HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 36008 Parcel 11-16 Geotechnical Report,FMf)uGC)�
UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
FOR
41923 SECOND STREET, TRUAX BUILDING PROJECT
CITY OF TEMECULA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, California
PREPARED FOR
RANCH DEVELOPMENT
41923 SECOND STREET
TEMECULA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 92592
PREPARED BY
GEOTEK, INC.
4130 FLAT ROCK DRIVE, SUITE 140
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92505
PROJECT No. 0506-CR3 DECEMBER 16, 2008
'G"
GEOTLK
L
GeoTek, Inc.
4130 Flat Rock Drive, Suite 140, Riverside, CA 925055864
951-710-1160 7ifico 951-710-1167 Fav www.geotekusa.com
December 16, 2008
Project No. 0506-CR3
Ranch Development
41923 Second Street
Temecula, Riverside County, California 92592
Subject: Update Geotechnical Evaluation
Truax Building Project
City of Temecula, Riverside County, California
Attention: Mr. John Leway
Dear Mr. Leway:
We are pleased to provide herewith the results of our Update Geotechnical Evaluation
for the subject project located in the City of Temecula. County of Riverside, California.
This report presents the results of our update evaluation, discussion of our findings,
and provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for remedial earthwork,
foundation design and construction. In our opinion, site development appears feasible
from a geotechnical viewpoint.
The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions,
please do not hesitate to call our office.
Respectfully su
GeoTek, Inc.
y
l�
Edward H. LaMont
CEG 1892, Exp. 7/31/10
Principal Geologist
Distribution: (5) Addressee
John Drake
GE 00285, Exp. 3/31/10
Project Engineer
C10ecumems and SettingsWnetcalfelLocal Settings\Temporary Imnnet Fiks=K IBWS06CR3 Update Geotechnical Evaluationdac
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
Ranch Development Project No. 0506-CR3
Update Geotechnical Evaluation December 16, 2008
Truax Building Proiect, Temecula, California Pan i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTENT ................................................................................................................................................................. 1
2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES .......................................................................................................... I
3. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..........................................................................
2
3.1 SiTEDESCRfPTION ......................................... ............................................
................................................... 2
3.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..... ..... ....... .... ............. ................ ....... ............................................................
2
4. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................
3
4.1 FIELD EXPLORATION ......................................................................................................................................
3
4.2 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................... ...........
.. ................................................... 3
5. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS .........................................................................
. .............................. 3
5.1 REGIONAL SETTING ........................................................................................................................................
3
5.2 GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................
.................. 4
5.2.1 Artificial Fill .......... ... ................................................ .... .........................
............ — .............. ............... 4
5.2.2 Alluvium ............ ... ... .... ......................... ..................... .....................
... .... ....... ............................... 4
5.2.3 Pouba Formation ............................................................................................
.... ....... ... ..... ... ........... 4
5.3 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER ........................................... ......................
................................................... 4
5.3. 1 Surface Water ... ... ............ .... ...... ........................... ......... ..........
........ ....... ........................... ...... 4
5.3.2 Groundwater ............... . ............................................................................
......... ... ........... ................. 5
5.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY .................................... ..................... ...........
- ............................ ....................... 5
5.4.1 Seismic Design Parameters .......................... ......... . .... . ...............
... . ......... ... ................................ 5
5.5 LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT ................ ..... . ......... ...................................
. ......... ................. 6
5.6 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS ... ..... .................................................................................................................
.. 7
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................................
7
6.1 GENERAL ................ ... ............................... ...................... .......... ................
.... ....... ........ ......................... 7
6.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS . ................................................................................................................
. . 7
6.2.1 Site Clearing .. . ... ... ............ ..... ........ ...... ... ..... . ........... ................
.... ........... .................. ...... 7
6.2.2 Removals ............ . . - . ..... ......... ..... .................... ...... . .............
..... .. .. .... . . ..... .. 7
6.2.3 Cut and Transition Subgrade .. ......... ....... ..... .... ... . .. .... ..... .......
.... . ..... .. ..8
6.2.2 Fills... - .................. ... ... .............................. ................. ....... . ......
..................... ..... .... . ... ............. 8
6.2.4 Excavation Characteristics ............... .................. ... .... ...... - .. .....
--- . .... ....... ..... ........ - -- .... ... 9
6.2.5 Shrinkage, Bulking, and Subsidence ......... ... ......... ...... .. ..... .. ........
........ . —.— .................... .......... 9
6.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ............. ......................................................................................
......... .... —.9
6.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria .... . .. .......... ... ... .... ..... . .. ......
.......................... . 9
6.3.2 Floor Slab Design .... ..... .. ....... . ... ......... .
. ... ........ 10
6.3.3 Settlements.... ... ............. ........................... ................ ...........
... . ....... 11
6.3.4 Foundation Set Backs ... ..................... ....... — ........ . .....
. . ..... ............ ..11
6.3.5 Sail Corrosivity, . ... . .... ...... .. —.. .— .. ... ...
...... --. — ....... . —12
6.3.6 Soil Sulfate Content . ....... . ........ .. .......... ..... .... .......
. ... ..... ...... ..... 12
6.4 RETAIN NG WA LL DES IG' .4 AN D CONSTRUCTION ..... .......... . .. ...................
..... ................. .... ... ...... ..... 12
6-4.1 General Design Criteria ... .... ............ .............. ... . . ... .. ...... .
. .. ... 12
6.41 Wall Backfill and Drainage.,
.—.13
6.4.3 Restrained Retaining Walls . ... ................ ..... .......... ... ...
....... .......... ... ..... .... 14
G E O T E K
Ranch Development Project No. 0506-CR3
Update Geotechnical Evaluation December 16, 2008
Truax Building Project. Temecula California Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6.4.4 Waterproofing ........................................ ... .......... ............. ......... .— .......... ,....... .... . 14
6.5 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................................... 14
6.5.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting ... ..... ...................... .. ......... ........ ... .. ...... ............ ..........................14
6.5.2 Drainage...............................................................................................................................15
7. PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS
15
8. LIi IITATIONS...................................................................................................................................................16
9. SELECTED REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................17
ENCLOSURES
Figure I — Site Location Map
Figure 2 — Boring Location Plan
Figure 3 — Conceptual Site Plan
Appendix A — Logs of Exploratory Borings (2008)
Appendix B — Results of Laboratory Testing
Appendix C — Computer Printout of IBC Seismic Parameters
�.
G E O T E K
Ranch Development Project No. 0506-CR3
Update Geotechnical Evaluation December 16, 2008
Truax Building Project Temecula Page I
1. INTENT
It is the intent of this report to aid in the planning, design and construction of the subject
project development. Implementation of the advice presented in Section 6 of this report is
intended to reduce risk associated with construction projects. The professional opinions and
geotechnical advice contained in this report are not intended to imply total performance of the
project or guarantee that unusual or variable conditions will not be discovered during or after
construction.
GeoTek has previously completed a Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for the site (2006).
At the time of GeoTek's first evaluation, proposed development included a 3 -story building
with a subterranean basement. The scope of our herein evaluation was intended to specifically
address the current site development plan (4 -story structure with no basement, and higher
foundation loads). Recommendations previously provided for the site by GeoTek remain
pertinent unless specifically superseded herein. The herein evaluation does not and should in
no way be construed to encompass any areas beyond the specific area of proposed
construction as indicated to us by the client Further, no evaluation of any existing site
improvements is included. The scope is based on our understanding of the project and the
client's needs, our proposal (P3-1001908) dated October 31, 2008 and geotechnical
engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this region.
2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of this update evaluation is to provide geotechnical recommendations for
currently anticipated site development. Services provided for this study have included the
following:
> Research and review of available geologic data and general information, including the
previous site report prepared by GeoTek (2006), and pertinent geotechnical engineering
investigation reports prepared by others in the area of the subject project (see references),
> Site reconnaissance and review, to assess current site conditions,
> Site exploration consisting of the excavation, logging, and sampling of three hollow -stem
auger borings,
G 9 0 T E K
Ranch Development Project No. 0506-CR3
Update Geotechnical Evaluation December 16, 2008
Truax Building Project, Temecula Paee 2
9 Laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected during the field investigation,
➢ Review and update seismic parameters to current codes (2007 CBC), and
➢ Compilation of this update geotechnical evaluation report which presents our preliminary
findings, conclusions, and general recommendations for site development.
3. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is located northwest of the intersection of Second and Mercedes Streets in
the City of Temecula, California (see Figure 1). The rectangular shaped property is roughly Y2
acre in size. An existing single -story building is located toward the east side of the property,
and the western portion of the site is vacant. Surface drainage on the site is generally directed
toward the southwest. Total relief across the site is on the order of roughly 10 feet.
Based on our review of site area geologic maps, site reconnaissance's, past geotechnical
experience in the immediate site area and review of the referenced reports, the subject
property is underlain by some existing fill (undocumented), alluvium and Pauba Formation
sediments. No Earthquake Fault Zone (Alquist-Priolo) is shown to be located on the site. No
State of California Seismic Hazard Zones (for earthquake induced liquefaction of landslide) are
shown to be on the site.
3.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is our understanding that the subject property is currently being designed for a 4 -story steel
framed structure, with varying floor slab elevations (see Figure 3). Total column loads and
perimeter wall loads on the order of up to 400 kips and 150 kips/ft respectively, are currently
anticipated according to Chuck Hope, project structural engineer.
Design cuts and fills for the site are anticipated to be on the order of up to 5 feet. No
significant fill or cut slopes are anticipated. Any retaining walls would likely be on the order of
up to six feet maximum.
The recommendations included in this report should be subject to further review and
evaluation when site development plans become more complete.
G E 0r E K
Ranch Development Project No. 0506-CR3
Update Geotechnical Evaluation December 16, 2008
Truax Building Project Temecula Page 3
4. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
4.1 FIELD EXPLORATION
Field exploration for the herein evaluation was completed on November 7, 2008. Three
hollow -stem borings were excavated on the site. The borings were drilled to a maximum
depth of 51.5 feet. An engineering geologist from our firm logged the excavations and
collected soil samples for use in the laboratory testing. The logs of the borings are included in
Appendix A. The approximate excavation locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan
(Figure 2).
4.2 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was performed on selected disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples
collected during the field investigation. The purpose of the laboratory testing was to confirm
the field classification of the soil materials encountered and to evaluate their physical
properties for use in the engineering design and analyses. The results of the laboratory testing
program, along with a brief description and relevant information regarding testing procedures,
are included in Appendix B.
S. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS
5.1 REGIONAL SETTING
The subject property is situated in the Peninsular Ranges province. The Peninsular Ranges
province is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. Basically, it
extends from the Tranverse Ranges geomorphic province and the Los Angeles Basin, roughly
900 miles south to the tip of Baja California. This province varies in width from about 30 to
100 miles. It is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of
California and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province.
The Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northwest -southeast oriented fault blocks.
Three major fault zones are found in this province. The Elsinore Fault zone and the San Jacinto
G EDT E X
Ranch Development Project No. 0506-CR3
Update Geotechnical Evaluation December 16, 2008
Truax Building Project Temecula Page 4
Fault zones trend northwest -southeast and are found in the near the middle of the province.
The San Andreas Fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province.
5.2 GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS
Brief descriptions of the earth materials encountered are presented in the following sections.
More detailed descriptions of these materials are provided in the logs of the exploratory
borings included in Appendix A. Based on our site reconnaissance, knowledge of the area,
review of the referenced reports and published area maps available in our library, the site is
underlain to the depths explored by alluvium and Pauba Formation sedimentary material.
Some undocumented fill related to past site uses is also likely present across the site.
5.2.1 Artificial Fill
Man-made fill materials are likely to be locally present on the site, and are anticipated to be on
the order of up to 1-3 feet thick. The fill is likely comprised of silty sands with gravel, and
sandy silts with gravel. Existing site fills are undocumented, and are subject to complete
removal as part of currently proposed site development.
5.2.2 Alluvium
Alluvial soils underlie the site in the near -surface (see logs in Appendix A). The alluvium
is generally described to consist of silty fine sand to clayey silty sand. The alluvium is
generally described as loose.
5.2.3 Pauba Formation
Underlying the alluvium on the subject site are Pauba Formation sediments. These
materials are described to consist of clayey silty fine to medium sand with some clayey
silt intervals (see logs in Appendix A). The Pauba sediments encountered were generally
medium dense to dense in consistency, and were slightly moist to moist down to the
depth of groundwater.
5.3 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER
5.3.1 Surface Water
If encountered during the earthwork construction, surface water on this site is the result of
precipitation or surface run-off from surrounding sites. Overall site drainage is toward the
G E O T E K
Ranch Development Project No. 0506-CR3
Update Geotechnical Evaluation December 16, 2008
Truax Building Proiect. Temecula Paee 5
south-southwest, which is in conformance with the regional topography. Provisions for surface
drainage will need to be accounted for by the project civil engineer.
5.3.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered at a depth of roughly 32 feet in our most recently excavated
boring B-3 (located near the northeast and relatively higher portion of the site). In GeoTek's
previous site evaluation (2006), groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 29
feet below existing grades toward the western portions of the site. Highest groundwater
elevation reported in nearby wells (California Department of Water Resources) in the site
vicinity is deeper than 30 feet below the ground surface.
5.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
The geologic structure of the entire southern California area is dominated mainly by
northwest -trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. The site is in a seismically
active region. No active or potentially active fault is known to exist at this site nor is the site
situated within an 'Alquist-Priolo" Earthquake Fault Zone. The site is not located within a State
of California Special Studies Zone for either earthquake induced landslide and slope stability
potential, or liquefaction.
The closest known active or potentially active fault to the subject site is the Elsinore -Temecula
fault, located roughly 1/2 mile from the site.
5.4.1 Seismic Design Parameters
The site is located at approximately 33.4928 Latitude and 117.1466 Longitude. Site spectral
accelerations (Ss and Si), for 0.2 and 1.0 second periods for a Class "D" site, were determined
from the USGS Website, Earthquake Hazards Program, Interpolated Probabilistic Ground
Motion for the Conterminous 48 States by Latitude/Longitude, 2002 Data. The results are
presented in the following table:
G EDTEK
Ranch Development Project No. 0506-CR3
Update Geotechnical Evaluation December 16, 2008
Truax Building Project Temecula Page 6
SITE SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Mapped 0.2 sec Period Spectral Acceleration,
1.966g
Ss
Mapped 1.0 sec Period Spectral Acceleration,
0.736g
S1
Site Coefficient for Site Class "D", Fa
1.0
Site Coefficient for Site Class "D", F�
1.5
5% Damped Design Spectral Response
1.966g
Acceleration Parameter at 0.2 Second, SMs
5% Damped Design Spectral Response
1.103g
Acceleration Parameter at I second, SK
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral
1,311g
Response Acceleration for 0.2 Second, SDs
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral
0.736g
Response Acceleration for 1.0 Second, SDi
5.5 LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT
Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquake -
induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionless soils. These
soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to lateral movement,
sliding, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, sand boils and other damaging
deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but, after liquefaction has
developed, it can propagate upward into overlying non -saturated soil as excess pore water
dissipates.
The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type and grain size, relative
density, groundwater level, confining pressures, and both intensity and duration of ground
shaking. In general, materials that are most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, saturated
granular soils having low fines content under low confining pressures.
GeoTek previously completed a liquefaction evaluation for the site (2006). Liquefaction
induced settlement was estimated to be 3.3 inches and relatively uniform across the subject
site. Lateral spreading is not expected due to relatively flat site topography and the absence of
any significant free faces in the immediate site vicinity. This previous estimation of liquefaction
induced settlement is considered conservative as it appears that the field staff identified the
shallow Paubs Formation as alluvial deposits, Pauba Formation is considered unlikely to
experience significant liquefaction particularly given the absence of groundwater within 30t
below the ground surface.
GEOTEK
Ranch Development Project No. 0506-CR3
Update Geotechnical Evaluation December 16, 2008
Truax Building Project Temecula Page 7
5.6 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS '
Evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities at this site was not observed during our
evaluations. Thus, the potential for landslides is considered negligible.
The potential for secondary seismic hazards such as seiche and tsunami are considered to be
negligible due to site elevation and distance from an open body of water.
6. CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 GENERAL
Proposed development of the site appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that
the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction phases of
development. Additional recommendations may also be provided when site development plans
become more complete.
6.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS
Earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable grading
ordinances of the City of Temecula, County of Riverside and the 2007 California Building Code
(CBC), International Building Code (IBC), and recommendations contained in this report.
6.2.1 Site Clearing
In areas of planned grading or improvements, the site should be cleared of existing
improvements, vegetation, roots, trash and debris, and properly disposed of offsite. Any holes
resulting from site clearing, tree removal, old foundations, sanitary pits and leach lines should
be excavated during geotechnical site evaluation(s) should be replaced with properly
compacted, low expansive fill materials.
6.2.2 Removals
If not removed by proposed grading, any existing undocumented fills and surficial alluvial or
Pauba materials that are relatively soft, should be subject to complete removal and then
recompacted within the limits of grading. A minimum removal depth of five (5) feet from
existing site grades, or two (2) feet below the bottom of the deepest proposed foundation
(and extending out at a 1:1, horizontal to vertical upward projection), is recommended.
GEOTEK
Ranch Development Project No. 0506-CR3
Update Geotechnical Evaluation December I6, 2008
Truax Building Project. Temecula Page 8
Depending on actual field conditions encountered during grading, locally deeper areas of
removal may be recommended. The bottom of all removals should be scarified to a minimum
depth of 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and then recompacted to
minimum project standards.
6.2.3 Cut and Transition Subgrade
If a transition subgrade (geotechnical contact) exists under a proposed settlement -sensitive
structure, the subgrade soils should be over -excavated a minimum of five (5) feet below the
bottom of the deepest proposed foundation so that any proposed footings are founded and
underlain entirely by a more uniform compacted fill. A maximum allowable differential fill
thickness beneath proposed structures will also be necessary to maintain, based on final site
development plans. This minimum depth will be provided at a later date, when more detailed
site development plans are reviewed. A minimum preliminary guideline of 3:1 maximum
differential fill thickness under a given structure is currently recommended.
6.2.2 Fills
The onsite soils are considered suitable for reuse as compacted fill provided they are free from
vegetation, debris and other deleterious material. The undercut areas should be brought to
final subgrade elevations with fill compacted in accordance with the general grading guidelines
presented in Appendix D of the referenced report by GeoTek (2006). Due to the current site
development plans, and the relatively high building loads, a minimum relative compaction of 95
percent (per ASTM D-1557) is now recommended for fill placed from the bottom of removal
to one foot above the bottom of building footings. Other fill should be place at a minimum
relative compaction of 90 percent (per ASTM D-1557)
It will be difficult to perform the removals along Mercedes and approximately the north half of
the site along Second Street. Shoring may be required to achieve recommended removals in
this event consideration may be given to alternative methods, as discussed below. Subject to
verification of materials present foundations in these areas may be founded in Pauba Formation
provided fill beneath other footings is placed at a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent
(per ASTM D-1557). Alternatively, 1'/x sack cement sand slurry could be placed below the
footings which would allow excavation with a backhoe and slurry in fairly small slots.
GECTEK
Ranch Development Project No. 0506-CR3
Update Geotechnical Evaluation December 16. 2008
Truax Building Project, Temecula Nee 9
6.2.4 Excavation Characteristics
Excavations in the onsite materials are expected to be relatively easy to moderately difficult
using heavy-duty grading equipment in good operating condition. Conditions could vary with
depth.
All temporary excavations for grading purposes and installation of underground utilities should
be constructed in accordance with local and Cal -OSHA guidelines. Temporary excavations
within the onsite materials should be stable at I:I inclinations for cuts less than 10 feet in
height.
Shoring may be required to achieve desired grades along the north and east side of the site.
6.2.5 Shrinkage, Bulking, and Subsidence
Several factors will impact earthwork balancing on the site, including shrinkage, bulking,
subsidence, trench spoil from utilities and footing excavations, final pavement section
thicknesses as well as the accuracy of topography.
Shrinkage, bulking and subsidence are primarily dependent upon the degree of compactive
effort achieved during construction. For planning purposes, a shrinkage factor of 5 to 20 -
percent may be considered for any undocumented fill and alluvium materials requiring removal
and recompaction. Subsidence could range from 0.1 to 0.2 feet in these areas, not including
dynamic settlement.
6.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
6.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria
Foundation design criteria for a conventional foundation system, in general conformance with
the 2007 CBC, are presented herein. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to
supersede the design by the structural engineer.
Based on the results of the reported lab testing by GeoTek (2006) and reported herein, the
onsite soils are reported as having low expansion potential (EI<51). Additional laboratory
testing should be performed at the completion of site grading to verify the expansion potential
and Effective Plasticity Index (EPI) of the foundation soils.
G E 0 T E K
Ranch Development Project No. 0506-CR3
Update Geotechnical Evaluation December 16, 2008
Truax Buildin¢ Proiect Temecula Paye 10
Based on the prevailing soil conditions, conventional slab -on -grade and/or spread or continuous
footings are considered a suitable foundation system for the proposed structure. As such, we
provide the following criteria for design of foundations:
An allowable bearing capacity of 3000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of
continuous and perimeter footings at least 24 inches deep and embedded 12 inches into bearing
materials. The bearing pressure value may be increased by 500 psf for each additional foot of
embedment or 250 psf for each additional foot of width to a maximum vertical bearing value of
4000 psf for continuous footings.
The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 psf
per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 3000 psf for footings founded on compacted
fill. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load
forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure
component should be reduced by one-third.
A grade beam, minimum 18 inches wide by 24 inches deep, should be utilized across entrances.
The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of the adjoining
footings.
6.3.2 Floor Slab Design
6.3.2.1 Concrete slab -on -grade floor construction is anticipated. The following
recommendations are presented as minimum design parameters for the slab. Design
parameters do not account for concentrated loads (e.g. fork lifts, other machinery,
etc.).
The information and recommendations presented in these sections are not meant to
supersede design by the project structural engineer.
The project structural engineer should design the slab to include loads from
machinery, forklifts, storage racks, etc. If flexible design is utilized, then the modulus of
subgrade reaction (k -value) may be used in the design of the floor slab supporting
heavy truck traffic, fork lifts, machine foundations and heavy storage areas. A k -value
(modulus of subgrade reaction) of 90 pounds per square inch per inch (pci) should be
used for preliminary slab design.
G EDT E K
Ranch Development Project No. 0506-CR3
Update Geocechnical Evaluation December 16, 2008
Truax Building Project, Temecula Page I I
These recommendations are meant as minimums. The project structural engineer
should review and verify that the minimum recommendations presented herein are
considered adequate with respect to anticipated uses.
Concrete slabs should minimally be five inches thick with No. 4 bars, 18" on center,
and be underlain by subgrade materials compacted to a minimum of 95% of the
maximum laboratory density to a depth of 12 inches.
As an alternative, concrete slabs may be underlain with a maximum of six inches of
inch crushed rock (vibrated into place), or four inches of aggregate base material
(Class 2) compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent.
Where moisture condensation is undesirable, all slabs should be underlain with a minimum 10 -
mil impermeable membrane, sandwiched between two layers of clean sand each being at least
two inches thick (native soil may be acceptable). Care should be taken to adequately seal all
seams and not puncture or tear the membrane. The sand should be proof rolled.
We recommend" that control joints be placed in two directions spaced the numeric equivalent
of two times the thickness of the slab in inches changed to feet (e.g. a five inch slab would have
control joints at ten feet centers). These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks
and should be reviewed by the project structural engineer.
6.3.3 Settlements
On a preliminary basis, post -grading differential settlement is expected to be less than I inch
over a 40 -feet span under static conditions, and less than I'h inches over a 40 -feet span under
seismic loading.
6.3.4 Foundation Set Backs
Where applicable, the following setbacks should apply to all foundations. Any improvements
not conforming to these setbacks may be subject to lateral movements and/or differential
settlements:
> The outside bottom edge of all footings should be set back a minimum of H/3 (where H is
the slope height) from the face of any descending slope. The setback should be at least 7
feet and need not exceed 40 feet.
> The bottom of all footings for structures near retaining walls should be deepened so as to
extend below a I:I projection upward from the bottom inside edge of the wall stem.
c E o T E x
Ranch Development Project No. 0506-CR3
Update Geotechnical Evaluation December 16, 2008
Truax Building Project. Temecula Page 12
9 The bottom of any existing foundations for structures should be deepened so as to extend
below a I:I projection upward from the bottom of the nearest excavation.
6.3.5 Soil Corrosivity
The soil resistivity at this site was tested in the laboratory on representative samples collected
during the field investigation in 2006 by GeoTek. The results of the testing indicate that the
onsite soils can be considered "corrosive" in accordance with current standards commonly
used by corrosion engineers. These characteristics are considered typical of soils commonly
found in southern California. We recommend that a corrosion engineer be consulted to
provide recommendations for proper protection of buried metal at this site.
6.3.6 Soil Sulfate Content
The sulfate content was previously determined in the laboratory for a representative onsite
soil sample (GeoTek, 2006). The results indicate that the water soluble sulfate range is less
than 0.1 percent by weight, which is considered negligible as per Table 19-A-4 of the 2007
CBC. Based upon the test results, type II cement or an equivalent may be used.
6.4 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
6.4.1 General Design Criteria
Recommendations presented herein may apply to typical masonry or concrete vertical
retaining walls to a maximum height of ten (10) feet. Additional review and recommendations
should be requested for higher walls.
Retaining wall foundations not integratal with the building should be embedded a minimum of
24 inches into compacted fill or dense formational materials should be designed using an
allowable bearing capacity of 2500 psf. An increase of one-third may be applied when
considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads). The passive earth pressure may
be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 200 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum
earth pressure of 2000 psf. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be
used with dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the
passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third.
An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal active pressure
against the wall. The appropriate fluid unit weights are given in Table 6.5.1 below for specific
G E OTE K
Ranch Development Project No. 0506-CR3
Update Geotechnical Evaluation December 16, 2008
Truax Building Project, Temecula Page 13
slope gradients of retained materials. At reentrant corners for a distance equal to the wall
height walls should be designed based on the level restrained pressures.
TABLE 6.4.1 —ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURES
Surface Slope of Retained Materials
Equivalent Fluid Pressure
Equivalent Fluid Pressure
(H:V)
(PCF)
(PCF)
Select Backfill*
Native Backfill
Level
35
40
2:1
45
50
* Select backfill may consist of Class 2 permeable filter materials or Class 2 aggregate base or
imported Sand with an SE>30. Backfill zone includes area between back of wall to plane (1:1, h:v) up
from wall foundation to ground surface.
The above equivalent fluid weights do not include other superimposed loading conditions such
as expansive soil, vehicular traffic, structures, seismic conditions or adverse geologic conditions.
6.4.2 Wall Backfill and Drainage
Imported very low expansive soils should be used for backfill provided they are screened of
greater than 3 -inch size gravels. Presence of other materials might necessitate revision to the
parameters provided and modification of wall designs. The backfill materials should be placed in
lifts no greater than 8 -inches in thickness and compacted at 90% relative compaction in
accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557. Proper surface drainage needs to be provided
and maintained.
Retaining walls should be provided with an adequate pipe and gravel backdrain system to
prevent build up of hydrostatic pressures. Backdrains should consist of a 4 -inch diameter
perforated collector pipe embedded in a minimum of one cubic foot per lineal foot of 3/4 to
one inch clean crushed rock or equivalent, wrapped in filter fabric. The drain system should be
connected to a suitable outlet A minimum of two outlets should be provided for each drain
section (maximum of 200 feet).
Walls from 2 to 4 feet in height may be drained using localized gravel packs behind weep holes
at 10 feet maximum spacing (e.g. approximately 1.5 cubic feet of gravel in a woven plastic bag).
Weep holes should be provided or the head joints omitted in the first course of block
extended above the ground surface. However, nuisance water may still collect in front of the
wall.
GEOTEX
Ranch Development Project No. 0506-CR3
Update Geotechnical Evaluation December 16, 2008
Truax Building Project, Temecula Page 14
6.4.3 Restrained Retaining Walls
Any retaining wall that will be restrained prior to placing backfill or walls that have male or
reentrant corners should be designed for at -rest soil conditions using an equivalent fluid
pressure of 65 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas having male or reentrant
corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance equal to twice the height
of the wall laterally from the corner.
6.4.4 Waterproofing
Retaining walls should be damp or waterproofed to the extent desired based on location and
purpose.
6.5 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
6.5.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting
Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil, and slope stability is
significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from graded
slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life
should be provided for planted slopes. Controlling surface drainage and runoff, and maintaining
a suitable vegetation cover can minimize erosion. Plants selected for landscaping should be
lightweight, deep-rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the
prevailing climate.
Overwatering should be avoided. The soils should be maintained in a solid to semi-solid state
as defined by the materials Atterberg Limits. Care should be taken when adding soil
amendments to avoid -excessive watering. Leaching as a method of soil preparation prior to
planting is not recommended. An abatement program to control ground -burrowing rodents
should be implemented and maintained. This is critical as burrowing rodents can decreased
the long-term performance of slopes.
It is common for planting to be placed adjacent to structures in planter or lawn areas. This will
result in the introduction of water into the ground adjacent to the foundation. This type of
landscaping should be avoided. If used, then extreme care should be exercised with regard to
the irrigation and drainage in these areas. Waterproofing of the foundation and/or subdrains
may be warranted and advisable. We could discuss these issues, if desired, when plans are
made available.
GEOTEK
Ranch Development Project No. 0506-CR3
Update Geotechnical Evaluation December 16, 2008
Truax Building Prot Temecula Page 15
6.5.2 Drainage
The need to maintain proper surface drainage and subsurface systems cannot be overly
emphasized. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow
uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations
and not allowed to pond or seep into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward
approved area(s) and not be blocked by other improvements.
It is the owner's responsibility to maintain and clean drainage devices on or contiguous to their
lot. In order to be effective, maintenance should be conducted on a regular and routine
schedule and necessary corrections made prior to each rainy season.
7. PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS
We recommend that site grading, specifications, and foundation plans be reviewed by this
office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this
report. We also recommend that GeoTek representatives be present during site grading and
foundation construction to check for proper implementation of the geotechnical
recommendations. These representatives should perform at least the following duties:
• Observe site clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of all unsuitable
materials.
• Observe and test bottom of removals prior to fill placement.
• Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement, and collect soil
samples for laboratory testing where necessary.
• Observe the fill for uniformity during placement including utility trenches. Also, test
the fill for field density and relative compaction.
• Observe and probe foundation materials to confirm suitability of bearing materials.
• Provide a construction observation and compaction report to comply with the
requirements of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project.
We recommend that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of construction so
that necessary grading permits can be obtained.
G f 0 T f x
Ranch Development Project No. 0506-CR3
Update Geotechnical Evaluation December 16, 2008
Truax Building Proiecc Temecula Page 16
8. LIMITATIONS
The materials observed on the project site appear to be representative of the area; however,
soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or
conditions exposed during site construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes
or ocher factors. GeoTek, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing or
recommendations performed or provided by others.
Since our recommendations are based on the site conditions observed and encountered, and
laboratory testing, our conclusion and recommendations are professional opinions that are
limited to the extent of the available data. Observations during construction are important to
allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. These opinions have been
derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or
implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time.
GEOTEK
Ranch Development Project No. 0506-CR3
Update Geocechnical Evaluation December 16, 2008
Truax Building Project Temecula Page 17
9. SELECTED REFERENCES
ASTM, 2000, "Soil and Rock: American Society for Testing and Materials," vol. 4.08 for ASTM
test methods D-420 to D-4914, 153 standards, 1,026 pages; and vol. 4.09 for ASTM test
method D-4943 to highest number.
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2007 "California Building Code," 3 volumes.
California Department of Water Resources groundwater well data (http://wdi.water.ca.gov).
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and
Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," Special Publication 117.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near -
Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: International Conference
of Building Officials.
GeoTek, Inc., 2006, "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Residential Development,
41923 Second Street, Temecula, CA 92590," PN 3032SD3, dated June S.
GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information.
Leighton Consulting, Inc., 2007, "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Old Town Civic
Center and Associated Street Improvements, Project No. PW06-07, Temecula, Riverside
County, California," dated February 22.
Seismic Design Values for Buildings (httD://earthquu ke.uszsgov/research/hazm�s/design).
USGS, 2000, Geologic Map of California, Los Angeles Sheet, 1:250,000 scale.
L E O T E K
Y.. Vs
P
�
NKT
S
5�
�i
SANTA MARGARITA
ECOLOGICAL RESERVE
ca
Ranch Development "
Truax Building Project Figure I
Temecula
Riverside County, California Site Location
Modified from The Thomas Map
Gwde. K,verslde Co.mry, G E O T E K
GeoTek Project No.: 0506,CR3 sale. I = 24
S
5�
SANTA MARGARITA
ECOLOGICAL RESERVE
ca
Ranch Development "
Truax Building Project Figure I
Temecula
Riverside County, California Site Location
Modified from The Thomas Map
Gwde. K,verslde Co.mry, G E O T E K
GeoTek Project No.: 0506,CR3 sale. I = 24
B.2(08)
LEGEND
1-3(08) Approximate Location of Exploratory Boring
1�
Truax Development Figure_2
Truax Building
City Temecula Boring
Riverside County, Cilifcmia Location
Map
GEOTEK
GeaTek ProjectNo.: 0506<R3
.�
f;
_Y
'—� - ��---------
2ND STREET �------
Conceptual Site Plan
Itl�— The Truax Building ' I
N i L _ r.
APPENDIX A
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS (2008)
Borings B -I through B-3
Truax Building Project
City of Temecula, Riverside County, California
Project No. 0506-CR3
GEOTEK
RavcH DEVELOPMENT APPENDIX A
UpdateGeotechnical Evaluation December 16, 2008
Truax Bwldmy Proiect Paye A -I
A - FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
The SPT is performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1586-99. The SPT sampler is
typically driven into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140 -pound hammer free falling from a height
of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of
boring. The split -barrel sampler has an external diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter
of 1-3/8 inches. The samples of earth materials collected in the sampler are typically classified in the
field, bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for further testing.
The Modified Split -Barrel Sampler (Rine)
The Ring sampler is driven into the ground in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3550-84. The
sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with 1 -inch long, thin brass rings with inside
diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sampler is typically driven into the ground 12 or 18
inches with a 140 -pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded
for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The samples are removed from the
sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.
Bulk Samples (Large)
These samples are normally large bags of representative earth materials over 20 pounds in weight
collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings.
Bulk Samples (Small)
These are plastic bag samples which are normally airtight and contain less than 5 pounds in weight of
representative earth materials collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory
cuttings. These samples are primarily used for determining natural moisture content and
classification indices.
B — BORING/TRENCH LOG LEGEND
The following abbreviations and symbols often appear in the classification and description of soil and
rock on the logs of boring/trenches:
SOILS
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
f -c Fine to coarse
f -m
Fine to medium
GEOLOGIC
B. Attitudes
Bedding: stnke.!dip
J. Attitudes
Joint: strike/dip
C:
Contact line
........... Dashed line denotes USCS material change
Solid Line denotes unit' formational change
Thick solid line denotes end of boring/trench
(Additional denotations and symbols are provided on the togs of borings/trenches)
Geo Tek, Inc.
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
CLIENT: Tmaa Devalownent DRILLER: Layne onnng LOGGED BY: EHL
PROJECT NAME Tmaa Burlding DRILL METHOD: 8'HNlow Ste„ OPERATOR: Alvaro
PROJECT NO.: 0506-CR3 HAMMER: Aum 1401f/30• RIG TYPE: Cl 75
LOCATION' See BWN Location Mao DATE: 1117/3008
SAMPLES
$
Laboratory
Teslin
2_
BORING NO.: B-1(08)
8
$
b
gx
F
o
N
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTJ�
Alluvium:
SH, MD
SM
Silty fine SAND (SM), medium brown, damp to slightly moist, loose
5
2
B1-1
Pill Formation:
5.8
126 8
HC
29
SM
Silty fine SAND (SM), medium brown, damp to slightly moist, medium
—,
20
dense. trace porosity
10
6
81.2
Clayey silty fate SAND (SM), yellow brown, slightly moist, no visible
9
porosity
9
@13', Becomes moister, finer grained
75
.._
...
..........._..........._..........,_---- ---- ,......... ... ... ......... ..........._..._.__...__.._.... _.
.....__.
... ...... ... ......... _...........
8
01-3
Mt/CL
Fine sally clayey SILT (ML) to silty CLAY (CL), slightly moist, stiff
182
112.1
12
to
@18', Becomes very moist
20
3
B14
Clayey SILT (ML) to silty CLAY (CL), medium brown, moist to very
4
moist, 8rm, Interbedded with silty SAND (SM), light gray, moist, medium
12
dense
25
..............
9
......
87-5
..
SM
.. ... ... .. .. .... ., . ..
Silty fate to medium SAND (SM), light gray, moist, medium dense
.....
..
19
30
BORING TERMINATED AT 26 5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with sod cuttings
30
WSample
type.
—Ring a -SPT Z—Smail Bull ®—Large Bulk —rao Recovery g —Wolof Table
W
Lab testin, AL • Anemery Innes EI = ExcansiOn moin, SA - Sieve Analysis RV • R -Value Test
SR = SuffatelRentibmly Test SH = Shear Teel HC- Consolmtnn MO • Me inum Chantilly
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
CLIENT. %aa Development DRILLER; Ls" poling LOGGED BY. EHL
PROJECT NAME Tmar Sulsing DRILL METHOD- 8* Hollow Stem OPERATOR: A1vam
PROJECT NO.: 0506-CR3 HAMMER: Amo 140410' RIG TYPE: CME 75
LOCATION: See Boma Looaeon Map DATE: 111712008
SAMPLES
9
Laboratory Testing
8
6
8
--ml
711
s
h
BORING NO.: 8-2 (08)
$
S,
v
�
mz
D'
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Alluvium:
SM
Silty fine SAND (SM), medium gray brown, damp, loose
i
5
5
82-1
Pause Formation -
8
SM
Clayey silty fine SAND (SM), medium gray brown, damp, medium dense
8
10
8
62-2
Q10, Becomes slightly moist to moist, medium dense
127
120.2
HC
15
28
15
..
..
......L
.. .. .,...._.._............._.. .mot ......
...._............._......._......._.............
.........................
_.. ..............., ....
M
Fine sandI. y c layeum 9gDrown, moist, firm.
y SlLi (ML), mediray
5
8
20
-._
_ ._
........._................ .. _...._.. ..._....... ................. _._....__........_..._.
_....
_.._..._..........__.........._....
_..
11
B2.4
SM
Silty medium to coarse SAND (SM) with gravel, light gray mottled,
67
1080
22
slightly moist, medium dense to dense, friable
32
25
10
82-5
Silty Ane to medium SAND (SM), light gray mottled, slightly moist,
14
medium dense, friable
15
BORING TERMINATED AT 26 5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Boling backfilled with sod cuttings
30
WSample
No
--RN 0 -SPT Z-_Smap auu®-Large Buh EI--Np Recpmry —Water Tests
W
AL = Amster, i.imila EI - E "n,mr frim SA = Steve Ar,W s. RV = R Value Test
Lab testlnp:
SR = SueatelReeisemty Test SH =Blies Test HC= ConsoYaazian MD = Maximum oenaey
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
CLIENT: Twaa Davalo mens DRILLER. Lame Drilling LOGGED BY: EHL
PROJECT NAME Tway Bundmg DRILL METHOD: a,"orlov, Stem OPERATOR: Alvaro
PROJECT NO.: OW64ttR3 HAMMER: Amo WOW RIG TYPE: CME 75
LOCATION: Sae Born, Localun We DATE: tiArMOa
SAMPLES
$
Laboratory Testing
BORING NO.: B-3 (08)
O
3
V
F
p n
L
N2
n
'
O
5
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
m
0 • 3' Atipligiltic Concrete
SM
Alluvium:
Clayey silty SAND (SM), medium to dark brown, moist, loose
5
4
83-1
Pauba Formation:
10.7
1190
SH
-
6g
SM
Clayey silty fine to medium SAND (SM), moist, medium dense
10
r;
5
133-2
SAME
9
9
15
._-_
.. _...
_—
... . . .. ... ..
....
............................
4
83-3
ML
Fine sandy clayey SILT (ML), medium yellow brown, mols6 Stiff
15.2
114.5
13
21
20
._............
..... ...
........
.... ... .... ................ .... .... ........_.....................................
6
BJ -4
SM
Silly fne SAND (SM), light gray mottled, slightly moist
7
11
25
9
133-5
Silty medium to coarse SAND (SM), light graymollled, damp.
82
1026
23
occasional gravel
28
30
W5amolafYpe
El —R.' 0—SPT zSmall auA ®—Largeama ❑ —No Recovery W, —Water Toole
rAL+Allerberg
U.M E1=EepanaUO lntlea SA=Wave Analya9 RV= R.Vaare Test
Lab testing'
SIR =SuMale/Resun,vny Test SM=Shear iasl HC,CgnSgl,tldlron Mo*Meamum Danny
GeoTek,Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
CLIENT: Tmax Devebpment DRILLER: Layne Onenq LOGGED BY. EHL
PROJECT NAME Tuax Budding DRILL METHOD: 8-Wlcw Stan OPERATOR: ANam
PROJECT NO.: 0506CR3 HAMMER: Auto talon()' RIG TYPE: CME 75
LOCATION: See eMng Locates Map DATE: 11/7r!00a
SAMPLES
8
Lab
ratory Testing
m
a
Cy
g
E
d
BORING NO.: B-3 (08)(continued)
N
E
O
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND OMMENTS
�+
30
9
03-6
continued:
13
SM
Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), light gray mottled, damp, medium
13
dense, very friable
Z7
Groundwater @ 32'
35
._.__
72
.._.....
B}7�
��SW
......._..........._....._............._...._.__..........._..............l,-e,d..._..ral,e.._._........._..............
Medium to coarse SAND (SW ), light gray motlleQ saturated, medmm
.. _.._...
..._...._.... ... ......... ....
19
dense
25
40
19
63-8
SAME
35
504'
45
.._._.......
� � .. ........................................... .. .......... . ........ .......
.._._.._.
_.....
_..._..... _.._...... _._... _.._...
10
B3-9
SM
Clayey spry floe to coarse SAMD (SM), medium gray monied. medium
28
dense, saturated
50
�83-10
........ ............. .._......... ..._...
..... ...
...._._........................_.........._.
_.
6
ML/SM
Inlerbeddetl clayey fine sandy SILT (ML) and silty fine to medium SAND
21
(SM), medium yellow brown and gray mottled, saturated
20
BORING TERMINATED AT 51 5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Boring back811ed with soil cuttings
55
60
W
Sample Noe.
—lLrq XPi Z._Smatl 9dk ®—large Bdk —Np Raco.ery —Water Tads
w
AL • Attert,erg LHnas EI = &,sr,s on Ncex SA = Smve "ews¢ RV = R-vabe Test
LaD tesbnd:
SR=SJHaie/Re,anrvlty Test SH=Shear Test HC- MD- demity
APPENDIX B
RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING
Truax Building Project
City of Temecula, Riverside County, California
Project No. 0506-CR3
GEOTEK
RANCH DEVELOPMENT APPENDIX B
Update Geotechnical Evaluation December 15, 2008
Truax Building Proiect Page B-1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING
Classification
Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM Test Method
D2487). The soil classifications are shown on the logs of exploratory boring/trenches included in
Appendix A.
In Situ Moisture and Unit Weight
The field moisture content was measured in the laboratory on selected samples collected during the field
investigation. The field moisture content is determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. The dry
density was measured in the laboratory on selected ring samples. The results are shown on the logs of
exploratory borings/trenches in Appendix A.
Moisture -Density Relations
Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples collected during the subsurface exploration.
The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for representative soil types was
determined in general accordance with test method ASTM Test Procedure D1557. The results are
included herein on Plates MD -1.
Direct Shear Testing
Shear testing was performed on remolded and undisturbed samples of site soil in general accordance with
ASTM Test Method D-3080. The test results are included herein as Plates SH -1 and SH -2.
Hydro -Collapse Potential
Settlement predictions of the soil's behavior under loads are made on the basis of the consolidation tests
in general accordance with ASTM D2435. The consolidation apparatus is designed to receive a one -inch
high ring used in the California split -spoon sampler. Loads are applied in several increments in a
geometric progression, and the resulting deformations are recorded at selected time intervals. The results
are shown on Plates HC -1 and HC -2.
Gee) Tek, Inc.
1i.10 Fla: Roc6 Drne. Su;te IQ, Rkers;de, CA. 01505-5S1+4
951-710-1160 Ofrice 951-ii0-I I67 FaT
MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Client: Truax Development
Project: Truax Building
Location: Temecula
Material Type: Brown Silty Sand
Material Supplier: N/A
Material Source: 0
Sample Location: B-1
@0-5'
Sampled By: EHL
Received By: N/A
Tested By: FH
Reviewed By: N/A
Job No.: 0506-CR3
Lab No.: Rlv
Date Sampled:
7 -Nov -08
Date Received:
8 -Nov -08
Date Tested:
19 -Nov -08
Date Reviewed:
10 -Dec -08
Test Procedure: ASTM 1557 Method: 0
Oversized Material (%): 0.0 Correction Required:
150
45
40
135
a
y 130
L
Z 125
W
120
G 115
110
05
100
MOISTUREIDENSITY RELATIONSHIP CURVE
I �• I�; r I� � 1
O DRY DEN511Y (loci)'.
a CORRECTED DRY DENSITY
(xf)
ZERO AIR VOIDS DRY DENSITY
(x0
S.G. 2.7
X S G 2.8 ,
} i O S G 2.6
I - - OVERSIZE CORRECTED
�— —ZERO AIR VOIDS
--'C i�Holy. (DRY DENSITY (pcf).)
Poly. (S.G 2.7)
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 — Poly. (S G 2.8)
MOISTURE CONTENT, % poly. (S G 2 6)
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP VALUES
Maximum Dry Density, pcf 131.0 @ Optimum Moisture, %1____9__51
Corrected Maximum Dry Density, pcf� @ Optimum Moisture, %
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Grain Size Distribution:
�% Gravel (retained o
%Sand (Passing No.. 4,, Retained on No. 200)
Silt and Clay (Passing No 200)
Classification:
Unified Solis Classification:
AASHTO Soils Classification:
Atterber Limits:
Liquid Limit, %
Plastic Limit, %
_Plasticity Index,
Plata MD -1
a
G E O T E K
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Project Name: Truax Development Sample Source: a - I @ 0 - 5'
Project Number: 0506-CR3 Date Tested. 11122/2008
Soil Description: Silty Sand (SM)
g.
Load (ksf)
• . .
r .
. y .
. • _ .
y . .
• . .
y .
. .. .
.
-[ • •1 •
•a
'
•1
5.6
98 1
125.3
1
1
1
a
1
l
1
4
55
, • .
L . .
1 .
Y
_ J _ _
J - _
l _ .
J _
_ J .
. ! _ . .1 -
. . .
. .1
1
1
a
1
1
1
1
\
a 1
1
a
•
1
1
1
v
1
1
a
1 1
1
1
1 _
1 •
1 -
l -
1
1
_I •
i •1 •
•1
•1 -
-1
a
v
a
1
r
1
v
4.51
- -
r - -
t -
t —
- 1
1
1 -
,
i
4
•
d
•.
J
J 1
1.
r
y
v=0.4o «0.14
1
w
35s
1
r
1
a
1
a
1
v 1
�
W
1
a
1
1
a
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
v
1
1
1
1
v
2:
i
3 _
LJ
J
J
J
d .
. _ . . .a .
. ...
. .1
1
1
v
1
1
a
1
1 1
1
..
.1 .
.' .
.1 .
.
�
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
'
a
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
1 a
v
05
I
1
1
1
a
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
4
e5 5
55
6
NORMAL
STRESS
(Msf)
Shear Strength: 0 = 24.0 ° 1 C = 0.20 ksf
Test No
Load (ksf)
Water Content
(°/,)
DryDensity
pcf)
1
1.4
138
124.2
2
2.8
10.8
124.5
3
5.6
98 1
125.3
I
Notes: 1 - The soil specimen coed in the shear box were "ring' samples remolded Tom a bulk sample collected during the field
msesugation
3 -The able reflect residual shear strength at 100% saturation.
3 . The tests were ran at a shear rate of() 023 un,min
PLATE SH -1
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Project Name: Truax Development Sample Source:
Project Number. 0506-CR3 Date Tested:
Soil Description: Silty Sand (SM)
8-3@5'
1 112212008
6_ r _ r . . . . . . T . . T . 1 . .. . . q . 7 . q . t
±I
L L_ L
1 1 1 1 I 1 1 a 1 l 1 1
5 . I . ! . 1 - - 1 - I - : - 1 _ . 1 _ 1 _ 1 _ !
! ! w I I r • t 1 1 ! 1 1 I
4.5� T T T 7 7 3 i 7 S
1 e 1 1 1 1 C
1
R
35 ! ! ..
i I I I 1 I f 1 1 1
I 1 1 1 I 1 ; Y'0 �9xt 010!
1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i
25+ - .
r • r . . T T . . p . . � � . . . . .i • �
2- L. L• L L. a J_ J J J. J J
I 1 I 1 1 •
15L : . . : . _ _1
I I I 1 1 . ! 1 1 1
1 i } 'At - T. T .. T 1 . 1 1 3 1
05= - • v . o . . . . . • . -
01
0 05 1 15 2 Z5 3 35 a 45 5 55 6
NORMAL STRESS(kso
Notes:
Shear Strength: m = 16.0 0 . C = 0.20 ksf
Test No
Loadksf
Water Content
.,,)
DryDensity
I (pcf)
1
1.4
10.2
1225
2
2.8
132
1176
3
56
1 11.3
1173
I - The soil specimen used in the shear box was an "undisturbed ring' sample collected during the field investigation.
2 - The abote retlect residual shear strength at 100% saturation.
3 - The tests were ran at a shear rate of 0 025 m, min
PLATE SH -2
0
0
STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
0 1 10 100
-2.00
a
a
X
-
w
_
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
w
4.00
H
5.00
a
i
0
6.00
0
z
z
7.00
w
a
8.00
_
0
a
_
9.00
N
z
00
_
10.00
--- --- Seating Cycle
Loading Prior to Inundation
—A Loading After Inundation
--J--- Rebound Cycle
Per ASTM Method 02435
G
E O T E K
CONSOLIDATION REPORT
Sample: B- 1@ 5'
Truax Development
Temecula
Plate HC-1
CHECKED BY EV Lab: RIV
PROJECT NO.: 0506-CR3 Date.Q/02l08
a
z
STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
0 1 10 100
-2.00
a
CL
X
w
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
N'
w
4.00
x
5.00
a
6.00
0
z
z
7.00
w
w
a
8.00
0
900
0
0
z�
O =
10.00
--- --- Seating Cycle
- + Loading Prior to Inundation
—f— Loading After Inundation
�--- Rebound Cycle
Per ASTM Method D2435
G
E O T E K
CONSOLIDATION
REPORT
Sample: B- 2@ 10'
Truax Development
Temecula
Plate HC-2
CHECKED BY EV Lab: RIV
PROJECT NO 0506-CR3 Oate:12102108
APPENDIX C
COMPUTER PRINTOUT OF 2006 IBC SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Truax Building Project
City of Temecula, Riverside County, California
Project No. 0506-CR3
GEOTEK
Project Name = Truax Building
Date = Tue Dec 16 13:31:49 PST 2008
Conterminous 48 States
2006 International Building Code
Latitude = 33.4928
Longitude = -117.1466
Spectral Response Accelerations Ss and S1
Ss and S1 = Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values
Site Class B - Fa = 1.0 ,Fv = 1.0
Data are based on a 0.01 deg grid spacing
Period Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 1.966 (Ss, Site Class B)
1.0 0.736 (S1, Site Class B)
Conterminous 48 States
2006 International Building Code
Latitude = 33.4928
Longitude = -117.1466
Spectral Response Accelerations SMs and SM1
SMs = Fa x Ss and SMI = Fv x S1
Site Class D - Fa = 1.0 ,Fv = 1.5
Period Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 1.966 (SMs, Site Class D)
1.0 1.103 (SM1, Site Class D)
Conterminous 48 States
2006 International Building Code
Latitude = 33.4928
Longitude = -117.1466
Design Spectral Response Accelerations SDs and SDI
SDs = 2/3 x SMs and SDI = 2/3 x SM1
Site Class D - Fa = 1.0 ,Fv = 1.5
Period Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 1.311 (SDs, Site Class D)
Conterminous 48 States
2006 International Building Code
Latitude = 33.4928
Longitude = -117.1466
MCE Response Spectrum for Site Class B
Ss and S1 = Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values
Site Class B - Fa = 1.0 ,Fv = 1.0
Period
Sa
Sd
(sec)
(g)
(inches)
0.000
0.787
0.000
0.075
1.966
0.108
0.200
1.966
0.768
0.374
1.966
2.689
0.400
1.839
2.875
0.500
1.471
3.594
0.600
1.226
4.312
0.700
1.051
5.031
0.800
0.920
5.750
0.900
0.817
6.468
1.000
0.736
7.187
1.100
0.669
7.906
1.200
0.613
8.625
1.300
0.566
9.343
1.400
0.525
10.062
1.500
0.490
10.781
1.600
0.460
11.499
1.700
0.433
12.218
1.800
0.409
12.937
1.900
0.387
13.656
2.000
0.368
14.374
Conterminous 48 States
2006 International Building Code
Latitude = 33.4928
Longitude = -117.1466
Site Modified Response Spectrum for Site Class D
SMs = FaSs and SM1 = FvS1
Site Class D - Fa = 1.0 ,Fv = 1.5
Period Sa Sd
Conterminous 48 States
2006 International Building Code
Latitude = 33.4928
Longitude = -117.1466
Design Response Spectrum for Site Class D
SDs = 2/3 x SMs and SDI = 2/3 x SM1
Site Class D - Fa = 1.0 ,Fv = 1.5
Period
Sa
Sd
0.000
0.787
0.000
0.112
1.966
0.242
0.200
1.966
0.768
0.561
1.966
6.050
0.600
1.839
6.468
0.700
1.576
7.547
0.800
1.379
8.625
0.900
1.226
9.703
1.000
1.103
10.781
1.100
1.003
11.859
1.200
0.920
12.937
1.300
0.849
14.015
1.400
0.788
15.093
1.500
0.736
16.171
1.600
0.690
17.249
1.700
0.649
18.327
1.800
0.613
19.405
1.900
0.581
20.483
2.000
0.552
21.562
Conterminous 48 States
2006 International Building Code
Latitude = 33.4928
Longitude = -117.1466
Design Response Spectrum for Site Class D
SDs = 2/3 x SMs and SDI = 2/3 x SM1
Site Class D - Fa = 1.0 ,Fv = 1.5
Period
Sa
Sd
(sec)
(g)
(inches)
0.000
0.524
0.000
0.112
1.311
0.161
0.200
1.311
0.512
0.561
1.311
4.033
0.600
1.226
4.312
0.700
1.051
5.031
0.800
0.920
5.750
0.900
0.817
6.468
1.000
0.736
7.187
1.100
0.669
7.906
1.200
0.613
8.625
1.300
0.566
9.343
1.400
0.525
10.062
1.600
0.460
11.499
1.700
0.433
12.218
1.800
0.409
12.937
1.900
0.387
13.656
2.000
0.368
14.374