HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 32229 Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation-r232zz9 ~` -.
~ O~- Oao /
SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION
RANCHO TEMEMCULA TOWN
CENTER
WINCHESTER & NICOLAS ROADS
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PREPAREDFOR
PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC
SAN CLEMENTE, CA~IFORNIA
JUNE 17, 2003 ~ , --u-i, ~,~, ,,~ ~'_ i ~',i
I.IUL 214 2003 ' ;I~
, ., ~
GEOCON
I N C O R P O R A T E D
Project No. 20139-12-01
June 17, 2003
~ ~
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS ~~
~~
Pacific Development Partners, LLC
~O1 N. El Camino Real
San Clemen[e, Califomia 93672
Attention: Mr. Lars Andersen
Subject: RANCHO TEMECULA TOW~1 CENTER
P/INCHESTER & MCOL.4S ROADS
TEMECULA, CALIFORNL~,
SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECH1VICr~L INVESTIGATION
Gendemen:
In accordance with your request and our proposal dated May 12, 2003 (Proposa] No. LG-03237), we
have performed a supplemental geotechnical investigation for the subject project. The accompanying
report presents the findin~s of our study and our recommendations relative [o the geotechnical
aspects of developing [he site as presently proposed.
It is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations
of [his report are followed. Should you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of
further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
,! ~~ED (iF0
S ~0
% a w-t ~r. ~'~
~
N
~pS R. q` / ~ ~ -~
~D~, y i ~q~p *
R 1 O m ~ ate Hamelehle ~~~
GE 2042 ¢ ~'~ F m CEG 1760 ~` ~~ST ~P
# ~'~~~ ~ 9~~FCAL~F~P~
RRR:DH:tg ~ _sv *
(6) Addressee
43280 Business Park Drive, Suife 108 ^ Temecula, Colifornio 925 90.3 6 3 3 ^ Telephone (909~ 587-8169 ^ Fox (909~ 676-9860
~
n
U
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION .....................
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS .......................................
3.1 General ...................
..............................................................
32 Undocumented Fill (Not Mapped) ........................................
33 Previously Placed Fill (Qc~ .................._..............................
3.4 Alluvium (Qal) ......................................................................
4. GROUNDWATER ...................... - - __
~
.................................. 2
...... .......................... 2
......................... 2
.................................... 2
............................... 3
.......................................................................... 3
~. GEOLOGIC HAZARD .............................
5.1 ..................................
Faulting and Seismicity .....................................................
5.2 ' Seismic Design Criteria ....................................................
5.3 Liquefaction ......................................................................
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................
6.1 General .... .................................................................
6.2 .......
Soil and Excavation Characteristics ...................................
63 Grading ...............................................................................
6.4 Foundations ................................................................
6.5 ........
Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ..................................................
6.6 .
Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads ....................................
6.7 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations .........................
6.8 Drainage .............................................................................
6.9 PlanReview ............................................_ -
LIMITATIONS AND UNgORMITY OF CONDITIONS
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Site Plan
APPENDU`C A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figures A-1 - A-7, Logs of Borings
.............................................. 3
.............................. 3
............................................ a
................................:........... ~
.................................................. 14
APPENDIX B
Table B-I, Summary of Laboratory Ma7cimum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results
Table B-II, Summary of Laboratory Direct Shear Test Results
Table B-III, Summary oF Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results
Table B-N, Summary of Laboratory Water Soluble Sulfate Test Results
Table B-V, Summary of Single-Point Consolidation (Collapse) Tests
Figure B-1, Consolida[ion Curve
3
~ ~
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX C
LOGS FROM PREVIOUS GEOCON INVESTIGATION
APPEi~IDLY D
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
LIST OF REFERENCES
~
~
~
SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the findings of a suppiemental geotechnical investigation for ihe proposed retail
developme~t located at the northeast corner of Winchester Road a nd N icolas R oad i n T emecula,
California (see Vicinity Map, Figure I). The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate subsurface
soil and :geologic conditions at the site and, based on conditions encountered, provide
recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of developing the property as presently
proposed.
The scope of the investigation included a site reconnaissance, review of aerial photos aphs and
pertinent geologic Iiterature, and the excavation of seven small-diameter exploratory bori~gs. A
detailed discussion of the field investigation, and the exploratory excavation logs are presented in
Appendic A. Laboratory tests were performed on soil samples obtained from the exploratory
excavations to evaluate pertinent subsurface soi] and geologic conditions, and to assist in
recommendations for site grading and foundation design criteria. Appendix B presents a summary of
the ]aboratory test results.
The recommendations presented herein are based on analysis of the data obtained from our
exploratory excavations, laboratory tests, and our experience with similar soil and geologic
conditions. The site ptan used as the base map for our Geologic Map, Figure 2, is entitled Site Plan
C, dated SJ-2003.
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed site is located at the northeast corner of Winchester Road and Nicolas Road, in
Temecula, Califomia (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). Specifica]]y, the site is bounded on the south by
Nicolas Road, on the west by Winchester Road, on [he north by the Santa Gertrudis Creek, and on
the east by developed commercial property. Previous improvements to the property include mass
grading in January through July, 1988. Testing and observation services were provided by Geocon
Incorporated, the results of which are presented in the report entitled Report of Testing and
Ohservation Services Dc~ring ~Llass Grading Operations for Roripaugh Commercial, Tract No.
20703, Riverside County, California, dated September 7, 1988.
Some undocumented fill soils and end-dumped ciebns have been spread across portions of the site.
Topographically the s ite i s r elatively 1 evel a lthough s omewhat i rregular i n s ome a reas d ue t o t he
placement of the undocumented fill soils. The existing Santa GeRrudis Creek is located alon~ the
^orthem boundary of the site and is approximately 15 feet below the elevation of the site.
Project Na. 20139-12-01 ~ ~
- ~ ' June I7, 2003
• ~
We understand that the proposed development will consist of grading the site to construct [welve
(12) building pads (Pads A through L) to receive, one- or two-story commercia] shuctures along with
paved parking and drive areas and associated infrastructure. It is anticipated that the buildings will be
wood framed and/or masonry/concrete tilt-up structures and will be supported on conventional
concrete foundations and slabs-on-~rade or post-tension foundation systems. Based on our review of
the existin~ site topography, we anticipate that the maximum depths of cut and fill will be less than 5
fee[, exclusive of any recommended remedial ~ading.
The above locations and descriptions are based on a site reconnaissance and review of the referenced
site plan. If final development plans differ significantly from those described herein, Geocon
Incorporated should be contacted for review and possible revisions to this report.
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
3.1 General
In general, the site is underlain by compacted fill soils placed upon relatively deep alluvial soils as
described below. A thin layer of undocumented fill has been spread over some of the site.
Formational materials were not encountered during the investigation and are not anticipated during
construction of the proposed improvemen[s.
3.2 Undocumented Fill (Not Mapped)
Undocumented fill soils cover the majority of the site and were encoun[ered within the exploratory
excavations [o depths ranging from approximately 1 to 2 feet. ~Ve understand that these materials
were imported as excess soils from the adjacent commercial development. In general, the fill soils
consist of slightly silty [o silty, fine to medium-d ained sand with some chunks of concrete and
asphalt, as well as some organicatly rich piles. These soils will require remedia] grading by complete
removal and compaction. Piles that contain large amounts of organics are not suitable for Fll
placement.
3.3 Previously Placed Fill (Qct~
Compacted fill soils are present undeT the undocumented fills and were encountered to depths
ranging from approximately 11 to 14 feet below existing grade at the boring locations. These
materials were placed wi[h testing and observation services provided by Geocon Incorporated as
documented in the referenced mass ~'ading report (Geocon, 1988). The fill consists of dense, slightly
silty and silty fine- to coarse-grained sand.
Project No. 20139-12-01 - 2- 7une I7, 2003
~
~ •
3.4 Alluvium (Qal)
Quatemary-age alluvial soils underlie the fill soils, and are generally composed of silry sand to
poorly graded sands. The depth of the alluvial soils extends below the depth of our deepest boring
(Geocon, 2000), approximately 51 feet. The relative density of the alluvia] soi]s encouatered is
considered to be medium dense. The remedial grading recommended will not extend to the alluvial
soils.
Collapse testing conducted on relatively undisturbed samples of the fill/alluvium obtained &om the
borings indicate that the soils have a low potential for collapse due to increases in moisture. content.
4. GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the recent exploratory borings to depths up to 30 feet
below d ade. Previous borings extended to depths of ~ 1 feet (Geocon, 2000) at this site also did not
encounter ~ oundwater. Groundwater is no[ anticipated to be a constraint during site grading.
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
5.1 Faulting and Seismicity
The site, like the rest of Southern Ca]iFomia, is ]ocated within a seismically active re~ion near the
active margin between the North Amencan and Pacific tectonic plates. The principal source of
seismic activity is movement along the northwest-trending regional Faults such as the San Andreas,
San Jacinto and Elsinore faul[ zones. These fault systems are estimated to produce up to
approximately 55 millimeters of slip per year between the plates.
By definition of ihe State Mining and Geology Board, an active fault fs one which has had surface
displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault is
one, which has been active dunng the Quatemary Period (last 1,600,000 years). These definitions are
used in de]ineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards
Zones Act of 1972 and as revised in 1994 and 1997 as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Act and Earthquake Fault Zones.. The intent of the act is to require fault investigations on sites
located within S pecial S tudies Z ones t o p reclude n ew c onstruction o f c er[ain h abitable s lructures
across the trace of active faults.
Based on our review of the referenced literature, the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault
Hazard Zone. The site could, however, be subjected to significant shaking in the event of a major
~ ~ ~ ~- ~ --v ~ - 3 - June 17, 2003
1
~ ~
earthquake on the Elsinore Fault or other nearby regiona] faults. Structures for the site should be
constructed in accordance with current UBC seismic codes and local ordinances.
5.2 Seismic Design Criteria
Our evaluation of the regional seismicity included a deterministic analysis utilizing EQFAULT and
EQSEARCH (Blake, 2000) and UBCSEIS. The nearest latown active fault and source of the design
earthquake is the Elsinore Fault Zone (Temecula Segmen[) located approximately 3.1 miles to the
southwest of the site. The maximum credible earthquake was estimated to be magnitude 6.S Mw.
The Uniform BuiIding Code (UBC) established Seismic Zones (often accepted as minimum
standards) based on maps showing gound motion with a 475-year retum period or a 10% probability
of exceedance in 50 years. Our analysis indicates a 10% probability that a horizontal peak ground
acceleration of 0.59g (probabilistic mean) would be exceeded in 50 years. The design earthquake is
considered a magnitude 6.8 Mw event that wo~ld generate a probabilistic peak a ound acceleration
(PHGA) o£ OS9g (FRISKSP, Blake 2000). The effect of seismic shaking may be reduced by
adhering to the 1997 UBC and seismic design parameters suggested by the Structural Engineers
Association of California. The UBC seismic design parameters for this site are presented on Table
5.2:
TABLE 5.2
SITE DESIGN CRITERIA
Parameter Value UBC Reference
Seisrtuc Zone Factor 0.40 Table 16-I
Soil Profile Sa Table 16-J
Seismic Coefficient, C, 0.44 Table 16-Q
Seismic Coefficient, C~ 0.77 Table 16-R
Near-Source Facror, Na ~ 1.0 Table 16-5
Near-Source Fattor, N~ ].2 Table 16-T
Seismic Source B Table 16-U
The principal seismic considerations for most structures in Southern Califomia are surface r~pturing
of fault traces and damage caused by ground shaking or seismically induced ground settlemenL The
possibility of damage due to gound rupture is considered low since active faults are not Irnown to
cross the site. Lurching due to ground shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a
sigiificant hazard, although it is a possibility throughout Southern Califomia.
ProjectNo.20139-lZ-01 -4- . lune 17.2003
V
C~
5.3 Liquefaction
•
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, sa[urated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose
shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include in-situ
stress conditions, intensity and duration of ~ound motion, the depth to groundwater, and the
gradation characteristics of the underlying soils. Liquefaction is typified by a]oss of shear strength in
the liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure genera[ed by earthquake
accelerations.
Given the absence of groundwater within 50 feet of existing grade and the medium dense nature of
the underlying soils, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction at this site is very low.
Project No. 20139-12-01 - 5 -
June 17,1003
q
~ ~
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General
6.1.1 No soi] or geologic conditions exist at the site that would preclude the development of the
property as presently planned provided the recommendations of this report are followed.
6.1.2 The site is underlain by alluvium more than 50 feet thick. Based on the absence of
groundwater within ~0 feet and the medium dense nature of the underlying soils, it is our
opinion that the liquefaction potential at this site is very low.
6.13 Remedial grading should include removal of all undocumented fill and any other
unsuitable materials encountered during o adina. The remedial grading should extend
beneath all buildings and other surface improvements.
6.1.4 The majonty of the soil anticipated to be enwuntered during remedial grading and
construction of improvements for the project consists of silty sands and sands.
6.1.5 The site lies 3.1 miles from the Temecula segment of the Elsinore Fault. This fault is
classified as active and is significant in that it is capable of generatin~ large magnitude
earthquakes. Due to the site's proximiry to a major active fault system, the site could be
subjected to severe shaking in the event of a major earthquake on these or other nearby
active faults.
6.1.6 Conventional sh-ip footings and slab-on-o ade with steel reinforcement or a post-tensioned
foundation system may be used at this site.
6.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics
6.2.1 Excavations within the alluvial soils are expected to require a moderate effort with
conventional heavy dury grading equipment.
6?.2 All excavations should be performed in conformance with OSHA requirements.
Temporary excavations for grading and during construction of improvements will be made
within relatively cohesionless sands. To prevent sloughing as a result of the cohesionless
sands, the excavations may require being sloped back at a a adient of 1:1. If sloughing
occurs, slopes may have to be excavated at flatter ~adients
Project No- ?0139-I2-01 _ - 6- June l7, 2003
~~
~ •
6.2.3 Laboratory testing was performed on soil samples obtained from the exploratory
excavations to determine their expansion characteristics. Results of expansion index tests
are presented in Table B-III. The on-site soils are anticipated to have a`bery low° to "low"
expansion potential (Expansion Index of 50 or less) as defined by the Uniform Buildin~
Code (UBC) Table No. 18-I-B. Recommendations presented herein assume that the site
will be graded such that soils with an Expansion Index (EI) of less than 50 will be present
to a minimum depth of 3 feet below proposed finish grade. If soils ~vith an EI a eater than
50 are exposed near finish grade, modifications to the foundation and slab-on-grade
recommendations presented herein may be required. Laboratory Expansion Index testing
should be performed on soils present within 3 feet of finish grade subsequent to the
completion of grading to venfy the at-grade expansion characteristics. If import soils are
required to achieve design grades, Geocon Incorporated should be retained to perform
laboratory testing prior to impoRing the material to verify the that the soils have an
Expansion Index of 50 or less and that other charactenstics meet project requirements such
as corrosivity properties.
62.4 Laboratory testing was performed on soil samples obtained from the exploratory
excavations to determine the water-soluble sulfate content. Results of these tests are
presented in Table B-N. The results indicated that the samples tested yielded watez-
soluble sulfate contents with a"negligible" sulfate rating as defined by the 1997 Uniform
Building Code (UBC) Table 19-A-4. These tests are general indications only and
additional testing should be performed at finish grade (materials within 3 feet of rough pad
grade eleva[ions) after the completion of rough grading.
6.2.5 Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, if
improvements that could be susceptible to corrosion are planned; it is recommended that
further evaluation by a corrosion zngineer be performed. I[ is also recommended that these
results, and the recommendations from the corrosion engineer be forwarded to the
appropnate design team members (i.e. project architect and engineer) for incorporation
into the plans and implementation dunng construction.
6.3 Grading
63.1 All gzading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading
Specifications contained in Appendix D, and the C ity o f T emecula G rading O rdinance.
~Vhere the recommendations of this section conflict with those of Appendix D, the
recommendations of this section take precedence.
Projec[ No. 20139-12-01 ~ . - 7 -
June 17, 2003
~~
~ ~
6.32 Prior to commencing grading, a preconstruction conference with the owner or developer,
grading contractor, civil engineer and geotechnical engineer in attendance, should be held
at the site. Special soil handling can be discussed at that time.
633 Site preparation should begin with the demolition of any surface improvements (asphal[
pavement, concrete flarivork), underground utilities, deleterious material, trees,
stumps/roots, debris, and vegetation. All esisting undocumented fill should also be
iemoved from within planned development areas of the site. The depth of removal should
be such that material exposed in cut areas or soils to be used as fill is relatively free of
organic matter. Material generated during stripping and/or site demoli[ion should be
exported from the site.
6.3.4 Subsequent to removal of the unsuitable surficial soils and prior to the placement of
compacted fill soils, the exposed surface should be scarified and compacted in-place to a
minimum dry density of 90 percent of Ihe maximum dry density, and near optimum
moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557-00. If loose, sofr or wet areas are
exposed at the bottom of the excavation, the overexcavation should be deepened until firm
material is encountered. The total depth of removal should be determined in the field by
the project geologist during p ading operations.
6.3.~ The site should then be brought to final subgrade elevations with structural fill compacted
in layers. In general, the existing soils are considered suitable for use as fill if free from
vegetation, debns and other deleterious material. Layers of fill should be no thicker than
will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. All fill soils should be compacted to at
least 90 percent of maximum dry density and near optimum moisture content, as
determined i n a ccordance w ith A STM D 15~7-00. Fill matenals placed below optimum
moisture content or excessively above optimum may require additional moisture
conditioning prior to placing additional fill.
63.6 Trench and retaining wali backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of
laboratory max~mum dry density at or slightly above optimum moisture content The upper
12 inches of fill within pavement areas shouid be compacted to at least 95 percent of the
laboratory maximum dry density at or slightly above optimum moisture content.
6.4 Foundations
6.4.1 The proposed shuctures can be supported on shallow foundation systems bearing on
properly compacted fil] soils. Foundations for the structures may consist of either
Praject No. 2013')-12-01 - 8 -
June 17, ?Ws
~v
~ ~
continuous strip footings and/or isolated spread footings, or post-tensioned foundations.
Conventionally reinforced continuous footings should be at least 18 inches wide and
extend at least 13 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Isolated spread footings should
have a minimum width of 2 feet and should extend at least 24 inches below lowest
adjacent pad b ade. Footings should be dimensioned based on an allowable soil bearing
pressure of 2,500 psf. The allowable bearing pressure value is for dead plus live loads and
may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic
forces. Steel reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of at least four No. ~
steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footings, two near the top and hvo near the
bottom. Steei reinforcement for the spread footings should be designed by the project
structural engineer.
6.4.2 The minimum reinforcement recommended above is based on soil characteristics oply
(depth of alluvial soils) and is no[ intended to replace reinforcement required for structural
considerations.
6.43 As an altemate to a conven[iona] foundation system, the proposed buildings may also be
designed as post-tensioned systems. The following post-tensioned foundation
recommendations are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions within 3 Feet of
finish pad subgrade will consist of granular `9ow" expansive soil. (Expansion Index less
than 50). The post-tensioned system may be designed for an allowable soil beanng
pressure of 2,~00 ps£ The allowabie beanng pressure value is for dead plus live loads and
may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic
forces. The recommended design parameters for the post-tensioned systems are presented
on Table 6.1.
ProjectNo.201~9-12-01 ~ _9'
June i /, GW.1
~3
•
~
TABLE 6.1
POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institu[e (PT~ Design Parameters Value
1. Thornthwaite Index -20
2. Clay Type-Montmorillonite Yes
3. Clay Portion (Maxunum) 30%
4. Depth to Constant Soil Sucrion ~ ~~~ fr~
5. Soil Suction 3.6 ft.
6. Moisture Velocity 0.7 in./mo.
7. Edge Lifr Moismre Variation Distance 2.6 ft.
8. Edge Lifr 0.41 in.
9. Cznter Lifr Moisture Variation Distance 53 fr.
10. Center LiR 2.12 in.
6.4.4 All post-tensioned foundation system footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches
and a minimum embedment depth of 12-inches measured from lowest adjacent grade. This
depth applies to both exterior and interior footings. The concrete slabs should be at least 5-
inches thick and underlain with at least 3-inches of clean sand or crushed rock. Those slabs
expected to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture sensitive
materials should be undedain by a vapor barrier placed at the midpoint of the sand layer.
6.4.5 No special subgrade preparation is deemed necessary pnor to placing concrete, however,
the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be sprinkled, as necessary, to
maintain a moist soil condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
However, w here d rying o f s ubgrade s oils h as o ccuned, r econditioning o f s urficial soils
will be required. This recommendadon applies to foundations as well as exterior concrete
flatwork.
6.4.6 Foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative
of Geocon Incorporated) prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to check
that the exposed soil conditions are consistent.with those.anticipated and have been
extended to appropnate bearing sirata. If unanticipated s oi1 c onditions are e ncountered,
foundation modifications may be required.
ProjectNo.201}9_~?_p~ ..-.. -IO-
iune i ~, tw~
,~
~ •
6.5 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
6.5.1 Building (interior) concrete slabs-on-o ade should have a minimum thiclmess of 5 inches.
Slabs-on-grade for conventional footings should be reinforced with at least No. 3 steel
reinforcing bars spaced 18 inches on center in both horizontal directions and placed mid-
height in the slab. The slabs sho~ld be underlain by at least 3 inches.oY clean sand and,
where m oisture s ensitive Floor c overings a re p lanned, o r w here s lab moisture would be
objectionable, a visqueen moisture barrier should be placed at the midpoint of [he sand
blanket.
6.~2 Gxteriorslabs (not subject to traffic loads) should be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced
with 6x6-6/6 welded wire mesh. The mesh should be positioned within the upper one-third
of the slab. Proper mesh positioning is critical to future performance of the slabs. It has
been our experience that the mesh must be physically pulled up into the slab after concrete
placement. The contractor should take extra measures to provide for proper mesh
placement.
6.~.3 All concrete slabs should be provided with adequate construction joints and/or expansion
joints to conhol unsightly shnnkage cracking. The spacing should be determined by the
project structural engineer based upon the intended slab usage, thiclmess and
reinforcement. The structural engineer should take into consideration criteria of the
American Concrete Institute when establishing crack control spacing pattems.
6.~.4 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
slabs due to differential settlement of alluvium and fills of varying thiclmess. However,
even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco
walls and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still exktibit some cracking. The
accurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil
charactenstics. Their occurrence may be reduced/controlled by limiting the slump of the
concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of c rack c ontrol
joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab comers occur.
6.6 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads
6.6.1 Active earth pressures against walls will depend upon the slope of bac~ll and the degree
of wall restraint. Unrestrained walls with a level backfill should be designed to resist an
active pressure equivalent to that generated by a fluid weighing 30 pounds per cubic foot
(pc~. Where the bacl~ill will be inclined at no steeper ihan 2:1 (horizontalvertical), an
Project ilo. 20139-12-01 ~ ~ - ~~ -
June I /,
1~I
• •
active soil pressure of 40 pcf is recommended. T hese v alues a ssume a d rained b ackfill
condition with no hydrostatic pressure behind the wall.
6.62 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.OO1H (where H equals
Ihe wall height in feeY) at the top of Ihe wall. For restrained walls, an additional uniform
pressure of 7H psf for walls with a height of less than 12 feet should be added to the above
active soil pressure.
6.6.3 The above recommendations assume a properly compacted o anular bac~ll ma[erial wi[h
no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. If the retaining walls are subject to
surcharge loading within a horizontal distance equal to or less than the height of the wall,
or if conditions different than those described are anticipated, Geocon Incorporated should
be contacted for additional recommendations.
6.6.4 Forresistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid
density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly
compacted gzanular fill soils. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface
extending away from the base of Ihe wall at least 5 feet or three times the height of the
surface genecating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of
material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for
lateral resistance. A friction coefficient of 0.40 may be used for resistance to sliding
between soil and concrete. This fncrion coefficient may be combined with the allowable
passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral ]oads.
6.6.~ Retaining watls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup
of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The
soil adjacent to the bac~lled retaining wail should be composed of free draining material
for a lateral distance of one foot for the bottom two-thirds of the height of the retaining
wall. The upper one-third should be backfilled with less permeable compacted fill to
reduce water infiltration. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep
holes) is not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely
affect the property adjacent to the base of the walL The above recommendations assume a
properly compacted ~ anular (EI less than 50) free-draining bacidill matenal with no
hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load.
6.6.6 Retaining wall footings should be underlain by suitable bearing soil and may be designed
for an allowable soil beanng pressure of 2,~00 psf. All wall footings should be founded at
least 18 inches below lowest adjacent finished grade.
Project Vo. 20139-12-01 ~ ' ~2-
lune 17, _'UUs
1~
~ ~
6.7 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations
6.71 The following preliminary pavement sections are provided for preliminary budget
purposes. Actual pavement sections should be determined once subgrade elevations have
been attained and R-Value laboratory testing on subgrade samples is performed. Pavement
thiclrnesses were determined following procedures outlined in the Culifornia Highway
Design ~Llanzial (Caltrans). The preliminary pavement sections provided below were based
on an estimated R-Value of 30, based on a visual examination of the encountered soils. It
is antieipated that the majority of haffic will consist of light trucks and maintenance
vehicles. Summanzed on Table 6.2 are the recommended preliminary pavement sections.
TAB~E 6.2
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN SECTIONS
Location Estimated Tra[fic
Indes (T~ Asphalt Concrete
Thickness (inches) Clvss 2 Aggregate Base
Thickness (inches)
Parking Areas 4.~ 3 5
Main Dnveways 6 3.5 3
6J2 Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for
Public Works Construction (Green Book). Class 2 aggregate base ma[erials should
conform to Section 26-1.02A of the S[andard Specifications oJ the State of California,
Department ofTransportation (Caltrans).
6J3 Prior to placing base material, the subgrade should be scanfied, moisture conditioned, and
recompacted t o a m inimum o f 9~ p ercent o f t he 1 aboratory m a~cimum d ry d ensity a t o r
slightly above optimum moisture content. The depth of compaction should be at least
12 inches. The base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory
maximum dry density at or slightly above optimum moisture content. Asphalt concrete
should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Hveem density.
6.7.4 Loading aprons such as trash bin enclosures should utilize Portland Cement concrete. The
pavement should consist of a minimum 7-inch concrete section reinforced with No. 3 steel
reinforcing bars spaced 24 inches on center in both direcrions placed at the slab midpoint.
The concrete should extend beyond the trash bin such that both the hont and rear wheels
of the trash truck will be located on reinforced concrete pavement when loatling.
6.7.~ The performance o£ pavemen[s is highly dependent upon providing positive surface
drainage away &om [he edge of pavements. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the
Project No. ZO139-IZ-01 - t3'
June 17. 'UU.i
11
~ ~
pavement will likely result in saturation of the subgrade materials and subsequent
pavement dishess. If planter islands are plar,ned, the perimeter curb shoald extend at least
6 inches below the bottom of the Class 2 ago egate base.
6.8 Drainage
6.81 Adequate drainage is cntical to reduce the potential for differen[ial soil movement, erosion
and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent
to footings or behind retaining walls. The site should be e aded and maintained such that
surface drainage is directed away from structures and the top of slopes into swales or other
controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed into conduits
which carry runoff away from the proposed structure.
6.3? All underground utilities should be absolutely leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should
be periodically checked for leaks for early detection o£ water infiltration and detected leaks
should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to
infiltrate the soil.
6.53 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for
surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. We
recommend that drains to collect excess imgation water and transmit it to draina~e
structures, or impervious above-grade planter boxes be used. In addition, where
landscaping is planned adjacent ro the pavement, we recommended construction of a cutoff
wall alono the edge of the pavement that extends at least 6 inches below the bottom of the
base material.
6.9 Plan Review
6.9.1 Geocon Incorporated should review the grading plans prior to being finaliZed.
Additionally, the foundation plans for the buildings should also be reviewed to determine
if additional geotechnical recommendations are needed.
Pmject No. ^_0139-12-01 . - 14 - ~une i i, av
~~
• ~
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
The recomtnendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon
the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the
investiga[ion. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during
construction, or if the proposed consiruction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon
Incorporated s hould b e n otified s o t hat s upplemental r ecommendations can be given. The
evaluation or identification of Ihe potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was
not part of the scope o£ services provided by Geocon Incorporated.
2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibiliry of the owner, or of his
representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are
brought to [he attention of the architect and zngineer for the project and incorporated into the
plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry
out such recommendations in the field.
3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the
conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural
processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in
applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they resul: from legislarion or the
broadening of lmowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly
or paRially by changes outside our controL Therefore, this report is subject to review and
should not be relied upon afrer a period of three years.
~
Pmject No. 20139-12-O1 ~ ~une i i, tuw
~ •
LIST OF REFERENCES
Anderson, J. G., Synthesis of Seismicity and Geologic Data in California, U. S. Geologic Survey
Open-File RepoR 84~24, 1984, pp. 1-186.
Bartlett, Steven F., and T. Leslie Youd, Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced La[eral
Spread, 7ournal of Geotechnical Eneineerina, Va~ume 121, No. 4, November 1995.
Blake, T. F., EQFAULT, Version 3.0, A Camputer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal
Acceleration from 3-D Fault Sources, User's Manual, 2000.
------, FRISKSP, Version 4.0, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Peak
Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources, User's
Manual, 2000.
------, UBCSEIS, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Uniform Bi~ilding Code Coefficients
Using 3-D Fault Sources, User's Manual, 1998.
Califomia Department of Conservation, Catifomia Geologica! Survey, formally the Califomia
Division of Mines and Geology, Probabilisric Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of
California, Open File Report 96-08, 1996.
-----, Guidelines for Evaltrating and-Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, formally the
Califomia Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117, adopted March 13, 1997.
Geocon Incorporated, Consz~ltation: Report oj Testing and Observation Services During ~Yfass,
Grading Opperations jor Roripaugh Cammercial, Tract 20703, Riverside County,
California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, September 7, 1988.
-----, Consi~[tation: Liquefaclion Potential, Roripaugh Cammercial Site, Winchester Road and
Nicolas 2oad. Temecida, California,prepared by Geocon Incorporated, January 17, 2000.
------, Update Geotedinical Investigation Roripaugh Town Center, Nicolas Road and Winchester
Road, Temecula, California, preparedm by Geocon Incorporated, April 3, 2002.
Jennings, C. W., Fault Activity ~~lap of California and Adjacent dreas, California Geolo¢ical Survev,
formally Cali£omia Division of Mines and Geology, 1994.
Seed, H. B. and L i~[. Idriss, Simplified Procedtme jor Evala~a~ing Soil Liqz~efaction Potential, Joumal
of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM9, p. 1249 ff.,
1971.
Wesnousky, S. G., Ear[hqaeakes, Ouaternary Fuulls, and Seismic Hazard in Ca[ifornia, 7oumal of
Geophvsical Research, Vol. 91, No. B12, 1986, pp. 12, 587, 631.
!~
Project No. 20139-1 Z-Ol June 17, ?UOs
GEOCON ~~
I N C O R P O R A T E D __
GEOTECHNICAL CONSUITANTS
43280 BUSWE55 PARK DRIVE, SUITE 108 - TEMECULA, CA 92590
PHONE 909 587-8169 - GAX 909 676-9860
VICINITY MAP
TEMECULA TOWN CENTER
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA Z`
MS/RSS DSK/DOOOD II DATE 06-17-2D03I pROJECT N0.20'139-12-01IPIG t'
1GVICMAP
• ~
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Our field investigation was performed on May 23, 2003, and consisted of a site reconnaissance and
drilling 7 small-diameter borings. The exploratory borings were all drilled to a maximum depth of
approximately 30 feet using a CME SS drill rig equipped with 8-inch-diameter hollow-stem auger.
During drilling, relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by driving a 3-inch O.D., split-tube
sampler 12 inches into the undisturbed soil mass with blows from a 140-pound automatic hammer
falling a distance of 30 inches. The sampler was equipped with 1-inch-high by 2'/s-inch-diameter
brass rings to facilitate laboratory testing. Standard Penetr~tion testing was also performed.
The soil conditions encountered in the investigation were visually esamined, classified, and logged
in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) practice for
Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D2488). Logs of the borings are
presented on Figures A-1 through A-7. The logs depict the general soil and geologic conditions
encountered and the depth at which samples were obtained. The approximate locations of the borings
are shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 2.
ProjecWo. 20139-12-0t iune i i,
~
PRnJFCT NO. 20139-12-01 -
_
w BORING B 1 o w~ ~ e
'
~ ~ ~z~ ~~ w
~"
'-
oean+ a soa a a~ z LL ~
IN SAMPIE
NO ~
o ~
Z CLASS
DATE COMPLETED 05-28-2003
ELEV. MSL.) ~ y 3
w- o ~ U
d ~j w
~
FE~t . I
r ~ (uscs) w w m ~ v ~ O
J ~ EQUIPMENT MOBIL 6-6~ 8" HOLLOW STEM a~ y ° `~
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~ g~_~ . FILL
. Dense, yelluwish bmwq moist, fine ro coarse SAND with trace day, trace
- fine gmve!
Z
~ ~ 60 118.8 52
BI-2
4
BI-3 ~ SP 93 1273 ZL
6
-l-i .~ -Few layers of gray, Clayey tine to medium SAND 61
8
10 57
B~ 5
12 . ALLUVIUIDI
. Medium dense, yellowish bmwn, damp [o moist, [ine to medium SAND tracc
. silt with lenses uf clayey, fine to medium sand
14
61-b " SP 19 .
~g
~ -__ __- --_
Medium denm, grayish bmwn, muis[, tine to coarse SAND, trace Lne gravel
18 SP/SW
20 l8
B' ~
BORINGTERMINATEDA'I21 FEET
FigureA-1, ~~~J~.~V.V ~
Loa of Borinq B 1, Page 1 of 1
^._ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ^... STANOARO PENETF2NPON TE57 ~... ORNE SAMPIE (UN~ISTURBED) I~
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
~...OISTLRBED OR BAG SAMPLE ^... ~HUNK SAMPLE 1... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
_ _ _ _... ..~........w~.~ ~~~n nriuc ne1C lufll!']TFl1
NOTE:THELOGOFSVBSURFACECONOf110NS5HOWNHERtVrvnrruo~nuniincor~..r........,._-...•,~~--~-~~---~---~~~~ - `
IT i5 NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATNE OF SU95URFACE GONORIONS AT OTHER LOCATONS ANO TIMES. n,j,h
v ~
PROJEC7 NO. 20139-12-0'1 •
l I
w BORINGB 2
>
~
< zw_
° ~ w
~, ~
v
~«.~, 9AMPlL- j ~ ~~~ . Q Q y ~, --
Z LL ~
~-~'".
IN
FEc Ho. °_ ° Cz"~ ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED o5-2s-2o0s ~ N~ o° N~
j a (U~cs) i m ~
wJ }~ O Z
~ EQUIPMEAIT Mo811 B-81 8" HOILOW STEM W
a~ m ° ~ o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION .
o
~L
. Densa, yello~~sh brown, moisr, Lssc to ~oarse SAND m3co 5n~ cravel
2
B2=I
B2-2 73
4
B23 SP 35
0
B2~ 33
a
io n2-5 25
1z a~UVnrM
. Mcdivm dcnse. grayish IigM hrawn, damp to maist, fine ta wnxxc SANA
~ ~vith &w leasas up [0 3 inchcs af cl%y~y sih
14
B2-6 SP ~9
16
IB
20 B2fi 19
BORItiG'ILR^AINATLD AT 21 FEET
FigUfO A-2~ m,~1+an~.cw
log of Boring B 2, Page 1 of 1
^ ... SPMPLING UNSUCESSFVL ^ -~~ ~~NOMO PENEfRATONTES~ ~ ..~ ~IVE SAMPIw (UNdSUREEOj
SAMPLESYM60LS
~_.OL4M11ft9EDORBAGSAMGIE O-~~UNKSAMPLE r...'NPTF3iTp81,EOR$ESPAGE
__ _ _ ___'_ "_'..._ _' _..~....... _...........~~ ..+uo ne~rc rurvreicn
~IOTE: THELOGOFSU95lIRFACECONOfiIONa.~Wt~wrvntnc~mn~...~.,.....~..~ ~.,~„r~ ................__.
R i9 NOT W hRR/WTEO i O CE RFPRESENTAIIYE CF SU09URFAGE CONOITiON6 AT OTH6i LOCRTIONS PNO TME3.
~/
PROJECT NO. 20139-12-a1
~
w BORING B 3 --
>
~ ~ 'o_o~ ~ wa
CETr1
~AMPLE
~ Q
~ SOIL ~- 2 u.
q~ ri} r~ -~
~ fL ~,
F ~
IN
..
_ no. ~ °z ~~`~ ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPI.ETED os-2a-zoo3 w N o W
^~ N~
~ F ~ (VBCS) Z N ~ y... O"'
`
~ a~ m o ~. o
~ EQUIPMENT MOBIL B~1 8" HOLLOW STEM
~
MATERIAI. DESCRIPTION ~
° rna.
. Densc, mcdium brown, mois; lint ~ medium S?,PID with silt and cjay, tracc
~Ild
Z
B3-1 49
a
B3-2 SM/SC . 35
fi
D3_; 25
0
ia B3Jl _. I9
12 -
. ?,I.L[MUM
14 . Medium denxa, yellowuh 6rown, dsmp 5ne to mcdium SAND trace coarse
sand
B3-S 9P/SM Z~
16
= ___________________ ___ ___ __~
t8 -
. ,dedium drns5 ~v~ti ~ light ~yish OinwR Lnc to coase SAND trsce 6no
SI'3VE1
zo B3 6 19
SP/S W
~
Za
lfi
D3-7
26 BORING TERMINAT.ED AT 26 FEET
euiau.,uli.~.+
Figure A-3,
Loq of Boring B 3, Page 1 of 1
^...SAMFl1NCUN5VCCE45FVl ^~- STANOAROPFJJETNATONTESf ~_ .OFIVESAMP~ENNpISTVft6ED1
SAMPLESYMBOlS ~p
gry ...OISiURBED OR BAG 9eMGLE
^_
Q1UNK SAMPL'c
1.
.. WATEi TA6LE CR SEEPAGE
NCTE: THEIOGOC9l85VRFwCECONOTOK;9~~VJMHEREON~PR+~~~r.i i..o+~=..~.~w.....--....-_._..__
R li NOT WARRANiE~ TD BC REGRESFM.~TVE OF SU~SURFACE CONORIONS TT QDIER IGCATIONS ANO i1ME9.
v~
~ •
rnww~ . . ~... .... •~..•
~ BORING B 4 o w-~ ~ w o
oEa*~ } 1
O --
Q HZLL
QQ` ~/1^
Z1i ~ ~
7
SAMP~E ~ o cuss ) DATE COMPIETED 05-28-2003
(MSL
ELEV w N p > a o z
F~ NO. =
J Z
~
N5c57 .
. Z
a~ m
Q
~ O
D
~
EQUIPMENT MOBIL B-6'1 8" HOLLOW STEM
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~ gJ-l .I '.~I. FILI.
_
. I. Dense, yellowish 6rown, dsmp to mo~st, Silty, tine to medium SAND trace
~ ~ ~ ~ SM coarse sand .
2 ` ~ ~
'
~
~
43
Ba-2 ~ I-
~
.:
~
1 --- --- ---
4 ~ Dense, medium bmwn, moist, fine to coarse SAND trace silt, clay, Lne gravel
67
64-3
6 =SP
8
10 50
aa-~
ALLU V ]UNI
white ro Iigh[ brown, damp, tine to coarse SAND hace Fine
Medium dense
~Z _ ,
gravel
14
&1-5 ~ SPISW ~ ~
~6
18
20 12
BJ-b
-2 inch laver o[ medium bmwn, mois[ clav
BORING TERMINATED AT 21 FEET
~m 3942-OtGPJ
Figure A-4,
1.... nf Rnrinn R d Paae 1 Of ~
~..y . __.. .~ - -~ - --~
^... SAMPLiNG UNSUCCESSFUL ^~~~ STANDARO PENFfFtATON TEST ~... ORIVE SAMPIE (UNDISTURBED)
SAMPLE SYMBOLS pp WqTERTA9LEOftSEEPAGE
gg ... DIS1llRBE~ OR BAG SAMPLE ^._ CHUNK SAMPIE _~-
., ~ n,-ennu <un nTTHE OATE INDICATED.
NOTE: TNEIOGOFSU&SURfACECONDIT10N55HOwrvntne~nnrru~av~.u~~ ~~~~- ---~------ -- ~~
iT IS NOT WARRANTE~ TO BE REPftESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDfilONS AT OTHER IOCAT10N5 AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 20139-12-0t •
•
y W BORING B 5 z w~ ~
OEPIH
~
<
~
SOIL 0
~" U LL
"
`~ '~
a~.
~"
" SAMPLE
~va ~
o y
Z
a''~'
EIEV. (MSL) DATE COMPLETED os-2s-2a0S S Q
~ N~ z LL
o u J Z
N'"
~
~-
~Ti J NsC51 W u
~ m ¢ a• O
O
~
EQUIPMENT MOBIL B~'I 8" HOILOW STEM u
a~"
o O
c~
MATERIAL ~ESCRIPTION
o
~ . ~. ~~
~{- Medium drnse, medium 6tuwq mcis5 Clsycy Silty, fina m m~dium SAND
~~ I
f iracc coarso sand
.
Z ~~
~I~
~ SGSM .
85-1 "~~
" ~~ ?4
a '~'.# ~
BS-2 .I .~ I 32 12J.6 5.5
6 ~. ~
~{1 _
__.~______________________________
___
___'
__
BJ-3 Medium drnsc. mcdium 6raLVn, moist, 5ne to mcdium S.SP1D trmc coarx 30 I
8 . =and clay
SP
i o
g5~t
~
-IIccomcs daase a2
-2 inch lay~[ af wali ~aded sand
~2
14 . ai.J.iJVIUM
mcdium brown, moist line ro mcdium SAN17 ttace wa1se
+~'t~d~Vm danse
55-5
" gp ,
sand. fina g1avcl 12
76
~a
---------------------------- -- -- ---
-,~
l I Loosa m medium dcpsc, medium 6ruwq moise m wcc, Silty, line t~ mcdium
20 ~ ~~ S?d~iD wiN some ctay 9
856 I. I
I
. SM
22 I
.I
I ~.'~.
.{..
_______
___
___
___
~,
I
I Becomes finex ermned, Slty, Enc Slu~ID trace medi~m sand
24 ~
I
,
IIS-7 i.
~ ~~.~ ~~ SM 9
-
26 ~ _.I {.~I. ~
~a ~~.~
~ ~. ~.
~
~
30 B58 {
~.{ ~ . 16
BORTNG "fERMIYATF_D AT 31 FEtiT
-tuiee-~~+n.ur~
Figure A-5,
Log of Boring B 5, Page 1 of 1
~... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFIR ^_ SANOARO PENEfFiA10NTE5f' ~... DWVE SAMPLE ~UNOISiVRH~J
SAMPLESYMBOLS ~p
pyy ... ~ISNftEED OR 9AG 54MPLE O-• ~UNK SaMPL =._ WAT~ ~AfIEOR ~PnGE
NoTB 1HElCCioFSUasuRFACECAnomaruswwnnercevrvnrruw.n.~~.., ~~_..._...._„_.....__. .._._.._'_ .
ITISNOiWAilRANTE~~C3EREPRESENTA71`/EOGSU0Sl1RFACECpNDITON9ATJT11E~iLOCATIONSANOTiMES. '
v
PROJECT NO. 20139-1Z-01
r~
w BORING B 6 o w_ ~ a
~ w
oeani
E o a
~ sai~ . <¢ y z LL
W ~ z
~
~N SAMPL
0
cuss ~~
~~
3 U
0 W
`?
No o
z DATE COMPLETED o5-2a-2oa3
ELEV. (MSL.) ?
~
d ~
O
Fe~ . x
~
~ S~
N 51 i m
w
m y z
~O
J O
EQUIPMENT MOBIL 8-6~ S" HOLLOW STEM ~
a o
~
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~ B6-1 - FII,L
. Dense. vellowish brown, mois4 tinr. to medium SAND [race silt marse sand
2
B6-2 SP ~7
4
B6-3 67 123.R SS
6
D6-1 63
8
~o
B6S .~ i0 130.9 8.9
12
14
p6-6 .I
~ ~. ALLUVIUNI az
16 .
.
~~ Medium dense, light browq damq tine to medium Silty SANU some coarse
_I - f I sand, few ihin lenses of sandy silt
I I SM
, a ~ i ~
20
B6 7 ffI
. I~ P
I.',
22
BORING TERMINATHD AT 21 FEET
Figure A-6~ 20t39-12At.GPJ
Log of 8oring B 6, Page 1 of 1
^._ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ^... SfANOARD PENEfRATiON TEST ~... ORNE SAMPLE (UNOISRIRBFD)
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
~... DISRIRBED OR BAG SAMPLE ^_. GHUNK SAMPLE _... WATER TAeLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: iHELOGOF5lJ85URfACECON~filON55HOWNHEREONAPPLIE50NL7n~ ~ntsvtciriceonirvia~rtirten~n~w..i~..~...~.....~ ~.~~.,..•..••~..•~...~_.
R IS NOT WARRANTE~ TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SU65URPACE CONOrt10N5 AT OTNER IOCATONS AND TMES. ~^
H
~ ~
rK~~t.,~ ~ ~v. <~~ ~~-~<-„~ ~
~
BORING B 7
o w-
~
w a
Y w
r
1-Z LL
Q Q~//
~/1^.
Z LL
~ ~
~ z
OFPTH
~N SAMPLE ~
~
O ~
~ SOIL
°~`~
(MSL.) DATE COMPLETED OS-28-2003
ELEV
~ ~ 3
~ a
v
`~ ~
FEET NO. F ~ NSCS) . w~ m Q ~ O
j ~
EQUIPMENT MOBIL B-61 8" HOLLOW STEM 4
~
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~ FILL
Dense, yellowish brown, moisS i~ne [o coarse SAND some medium sand,
. SP tracc clay . .
2
J3
B7-1 ~ ~
~
--
---
---
---
.._ ----
4 ~-~ ,~
/ Dense, medium brown, mois4 Clayey, line to medium SAND
~48 1192 ll3
B7-2 ~ j . SC
~
B7-3 ~~
'
- - - - - - 37
- - - 122.8
- - 9.7
i:~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
g , Dense, erav, damp, fine ro coarse SAND wi[h luyers of silty, Lce [o medium
sand
10 B7~ - SP/SM 92
~Z ALLUVIUM
Medium dense, medium brown, damp , finc to mcdium SAND with some
. caxrse sand
14
3i
B7-5 SP
16
18
20 21
87-6
BORING TERMINATED AT Zl FEET
~n, ao_nm r.vi
Figure A-7,
~ nn nf Rnrina B 7. PaaO 1 of 1
--~ -- -- -~ . ..
^ _ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUI ^ ~.. °+TAN~AftD PENEfRAT10N TEST ~ ... ORIVE SAMPLE (UNOISiURBEO)
SAMPLESYMBOLS ~ ,WqTERTAeLEORSEEPnGE
... OISTt1ftBE~ OR BAG SAMPIE ^... CNUNK SAMPLE I-
. _ ___ __ _"~ .................. ..i,. .++uc nerc iunicaTFn
NOTH THE LW OF SUBSUftFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREOrv nvrueo ~rvu ni i nc ~~_..~~~.,.,..~...... ~.. ..._ ._.. __ _. ~
R IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTFTIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDfilONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS ANO PMES.
•
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY 7ESTING
~
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected soil samples were
analyzed for in-situ moisture content and density, maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content, shear strength characteristics, expansion potential, consolidation potential, and wateo-
soluble sulfate content. The results of the laboratory tests are presented in Tables B-I through B-V
and Figure B-1. In-situ moisture and density results are presented on the boring logs, Figures A-1
through A-7. _
TABLE B-I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557-91
Sample Nla~cimum Dry Optimum Moisture
No. Description Density (pcf) Content (% dry wt.)
Bl-1 Brown, Silty fine to course SAND 1312 g.$
B4-1 Dark Brown Siliy fine SAND, little clay 132.0 8.2
TABLE B-II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080-98
Dry Density Vtoisture Content Unit Cohesion Angle of Shear
Sample ~Io. ~p~~ (%,) (ps~ Resistance (de;rees)
B1-1* 118.7 8.4 380 31
B4-I* 118.8 8.1 400 32
*Soil sample remolded to 90 percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture content.
Project No. 30139-IZ-01 - B-I - June 17, 2003
3Z
~~
•
TABLE B-III
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESUITS
ASTM D 4829-95
Sample Moisture Content Dry Density Eacpansion
No. o
Before Test ( /o) o
After Test ( /o) (pc~ Indes Classification
B1-( 82 18.8 1152 20 VeryLow
B4-1 - 3.4 20.8 117.4 47 Low
TABLE B-IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417
Sample No. Sulfate Content (% SOy) Sulfate Rating*
B 1-1 0.009 Negligible
B4-1 0.019 Negligible
*Reference: 1997 Uniform Building Code Table 19-A-4.
TABLE B-V
SUMMARY OF SINGLE-POINT CONSOLIDATION (COLLAPSE) TESTS
ASTM D-2435-96
Sample
i Iumber In-situ Dry
Density (pc~ Moisture Content
Before Test Asial Load tvith
Water Added (pst) Percent
Collapse
B3-3 124.4 13.2 2,000 0.1
B3-4 1193 12.1 2,000 0.2
BS-2 124.6 5.5 2,000 03
B6-3 123.3 5.5 2,000 0.3
B6S I30.9 8.9 2,000 0
Project No. 20139-12-0 I . - B-2 - Iune 17, 2003
~~
~
oRn iFrT Nl~ 7 0 1 39-1 2-01
~
SAMPLE NO. 83-2
-2
0
I I I I I i.. i I
z I I I I
4 I
O
Q ~ I I
^
O
~
O I
U
F-
Z
Z 8 I
W
~ 10
w
d
12 I I I
14 I I I
I
16
18 ~
0.
APPLIED PRESSURE (ks~
~g9.z InitialSaWration (%) 78~8
Initial Dry Densi[y (pc~
8.4 Sample Satura[ed at (ks~ Z~~
Inilial Water Content (% )
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
RANCHO TEMECULA TOWN CENTER
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
2013&12-O1.GPJ rigureo-~ ~
~
~
APPENDIX
~
~ ~
APPENDIX C
BORING LOGS FROM PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
FOR
RANCHOTEMECULATOWN CENTER
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 20139-12-01
~°
~
PROIECI' VO. ?G048112-01
~
~~ F BORING B 1 Q
.. ~
~
~
3 ~
~Z~ ^
~ wv
~
~. ~EPTN
' J
I
SAM7LE O O SOIL ¢¢~ ZLL =I-
tp No i z ctass E~V. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 1/7/00 ¢~/n w~
n ~z
FEET H p NSCS) WH~
N •
~ H~
~
I J ~ EQUIPMEi1T ~-~» w'
m
~ ~ o
I a ~ U
I I I I ~.~- D~~ON ~
o
~. { i-
COB~ACTID ~ T.
1-.~ ~ Dense, damp, ligh[ brown, very Saty,Sne Sr1ND
Z Bl-1 _
:1 ~ ~
i
1- SM
4 i
~~l -
Bl-2 { t I.
~ ~- _
37
6 ~~ ~ -Becomes moisc at 5 feet
8 _ { ~'.
~-
~
-
- {
r.} i
~o
B1-3 ~ i
~~
-~ ~
-Becomes hrown to dark brown, fine [o medium
66
125.4
4_5
._i- {'7' ~reined az 10 feet wiih some coazse ~dined sand
12 ~ ~ 1-
-t :~
.
i
14
- i
~
-1'{.`
.
B1-i -' ; ~
!
~-
-Lense of very Silry, fwe S~1ND ?9
16 -
{
~ SAND
-Silty, fine to coazse
18 `~I-I'UVNM
'SP Medium dense, moist, yellowish browu, fine to coazse
~ ~ S?.ND wich Qace silt
~p „ ,
BI
~ - ------------ - ------------------------ -
-
- Medium dense, moisc, gxay-brown, Sandy SII.T,
2~ - micaceous
~4 - ~ ML
B1-6 I
-1 t " 1~
26
k: I
~
~~ t
{
-
________________________
,s
`
~ ~- ~ -
~ Medium dease, damp, ligh[ brown. Silry, fine m
. ~ - } ~ medium S.~~ID
Figure A-1, Lo~ of Boring B 1 RPGN
^.._ SAMPLING UN54CCESSFIJL ^... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ~.., ORIVE SAMPLE Cl1NDI5TURBED)
SAMPLE SYN[BOLS
~ . OfSR1RBE~ OR 8AG SANPIE O.._ CHUNK SAlIPLE S._. HATER TAOLE ~R SE'cPAGE
NO7E: THE L~G OF SUBSURFAC'c CONOITIONS SHOUN MEREdN APPl1E5 ONl7 AT THE SPECSF[C 80RING OR TREYCN LOGTION AND AT THE
OA7E INUIGT'c'J. tT IS N0T YARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF S7IBSURFACE CONO[TIONS AT OTHER LOGTIONS AND TIMES.
3~
• ~
I ~R(~7F('T ~l0_ ?(Hk18-12-01
i
i ; W BORING B 1 ZW,. >
DEPTH
° ~ 3 SC1IL oZ~
¢ ~~- ~"
tN SAMPI
_
Na O
x ~
z
R^SS
IISCS
ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 1/7/00 ¢
~
~~m
N
3 Zi~
w
~V ~
~-Z
H
FEcT H
~ Q
~ (
) w}
,~
W
~ W
~
EQUIPMEiYT Cl~ 55 w
m
~ ~ a
~ ~ U
I I I I MATERIAL DESCRIPITON I
- 30 Bl-7 ~ I- 21
.{-~l
- 32 _ { ~ ~-
_
- 34 ~ {.~_
~._~ ~ ~
'
B1 8 I . I_
-~- _
-Incre~swg moisuue az 35 feet
?4
36 _~{
~'
~
}
_ { r I-
38
~
~ I -------------------------------
:
{ Medium dense, mois[, dark ~ay, very Silty, fine
I~-~ ~ S~I SAND
~
Bl-9
' ~
i
{ ~- ?3 115.2 13.9
42 -
-.
~ -~ ~
_.
I
~ . Very dense, moist, yellowish brown, fine ro coazse .
SAND wich [race silc
B1-10 - SP ~~
46
48
50
B1-11
-
~Z
BORING'LERMINATED AT 51.5 FEET
I
Fiwre A-2. Log of Borina B 1 RPGH
SAMPLE SYNIBOLS ~"' SAMGLING 11N5UCCESSFUL ^.-- S7ANOAkO PENETRATION TESi ~... DRIVE SAMPLE NN~/SNROED) I
~._. D(SillRHED OR 9AG SAXPLE ^_._ CHUNK SAMPLE ____ tlATEft TABLE OR SE~?AGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE COND[Ti0N5 SNOUN NEREON APPLIES ONLY A7 THE SPELIFiC 90RING LR TRENCH LOCAT[ON 0.N0 AT TNE
DATE INOICATE~. IT IS NOT YARRANTm T~ BE REPRESENTATIVE Of SUeSURFACE CONDITiONS AT ~TNER LOCATIOXS ANO TIMES.
d
~ ~
I PR(~IFCT NO. Z0048-12-01
'
I r i w B~RING B~ o~~ ~ ~
l ~
Z
~ !" ~v
OEPTH
IN SAMPL`_ I ~
i
O
I ~
Z m1L
~~SS
) DATE COMPLFI'ED 1/7/00
(MSL
EV
EI I
-
l
i
¢¢~
~~m t11
Z~
w~ ~F-
~z
', FEcT No H Q (4SL5) .
.
. ~jNp a~ ~F
J I ~ EQUIPMENT C,~ 55 W Wm
~ ~" =o
~ I ~ O U
I ~ ~i I I MATERIAL DESCRIP"I"ION I I
0
~ ~ COMPACTID FILL
~ B2-I I{{ ~ Dense, damp, brown, Silry. fine co medium SAND
~ _~~. ~- wi[h tzace silt
1 ~-
4 _~-~~ ~ 118? 8.8
-~~I 48
B2-? : ~- -1-
6 ~~_}~
~'
$ - {
~-~7-
~~~
: .~- -----------------------------------
10 B2-3 _ ~ SP Very dense, damp, medium ro coazse S~LW wi[h silt 6~
(possible alluvium)
1Z -
_ !. j ~- ALLIMUM
14 ~
I Dease, moisc, Silry, Pine SAND, micaceoiu
_}
B2~t _ ~ ~ ~. S~i 33
16 : I- ' ~'
{
.I
{_
~
~~
I ------
18 Dense, damp, light bmwn, fine co coazse SAND, ~e
silt
20
B2S -
SP 26
~o --
~q - ~ ----------------------------- - -------
~-. j ~ Medium dease, ve mois[, Sandy SILT wich crece
ry
il
96.3
2~.~
52-6 ~ ciay
26 -
zs -. _
1
------------------------------- -
~ ~ ~ ~
Figure A-3 , Log of Boring B ? RPGH
^.__ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUI ^... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ~--• DftIVE SAMPIE (UNOISNRBED)
SP.MPLE SYMBOLS =, _ YATER TABIE OR SE-P0.G'c
u~ iovcn ne anr, ceMV1 E ^... CHUNK SAMPIE • .
NOTE: THE lOG Of SUBSURFACE COND[TIONS SHOtJN HEREaN xPPlIES ONIT AT THE SPECIFIC eORING OR TRENCH LOGTION ANO AT TNE
DATc INDICATEO. IT [5 NOT VARRANTED TO 0E REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSllRFAC: CON~[TiONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
3°~
~ ~
PROIFCT' VO~. 20048-12-01
wI
- ?
BORING B z
-: r
I
:
~
~ o~ ~~ W
OEPTN
~N ~
SANPL~ J
= 3
ZI SOIL.
[uss .
DATECOMPLETED 1/7/00
ELEV. (MSL.) ¢¢~
~~cn
i-H3 Z~
w-
QU ~~
~z
HW
~~~ FEcT ua_ H ~ (USCS) .
~
_
I ~ ~I EQiJIPMENT (:J~ 55 ~~m a ~
I t I ~~. D~~ON I I
30 BZ_~
Medium dense, damp ro moist, lighc brown, 5ne co S
coax~e SAND with ttace silt
32
34
BZ_8 -- Sp -Bec,omes dense, and brown az 35 fcet 38 1073 4.1
36
38
`~ Bz_9 - -Becomes lighc brown az 40 feec 42
42
44 ~
82-10 - 61
~6 - _ -Becoma very dense, very moist, ~ay brown, fine co
. medium SAND with ¢ace silt
- : -------------------
48
'1- ~ ~ ' Very dease, moist, redd'uh brown. SIIry S~VYD with
.~ ,~ ~ Syi tcace ciay
~0 {
~ 60
B2-11 {
:
: ~ i ~ ~
BORING TERMINATETJ AT 51.5 FEEI'
Fig-u-e A-4, Log of Boring B 2 RPGH
^___ SAMPIING LIHSULL`cSSFUL ^... STAN~ARD PENETRATION TEST ~_.. ORIVE SAMPLE (~NOISNROE-)
$AMPLE$YMB~~ P~ nrcniaaon ne aa~ SnMPLE ^._. CHUNK SAlIPLE S..- wTER TAOLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE COND[TIONS SHWN HEREON APPLIES ONL7 AT TNE SPECIFIC 80RING OR TRE4CN LOGITION AND AT THE
DATE INOICATED. IT IS NUT NARRANTED TO 8E REPRESENTAT[VE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIOMS AT OTHER LOCATIONS ANO TiMES.
~
C~
~
APPENDIX D
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
RANCHO TEMECULATOWN CENTE~Z
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 20139-12-01
~2
~ ~
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1. GENERAL
I.1. These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the
Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Incorporated. The recom-
mendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and
grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case
of conflict.
1.2. Prior to the commencement of ~ading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be
employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for
substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these
specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and
observation services so that he may determine tha[, in his opinion, the work was performed
in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the
Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep him appnsed of work schedules and changes
so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly.
13. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency
ordinances, these specifica[ions and the approved ~ading plans. If, in the opinion of the
Consultant, unsarisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compacrion, adverse weather, and so forth, result in a quality of work
not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject
[he work and recommend to the Owner that construction be stopped unril the unacceptable
conditio~s are corrected.
2. DEFINITIONS
21. Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading
work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading
performed.
2.2. Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.
23. Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the Califomia licensed Civil Engineer
or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the gading plans, surveying and verifying
as-gradedtopography.
GI rev. 07/02 ~~
~ •
2.~1. Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineenng geology consulting firm
re[ained to provide geotechnical services for the project.
2.~. Soil Engineer shall refer to a Califomia licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner,
who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be
responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's
work for conformance with these specifications.
2.6. Engineering Geologist shall refer ro a Califomia licensed Engineering Geologist retained
by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site
,~rading.
2.7. Geotechnical Report shal] refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include
a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the
development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are
intended to apply.
3. MATERIALS
3.1. Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or
imported to the site Ihat, in the opinion oY the Consultant, is suitable for use in consuucrion
of fills. In general, fill matenals can be classified as soil fills, soi[-rock fills or rock fills, as
defined below.
3.1.1. Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12
inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of
material smaller than 3/4 inch in size.
3.12. Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containin; no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4
feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient mahix of soil Fill to allow
for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as
specified in Paragraph 62. Oversize rock is defined as matena] greater than 12
inches.
3.1.3. Rock flls are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet
in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as
material smaller than 3/4 inch in maximum dimension. The quanrity of fines shall
be less than approximatety 20 percent of the rock Fill quanTiry.
GI rev. 07/02
~
• .
3.2. Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the
Consultant shall not be used in &lls.
33. Materials used for fill, either impoRed or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as
defined by the Califomia Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9
and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal ]aws. The Consultant shal]
not be responsible for [he identi£cation or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous
materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to
suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner
the termination of grading operations within the affected ares. Prior to resuming e ading
operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the
suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.
3.4. The outer IS feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured honzontally, should be composed of
properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to
the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horiaontal:vertical) and a soil
layer no thicker than 12 inches i s track-walked onto the face for 1 andscaping purposes.
This procedure may be utilized, provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner
and Consultant.
3.5. Representarive samples of soil materials to be used for fill shall be tested in the ]aboratory
by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and,
where appropriate, shear sRength, expansion, and o adation characteristics of the soi1.
3.6. During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in Ihe
Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be
notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition
4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED
4.1. Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of
complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made
structures and similar debns. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried
logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and
other projections exceeding l-U2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet
below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to
provide suitable fill materials.
~~
GI rev. 07/02
• ~
4?. Any asphalt pavement matenai removed during clearing operations should be properly
disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fr daments which are &ee of reinforcing
steel may be placed in fills, provided they ar~ placed in accordance with Section 62 or 63
of this document.
4.3. After clearing and grubbing of oroanic marter or other unsuitable material, loose or porous
soils shall be removed to the depth cecommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of
removal and compaction shall be observed and approved by a representative of the
Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of
6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent
uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.
4.4. Where the s lope ratio of t he original ground i s steeper than 6:1 (horizontal:ver[ical), or
where recommended by the Consultant, the onginal ground should be benched in
accordance with the following illustration.
TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
Finish Grade
Ground
Finish Slope Surface
Remove All -
Unsuitable Material
As Recommended By
Soil Engineer
Siope To 8e Such That
Sloughing Or Sliding
Does Not Occur
Y^--'I
See Note t
DETAIL NOTES
See Note 2
No Scale
(t) Keywid[h "B" should be a minimum of 10 feetwide, or sufficientlywide ro
permit complete coverage with [he compacrion equipment used. The base of the
key should be graded hori2ontal, or inclined slighfly into [he natural slope.
(2) The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial
material and at least 2 feet into dense foana[ional material. Where hard rock is
exposed in the bottom of the key, the dep[h and configurarion of the key may be
modified as approved by the Consultant.
GI rev. 07/02
~
~ .
4.5. Afterareasto receivefill havebeencleared,plowedorscarified,thesurface shouldbe
disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods. The area
should then be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted
as recommended in Section 6.0 of these specifications.
5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
5.1. Compaction o£soil or soil-rock fil] shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel
wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatiatired rollers, or other types of
acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be
capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the
specified-moisture content.
52. Compaction of rock fills shai] be performed in accordance with Section 63.
6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL
6.1. Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Conh~actor in accordance wi[h
the following recommendarions:
6. L 1. Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should
generally not exceed 8 inches. Each Iayer shall be spread evenly and shail be
thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture
in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts.
Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in
accordance with Section 6.2 or 63 of these specifications.
6.1.2. In general, the soi! fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the
optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557-00.
6.13. When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant,
water shall be added by the Conhactor until the moisture content is in the range
specified.
6.1.4. When the moisture content of the soi! fill is above the range specified by the
Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by
the Contractor by bladingJmixing, or other satisfactory methods until Ihe moisture
content is within the range specified.
GI rev. 07/02
~`
~ •
G. L5. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly
compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.
Relative compaction is defined as the ra[io (expressed in percent) of the in-place
dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum labora[ory dry density as
determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-00. Compaction shall be continuous
over the enrire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that
the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the
entire fill.
6.1.6. Soils having an Expansion Index of greater than 50 may be used in filis if placed at
least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content
generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material.
6.1.7. Properly compacted soi! fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To
achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that Yill slopes be over-built by at
least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered
preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.
6.1.8. As an altemarive to over-building of slopes, siope faces may be back-rolled with a
heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height
intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer
or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least
twice.
6.2. Soi!-rock till, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance
with the following recommendations:
6.Z.1. Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be
incorporated into the compacted soi[ Fill, but shall be limited to the area measured
15 feet minimum horizontaily from the siope face and 5 feet below finish grade or
3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.
6.2.2. Rocks or rock fra;ments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be
individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock
fragments up to 10 feet in maacimum dimension may be placed using similar
methods. The acceptabiliry of placing rock materials grea[er than 4 feet in
maximum dimension shall be evaluated during ~~rading as specific cases arise and
shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.
Glrev.07/02 ~~
~ ~
6.23. For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow
for passage of compacrion equipment.
6 L.4. For windrow placemen[, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in
properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4
feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be
filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and
should be compac[ed by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an
"open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should
first be approved by the Consultant.
6.2.5. ~ii~indrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either
parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site
geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet
center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to ne:ct
overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall
be 2 feet from the top of a]ower windrow to the bottom of the next higher
windrow.
6.2.6. All rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the
windrows must be continuously observed by Ihe Consultant or his representative.
63. Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.13., shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommenda[ions:
6.31. The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2
percent, maximum slope of 5 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable
subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains dudng
construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The
subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage £acilities to
control post-construction infiltration of water.
632. Rock fills shall be placed in lifrs no[ exceeding 3 Feet. Placement shall be by rock
trucks haversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently
placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating o£ the
rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall
consist of water hucks traversing in &ont of the current rock lifr face and spraying
water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with
compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory
roller or o[her compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the
~
Ut rev. u//UZ
~ ~
required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 63.3 shall be
utilized. The number of passes to be made will be determined as described in
Paragraph 633. Once a r-ock fill lift has been covered with soi[ Fill, no additional
rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill.
63.3. Plate bearing tests; in accordance with ASTM D1196-93, may be performed in
both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the number of
passes of the compac[ion equipment to be perfoimed. If performed, a minimum of
three plate bearing tests shall be performed in the properly compacted soil fill
(minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be
performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the
compaction equipmen[, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock
fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the
soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection vanation with number of
passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment wil] be
performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflecrions are equal to or less than
that determined For the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required
number of passes be less than two.
6.3.4. A representative of the Consultant shall be present during rock fill operations to
verify that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is
being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The
actual number oF plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultan[ during
grading. In general, at least one test should be performed for each approximately
5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of rock fill placed.
63.5. Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that,
in his opinion, sufficient water is presen[ and that voids between large rocks are
properly filled with smaller rock matenal. In-place density testing will not be
required in the rock fills.
63.6. To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines in[o the rock fill from overlying soil
fill matenal, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the
uppermost lifr of rock fill. The need to place b aded filter material below the rock
should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The
gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at Ihe time the rock fi]] is
being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the
Consultant in a timely manner, to allow desi~m of the graded filter prior to the
commencement of rock fill placement.
~~
GI rev. 07/02
~ ~
6.3.7. All rock fill placement shall be continuously observed during placement by
representatives of the Consultant.
7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
7.1. The Consultant shall be Ihe Owners representative to observe and perform tests during
clearing, grubbing, filling and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in
vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill shall be placed without at least one field density
test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test
shall be performed for every Z,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and
compacted.
72. The Consultant shall perfocm random field densiry tests of the compacted soi[ or soi!-rock
fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fill material is compacted
as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted matenals below any
disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion
thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the. test shal] be
reworked unti] Ihe specified density has been achieved.
7.3. During placement of rock fill, the Consuttant shall verify thatthe minimum number of
passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 633. The Consultant shall
request the excavarion of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the
placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing
~ an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisiure has been
applied to the material. If performed, plate bearing tests will be performed randomly on
the surface of the most-recently placed lift. Plate bearing tests will be performed to provide
a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether [he rock fill is adequately seated. The
maximum deflection in the rock fill derermined in Section 63.3 shall be less than the
maximum deflection of the properly compacted soil fill. When any of the above criteria
indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereoY is below that specified, the affected
]ayer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient
moisture applied.
7.4. A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of_
rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as
recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project
Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed
dunng gading.
S`
GI rev. 07/02
~ ~
7.~. The Consultant shall observe the placement of subdrains, to verify that the drainage devices
have been placed and constructed in substanrial conformance with project specifications.
7.6. Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:
7.6.1. Soil and Soil-Rock Filis:
7.611. Field Density Test, AST'IvI D1556-00; Densiry of Soil In-Place By the
Sand-Cone Method.
7.6.12. Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D2922-96, Density of Soi! and
Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallorv Depth).
7.6.13. Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D1557-OQ Moisture-Densiry
Relations of Soi/s and Soil-Aggregate Mi.rt:eres Using 10-Pound Hammer
and 18-lnch Drap.
7.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D4829-95, Expansion Index Test.
7.6.2. Rock Fills
7.6.2.1. Field Plate Beanng Test, ASTM D1196-93 (Reapproved 1997) Stondard
Method jor Nonreparative Static Plate Load Tests of Sails and Flexible
Pavement Components. For Use in Evah~ation and Design of Airport and
Highway Pavements.
8. PROTECTION OF WORK
31. During construction, Ihe Contractor shall properly gade all excavated surfaces to provide
positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be
conholled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The
Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion oF freshly graded areas until
such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas
subjected to erosion o r s edimentation shall b e p roperly p repared in accordance w ith the
Specifications prior to placing additional fill or shuctures.
82. After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no £urther
excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the
Consultant.
5v
GI rev. 07/02
• ~1
9. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS
9.1. Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certi£cation by the Civil
Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot verticaily of
elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot
honzontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of
subdrain, the project Civil Eno neer should survey its location and prepare an as-bi~ilt plan
of the subdrain iocarion. The project Civil Engineer should venfy the proper outlet for the
subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.
9.2. The Owner is responsible for furnishing a fnal as-graded soil and geologic repoR
sarisfactory to the appropriate goveming o~ accepting agencies. The as-~ aded report
should be prepared and signed by a Califomia licensed Civil Engineer experienced in
geotechnical engineenng and by a California Certified Lngineering Geologist, indicating
Iha[ the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial c onformance
with the Specifications or approved changes to the Speci6cations.
~3
~ GI rev. 07102
~
~+ n c
. . ~ . . . ~ .S $ o~
N w H
~ ... - ~ ~ LL W ~ . ~ . . . , ~ ~ ':~ ~
~ ~
`~ ~ a o ~~~~~ ~ :
~~'d'y~o !i , Q
~`n ~ima°Ma E'~ `~- ~.
~- m m M o ~~~~~ ~' ~ ZR
~ . ~ CO a~ ~ CE N ~ ~ .~ O.
s ~ ~
i ~
C j Q c ~~~~E ' ~ J ~
~ ~~~ ~~ ~
i ~ ~ ~ ! o ,9~,,~ Q
'Yi m 3 Q O ,tY ;~~~~ ~ . J ~ .
d a F g ~ F~ p s~ge~~ ~
~ . ~ e .._. ' ~ C ~ i~ ~' s!'~~ ~. W .
W ~- F a ~ C. ~C ~`~~~ : ~ 0~':_ 2 . p~~~
-- ---~ --~-° - - t~_~ Z.c c~ c~_-E~~:' ~ ~ ~ - -~tW- V+ ---
~ ~-- ? aomZZ p
~
~ ~ ~ ~~~aa ~~~~ ~~
a ,. ,. .~, ~ r ,
~~II.