf)
Swell
%
Cc
Cr
eo
0.20
0.745
AASHTO
USCS
CL
Remarks:
SAMPLE B5 @ 7.5
COLL BY CM
COLL ON 2-4-03
Plate
<00
- ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
o
-
2
3
4
Ci
'ro:
~,
Wi
ci 5
<lJ,
01
~i
6
7
8
9
10 .1
.2
I Natural Dry Dens.
i;at. Moist. (pcf)
9p.6% 23.6% 101.7
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
-~
WATER ADDED
.5
2 5
Applied Pressure - ksf
20
LL
Sp.
Gr.
2.65
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
CLA YEY SAND,BROWN
Project No. T2755-GFS Cilent: WESTFALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
prOject: TOYOTA OF TEMECULA
Lc;>cation: MOTOR CAR PARKWA Y
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIROt-4MENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
PI
Overburden
(ksf)
10
Pc
(ksf)
4.41
Cc
Cr
Swell Press.
(ksf)
0.15
USCS
SC
Remarks:
SAMPLE B5 @ 10
COLL BY CM
COLL ON 2-4-03
Swell
%
eo
0.627
AASHTO
Plate
~\
I e e
Westfall Construction Company
. Project Number: T2755-GFS
Appendix Page 10
I
D DRAWINGS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II ",z..
II EnGEN Corporation
I
1'1~-
I
e
e
I
~ N
I
-I
I
I
I
I
"
'. x..
.":.(,. "
/' ", '~
. ,
-' ^
, ,
, ,
/ '.e0
, '
,
I
/'
I
\l.EJ'.I"G1~
I
"
I
"
II
II
II
EnGEN Corporation-... E..;....ri..
VICINITY MAP
Special
Material
Environmental
II
PROJECT NUMBER:
DATE: MARCH 2003
CLIENT'NAME:
Par 3 of FPM 23364
II
SCALE: 1"=2400'
WESTFALL CONSTRUCTION CO.
FIGURE:
1
BASE MAP: Tl)omas Bros., 2000, Riverside Co., pg. 958
~'?j
II
'_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _I
i
,
~~
i" .:
J I I'
~ 'Il-rdo'l:
r II S.UI~g a :uu i~
,
I
f
I
,
.
t
.
I
.
.
1
i
.
j
l~
f ~
:C\
:>
!Xl
I
.11
i~
Ii. t
~ ~
I
,
.
.
,
i
I
.
.
,
I
)>
"""
c
I
I
)>
"""
c
o. . . _.- . ,., .......-l'__..A.....f.......................-:..~....~.."..,.;,....-...........-..
1"'-~- "',~"'''''''''''''~?'''''.'''''_~''''''.''''W''''''_''''''''''''''.''''._''-'''''.- .
1 I I )>
; I I """
.! I C
,i I ,I
1 I " _
,__..-.~_L~-...-..~-_,-,__._,..-.,._-~.~_._.......--.w,~_..-...-.. ~_..--. ..- -....''-.,
. \
\
-----.
I
-
..-.....-.---.....-.---..--
I)
11]
Iz
I
I~
I
ICD
~
c::::6
I t
lffi
1'18
'00
10
i
()
,8
-
-
.,
0 c .'tJ .
r- )0' ;:u ~ S
iii ;,.l. 0
!'!1' ~
z m
~ 3: 0 )> m i"
~ -l
... en
ll> z c m .-
!!: 0 c G')
In :J: 3:
I" N III c: )> m
0 m
0 ~ z " Z
Co> 0 " c
0 ;u
:iE -4 0 0
m N c: ><
III .. ~
..
-t ~ !!: s:
....
> m )>
"f1 Z
r- .> -I
r- -I m
0 m ...a.
0 r- 0 r- ..
z m 0 ..
~ --. - - - III Gl _ "11_ 0 - "
. .,.-- - -I :> F (I)' -
;u r- )>
c rJI r- -I Q
0
::I 0 0 ..
0 ll> Z
z r
~ !'!1 0
... "11
,. m
II
01 ><
,Q "
r-
" 0
"ll .. ~
"f .-
r c.
~ .. -I
-
" 0
~ == ;u
N -<
...
"
I.. ~ m
0
f! ;u
z
d Gl
II
~