HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel 12 Supplemental Geotechnical Study
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~En-GEN
~ CORPORATION
/
SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Diaz II Industrial Center
Assessor's Parcel Number: 921-040-036
Parcel 12 of Parcel Map 27509
Diaz Road and Rancho California Road
City of Temecula, RiverSide County, California
Project Number: T2377 -SGS
June 13, 2006
Prepared for:
Jonan Management Services
28481 Rancho California Road, Suite 204A
Temecula, California 92590
::575') ;c{i"'i ol-'I' .';V~ilU<;'. t\'~l:: -,:, '. ,', ,)"",
,', .~,
\
..- '",".'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: T2377-SGS
TARI F OF CONTFNTS
S"r.tion Nllmhe. and Titl"
.I2ge
t.O SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION. .............. ... ....... ......... .... ......... ... .............. ....... ........ .......2
2.0 SITE REVIEW ................................................................................................................2
2.1 Literature Research... ...... ...... ... ..... .... ... .... ............. ............ ...................... .... .........2
2.1.1 Fault Rupture..................................................................................................2
2.1.2 Rockfalls and Landsliding ...............................................................................2
2.1.3 Liquefaction ....................................................................................................2
2.2 Site Reconnaissance............................................... ............................................. 2
2.2.1 Unusual Geotechnical Conditions ..................................................................3
2.3 Laboratory Testing and Test Results.................................................................... 3
2.3.1 General..................................................................................................... ......3
2.3.2 Classification..... ...................... ....................................................................... 3
2.3.3 Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test............3
2.3.4 Expansion Index Test....... ............................. ........................................ .........4
2.3.5 Direct Shear Test................................... ............. ............................................ 4
2.3.6 Soluble Sulfate Test .......................................................................................4
.3.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................................5
3.1 General..... .......... ................................................................................................. 5
3.2 Engineered Fill ...... ................. ......... ..................................................................... 5
4.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................5
4.1 General............ ..................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Seismic Parameters .............................................................................................6
4.3 Foundation Size... ..... ............................................................................................ 6
4.4 Minimum Reinforcement and Depth of Embedment ............................................6
4.5 Bearing Capacity .................................................................................................. 7
4.6 Settlement..... ......... ...... ....... .............................................. .......... ......................... 7
4.7 Lateral Capacity.... .................. ......................... ................. ............... .....................7
.5.0 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................8
5.1 Interior Slabs-on-Grade........ ..................................................... ...........................8
5.2 Exterior Slabs-on-Grade....................................................................................... 9
6.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 9
6.1 Earth Pressures... .................. .... ................... ................................ ........................9
6.2 Foundation Design ...............................................................................................9
6.3 Subdrain .. ......... .......... ........ .......... ..................... ........................................ .........10
6.4 Backfill..... .......... ..... ............. .......... ..................................................................... 10
EnGEN Corporation
z...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
il
II
I
I
'I
I
I
I
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: T2377-SGS
TARI F OF CONTFNTS (Continll"rl)
Ser.tion Nllmher and Titl"
.I2ge
7.0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................. 11
7.1 Utility Trench Recommendations........................................................................ 1 1
7.2 Pavement Design Recommendations ................................................................11
7.3 Temporary Excavation or Cuts ...........................................................................12
7.4 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations .............................................................13
7.5 Planter Recommendations .................................................................................13
7.6 Supplemental Construction Observations and Testing ......................................13
7.7 Pre-Grade Conference .......................................................................................13
! 8.0 CLOSURE ...................................................................................................................14
8.1 Client Report Purposes ......................................................................................14
8.2 Project and Property Changes ...........................................................................14
8.3 Standard of Practice...........................................................................................14
8.4 Limitations .................. ................. ....................................................... .......... ...... 14
8.5 Changes in Standards of Care ...........................................................................15
I APPENDIX:
,TECHNICAL REFERENCES
I TABLE A - DISTANCE TO KNOWN ACTIVE FAULTS
,LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
: DRAWINGS
II
I
I.
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
il
@~orp~J.~
June 13, 2006
Mr. Larry Barnes
, Jonan Management Services
.28481 Rancho California Road, Suite 204A
'Temecula, California 92590
I Regarding: S,UPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Diaz II Industrial Center
Assessor's Parcel Number: 921-040-036
Parcel 12 of Parcel Map 27509
Diaz Road and Rancho California Road
City of Temecula, Riverside County, California
Project Number: T2377 -SGS
. i References: 1. Walter Kenai, Conceptual Site Plan for Diaz II Industrial Center, 28071
Diaz Road, Temecula, California 92590, scale 1"=30', plan undated.
2. EnGEN Corporation, Geotechnical Engineering Study, Diaz Industrial
~artnership, Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 27509, 28071 Diaz Road, City
of Temecula, Riverside County, Califomia, Project Number: T2289-GS,
dated August 30, 2001.
3. EnGEN Corporation, Geotechnical Report and Compaction Test Results,
Post Grading Operations, Diaz Industrial Partnership, Parcel 1 or Parcel
Map 27509, Diaz Road, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California,
Project Number: T2377-C, report dated November 14, 2002.
4. EnGEN Corporation, Removal and Recompaction Addendum to
Geotechnical Recommendations, Diaz Industrial Partnership, Parcels 1 and
2 of Parcel Map 27509, 28071 Diaz Road, City of Temecula, Riverside
County, California, Project Number: T2377-C, report dated March 6, 2002.
5. EnGEN Corporation, Slab Design Variation, Diaz Industrial Partnership,
Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 27509, 28071 Diaz Road, City of Temecula,
Riverside County, California, Project Number: T2377-GS, report dated
August 30, 2001.
:Oear Mr. Barnes:
In accordance with your request and signed authorization, a representative of this firm reviewed
the referenced reports and visited the subject site on May 22, 2006 to visually observe, probe, and
'sample the surface within the subject lot, in order to update the reports referenced above.
?:>
~,.; 7' : :",if,o ;"," n .'\ v p,-.., H' "-'
;,i'rc;rnl,;
'.+
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: 2377-SGS
June 2006
Page 2
1'.0 SITF/PRO.JF'CT nFSCRIPTION
The subject property consists of approximately 1.21-acres located southwest of Diaz
Road, northwest of the intersection of Rancho California Road, in the City of Temecula,
County of Riverside, California. Although grading plans are not available at this writing,
based on the Referenced No.1 conceptual site plan, the future development of the subject
property will be one (1) pre-fabricated metal building with a slab-on-grade foundation. The
remainder of the site will consist of two (2) trash enclosures, parking, driveway, and
associated hardscape or landscape improvements.
. 2.0 SITE RFVIFW
, 2,1 Lit"ratllr" R",!<",arr.h' Based on our review of the Referenced No.2, 3, and 4 reports, the
subject site is an approximate 1.21-acre portion of the roughly 3.5-acre site that was
presented in the Referenced NO.2 Report. Grading for utility lines and the driveway off of
Diaz Road were the only previously graded areas found to encroach into the current
subject site. The utility line is located within the narrow driveway running parallel to the
northwest property line (Referenced No.3). The utility line extends from Diaz Road to its
terminus located 125-feet from the southwest property line and is situated approximately
7 -feet into the site from the northwest property line.
: 2.1.1 Falllt Rllptllr'" Based on our review of the Referenced No. 2 Report, geologic
parameters for the site have already been established. No faults exist on the subject site,
therefore, the potential for hazards associated with fault rupture is considered low.
.2.1.2 Ror.kfalls and Land!:liding" Based on favorable flat topography, the potential for
hazards associated with rockfalls or land sliding is considered low.
.2.1.3 I iqll"far.tion' Based on the Referenced NO.2 Report, if remedial grading activities are
performed as recommended, the total settlement due to potential liquefaction will be on
the order of 3.87 -inches and potential differential settlement due to liquefaction is
estimated at one-half of the total settlement across the building length. Therefore, the
differential settlement is estimated to be approximately 1.9-inches across 60-feet.
:2.2 Sit" R..r.nnnai!<!<anr.,,' The conditions observed at the site on May 22, 2005 were
generally.the same as those of the Referenced NO.2 report with the following comments:
The narrow driveway area is paved, similar to previously described. The larger
EnGEN Corporation
A..
I
I.
i
.
II
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: 2377-SGS
June 2006
Page 3
rectangular area of the site appears to have up to 3-feet of undocumented fill material
spread over the site, with thickest amount apparently at the southeast portion of the site,
based on surface observations. Additionally, a small stockpile of green waste, minor
amounts of debris, and some trash were located on-site at the time of our visit.
The northeast quarter of the site has a chain-link enclosure with drums stored within the
enclosure. The southeast property line has a chain-link fence located along it. The
southwest property line has a block wall located along it. A planter, driveway, and parking
lot are located along the northwest of the site. An existing industrialbuilding is located
northeast of the site.
: 2.3 I ahoratOl:Y T",;ting and Te"t R",:ulh,
: 2.3.1 G"n"ral' The results of laboratory tests performed on samples of earth material obtained
during the site visit are presented in the Appendix. Following is a listing and brief
explanation of the laboratory tests 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. Test results are in the
Appendix of this report.
.2.3.2 cla""ifi"ation- The field classification of near-surface soil materials encountered on the
site were verified in the laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soils
Classification System, ASTM D 2488-00, Standard Practice for Determination and
Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures).
:2:3.3 Mayimllm Dry O"n"ity/Qptimllm Moistllr" Content Relationship Test. Maximum dry
densityloptimum moisture content relationship determinations were performed on samples
of near-surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM 1557-02 procedures
using a 4.0-inch diameter mold. Samples were prepared at various moisture contents and
compacted in five (5) layers using a 10-pound weight dropping 18-inches and with 25
blows per layer. A plot of the compacted dry density versus the moisture content of the
specimens is constructed and the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content
determined from the plot. The maximum dry densityloptimum moisture results are
presented in the Laboratory Results portion of the Appendix.
EnGEN Corporation
/'
:>
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: 2377-SGS
June 2006
Page 4
2.3.4 Fypan",ion Ind"y Te",t. Laboratory expansion tests were performed on samples of near-
surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM UBC 18-2. In this testing
procedure, a remolded sample is compacted in two (2) layers in a 4.0-inch 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
between49 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) is calculated. Testing of the existing surficial soils expansion index
resulted in an EI = 6 and the EI of the upper 5-feet of soils at the time of the Referenced
No.2 report yielded an EI = 29. For design purposes, the preliminary EI of 29 and a low
expansion potential are recommended. Final design parameters should be based on EI
testing of near surface soils and be performed at the completion of rough grading.
2.3.5 R"mold..d' Direct shear tests were performed on selected samples of near-surface earth
material in general accordance with ASTM D 3080-03 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 nonnal 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).
The direct shear test results are presented in the Laboratory Results portion of the
Appendix.
.2.3.6 Solllhl.. 'SlIlfat" Cont"nt" Testing was performed in accordance with California Test
Method 643 for sulfate content (CTM 417). A negligible amount of soluble sulfates
(0.002%by weight) was detected in the representative sample used for chemical analysis.
As a result, nonnal Type II cement can be used for all concrete in contact with native soils
at the site.
3.0 FARTI-lWORK RFCOMMFNnATIONS
Grading plans were not available at the time of this report. Our office should be provided
these plans for review once they are available in order to make additional
recommendations.
EnGEN Corporation
(,p
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'.
I
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: 2377-SGS
June 2006
Page 5
3.1 Gp."era" All organic debris, oversize material, and deleterious material should be removed
from the site and not used in proposed fills. Removal of organic material and
undocumented fill material is not considered part of the over excavation of native soils. If
the undocumented fill material is planned to be re-used as fill, it should be properly cleared
of debris in conformance to the Referenced NO.2 report prior to its use as engineered fill.
The grading needed for development of the site should conform to the recommendations of
the Referenced NO.2 Report. Due to the proximity of the proposed buildings to the property
line, the considerations of the Referenced No.4 Report should be taken into account.
The earthwork recommendations from the No.2 and NO.4 Reports are summarized below for
convenience.
1. To mitigate for the potential hazards associated with liquefaction, removals below the
proposed structure area should extend to a depth of 13-feet below proposed pad grade or
13-feet below natural ground (after the stockpiles and debris have been removed),
whichever results in the deeper removal. Horizontal extent of removals should be a
minimum of 15-feet beyond the perimeter footings where not restricted by the property
line, and 10-feet beyond the perimeter footings where the building is proposed to be 10-
feet away from the property line. Shoring, or removals in short segments with an
excavator or similar equipment, or other stabilization methods is recommended in order to
accomplish vertical removals against the property line.
However, as presented in the Referenced No. 4 Report, the grading contractor for the
building pad on the adjacent property was able to cut a 13-foot tall vertical at the base of a
3-foot tall retaining wall, reportedly without distress to the retaining wall. EnGEN
Corporation asserts no claim that this method will be viable for the current project. If the
grading contractor chooses to expose the vertical cut without shoring, steps should be
taken to protect the health and safety of those involved in the excavation, as well as the
health, safety and property of the adjacent property owners and occupants. At a
minimum, vehicles and people should be kept away from the top of the vertical cut a
distance equal to its depth.
2. All exposed removal bottoms should be inspected for consistency and depth verification
by the Soil Engineer's representative prior to placement of any fill. It is not intended that
EnGEN Corporation
\
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.2
,4.0
4.1
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: 2377-SGS
June 2006
Page 6
the bottoms meet any particular degree of relative compaction. The depth is specified in
order to provide a certain thickness of compacted fill blanket.
3. All hardscape areas should be removed to a depth of 2-feet below proposed grades or
2-feet below natural grades (after the stockpiles and debris have been removed),
whichever results in the deeper removals.
4. The approved exposed bottoms of all removal areas should be scarified 12-inches,
brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent
relative compaction before placement of fill. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content for compacted materials should be determined according to ASTM D 1557-02
procedures.
Fngine"r"d Fill' All fill material, whether on-site material or import, should be approved
by the Project Geotechnical Engineer andlor his representative before placement. All fill
should be free from vegetation, organic material, and other debris. Import fill (if any)
should consist of very low expansive potential material (EI=20 or less). Approved fill
material should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 6.0 to 8.0-inches in thickness
and watered or aerated to obtain the desired moisture content. Each lift should be
spread evenly and should be thoroughly mixed to ensure uniformity of soil moisture.
Structural fill should meet a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of maximum dry
density based upon ASTM D 1557-02 procedures. Moisture content of non-expansive
fill materials should not vary more than 2.0 percent of optimum, unless approved by the
Project Geotechnical Engineer. Expansive soils should be moisture conditioned to at
least 4 percent above optimum.
FOIINDATION DFSIGN REcOMMFNDATIONS
G"",,ral: Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional column
footings and continuous wall footings founded upon compacted fill material. The
recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and
construction are based on geotechnical characteristics and a low expansion potential for
the supporting soils and should not preclude more restrictive structural requirements.
The Structural Engineer for the project should determine the actual footing width and
EnGEN Corporation
<<6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.2
4.3
4;4
4.5
Jonan Management Services
Project Number, 2377-SGS
June 2006
Page 7
depth in accordance with the current California Building Code to resist design vertical,
horizontal, and uplift forces, based on an Expansion Index of 29, and on the results of
inspection and material testing. These foundation recommendations are preliminary
and should be verified once building footprints are located on the site.
S"jsmic' Param"t"rs' The following seismic factors apply:
Name of Fault: Elsinore (Temecula Segment)
Type of Fault: Type B Fault
Closest Distance to Active Fault: Less than 2 Km
Soil Profile Type: SD
FOllndation Si7Po' Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches.
Continuous footings should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of one (1) No.4
steel reinforcing bar located near the top and one (1) NO.4 steel reinforcing bar located
near the bottom of the footings to minimize the effects of slight differential movements
which may occur due to minor variations in the engineering characteristics or seasonal
moisture change in the supporting soils. In the case of concrete tilt-up or masonry
structures when the wall and footing combine to form a deep beam system, the Structural
Engineer may alter the reinforcing as necessary. Final foundation size and reinforcing
should be determined based on the expansive potential of the supporting soils. Column
footings should have a minimum width of 18-inches by 18-inches and be suitably
reinforced, based on structural requirements. A grade beam, founded at the same depths
and reinforced the same as the adjacent footings, should be provided across doorways,
garage or any other types of perimeter openings.
Depth of Fmh"dmPont. Exterior and interior footings founded in compacted fill material
should extend to a minimum depth of 18-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade.
Deeper footings may be necessary for expansive soils purposes, depending on the final
determination of expansive potential at the conclusion of grading.
Bearing 'Capacity. Provided the recommendations for site earthwork, minimum footing
width, and minimum depth of embedment for footings are incorporated into the project
EnGEN Corporation
<\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,4.6
47
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: 2377-SGS
June 2006
Page 8
design and construction, the allowable bearing value for design of continuous and column
footings for the total dead plus frequently-applied live loads is 2,000 psf for continuous
footings ,and 2,000 psf for column footings in compacted fill material. The allowable
bearing value has a factor of safety of at least 3.0 and may be increased by 33.3 percent
for short durations of live andlor dynamic loading such as wind or seismic forces. Once
grading is completed, the nature of the imported soils can be tested to determine if
increases in the allowable bearing value is justified.
Settl"m"nt. Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values for
continuous and column footings, respectively, and the maximum assumed wall and
column loads are not expected to exceed a maximum settlement of 1.0-inch or a
differential settlement of 0.5-inch between adjacent column loads under static load
conditions in properly compacted fill to the depth recommended. An evaluation of
settlement due to possible liquefaction was made in the Referenced No. 1 Report based
on SPT values, fines content and potential earthquake magnitude. The results indicate a
possibility of potential seismically induced total settlement on the order of 3.87 -inches due
to an earthquake event of magnitude 6.8 on the Elsinore Fault. As a result, potential
differential settlement on the order of one-half of the total may be experienced across the
building length. Therefore the differential settlement is estimated to be approximately 1.9-
inches across 60-feet. The probability of such an occurrence is considered remote.
However, the Project Structural Engineer should be conservative in providing tension ties
at the roof connections to promote the concept of "life safety" design and minimize the
potential of roof collapse in the event of liquefaction. Such design should meet the
"acceptable level of risk" as defined in CDMG Special Publication 117.
I atera' Capacity. Additional foundation design parameters for resistance to static lateral
forces, are as follows:
,Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Compacted Fill - 250 pet
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
Compacted Fill - 0.35
Lateral load resistance may be developed by a combination of friction acting on the base
of foundations and slabs and passive earth pressure developed on the sides of the
footings and stem walls below grade when in contact with bedrock material. The above
EnGEN Corporation
\0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'5.1
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: 2377-SGS
June 2006
Page 9
values are allowable design values and may be used in combination without reduction in
evaluating the resistance to lateral loads. The allowable values may be increased by 33.3
percent for short durations of live andlor dynamic loading, such as wind or seismic forces.
For the calculation of passive earth resistance, the upper 1.0-foot of material should be
neglected unless confined by a concrete slab or pavement. The maximum recommended
allowable passive pressure is 5.0 times the recommended design value.
5.0
SI AR.ON.GRAnF RFCOMMFNnATIONS
The recommendations for concrete slabs, both interior and exterior, excluding PCC
pavement, are based upon the expansion potential for the supporting material. Concrete
slabs should be designed to minimize cracking as a result of shrinkage. Joints (isolation,
contraction, and construction) should be placed in accordance with the American Concrete
Institute (ACI) guidelines. Special precautions should be taken during placement and
curing of all concrete slabs. Excessive slump (high water I cement ratio) of the concrete
and/or improper curing procedures used during either hot or cold weather conditions could
result in excessive shrinkage, cracking, or curling in the slabs. It is recommended that all
concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be performed in accordance with ACI
recommendations and procedures.
Interior Slah,,' Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 5.0-inches
actual in thickness and be underlain by 1.0 to 2.0-inches of clean coarse sand or other
approved granular material placed on properly prepared subgrade per the Earthwork
Recommendations Section of this report. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of
NO.4 bars at 24-inches on center each way, or a suitable equivalent, as determined by the
Project Structural Engineer. Varying degrees of expansive potential require additional slab
reinforcing and thickness. Final lot identification and slab construction requirements will be
presented in the compaction report upon completion of grading. It is essential that the
reinforcing be placed at mid-depth in the slab. The concrete section andlor reinforcing
steel should be increased appropriately for anticipated excessive or concentrated floor
loads. In areas where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slab, we
recommend the use of a polyethylene vapor barrier with a minimum of 10.0 mil in
thickness be placed beneath the slab. The moisture barrier should be overlapped or
sealed at splices and covered top and bottom by a 1.0-inch to 2.0-inch minimum layer of
EnGEN Corporation
\\
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.2
6.0
6.1
.6.2
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: 2377-SGS
June 2006
Page 10
clean, moist (not saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize potential
punctures.
FJCt"rinr Slahs' All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks,
etc., with the exception of PCC pavement) should be a minimum of 4.0-inches nominal in
thickness and should be underlain by a minimum of 12.0-inches of soil that has been
prepared in accordance with the Earthwork Recommendation section of this report.
Reinforcing in the slabs and the use of a compacted sand or gravel base beneath the
slabs should be according to the current local standards.
RFTAININf.: WAI I RFCOMMFNnATIONS
Farth Pr"sslIres' 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:
c~:~~::n LeV~I~B~~rill 2:~5s~~e
Materials of a very low Expansion Index 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
should be designed for the above-recommended active condition. Walls that are not
capable of this movement should be assumed rigid and designed for the at-rest condition.
The above values assume well-drained backfill and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure.
Surcharge loads, dead andlor live, acting on the backfill within a horizontal distance behind
the wall should also be considered in the design.
FOllndation nesign' Retaining wall footings should be founded to the same depths into
firm, competent, undisturbed bedrock 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
EnGEN Corporation
\z..
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jonan Management Services
Project Number, 2377-SGS
June 2006
Page 11
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.
6.3 SlIhdrain' A subdrain system should be constructed behind and at the base of all
retaining walls to allow drainage and to prevent the buildup of excessive hydrostatic
pressures. Typical subdrains may include weep holes with a continuous gravel gallery,
perforated pipe surrounded by filter rock, or some other approved system. 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.
I 6.4 Rackfill' 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 1557-02 procedures.
.7.0 MIScFI i AN FOilS RFC:OMMFNnATIONS
7~ 1 IItility Tr"nch R"comm"ndatinn,,' Utility trenches within the zone of influence of
foundations or under building floor slabs, hardscape, andlor pavement areas should be
backfilled with properly compacted soil. It is recommended that all utility trenches
EnGEN Corporation
\:?
.
II
: I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
7.2
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: 2377-SGS
June 2006
Page 12
excavated to depths of 5.0-feet or deeper be cut back to an inclination not steeper than
1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or be adequately shored during construction. Where interior
or exterior utility trenches are proposed parallel andlor perpendicular to any building
footing, 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. Backfill material should be placed in a lift
thickness appropriate for the type of backfill material and compaction equipment used.
Backfill material for trenches deeper than 2-feet should be compacted to a minimum of
90 percent relative compaction by mechanical means. Jetting of the backfill material
may not be considered a satisfactory method for compaction. Maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content for backfill material should be determined according to
ASTM D1557-02 procedures.
Pav"ment n"sign R""omm"ndations' Preliminary pavement recommendations are
presented based on R-Value testing of soils obtained from the site and an assumed
future traffic loading expressed in terms of a Traffic Index (TI). Pavement sections have
been determined in general accordance with CalTrans design procedures based on a
(TI) of 5.0 for automobile areas, a (TI) of 6.0 for truck traffic areas, and an R-Value test
results of 21, which corresponds to results from sample A.
Type of Traffic Traffic Index Recommended Section
Automobile 5.0 3-inches Asphalt Concrete over 7 -inches Crushed
Aggregate Base. Aggregate Base to be placed on
properly prepared subgrade.
OR
An equivalent of a minimum of 7-inches of 4,000 psi
Portland Cement Concrete over 95 percent
subnrade
Truck 6.0 3-inches Asphalt Concrete over 10.5-inches Crushed
Aggregate Base. Aggregate Base to be placed on
properly prepared subgrade.
OR
An equivalent of a minimum of 8-inches of 4,000 psi
Portland Cement Concrete over 95 percent
subnrade
EnGEN Corporation
\L\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: 2377-SGS
June 2006
Page 13
The project designer should choose the appropriate pavement section for the anticipated
traffic pattem and delineate the respective areas on the site plan. Since actual
calculations may at times conflict with City of Temecula adopted standards, the AC
pavement sections and the Portland Cement pavement section are subject to review and
approval by the City of Temecula. Asphalt concrete pavement materials should be as
specified in Sections 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction
(Green Book), or a suitable equivalent. Aggregate base should conform to Class II
material as specified in Sections 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction (Green Book), 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 1557-02 procedures.
In dumpster pick-up areas, and in areas where semi-trailers are to be parked on the
pavement such that a considerable load is transferred from small wheels, it is
recommended that rigid Portland Cement concrete pavement with a minimum thickness of
8.0-inches be provided in these areas. This will provide for the proper distribution of loads
to the subgrade without causing deformation of the pavement surface. Special
consideration should also be given to areas where truck traffic will negotiate small radius
turns. Asphaltic concrete pavement in these areas should utilize stiffer emulsions or the
areas should be paved with Portland Cement concrete. In areas where Portland Cement
concrete is to be placed directly on subgrade, the subgrade should be compacted to a
minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. If pavement subgrade soils are prepared at
the time of rough grading of the building site and the areas are not paved immediately,
additional observations and testing will have to be performed before placing aggregate
base material, asphaltic concrete, or PCC pavement to locate areas that may have been
damaged by construction traffic, construction activities, and/or seasonal wetting and
drying. In the proposed pavement areas, soil samples should be obtained at the time the
subgrade is graded for R-Value testing according to California Test Method 301
procedures to verify the pavement design recommendations.
EnGEN Corporation
\~
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.3
7,4
7.5
7.6
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: 2377-SGS
June 2006
Page 14
T"mpora'Y Fy"avation" or cllt". All temporary cuts and excavations should be
inclined no steeper than 1: 1 (horizontal to vertical) in the existing fill or alluvial areas of
the site. Exposed conditions may require flatter inclinations. Steeper inclinations or
potentially unstable conditions will require full properly placed shoring. If site restrictions
require a different configuration, this office should be contacted to develop construction
recommendations.
Fini"h I nt Drainage Re"omm"ndation,,' Finish lot surface gradients in unpaved areas
should be provided next to tops of slopes and buildings to direct surface water away from
foundations and slabs and from flowing over the tops of slopes. The surface water should
be directed toward suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of surface water should not be
allowed next to structures or on pavements. In unpaved areas, a minimum positive
gradient of 2.0 percent away from the structures and tops of slopes for a minimum
distance .of 5.0-feet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the property in a non-
erosive manner should be provided.
Plant"r Re"omm"ndation,,' Planters around the perimeter of the structure should be
designed to ensure that adequate drainage is maintained and minimal irrigation water is
allowed to percolate into the soils underlying the building.
SlIpp'"m"ntal con"trur.tinn Oh"ervation" and Te"ting' Any subsequent grading for
development of the subject property should be performed under engineering observation
and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Subsequent grading includes, but is not
limited to, any additional overexcavation of cut andlor cut/fill transitions, fill placement, and
excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN
Corporation should observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be made
prior to installation of concrete forms andlor reinforcing steel so as to verify andlor modify,
if necessary, the conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations of
overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement
subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other earthwork
completed for the development of subject property should be performed by EnGEN
Corporation. If any of the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions
are not performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the safety and performance of the
EnGEN Corporation
\Cp
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: 2377-SGS
June 2006
Page 15
development is limited to the actual portions of the project observed andlor tested by
EnGEN Corporation.
7.7 Pre-Grad" Conf"r"nc,,' Before the start of any 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 supplemental
grading recommendations and to verify that the project specifications comply with the
recommendations of this geotechnical engineering report. Any special grading
procedures andlor difficulties proposed by the contractor can also be discussed at that
time.
8.0 cl OSIIRE
8.1 cli"nt Rl\port PllrpO<:I\'" 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.
; 8,2 Pr<1jed and Prop"rtv Chang"'" In the event that changes in the assumed nature,
design, or location of the proposed structure andlor project 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 are modified or verified in writing. If conditions are
observed or information becomes available during the design and construction process
that 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.
: 8.3 Stand"rd nf Prar.tice' This study was conducted in general accordance with the
applicable standards of our profession and the accepted soil and foundation 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.
'8:4 I imitatinn,,' 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 that may have an impact
EnGEN Corporation
\1
:.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.5
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: 2377-SGS
June 2006
Page 16
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 andlor
adjacent properties.
Chang"" in Standard of Care' 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 of the control of EnGEN
Corporation which occur in the future.
EnGEN Corporation
\~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: 2377-SGS
June 2006
Page 17
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our services. Often, because of design and construction
details which occur on a project, questions arise concerning the geotechnical conditions on the
site. If we can be of further service or you should have questions regarding this report, please do
not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience. Because of our involvement in the project
to date, we would be pleased to discuss engineering testing and observation services that may be
. applicable on the project.
, Respectfully submitted,
. EnGEN Corporation
~'J~
I Eric Davisson
I Field Geologist
C!~~
,
,
. Colby Matthews"
~ Senior Staff Geol
i Expires 06-30-07
I ED/CM/OB:sa
. Distribution: {4)Addressee
File: EnGEN\Reporting\SGS\T2377-SGS Jonan Management Services
EnGEN Corporation
\'\
I
II
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
il
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: T2377-SGS
Appendix Page 1
APPENDIX
1P
.
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: T2377-SGS
Appendix Page 2
TFCHNICAI RFFFRENCES
1.
Blake, T. F., 2004, EQ Fault for Windows, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program for
Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized Califomia Faults, September 2004.
California Building Code, 2001, 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, 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 SafetylSafety Element Policy Report, June 1978, by
Envicom.
EnGEN Corporation, Geotechnical Engineering Study, Diaz Industrial Partnership, Parcels
1 and 2 of Parcel Map 27509, 28071 Diaz Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County,
California, Project Number: T2289-GS, dated August 30, 2001.
EnGEN Corporation, Geotechnical Report and Compaction Test Results, Post Grading
Operations, Diaz Industrial Partnership, Parcel 1 or Parcel Map 27509, Diaz Road, City of
Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Project Number: T2377-C, report dated
November 14, 2002.
EnGEN Corporation, Removal and Recompaction Addendum to Geotechnical
Recommendations, Diaz Industrial Partnership, Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 27509,
28071 Diaz Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County, Califomia, Project Number: T2377-
C, report dated March 6, 2002.
EnGEN Corporation, Slab Design Variation, Diaz Industrial Partnership, Parcels 1 and 2 of
Parcel Map 27509, 28071 Diaz Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California,
Project Number: T2377-GS, report dated August 30,2001.
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.
Jennings, CW., 1975, Fault Map of California with Locations of Volcanoes, Thermal
Springs and Thermal Wells, 1 :750,000: California Division of Mines and Geology,
Geologic Data Map No.1.
Jennings, CW., 1985, An explanatory text to accompany the 1:750,000 scale Fault and
Geologic Maps of California: Califomia 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: Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Special
Report 131, 12 p., 1 plate, scale 1 :24,000.
EnGEN Corporation
ZA
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
,20.
21.
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: T2377-SGS
Appendix Page 3
TECHNICAl RFFFRFNCFS (ContinI/Ad)
Mann, J.F., Jr., October 1955, Geology of a Portion of the Elsinore Fault Zone, Califomia:
State of Cali fomi a, 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,
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 Califomia Area, Sheet 147, Scale 1" = 800'.
S.C.E.D.C., 2002, Southem California Earthquake Data Center Website,
http://www.scecdc.scec.org.
Southern Califomia Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Recommended Procedures for
Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating
Liquefaction Hazards in California, March 1999.
Temecula, City of, 1993, General Plan, adopted November 9, 1993.
Uniform Building Code (USe), 1997 Edition, by International Conference of Building
Officials, 3 Volumes.
EnGEN Corporation
'],.1,.;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: T2377-SGS
Appendix Page 4
TAR! FA
D!STANCF TO STATF nFSIGNATFD ACTIVF FA!II TS
ABBREVIATED APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM
FAULT NAME DISTANCE EARTHQUAKE
Mi IKm\ MAG IMwl
Elsinore - Temecula 0.5 0.9 6.8
Elsinore - Julian 12.0 19.3 7.1
Elsinore - Glen Iw 14.7 23.6 6.8
San Jacinto - San Jacinto Vallev 21.4 34.5 6.9
San Jacinto - Anza 21.4 34.5 7.2
Newoort - Inalewood 27.5 44.2 6.9
Rose Canvon 30.0 48.3 6.9
Chino - Central Avenue 32.6 52.5 6.7
San Jacinto - San Bernardino 35.9 57.7 6.7
Whittier 36.8 59.2 6.8
San Jacinto - Covote Creek 37.5 60.4 6.8
San Andreas - Southern 38.7 62.3 4.1
San Andreas - San Bernardino 38.7 62.3 7.3
Earthouake Vallev 39.9 64.2 6.5
Coronado Bank 44.4 71.5 7.4
I NewDort-lnalewood (L.A. Basin) 44.8 72.1 6.9
I Pinto Mountain 45.8 73.7 7.0
I Palos Verdes 47.5 76.5 7.1
: San Andreas - Coachella 49.1 79.0 7.1
I Cucamonoa 49.7 80.0 7.0
I Elvsian Park Thrust 49.7 80.0 6.7
I North Frontal Fault Zone !West) 50.8 81.7 7.0
I Comoton Thrust 51.3 82.5 6.8
: San Jose 52.1 83.8 6.5
I North Frontal Fault Zone lEast) 53.6 86.3 6.7
Cleahorn 53.6 86.3 6.5
i Bumt Mountain 54.4 87.5 6.4
: Sierra Madre 54.4 87.6 7.0
I Eureka Peak 57.2 92.1 6.4
I Elsinore - Covote Mountain 59.0 94.9 6.8
: San Jacinto - Borreao 59.3 95.4 6.6
: San Andreas - Moiave 59.8 96.2 7.1
: San Andreas - 1857 Ruoture 59.8 96.2 7.8
EnGEN Co,!>o"tion 't-1:>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES
Jonen Management Services
Project Number: T2377-SGS
Appendix Page 5
EnGEN Corporation
']A
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
Prime Testing, Inc.
38372 Innovation Ct ste 102 Murrieta, CA 92563
ph (951) 894-2682 . fx (951) 894-2683
Client: EnGEN Corporation
Report Date: May 30, 2006
Client No: A02
Work Order: 6E4A02
Project No: T2377-SGS [P.O. #3066J
Project Name: Diaz II Industrial
Laboratorv Test(s) Results Summary
The subject soil sample was processed in accordance with California Test Method
CTM 643 and tested for Sulfate Content (CTM 417). The test results follow:
Sample
No.
A
Client Data
Sample
Location
Sulfate
Content
%b
20 0.002
'ND=No Detection
We appreciate the opportunity to serve you. Please do not hesitate to contact us with
any questions or clarifications regarding these results or procedures.
~/i.lt;-
Ahmet K. Kaya, Laboratory Manager
~
--='l.IL _
_rn>NAL
~fo
ORGANIZA.TIONAL
M E,M B E R
Form No. 61R
Rev. 05/06
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
R-V ALUE TEST REPORT
100
80
~
~
~
E
~
~
~
4 ~
.......... ""
""'-. '-e..
............ ...............
~
-" " "', " " " " "II I" " IIII II '" ,. " .. I, '" ".' I " "
60
'"
:J
"ffi
:r
ll:
40
20
o
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Exudation Pressure - psi
Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure - Cal Test 301
Compact Density Moist. Expansion
,No. Pressure Pressure
si pcf % psi
1 350 124.8 12.7 18.19
2 300 125.4 13.6 16.67
3 250 123.0 14.6 10.61
Sample
Height
in.
2.50
2.46
2.51
Exud.
Pressure
si
554
320
169
R
Value
48
23
12
R
Value
Corr.
48
23
12
Test Results
Material Description
R-value at 300 psi exudation pressure = 21
SILTY SAND, BROWN
Project No.: 12377-SGS
Project:DIAZ II INDUSTRIAL CENTER
Source of Sample: R- VALUE
Sample Number: A
Date: 5/3112006
R-VALUE TEST REPORT
EnGEN Corporation
Tested by: AS
Checked by: JH
Remarks:
BUILDING AREA
COLLECTED BY ED
COLLECTED ON (5/22/06)
t;'\
Figure 1
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results
Job Number: T2377-SGS
Job Name: DiAl II INDUSTRIAL
Location: DiAl ROAD
Sample Source: (A) BUILDING AREA
Sampled by: ED (5/22/06)
Lab Technician: DJ
Sample Descr: SILTY SAND, BROWN
5/31/2006
Wet Compacted WI.: 607.2
RingWt.: 200.6
Net Wet WI.: 406.6
Wet Density: 122.8
Wet Soil: 230.0
Dry Soil: 209.8
Initial Moisture (%): 9.6%
Initial Dry Density: 112.0
% Saturation: 51.6%
Final.Wt. & Ring WI.: 632.8
Net Final WI.: 432.2
Dry WI.: 370.9
Loss: 61.3
Net Ory WI.: 367.5
FinalDensity: 111.0
Saturated Moisture: 16.7%
Dial
Change Time
Reading 1: 0.100 N/A 11:35
Reading 2: 0.102 0.002 11:50
Reading 3: 0.104 0.004 12:05
Reading 4: 0.105 0.005 23-May
Expansion Index:
5
Adjusted Index:
(UBe 18-2)
5.6
EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
(951) 296-2230
Fax: (951) 296.2237
1ib
, I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results
Jab Number: T2377-GS
Jab Name: DiAl INDUSTRIAL PARTNERSHIP
Location: DiAl ROAD
Sample Source: B1 @ 0-5
Sampled by: CM (7-27-01)
Lab Technician: CC
Sample Descr: SIL TV SAND. BROWN
5/3112006
Wet Compacted Wt. 617.4
RingWl.: 196.4
Net Wet Wt.: 421.0
Wet Density: 127.1
Wet Soil: 178.6
Dry Soil: 165.3
Initial Moisture (%): 8.0%
Initial Dry Density: 117.7
% Saturation: 50.3%
Finai Wt. & Ring Wt.: 655.1
Net liinal Wl.: 458.7
DryWt.: 389.6
Loss: 69.1
Net DryWt.: 387.1
FinalDensity: 116.9
Saturated Moisture: 17.8%
Dial Chan e Time
Reading 1: 0.100 N/A 2:45
Reading 2: 0.108 0.008 3:00
Reading 3: 0.116 0.016 3:15
Readin 4: 0.129 0.029 ii-Au
Expansion Index:
29
Adjusted Index:
(ASTM 0482910.1.2)
29.2
EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 296-2230
Fax: (909) 296-2237
1,-0.,
I
I
i
I
I
I
,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
o
a.
~
';;;
<::
.,
"
e:-
o
\
1\
'\
"\
\
\
'\
I - 1\
-' r-..
I / '\ \
/ \
1../ \ \
~ ,
1\ \
\
1\
\
\
,
\
132
'130
1128
126
124
122
4
ZA V for
Sp.G.=
2.61
16
6
8
10
Water content, %
12
14
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-02 Method A Modified
Elev/
Depth
Classification
uses AASHTO
Nat.
Moist.
%>
No,4
%<
Sp.G.
LL
PI
No.200
SM
9.6
TEST RESULTS
Maximum dry density = 127.9 pcf
Optimum moisture = 9.4 %
Project No. T2377-SGS Client: JONAN PROPERTY SERVICES
Project: DIAZ II INDUSTRIAL CENTER
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SILTY SAND, BROWN
Remarks:
SAMPLE # A
BUILDING AREA
COLLECTED BY ED
COLLECTED ON (5/22/06)
. location: DlAZ ROAD
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
?P
Figure
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jonan Management Services
Project Number: T2377-SGS
Appendix Page 6
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
?\