HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel 6 Geotechnical & Compaction Test Rough Grading
~,
.
~~GEN COrRoration
.
. Soil Engineering and COIlSllllil1l1 SeMces . Engineering GeoIooY . Compaction TesIU'W;
. Inspections. Construction Materials resting. LabofatOlY TesMQ . PercolallCtl TI!S!lf'r;:
. GeolOOY.Water Resource Sludies . PhaseJ&UEnvircnnental$ileAssessmer:::s
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NE1WORK
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT & COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
ProposectMilg~rd Manufacturing Plant
Parcel 6 of Parcel Map 28657
City of Temecula(County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T1431-C
August 26, 1998
l
Prepared for.
/ " "I _~ _ '/ '- ,,' _' _
" - :.~ \~ - - ~ :-:' -'. ,: ,'_~.:..~.;~~..~.;_~;...:_.:..L.:._~
,~ '-=-::;.,J,.__~.o.iiiii;;;;:=::=========:======::
..................................II..!:: '
__.......____.......__....__.....___u::
---259""!!~-----6ii-----------------====,;: .:.
I r. 9 e '" S ~ "8 0 4
. '. W~~!1J:J'~~~ ~ . 7~~f,~j~W~i trf'H~~~r}~~r J I~j~ i14 i\ .;~ it ;1.~ ~;" ., ,."
,
.
Mil_FamilY Umited Partnership
Project Number: T1431-C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE
PAGE
1.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ....................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................ 1
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................2
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ....................................................................................................2
2.1 TIME OF GRADING ...................................................................................................2
3.0 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 2
3.1 GRADING OPERATIONS .......... ..................................................................................2
4.0 TESTING .................................................................................................................3
4.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES................................................................................... 3
4.1.1 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................... 3
4.1.2 Moisture-Density Relationship Test.......................................................... 3
4.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST...........................................................................................3
5.0 EARTH MATERIALS ..................................................................................................4
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATlONS...................................................................4
6.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................4
6.2 FOUNDATION SIZE ...................................................................................................4 .
6.3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT............................................................................................4
6.4 BEARING CAPACITY ..................................................................................................4
6.5 SETTLEMENT............ ....... ........ ...................................... .... ....... ..ro..' ..... ..;... ... ..........-fJ
6.5.1 Settlement Monitoring ................................................-.:.'............:......~.,.:;....5.~ .
6.6 LATERAL'CAPACITY .................................................................. ...;. ,;... ...;.......... ...::.. 5
6.7 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................."..6
6.8 INTERIOR SLABS....................................................... ........ ......... ......... .............. ...;.;.6
6.9 ExTERIOR SLABS ....................................................................................................7
6.10 GENERAL ....... ....... ........................................ ......................................................... 7
7.0 C LO SURE ................ .................. ..................... ............... ........ .............. ................ 8
APPENDIX
TEST RESUL'IS
DRAWINGS
z..
EnGEN Corpor.ation
"
.
.
August 26, 1998
Mr. Harold Williams
Milgard Family Limited Partnership
601020" Street East, Suite 5
Fife, Washington 98424
(253) 922-0774 I FAX (253) 922-7744
Regarding: GEOTECHNICAL REpORT & COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
R0UGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Proposed Milgard Manufacturing Plant
Parcel 6 of Parcel Map 28657
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T1431-C
References: 1. EnGEN Corporation, Updated Geological/Geotechnical Engineering
Study, Proposed Expansion of existing Business Center, Parcels 1-9
of Tract 28657, Project Number: T1381-GS, report dated May 4,
1998.
2. HLC Engineering, Grading Plan for Tract 28657, plans dated May 26,
1998.
3. EnGEN Corporation, Fault Location Investigation, Existing Restricted
Use Zone, Parcel Map 24085 and 24086, Project Number: T1179-FS,
report dated August 29, 1997.
Dear Mr. Williams:
According to your request and signed authorization, EnGEN Corporation has performed
field observations, sampling, and in-place density testing at the above referenced site.
Sl!Jbmitted, herein, are the test results and the supporting field and laboratory data.
1 ~O PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The subject site consists of 7.5 :I: acres, located southwest of the intersection of
Diaz Road and Winchester Road, in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside,
California.
~
.
.ard Family Limited Partnership
Project Number: T1431-C
Augusl1998
Page 2
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Prior to grading operations, topography and surface conditions of the site were
gently sloping to the east at a gradient of less than 10 percent.
2:0 SCOPE OF WORK
2.1 TIME OF GRADING
This report represents geotechnical observations and testing during the
construction operations from July 20, 1998 through August 17, 1998.
3:0 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT
The grading operations were performed by American Contracting, Inc. (ACI)
through the use of two (2) 657 wheel-mounted scrapers, two (2) 650 wheel-
mounted scrapers, two (2) water trucks, one (1) 834 wheel-mounted dozer, one (1)
825 steel-mounted dozer and one (1) D-6 track-mounted dozer.
3.1 GRADING OPERATIONS
Grading within the subject site consisted of a over-excavation and replacement
operation. Grasses and weeds were removed prior to fill placement. Fill material
was generated from the westerly portions of Parcel Map 28657 and used to bring
the entire area of Parcel 6 to finish grade elevation. Removal of alluvium,
slopewash, etc., was performed to a depth of 6 to 8-feet below original elevation.
Over-excavated earth material was stockpiled and later used as fill. ,Bottoms were
observed, probed and found to be into competent soil by a represe~nta~ve of ~his
firm. Over-excavation was performed to a depth of 6 to a-feet below~ativEtg~oul1d _
elevation. The exposed bottoms within the building footprint area were scarified
and moisture conditioned to a depth of 8 to 12-inches then compacted to 95
percent. Fill within the building footprint area was placed in lens thicknesses of 6 to
8-inches, thoroughly moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, then
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. All fill placed outside
of the building footprint area was compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum
density. Moisture conditioning of the on-site soils was performed during the
compaction process, through the use of a water truck. The pad area was generally
graded to the elevations noted on the Grading Plan. However, the actual pad
EnGEN Corporation ~
.
.d Family Limited Partnership
Project Number: T1431-C
August 1998
Page 3
location, dimensions, elevations, slope locations and inclinations, etc. were
surveyed ,and staked by others and should be verified by the Project Civil Engineer.
~o TESTING
4!1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES
Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed in general
accordance with ASTM-0-2922-81 (90) and ASTM-0-3017-88 procedures for
determining in-place density and moisture content, respectively, using nuclear
gauge equipment. Relative compaction test results within the building footprint
area were within the 95 percent requested by the client. All material placed outside
of the building footprint area was compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum
density. Test results are presented in the Appendix of this report. Fill depths and
test locations were determined from review of the referenced grading plans.
411!1 Laboratory Testing
The following laboratory tests were performed as part of our services during the
grading of the subject site. The test results are presented in the Appendix of this
report.
4: 1.2 Moisture-Density Relationship Test
Maximum dry density - optimum moisture content relationship tests were conducted
on samples of the materials used as fill. The tests were performed in general
accordance with ASTM 01557-91 procedures. The testcresults are presented in
the Appendix (Summary of Optimum Moisture Content I Maximum Dry Density
Relationship Test Results).
4~2 ExPANSION INDEX TEST
A soil sample was obtained for expansion potential testing from the building pad
area upon completion of rough grading of the subject site. The expansion test
procedure utilized was the Uniform Building Code Test Designation 18-2. The
material tested consisted of silty fine sand (SM), which has an Expansion Index of
0.06. This soil is classified as having a low expansion potential. The results are
presented in the Summary of Expansion Index. Results in the Appendix of this
report.
EnGEN Corporation ::;
.
.rd Family Umited Partnership
Project Number: T1431-C
August 1998
Page 4
5.0 EARTH MATERIALS
The natural earth materials encountered on-site, generally consisted of silty fine to
medium sands (SM).
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional column
footings :and continuous wall footings founded upon properly compacted fill. The
recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design
and construction are based on geotechnical characteristics and a low expansion
potential for the supporting soils and 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.
6.2 FOUNDATION SIZE
Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches. Continuous
footings .should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of one (1) No.5 steel
reinforcing bar located near the top and one (1) No.5 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. 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 garage door openings and other doorway entrances.
6.3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT
Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill should extend to a
minimum depth of 18-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for the structure.
The foundations should be founded in properly compacted fill with a minimum of
18-inches of compacted fill below the bottom of the footings.
6.4 BEARING CAPACITY
Provided the recommendations for site earth work, minimum footing width, and
EnGEN Corporation '"
.
"rd Family Umited Partnership
Project Number: T1431-C
August 1998
Page 5
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 2500 psf for
continuous footings and 2500 psf for column footings in properly compacted fill
material. The allowable bearing value has a factor of safety of at least 3.0 and may
be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading
such as wind or seismic forces.
6.5 SETTLEMENT
Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values for continuous
and column footings, respectively, and the maximum assumed wall and column
loads are not expected to exceed a maximum settlement of 0.75-inches or a
differential settlement of 0.25-inches in properly compacted fill.
6.5.1 Settlement Monitoring
Settlement markers have been placed at the site and are being monitored on a
regular schedule. Prior to staring construction, a review of the settlement
monitoring data should be made to determine that sufficient stabilization has
occurred to allow construction to commence. The construction start date could be
significantly affected by the monitoring results.
6.6 LATERAL CAPACITY
Additional foundation design parameters based ciricompacted fill for resistance to
static lateral forces, are as follows: --
Allowable Lateral Pressure
(Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Compacted Fill - 200 pet
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
Compacted Fill - .35 pet
Lateral load resistance may be developed by a combination of friction acting on the
base of foundations and slabs and passive earth pressure developed on the sides
of the footings and stem walls below grade when in contact with undisturbed,
properly, compacted fill material. The above values are allowable design values
EnGEN Corporation 1
:
.
eard Family Umited Partnership
Project Number: T1431-C
August 1998
Page 6
and have safety factors of at least 2.0 incorporated into them and may be used in
combination without reduction in evaluating the resistance to lateral loads. The
allowable values may be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live 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.
6.7 SLAB-DN-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations for concrete slabs, both interior and exterior, excluding PCC
pavement, are based upon the anticipated building usage and upon a low
expansion potential for the supporting material as determined by Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code. Concrete slabs should be designed to minimize
cracking as a result of shrinkage. Joints (isolation, contraction, and construction)
should be placed in accordance with. the American Concrete Institute (ACI)
guidelines. Special precautions should be taken during placement and curing of all
concrete slabs. Excessive slump (high water/cement ratio) of the concrete and/or
improper curing procedures used during either hot or cold weather conditions could
result in excessive shrinkage, cracking, or curling in the slabs. It is recommended
that all concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be performed in accordance
with ACI recommendations and procedures.
:6.8 INTERIOR SLABS
=-
, ,
Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4-inches in actual
thickness and be underlain by a minimum of 1 to 2-inches of clean coarse sand or
other approved granular material placed on properly prepared subgrade. Minimum
slab reinforcement should consist of #3 reinforcing bars placed 18-inches on the
center in both directions or a suitable equivalent. In areas where moisture sensitive
floor coverings are anticipated over the slab, we recommend the use of a
polyethylene vapor barrier with a minimum of 6.0 mil in thickness be placed
beneath the slab. The moisture barrier should be overlapped or sealed at splices
and covered by a 1.0-inch minimum layer of clean, moist (not saturated) sand to aid
in concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures.
EnGEN Corporation 8
.
.rd Family Umited Partnership
Project Number: T1431-C
August 1998
Page 7
6.9 EXTERIOR SLASS
All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks, etc., with the
exception of PCC pavement) should be a minimum of 4-inches nominal in
thickness. 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 90 percent relative
compaction based on ASTM D1557-91 procedures immediately before placing
aggregate base material or placing the concrete.
6.10 GENERAL
Based on the observations and tests performed during grading, the subject site in
the areas noted has been completed in accordance with the recommendations of
the Updated Geotechnical Study dated May 4, 1998, the clients minimum 95
percent compaction requirements and the grading Code of the City of Temecula.
Any subsequent grading for development of the subject property should be
performed under engineering observation and testing performed by EnGEN
Corporation. Subsequent grading includes, but is not limited to, any additional fill
placement and excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In
addition, EnGEN Corporation should observe all foundation excavations.
Observations should be made prior to installation of concrete forms and/or
reinforcing steel so as to verify and/or 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 earth work
completed for the development of subject site 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 development is limited to the actual portions of the project
observed and/or tested by EnGEN Corporation.
EnGEN Corporation <1
.
"rd Family Umlted Partnership
Project Number: T1431-C
August 1998
Page 8
7~O CLOSWRE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described
above. It mayor may not contain sufficient information for other parties or
purposes. The findings and recommendations expressed in this report are based
on field and laboratory testing performed during the rough grading operation and on
generally accepted engineering practices and principles. No further warranties are
implied or expressed beyond the direct representations of this report.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services. If you should have any questions
regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience.
<Respectfully submitted,
-EnGEN Corporation
IJason D. Gardner
Field Operations Manager
Osbjorn Bratene, GE 162
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
Expires 09-30-01
HWB/OB:ch
Distribution: (4) Addressee
-FILE; EnGENlReporting/CfT1431C MUgalll Family Umiled Partnership
EnGEN Corporation \ <:>
.
APPENDIX
TEST RESULTS
MilgeamllY Umlted Partnership
Project Number: T1431-C
Appendix Page 1
EnGEN Corporation \ \
----
. Me Family Limited Partnership
Project Number: T1431-C
Appendix Page 2
FIELD TeST RESULTS
(SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS)
(NUCLEAR GAUGE TEST METHOD)
Test Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
No. IDate Test Locations Elev. Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
(1998) (FT) (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%)
102 7-20 ParcelS (over-excavation) 1018 8 121.4 13.8 111.9 92.2 90
103 7-27 ParcelS (over-excavation) 1017 10 127.3 11.5 115.3 90.6 90
104 7-27 ParcelS (over-excavation) 1017 10 127.3 13.5 114.6 90.3 90
105 7-27 ParcelS (over-excavation) 1019 10 127.3 16.6 111.1 89.2 90
106 7-27 Parcel S (over-excavation) 1020 10 127.3 12.2 110.6 86.9 90
107 7-28 Parcel S 1022 10 127.3 11.9 116.1 91.2 90
108 7-28 Retest 01 #1 05 1017 10 127.3 10.1 115.1 90.4 90
109 7-28 Retest 01 #1 06 1020 10 127.3 12.2 114.9 90.3 90
111 7-28 Parcel S 1023 10 127.3 16.9 109.1 85.1 90
112 7-28 Retest 01 #111 1023 11 130.4 11.5 119.3 91.4 90
119 7-30 Parcel S (over-excavation) 1023 11 130.4 10.2 118.9 91.2 90
120 8-3 Parcel S (over-excavation) 1025 11 130.4 9.7 118.3 90.7 90
121 7-30 Parcel S (over-excavation) 1017 13 128.0 11.3 117.5 93.3 90
122 7-30 Retest 01#121 1017 13 128.0 10.9 123.1 96.2 95
123 7-30 Parcel S (over-excavation) 1018 13 128.0 12.0 122.2 95.5 95
124 8-4 Parcel S (over-excavation) 1018 15 125.5 10.7 119.9 95.5 95
125 8-4 ParcelS (over-excavation) 1018 2 117.5 11.2 114.5 97.4 95
126 8-4 ParcelS (over-excavation) 1019 15 125.5 10.3 119.3 95.1 95
127 8-4 ParcelS (over-excavation) 1018 2 117.5 12.-6 114.5 - 97,4. 95,.
128 8-4 ParcelS (over-excavation) 1019 8 121.4 11,5 116..3 95,8 95.
129 8-4 Parcel S (over-excavation) 1020 8 121.4 10,2 115.8 - 95.4 95 .
130 8-4 Parcel 6 (over-excavation) 1021 8 121.4 11.3 115.5 - 95.1 95-
133 8-7 ParcelS (over-excavation) 1017 15 125.5 10.2 120.2 95.8 95
134 8-7 ParcelS (over-excavation) 1017 15 125.5 11.3 119.3 95.1 95
135 8-7 Parcel S (over-excavation) 1017 15 125.5 9.9 121.1 96.5 95
136 8-7 Parcel S (over-excavation) 1019 15 125.5 9.1 122.0 97.2 95
137 8-7 ParcelS (over-excavation) 1019 15 125.5 10.6 119.3 95.1 95
138 8-10 ParcelS (over-excavation) 1021 15 125.5 11.3 119.9 95.5 95
139 8-10 Parcel S (over-excavation) 1021 15 125.5 10.2 120.6 96.6 95
NOTE: Test numbering is not sequential due to mass grading operations. Only tests for Parcel 6 are shown for the
purposes of this report
EnGEN Corpor:ltion \z-
,
.
Mil6amilY Limited Partnership
Project Number: T1431-C
Appendix Page 3
FIELD TEST RESULTS (CONTINUED)
(SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS)
(NUCLEAR GAUGE TEST METHOD)
Test Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
No. Date Test Locations Elev. Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
(1998) (FT) (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%)
140 8-10 Parcel S (over-excavation) 1119 15 125.5 11.0 121.3 96.7 95
141 8-11 Parcel S (over-excavation) 1017 15 125.5 9.9 111.8 89.0 95
142 8-11 Retest of#141 1017 15 125.5 9.9 120.5 96.0 95
143 8-11 Parcel S 1023 15 125.5 7.7 119.9 95.5 95
144 8,~2 Parcel S 1025 13 128.0 10.3 121.9 95.2 95
145 8-12 Parcel S 1023 13 128.0 10.5 122.0 95.3 95
146 8-12 ParcelS (over-excavation) 1020 13 128.0 9.9 122.1 95.4 95
147 8-13 Parcel S 1027 15 125.5 11.5 118.9 95.0 95
148 8-13 Parcel S 1025 15 125.5 10.2 119.6 95.2 95
149 8-13 Parcel S 1022 15 125.5 11.1 119.9 95.5 95
152 8-17 ParcelS (Finish Grade) 1028 7 119.6 5.7 115.3 96.4 95
153 8-17 ParcelS (Finish Grade) 1028 7 119.6 5.0 113.8 95.2 95
154 8-17 ParcelS (Finish Grade) 1028 7 119.6 5.1 113.9 95.2 95
155 8-17 Parcel S (Finish Grade) 1028 7 119.6 5.9 114.3 95.6 95
156 8-17 ParcelS (Finish Grade) 1028 7 119.6 6.2 114.8 96.0 95
157 8-17 Parcel S (Finish Grade) 1028 7 119.6 6.6 117.0 97.8 95
EnGEN Corporation \~
"
.
MiI.amilY Umited Partnership
Project Number: T1431-C
Appendix Page 4
SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT I
MAxIMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS
ASTM D1557-91
Soil Maximum Optimum
Moisture
Soil Description Dry Density Content
Type (USCS Symbol) (PCF) (%)
2 Sandy Silt, Dark Brown (ML) 117.5 12.4
8 Sandy Silt, Dark Brown (ML) 121.4 13.3
10 Silty Sand, Dark Brown (SM) 127.3 9.9
11 Silty Sand, Brown (SM) 130.4 8.7
13 Silty Sand, Brown (SM) 128.0 10.4
15 Silty Sand, Brown (SM) 125.5 9.7
SUMMARY OF ExPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
Moisture Moisture
Soil Depth Dry Density Condition Before Condition After Expansion
Type (FT) (PCF) Test (%) Test (%) Index
! Surface -1.5 119.8 7.7 12.9 0.06
at Footing
. Location
EnGEN Corporation \4..
,
.
MilAamilY Umited Partnership
Project Number: Tl431-C
Appendix Page 5
DRAWINGS
,.'1
EnGEN Corpol'2tion \:5""
. ,
.
.
,..-
-----
--------
pDO~ ZD!O
,17l'909
<ID .........................
o .__......~!'.. CID
__ ,---.--."'\1......----- , .......
........t.~.~'~~....~,.... "~. .' 1-\ S!
,"f;;) j!' i .
......... ~ ~I <ID I
<ID ..' ~! "(ID' ." . I .------!
;::(~...t1-11 ~>@) . -! :~....~.".W.~..........rr.lr ;::\...~......
..... 1,,' 'I--'~.. -'. ~ . . "... " \C)
. . I ..... ....<.,'. ...~ .,.... ,.... .:! \
.... II' ./...tID ',~ ., \
I ~' I ~+.~ .~ ~
. II~ @~ fl >:;,.... ,~.,.. .... ..' (ID.... '~'"'''~CID''' .,
\I~ - l f'l~;~~' - .' . ;..~...;:..,........- "'j ~ ~ "-
I!-;/ ~ ~ J"l' .).~@ ..., lID ~
In U) ~.... rt (g).... .",~.. . ...~. +......-g.......
I. ~ . '0 :I'~. ./...~)., '. ", CID .......: ~CID
I:> . .' ..' ~ [.r' ., / . '. " ......, :............. '" j i 0
I =:i j". I:',' ,";".~ ..- , .- , lD .
i" ;.-. ....~..;.... ". , ., .,o.,' ~ I
;- """).:'.:" ~. : . ..fo...~~~_. . (ill''''.- '. ' .1,
;",...:' .... '0('01,
~/.GY .. .. .'. .-' "j
", .:.,.,'......,~. .......~:..i::~:..:..... .. ...~..,;,.~.:-
..{: \Gl/'!'\Cj: ..(ID.... ....'~ ~
~I~' "-.-i
..: l:. 7*'"' ..... ~.....;;.~.. .. !
..,~ G)/ ~ CID ....ci> @ ............
.: \CJ .. \CJ._ .
I ... ...... ..... ..,~~....
6 \ '. .os.gtg.... .......
c: lJ>Q. ffi ..
ftS;;.!!li:) .'
2"8/:15 \ C:
inO>1ll6~'.g /
u- 8..<2 '5l "', 5 /
::iia.6"E ~/
~~l?~~ Qi
~ E~1!1h a.~
u Q Q..2! c:
~HB~
u~~:!j8.
HR~a
~.....
rl;}":J:fi
-"'"
...
.,
.
!
,
@
CID
."
o
'"
".... ..
....:~
\g;
w
~-~~
~'i,g
~
iJj
~
\~~i
- I
"--'
.D
~~
co C
cO> .S
6 -
0",,'"
- . ..
Q.coO
Q) ..
-t-jo
U,oU
tO~
0[;:;5
Q)~c
c!:::""w
.....:;;
en a.
Q)'OY
...... -0'-
_c<)
C \Q). ""
O~;::
+=[2
g"B
~ E
Eo :J
ZZ
0--
o&l~
~~
~
N
c:
~
~ ~
'0 0 ~
c U '"
~ (/!. 0
u 10 '0
o 0- c:
g '0 0
:-'-~ f~ .~
i::; ::J --"-
'" '" '"
g g -g/
... " "
o 0 2
i i ~
'~<ID
~
s
~
'"
b
0
~
II
.
~
<D
"5
0
en \~
,. -, .
f,..l. f:';':~':':_' ._._~.,(:;.:":;'1";
~~~GEN Corporation
.
-Soil Engineering and Consulting Services . Engineering Geology .Compac!ionTesling
. Inspections. ConslructionMaterialsTesling-LaboratoryTesting. Perc Ol3liOllTestin\l
. Geology. Wala Resource Studies . Phase I & II EmilOnmenlal S\\e Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NE1WORK
October 1, 1999
Mi.lgard Family Limited Partnership
6010 20th Street East, Suite 5
Fife, Washington 98424
(253) 922-0774 / FAX (253) 922-7744
Attention:
Mr. Harold Williams
Rf)garding:
REVISED PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Proposed Milgard Manufacturing Plant
Parcel 6 of Parcel Map 28657
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T1431-C
References: 1.
2.
EnGEN Corporation, Updated GeologicaVGeotechnical Engineering Study,
Proposed Expansion of Existing Business Center, Parcels 1 through 9 of
Parcel Map 28657, Project Number: T1381-GS, report dated May 4, 1998.
HLC Engineering, Grading Plan for Milgard Manufacturing, Parcel Map
28657, City ofTemecula, plan dated May 26, 1998.
Dear Mr. Williams:
In accordance with your request, EnGEN Corporation has conducted R-Value testing of the
subgrade soils proposed for the parking and driveway areas at the above referenced site.
The recommended pavement design is base on R-Value test results from a sample of subgrade
material obtained by a representative of EnGEN Corporation on August 5, 1999, from a
location designated during field operations and review of the referenced grading plan in
proposed pavement areas. The results of the R-Value test indicate an R-Value of 54. The R-
Value test was performed in general accordance with California Test Method 301 procedures.
The test results are attached.
The followin9 pavement recommendation is based on the subgrade soil having a minimum R-
Value of 54. A Traffic Index (TI) of 5.0 was assumed for the pavement design in the
,"'.:'
~
,
. !
i .
. ~ .
, .
.~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~}l~.i
, -;_~___;"...i_~=::::::===================:
_..._______ _ _ ...."'=1I05~lilillililll'lllll'lllllllllllillg.IlUn!lIl.......g......'
_......Il~, Ml'1iiIl1lll..P"Dlt::: ~~lRmlllN"i\i.".JJf__...lllng.Il!l".__......_.._...._
E J.im~9~1a~~. rt i~~mr;r~~~~~'f~.j~9&""-~~~~!~!-~Qii~I~~~)~-s:ig-=======;;
I .. 6- er~l1:g@:~~e ~~~~!~?07;':~'~~ ~, 1.:4, i '. ,,'~ .Q_51~~lf8X~ 7.'1!)~546.."05
:'" ~~ir~~'Q'WW.~N~,~~CO.F1~~~~M~; ~~MAIL: ENGE'f\J_~()RP@PE.~N~:r:': .' ,,_. ..:~ ~ ~:e ~ ~ ...~ ~.~ a; ~i!G ~ iR_
~.' "-
/1-
--. '..
, -
, '
J __ i ,
;
..:1
'.il
=J
..~
;it
,
.
Mill Family Limited Partnership
Project Number: T1431-C
October 1999
Page 3
prepared and ~ggregate base material is not placed immediately, or the aggregate base
material is placed and the area is not paved immediately, additional observations and testing
will be required prior to placing aggregate base material or asphaltic concrete to locate areas
that may have been damaged by construction traffic, construction activities, and/or seasonal
wetting and drying.
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described above. It
mayor may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes. The findings and
recommendations expressed in this report are based on field and laboratory testing performed
during the grading operation and on generally accepted engineering practices and principles.
No further warranties are implied or expressed beyond the direct representations of this report.
The pavement section presented above are recommended for use and are subject to review
and approval by the City of Temecula.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services. Should you have any questions
concerning this submittal, please contact this office, (909) 676-3095, at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
EnGEN Corporation
rt._ i! dAd'
~n D. Gardne~~
Field Operations Manager
(1) Addressee
(1) RDS Associates
Mr. Rich Soltysiak
(3) City ofTemecula
Department of Public Works
(1) Keeton Construction
Attachments: R-Value Test Data Sheet
!Distribution:
JDG/OB:ch
FILE: EnGEN/Reporting/Crr1431C Milgard Family Limited Partnership. Pavement Design 2
\~
EnGEN Corporation
,. ,
.
Mil9t Family Limited Partnership
Project Number: T1431-C
October 1999
Page 2
automobile parking and driveway areas. A Traffic Index (TI) of 6.0 was assumed for the
pavement design in the truck traffic driveways. The project designer should specify the
appropriate pavement section for the various traffic areas and delineate the limits on the site
plan. Because of the minimum standards imposed by the City of Temecula, the pavement
sections are likely greater than would be necessary based on the existing subgrade R-Values.
We, therefore, concur that the sections shown, which were suggested by Milgard are more than
adequate for the assumed design traffic indexes. The recommended pavement sections are as
follows:
Area
Automobile
I parking and
Driveways
ITruck Driveways
. Automobile
I parking and
IDriveways and
ITruck Driveways
Traffic Index Recommended Section
5.0 3"" Asphalt Concrete over 4.0"" Class 2 Aggregate Base.
Aggregate Base to be placed on properly prepared
subgrade.
6.0 3"" Asphalt Concrete over 7.0"'" Class 2 Ag9regate Base.
Aggregate Base to be placed on properly prepared
sub9rade.
5.0 - 6.0 . or An equivalent of a minimum of 6" Portland Cement
Concrete with a 3,500 psi design compressive strength at 28
days over properly prepared subgrade.
'Slab thickness design from American Concrete Pavement Association Concrete Pavement for
Trucking Facilities Bulletin, Tables 2 and 5b. "City of Temecula minimum standard. "'Class 2
base thickness chosen by Milgard.
Asphalt concrete pavement materials should be as specified in Sections 39-2.01 and 39-2.02 of
the current Caltrans Standard Specifications or a suitable equivalent. A9gregate base should
conform to 3/4-inch Class 2 material as specified in Section 26-1.02B of the current Caltrans
Standard Specifications or a suitable equivalent. To properly prepare the subgrade, the soil
should be recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, to a minimum depth of
1'2-inches below finish subgrade elevation. If Portland Cement Concrete is to be placed directly
onsubgrade the subgrade soil should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative
compaction to a minimum depth of 12-inches below finish subgrade elevation. 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 01557-91 procedures. If pavement subgrade soils are \'\
EnGEN Corporation
'.
;::- ~
R-VALUE TEST REPORT
100
-
1-.
,
................,..... ..-...................,. .........
80
.~. ..... ............ ............ . ...........
60
:.
~
::l
o
>
I
a::
. . . .
....."."..................... -.
40
. . . .
................ ...............
20
0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Exudat ion Pressure - psi
Resistance R-Volue and Expansion Pressure - ASTM 0 2844
Compac t . Expansion Horizontal Sample Exud. R
Density Moist. R
No. Pressure Pressure Press. psi Height Pressure Volue
pcf % Value
psi psi @ 160 psi in. psi Corr.
1 250 125.7 11.7 0.06 97 2.52 142 29 29
2 350 126.4 10.7 0.09 54 2.54 317 56 56
3 350 126.7 9.7 0.42 29 2.54 505 76 76
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
R_Volue @ 300 psi exudation pressure = 54
SILTY SAND. BROWN
Project No.: T1431-C
Project: MILGARD
Location: DIAZ ROAD
SOUTHEAST PARKING LOT
Dote: 8-12-1999
Tested by: J.T.O.
Checked by:
Remarks:
SAMPLE R-1
COLLECTED BY R.W.
COLLECTED ON (8/5/99)
R-VALUE TEST REPORT
Environmental and Geotechnical
Engineering Network Corporation
Fig. No.
zD
..
~'>"""",,;~~ ~"'" ,"'~c-- .
':::'L ___<.'>;V~
:s~'~~~fi__GEN Coq~oration
May 31,2002
-SoiiEngineeringandConsullingSerl'ices. EngineeringGeology. Compaction Testing
. InspecliOns. Construction Materials Tesling e LaboratoryTesling.Percolali on TesUng
-Geology-Wa!erResourceSludies . Phase I &11 EnvironmentatSileAssessmen15
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NE1WORK
City of Temecula
[ilepartment of Public Works
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
(909) 694-6411
~ttention:
Regarding
References: 1.
Dear Mr. Alegria:
Mr. Jerry Alegria, Senior Engineer
UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL STUDY
Milgard Expansion
Assessor's Parcel Number: 909-370~_-=-.
Parcel 6 of Parcel Map 28657-1, PA -0 ____)
Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T1431-UGS1
2.
EnGEN Corporation, Geotechnical Report and Compaction Test Results,
Post Grading Operations, Proposed Milgard Manufacturing Plan, Parcel 6
of Parcel Map 28657, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California,
Project Number: T1431-C, report dated December 16,1999.
EnGEN Corporation, Geotechnical Report & Compaction Test Results,
Rough Grading Operations, Proposed Milgard Manufacturing Plant,
Parcel 6 of Parcel Map 28657, City of Temecula, County of Riverside,
California, Project Number: T1431-C, report dated August 26, 1998.
EnGEN Corporation, Updated Geotechnical/Geological Engineering
Study, Proposed Expansion of Existing Business Center, Parcels 1
through 9 of Tract 28657, Diaz Road, City of Temecula, County of
Riverside, California, Project Number: T1381-GS, report dated May 4,
1998.
3.
We have been retained to produce an Updated Geotechnical Study for the above referenced
addition to Milgard's existing facility. We were the geotechnical consultant for the existing
facility and have subsurface'co"documentation including boring logs, laboratory data and
compaction data for the initial structure.
A~~
"", ".Co,.
\ ' , _.;;.'-_.IIfIll....;_..___~_-=.....-.....
'- " '_ _.. . ,__ '.'" < '~ _ _ r ,'. _' , '. -'~~_._-----------------""'-~
-. , . . :'. " " " __..:___.:.:...... .:....:'... ~'- ......iilllllll:!2siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisl]imV;;;
....:..__...._..:.._._ ' : :........__... MI____..... ,w______a.. _.M1lI........a__........IllI____......=IlIll_l;O~"'-;:
---,...~rr.-- '"":'-~------ '------..-~ -----"I!:t---_ ._-.._-....~----~...-..........,.----...._------ .......""'-----!"'.-...
:;:;;;;liimSg,~_" a\E~~IileE:il.'l~ E!!m~;.gt<:llj)~l rt UIlEr.:t"ll11l9l:u,la, %,?2?ll9~~1I!l9~t90l1)A '" :fax~ -':"~;;"_:::.
co' -,.--~-<.-"""C.~..O" '~--'-CO:'-~- -. " ..,S'~-;:>~:."C..;:_:_'-~.."'''''~-'-_li---!.,.,..,,-.~'' .i"'''::''~~~-. ,"'---
,.;~,.~J~!ie~~,q"'I'Hyl I ~~ll4'~g~~ e ge,'iSilil ~~f;~~r;;,'t~h~9~~n4~~~51f;t"F'
- .. B SITE: www.enecor~.com.g:~AI[:enge.ricorp&engencorp.com
.
MilgeamilY Limited Partnership
Project Number T1431-UGS1
May 2002
Page 2
".
Although we have not yet reviewed that data in light of the proposed addition, it appears that
similar design and construction recommendations will be necessary for this addition as was
implemented for the original building. It is our client's request that plan check be allowed to
continue based :on the recommendations of the original geotechnical reports, with the
understanding that we will publish an Updated Report prior to release for building permit. If any
variations from the original recommendations are deemed necessary, it will be the applicant's
responsibility to incorporate such recommendations into the final approved construction
documents.
We trust that this will satisfy your concerns regarding the implementation of appropriate
geotechnical recommendations tailored to this specific phase of development. If you have any
questions or require additional input from us at this time, please call us to discuss.
Sincerely
EnGEN Corporation
OB:hh
Distribution: (1) Addressee
(1) Keeton Construction
FILE: EnGEN/Reporting/UGSfT1431-UGS1 Milgard Expansion, UGS Letter
zz..