HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical Report March 8, 2007t
1
1
t
1
;31-7a
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED WAL -MART EXPANSION
32225 ROUTE 79
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT No. 122 -06026
MARCH 8, 2007
PREPARED FOR:
NASLAND ENGINEERING
4740 RUFFNER STREET
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111
ATTENTION: MR. LARRY THORNBURGH
PREPARED BY:
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
4221 BPICKELL STREET
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91761
(909) 974 -4400
�v I <L aza 1 & ASSOCIATES, INC.
SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
Offices Serving the Western United States
I
=-= f(raZan & ASSOCIATES, INC.
' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED WAL -MART EXPANSION
32225 ROUTE 79
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... ..............................1
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................................. ..............................1
' PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................ ..............................2
SITE LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................... ..............................3
SITEINVESTIGATION ............................................................................................. ..............................3
GEOLOGICSETTING .................................................................................................... ..............................3
j
FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................... ..............................3
SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................................... ..............................4
GROUNDWATER.......................................................................................................... ..............................4
GROUNDSHAKING ..................................................................................................... ..............................5
SEISMICITY AND LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ............................................................. ..............................5
SEISMIC INDUCED SETTLEMENT ................................................................................ ..............................6
SOILCOP ROSIVITY ..................................................................................................... ..............................6
EXISTING PAVEMENT SECTIONS ................................................................................ ..............................6
'
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... ..............................7
ADMINISTRATIVESUMMARY ..................................................................................... ..............................7
'
GROUNDWATER INFLUENCE ON STRUCTURES /CONSTRUCTION ................................ ..............................8
WEAK AND DISTURBED SOILS ................................................................................... ..............................8
EARTHWORK.............................................................................................................. ..............................8
'
Site Preparation — Clearing and Stripping ............................................................ ...............................
Liquefaction Mitigation ........................................................................................ ...............................
8
9
ENGINEEREDFILL ................................................................................................... ...............................
10
TEMPORARY EXCAVATION STABILITY .................................................................... ..............................I
UTILITY TRENCH LOCATION, CONSTRUCTION AND BACKFILL ............................... ...............................
I
1 I
COMPACTED MATERIAL ACCEPTANCE ..................................................................... .............................12
SURFACE DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING ................................................................. .............................12
FOUNDATION........................................................................................................... ...............................
12
Settlement........................................................................................................... ...............................
13
LateralLoad Resistance ..................................................................................... ...............................
13
'
CONCRETE FLOOR SLABS .......................................................................................... .............................13
EXTERIORFLATWORK ............................................................................................... .............................14
RETAININGWALLS .................................................................................................... .............................14
Offices Serving The Western United States
4221 Brickell Street, Ontario, California 91761 • (909) 974 -4400 • Fax: (909) 974 -0022
12206026.doc
I
I
Offices Serving The Western United States
4221 Brickell Street, Ontario, California 91761 • (909) 974 -4400 • Fax: (909) 9744022
12206026.doe
KA No. 122 -06026
Page No. 2
PAVEMENT DESIGN....................................................................
............................... 15
'
Asphalt Concrete (Flexible) Pavements .............................................................
............................... 16
Portland Cement Concrete (Rigid) Pavement ....................................................
............................... 17
SITECOEFFICIENT ...................................................................................................
............................... 18
SOILCORROSIVITY ..................................................................................................
............................... 18
ADDITIONALSERVICES ........................................................................................
.............................18
'
LIMITATIONS ...........................................................................................................
.............................19
FIGURES
'
FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN
APPENDIX A BORING LOG LEGEND
BORING LOGS
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
'
APPENDIX B GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
APPENDIX C GENERAL PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS
APPENDIX D GEOTECIINICAL INVESTIGATION FACT SHEET
FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA
FOUNDATION SUBSURFACE PREPARATION
I
Offices Serving The Western United States
4221 Brickell Street, Ontario, California 91761 • (909) 974 -4400 • Fax: (909) 9744022
12206026.doe
ffl<raZalZ & ASSOCIATES, INC.
' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
' March 8, 2007 KA Project No. 122 -06026
' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED WAL -MART EXPANSION
32225 ROUTE 79
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
' INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the proposed Wal -Mart
expansion in Temecula, California. Discussions regarding site conditions are presented herein, together
with conclusions and recommendations pertaining to site preparation, grading, utility trench backfill,
' drainage and landscaping, foundations, concrete floor slabs and exterior concrete flatwork, retaining
walls, soil corrosivity, and pavement design.
' A Vicinity Map showing the location of the site is presented on Figure 1. A Site Plan showing the
approximate boring locations is presented on Figure 2. Descriptions of the field and laboratory
investigations, boring log legend and boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Appendix A contains a
' description of the laboratory- testing phase of this study, along with the laboratory test results.
Appendices B and C contain guide specifications for earthwork and flexible pavements, respectively.
Appendix D contains the " Geotechnical Investigation Fact Sheet ", "Foundation Design Criteria" and
' draft of "Foundation Subsurface Preparation ". If conflicts in the text of the report occur with the general
specifications in the appendices, the recommendations in the text of the report have precedence.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
This geotechnical investigation was conducted to evaluate subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at
the project site. Engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data was performed for the purpose of
developing and providing geotechnical recommendations for use in the design and construction of the
earthwork, foundation and pavement aspects of the project.
Our scope of services was outlined in our proposal dated November 14, 2006 (KA Proposal No.
PC 122035-06) and included the following:
' • A site reconnaissance by a member of our engineering staff to evaluate the surface conditions at
the project site.
' • Review of selected published geologic maps, reports and literature pertinent to the site and
surrounding area.
1
Offices Serving The Western United States
' 4221 Brickell Street, Ontano, Cahfomta 91761 • (909) 974 -4400 • Fax: (909) 974 -4022
12206026 doe
' KA No. 122 -06026
Page No. 2
• A field investigation consisting of drilling eight (8) soil borings to depths ranging from
approximately 20 to 50 feet below the existing ground surface for evaluation of the subsurface
conditions at the project site as well as drilling additional two (2) Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
' borings to a depth of approximately 60 feet for liquefaction evaluation. In addition, four (4)
shallow borings were drilled within the existing parking and drive areas for documentation of the
asphaltic concrete (AC) pavement sections.
' • Performing laboratory tests on representative soil samples obtained from the borings to evaluate
the physical and index properties of the subsurface soils.
• Evaluation of the data obtained from the investigation and engineering analyses of the data with
respect to the geotechnical aspects of structural design, site grading and paving.
' • Preparation of this report summarizing the findings, results, conclusions and recommendations of
our investigation.
Environmental services, such as chemical analyses of soil and groundwater for possible environmental
contaminates, and geologic study were not in our scope of services.
' PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
Based on our review of the site plan and our discussions with the project representative, we understand
that the proposed project will include expansion of an existing Wal -Mart Store. The Wal -Mart building
will expand from the current 149,723 square feet to approximately 205,938 square feet.
' The Wal -Mart building superstructure will be a combination of concrete masonry shear walls and steel
columns supporting a roof structure of steel joist girders and steel joists. The floor slab will be
' structurally connected to the perimeter walls with dowels. The typical bay spacing between columns is
approximately 55 feet by 48 feet. The typical gravity load at an interior column is 85 kips. The
estimated maximum gravity load that may occasionally occur due to severe live loading is 150 kips.
' Maximum column uplift force from wind is estimated at 30 kips. The estimated typical exterior column
gravity load is 50 kips. Concrete masonry walls are estimated to have gravity loads of 1.5 to 2.0 kips per
lineal foot for non -load bearing walls and 4.0 to 6.0 kips per lineal foot for load bearing walls. Estimated
maximum uniformly distributed floor slab live load is 125 pounds per square foot (psf), with maximum
concentrated load of 5.0 kips.
Paving consisting of asphalt concrete (flexible) will cover the majority of the site, with Portland cement
concrete (rigid) in truck dock areas. Underground utility construction will be required to provide water,
gas and electric services, and storm and sanitary sewer lines. Mass grading of the majority of the site is
' expected to entail minor cuts and fills from existing grades to establish building pads and to provide for
surface drainage of the site.
in the event these structural or grading details are inconsistent with the final design criteria, we should be
notified so that we can evaluate the potential impacts of the changes on the recommendations presented
in this report and provide an updated report as necessary.
' Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Westem United States
12206026.doc
KA No. 122 -06026
Page No. 3
SITE LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is irregular in shape and encompasses approximately 19.96± acres. The site is located on the
' southwest comer of Route 79 and Apis Road in the unincorporated Temecula area of the County of
Riverside, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). Presently, the existing Wal -Mart store is open for
business. The site is predominately surrounded by residential and commercial developments.
The majority of the site is relatively level with no major changes in grade. The elevation of the building
pad is approximately 1,065 feet above mean sea level.
SITE INVESTIGATION
' GEOLOGIC SETTING
The site is located within the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province, an area characterized by active
' northeast trending strike slip faults, including the San Jacinto to the northwest, and the Elsinore to the
southwest. Locally, the subject site is within the upland area just east of the Temecula Valley and is
primarily underlain by shallow relatively soft sedimentary bedrock of the Pauba formation. Drainage
from the site flows southwestwards into Munieta Creek. The project site is situated between the Santa
Rosa Mountains and the San Jacinto Mountains to the east; and Santa Ana Mountains to the west and
south.
1 The near - surface deposits in the vicinity of the subject site are indicated to be comprised of recent
alluvium consisting of unconsolidated sands, silt, and clays derived from erosion of local mountain
' ranges. Deposits encountered on the subject site during exploratory drilling are discussed in detail in this
report.
The site is located in a seismically active area of Southern California. The nearest significant active fault
is the Elsinore - Temecula Fault zone (Type B fault), which is approximately 2.9 kilometers away. The
nearest Type A fault is the Elsinore- Julian Fault zone, which is approximately 13.8 kilometers away.
' The area in consideration shows no mapped faults on -site according to maps prepared by the California
Division of Mines and Geology (now known as the California Geologic Survey) and published by the
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). No evidence of surface faulting was observed on
' the property during our reconnaissance. The site is located within a Seismic Zone 4.
FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
Subsurface soil conditions were explored by drilling eight (8) soils borings and two (2) CPT borings to
depths ranging from approximately 20 to 60 feet below existing site grade. In addition, four (4) shallow
borings were drilled within the parking and drive areas for documentation of the pavement sections. The
approximate boring locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. These approximate boring locations
were estimated in the field based on pacing and measuring from the limits of existing site features.
During drilling operations, penetration tests were performed at regular intervals to evaluate the soil
consistency and to obtain information regarding the engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Soil
samples were retained for laboratory testing. The soils encountered were continuously examined and
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
12206026.doc
KA No. 122 -06026
Page No. 4
' visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. A more detailed
description of the field investigation is presented in Appendix A.
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and
engineering properties. The laboratory- testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation
of natural in -situ moisture and density, gradation, shear strength, consolidation and expansion potential,
' R- value, maximum dry density, resistivity, pH value, sulfate and chloride contents of the materials
encountered. Details of the laboratory- testing program are discussed in Appendix A. The results of the
laboratory tests are presented on the borings logs or on the test reports, which are also included in
Appendix A. This information, along with the field observations, was used to prepare the final boring
logs in Appendix A.
' SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Based on our findings, the subsurface conditions encountered appear typical of those found in the
' geologic region of the site. The subsurface soils encountered at the site generally consisted of alluvial
silty sand and sand with thin layers of sandy silt and silty clay. Fill materials may be present onsite
between our exploratory borehole locations since the site was previously graded. Verification of the
extent of fill should be determined during site grading. Fill soils which have not been properly
'., compacted and certified should be excavated and recompacted.
Below the fill soils, alluvial silty sand and sand were encountered. Field and laboratory tests suggest that
these soils are moderately strong and slightly compressible. Penetration resistance, measured by the
number of blows required to drive a Modified California sampler or a Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
' sampler, ranged from 4 to 70 blows per foot. Dry densities ranged from 120.8 to 124.3 pcf.
Representative soil samples consolidated approximately 0.8 to 1.1 percent under a 2 -ksf load when
saturated. Representative soil samples had angles of internal friction of 33 to 35 degrees. Representative
near - surface soil samples had Expansion Indices of 8 to 18. A representative soil sample had a maximum
dry density of 131.5 pcf and an R -Value of 34.
' The above is a general description of soil conditions encountered at the site in the borings drilled for this
investigation. For a more detailed description of the soil conditions encountered, please refer to the
boring logs in Appendix A.
'- GROUNDWATER
Test boring locations were checked for the presence of groundwater during and immediately following
the drilling operations. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 30 feet below existing grade during
this time of investigation.
It should be recognized that water table elevation might fluctuate with time. The depth to groundwater
can be expected to fluctuate both seasonally and from year to year. Fluctuations in the groundwater level
may occur due to variations in precipitation, irrigation practices at the site and in the surrounding areas,
climatic conditions, flow in adjacent or nearby canals, pumping from wells and possibly as the result of
' other factors that were not evident at the time of our investigation. Therefore, water level observations at
the time of our field investigation may vary from those encountered during the construction phase of the
' Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Westem United States
12206026.doc
I
KA No. 122 -06026
Page No. 5
' project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report. Long -term monitoring in
observation wells, sealed from the influence of surface water, is often required to more accurately define
the potential range of groundwater conditions on a site.
' GROUND SHAKING
' Although ground rupture is not considered to be a major concern at the subject site, the site will likely be
subject to at least one moderate to severe earthquake and associated seismic shaking during its lifetime,
as well as periodic slight to moderate earthquakes. Some degree of structural damage due to stronger
' seismic shaking should be expected at the site, but the risk can be reduced through adherence to seismic
design codes.
' Surface ground motions based on the USGS information requires modification to address the presence of
deep alluvial soils, such as those found at the subject site. Based on California Geological Survey,
Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping, the horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is anticipated to
be 0.554g for a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years resulting from a maximum magnitude
earthquake of 6.8.
SEISMICITY AND LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Soil liquefaction is a state of soil particle suspension caused by a complete loss of strength when the
effective stress drops to zero. Liquefaction normally occurs under saturated conditions in soils such as
sand in which the strength is purely frictional. However, liquefaction has occurred in soils other than
' clean sand. Liquefaction usually occurs under vibratory conditions such as those induced by seismic
events. To evaluate the liquefaction potential of the site, the following items were evaluated:
1) Soil type
2) Groundwater depth
3) Relative density
4) Initial confining pressure
5) Intensity and duration of ground shaking
The predominant soils within the project site consist of loose to medium dense silty sand and sand. Low
to very low cohesion strength is associated with the sandy soil. Groundwater was encountered at a depth
of 30 feet below existing site grade during our field investigation and the maximum possible high
groundwater depth of 20 feet is anticipated according to the County of Riverside General Plan Safety
Element adopted October 7, 2003.
1 The site was evaluated for liquefaction potential using the LiquefyPro computer program (version 4.5b)
developed by CivilTech. The liquefaction analysis indicated that the sandy soils below the existing grade
had a moderate potential for liquefaction under seismic conditions.
' Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
12206026 doc
[1
1
1
KA No. 122 -06026
Page No. 6
SEISMIC INDUCED SETTLEMENT
One of the most common phenomena during seismic shaking accompanying any earthquake is the
induced settlement of loose unconsolidated soils. Based on site subsurface conditions, and the moderate
seismicity of the region, any loose fill materials at the site could be vulnerable to this potential hazard.
However, this hazard can be mitigated by following our Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations
(over- excavation and rework of disturbed soils and/or loose fill materials). The sandy soils encountered
will be subject to seismic settlement. Based on our calculation, the total and differential seismic induced
settlement, prior to site mitigation is expected to be approximately 2.7 inches and 1.4 inches,
respectively.
SOIL CORROSIVITV
Corrosion tests were performed to evaluate the soil corrosivity to the buried structures. The tests consisted
of sulfate content, chloride content, and resistivity and the results of the tests are included as follows:
Parameter
Results
Test Method
Resistivity
2,220 ohms -cm
CALTRANS
Sulfate
340 ppm
EPA 9038
Chloride
389 ppm
EPA 9253
pH
8.27
EPA 9045C
EXISTING PAVEMENT SECTIONS
The existing asphaltic concrete (AC) pavement sections were documented at four (4) random locations
using a truck - mounted drill rig. The approximate boring locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.
The pavement sections are presented as follows:
Boring No.
(Location)
Approximate Asphaltic
Concrete (AC) Thickness
(Inches)
Approximate Aggregate
Base (AB) Thickness
(inches)
AC -1
3.0
4.5
AC -2
3.0
5.0
AC -3
3.0
4.5
AC4
3.0
5.0
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
12206026 doc
' KA No. 122 -06026
Page No. 7
' CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings of our field and laboratory investigations, along with previous geotechnical
experience in the project area, the following is a summary of our evaluations, conclusions, and
recommendations.
' ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMARY
Based on the data collected during this investigation, and from a geologic and geotechnical engineering
' standpoint, it is our opinion that the proposed improvements may be made as presently planned provided
that the recommendations presented in this report are considered in the design and construction of the
project.
' Subsurface conditions that must be considered in both design and construction include existing
structures, underlying fill materials, and liquefaction potential.
' Associated with the existing development are buried footings and utility lines. These buried structures
(footings and utility lines, etc.) should be properly removed and the resulting excavations backfilled with
' Engineered Fill. Any other buried structures encountered during construction should be removed and
backfilled in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer.
The site has been previously graded for the existing development. Fill materials may be present onsite
between our exploratory borehole locations. The consistency of the fills should be verified during site
construction. A minimum of 95 percent compaction is required for the foundation soils underneath the
building pad.
1
A seismic hazard, which could cause damage to the proposed development during seismic shaking, is the
' post - liquefaction settlement of the liquefied sands and silts. Liquefaction potential at the site was
evaluated using the "LIQUEFYPRO" computer program developed by CivilTech Corporation. Based on
our evaluation, the potential for liquefaction at the site is moderately high. Mitigation measures are
recommended to minimize structural damage due to liquefaction. The potential for structural damage at
the site can be minimized by using geogrid, stone columns, or supporting the building on a deep
foundation system.
Geogrid is a commonly used method and our suggested option to reduce structural damage due to
liquefaction. The geogrid reinforcement should be placed in layers along with the fill material.
' Recommendations for the geogrid system are provided herein.
Site preparation, mitigation measures, and foundation recommendations are provided herein for the
' geogrid system for the proposed building.
It is anticipated that the structural elements within the parking lot may settle, due to liquefaction.
Therefore, it is recommended that flexible connectors be incorporated with utilities placed within the
parking lot.
' Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Westem Untied States
12206026.dac
KA No. 122 -06026
Page No. 8
Sandy soil conditions were encountered at the site. These cohesionless soils have a tendency to cave in
trench wall excavations. Shoring or sloping back trench sidewalls may be required within these sandy
soils.
The shrinkage on recompacted soil and fill placement is estimated at 5 to 10 percent. This value is an
estimate and may vary significantly depending on several items including soil conditions, compaction
effort, weather, etc. Subsidence within building areas, below the recompaction depth, is estimated to be
less than 0.01 feet, due to the recommended over- excavation. Subsidence within parking areas, below
the recompaction depth, is estimated to be less than 0.05 feet.
All grading and earthwork should be performed in accordance with the Grading Ordinances of the
County of Riverside and the applicable portions of the Earthwork Specifications in Appendix B, except
as modified herein.
GROUNDWATER INFLUENCE ON STRUCTURES /CONSTRUCTION
Based on our findings and historical records, it is not anticipated that groundwater will rise within the
zone of structural influence or affect the construction of foundations and pavements for the project.
However, if earthwork is performed during or soon after periods of precipitation, the subgrade soils may
become saturated, "pump," or not respond to densification techniques. Typical remedial measures
include: discing and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with dryer materials; removing
and replacing the soil with an approved fill material; or mixing the soil with an approved lime or cement
product. Our firm should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to observe the unstable
subgrade conditions and provide appropriate recommendations.
WEAK AND DISTURBED SOILS
' Of primary importance in the development of this site is the removal /recompaction of potentially
compressible soils from the areas of the proposed structures. This is discussed in detail in the Earthwork
section of this report.
EARTHWORK
Site Preparation — Clearing and Stripping
General site clearing should include removal of vegetation and existing utilities; structures; including
foundations basement walls and floors; trees and associated root systems; rubble; rubbish; and any loose
and/or saturated materials. Site stripping should extend to a minimum depth of 2 to 4 inches, or until all
organics in excess of 3 percent by volume are removed. Deeper stripping may be required in localized
areas. These materials will not be suitable for reuse as Engineered Fill. However, stripped topsoil may
be stockpiled and reused in landscape or non - structural areas.
Any excavations that result from clearing operations should be backfrlled with engineered fill. Krazan &
Associates' field staff should be present during site clearing operations to enable us to locate areas where
depressions or disturb soils are present and to allow our staff to observe and test the backfill as it is
placed. If site clearing and backfilling operations occur without appropriate observation and testing by a
' Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
12206026.doc
KA No. 122 -06026
Page No. 9
qualified geotechnical consultant, there may be the need to over - excavate the building areas to identify
' uncontrolled fills prior to mass grading of the building pads. As with site clearing operations, any buried
structures encountered during construction should be properly removed and backfilled. The resulting
excavations should be backfilled with engineered fill.
' Liquefaction Mitigation
' Subsurface soils within the site are prone to liquefaction under high ground shaking acceleration during
an earthquake. Our preliminary calculations indicated that the building areas, and at least 5 feet beyond,
if permissible, should be over - excavated to a depth of 6 feet below finish grade or 4 feet below proposed
footings, whichever is greater, and the resulting excavation be backfilled with a layered system of
Engineered Fill and geogrid reinforcing fabric. Deeper overexcavation and recompaction will be
required if unsuitable fill soils are encountered. The depth of the over- excavation should be measured
' from existing ground or rough pad grade, whichever is greater. A preliminary design procedure is
provided below. Final design will be provided by the geogrid manufacturer along with our office.
Global seismic induced settlement of the site is still anticipated when liquefaction occurs.
Prior to placing the geogrid, the bottom of the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches,
moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture, and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative
' I compaction based on ASTM D1557 -00. The first layer of geogrid reinforcement will be placed directly
on the prepared subgrade at a depth of 6 feet below finish grade. The geogrid material should be
overlapped a minimum of 3 feet in all directions. The geogrid strips should be "shingled" such that the
' exposed geogrid edge is opposite the direction of fill placement (as roof shingles to rain runoff). The
interlock between the geogrid and Engineered Fill will provide load transfer. No vehicles may traverse
the geogrid prior to placement of the Engineered Fill cover.
' The next layer of geogrid should be laced on to of the compacted Y g gri p p p Engineered Fill. This and
subsequent layers need only be overlapped a minimum of 1 foot on all sides. The geogrid strips of this
' layer, and all subsequent layers within the footprint, should be placed with lengths perpendicular to those
in the layer immediately below. The fill soils excavated from the area beneath the structure may be
moisture conditioned and recompacted between geogrid layers as reinforced fill. The reinforced fill
should be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content and recompacted to a minimum of 95
percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557 -00 Test Method.
. ' A total of 4 geogrid layers, including the layer at the base of the excavation should be installed at vertical
increments of 1 foot. The geogrid layers should extend to a minimum of 5 feet beyond, if permissible,
the exterior footing perimeter of the structure. The geogrid reinforcement fabric should consist of
_ TensarO BX 1100 Geogrid*. Any additional unstable soils within building areas should be excavated
and backfilled with Engineered Fill.
It is recommended that the entire site be excavated at once, and soils be stockpiled on adjacent or nearby
properties. The geogrid and excavated soil may then be placed and recompacted as recommended herein.
Alternatively, the contractor may elect to excavate the site in two stages, where excavated soil can be
stockpiled over one -half of the site while the other half is mitigated. However, if the contractor elects the
' Tensar maybe contacted at [(949) 661 -2229 or (714) 281- 7883].
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
12206026.doc
I
' KA No. 122 -06026
Page No. 11
' TEMPORARY EXCAVATION STABILITY
All excavations should comply with the current requirements of Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA). All cuts greater than 2 feet in depth should be sloped or shored. Temporary
' excavations should be sloped at 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter, up to a maximum depth of 6 feet
and at 1 %,:1 (horizontal to vertical) to a maximum depth of 10 feet. Heavy construction equipment,
building materials, excavated soil, and vehicular traffic should not be allowed within five feet of the top
' (edge) of the excavation.
Where sloped excavations are not feasible due to site constraints, the excavations may require shoring.
' The design of the shoring system is normally the responsibility of the contractor or shoring designer, and
therefore, is outside the scope of this report. However, the logs of borings presented with this report may
be used for factual data such as soil types encountered at the location of each particular boring and at the
indicated depths. Interpolation between the exploratory borings is at the user's own risk. Design work
for shoring system should be performed by an engineer with expertise in shoring systems. The design of
the temporary shoring should take into account lateral pressures exerted by the adjacent soil, and, where
anticipated, surcharge loads due to adjacent buildings and any construction equipment or traffic expected
to operate alongside the excavation.
' Slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth should in no case exceed those specified in local,
state, or federal safety regulation, (e.g. OSHA) standards for excavations, 29 CFR part 1926, or
Assessor's regulations. Where disturbed soil or uncontrolled fills are present, the contractor should be
prepared to install shoring or flatten the excavation slopes.
The excavation/shoring recommendations provided herein are based on soil characteristics derived from
the test borings within the area. Variations in soil conditions will likely be encountered during the
excavations. Krazan & Associates, Inc. should be afforded the opportunity to provide field review to
evaluate the actual conditions and account for field condition variations, not otherwise anticipated in the
' preparation of this recommendation.
UTILITY TRENCH LOCATION, CONSTRUCTION AND BACKFILL
To maintain the desired support for new foundations, new utility trenches should be located such that the
base of the trench excavation is located above an imaginary plane having an inclination of 1.0 horizontal
' to 1.0 vertical, extending downward from the bottom edge of the adjacent footing. Utility trenches
should be excavated according to accepted engineering practices following OSHA standards by a
contractor experienced in such work. The responsibility for the safety of open trenches should be borne
by the contractor. Traffic and vibration adjacent to trench walls should be kept to a minimum; cyclic
wetting and drying of excavation side slopes should be avoided. Depending upon the location and depth
' of some utility trenches, groundwater flow into open excavations could be experienced, especially during
or shortly following periods of precipitation.
' For purposes of this section of the report, backfill is defined as material placed in a trench starting one
foot above the pipe; bedding and shading (also referred to as initial backfill) is all material placed in a
trench below the backfill. With the exception of specific requirements of the local utility companies or
' building department, pipe bedding and shading should consist of clean medium - grained sand. The sand
should be placed in a damp state and should be compacted by mechanical means prior to the placement
' Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
12206026 doc
' KA No. 122 -06026
Page No. 12
' of backfill soils. Above the pipe zone, underground utility trenches may be backfilled with either free -
draining sand, on -site soil or imported soil. The trench backfill should be compacted to at least 95
percent relative compaction.
COMPACTED MATERIAL ACCEPTANCE
Compaction specifications are not the only criteria for acceptance of the site grading or other such
activities. However, the compaction test is the most universally recognized test method for assessing the
performance of the Grading Contractor. The numerical test results from the compaction test cannot be
solely used to predict the engineering performance of the compacted material. Therefore, the acceptance
of compacted materials will also be dependent on the moisture content and the stability of that material.
The Geotechnical Engineer has the option of rejecting any compacted material regardless of the degree of
compaction if that material is considered to be too dry or excessively wet, unstable or if future instability
is suspected. A specific example of rejection of fill material passing the required percent compaction is a
fill which has been compacted with in -situ moisture content significantly less than optimum moisture.
Where expansive soils are present, heaving of the soils may occur with the introduction of water. Where
' the material is a lean clay or silt, this type of dry fill (brittle fill) is susceptible to future settlement if it
becomes saturated or flooded.
SURFACE DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING
The ground surface should slope away from building and pavement areas toward appropriate drop inlets
or other surface drainage devices. We recommended that adjacent paved exterior grades be sloped a
minimum of 2 percent for a minimum distance of 5 feet away from structures. Ideally, asphalt concrete
pavement areas should be sloped at a minimum of 2 percent, with Portland cement concrete sloped at a
' minimum of one percent toward drainage structures. These grades should be maintained for the life of
the project. Roof drains should be designed to avoid discharging into landscape areas adjacent to the
building. Downspouts should be directed to discharge directly onto paved surfaces to allow for surface
drainage into the storm systems or should be connected directly to the on -site storm drain.
FOUNDATION
The proposed structures may be supported on a shallow foundation system bearing on geogrid reinforced
Engineered Fill. Spread and continuous footings can be designed for the following maximum allowable
soil bearing pressures:
Load
Allowable Loadini
Dead Load Only
2,400 psf
Dead -Plus -Live Load
2,800 psf
Total Load, including wind or seismic loads
3,700 psf
The footings should have a minimum depth of 18 inches below pad subgrade (soil grade) or adjacent
exterior grade, whichever is deeper. New footings adjacent to existing buildings should not be embedded
shallower than the existing footings Minimum footing widths should be 15 inches for continuous
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The western United States
12206026.doc
I
KA No. 122 -06026
Page No. 15
' restrained the surcharge load should be based on one -half of the applied load above the wall, also
distributed over the full height of the wall. For other surcharges, such as from adjacent foundations, point
loads or line loads, Krazan & Associates should be consulted.
' Expansive soils should not be used for backfill against walls. The zone of non - expansive backfill
material should extend from the bottom of each retaining wall laterally back a distance equal to the
theight of the wall, to a maximum of five (5) feet.
i
The active and at -rest earth pressures do not include hydrostatic pressures. To reduce the build -up of
hydrostatic pressures, drainage should be provided behind the retaining walls. Wall drain should consist
' of a minimum 12 -inch wide zone of drainage material, such as 1/4-inch by 1/2-inch drain rock wrapped in a
non -woven polypropylene geotextile filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent. Alternatively,
drainage may be provided by the placement of a commercially produced composite drainage blanket,
such as Miradrain, extending continuously up from the base of the wall. The drainage material should
extend from the base of the wall to finished subgrade in paved areas and to within about 12 inches below
the top of the wall in landscape areas. In landscape areas the top 12 inches should be backfilled with
compacted native soil. A 4 -inch minimum diameter, perforated, Schedule 40 PVC drain pipe should be
placed with holes facing down in the lower portion of the wall drainage material, surrounded with drain
rock wrapped in filter fabric. A solid drainpipe leading to a suitable discharge point should provide
drainage outlet. As an alternative, weep holes may be used to provide drainage. If weep holes are used,
the weep holes should be 3 inches in diameter and spaced about 8 feet on centers. The backside of the
weep holes should be covered with a corrosion- resistant mesh to prevent loss of backfill and /or drainage
material.
' PAVEMENT DESIGN
Wal -Mart requirements for pavement design areas follow: "Paving shall be design using the `AASHTO
' Guide for Design of Pavement Structures 1993'..." "In a state where the highway department has
developed a unique, state - approved method of pavement design, that unique method will be accepted
only for a project in that state." Based on the established standard practice of designing flexible
pavements in accordance with State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for projects
within California, we have developed pavement sections in accordance with the procedure presented in
Caltrans Standard Test Method 301. This pavement design procedure is based on the volume of traffic
t(Traffic Index) and the soil resistance "R" value (R- value). The AASHTO procedure was used to
evaluate rigid pavement section requirements.
' In accordance with Wal -Mart Stores, Inc., criteria, we understand that concrete and asphalt concrete
pavement should be designed for Standard Duty and Heavy Duty traffic loading based on equivalent 18
' kip axle loads of 109,500 (ESAL) and 335,800 (ESAL) respectively, and a design life of 20 years.
Caltrans provides a conversion equation to convert ESAL to TI. The equation, which is based on a mix
of traffic, is: TI = 9-(ESAL /10) 6 0119 Based on this equation, the Traffic Indexes that correspond to the
' Standard Duty and Heavy Duty traffic loadings are 7.0 and 8.0 respectively. The Civil Engineer should
consult with Wal -Mart to confirm the truck count prior to assigning the Traffic Index and selecting the
' pavement sections for incorporation into the project plans.
' Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Westem United States
12206026.doc
I
1
1
1
1.
11
,l
'-
KA No. 122 -06026
Page No. 16
Asphalt Concrete (Flexible) Pavements
The design traffic loading and the corresponding Traffic Indexes are conservative with respect to areas
that will only services automobile, SUV and light truck traffic. Although not specifically addressed in
the Wal -Mart document "Geotechnical Investigation Specifications and Report Requirements," with the
vast parking areas and the amount of import required to construct layered pavement sections
incorporating aggregate base, a Light Duty pavement may be appropriate for consideration in automobile
parking areas. Based on our experience with pavement design for retail centers, we recommend a
minimum Traffic Index of 5.5 for design of pavements for automobile parking lots and drive lanes.
Based on a review of the boring logs and the R -value data presented above, the near surface soil of the
site consists of mostly silty sand with various amount of clay. Therefore, an R -value of 34 is considered
to be representative for the pavement. If site grading exposes soil other than that assumed, we should
perform additional tests to confirm or revise the recommended pavement sections for actual field
conditions. Various alternative pavement sections based on the Caltrans Flexible Pavement Design
Method are presented below:
ASPHALT CONCRETE (FEXIBLE) PAVEMENTS
(R -value = 34 or greater)
Traffic / Pavement
Designation
Traffic
Index
(inches)
Asphalt
Concrete
(inches)
Class 2
Aggregate Base
(inches)
Compacted
Subgrade
(inches)
LIGHT DUTY
5.5
3.0
6.0
12.0
STANDARD DUTY
7.0
4.0
8.5
12.0
HEAVY DUTY
8.0
4.5
10.0
12.0
We recommend that the subgrade soil be prepared as discussed in this report. The compacted subgrade
should be non - yielding when proof - rolled with a loaded ten -wheel truck, such as a water truck or dump
truck, prior to pavement construction. Subgrade preparation should extend a minimum of 2 feet laterally
beyond the edge of pavement or back of curbs. Pavement areas should be sloped and drainage gradients
maintained to carry all surface water off the site. A cross slope of 2 percent is recommended in asphalt
concrete pavement areas to provide good surface drainage and to reduce the potential for water to
penetrate into the pavement structure.
' Unless otherwise required by local jurisdictions, paving materials should comply with the materials
specifications presented in the Caltrans Standard Specifications Section. Class 2 aggregate should
comply with the materials requirements for Class 2 base found in Section 26.
The mineral aggregate shall be Type B, %2 -inch or '/ -inch maximum, medium grading, for the
wearing course and '/a -inch maximum, medium grading for the base course, and shall conform to the
requirements set forth in Section 39 of the Standard Specifications. The asphalt concrete materials
should comply with and be placed in accordance with the specifications presented in Section 39 of the
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Westem United States
12206026.doc
i
KA No. 122 -06026
Page No. 17
' Caltrans Standard Specifications, latest edition. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to a minimum of
96 percent of the maximum laboratory compacted (kneading compactor) unit weight.
i ASTM Test procedures and should be used to assess the percent relative compaction of soils, aggregate
base and asphalt concrete. Aggregate base and subbase, and the upper 12 inches of subgrade should be
compacted to at least 95 percent based on the Modified Proctor maximum compacted unit weight
i obtained in accordance with ASTM test method D1557 -00. Compacted aggregate base should also be
stable and unyielding when proof - rolled with a loaded ten -wheel water truck or dump truck.
1
1
i
ii
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
Portland Cement Concrete (Rigid) Pavement
A four -inch layer of compacted Class 2 aggregate base should be placed over the prepared subgrade prior
to placement of the concrete. With the addition of the aggregate base material, we recommend that a
combined modulus of subgrade/base reaction value of 150 pounds per cubic inch be used in design where
the rigid pavement is to be designed by a Structural Engineer.
Rigid pavement design procedures have been developed by various agencies, including AASHTO and the
Portland Cement Association (PCA). We have evaluated the required pavement sections based on the
procedure presented in " AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures 1993" traffic volumes and
the design parameters presented in Wal -Mart document "Geotechnical Investigation Specifications And
Report Requirements. "
RIGID PAVEMENT
Traffic/Pavement
Designation
Portland Cement
Concrete (inches)
Class 2 Aggregate
Base (inches)
Compacted
Subgrade (inches)
Standard Duty
5.5
4.0
12.0
Heavy Duty
6.5
4.0
12.0
Please note that the concrete modulus of rupture is based on flexural strength, not compressive strength,
and should be specified accordingly. A flexural strength of 550 psi should be specified accordingly. Our
experience is that the compressive strength will have to be on the order of 3,800 to 4,500 psi may be
required to achieve the required flexural strength. Prior to the construction of any rigid pavement, we
recommend that concrete mix histories with flexural strength data be obtained from the proposed
supplier. In the absence of flexural strength history, we recommend that laboratory trail batching and
testing be performed to allow for confirmation that the proposed concrete mix is capable of producing the
required flexural strength.
The concrete pavements should be designed with both longitudinal and transverse joints. The saw -cut or
formed joints should extend to a minimum depth on one -fourth of the pavement thickness plus '/< inch.
Joint spacing should not exceed 15 feet. Steel reinforcement of all rigid pavements is recommended to
keep the joints tight and to control temperature cracking.
Keyed joints are recommended at all construction joints to transfer loads across the joints. Joints should
be reinforced with a minimum of '/2 inch diameter by 48 -inch long deformed reinforcing steel placed at
mid -slab depth on 18 -inch center -to- center spacing to keep the joints tight for load transfer. The joints
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Westem United States
12206026.doc
KA No. 122 -06026
Page No. 18
' should be filled with a flexible sealer. Expansion joints should be constructed only where the pavements
abut structures or fixed objects.
' Smooth bar dowels, with a diameter of d/8, where d equals the thickness of the concrete, at least 14
inches in length, placed at a spacing of 12 inches on centers, may also be considered for construction
joints to transfer loads across the joints. The dowels should be centered across thejoints with one side of
the dowel lubricated to reduce the bond strength between the dowel and the concrete and fitted with a
plastic cap to allow for bar expansion.
1'
I
1
SITE COEFFICIENT
The site coefficient, per Table 16 -J, California Building Code, is based upon the site soil conditions. It is
our opinion that a site coefficient of soil type SD is appropriate for building design at this site. For
seismic design of the structures, in accordance with the seismic provisions of the California Building
Code, we recommend the following parameters:
,.:Seismic Item.;
value _
CBC'Refeience '
Zone Factor
0.4
Table 16I
Source Type
B
Table 16U
Coefficient Na
1.2
Table 16S
Coefficient Nv
1.5
Table 16T
Coefficient C.
0.53
Table 16Q
Coefficient C
0.94
Table 16R
SOIL CORROSIVITY
Excessive sulfate or chloride in either the soil or native water may result in an adverse reaction between
the cement in concrete and the soil. California Building Code has developed criteria for evaluation of
sulfate and chloride levels and how they relate to cement reactivity with soil and/or water. The soil
samples from the subject site were tested to have low sulfate and chloride concentrations. Therefore,
normal concrete mixes may be used for concentrations such as found in these soils.
Electrical resistivity testing of the soil indicates that the onsite soils may have a moderate potential for
metal loss from electrochemical corrosion process. A qualified corrosion engineer should be consulted
regarding the corrosion effects of the onsite soils on underground metal utilities.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Krazan & Associates should be retained to review your final foundation and grading plans, and
specifications. It has been our experience that this review provides an opportunity to detect
misinterpretation or misunderstandings with respect to the recommendations presented in this report prior
to the start of construction.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
12206026 doc
1
KA No. 122 -06026
' Page No. 19
Variations in soil types and conditions are possible and may be encountered during construction. In
' order to permit correlation between the soil data obtained during this investigation and the actual soil
conditions encountered during construction, a representative of Krazan & Associates, Inc. should be
present at the site during the earthwork and foundation construction activities to confirm that actual
' subsurface conditions are consistent with those contemplated in our development of this report. This will
allow us the opportunity to compare actual conditions exposed during construction with those
encountered in our investigation and to expedite supplemental recommendations if warranted by the
exposed conditions. This activity is an integral part of our service, as acceptance of earthwork
construction is dependent upon compaction testing and stability of the material. Krazan & Associates,
Inc. will not be responsible for grades or staking, since this is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor.
All earthworks should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report, or
as recommended by Krazan & Associates during construction. Krazan & Associates should be notified
' at least five working days prior to the start of construction and at least two days prior to when
observation and testing services are needed. Krazan & Associates, Inc. will not be responsible for grades
or staking, since this is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor.
The review of plans and specifications, and the observation and testing of earthwork related construction
activities by Krazan & Associates are important elements of our services if we are to remain in the role of
' Geotechnical Engineer -Of- Record. If Krazan & Associates is not retained for these services, the client
and the consultants providing these services will be assuming our responsibility for any potential claims
that may arise during or after construction.
LIMITATIONS
' Geotechnical Engineering is one of the newest divisions of Civil Engineering. This branch of Civil
Engineering is constantly improving as new technologies and understanding of earth sciences advance.
Although your site was analyzed using appropriate and current techniques and methods, undoubtedly
' . there will be substantial future improvements in this branch of engineering. In addition to advancements
in the field of Geotechnical Engineering, physical changes in the site due to site clearing or grading
activities, new agency regulations, or possible changes in the proposed structure or development after
issuance of this report will result in the need for professional review of this report. Updating or revisions
to the recommendations report, and possibly additional study of the site may be required at that time. In
light of this, the Owner should be aware that there is a practical limit to the usefulness of this report
without critical review. Although the time limit for this review is strictly arbitrary, it is suggested that
two years be considered a reasonable time for the usefulness of this report.
Foundation and earthwork construction is characterized by the presence of a calculated risk that soil and
groundwater conditions have been fully revealed by the original foundation investigation. This risk is
' derived from the practical necessity of basing interpretations and design conclusions on limited sampling
of the earth. The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that soil conditions
do not vary significantly from those disclosed during our field investigation. The logs of the exploratory
borings do not provide a warranty as to the conditions that may exist beneath the entire site. The extent
and nature of subsurface soil and groundwater variations may not become evident until construction
begins. It is possible that variations in soil conditions and depth to groundwater could exist beyond the
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
12206026.doc
' KA No. 122 -06026
Page No. 20
' points of exploration that may require additional studies, consultation, and possible design revisions. If
conditions are encountered in the field during construction, which differ from those described in this
report, our firm should be contacted immediately to provide any necessary revisions to these
' recommendations.
This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, which was conducted for
the purpose of evaluating the soil conditions in terms of foundation and retaining wall design, and
grading and paving of the site. This report does not include reporting of any services related to
environmental studies conducted to assessment the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic
materials in the soil, groundwater, or atmosphere, or the presence of wetlands.
'I
Any statements in this report or on any boring log regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or
conditions observed, are strictly for descriptive purposes and are not intended to convey professional
judgment regarding the presence of potential hazardous or toxics substances. Conversely, the absence of
statements in this report or on any boring log regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions
observed, does not constitute our rendering professional judgment regarding the absence of potentially
hazardous or toxics substances.
The conclusions of this report are based on the information provided regarding the proposed
construction. We emphasize that this report is valid for the project as described in the text of this report
and it should not be used for any other sites or projects. The geotechnical engineering information
presented herein is based upon our understanding of the proposed project and professional interpretation
of the data obtained in our studies of the site. It is not warranted that such information and interpretation
cannot be superseded by future geotechnical engineering developments. The Geotechnical Engineer
should be notified of any changes to the proposed project so the recommendations may be reviewed, and
re- evaluated. The work conducted through the course of this investigation, including the preparation of
this report, has been performed in accordance with the generally accepted standards of geotechnical
engineering practice, which existed in geographic area of the project at the time the report was written.
No other warranty, express or implied, is made. This report is issued with the understanding that the
owner chooses the risk they wish to bear by the expenditures involved with the construction alternatives
and scheduling that are chosen.
If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our
office at (909) 974 -4400.
Respectfully submitted,
IQ2AZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
' Project Engineer
RGE No. 2477
CJ /JMK:rm
1
No. 2477
V. 6/91107
1 I= :YJ
James M. Kellogg, PE
Project Manager
RCE No. 65092
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The western United States
12206026 doc
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
.tic-
f pq
A
�9-
IJ
71�� IT
I wf`w
f
n, �,x
.. X"
r
1x)
zv
UL
MWPI)
17
S
k l
inda
B,ri6l Gmur
1. 0
V<
1348-W1171
e-
S
7,
R
4z�l <ii
,are
N�l
A
)dwell
7 A,
A;
g�
sm 7095
Rj
'TApp
z
ri
f
.11
PROPOSED WAL-MART EXPANSION
Sralel
1:24,000
Date'
JAN 20 07
Kru7,mjL
TEMECULA, CA
RM
Ci
. SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
Offices Serving the Western United States
VICINITY MAP
F;TJ.Ct Na
122-06026
Fij �N.
1
■
■
it
p0to 79
Al
@
aw
0
of
A AC-1
0
0
O
Agc-
3
0
-0
0
0
0
0 Ur
War.
0 Q'l I EXUIM WAL-UW
gwmap.
FWPOSED OPA40M
c"mw-<w-cR
FFICIPOSEDEFAIMM
S
7
LEGEND
B-8 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION
CPT -5 APPROXIMATE CPT BORING LOCATION
AC-4 APPROXIMATE AC BORING LOCATION
PROPOSED WAL-MART EXPANSION
TEMECULA, CA
SITE PLAN
w—
ap
�Rfixvm
NTS
MAR 2007
Nkpmr(=an
,.Ov. by,
RM
Appmv� b,,
ci
SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
Offices Serving the Westem United States
To—j.ctNo
122-06026
Flg�. No.
2
T r AV09 4111 1 % AA-T T
I
APPENDIX A
FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
Field Investigation
Our field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program
consisted of drilling, logging and sampling a total of 8 soil borings and 2 CPT borings. The depths of
exploration ranged from about 20 feet to 60 feet below the existing site surface.
A member of our staff visually classified the soils in the field as the drilling progressed and recorded a
' continuous log of each boring. Visual classification of the soils encountered in our exploratory borings
was made in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487). A key for
the classification of the soil and the boring logs are presented in this Appendix.
' During drilling operations, penetration tests were performed at regular intervals to evaluate the soil
consistency and to obtain information regarding the engineering properties of the subsoils. Samples
' were obtained from the borings by driving either a 2.5 -inch inside diameter Modified California tube
sampler fitted with brass sleeves or a 2 -inch outside diameter, 1 -3/8 -inch inside diameter Standard
Penetration ( "split- spoon ") test (SPT) sampler without sleeves. Soil samples were retained for possible
laboratory testing. The samplers were driven up to a depth of 18 inches into the underlying soil using a
' 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler was recorded
for each 6 -inch penetration interval and the number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12
inches are shown as blows per foot on the boring logs.
The approximate locations of our borings and bulk samples are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. These
approximate locations were estimated in the field based on pacing and measuring from the limits of
existing site features.
Laboratory Investigation
The laboratory investigation was programmed to determine the physical and mechanical properties of
the soil underlying the site. The laboratory- testing program was formulated with emphasis on the
' evaluation of in -situ moisture, density, gradation, shear strength, consolidation potential, expansion
potential, maximum dry density, and R -value of the materials encountered. In addition, chemical tests
were performed to evaluate the soil /cement reactivity and corrosivity. Test results were used in our
engineering analysis with respect to site and building pad preparation through mass grading activities,
foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, pavement section design, evaluation of the
materials as possible fill materials and for possible exclusion of some soils from use at the structures as
fill or backfill.
Select laboratory test results are presented on the boring logs, with graphic or tabulated results of
' selected tests included in this Appendix. The laboratory test data, along with the field observations, was
used to prepare the final boring logs presented in the Appendix.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
12206026 doe
1
1
t
4SZKraza, & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART
COARSE - GRAINED SOILS
(more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size.)
Very Loose
Clean Gravels (Less than 5% fines)
Loose
GW
Well- graded gravels, gravel -sand
16-40
:a
GRAVELS
41 —65
Very Dense
mixtures, little or no fines
Cohesive Soils
GP
Poorly- graded gravels, gravel -sand
More than 50% .o
of coarse
o
6-10
mixtures, little or no fines
fraction larger
than No. 4
Gravels with fines More than 12% fines
21 —40
Hard
> 40
sieve size
4.76 to 2.00
GM
Silty gravels, gravel- sand -silt mixtures
2.00 to 0.042
Fine - grained
GC
Clayey gravels, gravel- sand -clay
Silt and Clay
Below No. 200
Below 0.074
mixtures
Clean Sands Less than 5% fines
SW
Well- graded sands, gravelly sands,
little or no fines
SANDS
Sp
Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands,
50 %, or more
of coarse
little or no fines
fraction smaller
than No. 4
Sands with fines More than 12 %, fines
sieve size
SM
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures
SC
Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures
FINE - GRAINED SOILS
(50% or more of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size.)
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock
SILTS
flour, silty of clayey fine sands or clayey
AND
sifts with slight plasticity
Inorganic clays of low to medium
CLAYS
Liquid limit
V
plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays,
less than
silty clays, lean clays
50%
Organic silts and organic silty clays of
low plasticity
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
MH
diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils,
SILTS
elastic silts
AND
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat
CLAYS
Liquid limit
clays
50%
or greater
OH
Organic clays of medium to high
plasticity, organic slits
HIGHLY
ORGANIC
PT
Peat and other highly organic soils
SOILS
CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION
Description Blows per Foot
Granular Soils
Very Loose
< 5
Loose
5-15
Medium Dense
16-40
Dense
41 —65
Very Dense
> 65
Cohesive Soils
Very Soft
< 3
Soft
3-5
Firm
6-10
Stiff
11 —20
Very Stiff
21 —40
Hard
> 40
GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION
Grain Type
Standard Sieve Size
Grain Size in
Millimeters
Boulders
Above 12 inches
Above 305
Cobbles
12 to 13 inches
305 to 76.2
Gravel
3 inches to No. 4
76.2 to 4.76
Coarse - grained
3 to 3/a inches
76.2 to 19.1
Fine - grained
3/a inches to No. 4
19.1 to 4.76
Sand
No. 4 to No. 200
4.76 to 0.074
Coarse - grained
No. 4 to No. 10
4.76 to 2.00
Medium - grained
No. 10 to No. 40
2.00 to 0.042
Fine - grained
No. 40 to No. 200
0.042 to 0.074
Silt and Clay
Below No. 200
Below 0.074
PLASTICITY CHART
60
.`. 50
CH
W 40
A LINE:
= 30 PI = 0.73 LL -20)
CL MH &OH
F 20
H
1a
a "M� ML &OL
00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
LIQUID LIMIT (LL) I %)
1
1
1
t
1
Log of Drill Hole B -1
Project: Proposed Wal -Mart Expansion Project No: 122 -06026
Client: Nasland Engineering Figure No.: A -1
Location: Temecula, CA Logged By: JR
Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
a
Water Content I %)
T
c
Description
a
O
E
E
d
�
o
5
�
m
10 20 30 40
N
0
v)
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND (SM),
brown /gray, damp, loose
2
Same as above, dense w /trace organics, dark gray,
_
124.3
8.5
38
moist
4
Same as above, very dense
127.2
9.3
60
6
8
10
—
-;
SILTY SAND /SAND (SM /SP),
2 g
18
gray, moist, medium dense
12
'?
14
Same as above, loose, medium dense
6.3
15
16
Same as above, w /trace clay
18``
20
End of Borehole
22
Total Depth = 20'
No groundwater was encountered during drilling
Hale backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
24
12/18/06
26
28
30
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Date: 12/18/06
Drill Rig: CME 55 Krazan and Associates Hole Size: 8"
Driller: TS Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
i
1
1-
Log of Drill Hole B -2
Project: Proposed Wal -Mart Expansion project No: 122 -06026
Client: Nasland Engineering Figure No.: A -2
Location: Temecula, CA Logged By: JR
Depth to Water> 30' Initial: 34' At Completion: 30'
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
c
°
Water Content ( %)
Description
y
m
3
o
o
m
10 20 _30 40
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND W/TRA CE CLAY (SM),
light brown, damp, loose
"
2
-
SILTY SAND W/TRACE CLAY (SM),
122.9
7.4
33
brown /gray, moist, dense
4
6
e'
127.6
8.9
46
Same as above, w /trace organics',
8
10
-
SILTY SAND (SM),
9.1
20
gray, moist, medium dense
12
14
-
-
.:' -:
SAND W/TRACE SILTY SAND (SP),
2.6
13
16
damp, loose
-
Same as above, no organics
18
>
20
e
SILTY SAND /SANDY SILT W ?RACE
22.5
4
CLAY /ORGANICS (SM /ML),
dark gray, very moist, very loose
22
24
e
SAND WITRACE SILT (SP),
4.5
20
26
gray, slightly moist, medium dense
28
30
Same as above, loose to medium dense, very wet
- - -
;:
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: CME 55
Driller: TS
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 12/13/06
Hole Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 2
I
I
I
[l
[1
I.
1'
1
Log of Drill Hole B -2
Project: Proposed Wal -Mart Expansion Project No: 122 -06026
Client: Nasland Engineering Figure No.: A -2
Location: Temecula, CA Logged By: JR
Depth to Water> 30' Initial: 34' At Completion: 30'
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
c
°
Water Content I %)
D
Description
6
d
m
Q
i.
U)
Q
m
10 20 30 40
SILTY SAND /SAND (SM /SP),
26.3
12
gray, wet, loose to medium dense
32
34
SAND (SP),
19.8
12
36
gray, wet, loose to medium dense
38
40
Same as above, loose
17.6
9
42
..
za'
44
Same as above,
=
15.9
8
46
_
48
50
End of Borehole
52
Total Depth = 50'
Groundwater was encountered during drilling at 30'
Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
54
12/13/06
56
58
60
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: CME 55
Driller: TS
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 12/13106
Hole Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 2 of 2
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Date:
12/18/06
Log of Drill Hole B -3
'
Project: Proposed Wal -Mart Expansion Project No: 122 -06026
8"
Client: Nasland Engineering Figure No.: A -3
'
Location: Temecula, CA Logged By: JR
Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion:
'
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
U
8
Water Content ( %)
Description
'
n
E
�
o
�
m
10 20 30 40
'
�
o
T
�
o
�
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND (SM),
t
brown /gray, damp, loose
2
—.
SILTY SAND W/TRACE ORGANICS (SM),
124.8
8.6
32
'
brown, moist, dense
4
Same as above, very dense, decrease in organics
°.
130.4
8.9
66
1'
6-
8
!'
SILTY SAND /SAND (SM /SP),
15.7
14
10
brown, moist, loose to medium dense
12
<,
14
Same as above, loose
4.9
8
16
'
18
i.
20
�_
22
End of Borehole
= 20'
- -
Total Depth
No groundwater was encountered during drilling
-
Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
'
24
12/18/06
26
28
-- - - -- ---- - - - -
30
- ---- - - -- -- - - -- -- - --
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Date:
12/18/06
Drill Rig: CME 55
Krazan and Associates
Hole Size:
8"
Driller: TS Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
I
1
1
1 ,
1
1
1
1
1
Log of Drill Hole B-4
Project: Proposed Wal -Mart Expansion Project No: 122 -06026
Client: Nasland Engineering Figure No.: A -4
Location: Temecula, CA Logged By: JR
Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
U
n
D
Water Content ( %)
�
Description
a
E
d
N
m
10 20 30 40
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND ISM),
brown, damp, loose
2
Same as above, very dense, trace organics, moist
_.
125.7
8.2
54
4
6
129.2
6.6
67
8
10 -
SILTY SAND /SAND (SM /SP),
3.7
12
dark gray, moist, loose
_
12
n
SILTY SAND (SM),
3.6
9
18
gray, moist, loose
18
20
End of Borehole
--
22
Total Depth = 20'
--- -� - - -- - - - - - -.
No groundwater was encountered during drilling
24
Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
12/18/06
-
26
28
— -
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: CME 55
Driller: TS
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 12/18/06
Hole Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
I
I
1
1
I
1
Log of Drill Hole B -5
Project: Proposed Wal -Mart Expansion Project No: 122 -06026
Client: Nasland Engineering Figure No.: A -5
Location: Temecula, CA Logged By: JR
Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
U
a
o
Water Content ( %)
v
Description
N
a
E
3
o
co
20
m
10 30 40
Ground Surface
'
SILTY SAND (SM),
brown, damp, loose
2
Same as above, very dense, trace organics, moist,
-
132.7
7.6
55
dark gray
4
6
128.4
7.4
53
8
10
_
-;
SILTY SAND /SAND (SM /SP),
2.7
8
gray, damp, loose
12
--
14
SILTY SAND /SANDY SILT W/TRACE CLAY
21.7
7
16
(SM /ML),
dark gray, very moist, loose
18
20
End of Borehole
22
Total Depth = 20'
No groundwater was encountered during drilling
4
24--
Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
12/18/06
_
26
28
30
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: CME 55
Driller: TS
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 12/18/06
Hole Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Log of Drill Hole B -6
'
Project: Proposed Wal -Mart Expansion Project No: 122 -06026
Drill Rig: CME 55
Client: Nasland Engineering Figure No.: A -6
Hole Size:
Location: Temecula, CA Logged By: JR
Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion:
'
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
U
a
Water Content ( %)
Description
'
n
O
E
�
o
F
V'
m
10 20 30 40
o
rn
'
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND (SM),
brown, damp, loose
2
SILTY SAND W/TRACE ORGANICS (SM),
126.2
5.3
70
-
dark gray, moist, very dense
-
4
126.3
7.5
66
6
-- - - --
'
8
-
10;x,
SILTY SAND /SAND (SM /SP),
3 7
17
gray, slightly moist, loose to medium dense
t4
'
Same as above, loose
4.2
8
=
16
_
'
18`
Same as above, w /trace clay
20
'
End of Borehole
------- - - --- -- -
_
22
Total Depth = 20'
No groundwater was encountered during drilling
-
Hole backflled with soil cuttings and tamped
-
'
24
12/18/06
26
30
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Date:
12/18/06
Drill Rig: CME 55
Krazan and Associates
Hole Size:
8"
Driller: TS Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
I
1
1'
t'
1_
1
Log of Drill Hole B -7
Project: Proposed Wal -Mart Expansion Project No: 122 -06026
Client: Nasland Engineering Figure No.: A -7
Location: Temecula, CA Logged By: JR
Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
c
a
Water Content ( %)
D
�
Description
x
N
°
a°
Q
E
U)
it
o
O
2
>°
m
10 20 30 40
Ground Surface
SILTY SAND (SM),
2
dark gray, moist, very dense
e
122,5
12.5
51
4
--- --'- -- - -- - - - -
124.3
10.6
57
8
10
SILTY SAND/SAND(SM /SP),
'
gray, slightly moist, loose
4.3
10
12
Ts
14
�>
Same as above, loose
3.3
8
16
18
20
'Y
End of Borehole
22-
Total Depth = 20'
-
No groundwater was encountered during drilling
24
Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped
-
12/18/06
26
28
-- -- - —
30
- --- - — - -=- - - - -
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: CME 55
Driller: TS
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 12/18/06
Hole Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
I
1
1
[7
n
Log of Drill Hole B -8
Project: Proposed Wal -Mart Expansion Project No: 122 -06026
Client: Nasland Engineering Figure No.: A -8
Location: Temecula, CA Logged By: JR
Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
U
Water Content I %)
x
Description
2
L
7
o
0
�°
Ei
10 20 30 40
Ground Surface
AC 3" / 4.5" AB
SILTY SAND (SM),
2
brown, moist, dense
-
120.8
14.7
43
4
Same as above, very dense, dark gray w /trace
p
6
organics
124.9
11.3
59
8
10
._
'
SILTY SAND /SAND (SM /SP),
10.6
8
gray, moist, loose
14
:•
- ---- - - - - - .
16
- -
2.3
10
18
Same as above, w /trace clay
End of Borehole
22
Total Depth = 20'
-- - - - -- - -- -- - --
No groundwater was encountered during drilling
24
Hole backfllled with soil cuttings and tamped
- -
12/18/06
26
28
30
- -
Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Drill Rig: CME 55
Driller: TS
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 12/18/06
Hole Size: 8"
Elevation: See Site Plan
Sheet: 1 of 1
j(V Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT Data
Date: 01 /Feb /2007
T Office: (714) 901 -7270
30 ton rig
Test ID: CPT -1
1
E Fax: (714) 901 -7289
skehoe @msn.com
Project: Temecula
Customer: Krazan & Assoc.
Job Site: Walmart Expansion
0
Or
15
30
n
m
O
45
60
Tip Stress COR Sleeve Stress
(tsf) 600 0 (tsf) 7
75 '
Maximum depth: 60.07 (ft)
Pore Pressure Ratio COR SBT FR
1 (tsf) 2 0 (%) 8 2 (Rob. 1986) 12
O
sans
Silly Sand
Sand
Silty Sand
15
Sand -' 30
sand'
45
WSINNIRM
SaM
Gr,Sa W
60
75
Ted lb OPT.1
t
n
m
O
K Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT Data
Date: 01 /Feb /2007
Off ice: (714) 901 -7270
VE
30 ton rig
Test ID: CPT -2
1
Fax: (714) 901 -7289
skehoe @msn.com
Pro'ect: Temecula
Customer: Krazan & Assoc.
Job Site: Walmart Expansion
I
15
30
45
60
Tip Stress COR Sleeve Stress
(tsf) 600 0 (tsf) 7
75 '
Maximum depth: 60.12 (h)
Pore Pressure Ratio COR SBT FR
1 (tst) 2 0 (%) 8 2 (Rob.1986) 12
��0
Santl. I
Sand'
Sand Mt.
HI
Sand MM
3�- Sllt�pp'
s«i i_•Tu 15
Sand Mix
&n .
Sa11d .'
;sar Y'sn'ijAh 30
Sand
sand
45
60
75
Test In CPT 2
1
1
1
'I
1
1
Shear Strength Diagram (Direct Shear)
ASTM D - 30801 AASHTO T - 236
Project Number
Boring No.
& De th
Soil Type
Date
122 -06026
B -1 0
S-6'
(SM ), Silty
Sand w/ Trace Clay
12/22/06
3.00
2.00
m
Y
N
1.0(
0.0C
0.0
1.0 2.0
Normal Load, Ksf
3.0
Krazan Testing Laboratory
1
1
Shear Strength Diagram (Direct Shear)
ASTM D - 3080 / AASHTO T - 236
Project Number
Boring No. & De th
Soil Type
Date
122 -06026
B -2 2' -3'
(SM ), Silty Sand w/ Trace Clay
12/22/06
Cohesion: 0.1 Ksf
Angle of Internal Friction: 33 °
3.00
2.00
N
Y
c
N
L
41
1.00
0.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Normal Load, Ksf
Krazan Testing Laboratory
I
[l
I
Consolidation Test
Proiect No
Boring No. & Depth
Date
Soil Classification
122 -06026
B -1 2' -3'
12122/06
SM , Silty Sand
Load In Kips per Square Foot
0.1 1 10 100
0.00
% Consolidation @ 2Ksf: 1.1 %
I7
1.00
-4
2.00
3.00
4.00
0
m
9
N
0 5.00
U
c
i
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
LL
10.00
Krazan Testing Laboratory
[J
[]
Consolidation Test
Project No
Borin No. & Depth
Date
Soil Classification
122 -06026
B -2 5' -6'
12/22/06
1 (SM , Silt Sand w/ Trace Clay
Load in Kips per Square Foot
0.1 1 10 100
0.00
% Consolidation @ 2Ksf: 0.8%
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
0
0
g
N
0 5.00
U
c
o.
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Grain Size Analysis
Sieve Openings in Inches U.S Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer
3 1 1/2 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
1 -1/2 3/4 3l8
100.0
900
800
700
(7
Z
600
�
W
Q
a
500
F
Z
W
40.0 K
W
a
300
20.0
100
00
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size In Millimeters
Gravel
Sand
Silt or Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
(Unified Soils Classification)
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Project Name Walmart - Temecula
Project Number 122 -06026
Soil Classification (SM), Silty Sand w/ Trace Clay
Sample Number B -2 @ 5'-6'
Project Name Walmart - Temecula
Project Number 122 -06026
Soil Classification (SM), Silty Sand w/ Trace Clay
Sample Number B -2 @ 5'-6'
S = 1111111110 1111111110 M illy = -M m M illy
Grain Size Analysis
Sieve Openings in Inches U S Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer
3 1 12 44 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
1 -12 314 3/8
1000
-.900
80.0
70.0
Z
2
60.0 N
f/1
a
a
so a
�
Z
w
40.0 0:
w
a
30.0
20.0
100
10.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0 001
Grain Size In Millimeters
Gravel
Sand
Silt or Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
(Unified Soils Classification)
Project Name Waimart - Temecula
Project Number 122 -06026
Soil Classification (SP), Sand
Sample Number B -2 @ 15' -16'
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Grain Size Analysis
Sieve Openings in Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer
3 1 1/2 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
1 -1/2 314 3/8
1000
90.0
80.0
70.0
0
Z
60.0
N
W
Q
IL
so o F
Z
U1
40.0 �
w
IL
30.0
20.0
0.0
00
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size in Millimeters
Gravel
Sand
Silt or Clay
Coarse
Flne
Coarse
Medium
Fine
(Unified Soils Classification)
Project Name Walmart - Temecula
Project Number 122 -06026
Soil Classification (SM -ML), Silty Sand - Sandy Silt w/ Clay
Sample Number B -2 @ 20' -21'
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Grain Size Analysis
Sieve Openings in Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer
3 1 112 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
1 -1/2 3/4 3/8
100.0
Soil Classification
(SP), Sand
Sample Number
B -2 @ 25 -26'
90.0
800
70.0
Z
60.0
y
N
Q
a
50,0
F
z
W
U
40.0 W
W
a
300
20.0
100
LJO.O
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0 001
Grain Size In Millimeters
Gravel
Sand
Silt or Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
(Unified Soils Classification)
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Project Name
Walmart - Temecula
Project Number
122 -06026
Soil Classification
(SP), Sand
Sample Number
B -2 @ 25 -26'
Project Name
Walmart - Temecula
Project Number
122 -06026
Soil Classification
(SP), Sand
Sample Number
B -2 @ 25 -26'
I» _
Grain Size Analysis
Sieve Openings in Inches U.S Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer
3 1 1/2 #4 #6 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
1 -1/2 3/4 318
1000
90.0
80.0
700
Z
60.0 to
f/1
Q
a
500
F
Z
W
40.0 K
W
a
300
20.0
100
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0 001
Grain Size in Millimeters
Gravel
Sand
Silt or Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
(Unified Soils Classification)
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Project Name Walmart - Temecula
Project Number 122 -06026
Soil Classification (SM -SP), Silty Sand - Sand
Sample Number B -2 @ 30' -31'
Project Name Walmart - Temecula
Project Number 122 -06026
Soil Classification (SM -SP), Silty Sand - Sand
Sample Number B -2 @ 30' -31'
Mon 1=1 _� f•
Grain Size Analysis
Sieve Openings in Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer
3 1 112 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
1 -1/2 3/4 318
1000
Soil Classification
(SP), Sand
Sample Number
B -2 @ 35' -36'
90.0
80.0
70.0
Z
60.0 to
y
a
a
500
r,,
Z
W
40.0 K
W
a
30.0
200
10.0
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 001 0.001
Grain Size in Millimeters
Gravel
Sand
Silt or Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
(Unified Soils Classification)
Project Name
Walmart - Temecula
Project Number
122 -06026
Soil Classification
(SP), Sand
Sample Number
B -2 @ 35' -36'
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Grain Size Analysis
Sieve Openings in Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer
3 1 tY2 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
1 -1/2 314 3/8
1000
122 -06026
Soil Classification
(SP), Sand
Sample Number
B -2 @ 40' -41'
900
80.0
70.0
Z
60.0 W
to
a
a
so.o
r
Z
w
400 it
w
a
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0 001
Grain Size in Millimeters
Gravel
Sand
Silt or Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
(Unified Soils Classification)
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Project Name
Walmart - Temecula
Project Number
122 -06026
Soil Classification
(SP), Sand
Sample Number
B -2 @ 40' -41'
Project Name
Walmart - Temecula
Project Number
122 -06026
Soil Classification
(SP), Sand
Sample Number
B -2 @ 40' -41'
Grain Size Analysis
Sieve Openings in Inches U.S Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer
3 1 112 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
1 -1/2 3/4 3/8
100.0
122 -06026
Soil Classification
(SP), Sand
Sample Number
B -2 @ 45'46'
900
80.0
700
Z
z
60.0 y
U)
Q
a
50.0
I-
z
w
40.0 W
w
a
30.0
20.0
100
0.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0 001
Grain Size in Millimeters
Gravel
Sand
Silt or Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
(Unified Solis Classification)
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Project Name
Walmart - Temecula
Project Number
122 -06026
Soil Classification
(SP), Sand
Sample Number
B -2 @ 45'46'
Project Name
Walmart - Temecula
Project Number
122 -06026
Soil Classification
(SP), Sand
Sample Number
B -2 @ 45'46'
1
1
1
1
1
Expansion Index Test
ASTM D - 48291 UBC Std. 18 -2
Project Number
Project Name
Date
Sample location/ Depth
Sample Number
Soil Classification
122 -06026
Walmart - Temecula
12/22/06
B -2 @ 0 -3'
1
(SM), Silty Sand w/ Trace Clay
Trial #
1
2
3
Weight of Soil & Mold, gms
609.6
24 hrs
Dial —Reading
Weight of Mold, gms
185.0
—
--
Weight of Soil, gms
424.6
Wet Density, Lbs /cu.ft.
128.1
Weight of Moisture Sample (Wet), gms
300.0
Weight of Moisture Sample D ms
278.9
Moisture Content, %
7.6
Dry Density, Lbs /cu.ft.
119.0
Specific Gravity of Soil
2.7
Degree of Saturation, %
49.2
Time
Inital
30 min
1 hr
6hrs
12 hrs
24 hrs
Dial —Reading
--
—
—
--
--
0.008
Expansion Index measured
Expansion Index 50
Expansion Index =
8
7.7
Expansion Potential Table
Exp. Index
Potential Exp.
0-20
Very Low
21-50
Low
51 -90
Medium
91-130
High
>130
Very High
Krazan Testina Laboratory
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Expansion Index Test
ASTM D - 4829/ UBC Std. 18 -2
Project Number
Project Name
Date
Sample location/ Depth
Sample Number
Soil Classification
122 -06026
Walmart - Temecula
12/22/06
Composite @ 2' -3'
2
(SM), Silty Sand w/ Trace Clay
Trial #
1
2
3
Weight of Soil & Mold, gms
605.7
24 hrs
Dial Reading
Weight of Mold, gms
185.0
I --
I --
Weight of Soil, gms
420.7
Wet Density, Lbs /cu.ft.
126.9
Weight of Moisture Sample (Wet), gms
300.0
Weight of Moisture Sample D ms
278.1
Moisture Content, %
7.9
Dry Density, Lbs /cu.ft.
117.6
Specific Gravity of Soil
2.7
Degree of Saturation, %
1 49.2
Time
Inital
1 30 min
1 1 hr
I 6hrs
12 hrs
24 hrs
Dial Reading
--
I --
I --
I --
--
0.018
Expansion Index measured
Expansion Index so
Expansion Index =
I
= 18
= 17.6
Expansion Potential Table
Exp. Index
Potential Exp.
0-20
Very Low
21-50
Low
51-90
Medium
91 -130
High
>130
Very High
Krazan Testina Laboratory
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
R - VALUE TEST
ASTM D - 2844 / CAL 301
Project Number 122-06026
Project Name Walmart - Temecula
Date 12122/06
Sample Location /Curve Number RV# 1 (8-2 @ 0 -3')
Soil Classification (SM), Silty Sand w/ Trace Clay
TEST
A
B
C
Percent Moisture @ Compaction, %
13.0
12.1
14.0
6ry Density, Ibm /cu.ft.
127.2
126.2
127.8
Exudation Pressure psi
280
610
150
Expansion Pressure, Dial Reading)
0
0
0
Expansion Pressure, psf
0
0
0
Resistance Value R
33
40
23
R Value at 300 PSI Exudation Pressure
34
R Value by Expansion Pressure (TI =): 5
0
Krazan Testing Laboratory
IIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIII
IIIINIIII
MEMO
I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII_I&IN
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIN►
IIII
I
I
IIIIIIIIIIINIIII
11
Krazan Testing Laboratory
1
1
Project Number
Project Name
Date
Sample location
Sample /Curve Number
Soil Classification
Test Method
Laboratory Compaction Curve
ASTM - D15571 D698
: 122 -06026
: Walmart - Temecula
: 12/22/06
: B -2 @ 0-3'
:1
(SM), Silty Sand w/ Trace Clay
1557 A
!i!Y!!!Y!!� E
!!!!!!Y!!!1 Content:
timum Moisture !!!ie!!lt711 % _
!E!�!�!�l�i�l�i�i��l�i�ii
•
Krazan Testing Laboratory
1
2
3
Weight of Moist Specimen 8 Mold, gm
4005.7
4098.5
4079.9
Weight of Compaction Mold, gm
1945.0
1945.0
1945.0
Weight of Moist Specimen, gm
2060.7
2153.5
2134.9
Volume of mold, cu. ft.
0.0333
0.0333
0.0333
Wet Density, Ibs /cu.ft.
136.4
142.6
141.3
Weight of Wet Moisture Sample, gm
200.0
200.0
200.0
Weight of D Moisture Sample, gm
187.8
184.5
181.0
Moisture Content, %
6.5%
8.4%
10.5%
Dry Density, Ibs /cu.ft.
128.1
131.5
127.9
!i!Y!!!Y!!� E
!!!!!!Y!!!1 Content:
timum Moisture !!!ie!!lt711 % _
!E!�!�!�l�i�l�i�i��l�i�ii
•
Krazan Testing Laboratory
11
1
1
1
,I
Enviro - Chem, Inc.
1299 E L exingron Avenue, Pomona, CA 91766 Tel (909) 590 -505 Fax (909) 590 -5907
LABORATORY REPORT
CUSTOMER: Krazan & Associates, Inc.
4221 Brickell St.
Ontario, CA 91761
Tel(909)974 -4400 Fax(909)974 -4022
PROJECT: Temecula
MATRIX:SOIL DATE RECEIVED:12 /21/06
SAMPLING DATE:12 /13/06 DATE ANALYZED:12 /21 -26/06
REPORT TO:MR. CLARENCE JIANG DATE REPORTED:12 /26/06
SAMPLE I.D.: 122- 06026/B- 200 -3' LAB I.D.: 061221 -98
PARAMETER SAMPLE RESULT UNIT PQL DF METHOD
RESISTIVITY
2220
OHMS -CM
100000*
CALTRANS
SULFATE
340
MG /KG
10
1 EPA 9038
CHLORIDE
389
MG /KG
10
1 EPA 9253
pH
8.27
off /Unit
- EPA 9045C
COMMENTS
DF = DILUTION FACTOR
PQL = PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT
ACTUAL DETECTION LIMIT = DF X PQL
MG /KG = MILLIGRAM PER KILOGRAM = PPM
OHMS -CM = OHMS - CENTIMETER
RESISTIVITY = 1 /CONDUCTIVITY
* = HIGH LIMIT
DATA REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY
' CAL -DHS ELAP CERTIFICATE No.:
1555
gr xipuaddV
APPENDIX B
EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
' GENERAL
Appendix B
Page B. 1
' When the text of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the
recommendations in the report have precedence.
' SCOPE OF WORK: These specifications and applicable plans pertain to and include all earthwork
associated with the site rough grading, including, but not limited to, the furnishing of all labor, tools and
equipment necessary for site clearing and grubbing, stripping, preparation of foundation materials for
' receiving fill, excavation, processing, placement and compaction of fill and backfill materials to the
lines and grades shown on the project grading plans and disposal of excess materials.
' PERFORMANCE: The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all
earthworks in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work shall be inspected and
tested by a representative of Krazan and Associates, Incorporated, hereinafter referred to as the
Geotechnical Engineer and /or Testing Agency. Attainment of design grades, when achieved, shall be
' certified by the project Civil Engineer. Both the Geotechnical Engineer and the Civil Engineer are the
Owner's representatives. If the Contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements
embodied in this document and on the applicable plans, he shall make the necessary adjustments until
all work is deemed satisfactory as determined by both the Geotechnical Engineer and the Civil
Engineer. No deviation from these specifications shall be made except upon written approval of the
Geotechnical Engineer, Civil Engineer, or project Architect.
No earthwork shall be performed without the physical presence or approval of the Geotechnical
' Engineer. The Contractor shall notify the Geotechnical Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the
commencement of any aspect of the site earthwork.
' The Contractor agrees that he shall assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions
during the course of construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this
requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and that the
Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and all
' . liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability
arising from the sole negligence of the Owner or the Engineers.
' TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS: All compacted materials shall be densified to the minimum
relative compaction of 95 percent. Soil moisture content requirements presented in the Geotechnical
' Engineer's report shall also be complied with. The maximum laboratory compacted dry unit weight of
each soil placed as fill shall be determined in accordance with ASTM test method D1557 -00 (Modified
Proctor). The optimum moisture content shall also be determined in accordance with this test method.
The terms "relative compaction" and "compaction" are defined as the in -place dry density of the
compacted soil divided by the laboratory compacted maximum dry density as determined by ASTM
Test Method D1557 -00, expressed as a percentage as specified in the technical portion of the
Geotechnical Engineer's report. The location and frequency of field density tests shall be as determined
' Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Westem United States
12206026.doc
I
' Appendix B
Page B. 2
by the Geotechnical Engineer. The results of these tests and compliance with these specifications shall
be the basis upon which the Geotechnical Engineer will judge satisfactory completion of work.
' SOILS AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS: The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site
and to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in
the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report.
1 The Contractor shall make his own interpretation of the data contained in the Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation report and the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability under the Contract for any loss
' sustained as a result of any variance between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report and
the actual conditions encountered during the progress of the work.
DUST CONTROL: The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any
' dust nuisance on or about the site or the borrow area, or off -site if caused by the Contractor's operation
either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor
leaves the site. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including court costs of codefendants, for all
' claims related to dust or wind -blown materials attributable to his work.
SITE PREPARATION
' Site preparation shall consist of site clearing and grubbing, over - excavation of the building pad areas,
preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill, construction of engineered fill including the
placement of non - expansive fill where recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer.
CLEARING AND GRUBBING: The Contractor shall accept the site in this present condition and
shall demolish and/or remove from the area of designated project earthwork all structures, both surface
' and subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter and all other matter determined by the
Geotechnical Engineer to be deleterious. Site stripping to remove organic materials and organic -laden
' soils in landscaped areas shall extend to a minimum depth of 2 inches or until all organic -laden soil with
organic matter in excess of 3 percent of the soils by volume are removed. Such materials shall become
the property of the Contractor and shall be removed from the site.
' Tree root systems in proposed building areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet and to
such an extent that would permit removal of all roots greater than 1 inch in diameter. Tree roots
removed in parking areas may be limited to the upper 1' /z feet of the ground surface. Backfill of tree
' root excavation should not be permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the
Geotechnical Engineer is present for the proper control of backfill placement and compaction. Burning
in areas that are to receive fill materials shall not be permitted.
Excavations required to achieve design grades, depressions, soft or pliant areas, or areas disturbed by
demolition activities extending below planned finished subgrade levels should be excavated down to
' firm, undisturbed soil and backfilled with engineered fill. The resulting excavations should be backfilled
with engineered fill.
' EXCAVATION: Following clearing and grubbing operations, the Wal -Mart building pad area shall be
' over- excavated to a depth of at least four feet below existing grades or three feet below the planned
foundation bottom levels, whichever is deeper, and the remaining areas of the building and adjoining
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Sernng The western United States
12206026 doc
Appendix B
Page B.3
' exterior concrete flatwork or pavements at the building perimeter shall be over - excavated to a depth of
at least two feet below existing grade. The areas of over - excavation and recompaction beneath footings
and slabs shall extend out laterally a minimum of ten feet beyond the perimeter of these elements.
tAll excavation shall be accomplished to the tolerance normally defined by the Civil Engineer as shown
on the project grading plans. All over - excavation below the grades specified shall be backfrlled at the
' Contractor's expense and shall be compacted in accordance with the applicable TECHNICAL
REQUIREMENTS.
SUBGRADE PREPARATION: Surfaces to receive engineered fill or to support structures directly,
' shall be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted in
accordance with the TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS, above.
' Loose soil areas and/or areas of disturbed soil shall be should be excavated down to firm, undisturbed
soil, moisture - conditioned as necessary and backfilled with engineered fill. All ruts, hummocks, or
other uneven surface features shall be removed by surface grading prior to placement of any fill
' materials. All areas that are to receive fill materials shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer
prior to the placement of any of the fill material.
FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL: No material shall be moved or compacted without the
presence of the Geotechnical Engineer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for
construction of site fills, with the limitations of their use presented in the Geotechnical Engineer's
' report, provided the Geotechnical Engineer gives prior approval. All materials utilized for constructing
site fills shall be free from vegetation or other deleterious matter as determined by the Geotechnical
Engineer, and shall comply with the requirements for non - expansive fill, aggregate base or aggregate
subbase as applicable for its proposed used on the site as presented in the Geotechnical Engineer's
report.
' PLACEMENT, SPREADING AND COMPACTION: The placement and spreading of approved fill
materials and the processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials shall be the
responsibility of the Contractor. Fill materials should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, each
' not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Due to equipment limitations, thinner lifts may be
necessary to achieve the recommended level of compaction. Compaction of fill materials by flooding,
ponding, or jetting shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the
' Geotechnical Engineer. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the
required dry density (relative compaction) or if soil conditions are not stable. The compacted subgrade
in pavement areas should be non - yielding when proof - rolled with a loaded ten -wheel truck, such as a
water truck or dump truck, prior to pavement construction.
' Both cut and fill shall be surface- compacted to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer prior to
final acceptance.
' SEASONAL LIMITS: No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen or thawing,
or during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill
' operations shall not be resumed until the Geotechnical Engineer indicates that the moisture content and
density of previously placed fill is as specified.
' Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
12206026.doc
D xipuaddV
' APPENDIX C
' PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS
' 1. DEFINITIONS - The term "pavement" shall include asphalt concrete surfacing, untreated aggregate
base, and aggregate subbase. The term "subgrade" is that portion of the area on which surfacing, base,
' or subbase is to be placed.
The term "Standard Specifications ": hereinafter referred to is the January 1999 Standard Specifications
' of the State of California, Department of Transportation, and the "Materials Manual' is the Materials
Manual of Testing and Control Procedures, State of California, Department of Public Works, Division
of Highways. The term "relative compaction" refers to the field density expressed as a percentage of
' the maximum laboratory density as defined in the ASTM D1557 -00.
2. SCOPE OF WORK - This portion of the work shall include all labor, materials, tools, and
' equipment necessary for, and reasonably incidental to the completion of the pavement shown on the
plans and as herein specified, except work specifically notes as "Work Not Included."
3. PREPARATION OF THE SUBGRADE - The Contractor shall prepare the surface of the various
subgrades receiving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and dimensions given on the
plans. The upper 12 inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section shall be compacted to a
minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. The finished subgrades shall be tested and approved by
the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of additional pavement courses.
4. UNTREATED AGGREGATE BASE - The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted
' on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The
aggregate base material shall conform to the requirements of Section 26 of the Standard Specifications
for Class 2 material, %- inches maximum size. The aggregate base material shall be compacted to a
' minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. The aggregate base material shall be spread and
compacted in accordance with Section 26 of the Standard Specifications. The aggregate base material
shall be spread in layers not exceeding 6 inches and each layer of aggregate material course shall be
tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers.
5. AGGREGATE SUBBASE - The aggregate subbase shall be spread and compacted on the prepared
subgrade in confomilty with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate
' subbase material shall conform to the requirements of Section 25 of the Standard Specifications for
Class II material. The aggregate subbase material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction
' of 95 percent, and it shall be spread and compacted in accordance with Section 25 of the Standard
Specifications. Each layer of aggregate subbase shall be tested and approved by the Geotechnical
Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers.
' Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Westem United States
12206026.doc
' Appendix C
Page C.2
' 6. ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACING - Asphalt concrete surfacing shall consist of a mixture of
mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at a central mixing plant and spread and compacted
' on a prepared base in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The
viscosity grade of the asphalt shall be AR -4000. The mineral aggregate shall be Type B, %2 -inch or'' /-
inch maximum, medium grading, for the wearing course and 1/4-inch maximum, medium grading for the
' base course, and shall conform to the requirements set forth in Section 39 of the Standard
Specifications. The drying, proportioning, and mixing of the materials shall conform to Section 39.
The prime coat, spreading and compacting equipment, and spreading and compacting the mixture shall
conform to the applicable chapters of Section 39, with the exception that no surface course shall be
placed when the atmospheric temperature is below 50 degrees F. The surfacing shall be rolled with a
combination steel -wheel and pneumatic rollers, as described in Section 39 -6. The surface course shall
be placed with an approved self - propelled mechanical spreading and finishing machine.
7. FOG SEAL COAT - The fog seal (mixing type asphalt emulsion) shall conform to and be applied in
accordance with the requirements of Section 37.
1'
1-
1 -
1
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Westem United States
12206026.doc
(T xypuaddV
'I
APPENDIX D
GEOTECIINICAL INVESTIGATION FACT SHEET
PROJECT LOCATION: Proposed Wal -Mart Expansion, 32225 Route 79, Temecula, California
Engineer: Clarence Jiang
Phone No.: (909) 974 -4400
Geotechnical Engineering Co.: Krazan and Associates Inc.
Report Date: March 8, 2007
Groundwater Depth: 30 feet
Fill Soils Characteristics: Silty Sand/Sand
Date Groundwater Measured: December, 2006
Maximum Liquid Limit: N/A
Topsoil/Stripping Depth: 2 — 4 inches
Maximum Plasticity Index: N/A
Undercut: 6 feet minimum (see report)
Specified Compaction: 95 percent (ASTM
D1557 -00)
Standard Proctor Results: N/A
Moisture Content Range: -2% to +2%
Recommended Compaction Control Tests:
4.0"
1 Test for Each 2 000 Sq. Ft. each Lift (bldg. area)
Asphalt Base Course
1 Test for Each 2 500 Sq. Ft. each Lift (parking area)
Structural Fill Maximum Lift Thickness 6 inches
(Measured loose)
Subgrade Design R -Value = 34
COMPONENT
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
Standard
Heavy
Standard
Heavy
Stabilized Subgrade (if applicable)
12"
12"
12"
12"
Base Material: Caltrans Class 2
Aggregate Base
8.5"
10.0"
4.0"
4.0"
Asphalt Base Course
Leveling Binder Course
Surface Course
4.0"
4.5"
5.5"
6.5"
NOTE: This information shall not be used separately from the geotechnical report.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
12206026 doc
FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA
' PROJECT LOCATION: Proposed Wal -Mart Expansion 32225 Route 79 Temecula, California
' Engineer: Clarence hang Phone No.: (909) 9744400
' Geotechnical Engineering Co.: Krazan and Associates Inc.Report Date: March 8, 2007
Foundation type: Shallow Foundation (wall and column spread footing)
' Allowable bearing pressure: 2,800 nsf
Factor of Safety: 3.0
'.' Minimum footing embedment: Exterior: 18 inches Interior: 18 inches
Minimum footing dimensions: Individual: 24 inches Continuous: 15 inches
Frost depth: None
Maximum foundation settlements: Total: 1/4 inch (static)
Differential: % inch in 40 ft along perimeter walls (static)
3/< inch between adjacent columns (static)
f. Slab Potential Vertical Rise: '/< inch
Capillary break (optional): 4 inches of Coarse Aesreeate + 2 inches of Fine Aeereeate
Subgrade reaction modulus: 150 psi /in Method obtained: Portland Cement Association
' . Active Equivalent Fluid Pressures 55 pcf
Passive Equivalent Fluid Pressures 350 pcf
Perimeter Drains (describe): Building: Not Apolicable
Retaining Walls: One -foot wide filter fabric wrapped gravel with
' perforated drain pipe
' Cement Type: No Specific Requirement
Retaining Wall: At -rest pressure: 55 pcf
' Coefficient of friction: 0.45
COMMENTS:
'NOTE This information shall not be used separately from the geotechnical report.
' Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
12206026.doc
DRAFT
' FOUNDATION SUBSURFACE PREPARATION
WAL -MART #2708 -01, TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
' MARCH 8, 2007
UNLESS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED OTHERWISE IN THE DRAWINGS AND /OR
' SPECIFICATIONS, THE LIMITS OF THIS SUBSURFACE PREPARATION ARE CONSIDERED TO
BE THAT PORTION OF THE SITE DIRECTLY BENEATH AND 5 FEET BEYOND THE BUILDING
' AND APPURTENANCES. APPURTENANCES ARE THOSE ITEMS ATTACHED TO THE
BUILDING PROPER (REFER TO DRAWING SHEET SP1), TYPICALLY INCLUDE, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO: THE BUILDING SIDEWALKS, GARDEN CENTER, PORCHES, RAMPS, STOOPS,
TRUCK WELLS/DOCKS, CONCRETE APRONS AT THE AUTOMOTIVE CENTER, COMPACTOR
PAD, ETC. THE SUBBASE AND THE VAPOR BARRIER, WHERE REQUIRED, DO NOT EXTEND
' BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING AND APPURTENANCES.
FOR EXPOSED SLABS, ESTABLISH THE FINAL SUBGRADE ELEVATION AT 10 INCHES
1 BELOW FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION TO ALLOW FOR A 4 INCH SLAB, OR AT 11.5 INCHES
BELOW THE FINISHED CONCRETE ELEVATION WHEN USING A 5.5 INCH SLAB TO ALLOW
FOR THE SLAB THICKNESS AND A 6 INCH SUBBASE. THE SUBBASE SHALL CONSIST OF 4
INCHES OF COARSE AGGREGATE MEETING THE GRADATION REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM
D448, TABLE 1, SIZE NO. 467, 57 OR 67 WITH CRUSHED, INTERLOCKING FINES OR
CRUSHER RUN ROAD BASE WITH ROCK FINES OR A SIMILAR LOCALLY AVAILABLE
I MATERIAL, THAT CAN BE SPECIFIED BY A DOT GRADATION NUMBER WITH 100%
PASSING NO. I%2 -INCH SIEVE, 15% TO 55% PASSING THE NO. 4 SIEVE AND 2% TO 8%
PASSING THE NO. 200 SIEVE, AND COVERED WITH 2 INCHES OF FINE AGGREGATE
MEETING THE GRADATION REQUIREMENT OF ASTM D448 TABLE 1, SIZE NO. 10. WITH 6%
' 1 TO 12% PASSING THE NUMBER 200 SIEVE OR PER THE FOLLOWING TABLE:
i
Std. Sieve size % passing
No. 4 85-100
No. 8 75-95
No. 16 55-75
No. 50 25-45
No. 200 6-12
THE FINE AGGREGATE SHALL HAVE LESS THAN 3% CLAY AND /OR FRIABLE PARTICLES
THE AGGREGATE SHALL BE DENSIFIED BY ROLLING WITH A VIBRATORY ROLLER. THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS
FOR ALL CUT AND FILL DEPTHS REQUIRED.
EXCAVATE THE BUILDING AREAS AND 5 FEET BEYOND, TO A DEPTH OF 6 FEET FROM
EXISTING GROUND OR ROUGH PAD GRADE, WHICHEVER IS DEEPER. SCARIFY THE
' EXPOSED SUBGRADE TO A DEPTH OF 8 INCHES, MOISTURE CONIDTION TO NEAR
MOISTURE CONTENT AND RECOMPACT TO AT LEAST 95 PERCENT OF THE MODIFIED
PROCTOR MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (ASTM D1557 -00).
' INSTALL 4 LAYERS OF GEOGRID AT VERTICAL INCREMENTS OF 1 FOOT. THE GEOGRID
LAYERS SHALL EXTEND TO A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET BEYOND THE PERIMETER OF THE
' STRUCTURE AND ATTACHED APPURTENANCES. THE GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT FABRIC
SHALL CONSIST OF TENSARO BX 1100 GEOGRID.
12206026.doc
DRAFT
' THE FIRST LAYER OF GEOGRID MATERIAL SHALL BE OVERLAPPED A MINIMUM OF 3
FEET IN ALL DIRECTIONS. THE GEOGRID STRIPS SHALL BE "SHINGLED" SUCH THAT THE
EXPOSED GEOGRID EDGE IS OPPOSITE THE DIRECTION OF FILL PLACEMENT (AS ROOF
' SHINGLES TO RAIN RUNOFF). THE INTERLOCK BETWEEN THE GEOGRID AND
ENGINEERED FILL WILL PROVIDE LOAD TRANSFER. NO VEHICLES MAY TRAVERSE THE
GEOGRID PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE ENGINEERED FILL COVER.
' PLACE THE NEXT LAYER OF GEOGRID ON TOP OF THE COMPACTED ENGINEERED FILL.
THIS AND SUBSEQUENT LAYERS NEED ONLY BE OVERLAPPED A MINIMUM OF 1 FOOT ON
ALL SIDES. THE GEOGRID STRIPS OF THIS LAYER, AND ALL SUBSEQUENT LAYERS
' WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT, SHALL BE PLACED WITH LENGTHS PERPENDICULAR TO THOSE
IN THE LAYER IMMEDIATELY BELOW. THE FILL SOILS EXCAVATED FROM THE AREA
BENEATH THE STRUCTURE MAY BE MOISTURE - CONDITIONED AND RECOMPACTED
' BETWEEN GEOGRID LAYERS AS REINFORCED FILL.
SUBGRADE MATERIAL SHALL BE FREE OF ORGANIC AND OTHER DELETERIOUS
' MATERIALS AND SHALL MEET THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENT:
LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO FINAL GRADE P.I. L.L.
' BUILDING AREA, BELOW UPPER 4 FEET 20 MAX. 50 MAX.
BUILDING AREA, UPPER 4 FEET 12 MAX. 35 MAX.
t ANY IMPORT FILL SHALL HAVE ENGINEERING PROPERTIES CONSISTENT WITH THOSE OF
THE ON -SITE SANDY SOILS AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER PRIOR TO IMPORTATION.
' SUBGRADE MATERIALS SHALL BE PLACED IN LOOSE LIFTS NOT EXCEEDING 6 INCHES IN
THICKNESS AND COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 95 PERCENT OF THE MODIFIED PROCTOR
' MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (ASTM D1557 -00) AT A MOISTURE WITHIN 1 PERCENT BELOW
TO 3 PERCENT ABOVE THE OPTIMUM.
THE FOUNDATION SYSTEM SHALL BE ISOLATED SPREAD FOOTINGS AT COLUMNS AND
' CONTINUOUS SPREAD FOOTINGS AT WALLS.
THIS FOUNDATION SUBSURFACE PREPARATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A COMPLETE
' SITE WORK SPECIFICATION. IN CASE OF CONFLICT, INFORMATION COVERED IN THIS
PREPARATION SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE WAL -MART SPECIFICATIONS.
REFER TO THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFIC INFORMATION NOT COVERED IN THIS
' PREPARATION. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS MAY ALSO BE FOUND IN THE
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED MARCH 8,
2007 ( GEOTECHNICAL REPORT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND IS NOT CONSIDERED AS
' A CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATION).
' E -mail address for the geotechnical engineer: clarenceiiane(�.krazan com
Additional Requirements:
' I. A final review of the pad prep note before the construction documents are completed is required.
2. The e -mail address of the Geotechnical Engineer shall not show on the final pad prep note on the
construction documents.
12206026.doc