HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel 11 Geotechnical Investigation' - • Soil Engineering and Consoling Servtes • Coger nng Geology • LompaOmn Testing
y • Iosdienom • Coo5ouLepn Malenals Testing • LaWillply TeShing • PKEDWIM Testing
EN Corporation •Geology, WdIP Aiwvice S1WKs•Pease I q II Em,rpmlMteSee A5565rtpn15
11 ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
' GEOTECHNICAUGEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
I
I
I
I
C
Prepared for:
Linkletter Enterprises �7
2081 Business Center Drive, Suite 101 L/
Irvine, California 92715 ISI
1
FF�
R n 3 2000
•� =_ _ __ _ -� _------- --- , � _."•�nnGi77siGGiias��r'mli-a■ntsGutluim,
wwww '�a�����s wt I - rl .•aa aww.�w.weww+ew www+ � wrmw s• .a nr;���wa-u
ATEbERCE:d E tarprise C)rcle N rth, Suite 1, Temecula CA 92590 • phone (909) 676-3095 fax. 1909) 676-3294
ftGE COUNTY OF E 261b Orange A enue, Santa Ana, CA 92707 • phone: (714) 546-4051 • fax: (714) 546-4052
�IEB SITE: WWW.ENGENCORP.COM • E-MAIL: ENGENCORPl7Q PE NET
I
Proposed Structures, Parcel 11 of Parcel Map 19580
Business Park Drive. City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
t
Project Number: T1894 -GS
December 7, 1999
I
I
I
I
C
Prepared for:
Linkletter Enterprises �7
2081 Business Center Drive, Suite 101 L/
Irvine, California 92715 ISI
1
FF�
R n 3 2000
•� =_ _ __ _ -� _------- --- , � _."•�nnGi77siGGiias��r'mli-a■ntsGutluim,
wwww '�a�����s wt I - rl .•aa aww.�w.weww+ew www+ � wrmw s• .a nr;���wa-u
ATEbERCE:d E tarprise C)rcle N rth, Suite 1, Temecula CA 92590 • phone (909) 676-3095 fax. 1909) 676-3294
ftGE COUNTY OF E 261b Orange A enue, Santa Ana, CA 92707 • phone: (714) 546-4051 • fax: (714) 546-4052
�IEB SITE: WWW.ENGENCORP.COM • E-MAIL: ENGENCORPl7Q PE NET
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
Page
..................................................... 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................
3.0
4.0
2.1 Authorization................................................................................................
2.2 Scope of Study.............................................................................................
2.3 Previous Site Studies...................................................................................
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT / PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................
K
SITE DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................................2
4.1 Location...........................................................................................................................2
4.2 Topography......................................................................................................................2
4.3 Vegetation........................................................................................................................ 2
4.4 Structures.........................................................................................................................2
5.0
FIELD STUDY...........................................................................................................................
3
6.0
LABORATORY TESTING...........................................................................................................3
6.1 General.........................................................................................................................:.3
6.2 Classification....................................................................................................................3
6.3 In -Situ Moisture Content and Density Test.....................................................................
3
6.4 Consolidation Test...........................................................................................................4
6.5 Maximum Dry Density / Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test........................4
6.6 Direct Shear Test.............................................................................................................4
6.7 Expansion Test................................................................................................................4
7.0
SITE CONDITIONS......................................................................................................................5
7.1 Geologic Setting...............................................................................................................
5
7.2 Faulting...........................................................................................................................5
7.3 Seismicity.........................................................................................................................
5
7.4 Earth Materials................................................................................................................6
7.4.1 Fill........................................................................................................................6
7.4.2 Alluvium...............................................................................................................7
7.5 Groundwater....................................................................................................................7
7.6 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity.............................................................................
7
8.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................
7
8.1 General...........................................................................................................................7
8.2 Earthwork Recommendations.........................................................................................
8
8.2.1 General..............................................................................................................8
8.2.2 Clearing.............................................................................................................8
8.2.3 Excavation Characteristics...............................................................................8
8.2.4 Suitability of On -Site Materials as Fill..............................................................
8
8.2.5 Removal and Recompaction............................................................................8
EnGEN Corporation
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Number and Title page
1 11.0 PRE -GRADING CONFERENCE .................................
12.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
' 13.0 CLOSURE
I
I
J
...........................................................17
..................................... 18
................................................................................18
APPENDIX: TECHNICAL REFERENCES
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG SUMMARIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
8.2.6 Fill Placement Requirements.............................................................................
9
8.2.7 Compaction Equipment......................................................................................
9
8.2.8 Shrinkage and Subsidence................................................................................
9
8.2.9 Subdrains............................................................................................................9
8.2.10 Observation and Testing....................................................................................
9
8.2.11 Soil Expansion Potential...................................................................................
10
8.3
Foundation Design Recommendations........................................................................
10
8.3.1 General............................................................................................................10
8.3.2 Foundation Size..............................................................................................10
8.3.3 Depth of Embedment......................................................................................
10
8.3.4 Bearing Capacity............................................................................................
10
8.3.5 Settlement.......................................................................................................11
8.3.6 Lateral Capacity..............................................................................................
11
8.4
Slab -on -Grade Recommendations...............................................................................
11
8.4.1 Interior Slabs...................................................................................................
12
8.4.2 Exterior Slabs..................................................................................................
12
8.5
Pavement Design Recommendations..........................................................................
12
8.6
Utility Trench Recommendations..................................................................................
13
8.7
Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations.......................................................................
14
8.8
Planter Recommendations............................................................................................14
8.9
Temporary Construction Excavation Recommendations ............................................
15
8.10
Retaining Wall Recommendations................................................................................
16
8.10.1 Earth Pressures...............................................................................................16
8.10.2 Foundation Design..........................................................................................16
8.10.3 Subdrain..........................................................................................................16
8.10.4 Backfill..............................................................................................................17
9.0 PLAN
REVIEW.........................................................................................................................
17
10.0 PRE-BID CONFERENCE..........................................................................................................
17
1 11.0 PRE -GRADING CONFERENCE .................................
12.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
' 13.0 CLOSURE
I
I
J
...........................................................17
..................................... 18
................................................................................18
APPENDIX: TECHNICAL REFERENCES
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG SUMMARIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
II
' Regarding: GEOTECHNICAUGEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
1 Proposed Structures, Parcel 11 of Parcel Map 19580
Business Park Drive, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T1894 -GS
1 References: 1. Armstrong Development Services, Conceptual Grading Plan, Parcel 11, Parcel Map
19580, 30 -scale grading plans undated.
2. Schaefer Dixon Associates, Inc., Grading Report, Rancho California Business Park -
1 Phase II, Parcel Map Number: 19580 and Plot Plan Number: 11092, report dated
March 13, 1990.
' 3. Schaefer Dixon Associates, Inc., Fault and Seismicity Investigation, A portion of
Business Park III, Phase II, Parcels 3 through 6, Rancho California, report dated June
30, 1989.
Dear Mr. Linkletter:
According to your request and signed authorization, we have performed a Geotechnical/Geological
' Engineering Study for the subject project. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the existing geologic
and geotechnical conditions within the subject property with respect to recommendations for fine grading of
the site and design recommendations for foundations, slabs on -grade, etc., for the proposed development.
Submitted, herewith, are the results of this firm's findings and recommendations, along with the supporting
' data.
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' A geotechnical/geological engineering study of the subsurface conditions of the subject site has
been performed for the proposed development. Exploratory excavations have been performed
and earth material samples subjected to laboratory testing. The data have been analyzed with
respect to the project information furnished to us for the proposed development. It is the opinion of
this firm that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical / geologic standpoint,
provided that the recommendations presented in this report are followed in the design and
,,i
=ate construction of the project. 1
m_maa� :,,ammmmmee®� f ®---nam— ------------mmomm---roam---mmavm-mommm�y
mmcamia 9 �613C�b1 E terRrSsei 6le N rth=SrIIte i T9}necula CA 92590r h3ne (909H6763095z fax.(909)'676.329Z.— '
nx,."s"T-'°"'4,,;y,,m'z ..•, �rs>ea* Ya.a*'r'x"•^-,q—^^mg'.sf rte**-srkwee a
ORANGE COUNTY O=I('0—.26161range A ecus; Santa Ana CA�92707�., phone (714)`546-4051..rfax (714) 54ri'4OEi :Y,. c.
ila
EB $ITE WWW NGE ORPCOM E MAIL ENGENCORP�a7PE NNET .
_ �R.E�1GEN Corporation
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
• Soil Engineering and Consulting Services • Engineering Geology • Compaction Testing
• Inspections • Construction Materials Testing • Undulatory Testing • Percolation Testing
• Geology • Water Resource Studies • Phase I B It Emirorunental Site Assessments
December 7, 1999
Linkletter Enterprises
2081 Business Center Drive, Suite 101
Irvine, California 92715
(949) 660-1190 / FAX (949) 660-1196
Attention: Mr. Mike Linkletter
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
December 1998
Page 2
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Authorization: This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study performed on
the subject site for the proposed development. Authorization to perform this study was in the form of
a signed proposal.
2.2 Scope of Study: The scope of work performed for this study was designed to determine and
evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions within the subject site with respect to geotechnical
characteristics, and to provide recommendations and criteria for use by the design engineers and
architect for the development of the site and for design and construction of the proposed
development. The scope of work included the following: 1) site reconnaissance and surface
geologic mapping; 2) subsurface exploration; 3) sampling of on-site earth materials; 4) laboratory
testing; 5) engineering analysis of field and laboratory data; and 6) the preparation of this report.
2.3 Previous Site Studies: Previous studies have been performed (Referenced No. 2 and No. 3).
Based on the Referenced No. 2 report, other reports have been written by Aragon Geotechnical
Consultants detailing previous grading. The reports by Aragon could not be located.
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT / PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed improvements will consist of concrete tilt -up and/or masonry, slab -on -grade type
structures with associated loading docks, landscape and hardscape (parking, driveway, etc.)
improvements. It is assumed that relatively light loads will be imposed on the foundation soils. The
foundation loads are not anticipated to exceed 2,000 pounds per lineal foot (plf) for continuous
footings. Proposed grading for the site will encompass minor cuts and fills. The above project
description and assumptions were used as the basis for the field and laboratory exploration and
testing programs and the engineering analysis for the conclusions and recommendations presented
in this report. This office should be notified if structures, foundation loads, grading, and/or details
other than those represented herein are proposed for final development of the site so a review can be
performed, supplemental evaluation made, and revised recommendations submitted, if required.
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
4.1. Location: The site is located northwest of the comer of Single Oak Drive and Business Park Drive in
the City of Temecula
4.2 Topography: The topography of the site at the time of this study was relatively flat.
4.3 Vegetation: At the time of the field study, vegetation across the site was moderate and consisted of
grasses and weeds.
4.4 Structures: At the time of the field study, there were no existing structures at the site.
EnGEN Corporation
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
December 1998
Page 3
5.0 FIELD STUDY
Site observations and geologic mapping were conducted on October 27, 1999 by our Staff Geologist.
A study of the property's subsurface condition was performed to evaluate underlying earth strata and
the presence of groundwater. Six (6) exploratory borings were excavated on the study site on
October 27, 1999. The borings were performed by ABC Liovin Drilling, using a truck -mounted drill
rig equipped with 8.0 -inch outside diameter hollow -stem augers. The maximum depth explored was
approximately 51.5 -feet below the existing land surface at the excavation locations. Bulk and
relatively undisturbed samples of the earth materials encountered were obtained at various depths in
the exploratory borings and returned to our laboratory for verification of field classifications and
testing. Bulk samples were obtained from cuttings developed during the excavation process and
represent a mixture of the soils within the depth indicated on the logs. Relatively undisturbed samples
of the earth materials encountered were obtained by driving a thin-walled steel sampler lined with
1.0 -inch high, 2.42 -inch inside diameter brass rings. The sampler was driven with successive drops
of a 140 -pound weight having a free fall of approximately 30 -inches. The blow counts for each
successive 6.0 -inches of penetration, or fraction thereof, are shown in the Exploratory Boring Log
Summaries presented in the Appendix. The ring samples were retained in close -fitting moisture -
proof containers and returned to our laboratory for testing. The approximate locations of the
exploratory excavations are denoted on the Geotechnical Study Site Plan. The exploratory boring
excavations were backfilled with excavated soil.
6.0 LABORATORY TESTING
6.1 General: The results of laboratory tests performed on samples of earth material obtained during the
field study are presented in the Appendix. Following is a listing and brief explanation of the
laboratory tests which were performed. The samples obtained during the field study will be discarded
30 days after the date of this report. This office should be notified immediately if retention of samples
will be needed beyond 30 days.
6.2 Classification: The field classification of soil materials encountered in the exploratory borings was
verified in the laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System, ASTM
02488-90, Standard Practice for Determination and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual
Procedures). The final classification is shown in the Exploratory Boring Log Summaries presented in
the Appendix.
6.3 In -Situ Moisture Content and Density Test: The in-situ moisture content and dry density were
determined in general accordance with ASTM D2216-90 and D2937-83 (1990) procedures,
respectively, for each selected undisturbed sample obtained. The dry density is determined in
EnGEN Corporation
6.4
CM
6.7
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
December 1998
Page 4
pounds per cubic foot and the moisture content is determined as a percentage of the oven dry weight
of the soil. Test results are shown in the Exploratory Boring Log Summaries presented in the
Appendix.
Consolidation Test: Settlement predictions of the on-site soil and compacted fill behavior under
load were made, based on consolidation tests that were performed in general accordance with ASTM
D2435-90 procedures. The consolidation apparatus is designed to receive a 1.0 -inch high, 2.416 -
inch diameter ring sample. Porous stones are placed in contact with the top and bottom of each
specimen to permit addition and release of pore water and pore pressure. Loads normal to the face
of the specimen are applied in several increments in a geometric progression under both field
moisture and submerged conditions. The resulting changes in sample thickness are recorded at
selected time intervals. Water was added to the test apparatus at various loads to create a
submerged condition and to measure the collapse potential (hydroconsolidation) of the sample. The
resulting change in sample thickness was recorded.
Maximum Dry Density / Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test: Maximum dry density /
optimum moisture content relationship determination were performed on samples of near -surface
earth material in general accordance with ASTM D1557-91 procedures using a 4.0 -inch diameter
mold. Samples were prepared at various moisture contents and compacted in five (5) layers using a
10 -pound weight dropping 18 -inches and with 25 blows per layer. A plot of the compacted dry
density versus the moisture content of the specimens is constructed and the maximum dry density
and optimum moisture content determined from the plot.
Direct Shear Test: Direct shear tests were performed on selected samples of near -surface earth
material in general accordance with ASTM D3080-90 procedures. The shear machine is of the
constant strain type. The shear machine is designed to receive a 1.0 -inch high, 2.416 -inch diameter
ring sample. Specimens from the sample were sheared at various pressures normal to the face of
the specimens. The specimens were tested in a submerged condition. The maximum shear
stresses were plotted versus the normal confining stresses to determine the shear strength (cohesion
and angle of internal friction).
Expansion Test: Laboratory expansion tests were performed on samples of near -surface earth
material in general accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard. In this testing
procedure, a remolded sample is compacted in two (2) layers in a 4.0 -inch diameter mold to a total
compacted thickness of approximately 1.0 -inch by using a 5.5 -pound weight dropping 12 -inches and
with 15 blows per layer. The sample should be compacted at a saturation between 49 and 51
percent. After remolding, the sample is confined under a pressure of 144 pounds per square foot
EnGEN Corporation
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
December 1998
Page 5
(psf) and allowed to soak for 24 hours. The resulting volume change due to the increase in moisture
content within the sample is recorded and the Expansion Index (EI) calculated. The expansion test
result is presented on the UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results sheet.
SITE CONDITIONS
Geologic Setting: The site is located in the Northern Peninsular Range on the southern sector of
the structural unit known as the Perris Block. The Perris Block is bounded on the northeast by the
San Jacinto Fault Zone, on the southwest by the Elsinore Fault Zone, and on the north by the
Cucamonga Fault Zone. The southern boundary of the Perris Block is not as distinct, but is believed
to coincide with a complex group of faults trending southeast from the Murrieta, California, area. The
Peninsular Range is characterized by large Mesozoic age intrusive rock masses flanked by volcanic,
metasedimentary, and sedimentary rocks. Various thicknesses of colluvial / alluvial sediments
derived from the erosion of the elevated portions of the region fill the low lying areas. Fill and
alluvium materials underlie the site. The earth materials encountered on the subject site are
described in more detail in subsequent sections of this report.
Faulting: The Murrieta Creek Fault Traverses through the proposed parking lot and has been zoned
by others (Reference No. 3). The proposed buildings have been set back from the fault zone. The
Wildomar Fault is located approximately 4,000 feet northeast of the site.
Elsinore Fault Zone: The Elsinore Fault Zone (Wildomar Fault) is located approximately 4,000 feet
northeast of the subject property. The Elsinore Fault Zone is a major right lateral strike -slip fault
system, which has experienced strong earthquakes in historical times (1856, 1894, and 1910) and
exhibits late Quaternary movement.
San Jacinto Fault Zone: The San Jacinto Fault Zone is located approximately 18 miles northeast of
the subject site and trends northwest -southeast. The San Jacinto Fault is a major right lateral strike -
slip fault, which has displayed surface rupture and associated seismic ground shaking in 1899, 1918,
1923, 1934, 1937, 1942, and 1954.
San Andreas Fault Zone: The southern segment of the San Andreas Fault Zone is located
approximately 28 miles northeast of the site, and trends northwest -southeast across the
southwestern front of the San Bernardino Mountains. The San Andreas Fault is a major right lateral
strike -slip fault, which exhibited major surface rupture in 1857 during the Fort Tejon earthquake and
again in 1868 during the Dos Palmas Earthquake.
Seismicity: The project lies within an active area of faulting and seismicity in the Southern
California region. The seismicity has included approximately eight (8) earthquakes of Richter
EnGEN Corporation
Unkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
December 1998
Page 6
magnitude M 6.0 or greater within approximately 70 miles of the site and approximately 10
earthquakes of Richter magnitude, ranging from M 5.0 to M 6.0 within 50 miles of the site.
Numerous earthquakes ranging in magnitude from M 4.0 to M 5.0 within 30 miles of the subject
site have been recorded during the periods of 1932 through 1972. This predominance of seismic
activity has been associated with the San Jacinto Fault Zone along its southeast section in the
vicinity of the Salton Sea, and within the northwest portion near its junction with the San Andreas
Fault Zone. The predominance of the remaining recorded activity has been associated with the
San Andreas Fault Zone. The most recent earthquake activity in the Southern California area
includes the magnitude M 7.3 and M 6.6 earthquakes on June 28, 1992, on nearby faults in the
Landers and Big Bear areas, respectively, and the more recent magnitude M 6.7 earthquake on
January 17, 1994, in the Northridge area. Based on computer software by Thomas F. Blake
(EQSEARCH), the maximum peak ground acceleration experienced at the site since 1800 was
approximately 0.25g from a magnitude 6.8 earthquake in 1918 on the San Jacinto Fault Zone
located approximately 18 miles to the northeast.
A maximum moment magnitude (Mw 6.8) earthquake on the Elsinore Fault Zone (Temecula
Segment) could produce a peak ground acceleration of 0.68g at the site. The following
parameters apply:
Seismic Source Type: Type B Fault
Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source: Less Than 2 Km
Soil Profile Type: SD
7.4 Earth Materials: A brief description of the earth materials encountered in the exploratory
excavations is presented in the following sections. A more detailed description of the earth
materials encountered is presented on the Exploratory Boring Log Summaries presented in the
Appendix. The earth material strata as shown on the logs represent the conditions in the actual
exploratory locations and other variations may occur between the excavations. Lines of
demarcation between the earth materials on the logs represented the approximate boundary
between the material types; however, the transition may be gradual.
7.4.1 Fill: Fill materials were encountered to a depth of approximately seven (7) feet below ground
surface in all borings. The bottom five (5) to six (6) feet of the fill materials were apparently placed
as engineered fill although no reports could be located concerning this. Fill materials consisted of
silty sand that were found to be moist and medium dense to dense.
EnGEN Corporation
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
December 1998
Page 7
7.4.2 Alluvium: Alluvium materials were encountered below the fill materials to the maximum depth
explored (51.5 ft). These materials consisted of sand, silty sand and sandy silt that were found to
be moist to wet and loose to dense in-place.
7.5 Groundwater: Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 28 feet below ground
surface.
7.6 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity: The secondary effects of seismic activity normally
considered as possible hazards to a site include various types of ground failure and induced
flooding. The probability of occurrence of each type of ground failure depends on the severity of
the earthquake, the distance of the site from the zone of maximum energy release of the quake,
the topography of the site, the subsurface materials at the site, and groundwater conditions
beneath the site, besides other factors. Since the site has been investigated and zoned for
faulting, the potential for hazards associated with fault rupture is considered low. Due to the
overall favorable geologic structure and topography of the area, the potential for earthquake -
induced landslides or rockfalls is considered remote. The potential for hazards associated with
liquefaction exists at the site. However, liquefaction hazards. should be mitigated if the
recommendations stated in the "Conclusion and Recommendations' section are implemented.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 General: The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the results of
field and laboratory data obtained from the exploratory excavations located across the property,
experience gained from work conducted by this firm on projects within the property and general
vicinity, and the project description and assumptions presented in the Proposed Development /
Project Description section of this report. Based on a review of the field and laboratory data and the
engineering analysis, the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical / geologic
standpoint. The actual conditions of the near -surface supporting material across the site may vary.
The nature and extent of variations of the surface and subsurface conditions between the exploratory
excavations may not become evident until construction. If variations of the material become evident
during construction of the proposed development, this office should be notified so that EnGEN
Corporation can evaluate the characteristics of the material and, if needed, make revisions to the
recommendations presented herein. Recommendations for general site grading, foundations, slab
support, pavement design, slope maintenance, etc., are presented in the subsequent paragraphs.
EnGEN Corporation
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
December 1998
Page 8
8.2 Earthwork Recommendations
8.2.1 General: The grading recommendations presented in this report are intended for: 1) the use of a
conventional shallow foundation system and concrete slabs cast on -grade; and 2) the rework of
unsuitable near -surface earth materials to create an engineered building pad and suitable support for
exterior hardscape (sidewalks, patios, etc.) and pavement. If pavement subgrade soils are prepared
at the time of rough grading of the building site and the areas are not paved immediately, additional
observations and testing of the subgrade soil will have to be performed before placing aggregate
base material or asphaltic concrete or PCC pavement to locate areas which may have been
damaged by construction traffic, construction activities, and/or seasonal wetting and drying. The
following recommendations may need to be modified and/or supplemented during rough grading as
field conditions require.
8.2.2 Clearing: All debris, grasses, weeds, brush and other deleterious materials should be removed from
the proposed building, exterior hardscape and pavement areas and areas to receive structural fill
before grading is performed. No disking or mixing of organic material into the soils should be
performed. Man-made objects encountered should be overexcavated and exported from the site.
8.2.3 Excavation Characteristics: Excavation and trenching within the subject property is anticipated to
be relatively easy in the near -surface earth materials.
8.2.4 Suitability of Onsite Materials as Fill: In general, the on-site earth materials present are
considered suitable for reuse as fill. Fill materials should be free of significant amounts of organic
materials and/or debris and should not contain rocks or clumps greater than 6 -inches in maximum
dimension.
8.2.5 , Removal and Recompaction: All existing undocumented fills and/or unsuitable, loose, or disturbed
near -surface soil in areas which will support structural fills, structures, exterior hardscape (sidewalks,
patios, etc.), and pavement should be removed. To mitigate for the potentially hazardous effects
' of liquefaction, it is recommended that removals be performed to a depth of 10 feet below
existing grades in the structure areas. Removals should be performed so that a minimum of ten
' (10) feet of engineered fill will exist below pad grades. All approved bottoms should be scarified 12 -
inches, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture and then recompacted to a minimum relative
' compaction of 90%. Removals should be performed to a horizontal distance of at least 20 feet
beyond the perimeter footings. All other hardscape areas should be scarified 12 -inches and then
' recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90%.
' EnGEN Corporation
1 Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
' December 1998
Page 9
' 8.2.6 Fill Placement Requirements: All fill material, whether on-site material or import, should be
approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative before placement. All fill
should be free of vegetation, organic material, debris, and oversize material. Import fill should be no
' more expansive than the existing on-site material. Approved fill material should be placed in
horizontal lifts not exceeding 10 -inches in compacted thickness and watered or aerated to obtain
' near optimum moisture content (±2.0 percent of optimum). Each lift should be spread evenly and
should be thoroughly mixed to ensure uniformity of soil moisture. Structural fill should meet a
' minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for
compacted materials should be determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-91 procedures.
' Moisture content of fill materials should not vary more than 2.0 percent from optimum, unless
approved the Project Geotechnical Engineer.
' 8.2.7 Compaction Equipment: It is anticipated that the compaction equipment to be used for the project
will include a combination of rubber -tired and sheepsfoot rollers to achieve proper compaction.
' Compaction by rubber -tired or track -mounted equipment, by itself, may not be sufficient. Adequate
water trucks, water pulls, and/or other suitable equipment should be available to provide sufficient
moisture and dust control. The actual selection of equipment is the responsibility of the contractor
' performing the work and should be such that uniform and proper compaction of the fill is achieved.
8.2.8 Shrinkage and Subsidence: There will be a material loss due to the clearing and grubbing
' operations. Shrinkage of existing fill and alluvium that is excavated and replaced as compacted fill
should be anticipated. It is estimated that the average shrinkage of the alluvial soils will be on the
order of 15 percent, based on fill volumes when compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative
compaction. Shrinkage of the existing fill soils is expected to be 0 to 5 percent. A higher relative
' compaction would mean a larger shrinkage value.
8.2.9 Subdrains: Although the need for subdrains is not anticipated at this time, final recommendations
' should be made during grading by the Project Geologist.
8.2.10 Observation and Testing: During grading, observation and testing should be conducted by the
' Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative to verify that the grading is being performed
according to the recommendations presented in this report. The Project Geotechnical Engineer
' and/or his representative should observe the scarification and the placement of fill and should take
tests to verify the moisture content, density, uniformity and degree of compaction obtained. Where
' testing demonstrates insufficient density, additional compaction effort, with the adjustment of the
moisture content where necessary, should be applied until retesting shows that satisfactory relative
' compaction has been obtained. The results of observations and testing services should be
EnGEN Corporation
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
December 1998
Page 10
presented in a formal Finish Grading Report following completion of the grading operations. Grading
operations undertaken at the site without the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative
present may result in exclusions of the affected areas from the finish grading report for the project.
The presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative will be for the purpose of
providing observations and field testing and will not include any supervision or directing of the actual
work of the contractor or the contractors employees or agents. Neither the presence and/or the non -
presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his field representative nor the field observations and
testing shall excuse the contractor in any way for defects discovered in the contractor's work.
8.2.11 Soil Expansion Potential: Upon completion of fine grading of the building pad, near -surface
samples should be obtained for expansion potential testing to verify the preliminary expansion test
results and the foundation and slab -on -grade recommendations presented in this report. The results
of recent testing indicate an expansion index of 36, which is classified as a low expansion potential.
8.3 Foundation Design Recommendations:
8.3.1 General: 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 are not intended to 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.
8.3.2 Foundation Size: Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 18 -inches. Continuous
footings should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of one (1) No. 4 steel reinforcing bar
located near the top and one (1) No. 4 steel reinforcing bar located near the bottom of the footings to
minimize the effects of slight differential movements which may occur due to minor variations in the
engineering characteristics or seasonal moisture change in the supporting soils. Column footings
should have a minimum width of 18 -inches by 18 -inches and be suitably reinforced, based on
structural requirements. A grade beam, founded at the same depths and reinforced the same as the
adjacent footings, should be provided across doorways, garage or any other types of perimeter
openings.
8.3.3 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.
8.3.4 Bearing Capacity: Provided the recommendations for site earthwork, minimum footing width, and
minimum depth of embedment for footings are incorporated into the project design and construction,
the allowable bearing value for design of continuous and column footings for the total dead plus
EnGEN Corporation
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
December 1998
Page 11
frequently -applied live loads is 2,000 psf for continuous footings and 2,000 psf for column footings in
properly compacted fill. This value may be increased by 15 percent for each additional foot of depth
and/or foot of width to a maximum of 2.0 times the designated allowable value. The allowable
bearing value has a factor of safety of at least 3.0 and may be increased by 33.3 percent for short
durations of live and/or dynamic loading such as wind or seismic forces.
8.3.5 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 -inch or a differential settlement of 0.25 -inch for a static load
condition in properly compacted fill. If the site experiences liquefaction, possible settlement under
dynamic loading due to the maximum credible seismic event could be on the order of 5 -inches
8.3.6 Lateral Capacity: Additional foundation design parameters for resistance to static lateral forces, are
' as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
' Compacted Fill - 200 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
Compacted Fill - 0.35 pcf
[1
' 8.4
11
[]
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 properly compacted fill. The above values are allowable
design values 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.
Slab -on -Grade Recommendations: The recommendations for concrete slabs, both interior and
exterior, excluding PCC pavement, are based upon a low expansion potential for the supporting
material. Concrete slabs should be designed to minimize cracking as a result of shrinkage. Joints
(isolation, contraction, and construction) should be placed in accordance with the American Concrete
Institute (ACI) guidelines. Special precautions should be taken during placement and curing of all
concrete slabs. Excessive slump (high water / 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.
EnGEN Corporation
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
' December 1998
Page 12
' 8.4.1 Interior Slabs: Interior concrete slabs -on -grade should be a minimum of 4.0 -inches in thickness and
be underlain by 1.0 to 2.0 inches of clean coarse sand or other approved granular material placed on
properly prepared subgrade per the Earthwork Recommendations Section of this report. Minimum
' slab reinforcement should consist of #3 reinforcing bars placed 24 -inches on center in both
directions, or a suitable equivalent, as determined by the Project Structural Engineer. The reinforcing
' should be placed at mid -depth in the slab. The concrete section and/or reinforcing steel should be
increased appropriately for anticipated excessive or concentrated floor loads. In areas where
' moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slab, we recommend the use of a
polyethylene vapor barrier with a minimum of 6.0 mil in thickness be placed beneath the slab. The
' moisture barrier should be overlapped or sealed at splices and covered top and bottom by a 1.0 -inch
to 2.0 -inch minimum layer of clean, moist (not saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to
' minimize potential punctures.
8.4.2 Exterior Slabs: All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks, etc., with the
' exception of PCC pavement) should be a minimum of 4.0 -inches in thickness and be underlain by a
minimum of 12.0 -inches of soil that has been prepared in accordance with the Earthwork
' Recommendation section of this report. Reinforcing in the slabs and the use of a compacted sand or
gravel base beneath the slabs should be according to the current local standards. Subgrade soils
should be moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content to a depth of 6.0 -inches and
' proof compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D1557-91
procedures immediately before placing aggregate base material or placing the concrete.
' 8.5 Pavement Design Recommendations: Preliminary pavement recommendations are presented
based on R -Value testing of soils obtained from the site, an assumed future traffic loading expressed
' in terms of a Traffic Index (TI).
Pavement sections have been determined in general accordance with CALTRANS design
' procedures based on a (TI) of 5.0 for automobile areas, a (TI) of 6.0 for truck traffic areas, and an R -
Value of 27.
Type of Traffic
Traffic Index
Pavement Section
Automobile
5.0
3 inch AC/6 inch AB
Truck
6.0
3 inch AC/9 inch AB
Automobile
5.0
Portland Cement Pavement Alternative: 6 inch PCC/95
percent Subgrade
Truck
6.0
Portland Cement Pavement Alternative: 7 inch PCC/95
percent Subgrade
EnGEN Corporation
1
1
1
1
1
1
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
December 1998
Page 13
The project designer should choose the appropriate pavement section for the anticipated traffic
pattern and delineate the respective areas on the site plan. Since actual calculations may, at times,
conflict with City of Temecula adopted standards, the AC pavement sections and the Portland
Cement pavement section, are subject to review and approval by the City of Temecula. Asphalt
concrete pavement materials should be as specified in Section 39 of the current CALTRANS
Standard Specifications or a suitable equivalent. Aggregate base should conform to Class 2 material
as specified in Section 26-1.02B of the current CALTRANS Standard Specifications or a suitable
equivalent. The subgrade soil, including utility trench backfill, should be compacted to at least 90
percent relative compaction. The aggregate base material should be compacted to at least 95
percent relative compaction. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for subgrade and
aggregate base materials should be determined according to ASTM D1557-91 procedures. In
dumpster pick-up areas, and in areas where semi -trailers are to be parked on the pavement such that
a considerable load is transferred from small wheels, it is recommended that rigid Portland Cement
concrete pavement with a minimum thickness of 6.0 inches be provided in these areas. This will
provide for the proper distribution of loads to the subgrade without causing deformation of the
pavement surface. Special consideration should also be given to areas where truck traffic will
negotiate small radius turns. Asphaltic concrete pavement in these areas should utilize stiffer
emulsions or the areas should be paved with Portland Cement concrete. In areas where Portland
Cement concrete is to be placed directly on subgrade, the subgrade should be compacted to a
minimum of 95% relative compaction. If pavement subgrade soils are prepared at the time of rough
grading of the building site and the areas are not paved immediately, additional observations and
testing will have to be performed before placing aggregate base material, asphaltic concrete, or PCC
pavement to locate areas that may have been damaged by construction traffic, construction activities,
and/or seasonal wetting and drying. In the proposed pavement areas, soil samples should be
obtained at the time the subgrade is graded for R -Value testing according to California Test Method
301 procedures to verify the pavement design recommendations.
8.6 Utility Trench Recommendations: Utility trenches within the zone of influence of foundations or
under building floor slabs, exterior hardscape, and/or pavement areas should be backfilled with
properly compacted soil. All utility trenches within the building pad and extending to a distance of
5.0 -feet beyond the building exterior footings should be backfilled with on-site or similar soil. Where
interior or exterior utility trenches are proposed to pass beneath or parallel to building, retaining wall,
and/or decorative concrete block perimeter wall footings, the bottom of the trench should not be
located below a 1:1 plane projected downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing
unless the utility lines are designed for the footing surcharge loads. It is recommended that all utility
EnGEN Corporation
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
December 1998
Page 14
trenches excavated to depths of 5.0 -feet or deeper be cut back according to the 'Temporary
Construction Excavation Recommendation" section of this report or be properly shored during
construction. Backfill material should be placed in a lift thickness appropriate for the type of backfill
material and compaction equipment used. Backfill material should be compacted to a minimum of 90
percent relative compaction by mechanical means. Jetting or flooding of the backfill material will not
be considered a satisfactory method for compaction unless the procedures are reviewed and
approved in writing by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. Maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content for backfill material should be determined according to ASTM D1557-91
procedures.
8.7 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations: Positive drainage should be established away from the
tops of slopes, the exterior walls of structures, the back of retaining walls, and the decorative
concrete block perimeter walls. Finish lot surface gradients in unpaved areas should be provided
next to tops of slopes and buildings to guide surface water away from foundations and slabs and from
flowing over the tops of slopes. The surface water should be directed toward suitable drainage
facilities. Ponding of surface water should not be allowed next to structures or on pavements. In
unpaved areas, a minimum positive gradient of 2.0 percent away from the structures and tops of
slopes for a minimum distance of 5.0 -feet and 'a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the
property in a nonerosive manner should be provided. Landscape trees and plants with high water
needs should be planted at least 5.0 -feet away from the walls of the structures. Downspouts from
roof drains should preferably discharge to a permanent all-weather surface which slopes away from
the structure a minimum of 5.0 -feet from the exterior building walls. In no case should downspouts
from roof drains discharge into planter areas immediately adjacent to the building unless there is
positive drainage away from the structure at a minimum gradient of 2.0 percent, directed onto a
permanent all-weather surface or subdrain system.
' 8.8 Planter Recommendations: Planters around the perimeter of the structures should be designed to
ensure that adequate drainage is maintained and minimal irrigation water is allowed to percolate into
the soils underlying the buildings. The planters should drain directly onto surrounding paved areas or
into a properly designed subdrain system.
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
' 8.9
I
I
lJ
I
I
1
1
I
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
December 1998
Page 15
Temporary Construction Excavation Recommendations: Temporary construction excavations
for rough grading, foundations, retaining walls, utility trenches, etc., more than 5.0 -feet in depth and to
a maximum depth of 15 -feet should be properly shored or cut back to the following inclinations:
Earth Material
Inclination
Alluvium
Compacted Fill
1:1
No surcharge loads (spoil piles, earthmoving equipment, trucks, etc.) should be allowed within a
horizontal distance measured from the top of the excavation slope equal to 1.5 times the depth of the
excavation. Excavations should be initially observed by the project Geotechnical Engineer, Geologist
and/or their representative to verify the recommendations presented or to make additional
recommendations to maintain stability and safety. Moisture variations, differences in the cohesive or
cementation characteristics, or changes in the coarseness of the deposits may require slope
flattening or, conversely, permit steepening upon review by the project Geotechnical Engineer,
Geologist, or their representative. Deep utility trenches may experience caving which will require
special considerations to stabilize the walls and expedite trenching operations. Surface drainage
should be controlled along the top of the slope to preclude erosion of the slope face. If excavations
are to be left open for long periods, the slopes should be sprayed with a protective compound and/or
covered to minimize drying out, raveling, and/or erosion of the slopes. For excavations more than
5.0 -feet in depth which will not be cut back to the recommended slope inclination, the contractor
should submit to the owner and/or the owners designated representative detailed drawings showing
the design of shoring, bracing, sloping, or other provisions to be made for worker protection. If the
drawings do not vary from the requirements of the OSHA Construction Safety Orders (CAL OSHA or
FED OSHA, whichever is applicable for the project at the time of construction), a statement signed by
a registered Civil or Structural Engineer in the State of California, engaged by the contractor at his
expense, should be submitted certifying that the contractor's excavation safety drawings comply with
OSHA Construction Orders. If the drawings vary from the applicable OSHA Construction Safety
Orders, the drawings should be prepared, signed, and sealed by a Registered or Structural Engineer
in the State of California. The contractor should not proceed with any excavations until the project
owner or his designated representative has received and acknowledged the properly prepared
excavation safety drawings.
EnGEN Corporation
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number. T1894 -GS
December 1998
Page 16
8.10 Retaining Wall Recommendations
8.10.1 Earth Pressures: Retaining walls backfilled with non -expansive granular soil (EI=O) or very low
expansive potential materials (Expansion Index of 20 or less) within a zone extending upward and
away from the heel of the footing at a slope of 0.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter can be designed
to resist the following static lateral soil pressures:
Condition
Level Backfill
2:1 Slope
Active
30 pcf
45 pcf
At Rest
60 pcf
—
The on-site materials may be used as backfill within the active / at -rest pressure zone as defined
above. Walls that are free to deflect 0.001 radian at the top should be designed for the above -
recommended active condition. Walls that are not capable of this movement should be assumed
rigid and designed for the at -rest condition. The above values assume well drained backfill and no
buildup of hydrostatic pressure. Surcharge loads, dead and/or live, acting on the backfill within a
horizontal distance behind the wall should also be should considered in the design. Uniform
surcharge pressures should be applied as an additional uniform (rectangular) pressure distribution.
The lateral earth pressure coefficient for a uniform vertical surcharge load behind the wall is 0.50.
8.10.2 Foundation Design: Retaining wall footings should be founded to the same depths into properly
compacted fill, or firm, competent, undisturbed, natural soil as standard foundations and may be
designed for the same average allowable bearing value across the footing (as long as the resultant
force is located in the middle one-third of the footing),and with the same allowable static lateral
bearing pressure and allowable sliding resistance as previously recommended. When using the
allowable lateral pressure and allowable sliding resistance, a factor of safety of 1.0 may be used. If
ultimate values are used for design, an approximate factor of safety of 1.5 should be achieved.
8.10.3 Subdrain: A subdrain system should be constructed behind and at the base of all retaining walls to
allow drainage and to prevent the buildup of excessive hydrostatic pressures. Typical subdrains may
include weep holes with a continuous gravel gallery, perforated pipe surrounded by filter rock, or
some other approved system. Gravel galleries and/or filter rock, if not properly designed and graded
for the on-site and/or import materials, should be enclosed in a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N,
Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute in order to prevent infiltration of fines and clogging of the system.
The perforated pipes should be at least 4.0 inches in diameter. Pipe perforations should be placed
downward. Gravel filters should have volume of at least 1.0 cubic foot per lineal foot of pipe.
Subdrains should maintain a positive flow gradient and have outlets that drain in a non-erosive
manner. In the case of subdrains for basement walls, they need to empty into a sump provided with
a submersible pump activated by a change in the water level.
EnGEN Corporation
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
December 1998
Page 17
8.10.4 Backfill: Backfill directly behind retaining walls (if backfill width is less than 3 feet) may consist of 0.5
- to 0.75 -inch diameter, rounded to subrounded gravel enclosed in a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi
140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute or a clean sand (Sand Equivalent Value greater than 50)
water jetted into place to obtain proper compaction. If water jetting is used, the subdrain system
should be in place. Even if water jetting is used, the sand should be densified to a minimum of 90
percent relative compaction. If the specified density is not obtained by water jetting, mechanical
methods will be required. If other types of soil or gravel are used for backfill, mechanical compaction
methods will be required to obtain a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry
density. Backfill directly behind retaining walls should not be compacted by wheel, track or other
rolling by heavy construction equipment unless the wall is designed for the surcharge loading. If
gravel, clean sand or other imported backfill is used behind retaining walls, the upper 18 -inches of
backfill in unpaved areas should consist of typical on-site material compacted to a minimum of 90
percent relative compaction in order to prevent the influx of surface runoff into the granular backfill
and into the subdrain system. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill
materials should be determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-78 (90) procedures.
9.0 PLAN REVIEW
Subsequent to formulation of final plans and specifications for the project, but before bids for
construction are requested, grading and foundation plans for the proposed development should be
reviewed by EnGEN Corporation to verify compatibility with site geotechnical conditions and
conformance with the recommendations contained in this report. If EnGEN Corporation is not
accorded the opportunity to make the recommended review, we will assume no responsibility for
misinterpretation of the recommendations presented in this report.
10.0 PRE-BID CONFERENCE
It may be desirable to hold a pre-bid conference with the owner or an authorized representative, the
Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, the Project Geotechnical Engineer, and the proposed
contractors present. This conference will provide continuity in the bidding process and clarify
questions relative to the grading and construction requirements of the project.
11.0 PRE -GRADING CONFERENCE
Before the start of grading, a conference should be held with the owner or an authorized
representative, the contractor, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, and the Project
Geotechnical Engineer present. The purpose of this meeting should be to clarify questions relating to
the intent of the grading recommendations and to verify that the project specifications comply with the
recommendations of this geotechnical engineering report. Any special grading procedures and/or
difficulties proposed by the contractor can also be discussed at that time.
EnGEN Corporation
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
' December 1998
Page 18
' 12.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
Rough grading of the property should be performed under engineering observation and testing
' performed by EnGEN Corporation. Rough grading includes, but is not limited to, overexcavation
cuts, fill placement, and excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition,
' EnGEN Corporation should observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be made
before installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel to verify and/or modify the conclusions
and recommendations in this report. Observations of overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish
' grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill,
slab presaturation, or other earthwork completed for the subject development should be performed by
' EnGEN Corporation. If the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions are not
performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the performance of the development is limited to the
' actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by EnGEN Corporation. If parties other than
EnGEN Corporation are engaged to perform soils and materials observations and testing, they must
' be notified that they will be required to assume complete responsibility for the geotechnical aspects of
the project by concurring with the recommendations in this report or providing alternative
recommendations. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his field
representative, nor the field observations and testing, shall excuse the contractor in any way for
' defects discovered in the contractor's work. The Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative
shall not be responsible for job or project safety. Job or project safety shall be the sole responsibility
of the contractor.
' 13.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described in this document.
' It may or may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes. In the event that
changes in the assumed nature, design, or location of the proposed development as described in this
' report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will not be
considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions and recommendations of this
' report modified or verified in writing. This study was conducted in general accordance with the
applicable standards of our profession and the accepted geotechnical engineering principles and
' practices at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, implied or expressed beyond the
representations of this report, is made. Although every effort has been made to obtain information
' regarding the geotechnical and subsurface conditions of the site, limitations exist with respect to the
knowledge of unknown regional or localized off-site conditions which may have an impact at the site.
' The recommendations presented in this report are valid as of the date of the report. However,
EnGEN Corporation
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
December 1998
Page 19
changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to
natural processes or to the works of man on this and/or adjacent properties. If conditions are
observed or information becomes available during the design and construction process which are not
reflected in this report, EnGEN Corporation should be notified so that supplemental evaluations can
be performed and the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report can be modified or
verified in writing. This report is not intended for use as a bid document. Any person or company
using this report for bidding or construction purposes should perform such independent studies and
explorations as he deems necessary to satisfy himself as to the surface and subsurface conditions to
be encountered and the procedures to be used in the performance of the work on this project.
Changes in applicable or appropriate standards of care or practice occur, whether they result from
legislation or the broadening of knowledge and experience. Accordingly, the conclusions and
recommendations presented in this report may be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes outside
the control of EnGEN Corporation which occur in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our services. If we can be of further service or you should have
questions regarding this report, please contact this office at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
EnGEN Corporation
/ THOMAS DE4';E/
Thomas Dewey, CEG 19 N0.19cO
CERTIPi�D
Senior Engineering Geologist ENGINEERING
Expires 11-30-01 GEOLOGIST i
TD/OB:ch
Distribution: (4) Addressee
' FILE: EnGEN\Reporting\GS\T1894GS Linkletter Enterprises, Geotechnical Study
I
7
No. 162
' EnGEN Corporation
APPENDIX
Unkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
Appendix Page 1
EnGEN Corporation
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
Appendix Page 2
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
1. Allen, C.R., and others, 1965, Relationship between seismicity and geologic structure in the southern
California region: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 55, no. 4, p. 753-797.
2. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1954, Geology of southern California, Bulletin 170.
3. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1969, Geologic map of California, San Bernardino Sheet,
Scale 1:250,000.
4. Department of Conservation, Geology map of the Santa Ana 1:100,000 Quadrangle, California,
Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 91-17.
5. Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1970, Regional geologic map of San Andreas and related faults in eastern San
Gabriel Mountains and vicinity: U.S. Geologic Society, Open -File Map, Scale 1:125,000.
6. Engel, R., 1959, Geology of the Lake Elsinore Quadrangle, California: California Division of Mines
and Geology, Bulletin 146.
7. Envicom Corporation, 1976, Seismic safety and safety elements, Technical report for County of
Riverside Planning Department.
8. Hart, E. W., 1992, Fault -rupture hazard zones in California: California Division of Mines and Geology,
Department of Conservation, Special Publication 42, 9 p.
9. Hileman, J.A., Allen, C.R. and Nordquist, J.M., 1973, Seismicity of the southern California region, 1
January 1932 to 31 December 1972: Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.
10. Housner, G.W., 1969, Earthquake Engineering, Weigel, R. L. (ed.), Prentice Hall, Inc., 1970, Chap. 4.
11. Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault map of California with locations of volcanoes, thermal springs and
thermal wells, 1:750,000: California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 1.
12. Jennings, C.W., 1985, An explanatory text to accompany the 1:750,000 scale fault and geologic
maps of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 201, 197p., 2 plates.
13. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and character of faulting along the Elsinore fault zone in southern
' Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 131, 12 p., 1
plate, scale 1:24,000.
14. Lamar, D.L., Merifield, P.M. and Proctor, R.J., 1973, Earthquake Recurrence Interval on Major Faults
' in Southern California, in Moran, Douglas E., et. al, 1973, Geology, Seismicity & Environmental
Impact, Association of Engineering Geology, Special Publication.
' 15. Leeds, D.J., 1973, Geology, Seismicity & Environmental Impact, Association of Engineering
Geology, Special Publication.
16. Mann, J.F., Jr., October 1955, Geology of a portion of the Elsinore fault zone, California: State of
' California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, Special Report 43.
17. Riverside County Planning Department, June 1982 (Revised December 1983), Riverside County
Comprehensive General Plan - Dam Inundation Areas - 100 Year Flood Plains - Area Drainage Plan,
' Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
18. Riverside County Planning Department, January 1983, Riverside County Comprehensive General
Plan - County Seismic Hazards Map, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
' 19. Riverside County Planning Department, February 1983, Seismic - Geologic Maps, Murrieta - Rancho
California Area, Sheet 146, Sheet 147 (Revised 11-87), Sheet 854B (Revised 11-87), and Sheet
854A (revised 11-87), Scale 1" = 800'.
EnGEN Corporation
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
Appendix Page 3
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (CONTINUED)
20. Rogers, T.H., 1966, Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, Santa Ana Sheet, CDMG.
21. Schnabel, P.B. and Seed, H.B., 1972, Accelerations in rock for earthquakes in the western United
States: College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Report No. EERC 72-2.
22. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1970, A simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential:
College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
23. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes:
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Volume 5 of a Series Titled Engineering Monographs on
Earthquake Criteria, Structural Design, and Strong Motion Records.
24. State of California, January 1, 1980, Special Studies Zones, Elsinore Quadrangle, Revised Official
Map, Scale 1" = 2 Mi.
25. State of California Department of Water Resources, Water Wells and Springs in the Western Part of
the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Bulletin No. 91-21.
26. Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1994 and 1997 Editions.
EnGEN Corporation
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
Appendix Page 4
SOIL -PROFILE DATA
LIQUEFY2
EnGEN Corporation
BASE OF
SPT
LIQUEFACTION
WET UNIT
FINES
socDEPTH
OF
LAYER
LAYER
FIELD N-
SUSCEPTIBILITY
WEIGHT
CONTENT
SPT TEST
NO.
DEPTH
VALUE
INDEX (0/1)
(pcf)
(:<#200)
(mm)
(ft.)
(ft.)
(blows/ft.)
1
7
14
1
110
35
.1
5.75
2
13
12
1
118
35
.1
10.75
3
22
22
1
95
2
.62
15.75
4
28
22
1
105
6
.34
25.75
5
50
64
1
116
8
.74
40.75
EnGEN Corporation
++xx++xx+++xxxxxxxx
* L I Q U E F Y 2
* Version 1.30
+ x
++++++xxxx+xx+xxx++
EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF
EARTHQUAKE -INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
JOB NUMBER: T1894 -GS DATE: Monday, November 29, 1999
JOB NAME: LINKLETTER
LIQUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: LINK
SOIL -PROFILE NAME: LINK
GROUND WATER DEPTH: 10.0 ft
DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.80
SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.680 g
BOREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.15
SAMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00
N60 CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00
MAGNITUDE WEIGHTING FACTOR: 0.782
FIELD SPT N -VALUES ARE NOT CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS
NOTE: Relative density values listed below are estimated using equations of
Giuliani and Nicoll (1982).
I
11
I
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
-----------------------------
-------------------
NCEER[1996]Method
- -
1
CALCI
TOTALI
EFF. IFIELD IESt.D
I
I CORR.
SOILI
DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI
N I
rl C
1(N1)60
NO.1
(ft) I
(tsf)l
(tsf)I(B/ft)I
(8)
I N
1(B/ft)
+------+------+-----+------+------+-----+------
1 1
0.251
0.0141
0.0141
14 1
69
1 @
I @
1 1
0.751
0.0411
0.0411
14 1
69
1 @
I @
1 1
1.251
0.0691
0.0691
14 1
69
1 @ I
@
1 1
1.751
0.0961
0.0961
14 1
69
1 @ I
@
1 1
2.251
0.1241
0.1241
14 1
69
1 @ I
@
1 1
2.751
0.1511
0.1511
14 1
69
1 @ I
@
1 1
3.251
0.1791
0.1791
14 1
69
1 @ I
@
1 1
3.751
0.2061
0.2061
14 1
69
1 @ I
@
1 1
4.251
0.2341
0.2341
14 1
69
1 @ I
@
1 1
4.751
0.2611
0.2611
14 1
69
1 @ I
@
1 1
5.251
0.2891
0.2891
14 1
69
1 @ I
@
1 1
5.751
0.3161
0.3161
14 1
69
1 @ I
@
1 1
6.251
0.3441
0.3441
14 1
69
1 @ I
@
1 1
6.751
0.3711
0.3711
14 1
69
1 @ I
@
2 1
7.251
0.4001
0.4001
12 1
58
1 @ I
@
2 1
7.751
0.4291
0.4291
12 1
58
1 @ I
@
2 1
8.251
0.4591
0.4591
12 1
58
1 @ I
@
2 1
8.751
0.4881
0.4881
12 1
58
1 @ I
@
2 1
9.251
0.5181
0.5181
12 1
58
1 @ I
@
2 1
9.751
0.5471
0.5471
12 1
58
1 @ I
@
2 1
10.251
0.5771
0.5691
12 1
58
11.3471
20.9
2 1
10.751
0.6061
0.5831
12 1
58
11.3471
20.9
2 1
11.251
0.6361
0.5971
12 1
58
11.3471
20.9
2 1
11.751
0.6651
0.6111
12 1
58
11.3471
20.9
2 1
12.251
0.6951
0.6251
12 1
58
11.3471
20.9
2 1
12.751
0.7241
0.6381
12 1
58
11.3471
20.9
3 1
13.251
0.7511
0.6501
22 1
75
11.2381
25.8
3 1
13.751
0.7751
0.6581
22 1
75
11.2381
25.8
3 1
14.251
0.7981
0.6661
22 1
75
11.2381
25.8
3 1
14.751
0.8221
0.6741
22 1
75
11.2381
25.8 1
3 1
15.251
0.8461
0.6821
22 1
75
11.2381
25.8 1
3 1
15.751
0.8701
0.6901
22 1
75
11.2381
25.8 1
PACE 1
ILIQUE.1 IINDUC.ILIQUE.
RESISTI r ISTRESSISAFETY
RATIOI d I RATIOIFACTOR
--+-----*------+------
@ I @ I @ I @ @
@ I @ I @ I @ @
@ I @ I @ I @ @
@ I @ I @ I @ @
@ I @ I @ I @ @
@ I @ I @ I @ @
@ I @ I @ I @ @
@ I @ I @ I @ @
@ I @ I @ I @ @
@ I @ I @ I @ @
@ I @ I @ I @ @
@ I @ I @ I @ @
@ I @ I @ I @ @
@ I @ I @ I @ @
@ I @ I @ I @ @
@ I @ I @ I @ @
@ I @ I @ I @ @
@ I @ I @ I @ @
@ I @ I @ I @ @
@ I @ I @ I @ @
0.22910.9531 0.3341 0.69
0.22910.9511 0.3421 0.67
0.22910.9491 0.3491 0.66
0.22910.9461 0.3561 0.64
0.22910.9441 0.3631 0.63
0.22910.9421 0.3691 0.62
0.29910.9391 0.3751 0.80
0.29910.9371 0.3821 0.78
0.29910.9351 0.3881 0.77
0.29910.9331 0.3931 0.76
0.29910.9301 0.3991 0.75
0.29910.9281 0.4041 0.74
3
1 20.751
1.1071
0.7721
22
1 75
11.2381
25.8
1
0.29910.9051
0.4491
3 1
16.251
0.8931
0.6981
22
1 75
11.2381
25.8
1 0.29910.9261
11.2381
0.4091
0.73
0.29910.9031
3
1 16.751
0.9171
0.7071
22
1 75
11.2381
25.8
1 0.29910.9231
0.4141
0.72
11.2381
3
1 17.251
0.9411
0.7151
22
1 75
(1.2381
25.8
1 0.29910.9211
1 22.251
0.4191
0.71
'
3
1 17.751
0.9651
0.7231
22
1 75
11.2381
25.8
1 0.29910.9191
RATIOI
0.4241
0.71
3
1 18.251
0.9881
0.7311
22
1 75
11.2381
25.8
1 0.29910.9171
0.8191
0.4281
0.70
11.1021
3
1 18.751
1.0121
0.7391
22
1 75
11.2381
25.8
1 0.29910.9141
22 1
0.4331
0.69
'
3
1 19.251
1.0361
0.7471
22
1 75
11.2381
25.8
1 0.29910.9121
72
0.4371
0.68
1 0.32610.8891
3
1 19.751
1.0601
0.7551
22
1 75
11.2381
25.8
1 0.29910.9101
11..1021
0.4411
0.68
3
1 20.251
1.0831
0.7641
22
1 75
11.2381
25.8
1 0.29910.9071
27.1
0.4451
0.67
3
1 20.751
1.1071
0.7721
22
1 75
11.2381
25.8
1
0.29910.9051
0.4491
(1996]
0.67
'
3
1 21.251
1.1311
0.7801
22
1 75
11.2381
25.8
1
0.29910.9031
0.4531
0.66
3
1 21.751
1.1551
0.7881
22
1 75
11.2381
25.8
1
0.29910.9011
11NDUC.ILIQUE.
0.4561
DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI
0.66
4
1 22.251
1.1801
0.7971
r ISTRESSISAFETY
22
1 72
11.1021
27.1
(tsf)I(B/ft)1
1 0.32610.8981
I N i(B/ft)I
0.4591
RATIOI
0.71
' 4 1 22.751 1.2061 0.8081 22 1 72 11.1021 27.1 1 0.32610.8961 0.4621 0.70
1
-------------------
NCEER
(1996]
Method
PAGE 2
'-------------------
-----------------
II
CALC.1
TOTALI
EFF. IFIELD IEst.D
I I
CORR.ILIQUE.1
11NDUC.ILIQUE.
SOILI
DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI
N I
r1 C I(N1)601RESISTI
r ISTRESSISAFETY
NO.1
(ft) I
(tsf)I
(tsf)I(B/ft)1
I N i(B/ft)I
RATIOI
d I
RATIOIFACTOR
----+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+-----+------+------
4 1
23.251
1.2321
0.8191
22 1
72
11.1021
27.1
1 0.32610.8941
0.4651 0.70
'
4 1
23.751
1.2581
0.8291
22 1
72
11.1021
27.1
1 0.32610.8911
0.4681 0.70
4 1
24.251
1.2851
0.8401
22 1
72
11.1021
27.1
1 0.32610.8891
0.4701 0.69
4 1
24.751
1.3111
0.8511
22 1
72
11..1021
27.1
1 0.32610.8871
0.4721 0.69
4 1
25.251
1.3371
0.8611
22 1
72
11.1021
27.1
1 0.32610.8851
0.4751 0.69
'
4 1
25.751
1.3631
0.8721
22 1
72
11.1021
27.1
1 0.32610.8821
0.4771 0.68
4 1
26.251
1.3901
0.8831
22 1
72
11.1021
27.1
1 0.32610.8801
0.4791 0.66
4 1
26.751
1.4161
0.8931
22 1
72
11.1021
27.1
1 0.32610.8781
0.4811 0.68
'
4 1
27.251
1.4421
0.9041
22 1
72
11.1021
27.1
1 0.32610.8751
0.4831 0.67
4 1
27.751
1.4681
0.9151
22 1
72
11.1021
27.1
1 0.32610.8731
0.4851 0.67
5 128.251
1.4961
0.9271
64 1
112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin 10.8711
0.4861NonLiq
S 1
28.751
1.5251
0.9401
64 1
112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin 10.8691
0.4871NonLiq
'
5 1
29.251
1.5541
0.9531
64 1
112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin 10.8661
0.4881NonLiq
5 1
29.751
1.5831
0.9671
64 1
112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin 10.8641
0.4891NonLiq
5 1
30.251
1.6121
0.9801
64 1
112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin 10.8621
0.4901NonLiq
'
5 1
30.751
1.6411
0.9941
64 1
112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin 10.8591
0.4911NonLiq
5 1
31.251
1.6701
1.0071
64 1
112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin 10.8571
0.4911NonLiq
5 1
31.751
1.6991
1.0201
64 1
112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin 10.8551
C.4921NonLiq
S 1
32.251
1.7281
1.0341
64 1
112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin 10.8531
0.4931NonLiq
'
5 1
32.751
1.7571
1.0471
64 1
112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin 10.8501
0.4931NonLiq
5 1
33.251
1.7861
1.0611
64 1
112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin 10.8481
0.4941NonLiq
5 1
33.751
1.8151
1.0741
64 1
112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin 10.8461
0.4941NonLiq
S 1
34.251
1.8441
1.0871
64 1
112
10.9161
66.1
IInfin 10.8431
0.4941NonLiq
'
5 1
34.751
1.8731
1.1011
64 1
112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin 10.8411
0.4951NonLiq
5 1
35.251
1.9021
1.1141
64 1
112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin 10.8391
0.4951NonLiq
5 1
35.751
1.9311
1.1281
64 1
112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin 10.8371
0.4951NonLiq
5 1
36.251
1.9601
1.1411
64 1
112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin 10.8341
0.4951NonLiq
5 1
36.751
1.9891
1.1541
64 1
112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin 10.8321
0.4951NonLiq
5 1
37.251
2.0181
1.1681
64 1
112
10.9161
66.1
IInfin 10.8301
0.4961NonLiq
'
S 1
37.751
2.0471
1.1811
64 1
112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin 10.8271
0.4961NonLiq
1
5 1 38.251
2.0761
1.1951
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.8251
0.4961NonLiq
5 1 38.751
2.1051
1.2081
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.8231
0.4961NonLiq
5 1 39.251
2.1341
1.2211
64
1 112
10.9161
66.1
IInfin
10.8211
0.4961NonLiq
5 1 39.751
2.1631
1.2351
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.8181
0.4951NonLiq
5 1 40.251
2.1921
1.2481
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.8161
0.4951NonLiq
5 1 40.751
2.2211
1.2621
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.8141
0.4951NonLiq
5 1 41.251
2.2501
1.2751
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.8111
0.4951NonLiq
5 1 41.751
2.2791
1.2881
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.8091
0.4951NonLiq
5 1 42.251
2.3081
1.3021
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.8071
0.4941NonLiq
5 1 42.751
2.3371
1.3151
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.8051
0.4941NonLiq
5 1 43.251
2.3661
1.3291
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.8021
0.4941NonLiq
5 1 43.751
2.3951
1.3421
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.8001
0.4931NonLiq
5 1 44.251
2.4241
1.3551
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.7981
0.4931NonLiq
5 1 44.751
2.4531
1.3691
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.7951
0.4931NonLiq
5 1 45.251
2.4821
1.3821
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.7931
0.4921NonLiq
5 1 45.751
2.5111
1.3961
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.7911
0.4921NonLiq
5 1 46.251
2.5401
1.4091
64
1112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.7891
0.4911NonLiq
5 1 46.751
2.5691
1.4221
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.7861
0.4911NonLiq
5 1 47.251
2.5981
1.4361
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.7841
0.4901NonLiq
5 1 47.751
2.6271
1.4491
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.7821
0.4901NonLiq
5 1 48.251
2.6561
1.4631
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.7791
0.4891NonLiq
5 1 48.751
2.6851
1.4761
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.7771
0.4891NonLiq
5 1 49.251
2.7141
1.4891
64
1 112
10.9161
68.1
IInfin
10.7751
0.4881NonLiq
' NCEER-(1996]-Method
PAGE 3
I CALC.I TOTALI EFF. IFIELD 1ESt.D I I CORR.ILIQUE.I 11NDUC.ILIQUE.
SOILI DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI N I rl C I(N1)601RESISTI r ISTRESSISAFETY
NO.I (ft) I (tsf)I (tsf)I(B/ft)I I N 1(8/ft)l RATIO] d I RATIOIFACTOR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 1 49.751 2.7431 1.5031 64 1 112 10.9161 68.1 IInfin 10.7731 0.4871NonLiq
1
1
1
1
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG SUMMARIES
(B-1 through B-6)
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
Appendix Page 5
EnGIN Corporation
EnGEN Corporation
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Project Number: T1894 -GS Project Llnkletter Enterprises
Boring Number: B-1 Surface Elev.: 1015.5
Date: 10-27-99 Logged By: C.M.
.I Description E
Boil n
Sample
Depth
USCS
Blow
Count
Dry
Density
InSitu
Moisture
Ma�dmum
Density
Optimum
Moisture
Graphic
y
Content
Content
41: :l: FILL
0
SM
;IaI ia?
Silty sand, brown, slightly
SM
18-27-50
114.3
5.8
moist, very dense.
Silty sand, dark brown, moist,
5
SM
5-8-10
92.5
18.7
medium dense.
I:I.ALLUVIUM
i : Sil sand, light yellowish
ty R
,i,a;i brown (10 Y 64) moist,
SM
5-7-8
108.2
13.2
medium dense, slight porosity.
Silty sand, yellowish brown
10
SM
8-9-10
101.0
16.8
(10 YR 5/4) moist, medium
dense.
.. Sand, very pale brown (10 YR
15
SP
14-1414
93.0
2.5
•' ; 7/4) moist, medium dense,
medium grained.
No Recovery
�20
I
7-16-18
::.i
to
Sand, light gray (10 YR 7/1)
25
SP
17-13-25
101.0
4.1
moist, dense, medium to
coarse grained.
Groundwater at 28.0
:.j
Sand, dark
30
SP
10-13-12
10.3
wet medium
:-i drense, coarse
.. grained.
Sand, dark gray (2.5 Y 4/1)
35
SP
11-31-50
14.3
wet, very dense, coarse
grained.
Notes:
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
i
,I
I
I
1
1
1
I
EnGEN Corporation
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Project Number: T1894 -GS Project Linkletter Enterprises
{�{
Boring Number: B -i Surface Elev.: 1o15.5
1
I} Date: 10-27-99 Logged By: c.M.
7
1 Soil Description
Graphic !
°—'
n
E
E
Sample
Depth
USCS
Blow
Count
I
I Dry
Density
In -Situ
Moisture
Maximum
Density
Optimum
Moisture
.
Content
Content
� �
I
i
t _
40
SP
15-31-50+3 103.7
11.4
I
Sand, dark gray (2.5 Y 4/1)
45
SP
32-23-50+4
13.4
wet, very dense, coarse
grained.
I
i
:.I
50
SP
8-15-40 I
15.1
TotalDepth at 51.5 feet
Groundwater at 28.0 feet
I
i
55
t
:
I
i I
60
I
I
I I
i
I
65
I
i
I
I
i I
70
Notes:
EnGEN Corporation
EnGEN Corporation
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Project Number: T1894 -GS Project Unkletter Enterprises
Boring Number: B-2 Surface Elev.: 1017
Date: 10-27-99 Logged By: C.M.
Soil
Graphic
I Description
n Sample
P
E Depth
USCS
Blow
Count
Dry
Density
In -Silo
Moisture
Maximum
Density
Optimum
Moisture
rn
Content
Content
FILL
i
0
SM
.:iaa: as
(T^ Silty sand, yellowish brown,
�1
i
SM
23-31-37
i 115.8
8.0
126.9
9.7
slightly moist, very dense,
i i17tY
gravel.
trace g
:I! :"I :;
Silty sand, dark brown, (7.5
5
SM
13-15-23
112.8
8.9
YR 3/4) moist, dense.
i! ALLUVIUM
f
Sandy silt, very dark grayish
ML
6-8-9
88.0
22.2
brown (10 YR 3/2) moist,
firm, high porosity.
Silty sand, brown (10 YR 5/3)
10
SM
4-7-9
105.8
15.8
moist, medium dense, porous.
Sand, yellowish brown (10 YR
15
SP
4-6-12
99.1
16.7
5/4) moist, medium dense,
.: fine grained.
to
to
i
I
Sand, light gray (10 YR 7/1)
20
SP
11-14-20
97.7
3.9
•� moist, dense, medium grained.
1
No Recovery
�25
50+6
No Recovery
30
i
50+6
•� Total Depth at 31.5 feet
No Groundwater
35
Notes:
EnGEN Corporation
EnGEN Corporation
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Project Number: T1894 -GS Project: Linkletter Enterprises
Boring Number: a-3 Surface Elev.: 1017
Date: 10-27-99 Logged By: C.M.
Soil 8
Graphic Description E
Sample
Depth
uscs
Blow
Count
Dry
Density
In -Situ
Moisture
Maximum
Density
Optimum
Moisture
in
Content
Content
FILL
SM
,I:: r•,:::::
Silty sand, yellowish brown,
slightly moist, dense. trace
r
SM
19-22-22
i 120.1
8.4
I.I:!i!j: gravel.
Silty sand, dark brown, (10
�5
SM
8-13-17
102.7
13.9
I,,I ,,:,:;
n:.4..! YR 3/3) moist, dense.
cl:;ail ALLUVIUM
:I! ;.Ia,.I ; Silty sand, dark brown (10 YR
3/3) moist, loose, slight
SM
4-4-5
101.4
15.6
porosity.
I •:. Silty sand, brown (110 YR 4/3)
10
SM
3-6-12
103.5
16.8
I ::I'I., moist, medium dense, high
porosittyy.
Total Oepth at 11.5 feet
No Groundwater
I
15
I
F20
!
I
I
25
�
I
I
i
30
I
35
I Notes:
!1111 EnGEN Corporation
I
i
i
I
1
[l
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
EnGEN Corporation
I
!
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Project Number: T1894 -GS Project: Linkletter Enterprises
I Boring Number: a-4 Surface Elev.: 1015.5
Date: 10-27-99 Logged By: C.M.
nl Sample I
Soil Description E p
' Depth
USCS
Blow
Count
Dry
Density
In -Situ
Moisture
Maximum Optimum
Density Moisture
Graphic
I y
Content
Content
I ! �0
la::aa:r.l:: FILL I
iIJI�I i; i
SM
l9 i�aa:i:i I
I ....:::,...
' .. . . :ii. Silty sand. dark yellowish I j
SM
14-16-22
113.1
6.0
brown, slightly moist, dense, i
:I trace gravel.
I5
Silty sand, very dark grayish
brown, moist, very dense.
SM
16-22-28
104.4
9.5
Ii!i!il. i!ii ALLUVIUM F
Sandy silt, brown (10 YR 4/3)
ML
3-5-7
94.3
26.8
moist, firm.
ili�lll'
I' Sandy silt, brown (10 YR 5/3) 10
ML
3-5-8
104.6
20.5
Ij moist, firm, porous.
i
Sand, grayish brown (10 YR 15
SP
3-6-17
2.6
5/2) moist, medium dense,
medium grained.
Gravelly sand, gray (10 YR 20
SP
14-25-23
106.1
2.2
�5/1) moist, dense, medium to
coarse grained.
Sand, light brownish gray (10 25
{{
SP
8-8-11
100.0
6.5
YR 6/2) moist, medium dense,
medium to coarse grained.
Groundwater at 28.0 feet
" Sand, gray (10 YR 6/1) wet, 30
SP
15-18-24
110.1
10.9
dense, medium to coarse
ggTotal feet
Depth at 31.5
77
j Groundwater at 28.0 feet
I
35
i
i
Notes:
EnGEN Corporation
iEnGEN Corporation
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
i
j Project Number: T1994 -GS Project: Linkletter Enterprises
Boring Number. B-5 Surface Elev.: lots
Date: 10-27-99 Logged By: C.M.
n Sam le Blow i p
Soil Description E p uSCS ry
E Depth Count Density
In -Situ
Moisture
Maximum Optimum
Moisture
Density
Graphic
Content
Content
0
FILL
SM j
Silty sand, yellowish brown, j
SM
18-15-23 109.8
9.9
125.6 �11.0
slightly moist, dense, trace j
t ! gravel
..r. Silty sand, dark yellowish 5
SM
16-24-23 108.3
I 8.2
brown, moist, dense.
I
ALLUVIUM
Silty sand, brown (10 YR 4/3)
moist, medium dense, slight
SM
3-7-10 110.7
13.6
a is porosity.
I
Silty sand, brown (10 YR 4/3) 10
SM
3-5-7 1 102.2
21.2
moist, loose.
i
Total Depth at 11.5 feet
No Groundwater
r
i
15
i
20
I 25
i
I
30
i
I
I
i I
I
1 35
Notes:
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
V
1
I
1
i
I
[1
I
I EnGEN Corporation
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Project Number: T1894 -GS Project: Unkletter Enterprises
Boring Number: B -B Surface Elev.:
Date: 10-27-e9 Logged By: C.M.
`m
I -9
n Sample
Soil Description E Depth USCS
Blow D
Count Density
inSilu
Moisture
Maximum
Density
Optimum
Moisture
Graphic rn
!
Content
Content
i
FILL
0
SM
':,
Silty sand, yellowish brown,
SM !
9-23-32
122.0
5.4
f,ili!i6liiil' sli htl very moist, ve dense,
g
li!i:isi!i'. i! trace
gravel.
I: LI g
Silty sand, dark yellowish
5
SM
14-18-15
97.5
10.7
!. LI brown, moist, dense.
!
:Iii ii::; i:' ALLUVIUM
:I Sil(10 Yty sand, yellowish brown
II::;:IilaiG• R 5/4) moist, medium
( SM
7-9-13
112.1
11.0
i i�i!ili a!I� dense, slight porosity.
i
YR 5/3)
j ...!
10
SM
4-G-14
105.3
18.8
moist, medium m de(10
ailil: �:
Total Depth at 11.5 feet
No Groundwater
)
.
' I
!
r
-15
L
j
I I
!
! !
i i
i
2D
j
li
!
I i
I
L 25
i
1
i
I
30
!
35
Notes:
EnGEN Corporation
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number. T1894 -GS
Appendix Page 6
EnGEN Corpontion
COMPACTION TEST
REPORT
130
ijl
Ijl
III
II
IIII
IIII
I
I
I I
i l
i
l
i i i
I I I
128
!
I
I
I
iI I
I
I
126
r
j
,;
!IIII
II
�II
Vvi
j
l
124
ij
I
!I
i!
I
II
II'�I
III'
lil
II
fil
!!I
II
l
III
IIII
iili
'ill
II I
IIII
122
I
II
I
I
ZAV for
j
!
Sp.G. _
120
2.65
4 6 8 10
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-91 Procedure A Modified
12 14 16
Elev/
Depth
Classification
Nat
Moist
S G.
p
LL
PI
%>
No.4
%<
No.200
USCS
AASHTO
SM
3.6
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 126.9 pcf
Optimum moisture = 9.7 %
SILTY FINE -SAND, BROWN
Project No. T1894 -GS Client: LINKLETTER
Project:
• Location: BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
Remarks:
SAMPLE B2@ 0-5
COLLECTED BY C.M.
COLLECTED ON (1027/99)
Plate
Environmental and Ceotecbnical
Engineering Aretwork Corporation
1
1
1
1
1
134
130
126
122
1 118
I SAA
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
Water content, io
Test specification: ASM D 1557-91 Procedure A Modified
ZAV for
Sp. G. -
2.7
Elev/ Classification Nat S G. LL PI % > % <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist p No.4 No.200
ML 6.3
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SANDY SILT, BROWN
Maximum dry density = 125.6 pcf
Optimum moisture = 11.0 %
Project No. T1894 -GS Client: LINKLETTER Remarks:
Project: SAMPLE B5Q 0-5
COLLECTED BY C.M.
• Location: BUSINESS PARK DRIVE COLLECTED ON (10/27/99)
Environmental and &otecbnical
Engineering Aetwork Corporation Plate
i t
I I I
I i i
I
I
I,
i
II
i
11
13
15
17
Water content, io
Test specification: ASM D 1557-91 Procedure A Modified
ZAV for
Sp. G. -
2.7
Elev/ Classification Nat S G. LL PI % > % <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist p No.4 No.200
ML 6.3
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SANDY SILT, BROWN
Maximum dry density = 125.6 pcf
Optimum moisture = 11.0 %
Project No. T1894 -GS Client: LINKLETTER Remarks:
Project: SAMPLE B5Q 0-5
COLLECTED BY C.M.
• Location: BUSINESS PARK DRIVE COLLECTED ON (10/27/99)
Environmental and &otecbnical
Engineering Aetwork Corporation Plate
Wet Compacted Wt.:
Ring WL:
Net Wet Wt.:
Wet Density:
Wet Soil:
Dry Soil:
Initial Moisture (%):
Initial Dry Density:
% Saturation:
Final Wt. 8 Ring Wt.:
Net Final Wt.:
Dry Wt.:
Loss:
Net Dry Wt.:
Final Density:
Saturated Moisture:
621.5
193.1
428.4
129.4
259.5
238.5
8.8%
118.9
57.0%
647.3
454.2
393.7
60.5
390.7
118.0
15.5%
UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results 11/19/99
Job Number:
T1894 -GS
Job Name:
LINKLETTER
Location:
BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
Sample Source:
B2@ 0-5
Sampled by:
C.M. (10/27/99)
Lab Technician:
J.T.O.
Sample Descr:
SILTY FINE -SAND, BROWN
Wet Compacted Wt.:
Ring WL:
Net Wet Wt.:
Wet Density:
Wet Soil:
Dry Soil:
Initial Moisture (%):
Initial Dry Density:
% Saturation:
Final Wt. 8 Ring Wt.:
Net Final Wt.:
Dry Wt.:
Loss:
Net Dry Wt.:
Final Density:
Saturated Moisture:
621.5
193.1
428.4
129.4
259.5
238.5
8.8%
118.9
57.0%
647.3
454.2
393.7
60.5
390.7
118.0
15.5%
Expansion Index: 14
Adjusted Index: 17.4
(ASTM D 4829 10.1.2)
EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
(909)676-3095
Fax: (909) 676-3294
Dial
Change
Time
Reading 1:
0.100
N/A
11:00
Reading 2:
0.108
0.008
11:15
Reading 3:
0.111
0.011
11:30
Reading 4:
0.114
0.014
9 -Nov
Expansion Index: 14
Adjusted Index: 17.4
(ASTM D 4829 10.1.2)
EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
(909)676-3095
Fax: (909) 676-3294
1
191.9
UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results 11/19/99
423.2
' Wet Density:
Job Number:
T1894 -GS
169.9
Dry Soil:
Job Name:
LINKLETTER
458.2
Location:
BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
Sample Source:
B5@ 0-5
Sampled by:
C.M.(10/27/99)
Lab Technician:
K.R.
Sample Descr:
SANDY SILT, BROWN
Wet Compacted Wt.: 615.1
' Ring WL:
191.9
Net Wet Wt.:
423.2
' Wet Density:
127.8
Wet Soil:
169.9
Dry Soil:
156.1
Dry t..
Initial Moisture (%):
8.8%
Initial Dry Density:
117.4
% Saturation:
54.9%
Final WL & Ring Wt.:
650.1
' Net Final Wt.:
458.2
Vy
3888
Dry t..
Loss:
69.4
Net Dry Wt.:
385.8
Final Density:
116.5
Saturated Moisture:
18.0%
' EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 676-3095
Fax: (909) 676-3294
1
3000
0
N
CL 2000
Lo
N
W
H
3000
2500
N
a 2000
m
1500
°y 1000
t
500
O
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 DISPLACEMENT, in 0.18 0.19 0.18
Horiz. Displ., in ULTIMATE STRESS, psf
DISPLACEMENT, in
Strain rate, in/min 2.0000 2.0000 2.0000
RESULTS
C, psf 81.5
�, deg 37.9
TAN � 0.78
1000 2000 3000 4000
Normal Stress. psf
5000 6000
SAMPLE TYPE: l.L1 tIV I L11V !\LCI CR
DESCRIPTION: SILTY FINE -SAND,
BROWN PROJECT:
SPECIFIC GRAVITY= 2.65 SAMPLE LOCATION: BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
REMARKS: SAMPLE 82® 0-5
COLLECTED BY C.M. (10/27/99)
Fig. No.:
NO.: T1894 -GS DATE: 11/9/99
DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT
EnGEN Corporation
SAMPLE NO.:
1
2
3
WATER CONTENT,.%
10.4
10.4
10.4
DRY DENSITY, pcf
114.0
114.0
114.0
Q
F
SATURATION, %
61.2
61.2
61.2
z
VOID RATIO
0.451
0.451
0.451
H
DIAMETER, in
2.42
2.42
2.42
HEIGHT, in
1.00
1.00
1.00
WATER CONTENT, %
0.0
0.0
0.0
I-
DRY DENSITY, pcf
114.0
114.0
114.0
UJ
SATURATION, %
0.0
0.0
0.0
r
VOID RATIO
0.451
0.451
0.451
Q
DIAMETER, in
2.42
2.42
2.42
HEIGHT, in
1.00
1.00
1.00
NORMAL STRESS, psf
1000
2000
3000
FAILURE STRESS, psf
900
1555
2455
SAMPLE TYPE: l.L1 tIV I L11V !\LCI CR
DESCRIPTION: SILTY FINE -SAND,
BROWN PROJECT:
SPECIFIC GRAVITY= 2.65 SAMPLE LOCATION: BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
REMARKS: SAMPLE 82® 0-5
COLLECTED BY C.M. (10/27/99)
Fig. No.:
NO.: T1894 -GS DATE: 11/9/99
DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT
EnGEN Corporation
I
[I
r
R -VALUE TEST REPORT
100
80 ......
...... ........ _... ....i... ...............
60
a
40 .
20 _...... ............
_ ..._... .. .... _......;.....
0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Exudation Pressure - psi
Resistance R -Value and Expansion Pressure - ASTM D 2844
Compact.
Expansion Horizontal Sample
Exud.
R
Density Moist.
R
No.
Pressure
Pressure Press. psi Height
Pressure
Value
pcf
Value
psi
psi ® 160 psi in.
psi
Corr.
1
250
128.5 10.6
0.76 85 2.49
364 38
38
2
150
125.7 11.9
0.39 115 2.53
251 20
20
3
50
122.2 12.5
0.06 136 2.52
128 9
9
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SILTY FINE -SAND, BROWN
R -Value ® 300 psi exudation pressure = 27
Project.No.: T1894 -GS
Tested by: J.T.O.
Project: LINKLETTER
Checked by:
Remarks:
Location: BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
SAMPLE 62® 0-5
COLLECTED BY C.M.
Dote: 11-19-1999
COLLECTED ON (10/27/99)
R -VALUE TEST REPORT
Environmental and Geotechnical
Engineering Network Corporation
Fig. No.
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC!
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
8
97.9
47.8
#30
#50
14.1
#200
1.9
Soil Description
SAND, TAN
Atterbero Limits
PL= LL= P1=
Coefficients
D85= 1.12 060= 0.726 D50= 0.621
D30= 0.440 D15= 0.309 D10= 0.255
Cu= 2.84 Cc= 1.05
Classification
USCS= SP AASHTO=
Remarks
COLLECTED BY C.M.
COLLECTED ON (10/27/99)
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: B1@ 15 Source of Sample: Date: 11/11/99
Location: BUSINESS PARK DRIVE Elev./Depth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: LINKLETTER
Project:
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Proect No: T1894 -GS Plate
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC*
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
Cu= 4.31
92.8
Classification
8
AASHTO=
Remarks
COLLECTED BY
C.M.
COLLECTED ON (10/27/99)
45.1
950
#100
16.3
#200
5.9
SAND, TAN
Soil Description
Atterberq Limits
PL= LL= PI=
Coefficients
085= 1.45
D60= 0.490 D50= 0.344
D30= 0.212
D15= 0.144 010= 0.114
Cu= 4.31
Cc= 0.81
Classification
USCS= SP
AASHTO=
Remarks
COLLECTED BY
C.M.
COLLECTED ON (10/27/99)
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: B1@25 Source of Sample: Date: 11/11/99
Location: BUSINESS PARK DRIVE Elev./Depth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: LINKLETTERProject:
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION project No: T1894 -GS Plate
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.'
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
#4
97.0
Cu= 7.25
Cc= 1.21
#8
88.8
USCS= SP
AASHTO=
#16
43.6
COLLECTED BY
C.M.
COLLECTED ON (10/27/99)
11.6
#100
#200
6.4
Soil Description
SAND, GREY
Atterberq Limits
PL= LL= Pl=
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: BI(Qa 35 Source of Sample:
Location: BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
Client: LINKLETTER
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Project:
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Pro'ect No: T1894 -G.
Date: 11/11/99
Elev./Depth:
Coefficients
D85= 1.99
D80= 0.935 D50= 0.718
030= 0.382
D15= 0.191 D10= 0.129
Cu= 7.25
Cc= 1.21
Classification
USCS= SP
AASHTO=
Remarks
COLLECTED BY
C.M.
COLLECTED ON (10/27/99)
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: BI(Qa 35 Source of Sample:
Location: BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
Client: LINKLETTER
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Project:
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Pro'ect No: T1894 -G.
Date: 11/11/99
Elev./Depth:
1
Particle Size Distribution Report
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
90.4
#8
#16
67.8
#30
42.7
14.2
#100
#200
8.6
Soil Description
SAND, TAN
Atterberq Limits
PL= LL= Pl=
IsZT�:IC�LLf
0S5= 1.92 D60= 0.965 D50= 0.740
030= 0.385 D15= 0.161 D10= 0.0917
Cu= 10.52 Cc= 1.67
Classification
USCS= SP AASHTO=
Remarks
COLLECTED BY C.M.
COLLECTED ON (10/27/99)
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: B I@ 45 Source of Sample: Date: 11/11/99
Location: BUSINESS PARK DRIVE E1evJDepth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: LINKLETTER
Project:
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION pro ect No: T1894 GS Plate
1
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
!
I
I
WATER ADDED !
z
I
� I
I
4
I
i
I
i
C 5
U
I
EL
j
I
I
7
Ii
I
p
-
9
I
�
f
I
I '• I
' I
I
I
10 1 Z ,5 1 Z 5
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural
Dry Dens.=PIOverburden
(P LL
(ksf)
PC
(ksf)
C Crwell
C r
Press. Swell
(ksf)
eo
Sat.
Moist.
13.2
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
USCS
AASHTO
SILTY SAND (W/ GRAVEL), BROWN
SM
Project No. T1894 -GS Client: LINKLETTER
Remarks:
Project:
SAMPLE B1@ 7.5
COLLECTED BY C.M.
COLLECTED ON (10/27/99)
Location: BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
fi alvironnwntal and &Necbnical
Engineering network Corporation
Plate
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
o
_-
:
I
z
i
j
WATER ADDED
3
4
C
LE
j
I
5
.I'75
U
!
I
CL
s
I
7-
70 � ,2 .5
10
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural
Dry Dens.
(P�
LL PI
Sp.
Gr'
Overburden::(k
(ksf)
c
sf
Co
Cr
Swell Press.
iks�
Swell eo
/0
Sat.
Moist.
16.8 %
0.83
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
USCS
AASHTO
SILTY SAND, BROWN
SM
Project No. T1894-GS Client: LINKLETTER Remarks:
Project:
SAMPLE BIQ 10
COLLECTED BY C.M.
COLLECTED ON (10/27/99)
Location: BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
and Ceotecbntcal
Ift"Environmental
Engineering Aretwork Corporation
Plate
I
LJ
L
I
I
I
Ll
I
I
rnm_qni inATION TEST REPORT
0
I
I I I
i!
I
�
i
''2—
li I S
WATER ADDED
3
4-
6
7
8
5
10 .1 -2 Applied Pressure - ks I f
Natural Dry Dens. P, Overburden PC cc Cr Swell Press. Swell eo
(ksf) %
(ksf)
0.88
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
SANDY SILT, DARK -BROWN
ML
oj,e No. T18947 -GS Client: LINKLETTER
Project
Remarks:
:t
SAMPLE B4@ 7.5
Pro e:ctt:
COLLECTED BY C.M.
COLLECTED ON (10/27/99)
Location: BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
faviMnMenlal and Geotechnical
Engineering Network Corporation
plate
r%^KiCn1 inATIMI TFST REPORT
Swell Press. Swell
Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr % eo
LL PI Gr. (ksf) (ksf) (ksf)
Sat. Moist. (pcfl
20.5 % 0.89
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
SILTY SAND, BROWN SM
Project No. T1894 GS Client: LINKLEITER Remarks:
Project: SAMPLE B4@ 10
COLLECTED BY C.M.
COLLECTED ON (10/27/99)
Location: BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
EMnvironmental and &otxhnical
Engineering Aretviork Corporation Plate
DRAWINGS
Linkletter Enterprises
Project Number: T1894 -GS
Appendix Page 7
EnGEN Corporation