HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3334 Lot 6 Costco Dairy Coolers Additions Geotechnical Reports PA 14- 6213
. t c 1s - 0393
Geotechnical Investigation Summary Checklist for Costco Wholesale Projects
. General Information
Costco Real Estate Main Contact: Jenifer Murillo
Geotechnical Main Contact: Brian Crystal (949-585-3113)
. Geotechnical Engineer of Record: Kleinfelder
Project Location: 26610 Ynez Road,Temecula,California
CWff: 13-0065
. Warehouse#: 491
Report Date: November 25,2014
Consultant Project/Document Number: 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810
. Addendums(List):
. Report Purpose: ❑ Preliminary ❑Draft ® Final ❑Addendum/Revision
• No
Yes or Describe/Comments Report section
. NA
• Pre-existing Conditions/Information
• Developer provided geotechnical report(describe): ❑
• Pre-existing development(describe) ❑ ® Existing Costco Warehouse 2.1
. Foundation type(describe): ❑
• Performance Issues(describe): ❑
• Environmental Issues(describe) ❑
• Site Grading Records(stripping,compaction test ❑
results,field reports,etc.)
Typical Building Structural Design Criteria
Other(describe): ® ❑ 12,550 sf receiving area addition 1.1
• and new loading dock
Building size(describe): ® ❑ 1.1
Typical wall loading
3 kips/foot'(Metal Buildings) ❑
4.5 kips/foot'(CMU or pre-cast) ® ❑
Typical column loading
120 kips in non-snow regions
150 kips in snow regions ❑
• Typical canopy loading: 50 kips ❑
• Typical floor slab loading
500 pounds per square foot,(psf,total) ® ❑
• 250 psf(dead)at rack areas ® ❑
150 psf(dead)at non-rack areas ® ❑
• 350 psf(live) ® ❑
November 25, 2014 Page 1 of 5
,s!$L - 4"'O I ,
Paving Design(20 year life) ,
Heavy Duty paving shall accommodate 30 trucks per ® El 3.10
day(Traffic Index of 7.0) ,
Light Duty paving shall accommodate 6,600 cars per ® ❑ 3.10
day(Traffic Index of 5.0)
Performance Grade(PG)binder oil identified for local 11 ❑ PG 70-10 3.10.3 ,
climate conditions
Site Grading Conditions/Assum tions ,
Deviations to Typical Criteria(list/describe): ❑ ® ,
Design Finished Floor Elevation(FFE)(describe): ❑ ® ,
Basis for FFE(assumed,per Civil)(describe): ❑ ® ,
Effects of change to assumed FFE(describe): ❑
Maximum anticipated cuts(describe): ❑ ® Level pad 1.1 •
Maximum anticipated fills(describe): ❑ ® ,
Cross sections prepared for sites that are not essentially ❑ ® •
flat ,
Amount of import/export anticipated(describe): ❑ ® ,
Frost Depth(describe): ❑ ® .
Retaining walls ,
Number of walls(describe): ® ❑ Loading dock 3.9 ,
Height/Length of walls(describe): ❑ ® ,
Wall construction/type(describe): ❑ ® ,
Cut/fill transition in pad(describe): ❑ ® .
Offsite Improvements(describe) ❑
FleldworWResults
Costco Due Diligence Design Criteria .
Version(describe): ® ❑ Version 2014,dated June 13,2014 .
Followed Criteria? ® ❑ ,
Deviations to standard investigation(describe): ❑ ® .
Groundwater .
Groundwater was not
encountered within borings,which
were advanced to a maximum .
Depth(describe): ® ❑ depth of 2134 feet below grade. 2.4
Groundwater was encountered ,
within 2 of the borings drilled for .
Leighton in 1999 at a depth of 25 ,
feet.
Perched ❑
Expected seasonal fluctuation(describe): ❑ ® •
Piezometers installed? ❑ ® •
Unusual/Challenging Soils conditions encountered •
November 25,2014 Page 2 of 5
r
•
• Moisture-sensitive soils ❑
Undocumented fill ® ❑
• Unsuitable soils(require removal) ® ❑
• Wet soils ❑
• Debris
• Bedrock(potential non-rippable conditions ❑ CRI
• Refusal ❑
• Collapsible soils - ❑
• Expansive soils ❑
Compressible soils ❑ ® -
• Liquefaction ❑ ® -
• Sinkholes ❑
Other(describe): ❑
• Potential Contamination Identified
Soil ❑
Groundwater ❑
Restoration of Disturbed Areas
• Backlilled with soil ® ❑
Backfilled with grout ❑
• Other(describe): ❑
• Topsoil samples collectedlanalyzed ❑
• Corrosivlty testing performedladdressed ® ❑ Highly corrosive to ferrous metals 3.11
• Report
• Executive summary ® ❑ E-1
Wet weather construction recommendations ❑
• Pad winterization/pad recommendations ❑
• Frost protection recommendations ❑
• Design Parameters
Fill material parameters provided
• Structural fill(below foundations,slabs) ® ❑ 3.4.2
• Site grading fill(below pavements,flatwork) ® ❑ 3.4.2
• Select backfill(behind truck dock walls,foundations, ❑ ® 4
• grade beams,etc.
• Trench backfill ® ❑ 3.4.6
November 25, 2014 Page 3 of 5
Drainage fill ❑ ® ,
Frost resistant fill ❑
Slab base aggregate ❑ ® •
Limits of debris/unsuitable removal provided ❑
Over-excavation/recompaction required ® ❑ 3.4.2
At least 3 feet below the bottom ;
of footings and replaced as
structural fill. If fill soils are .
Depth(describe): ® ❑ encountered at the base of the 3.4.2 .
overexcavation,the
overexcavation should continue ,
until the fill is removed. .
Extent(include cross-section diagram) ❑
Pad subgrade stabilization required(describe): ❑ ® ,
Surcharge ❑ ® .
Height(describe): ❑ ® .
Lateral extent(describe): ❑ ® .
Estimated duration(describe): ❑
Shallow Foundations ® ❑ ,
psi allowable soil bearing pressure(describe): ® ❑ 3,000 psf 3.3.2 ,
Deep Foundations ® ❑
Type(describe): ❑ ® .
Options and Value Engineering Matrix provided ❑ ® .
Floor Slabs ,
Unreinforced(>2500 psi) ❑ ® .
Reinforced(describe why) ❑ ®
Subgrade modulus(ksJn)(describe): ❑ ® .
Base Material thickness(min 6")(describe): ❑ ® .
Seismic Conditions .
Governing Building Code(IBC.UBC,other) ® ❑ 2013 California Building Code 3.2 .
Geologic Hazard Identified ❑ ® .
Proximity to eanhquako fault zone(s) ❑ ® .
Proximity to seismic hazard zone(s) ❑ ® ,
Potential for liquefaction ❑
Potential for lateral spreading ❑ ® •
November 25, 2014 Page 4 of 5
•
•
•
•
• Potential for seismic settfement ❑ 09
• Potential for slope stabilityllandslides ❑
• Potential for groundshaking or geologic hazards ❑ ® high
Retaining Walls ® ❑ Loading dock 3.9
• Recommended Wall Types ❑
• Recommend Kleinlelder Design ❑
• Lateral earth pressure design values ® ❑
• Active: - ® ❑ 3.9
• At-rest: ® ❑ 3.9
• Passive: - to ❑ 3.3
• Seismic: ❑
Back fill material,placement requirements ® ❑ 3.9
• Drainage requirements and cross-section drawing ® ❑ - 3.9
• Finger Drains ❑ IM
•, Required for frost ❑.
• Recommended for long term maintenance and ❑.
constructability
• Pavement
• Pavement subgrade stabilization required(describe): ❑ ® Proof-roll,scarify,and recompact 3.4.2
• Costco asphalt mix design specified ® ❑ 3.10.6
• Heavy and light duty pavement sections specified ® ❑ 3.10.2 and
• 3.10.3
Alternative pavement sections identified ❑
Specification for offshe pavement sections included ❑.
• Data GapslUnknowns(describe): ❑
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
November 25, 2014 Page 5 of 5
LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL STUDY
PROPOSED RECEIVING AREA AND .
DAIRY COOLER ADDITIONS
COSTCO WHOLESALE WAREHOUSE NO. 491
26610 YNEZ ROAD
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
CW# 13-0065 ,
Project No. 20152384.001A
Prepared for:
Costco Wholesale
9 Corporate Park; Suite230
Irvine, California 92606 .
November 25, 2014
Copyright 2014 Klelnfelder
All Rights Reserved
Unauthorized use or copying of this document Is strictly prohibited by anyone •
other than the client for the specific project., ,
20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page i of iv November 25, 2014
Copyright 2014 Kteinfelder
•
• KLE/NFELOER
• Bright People.Right Solutions.
•
•
• November 25, 2014
• Project No. 20152384.001 A
• Costco Wholesale
• 9 Corporate Park, Suite 230
• Irvine, California 92606
• Attention: Ms. Jenifer Murillo
• Director of Real Estate Development
•
• Subject: Limited Geotechnical Study
• Proposed Receiving Area and Dairy Cooler Additions
Costco Wholesale Warehouse No. 491
• 26610 Ynez Road
• Temecula, California
• CW# 13-0065
•
• Dear Ms. Murillo:
• Kleinfelder is pleased to present this report summarizing our limited geotechnical study for
• the proposed receiving area and dairy cooler additions to Costco Wholesale Warehouse
No. 491 located at 26610 Ynez Road in Temecula, California. The purpose of our
• geotechnical study was to evaluate subsurface soil conditions at the project site to provide
• geotechnical recommendations for design and construction. The conclusions and
• recommendations presented in this report are subject to the limitations presented in
• Section 5.
• We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services to you on this
project. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we can be of further service,
• please do not hesitate to contact Brian Crystal at (949) 727-4466, or Andy Franks,
• Kleinfelder's Client Account Manager for Costco, at (480) 650-4905.
• Respectfully submitted, --
• �E Chid
• KLEINFELDER, INC. f� 1
• / GE239 p
• J ry D. Waller, PE, GE Brian E. Crystal, PE, GE �oFCA,`FOF
• Senior Geotechnical Engineer Senior Project Manager
• JDW:BEC:mm
•
•
• 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page ii of iv November 25, 2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleinfeider
•
DER
TABLE •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page ;
EXECUTIVESUMMARY..............................................................................................E-1
1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................ 1
1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES............................................................................. 2 ,
1.2.1 Task 1 — Background Data Review................................................. 2 ,
1.2.2 Task 2 — Field Exploration............................................................... 2
1.2.3 Task 3 — Laboratory Testing ........................................................... 3
1.2.4 Task 4 — Geotechnical Analyses..................................................... 3
1.2.5 Task 5 — Report Preparation........................................................... 3 ,
2 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................ 5
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION .................. 5
2.2 SURFACE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS ...................................................... 5
2.3 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS.......................................................... 5 ,
2.3.1 Fill ................................................................................................... 5
2.3.2 Alluvium .......................................................................................... 6
2.4 GROUNDWATER...................................................................................... 6
3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................... 7
3.1 GENERAL.................................................................................................. 7 ,
3.2 2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS.......................................... 7
3.3 FOUNDATIONS......................................................................................... 8
3.3.1 General ........................................................................................... 8
3.3.2 Shallow Foundations....................................................................... 8 ,
3.4 EARTHWORK ........................................................................................... 9
3.4.1 General ........................................................................................... 9
3.4.2 Site Preparation ............................................................................ 10
3.4.3 Structural Fill Material and Compaction Criteria............................ 11 ,
3.4.4 Excavation Characteristics............................................................ 12 ,
3.4.5 Temporary Excavations ................................................................ 12
3.4.6 Trench Backfill .............................................................................. 13
3.5 TEMPORARY SHORING ........................................................................ 14
3.5.1 General ......................................................................................... 14 .
3.5.2 Lateral Pressures.......................................................................... 14
3.5.3 Design of Soldier Piles.................................................................. 15
3.5.4 Lagging ......................................................................................... 15
3.5.5 Deflection ...................................................................................... 16 ,
3.5.6 Monitoring ..................................................................................... 16
3.6 BUILDING SLAB-ON-GRADE ................................................................. 17
3.7 EXTERIOR FLATWORK ......................................................................... 17
3.8 SITE DRAINAGE ..................................................................................... 18 .
3.9 RETAINING STRUCTURES.................................................................... 19 ,
3.10 PAVEMENT SECTIONS.......................................................................... 20
3.10.1 Costco Pavement Design Parameters.......................................... 20
20152384.001AIIRV14RO9810 Page iii of iv November 25, 2014
Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
1 KLE/NFELOER
•
• TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Page
• 3.10.2 Asphalt Concrete Pavement ......................................................... 21
• 3.10.3 Asphalt Performance Grade Binder.............................................. 21
• 3.10.4 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement .......................................... 22
• 3.10.5 Aggregate Base ............................................................................ 22
• 3.10.6 Construction Considerations......................................................... 23
3.11 SOIL CORROSION ................................................................................. 23
• 3.12 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT........................................................... 24
• 4 Additional Services .......................................................................................... 26
• 4.1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW .............................................. 26
4.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING................................ 26
• 5 LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................... 27
• 6 REFERENCES................................................................................................... 30
•
• PLATES
• Plate 1 Site Vicinity Map
• Plate 2 Boring Location Plan
•
• APPENDICES
• Appendix A Field Explorations
• Appendix B Laboratory Testing
• Appendix C Borehole Infiltration Testing
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 20152384.001AIIRV14R09810 Page iv of iv November 25, 2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
•
LK E/NFELOER ,
w+�rt•pn wie.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of our limited geotechnical study for the proposed dairy
cooler addition to Costco Wholesale Warehouse No. 491 located at 26610 Ynez Road
in Temecula, California. We understand that Costco plans to demolish the existing
receiving dock and construct a 12,550 square-foot addition comprised of a new
receiving area and loading dock on the eastern side of the existing warehouse building
and a new dairy cooler on the northern side. As part of storm water management for
the project, Infiltration Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as subterranean
infiltration galleries, are being considered.
Leighton and Associates previously performed a geotechnical investigation for the
original warehouse development and presented the findings in the referenced report
dated April 26, 1999 (Leighton, 1999). The 1999 report was reviewed and evaluated by
Kleinfelder in developing the results presented herein.
Subsurface conditions at the site were recently explored by drilling five borings. Soil
materials encountered during the subsurface explorations consisted of fill underlain by
alluvial deposits. As observed in our borings, the fill depth was approximately 2 to 3
feet and consists generally of sand, sand with silt, and silty sand. Based on review of
Leighton's geotechnical report (Leighton, 1999), the Costco site was underlain by up to
approximately 10 feet of old fill or loose material prior to the development of the existing
Costco warehouse. The old fill was not considered suitable for structural support. As .
part of the building pad preparation for the existing warehouse, the old fill was .
overexcavated and replaced as structural fill. The overexcavation reportedly extended a .
horizontal distance beyond the edge of the foundations equal to the depth of the
overexcavation, which was at least 10 feet. Alluvial soils were observed to underlie the
fill in our borings. Groundwater was not encountered in our borings that were advanced .
to a maximum depth of approximately 21 1/2 feet below grade. .
Based on the results of our prior field exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical
analyses, it is our professional opinion that the proposed project is geotechnically .
feasible, provided the recommendations presented in this geotechnical report are .
incorporated into the project design and construction. The following key items were .
developed from our study.
20152384.001AIIRV14RO9810 E-1 November 25, 2014
copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
•
• �E/NFELOER
• The proposed receiving area and dairy cooler addition may be supported on a
• conventional shallow foundation system founded .on engineered fill. Footings
• founded on engineered, fill material may be designed for a net allowable soil
• bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus sustained
• live loads. A one-third increase in the above bearing pressures can be used for
• wind or seismic loads.
• The anticipated total settlement of the receiving area and the new cooler addition
will be on the order of 1/2 inch. Differential settlement will be equal to the total
• settlement and may be abrupt at the interface with the existing warehouse.
• Wherever new construction abuts existing older construction, small architectural
• cracking may occur. We suggest you consider, using architectural finishes or
details to disguise this cold joint area if it is a concern to Costco.
• For the building pad, we recommend that the existing soils be overexcavated to
• a depth of 3. It should be noted that a fill depth of approximately 2 to 3 feet
• below grade was encountered in our recent borings. However, deeper fills may
• exist between or beyond our soil borings. The fill immediately adjacent to the
• existing warehouse building, which was overexcavated and recompacted as part
• of the original building pad preparation, may be left in place. The actual limits of
• this fill should be verified during overexcavation.
• • The building pad preparation for the . existing warehouse consisted of
overexcavating the pad a horizontal distance beyond the edge of;the foundations
• equal to the depth of the overexcavation, which. was at least 10 feet. Depending
• on the condition of the fill immediately adjacent to the building, shoring and/or
• underpinning may be required to perform demolition and overexcavation
• adjacent to the existing building. Excavations within a 1 :1 (horizontal to vertical)
• plane extending downward from a horizontal distance of 2 feet beyond the
• bottom outer edge of existing improvements should not be attempted without
• bracing and/or underpinning.
• • For pavements, sidewalks and other flatwork within existing paved areas, we
• recommend that the exposed subgrade be proof-rolled with heavy construction
• equipment (e.g. loader or smooth-drum roller) to disclose areas of soft and
• yielding material. Where soft and yielding material is observed, it should be
• overexcavated and replaced as engineered fill. After proof-rolling and/or prior to
• placement of fill, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches,
•
• 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 E-2 November 25, 2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleinlelder
•
KLE/NFELOER •
moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry
unit weight (ASTM D1557). The proof-rolling should extend beyond the
proposed improvements a horizontal distance of at least 2 feet.
• The seismic design category for a structure may be determined in accordance
with Section 1613 of the 2013 CBC. Based on our field exploration, we classify .
the site as Site Class D. The 2010 CBC Seismic Design Parameters are ,
summarized in the Table 1. .
• The minimum resistivity of the sample indicates that the soil may be highly
corrosive to metals. The concentrations, of soluble sulfates indicate that the
potential of sulfate attack on concrete in contact with the on-site soils is
"negligible" based on ACI 318-11 Table 4.2.1 (AC1, 2011). Maximum water-
cement ratios and cement types are not specified for these sulfate
concentrations.
• As part of storm water management for the project, Infiltration BMPs, such as
subterranean infiltration galleries,-are being considered. Based on the results of
the borehole infiltration tests, the soil classification and gradation tests, the use
of infiltration BMPs, such as subterranean infiltration galleries, for storm water
management are feasible provided the galleries are located northeast of the
existing warehouse building near the cooler addition and capable of bypassing
the upper silty sand layer with outflow at a depth of at least 12 feet below grade.
If infiltration BMPs are impractical due to existing site constraints, we
recommend alternatives, such as bio-filtration/bio-retention systems (bio-swales
and planter boxes), be implemented at the project site.
The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this executive summary
should not be relied upon without consulting our geotechnical report for more detailed
description of the geotechnical evaluation performed by Kleinfelder. The conclusions
and recommendations presented in this report are subject to the limitations presented
in Section 5.
20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 E-3 November 25, 2014
Copyright 2014 Weinfelder .
LK E/NFELOER
•
• 1 INTRODUCTION
•
• This report presents the results of our limited geotechnical study for the proposed dairy
cooler addition to Costco Wholesale Warehouse No. located at 26610 Ynez Road in
• Temecula, California. The location of the project site is presented on Plate 1, Site
Vicinity Map. The purpose of our study is to evaluate subsurface soil and groundwater
• conditions at the project site to provide geotechnical recommendations for design and
construction. The scope of our services was presented in our proposal titled, "Proposal
for Limited Geotechnical Study, Proposed Receiving Area and Dairy Cooler Additions,
Costco Wholesale Warehouse No. 491, 26610 Ynez Road, Temecula; California" dated
• August28, 2014.
• Our - report includes a description of the work performed, a, discussion of the
geotechnical conditions observed at the site, and recommendations developed from our
• engineering analyses of field and laboratory data.
•
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
•
Kleinfelder understands that the project will consist of demolishing the existing receiving
dock and construct a 12,550 square-foot addition comprised of a new receiving area
• and loading dock on the eastern side of the existing warehouse building and a new
. dairy cooler on the northern side. As part of storm water management for the project,
• Infiltration Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as subterranean infiltration
• galleries, are being considered. The proposed improvements are shown on Plate 2,
• Boring Location Plan.
We anticipate that the new addition will be supported on spread footings and concrete
• slab=on-grade floors. Based on experience with similar projects, we have assumed that
• typical wall loads will be less.than 3.5 kips per lineal foot, and the slab load (dead plus
• sustained live) to be 350 pounds per square (psf). Grading plans were not provided;
• however, we anticipate the finished grades surrounding the addition will generally match
• the existing grades
•
•
•
•
• 20152384.001A1IRV14R09810 Page 1 of 30 November 25, 2014
Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder -
•
•
� KLE/NFELOER ,
1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of our limited geotechnical study consisted of a literature review, subsurface
explorations, geotechnical laboratory testing, engineering evaluation and analysis, and
preparation of this report. Studies to assess environmental hazards that may affect the
soil and groundwater at the site were beyond our geotechnical scope of work. A
description of our scope of services performed for the geotechnical portion of the
project follows.
1.2.1 Task 1 — Background Data Review
We reviewed readily-available published and unpublished geologic literature in our files
and the files of public agencies, including selected publications prepared by the
California Geological Survey (formerly known as the California Division of Mines and
Geology) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). We also reviewed readily available
seismic and faulting information, including data for designated earthquake fault zones
as well as our in-house database of faulting in the general site vicinity.
In addition, we reviewed the geotechnical investigation report prepared by Leighton &
Associates (Leighton, 1999) for the original warehouse development. The 1999 report
was reviewed and evaluated by Kleinfelder in developing the results presented herein.
1 .2.2 Task 2 — Field Exploration
Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling five borings to a depth
ranging from approximately 111/2 feet to 211/2 feet below the existing ground surface
(bgs). Borehole infiltration tests will be performed in four of the borings.
Prior to commencement of the fieldwork, various geophysical techniques were used at
the boring locations to identify potential conflicts with subsurface structures. Each of
our proposed field exploration locations were also cleared for buried utilities through
Underground Service Alert (USA).
A Kleinfelder staff geologist supervised the field operations and logged the explorations.
Selected bulk and drive samples were retrieved, placed in plastic bags, and transported
to our laboratory for further evaluation. The number of blows necessary to drive a
20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 2 of 30 November 25, 2014 /
Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
�E/NFELOER
•
• Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler or California-type sampler was recorded.
• Appendix A presents a description of the field exploration program, exploration logs,
and a legend of terms and symbols used on the logs. Soil descriptions used on the
• logs result from field observations and data, as well as from laboratory test data.
• Stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil and/or
• rock types, and the actual transition may vary and can be gradual. The procedures and
• test results from the borehole infiltration tests are presented in Appendix C.
•
• 1 .2.3 Task 3 = Laboratory Testing
•
• Laboratory .testing was performed on representative bulk and relatively undisturbed
• samples to,substantiate field classifications and to provide engineering parameters for
• geotechnical design. Laboratory testing consisted of in-situ moisture content, dry unit
weight, grain-size distribution, hydrometer, and corrosivity (sulfate, pH, minimum
resistivity, chloride content). A summary of the testing performed.and the results are
presented in Appendix B.
•
1.2.4 Task 4 — Geotechnical Analyses
•
Field and laboratory data were analyzed in conjunction with the finished grades, facility
• layout; and structural loads to provide geotechnical recommendations for the design
and construction. We evaluated feasible foundation systems, including constructability
• and compatibility constraints, floor, slab support, and earthwork. Seismic design
• parameters based on the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) are also presented.
As part of storm water management for the project, we also evaluated the results of the
• borehole infiltration tests and laboratory testing in order to provide recommendations for
• locating and designing subterranean infiltration galleries. The results of the borehole
• infiltration tests are presented in Appendix C.
1.2.5 Task 5 — Report Preparation
This report summarizes the work performed, data acquired, and our findings,
• conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the
• proposed addition. Our report includes the following items:
•
• 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 3 of 30 November 25, 2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleintelder
•
E/NFELOER ;
• Site Location Map and Boring Location Plan;
• Boring logs, including approximate elevation (Appendix A); ;
• Results of laboratory tests (Appendix B);
• Discussion of general site conditions;
• Discussion of general subsurface conditions as encountered in our field ;
exploration; .
• Recommendations for site preparation, earthwork, temporary slope inclinations,
fill placement, and compaction specifications, including the excavation
characteristics of subsurface soil deposits;
• Recommendations for foundation design, allowable bearing pressures,
embedment depths, and compatibility constraints under various loading
conditions;
• Recommendations for support of slabs-on-grade; ,
• Recommendations for seismic design parameters in accordance with the
2013 California Building Code (CBC);
• Preliminary evaluation of the corrosion potential of the on-site soils based on
testing results from previous studies; and
• Results of the borehole infiltration tests (Appendix C) and recommendations for .
long-term design infiltration rates and locating subterranean infiltration galleries. ,
20152384.001AIIRV14RO9810 Page 4 of 30 November 25, 2014
Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder .
t KLE/NFELOER
•
• 2 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
•
• 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
•
The receiving area is located on the eastern side of the existing warehouse building.
• The surface is concrete and asphalt and contains a large fenced in area. The proposed
• dairy cooler is located on the north side of the existing warehouse building. The surface
• of proposed dairy cooler location is currently covered by asphalt concrete, contains a
small landscape area, and is generally used for additional warehouse parking.
• 2.2 SURFACE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
The site generally slopes to the south, away from .the existing warehouse. Site
drainage is currently by sheet flow into on-site catch basins, storm drains, or drainage
inlets in the parking area.
2.3 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS
• Subsurface conditions at the site generally .consist of"artificial fill' underlain by alluvial
deposits: A discussion. of the subsurface materials encountered is presented in the,
following sections. Detailed descriptions of the deposits are provided in our boring logs
presented in Appendix A.
2.3.1 Fill
Fill soils associated with previous site grading were encountered in the borings drilled
• for this investigation. The fill consists generally of silty sand with occasional gravel. As
• observed in our borings, the fill depth was approximately up to 3 feet below current site
• grades. Deeper fill may be encountered between or beyond the boring location.
• Laboratory testing indicates in-situ moisture contents ranging from 5.3 to 19.2 percent.
Based on review of Leighton's 1999 geotechnical report (Leighton, 1999), the area of
• the cooler addition was underlain by up to approximately 10 feet of old fill or loose soil
• prior to the development of the existing Costco warehouse. The old fill is not
• considered suitable for structural support. As part of the building pad preparation for
•
• 20152384.001 All RV14R09810 Page 5 of 30 November 25, 2014
copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
KLE/NFELDER
•
the existing warehouse, the old fill was overexcavated and replaced as structural fill. •
The overexcavation reportedly extended a horizontal distance beyond the edge of the •
foundations equal to the depth of the overexcavation, which was at least 10 feet. •
•
2.3.2 Alluvium •
•
Alluvial soil was observed to underlie the fill in our borings. As observed, the alluvium •
consisted of medium dense silty sand, sand with silt, and poorly graded sand with •
occasional fine gravel. •
•
2.4 GROUNDWATER •
•
Groundwater was not encountered within borings, which were advanced to a maximum
depth of 211/2 feet bgs. Groundwater was encountered within 2 of the borings drilled for •
Leighton (1999) at a depth of 25 feet bgs. Groundwater is not anticipated to affect the •
excavations for the proposed receiving area or cooler additions. •
•
Fluctuations of the groundwater level, localized zones of perched water, and increased •
soil moisture content should be anticipated during and following the rainy season. •
Irrigation of landscaped areas on or adjacent to the site can also cause a fluctuation of •
local groundwater levels. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
20152384.001 A/IRV14RO9810 Page 6 of 30 November 25, 2014 •
Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder •
•
rE/NFELOER
3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 GENERAL
Based on the results of our prior field exploration, laboratory testing and engineering
analyses conducted during this study, it is our professional opinion that the proposed
project is geotechnically feasible, provided the recommendations presented in this report
are incorporated into the project design and construction. The following opinions,
conclusions, and recommendations are based on the properties of the materials
• encountered in the borings, the results of the laboratory-testing program, and our
• engineering analyses performed. Our recommendations regarding the geotechnical
• aspects of the design and construction of the project are presented in the following
• sections.
3.2 2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
T
Based on information obtained from the investigation, published geologic literature and
• maps, and on our interpretation of the 2013.Californi6 Building Code (CBC) criteria, it is
• our opinion that the project site may be classified as Site Class D, Stiff Soil, according to
• Section 1613.3.2 of 2013 CBC and Table20.3-1 of ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2010). Approximate
• coordinates for the site are noted below.
Latitude: 34.5212 IN
Longitude: 117.1542 M
The Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) mapped spectral
accelerations for 0.2 seconds and 1 second periods (Sr, and S1) were estimated using
Section 1613.3 of the 2013 CBC and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) web based
application (available at http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php). The
mapped acceleration values and associated soil amplification factors (Fa and Fv) based
on the 2013 CBC and corresponding site modified spectral accelerations (Sons and SM1)
and design spectral accelerations (Spsand Sp1) are presented in Table 1.
20152384.001 AARV1 4RO981 0 Page 7 of 30 November 25, 2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
(KLE/NFELOER
•
Table 1 •
2013 CBC Seismic Design Parameters •
•
Design Parameter Recommended Value •
Site Class D •
Ss (g) 1.966
S, (g) 0.803 •
Fe 1.0 •
F 1.5 •
SMs (g) 1.966 •
SM, (9) 1.204 •
SDs (9) 1.311 •
SD, (9) 1.000 •
PGAM (g) 0.804 •
3.3 FOUNDATIONS' •
3.3.1 General •
•
Based on. the results of our field exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical •
analyses, the proposed addition may be supported on conventional shallow foundations •
(spread footings) founded on engineered fill. Recommendations for the design and •
construction of shallow foundations are presented below. •
•
3.3.2 Shallow Foundations •
Allowable Soil Bearing Pressure •
Spread footings founded on engineered fill may be designed for a net allowable soil •
bearing pressure of 3,000 psf for dead plus sustained live loads. The footings should •
be established at a depth of at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent exterior grade. •
A one-third increase in the above bearing pressures can be used for wind or seismic •
•
•
20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 8 of 30 November 25, 2014 •
Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder •
•
�E/NFELOER
•
• loads. The footing dimension and reinforcement should be designed by the structural
• engineer; however, continuous footings should have minimum widths of 12 inches. _
• Estimated Settlement
We anticipate total settlement of the receiving area and new cooler additions will be on
• the order of 1/2 inch. Differential settlement will be equal to the total settlement and may
• be abrupt at the interface with the existing warehouse. Wherever new construction abuts
• existing older construction, small architectural cracking may occur. We suggest you
• consider using architectural finishes or details to disguise this cold joint area if it is a
• concern to Costco:
• Lateral Resistance
• Lateral load resistance may be derived from passive resistance along the vertical sides of
• . the footings, friction acting at the base of the footing, or ,a combination of the two. An
• allowable passive resistance of 300 psf per foot of depth may be used for design.
• Allowable passive resistance values should not ,exceed 3,000 psf. An allowable
• coefficient of friction value of 0.35between the base of the footings and the engineered fill
• soils can be used for sliding resistance,using the dead load forces. Friction and passive .
• resistance may be combined without reduction. We recommend that the first foot of soil
• cover be neglected in the passive resistance calculations if the ground surface is not
• protected from erosion or disturbance by a slab, pavement or in a similar manner.
• 3.4 EARTHWORK
•
• 3.4.1 General
•
• Site preparation and earthwork operations should be performed in accordance with
• applicable codes, safety regulations and other local, state or federal specifications, and
• the recommendations included in this report. References to maximum dry unit weights
• are established in accordance with the latest version of ASTM Standard Test Method
•, D1557 (modified Proctor). The earthwork operations should be observed and tested by
• a representative of Kleinfelder.
•
•
•
•
• 20152384.001A1IRV14R09810 Page 9 of 30 November 25, 2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
1 KLE/NFELOER ,
3.4.2 Site Preparation
Abandoned utilities, foundations, and other existing improvements within the proposed
improvement areas should be removed and the excavation(s) backfilled with
engineered fill. Debris produced by demolition operations, including wood, steel, piping,
plastics, etc., should be separated and disposed of off-site. Existing utility pipelines or
conduits that extend beyond the limits of the proposed construction and are to be
abandoned in place, should be plugged with non-shrinking cement grout to prevent
migration of soil and/or water. Demolition, disposal and grading operations should be
observed and tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Areas to receive
fill should be stripped of all dry, loose or soft earth materials and undocumented fill
materials to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer.
• Building Pad: In order to provide uniform support for the proposed building
additions, we recommend that the existing soils be overexcavated to a depth of
at least 3 feet below the bottom of footings and replaced as structural fill. If fill
soils are encountered at the base of the overexcavation, the overexcavation
should continue until the fill is removed. It should be noted that a fill depth of
approximately 2 to 3 feet below grade was encountered in our recent borings.
However, deeper fills may exist between or beyond our soil borings. The fill
immediately adjacent to the existing warehouse building, which was
overexcavated and recompacted as part of the original building pad preparation,
may be left in place. The actual limits of this fill should be verified during 1
overexcavation. The overexcavation should extend horizontally beyond the limits
of the building pad a distance equal to the thickness of fill below the bottom of
the proposed foundations or five feet, whichever is greater, if practicable.
As discussed Section 2.3.1 , the building pad preparation for the existing
warehouse consisted of overexcavating the pad a horizontal distance beyond the
edge of the foundations equal to the depth of the overexcavation, which was at
least 10 feet. Depending on the condition of the fill immediately adjacent to the
building, shoring and/or underpinning may be required to perform demolition and
overexcavation adjacent to the existing building. Excavations within a 1 :1
(horizontal:vertical) plane extending downward from a horizontal distance of
2 feet beyond the bottom outer edge of existing improvements should not be
20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 10 of 30 November 25, 2014 ,
Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
rE/NFELOER
•
• attempted without bracing and/or underpinning. All applicable excavation safety
• requirements and regulations, including OSHA requirements, should be met.
• Pavement, Sidewalks and Other Flatwork Areas: After the area has been
• stripped of soft earth materials and debris, we recommend that the exposed
• subgrade be proof-rolled with heavy construction equipment (e.g. loader or
• smooth-drum roller) to disclose areas of soft and yielding material. Where soft
• and yielding material is observed, it should be overexcavated and replaced as
• engineered fill. After proof-rolling and/or prior to placement of fill, the subgrade
• should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches, moisture :conditioned, and
• compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight. The proof-
rolling should extend beyond the proposed improvements a horizontal distance
of at,least 2 feet.
• 3.4.3 Structural Fill Material and Compaction Criteria
•
• The on-site soils', minus any debris; organic matter, or other deleterious materials, may
be used in the site fills. Rock'or other soil fragments greater'than 3 inches in size
should not be used in.the fills.
•
We recommend that fill soils be compacted in accordance with the Costco Design
Requirements to at' least 95 percent of the maximum dry 'unit weight (ASTM D1557).
Fill should be placed in loose horizontal lifts not more than 8 inches thick (loose
measurement). The moisture content of the fill should be maintained near optimum
moisture content during compaction. Processing may require ripping the material,
disking to breakup clumps, and blending to attain uniform moisture contents necessary
for compaction. Utility trench backfill should be mechanically compacted. Flooding
should not be permitted.
•
Import materials, if required, should have an expansion index of less than 20 with no
more than 30 percent of the particles passing the No. 200 sieve and no particles
greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. The maximum expansion index for
imported soils may be modified by the project geotechnical engineer depending on its
proposed use. Imported fill should be documented to be free of hazardous materials,
including petroleum or petroleum byproducts, chemicals and harmful minerals.
• 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 11 of 30 November 25, 2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
KK E/NFELOER ,
/.tmwm. bud.
Kleinfelder should evaluate the proposed imported materials prior to their transportation
and use on site.
3.4.4 Excavation Characteristics
The borings drilled as part of our field exploration were advanced using a truck-
mounted drill rig equipped with hollow-stem augers. Drilling effort was easy to
moderate. It is anticipated that conventional earthmoving equipment maintained in
good condition should be capable of excavating the anticipated materials.
3.4.5 Temporary Excavations
Temporary cuts may be sloped back at an inclination of no steeper than 1.5:1
(horizontal to vertical) in existing artificial fill materials. Minor sloughing and/or raveling
of weathered materials should be anticipated. If signs of slope instability are observed,
the inclination recommended above should be decreased until stability of the slope is
obtained. In addition, at the first signs of slope instability, the geotechnical engineer
should be contacted. Where space for sloped embankments is not available, shoring
will be necessary. Shoring and/or underpinning of existing improvements that are to
remain may be required to perform the demolition and overexcavation. Excavations
within a 1 :1 plane extending downward from a horizontal distance of 2 feet beyond the
bottom outer edge of existing improvements should not be attempted without bracing
and/or underpinning the improvements. The geotechnical engineer or their field
representative should observe the excavations so that modifications can be made to
the excavations, as necessary, based on variations in the encountered soil conditions.
All applicable excavation safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA
requirements, should be met.
Where sloped excavations are used, barricades should be placed at the crest of the
slopes so that vehicles and storage loads do not encroach within a distance equal to ;
the depth of the excavation. Greater setback may be necessary when considering ,
heavy vehicles, such as concrete trucks and cranes. Kleinfelder should be advised in .
advance of such heavy vehicle loadings so that specific setback requirements can be ,
established. If temporary construction slopes are to be maintained during the rainy .
season, berms are recommended along the tops of the slopes to reduce runoff that .
may enter the excavation and erode the slope faces. .
20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 12 of 30 November 25, 2014
Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder .
. �E/NFELOER
•
• Due to the granular and cohesionless nature of some of the on-site soils, vertical or
• steeply sided trench excavations should not be attempted without proper shoring or
• bracings. All trench excavations should be braced and shored in accordance with good
• construction practice and all applicable safety ordinances and codes. The contractor
• should be responsible for the structural design and safety of the temporary shoring
• system, and we recommend that this design be submitted to Kleinfelder for review to
• check that our recommendations have been incorporated. For planning purposes, the
• on-site soils may be considered Type C, as defined using the current OSHA soil
• classification.
• Stockpiled (excavated) imaterials should. be placed no closer to the edge of an
• excavation than 'a distance equal to the depth of the excavation, but no closer than 4
• feet. All trench excavations should be made in accordance with OSHA requirements.
• 3.4.6 Trench Backfill
• Pipe zone backfill (i.e. material beneath and in the immediate vicinity of.the pipe) should
• Consist of imported soil less,than 3/4-inch in maximum dimension. Trench zone backfill
• (i.e., material placed between the pipe zone backfill and finished subgrade) may consist
of onsite soil. or imported fill that meets the requirements for engineered fill provided
• above.
• If imported material is used for trench zone backfill, we recommend .it,consist of silty
• sand. In general, gravel should not be used for trench zone backfill due to the potential
• for soil migration into the relatively large void spaces present in this type of material and
• water seepage along trenches backfilled with coarse-grained sand and/or gravel.
•
• Recommendations provided above for pipe zone backfill are minimum requirements
only. More stringent material specifications may be required to fulfill local building
• requirements and/or bedding requirements for specific types of pipes. We recommend
• the project civil engineer develop these material specifications based on planned pipe
• types, bedding conditions, and other factors beyond the scope of this study.
Trench backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with recommendations
• provided for engineered fill in Section 3.4.3. Mechanical compaction is recommended;
•
• 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 13 of 30 November 25, 2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleinlelder
•
(OKLE/WIELDER •
ponding or jetting should not be allowed, especially in areas supporting structural loads
or beneath concrete slabs supported on grade, pavements, or other improvements.
3.5 TEMPORARY SHORING
3.5.1 General
Temporary shoring may be required in areas adjacent to existing structures or
improvements where excavations cannot be adequately sloped. Temporary shoring
may consist of a turn-key shoring system, soldier piles and lagging, or other system.
Recommendations for design of temporary shoring are presented below.
The shoring design should be provided by a civil engineer registered in the State of
California and experienced in the design and construction of shoring under similar
conditions. Once the final excavation and shoring plans are complete, the plans and
design should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer for conformance with the
design intent and geotechnical recommendations provided herein.
3.5.2 Lateral Pressures
For the design of cantilevered shoring, an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per
cubic foot may be used for level backfill. Where the surface of the retained earth
slopes up away from the shoring, a greater pressure should be used. Design data can
be developed for additional cases when the design conditions are established.
In addition to the recommended earth pressure, any surcharge (live, including traffic, or
dead load) located within a 1 :1 plane drawn upward from the base of the shored
excavation should be added to the lateral earth pressures. The lateral contribution of a
uniform surcharge load located immediately behind the wall may be calculated by
multiplying the surcharge by 0.30 for the level backfill condition. Lateral load
contributions of surcharges located at a distance behind the shored wall may be
provided once the load configurations and layouts are known. As a minimum, a 2-foot
equivalent soil surcharge (250 psf) is recommended to account for nominal construction
loads. It should be noted that the above pressures do not include hydrostatic pressure
and assume that dewatering will be performed if groundwater is above the excavation.
20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 14 of 30 November 25, 2014
Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
�E/NFELOER
/•yn„gyp.as„re.,,e.
3.5.3 Design of Soldier Piles
All soldier piles should extend to a sufficient depth below the excavation bottom to
provide the required lateral resistance. We recommend that the required embedment
depths be calculated based on the principles of force and moment equilibrium. For this
method, the allowable passive pressure against soldier piles that extend below the level
of excavation may be assumed to be equivalent to a fluid pressure of 300 pounds per
cubic foot (pcf), with a maximum resistance value of 3,000 psf. To account for arching,
the passive resistance may be assumed to act on an 2.5 times the width of the
embedded portion of the pile, provided adjacent piles are spaced at least 3 pile
diameters,.center-to-center.
Drilling of the soldier pile shafts could be accomplished using conventional heavy-duty
drilling equipment. However, caving soils is anticipated to .be encountered and some
difficulty may be experienced in the drilling of the soldier pile shafts. It may be
necessary to use casing and/or other techniques to permit the installation of the soldier
piles. Concrete for piles should be placed immediately after drilling of the hole is
complete. The concrete should be pumped to the bottom of the drilled shaft, using a
tremie. Once concrete pumping is• initiated, a minimum head of 5 feet of concrete
above the bottom of the tremie should be established and maintained throughout the
concrete placement to prevent contamination of the concrete by soil inclusions. If steel
casing is used, the casing should be removed as the concrete is placed.
To develop full lateral resistance, provisions should be taken to assure firm contact
between the soldier piles and undisturbed materials. The concrete placed in the soldier
pile excavations may be a lean-mix concrete. However, the concrete used in that
• portion of. the soldier pile that is below the planned excavated level should provide
• sufficient strength to adequately transfer the imposed loads to the surrounding
• materials.
99�
3.5.4 Lagging
• 9
Continuous treated timber lagging should be used between the soldier piles. The
• lagging should be installed as the excavation proceeds. If treated timber is used, the
• lagging may remain in place after backfilling. The lagging should be designed for the
20152384.001A/IRV14RO9810 Page 15 of 30 November 25, 2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleinlelder
•
OCR
recommended ;
recommended earth pressure but limited to a maximum value of 400 pounds per
square foot.
Some caving and running of the upper soils should be anticipated. To reduce the
potential for loss of ground and settlement of the soil behind the wall, the contractor
should backfill any space between the lagging and the cut slope with clean sand or
sand-cement slurry after installation.
3.5.5 Deflection
Shoring adjacent to existing structures or improvements should be designed and
constructed so as to reduce the potential movement. Once the actual excavation
configuration is known, we should be afforded the opportunity to evaluate the
anticipated lateral deflections of the proposed shoring system.
3.5.6 Monitoring
Some deflection of the shored excavation should be anticipated during the planned
excavation. We recommend the project civil engineer perform a survey of all existing
utilities and structures adjacent to the shored excavation. The purpose of this survey
would be to evaluate the ability of existing utility lines or improvements to withstand
horizontal movements associated -with a shored excavation and to establish' the
baseline condition in case of unfounded claims of damage. If existing improvements
are not capable of withstanding anticipated lateral movements; alternative shoring
systems may be required.
Horizontal and vertical movements of the shoring system should be monitored by a
licensed surveyor. The construction monitoring and performance of the shoring system
are ultimately the contractor's responsibility. However, at a minimum, we recommend
that the tops of soldier beams be surveyed prior to excavation and that the top and
bottom of the soldier beams be surveyed on a weekly basis until the foundation is
completed. Surveying should consist of measuring" movements in vertical and two ;
perpendicular horizontal directions.
20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 16 of 30 November 25, 2014
copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
\r E/NFELOER
•
• 3.6 BUILDING SLAB-ON-GRADE
•
• Concrete slab-on-grade floors are appropriate for the proposed warehouse, provided
• subgrade is prepared in accordance with Section 3.4.2. In accordance with the
• CWDRs, we recommend the slab be a minimum nominal thickness of 6 inches and
• underlain by at least 6 inches of aggregate base material. Aggregate base materials
• should meet current Caltrans specifications for Class 2 aggregate base.
•
• A modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for
• design of slabs supported on 6 inches of aggregate base material over engineered fill,
• as discussed below. Pursuant to. Costco's current standard, construction design
• practices, we have evaluated the necessity of using steel reinforcement in the floor
• slab. Based on. the geotechnical characteristics of the site, the proposed warehouse
can be built with a non-reinforced slab.
Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking.
Control joint spacing is a function-of slab thickness, aggregate size,.slump and curing
conditions. The requirements for concrete slab thickness, joint spacing, and
• reinforcement should be established by the designer, based on experience, recognized
design guidelines and the intended slab use. Placement and curing conditions.will have
• a strong impact on the final concrete slab integrity.
Groundwater is not anticipated to affect the proposed construction. . Kleinfelder typically
recommends installation of I a vapor barrier beneath 'the slab to mitigate potential
moisture issues such as flooring performance and mold. However, we understand that
Costco Wholesale has determined that moisture barriers are not to be used in
• construction of Costco Wholesale warehouses due to adverse effects on concrete
curing and performance. Therefore, we have provided construction recommendations
• that do not include installation of a moisture barrier, with the understanding that there
• will be an increased risk for adverse moisture issues.
3.7 EXTERIOR FLATWORK
Prior to casting exterior flatwork, the subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture
• conditioned, and recompacted or overexcavated, as recommended in Section 3.4.2.
• Exterior concrete slabs for pedestrian traffic or landscape should be at least four inches
• 20152384.001A/IRV14RO9810 Page 17 of 30 November 25, 2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
•
�E/NFELOER ;
thick. Weakened plane joints should be located at intervals of about 6 feet. Careful
control of the water/cement ratio should be performed to avoid shrinkage cracking due
to excess water or poor concrete finishing or curing. Unreinforced slabs should not be
built in areas where further saturation may occur following construction.
3.8 SITE DRAINAGE
Foundation and slab performance depends greatly on proper irrigation and how well
runoff water drains from the site. This drainage should be maintained both during
construction and over the entire life of the project. The ground surface around structures
should be graded such that water drains rapidly away from structures without ponding.
The surface gradient needed to do this depends on the surface type and should follow
Costco's Wholesale Development Requirements (Costco Wholesale, 2014).
We recommend that landscape planters either not be located adjacent to buildings and
pavement areas or be properly drained to area drains. Drought resistant plants and
minimum watering are recommended for planters immediately adjacent to structures.
No raised planters should be installed immediately adjacent to structures unless they
are damp-proofed and have a drainpipe connected to an area drain outlet. Planters
should be built such that water exiting from them will not seep into the foundation areas
or beneath slabs and pavement. Otherwise, waterproofing the slab and walls should be
considered. Roof water should be directed to fall on hardscape areas sloping to an
area drain, or roof gutters and downspouts should be installed and routed to area
drains. Roof downspouts and their associated drains should be isolated from other
subdrain systems to avoid flooding. In any event, maintenance personnel should be
instructed to limit irrigation to the minimum actually necessary to properly sustain
landscaping plants. Should excessive irrigation, waterline breaks or unusually high
rainfall occur, saturated zones and "perched" groundwater may develop. Consequently,
the site should be graded so that water drains away readily without saturating the ;
foundation or landscaped areas. Potential sources of water such as water pipes, .
drains, and the like should be frequently examined for signs of leakage or damage. ,
Any such leakage or damage should be promptly repaired. Wet utilities should also be ,
designed to be watertight.
20152384.001 AARV1 4RO981 0 Page 18 of 30 November 25, 2014
Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
•
E/NFELOER
•
• 3.9 RETAINING STRUCTURES
• Design earth pressures for retaining structures depend primarily on the allowable wall
• movement, wall inclination, type of backfill materials, backfill slopes, surcharges, and
• drainage. The earth pressures provided assume that the on-site granular soil will be
• used as backfill. If a drainage system is not installed, the wall should be designed to
• resist hydrostatic pressure in addition to the earth pressure. Determination of whether
• the active or at-rest condition is appropriate for design will depend on the flexibility of
• the walls. Walls that are free to rotate at least 0.002 radians (deflection at the top of the
wall of at least 0.002 x H, where H is the unbalanced.wall height)' may be designed for
• the active condition. Walls that are not capable of this movement should be assumed
• rigid and designed for the at-rest.condition. The recommended active and at-rest earth
• pressures and passive resistance values are provided in Table 5.
• Table 2
• Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Structures
• (On-site Granular Backfill)
• Wall movement Backfill Condition Equivalent Fluid Pressure
• (Pcf)
• Free to Deflect 40
• (active condition) Level
• Restrained 60
(at-rest condition)
• The above lateral earth pressures do not include the effects of surcharges (e.g., traffic,
footings), compaction; or truck-induced wall pressures. Any surcharge (live, including
• traffic, or dead load) located within a 1 :1 (horizontal to vertical) plane drawn upward
• from the base of the excavation should be added to the lateral earth pressures. The
• lateral contribution of a uniform surcharge load located immediately behind walls may
• be calculated by multiplying the surcharge by 0.33 for cantilevered walls under active
• conditions and 0.50 for restrained walls under at-rest conditions. Walls adjacent to
• areas subject to vehicular traffic should be designed for a 2-foot equivalent soil
• surcharge (250 psf). Lateral load contributions from other surcharges located behind
• walls may be provided once the load configurations and layouts are known.
•
•
• 20152384.001AIIRV14R09810 Page 19 of 30 November 25, 2014
• copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
•
•
(OKLE/NFELOER
•
Walls should be properly drained or designed to resist hydrostatic pressures. Adequate •
drainage is essential to provide a free-drained backfill condition so that there is no •
hydrostatic buildup behind the wall. Walls should also be appropriately waterproofed to •
reduce the potential for staining. Drainage behind loading dock walls can consist of •
weepholes placed along the base of the wall. Weepholes should be spaced 10 to 15 •
feet apart and connected with a gravel drain consisting of approximately 3 cubic feet of •
clean gravel per foot of wall length wrapped with filter fabric. •
•
3.10 PAVEMENT SECTIONS •
The required pavement structural sections will depend on the expected wheel loads, •
volume of traffic, and subgrade soils. We have provided asphalt concrete pavement •
sections for traffic indices provided in the CWDRs (Costco, 2014). Positive:drainage of •
the paved areas should be provided since moisture infiltration into the subgrade may •
decrease the life of pavements. Curbing located adjacent to paved areas should be •
founded in the subgrade, not the aggregate base, in order to provide a cutoff, which •
reduces water infiltration into the base course. •
•
The following pavement sections provided above are based on the soil conditions •
encountered during our field exploration, our assumptions regarding final site grades, •
and limited laboratory testing. •
•
3.10.1 Costco Pavement Design Parameters •
•
We developed pavement design recommendations using traffic loading parameters •
provided in the CWDRs and the following data: •
A 20-year pavement design life;
• Light-duty pavements subject to 6,600 passenger vehicle trips per day (Traffic •
Index of 5.0); •
• Heavy-duty pavements subject to 30 tractor-trailer truck tips per day (Traffic •
Index of 7.0); •
For asphalt concrete pavements: a design R-value of 20; and •
•
•
20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 20 of 30 November 25, 2014 •
Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder •
•
• \�E/NFELOER
• ��i hn,wm..am rmu�.'
For Portland cement concrete (PCC) Pavements: a 28-day flexural,strength
(modulus of rupture determined by the third-point method) of at least 550 pounds
per square inch (psi) (approximate compressive strength of 4,000 psi); a
modulus of subgrade reaction (k value) of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci); and
interlock at the control joints.
3.10.2 Asphalt Concrete Pavement
We designed asphalt concrete pavement, also referred to as Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA), in
accordance with the Asphalt Institute Manual Series (MS-1), Asphalt Pavements for
Highways and Streets. HMA should conform to requirements of the Costco Wholesale
Asphalt Pavement and Surfacing Specification 02471 . Pavement lifts should not exceed
three inches. Table 3 presents. recommended minimum HMA pavement -sections. It
should be noted that the existing pavement section consists of approximately 3 to 4
inches of asphalt concrete, over 7 to 8 inches of aggregate base. Consideration should
be,given to matching the existing sections at minimum. Prior to placement of aggregate
base, pavement subgrade should be prepared in accordance with Section 3.4.2.
Table 3
• Recommended Minimum Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
Traffic Use Traffic Index, TI Asphalt Concrete Aggregate Base
• (inches) (inches)
Light-Duty 5.0 3.5 6.0
• Pavement
• Heavy-Duty 7.0 6.5 6.0
• Pavement 5.0 1 12.0
3.10.3 Asphalt Performance Grade Binder
Performance Grade (PG) Binder 70-10 is appropriate for the project. This
recommendation was developed in accordance with Costco Wholesale Specifications
Section 02741. Air temperature data for the five data stations nearest the project site
was averaged and the PG was selected using the FHWA program LTTPBind
Version 3A . The high-end temperature rating was selected as one grade higher than
20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 21 of 30 November 25, 2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
� KLE/NFELOER ,
the 98 percent reliability binder and the low-end temperature was selected to provide a
reliability of at least 90 percent.
3.10.4 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
1
We designed PCC pavement in accordance with the Portland Cement Association
(PCA) Thickness Design for Concrete Pavements (PCA, 1984). The design assumes
that the PCC will have a 28-day flexural strength (modulus of rupture determined by the
third-point method) of at least 550 pounds per square inch (psi) (approximate
compressive strength of 4,000 psi). A design modulus of subgrade reaction (k value) of
150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) was assumed for the top of the compacted aggregate
base. It was also assumed that aggregate interlock would be developed at the control
joints. The pavement sections are based on a theoretical design life of 20 years.
Recommended minimum PCC sections are presented in Table 4. Prior to placement of
aggregate base, pavement subgrade should be prepared in accordance with Section
3.4.2.
Table 4
Recommended Minimum PCC Pavement Sections
Traffic Use Traffic Index, TI PCC Aggregate Base(inches) (inches)
Light-Duty 5.0 6.5 6.0 ,
Pavement
Heavy-Duty 7.0 7.0 6.0
Pavement
3.10.5 Aggregate Base
Aggregate base materials should meet current Caltrans specifications for Class 2
aggregate base. Alternatively, the aggregate base course could meet the specifications
for untreated base materials (crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base)
as defined in Section 200-2 of the current edition of the Standard Specifications for
Public Works Construction (Greenbook). Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base and crushed
miscellaneous base (CMB) utilize recycled materials and require Costco's approval
prior to use.
20152384.001A/IRV14RO9810 Page 22 of 30 November 25, 2014 /
Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
KLE/NFELOER
3.10.6 Construction Considerations
The pavement sections provided above are contingent on the following
recommendations being implemented during construction.
• Pavement subgrade should'be prepared as recommended in Section 3.4.2.
• Subgrade soils should be in a stable, non-pumping condition at the time the
aggregate base materials are placed and compacted.
• Aggregate base materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative
compaction (ASTM D1557).
• Asphalt paving materials and placement methods should meet current Costco
Wholesale Specifications Section 02741.
• Adequate drainage (both surface and subsurface) should-be provided such that
. the subgrade soils and aggregate base materials are not allowed to,become wet.
Note that pavement materials and construction must be completed,in.strict accordance
with the Costco's specifications that contain very specific pavement material (asphalt,
aggregate and concrete) criteria and construction practices to be used (compaction and
material sampling). The general contractor.and pavement construction subcontractor
should be aware that asphalt and concrete mix. designs must be submitted to the
design architect and Kleinfelder at least 45 days prior to the scheduled production and
laydown for review and approval.
3.11 SOIL CORROSION
The corrosion potential of the on-site materials to steel and buried concrete was
preliminarily evaluated. Laboratory testing was performed on one representative soil
• samples to evaluate pH, minimum resistivity, chloride and soluble sulfate content. The
• test results are presented in Table 5.
20152384.001A1IRV14R09810 Page 23 of 30 November 25, 2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
•
_ 1
' \LE/NFELOER ;
1
Table 5 1
Corrosion Test Results 1
Soluble Soluble 1
Minimum Sulfate Chloride 1
Depth Resistivity Content Content
Boring (ft) (ohm-cm) pH (ppm) (ppm) 1
B-5 2.5 2,214 7.5 217 168 1
These tests are only an indicator of soil corrosivity for the samples tested. Other soils 1
found on site may be more, less, or of a similar corrosive nature. Imported fill materials ;
should be tested to confirm that their corrosion potential is not more severe than those 1
noted.
1
Resistivity values between 1 ,000 and 3,000 ohm-cm are normally considered highly
corrosive to buried ferrous metals (NACE, 2006). The concentrations of soluble sulfates ;
indicate that the potential of sulfate attack on concrete in contact with the on-site soils is ,
"negligible" based on ACI 318-11 Table 4.2.1 (ACI, 2011). Maximum water-cement ,
ratios and cement types are not specified.for these sulfate concentrations. ,
Kleinfelder's scope of services.does not include corrosion engineering and, therefore, a
detailed analysis of the corrosion test results is not included. A qualified corrosion ;
-engineer should be retained to review the test results for further evaluation and design ,
protective systems, if considered necessary. ,
3.12 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ;
Kleinfelder understands that, as part of storm water management for the project, ,
Infiltration Best Management BMPs, such as subterranean infiltration galleries, are ;
being considered. We , performed four borehole infiltration tests using the well '
permeameter (USBR 7300-89) in accordance with the Riverside County guidelines in ,
order to provide recommendations for locating and designing subterranean infiltration ,
galleries. We also performed 10 grain-size distribution laboratory tests to assess the ,
grain size associated with 10 percent finer particles (D1o). The borehole infiltration tests ,
along with grain-size distribution tests were used to evaluate the infiltration capabilities ,
of the subsurface soils. The borehole infiltration test results are presented in ,
Appendix C. ,
20152384.00tA/IRV14RO9810 Page 24 of 30 November 25, 2014
Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder .
4
rE/NFELOER
Based on visual soil classification and laboratory testing of the soil samples collected
during our field exploration, the upper approximately 10 feet of the subsurface soils
consist predominantly silty sand with fines contents between approximately 20 and 46
percent. Below a depth of approximately 10 feet, the subsurface soils consist
predominantly sand with silt with approximately 7 to 11 percent fines content. Based on
the results of the borehole infiltration tests, the soil classification and gradation tests,
the use of infiltration BMPs, such as subterranean infiltration galleries, for storm water
management are feasible provided the galleries-are located northeast of the existing
warehouse building near the cooler addition and capable of bypassing the upper silty
sand layer with outflow at a depth of at least 12 feet below grade.
We understand that the bottoms of infiltration galleries are typically established at
depths of approximately 5 to 10 feet below grade. To facilitate water dissipation at
depth, we recommend either deepening the infiltration galleries or excavating the
existing soil below the bottom of the galleries to a depth of at least 12 feet below grade
and backfilling,the excavation with 3/4-inch crushed rock. The crushed rock should be
wrapped with filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent). Based on the results of the
infiltration tests and the correlation of the grain-size distribution with hydraulic
conductivity, and considering factors such as site variability, potential for long-term
siltation and bio-buildup, a, long-term infiltration rate of approximately 0.5 inches per
hour may be'used for design of subterranean infiltration galleries with outflow at a depth
of at least 12 feet below grade. The galleries should be at least 15 feet horizontally
from the nearest"foundation._
If infiltration BMPs are impractical due to existing site constraints, we recommend
alternatives, such as bio-filtration/bio-retention systems (bio-swales and planter boxes),
be implemented at the project site. If bio-filtration/bio-retention systems are employed,
we recommend that the BMPs be built such that water exiting from them will not seep
into the foundation areas or beneath slabs and pavement. If planters are located within
10 feet of the building or building foundations, or adjacent to slabs and pavements, then
some means of diverting water away from the building, building foundation soils, or soils
that support slabs and pavements would be required, such as lining the planters.
20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 25 of 30 November 25, 2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
_ 1
E/NFELOER ,
1
4 ADDITIONAL SERVICES 1
/
4.1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW /
/
We recommend that Kleinfelder perform a general review of the project plans and /
specifications before they are finalized to verify that our geotechnical recommendations /
have been properly interpreted and implemented during design. If we are not accorded /
the privilege of performing this review, we can assume no responsibility for
misinterpretation of our recommendations.
4.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The construction process is an integral design component with respect to the
geotechnical aspects of a project. Because geotechnical engineering is an inexact ;
science due to the variability of natural processes, and because we sample only a ,
limited portion of the soils affecting the performance of the proposed structure, ,
unanticipated or changed conditions can be encountered during grading. Proper ,
geotechnical observation and testing during construction are imperative to allow the ,
geotechnical engineer the opportunity to verify assumptions made during the design ,
process. Therefore, we recommend that Kleinfelder be retained during the construction ,
of the proposed improvements to observe compliance with the design concepts and ,
geotechnical recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that ,
subsurface conditions or methods of construction differ from those assumed while ,
completing this study.
Our services are typically needed at the following stages of grading. ;
• After demolition; ;
• During grading;
• After the overexcavation, but prior to scarification;
• . During utility trench backfill; ;
• During base placement and site paving; and
• After excavation for foundations.
20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 26 of 30 November 25, 2014
Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder ,
�E/NFELOER
5 LIMITATIONS
This geotechnical study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Costco Wholesale
and their agents for specific application to the proposed dairy cooler addition to Costco
Wholesale Warehouse No. 491 at 26610 Ynez Road in Temecula, California. The
findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report were prepared in
accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No other
warranty, express or implied, is made.
The scope of services was limited to a background data review and the field exploration
described in Section 1.2. _It should be recognized that definition and evaluation -of
subsurface conditions are" difficult. Judgments leading to conclusions. and
_ recommendations are generally made with incomplete knowledge of the subsurface
conditions present due to the limitations of data from field studies. The conclusions of
this assessment.are based on our field exploration and laboratory testing programs, and
engineering analyses.
Kleinfelder offers various levels of investigative and engineering services to suit the
varying needs of different clients. Although risk can never be eliminated, more detailed
• and extensive studies yield more information; which may help understand and manage
• the level of risk. Since•detailed study and analysis involves greater expense, our clients
participate in determining levels of service, which provide information for their purposes at
• acceptable levels of risk. The client and key members of the design team should discuss
• the issues covered in this report with Kleinfelder, so that the issues are understood and
• applied in a manner consistent with the owner's budget, tolerance of risk and
• expectations for future performance and maintenance.
Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and
• subsurface explorations, limited laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the
• proposed construction. It is possible that soil or groundwater conditions could vary
• between or beyond the points explored. If soil or groundwater conditions are encountered
• during construction that differ from those described herein, the client is responsible for
• ensuring that Kleinfelder is notified immediately so that we may reevaluate the
• recommendations of this report. If the scope of the proposed construction, including the
• estimated Traffic Index or locations of the improvements, changes from that described in
20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 27 of 30 November 25, 2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
_ 1
�E/NFELOER '
1
this report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are not 1
considered valid until the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions of this report are 1
modified or approved in writing, by Kleinfelder. 1
1
The scope of services for this subsurface exploration and geotechnical report did not 1
include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of 1
wetlands or hazardous substances in the soil, surface water, or groundwater at this site. 1
1
Kleinfelder cannot be responsible for interpretation by others of this report or the
conditions encountered in the field. Kleinfelder must be retained so that all geotechnical
aspects of construction will be monitored on a full-time basis by a representative from
Kleinfelder, including site preparation, preparation of foundations, and placement of
engineered fill and trench backfill. These services provide Kleinfelder the opportunity to
observe the actual soil and groundwater conditions encountered during construction and
to evaluate the applicability of the recommendations presented in this report to the site
conditions. If Kleinfelder is not retained to provide these services, we will cease to be the
engineer of record for this project and will assume no responsibility for any potential claim
during or after construction on this project. If changed site conditions affect the
recommendations presented herein, Kleinfelder must also be retained to perform a
supplemental evaluation and to issue a revision to our original report.
This report, and any future addenda or reports regarding this site, may be made available
to bidders to supply them with only the data contained in the report regarding subsurface
conditions and laboratory test results at the point and time noted. Bidders may not rely on
interpretations, opinion, recommendations, or conclusions contained in the report.
Because of the limited nature of any subsurface study, the contractor may encounter
conditions during construction which differ from those presented in this report. In such
event, the contractor should promptly notify the owner so that Kleinfelder's geotechnical ;
engineer can be contacted to confirm those conditions. We recommend the contractor ,
describe the nature and extent of the differing conditions in writing and that the ,
construction contract include provisions for dealing with differing conditions. Contingency .
funds should be reserved for potential problems during earthwork and foundation .
construction.
This report may be used only by the client and only for the purposes stated, within a ;
reasonable'time from its issuance, but in no event later than one year from the date of the ,
20152384.001 AARV1 4RO981 0 Page 28 of 30 November 25, 2014
Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder ,
E/NFELOER
�.yn,w�w.an.amei.
report. Land use, site conditions (both on site and 'off site) or other factors may change
over time, and additional work maybe required with the passage of time. Any party, other
than the client who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended use.
Based on the intended use of this report and the nature of the new project, Kleinfelder
may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued.
Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release
Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party
and the client agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Kleinfelder from any claims
or liability associated with such unauthorized use or non-compliance.
20152384.001 All RV14RO9810 Page 29 of 30 November 25,.2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder '
_ 1
(KLE/NFELOER ;
w+.�r•roM aM,..
1
6 REFERENCES
1
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2011, Building Code Requirements for Structural 1
Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary. 1
1
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010, Minimum Design Load for Buildings 1
and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10). 1
1
California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2003, The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic
Seismic Hazard Maps, released June 2003.
Costco Wholesale, 2014, Costco Wholesale Development Requirements, Version ,
2014, revised on June 13, 2014. '
International Code Council, Inc., 2013 California Building Code.
Leighton (1999), •Leighton and Associates, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation,
Proposed Costco Wholesale and Gas Station Site, Ynez Road and Overland
Drive, Temecula, California, Dated April 26, 1999.
National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE), 2006, "Corrosion Basics, An ,
Introduction, 2nd Edition" National Association of Corrosion Engineers.
Portland Cement Association (PCA), 1984, Thickness Design for Concrete Highway ;
and Street Pavements, Skokie, Illinois: Portland Cement Association. .
Portland Cement Association, 1988, Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois.
20152384.001 A/IRV1 4RO981 0 Page 30 of 30 November 25, 2014
Copyright 2014 Kleinlelder ,
II
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PLATES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
a I/"
+X'
i rI � a A ) i •'- syf�Pd
YTv
or
� !) �r�, . ♦i� '�� �.y;: .>n r}� .f��y� Jam, � ..
SOURCE: •• • 2014, DATE 1!08/13
10 111 1 111
PROJECTAPPROXIMATE SCALE (feet)
NO. 20152384
SITE VICINITY MAP
FEW I
DRAWN
Bright Peopfe.Flight SDludorm 1 PROPOSED RECEIVING AREA
D DAIRY COOLERADDITIONS
7meinfelder• 126610 YNEZ ROAD,TEMECULA,CALIFORNIA
•
•
EXISTING GAS
STATION
• E-
C.121-0 4
B-
45r-C
NEW DAJRY
ADDn1ON
417 NEW ADDITION
• W TIRE CENTER IZ559 S.F. IF
• 0
Cosa-co
NEW RECEIVING
ADDITION
• 0 POW SERVICE
D B-2 -
<
NEW
4 ENTRANCE
c�
m EXIT
z 370
(L 'PO
z
E
C=3M= OCO
• >1 8
ID
Q-
•
91
0
O
CZ=
<
• s• L)
c
L)
• E
0 L)
c
WERLMMMME
•
� REFERENCE:
E MAP PROVIDED BY,MULVANNYG2 ARCHITECTURE, DATED 02/17/14.
• E PROJECT NO. 20152384 PLATE
100 50 0 100 EXPLANATION BORING LOCATION PLAN
< DRAWN: 912014
• OWL) Emmimmommond
�W:r� APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet) B-5-4�, APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION(2014) jNf rELDER DRAWN BY: MRG
xu KL PROPOSED RECEIVING AREA 2
Do< .. -�.-- (a CHECKED BY: JW
• W W Bdght People.Right Soludons. AND DAIRY COOLER ADDITIONS
FILE NAME:
COSTCO WHOLESALE WAREHOUSE NO.491
Z kleinfelder com 201523W2-BLM-dwg 26610 YNEZ ROAD,TEMECULA,CALIFORNIA
W 0
•
<�
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• APPENDIX A
• FIELD EXPLORATIONS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
t KLE/MFELOER
•
• APPENDIX A
• FIELD EXPLORATIONS
•
• Our field exploration program consisted of drilling five borings at the project site. The
• borings were drilled to depths ranging from approximately 111/2 to 211/2 feet below the
• existing ground surface (bgs) as proposed. The borings were drilled by CalPac Drilling
• of Cal imesa, California with a truck-mounted, hollow-stem-auger drilling rig equipped
• with an auto-hammer (Mobile B61). The approximate locations of the borings are
• presented on Plate 2.
•
• Prior to commencement of the fieldwork, various geophysical techniques were used at
• each boring location in order to identify potential• conflicts with subsurface structures.
• Each of our proposed field exploration locations were also cleared for buried utilities
• through Underground Service Alert (USA).
• The boring logs are presented as Plates A-3, through A-7. An explanation to the logs is
presented as Plates. A-1 and 'A-2. The "boring logs describe the earth materials
• encountered, samples obtained and show field and laboratory tests performed. The
• logs also show the location, boring number, drilling, date and the name of the drilling
• subcontractor. The borings were logged by a Kleinfelder geologist using the Unified
• Soil Classification System. The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are
• approximate because the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. Bulk
• and drive samples of selected earth materials were obtained from the borings.
• A modified-California sampler was used to obtain drive samples of the soil
• encountered. This sampler consists of a 3-inch O.D., 2.4-inch I.D. split barrel shaft that
• is pushed or driven a total of 18-inches into the soil at the bottom of the borings. The
• soil was retained in six 1-inch brass rings for laboratory testing. An additional 2 inches
• of soil from each drive remained in the cutting shoe and was usually discarded after
• visually classifying the soil. The sampler was driven using a 140-pound hammer falling
• 30 inches. The total number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches
• is termed blow count and is recorded on the boring logs.
•
• Samples were also obtained using a Standard Penetration Sampler (SPT). This
• sampler consists of a 2-inch O.D., 1-inch I.D. split barrel shaft that is advanced into the
• soils at the bottom of the drill hole a total of 18 inches. The sampler was driven using a
• 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The total number of hammer blows required to
•
• 20152384.001A/IRV14RO9810 Page A-1 November 25, 2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
•
• (K E/NFELOER
•
• drive the sampler the final 12 inches is termed the blow count (N) and is recorded on
• the Log of Boring. The procedures we employed in the field are generally consistent
• with those described in ASTM Standard Test Method D1586.
• Bulk and grab samples of the near-surface soils were directly retrieved from the
• cuttings.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page A-2 November 25, 2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
•
•
• A SAMPLEISAMPLER TYPE GRAPHICS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM fASTN D 24871
• > CALIFORNIA SAMPLER WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,
• m 13 in.(76.2 mm.)outer diameter) CLEAN Cu4 and ', GW GRAVEL-SAND MUCTURES WITH
a GRAVEL IsCo=3 8 LITTLE OR NO FINES
WITH
• ,� GRAB SAMPLE m .5%
a `5E Cu 4 and/ ° POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,
STANDARD PENETRATION SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER FINES a 1,Cc,3 LITTLE
NO MIXTURES WITH
• c (2 in.(50.8 mm.)outer diameter and 1.316 in.(34.9 mm.)inner o LITTLE OR NO FINES
C diameter) c WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,
• o £ E
GRAVELSMA MIXT RES WITH
UND WATER GRAPHICS CurtandLITTLE FINES
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS.
WATER LEVEL(level where first observed) 1-CF3GRAVELS GRAVELSAND MIXTURES WITH
WATER LEVEL(level after exploration Completion) WITHLITTLE CLAY FINES
Y WATER LEVEL(additional levels after exploration) 512%1 TPOORLY GRADED GRAVELS,
% OBSERVED SEEPAGE FRJES LITTLE FI-��MIXTURES WRH
NES
Cu4 and/
NOTES m a I-Cc>3POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,
• The report and graphics key are an integral pad of these logs. NI $i = GRAVELSAND MIXTURES WITH
data and interpretations in this log are subject to the explanations andLffTLE CLAY FINES
limita8as stated in the report. SILTY GRAVELS,GRAVELSILTSAND
Lima separating strata on the logs represent approximate MIXTURES
boundaries only. Actual transitions may be gradual or differ fromthose dawnGRAVELS
No warrantyis provided as to the continuity of soil or rock m yJj W�> ��GRAVELS'
conditions between individual sample locations. 12% GRAVEL-SAND•CLAY MIXTURES
FOES
Logs represent general soil or rock conditions observed at theCLAYEY GRAVELSpant of exploration on the dale Indicated.
GRAVEL-SANDCLAYSILT MIXTURES
• In general.Unified were
basefi n visual
System designations
IS• presented on the logs were based on visual classification in the field
and were modified where appropriate based on gradation and index CLEAN
WELL-GRADED SANDS,SAND-GRAVEL
property testing. 5 _ SA UCCs3� SW MIXTURES WITH LITTLE OR NO FOES
• • Fine grained soils that plot within the hatched area on the @ WITH
• Plasticity Clan,and coarse grained sets win between 5%and 12% 'a c5% CM.B afdl POORLY GRADED SANDS,
passing the No.200 sieve require dual USCS symbols,is.,GW-GM. FOES or UCC 8P SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH
• GP-GM,GW-GC,GP-GC,GC-GM,SW-SM,SPSM,SW-SC.SPSC, q LITRE OR NO FINES
SC-SM. q 5
c WELL-GRADED SANDS,SAND-GRAVEL
• • if sampler is not able to be driven at least 6 inches Z MIXTURES WITH LITTLE FINES
a 3 inches diameter by 2.5 inches inch long 60 degree corscal pant a CuE6 antl SW3M
driven with a 170 r2 pound hammer dropped 24 t0.5 inches. d 1-Ccs-3
• W SANDS SW-SC WELL-GRADED SANDS.SAND-GRAVEL
• m m WfT11 MIXTURES WITH LITTLE CLAY FINES
5%TO
• O E POORLY GRADED SANDS.
N
FOES �:� '� SPSM SAND-GRAVEL MU(TURES WITH
Cu S andl I LITTLE FINES
• `i w or 1Cc•3I POORLY GRADED SANDS,
n U
• SPSC SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH
r LITTLE CLAY FINES
• g'w SILTY SANDS,SAND-GRAVEL-SILT
• w D MIXTURES
u U SANDS
• do p WITH> SCCLAYEY SANDS,SAND-GRAVEL-CLAN
O 12% MIXTURES
ou FINES
• �i o CLAYEY SANDS,SAND-SILT-CLAY
• m �^Sm
MIXTURES
N a
7 d MILINORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS.SILTY OR
• E CLAYEY FINE SANDS,SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,GRAVELLY
of m c_ SILTS AND CLAYS C•L CLAYS.SANDY CLAYS,SILTY CLAYS.LEAN CLAYS
0 is
m� (Liquid Limit
INORGANIC CLAYS-SILTS OF LOW PLASTICITY.GRAVELLY
=i< ci o 5 m Ina San�) CL L _CLAYS.SANDY CLAYS,SILTY CLAYS,LEAN CLAYS
• ci R Z m m$ — OIL ORGANIC SILTS 8 ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS
t m a — OF LOW PLASTICITY'
• ixor
m c MH INORGANIC SILTS,MICACEOUS OR
m W SILTS AND GAYS DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILT
• �i Z o (LIpM Unit CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY,
° i C poster than 50) FAT CLAYS
u ORGANIC CLAYS a ORGANIC SILTS OF
L DIN
MEDIUM-TOMIGH PLASTICITY
- a
• m z
PROJECT NO.: 20152384 GRAPHICS KEY PLATE
• $ r \ DRAWN BY: F.JAIME
• W ('KLAE1NF-ELADHR CHECKED BY:J.WALLER A-1
Proposed Receiving Area/Dairy Cooler Additions
Bright People. Right Solutions. DATE: 9/22/2014 Costco Wholesale Warehouse No.491
• w 26610 Ynez Road
REVISED: 10/32014 Temecula,California
• m °, KLEINFELDER-2 Ada,Suite 250 1 Irvine,CA 92618 1 PH:949.727.4466 1 FAX:949.727.9242 1 wwwAleinfelda.com
•
•
E
•
T
• n GRAIN SIZE Munsell Color
• DESCRIPTION SIEVE GRAIN APPROXIMATE NAME ABBR
SIZE SRE SIZE Red R
• Boulders >121n.(304.8 mm.) >12 in.(304.8 mm.) Larger than basketball-sized VelkAv Red YR
c Cobbles 3.12 in.(762-304.8 mm.) 3-12 in.(76.2-304.8 mm,) Fist-sbed to baskethaFstred Yellow Y
• S coarse 3A-3 n.(19.762 mm.) 3/4-3 n.(19-762 mm.) Thumb-sized to fist-sized Green Yellow GY
• o Gravel fine #4.314 n.(#4-19 mm.) 0.19-0.75 n.(4.8-19 mm.) Pee-sized to thumb-sized Green G
w
o coarse #10-#4 0.079-0.19 n. 2-4.9 tern. Rock sapstred to pae-sized Blue Green BG
• a Sant madam #40-#10 0.017-0.079 n.(0.43-2 tern.) Sugar-saedlorock saisize0 Blue B
• floe #200•#10 0.017 n.(0.07-0.43 mm. Fbwsaed te sugarsaetl3n?
Purple Blue PB
Fines Passeg ri200 <0.0029 n.(-0.07 in Fbursirad and smaller PU e P
• Red Pu RP
ANGULARITY Black N
•
• DESCRIPTION CRITERIA
Angular Panicles have sharp edges and relatively plane
• sides with unvolished Surfaces O �j �+� J^
Subangular anc s aro sm r to angu r descnpbon ut navel Q
rounded es
• Subrounded Panicles have nary plane sides but have O O
weFrounded comers and a es
• Rounded Panicles have smoothy curved sides ar no edgeRardad $uhparde0 Sulbangular Angular
• CI.9SIlCIIY 1111011MRIE CONTENT
• DESCRIPTION LL FIELD TEST DESCRIPTION FIELD TEST
A 1/84n.(3 mm.)thread cannot be mled at Dry Absence of moisture dusty,dry to the touch
• Nonelastic NP any water content.
The thread can barely be rolled and the IumD MO1d Dam bull n vlabla water
• Low(L) <30 or thread cannot be formed when drier than the Wet VRble free water,usually sole is below water table
pr thre Nmil
• The thread o easy to roll and lad much time REACTION WITH HYDROCHLORIC ACID
a rethr eel to reach the plastic after
Medium(M) 30-50 The thread cannot be lump
or afler reaching
• the plastic lima. The lump or thread crumbles DESCRIPTKN FIELD TEST
when drier than the plastic lime Nate No visible reaction
• It takes considerable time roling and kneading Weak Some reaction with bubbles farming slowly
to reach the plastic limit. The thread can be
High(H) >50 rerolled severe)times after reaching the plasticSborg Violent reaction,with bubbles taming immediately
• limit. The kimp or thread can be formed without
crumbling when drier than the plastic limit
• APPARENT/RELATIVE DENSITY-COARSE-GRAINED SOIL CONSISTENCY-RNE-GRAINED,SOIL
• M MODIFIED CA CALIFORNIA RELATIVE UNCONFINED
APPARENT
• o = SPT-Nm SAMPLER SAMPLER DENSITY CONSISTENCY COMPRESSIVE CRITERIA
v w DENSITY STRENGTH
(p tiowsml (a bbwalfi) (a bioxa/n)R�z Very Loose c4 W <5 0-15 Very Soft <1000 Thumb will penetrate sell more Man 1 in.(25 mm.)
• ga Loose 4-10 5-12 5.15 15-35 Sell 1000-2000 Thumb will penetrate soil about 1 in. 25 mm.
• F Medium Dense 10-30 12-35 15-40 35-65 Firm 2000-4000 Thumb will indent soil about l/drn.(6 mm.)
3N
Dense 30-50 35-60 40-70 65-55 Hard 4000-8000 Thumb will not indent sod but readily indented with thumbni
• a Very Dense >50 >60 >70 85-100 Very Had >8000 Thumbnail will not indent soil
NOTE:AFTER TERZAGM AND PECK,1908
• o n
ii STRUCTURE CFYFkReTt1N
• ern w _—— __ ._
w DESCRIPTION CRITERIA DESCRIPTION FIELD TEST
• b Alternating layers o varying ma r co a f iterial or with layers Crumbles breaks with handling or sight
m Strtifi aed at least 1/44n.thick note thickness Weakly finger pressure
• € m laminated Alternating layers of varying material or color with the layer ss Moderately Crumbles or breaks with considerable
o O la than l/44n.thick,note thickness �' finger pressure
ro o Fissured along definite planes of fracture with[We resistance
• to fracture Strongly Will not crumble or break with finger pressure
Etc Slckenaided Fracture plans appear polished or glossy,sometimes striated
• S c Cohesive sod that can be broken down into smal angular
• ->° �� I BlOckY j kimps which resist fuller breakdo
z Inclusion
of small pockets of different soils,such as small Tenses
• E O Lensed of send scattered throuph a mass of clay,note thidmess
0
a HomogerneoUs Same color and appearance throughout
w PROJECT NO.: 20152384 SOIL DESCRIPTION KEY PLATE
• ^`
A x \ DRAWN BY: F.JAIME
a a ("KL
E/NFEL DER CHECKED BY:J.WALLER A_2
• Proposed Receiving Area/Dairy Cooler Additions
w Bright People.Right Solutions. DATE: 9122/2014 Costco Wholesale Warehouse No.491
— w 26610 Ynez Road
• �� REVISED: 10/3/2014 Temecula,California
• m KLEINFELDER-2 Ada,Suite 250 1 Irvine,CA 92618 1 PH:949.727.4466 1 FAX:949.727.9242 1 wwwAleinfelder.com
•
• E Date Begin-End: 9/15/2014 Drilling Co.-Lic.#: Cal Pac Drilling-#766402 BORING LOG B-1
• > Logged By: T.Meier Drill Crew: Keith/Jaimes
• a Hor:Vert. Datum: WGS84 Drilling Equipment: B-61 Hermter Type-Drop: 140 lb.Auto-30 in.
• Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Hol Stem Auger
0
• � Weather: Clear,Sunny Auger Diameter: 6 in.O.D.
FIELD EXPLORATION LA130RATORY RESULTS
• o
o Latitude:33.52092°N " o m m m
• m Longitude:-117.15326°W g 3r -� o A o
p m`� $ Approximate Ground Surface Elevation(ftJ:1,065.0 T & e E g a ~
• n E o .� Surface Condition:Asphaa to m z u .Yj— w M , o o m
n> n n EE E a" U$F �c H q q° aE
to m Le m m 2 1 y S. al i^ to to Q m a v m
• flu o (0 Lithologic Description nn z rn mM ¢? 7 N 9 U O a a s Z. ¢
• JW ASPHALT:approximately 3-inches thick
BASE COURSE:approximately 7-inches thick
• Artificial Fill:Silty SAND(SM):fine to coarse
• 1 grained,non-plastic,dark Gown,moist,
micaceous
• Native:Silty SAND(Sat):fine to coarse—_— 1 100%
grained.non-plastic,dark brown,moist.
• micaceous 7.8
grain size increases with depth
•
•
•
• 1060 fine to medium grained,dark grayish brown, 2 BC--8 t00% 7.1 126.5
• medium dense,weak cemented 14
14
•
•
• Gown,decrease fines content 3 BC--9 t00%
10
• 10 SM 10.0 1242 96 26.8 Sieve,Hydrometer
0
0
• ry
i
0
• 9
0
E r 1055 10
• F n 4 B(r6 100% SM 9.4 99 23.9 Sieve,Hydrometer
• N �
O ml
• �" r The expkxauon was terminated at GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
o
approximately 11.5 ft.below ground surface.
Groundwater was not encountered during drilling or after
• _i m
s c1 The exploration was backfiled with 9/15/2014 completion.
4 a• GENERAL NOTES:e on September 15.2014. well
dA installed to use during percolation testing.Temporary
^'i well removed and boring and
elevation
after completion of and
q,a The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were
• $,m estimated by Kleinfelder.
3 �
• E
E �
c9
• sQ
U z
• �° PROJECT NO.: 20152384 BORING LOG B-1 PLATE
("KL
DRAWN BV: F.JAIME
E/NFEL OER CHECKED BY.J.WALLER Proposed Receiving Area/Dairy Cooler Additions A-3
• dg
J Bright People. Right Solutions. DATE: 9n2l2014 Costco Wholesale Warehouse No.491
• u, Road
REVISED: 1orJr2ota Temecula,
CaliforniaC
PAGE: 1 of 1
• P KLEINFELDER-2 Ada,Suite 250 1 Irvine,CA 92618 1 PH:949.727.4466 1 FAX:949.727.9242 1 www.Meinfelder.com
•
E Date Begin-End: 9/15/2014 _ Drilling Co.-Lic.#: Cal Pac Drilling-#766402 BORING LOG 5-2
• ¢ Logged By: T.Meier Drill Crew: KeMIV Jaimes
n
Hor:Vert.Datum: WGS64 Drilling Equipment: B-61 Hammer Type-Drop: 140 Ib.Auto-30 in.
• E Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger
0
• Weather. Clear,Sunny Auger Diameter: 6 in.O.D.
• "' FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS
0
0
o Latitude:33.52109'N " �
G ^m ,_ S' Longitude:-117.15340*W g m
• p m— v Approximate Ground Surface Elevation(Iti:1.064.0 > D E
n E o $ Surface Condition:Asphalt m m Zg rn a n Z'o c
• x� m c E c c uZ o
n> S a EE E 30 $ �� U$ Vi^ w y �a of
m Y m m
w o (D Lithologic Description U)z' V) m� X Z 5 rn 3 a a a a? a'
• ASPHALT:approximately 3-inches thick
. BASE COURSE approximately 74rches thick
9DIMyliLpM;Silty SAND(SM):fine to medium
• grained,non-plastic,dark grayish brown,most
1 6'
• _ _ _ ____ _ _
Hffihfi:Silty SAND(SM):fine to medium_
tOB0
• grained,ran-plastic,dark grayish brawn,most
•
5—brain,dense,weak cemented,increase in Ores 2 BC=15 18' 9.9 126.0
• content 19
28
•
• medium dense to dense,decrease Ones content 3 SC-15 18' 8.0 120.9
• 11
19
• 1055
. Well-graded SAND with Slit(SWSM):fire to
i coarse grained,dark yellowish broom,mist, 4 BC=B 18' W 6.5 98 7.3 sieve
• medium dense,subangular to subrounded 8
e
•
• _ PoodY9 SAND(SP):fine to coarse
yeloW
m grained,yeAlowish broom,mdst.medium dense 5 BCC 18'
• c� 8
1050
• 'Qi" is-
increase in coarse grained sand content,trace 6 BC=a 18'
• g c granitic fine gravels,subangular 9
• 10
• E r
r a
°u h
• mF
• z
n ¢
� G 1045
m
• » Ciryey 20- SAND(scl:fire io coarse grained,
EL rrirdium plasticity,yelowish brown,moist, 7 BC=7 18'
. m 8
s U � medium dense,approximate 2-inch moderately
• _� aanemed day leis within sample 7
5 ,
. �'rc The exploration was terminated at GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION
o m approximately 21.5 ft.below ground surface. Groundwater wes not encountered during drilling or after
The exploration was backfiled with 9/15/2014 tartplotion.
GENERAL NOTES
oi on September 15,2014. Temporty well instaled to use during percolation tooting.Temporary
• r of 1040 well removed and boring backfiled after completion of testing
g The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were
iestimated by Kleinfekler.
. PROJECT NO.: 20152384 BORING LOG PLATE
B-2
. ¢ \ DRAWN BY: F.JAIME
a
m KL E//VFEL DER CHECKED BY:. J.WALLER A_4 a a Proposed Receiving Area/Dairy Coder Additions
w Bright People.Fight Solutions. DATE: 94 014 Costco Wholesale Warehouse No.491
26610 Ynez Road
REVISED: 10/32014 Temecula,California PAGE: 1 of 1
o` KLEINFELDER-2 Ada,Suite 250 1 Irvine,CA 92618 1 PH:949.727.4466 I FAX:949.727.9242 1 www.klelnfelder.com
•
• - Date Begin-End: 9/15/2014 Drilling Co.-Lic.B: Cal Pac Drilling-#766402 BORING LOG B-3
• Logged By: T.Meier Drill Crew: KeW Jaimes
m
• Hor.-Vert.Datum: WGS84 _ Drilling Equipment: B-61 Hammer Type-Drop: 1401b.Auto-30 in.
E
• Plunge: -90 degrees _ Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Weather: Clear Sunny _ Auger Diameter: 6 in.O.D.
• FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS
• w o Latitude:33.521-tr N
m m _ Longitude:-117.15332*W g m $ R s
• o E= Approximate Ground Surface Elevation(fl.).1,062.0 p f ft E
• Surface Condition:Bare Earth u a M j Z`C c°iLc
n tt
n$ ii n EEE E ` g S" L) mm a a 1 vE
• ¢w o cS7 Lithd is Description ' a = rn r m m m Z m
oga2 rn m�
• — TOPSOIL:approxmately 6-inches thick,need
with mulct
• Artificial Fill:Silty SAND(SM):fine to medium
grained,non-plasOq dark grayish brown,moist
• 1050 Native:Silty SAND(SM):fine to medium
• grained,non-plastic,dark grayish brown,most 1 61 9 0
•
• Silty SAND with Gravel(SM):fide to medium
• grained,nort-plastic,gray,mist.fire to coarse
5 ravel,trace day inclusions — __
• Silty SAND(SM):fire to medium grained 2 BC=10 76 9.0 122.1
10
non-plastic,lxaen,medal,medium dense.weak 12
• cemented
• 1055 Well-graded SAND with Silt(SWSM):fire to
• coarse grained,yellowish brown,mast,medium 3 BC-5 IS* 4.3 1/0.8 99 7.0
• dense,micaceous,decease in fines convent 7
10
•
•
• 1
Silly SAND(SPSM):fine to coarse grained, 4 BC--6 Ir SM 8.8 100 20.3 Sieve.Hydrometer
dark yellowish brawn.mist,medium dense, 9
• �� decrease in coarse grained sand 7
• _ __ _-
1050
o� Silty SAND(SM):floe to medium grained,
• non-plastic,dark yellowish brown,moist, 5 BC--4 18'
• d o medium dense,micaceous,with iron oxide 5
E staining 6
r
• ra
O N
n W
• me - -
z Well-graded SAND with Silt(SWSM):foe to
• dive brown,most,light rained,15 medium li
,n m g g 6 BC--7 ter S 99 11.4 Sieve,Hydrometer
S medium dense,micaceous 9
• `y " 11
E =
m
=�m
• � �
d
1045 The exploration was terminated at Groundwater
was of�INFORMAntered unhgNdriling or after
• ���� approximately 16.5 ft.below ground surface.
O1 a n.
The exploration was backfiled with 9/15/2014 GENE_AL NOTES
• g m on September 15,2014. Temporty well installed to use during percolation testing.Temporary
• 3 Ji wel removed and lwnng backfilled after completion of testing
i The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were
estimated by Kleinfekter.
o �
8 a
o c
• -° PROJECTNO.: 20152384 BORING LOG B-3 PLATE
• x \ DRAWN BY: F.JAIME
• a /�
n 3 KL E/NFEL DER CHECKED BY:J.WALLER Proposed Receiving Area/Dairy Cooler Additions „-`JC
• w Bright People.Right Solutions. DATE: 9r22v2014 Coslco Wholesale Warehouse No.491
- 26610 Ynez Road
• �� REVISED: 1OW014 Temecula,California
m a PAGE: 1 of 1
• KLEINFELDER-2 Ada,Suite 250 1 Irvine,CA 92618 1 PH:949.727.4466 I FAX:949.727.9242 I wwviAleinfelder.com
•
• - Date Begin-End: 9/15/2014 Drilling Co.-Lic.#: Cal Pac Drilling-#766402 BMW LOG E"
• Logged By: T.Meier Drill Crew: Keith)Jaimes
• - Hor.-Vert Datum: WGS84 _ Drilling Equipment: B-61 Harnmer Type-Drop: 140 It.Auto-30 in.
L
• _ Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Weather: Clear,Sunny Auger Diameter: 6 in.O.D.
• FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS
• w o a Latitude:33.52202'N n c
r m m o Longitude: g mm $ r =W r
• p `m ` Approximate Ground Surface Elevation ft):1.063.0 c o✓ � � E d
• a E m " $ Surface Condition:Asphalt y mT 2•c
vi n n EE E cx >g U$ me 2 2 � a cE
• m m @ mo �� u) �. 1Oo Z m m Q Az am
�w o O Lithologic Description N z 12 ¢? to 3 U o a a 7 a? a Of
• JIM ASPHALT:approximately 4-mches thick
BASE COURSE:approximately 84ncies thick
• Artfficlell,FM:Sihy SAND(SM):fine to medium
• trained,norHAasbc,dark grayish Iran,moist
• flifiM Silty SAND ISM):fine to medium
• trained.non-plastic,dark grayish brown,moist
1 8 19.2
• 1080
•
•
•
• bran.moist,medium dense,weak cemented. 2 JBC--jo 18' 11.8 122.1
• trace calcium carbonate 12
17
•
•
•
• increase in fines content,trace mica 3 BC.7 18- 22.1 104.1
cp
1055 7
• 0 11
i
• o
to—
fine to coarse grained 4 BC•5 18' SM 11.2 100 42.5 Sieve,Hydrometer
• Bm 6
w w 8
• or
m ?
• � o
o
• E x The exploration was terminated at GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
ml approximately 11.5 ft.below ground surface. Grouridwater was not encountered during drilling or after
m
• d k? The exploration was backfiled with 9/1512014 completion.
GENERAL NOTES:
o on September 15,2014. Temporty well installed to use during percolation testing.Temporary
• —�"'i 1050 well removed and boring backfiled after completion of testing
m X The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were
• 'a4 estimated by Kleirdelder.
• E ~'
m �co
• 8
o �
• p2
y PROJECTNO.: 20152384 BORING LOG B-4 PLATE
• x \ DRAWN BY: F.JAIME
• � � �+
W ('KL E/NFEL OER CHECKED BY.J.WALLER A-6
a J Proposed Receiving Area/Dairy Cooler Additions
• w Bright People.Right Solutions. DATE: 9/2 014 Costco Wholesale Warehouse No.491
J w 26610 Ynez Road
• �� REVISED: 1013/2014 Temecula,California
P.o. PAGE 1 of 1
• KLEINFELDER-2 Ada,Suite 250 1 Irvine,CA 92618 1 PH:949.727.4466 1 FAX:949.727.9242 1 www.kleintelder.com
•
• Date Begin-End: 9/15/2014 Drilling Co.-Lic.#: Cal Pac Drilling-#766402 BORING LOG B-5
• �c Logged By: T.Meier _ Drill Crew: Keith/Jaimes
m
• s Hor.-Vert.Datum: WGS84 Drilling Equipment: B-61 Hammer Type-Drop: 14011 Auto-30In.
• Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger
Weather: Clear,Sunny _ _ Auger Diameter: 6 In.O.D.
• FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS
• w Latitude:33.52179-N "c Z e o m H
• m g' Longitude:-117.153s5-W n m° o a k4
p E ` Approximate Ground Surface Elevation(fl.):1,054.0 y- E c m rn
• a .x o ,� Surface Condition:Asphalt m �m co o c s w to .O o c.E
8 o c c c o D z 3 ko
n9 n c E E E u >z U �c m uv'i ° vE
• m m @ m to �, m Z m ko 3 `s a o m
<'w o LO Lithologic Description z to W? 50 3 tg o a 0. S b ¢tY
• ASPHALT:approximately 3�nches thick
BASE COURSE:approximately 7-inches deck
• Artificial FlII:Silty SAND(SM):fine to medium
grained,non-plastic,dark grayish Moen,moist
• 1 6. 5.3 Comomon
• Native:Poody-gradod SAND(SP):fine to
• coarse grained,brown,moist to wet,medium
1060 dense
• 57.. :fine to medium
aY SAND(SM)) graved, 2 BC=2 1s-Silty e.s 122.E
• non-plastic,dark yellowish Mwvn,moist, 13
medium dense,weak cemented
•
• Increase in fines content 3 BCC 1E- SM 15.0 114.5 100 45.8 Sieve,Hydrometer
7
• 12
• 1055
• 10
4 BF8 1E e.7
9
• Poorly-graded SAND with S81(8P43M):fine to
• medium grained,yellowish brown,moist,
medium dense
• g Well-Waded SAND(SW-SMI:fine to medium 5 BC--5 1S go 10 Sieve
grained,yellowish Moves,moist,medium dense, 5
• `� micaceous
1050
• ni 15
• i7 fine to coarse grained,subrounded to 6 BC--7 1s-
° subangular 85
E C
• � a
s �
� w
� a• � togs
s m,
• E x 20 trace,fire
Increase in moisture content, ne gravels, 7 aC=6 16- 99 7.5 Sieve
• a granitic,subangular 89
• 1N
r a The exploration was terminated at GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
• s approximately 21.5 ft.below ground surface. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling or after
The exploration was backNled wth 9/15/2014 GENERAL
on September 15.2014. GENERAL NOTES:
• P Te well instated to use during percolation testing.Temporary
• c1i 1040 weel removed
ved and boring and
elevation
after e a p approximate
of testing
3 � The exploration bra6on end elevation are approximate and were
0 o estimated by Kleinfelder.
• PROJECT NO.: 20152384 PLATE
-g 01 /^\ BORING LOG B-5
• ¢ \ DRAWN BY: F.JAIME
o ke
• W KL E//VFEL DER CHECKED BY:J.WALLER A-7
n 5 Proposed Receiving Area/Dairy Cooler Additions
• J Bright People. Right Solutions. DATE: 9/22/2014 Costco Wholesale Warehouse No.491
— 26610 Ynez Road
• 5 5 REVISED: 10/3/2014 Temecula,California I PAGE: 1 of 1
• rx KLEINFELDER-2 Ada,Suite 250 1 Irvine,CA 926181 PH:949.727.4466 1 FAX:949.727.9242 1 www.kleinfelder.00m
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
APPENDIX B
•
• LABORATORY TESTING
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0,
•
•
•-
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
E/NFELOER
�'.a wro.,uyrr wcd.
•
• APPENDIX B
• LABORATORY TESTING
• GENERAL
•
• Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples as an aid in classifying the soils
• and to evaluate physical properties of the soils that may affect foundation design and
• construction procedures. The tests were performed in general conformance with the
• current ASTM or California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) .standards. A
• description of the laboratory-testing program is presented below.
•
• MOISTURE AND UNIT WEIGHT
Moisture content and dry unit weight tests were performed on selected samples
• recovered from the borings. Moisture contents were determined in general accordance
• with ASTM Test Method D 2216; dry unit weight was calculated using the entire weight
of the samples collected. Results of'these tests are presented on the boring logs in
Appendix A.
• GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND HYDROMETER
• Grain-size distribution testing was performed on samples of the materials encountered
• at the site to evaluate the particle size distribution characteristics of the soils and to aid
• in their classification. The tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM Test
• Method D 422. The test results are presented on Plates B-1 through B-5, Grain Size
• Distribution.
•
• PREIMINARY CORROSIVITY TEST
•
A series of chemical tests was performed on one sample of the near-surface soils to
• estimate pH, resistivity, sulfate and chloride content. The preliminary corrosion
• laboratory testing results are presented below.
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 20152384.001A1IRV14RO9810 Page B-1 November 25, 2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
•
�LE/NFELOER
•
• Table B-4
• Corrosion Test Results
• Depth Sulfate Chloride Resistivity
• Boring (ft) PH (ppm) (ppm) (ohm-cm)
•
B— 5 2.5 7.5 217 168 2,214
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page B-2 November 25, 2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
•
•
•
•
•
•
100 +ply > + >p'` `A SILT CLAY
• � I I I I I I
• I I I I I I I I I I I
90
• � I I I I � I I I I I
• 80 1 1 I I I I I I
• O � I I I I � 1 I 1 1
Z 70 I I I I I I I I I
• a I I I I I I I I I I I
• a I I I I I I I I
• � 60 I I I I I I I I I I I
a 50
• ¢ 40 I I I I I I 1 1
• � � I I I I � I 1 I I
• v 30 I I I I I I 1 I
• I I I I I I I I
• 20
i t 1 1
• 10 1 1 I I I I I I I
• I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I
• 0
100,000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
• GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
•
•
• COBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
•
•
•
• SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PERCENTAGES ATTERBERG LIMITS
• SYMBOL BORING SAMPLE DEPTH GRAVEL SAND FINES LL PL PI SOIL CLASSIFICATION
NO. NO. (H.)
• B-1 3 7 4.2 70.9 24.9 N/A N/A N/A Silty Sand(SM)
•
• B-1 4 10 1.4 75.5 23.1 N/A N/A N/A Silty Sand(SM)
•
•
•
•
• PROJECT NO.:20152384 PLATE
�� TESTED BY: JD GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
KLE/NFELDER DATE: 9129/14
enghtPeople.Right Somnons. Costco Cooler and Receiving
B-�
CHECKED BY: Improvements
• DATE: 26610 Ynez Road
• KLEINFELDER-620 Magnolia Avenue,Building G I Ontario,California 91762 PH:(909)657-1716 I FAX:(909)988-0185 1 w .kleinfeloerxom
•
•
•
•
• .� e)i .)i�)e +�' '�� ip AP 0>a +�� SILT CLAY
100 I I I I I I I I
• � I I I I I I I I I
90
• I I I I I ' I I I I I
• � I I I I � 1 I I I I
80
• I I I I I I I I I
• U I I I I I I I I I
Z 70 I I I I I I I 1 1
• a I I I I I I I I I I I I
a I I I I I I I I I
• 60 f I I I I I 1 I I I I
a 50
• I I I I I 1 I 11
• ¢ 40 I I I I I I I I I
• � � I I I I � I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
• U 30 I I I I I 1 1 1
• � I I 1 1 � I I I I I
• 20
• 10 I I I I I I I 1
• I I I I I I I I I I I
• 0
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
• GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
•
•
• COBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
•
•
•
•
• SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PERCENTAGES ATTERBERG LIMITS
• SYMBOL gpRING SAMPLE DEPTH SOIL CLASSIFICATION
NO. NO. (k.) GRAVEL SAND FINES LL PIL PI
• B-2 4 10 1.6 91.1 7.3 N/A N/A N/A Well Graded Sand with Silt
(SW-SM)
•
•
•
•
PROJECT NO.:20152384 PLATE
• �� GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
• TESTED 6Y: JD
• KL E/NFEL DER DATE: 9/29114
Bright People.Right solutions. Costco Cooler and Receiving B-2
CHECKED BY: Improvements
• DATE: 26610 Ynez Road
• KLEINFELDER-620 Magnolia Avenue.Building G I Ontario,California 91762 I PH:(909)657-17161 FAX:(909)988-0185 1 w Aleinfelder.wrn
•
•
•
•
•
• o
100 � SILT CLAY
• � 1 1 I I � I I I I I
• 90 I I I I I I 1 I I I I
I I I I I I I I
• � I I I I � I I I I I
80
• I I I I I I I I I
• � � I I I I � I I I I I
Z 70 I I I I I 1 I I I
• (L I I I I I I I I
60
L 50
• g 40 I I I I I I 1 I I I
• 1 1 1 1 I I I I I
• c1 30 I I 1 1 I t I I I
• � I I I I � I I I 1 I
• 20
Ft
10I I I I I I I I
• 0
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
• GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
•
•
• COBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
•
•
•
• SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PERCENTAGES ATTERBERG LIMITS
• SYMBOL BORING SAMPLE DEPTH GRAVEL SAND FINES LL PL PI SOIL CLASSIFICATION
NO. NO. (ft.)
• B-3 6 15 0.6 88.5 10.9 N/A N/A N/A Well Graded Sand with Silt
• (SW-SM)
• ■ B-3 4 10 0.4 79.7 19.9 N/A N/A N/A Silty Sand ISM)
• B-3 3 T5 0.7 92.3 7.0 N/A N/A N/A Well Graded Sand with Silt
• (SW-SM)
•
•
• PROJECT NO.:20152384 PLATE
�� TESTED BY: JD GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
KL E/NFEL DER DATE: 9129114
Bright People eight Solutions. Costco Cooler and Receiving B-3
CHECKED BY: Improvements
• DATE: 26610 Ynez Road
• KLEINFELDER-620 Magnolia Avenue,Building G I Ontario.California 91762 1 PH:(909)657-1716 1 FAX:(909)98MI85 I wwwhleinfelder.com
•
•
•
•
•
• p
100 �' C'1� •I++h 'iP' �^� '�• � �$��'h^A'i�' SILT CLAY
• � I I I I � I I I I I
• 90 I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I 1 1 1
• � I I 1 1 � I I I I
• 80
I I I I I I I I I
• G � I I I I � I I I I
Z 70 I I I I I I I I
• (L I I I I 1 I I 1 I
• � 60
a 50
• � I I I I I I I I I I I I
• 40 I I I I I I I I I I
• > � I I I I � I I 1 1 1
• O 30 -
1I I I I I I 1 1
• 20
• I I I I I I I I I
• 10 I I 1 1 I I I I I
• � I I I I � I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
• 0
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
• GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
•
•
• COBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
•
•
•
•
• SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PERCENTAGES ATTERBERG LIMITS
• SYMBOL BORING SAMPLE DEPTH SOIL CLASSIFICATION
NO. NO. (n.) GRAVEL SAND FINES LL PL PI
•
• B-4 4 10 0.0 57.5 42.5 N/A N/A N/A Silty Sand(SM)
•
•
•
•
• PROJECT NO.:20152384 PLATE
• �� TESTED BY: Jp GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
• KLE/NFEL DER DATE: 9129/14
Bright People.Right Solutiom Costco Cooler and Receiving B-4
_ CHECKED BY: Improvements
• DATE: 26610 Ynez Road
• KLEINFELDER-620 Magnolia Avenue.Building G I Ontario,California 91762 I PH:(909)657-1716 1 FAX:(909)988-0185 I w .kleinfelder.com
•
•
•
•
•
• 100 '�')� .)oee s�` � 'C�" �i�' +�r`�r`�'S1� SILT CLAY
• I I I I I I I I I I I
• 90 I I I I I I I I I I
• I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I 1 I I 11 1
ao
• I I I III I'
I 1 I
• z I I I I I I I I I I
N 70 I I I I I
• a I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I
60 I I I I I I 1 I I I
a 50
• w I I I I I I I I I I I
• Q 40 I ii ii I i i i i i l _j
• � I I I I I I I I I I I I i
I I I I I I I I 11 1
• 0 30
I I I I 1 I I I I
• I I I I I I I 1 I I I I �
• 20
I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I
• 10 I I I I I I I
• I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I 1
• 0
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
• GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
•
•
• COBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
•
•
•
• SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PERCENTAGES ATTERBERG LIMITS
• SYMBOL BORING SAMPLE DEPTH SOIL CLASSIFICATION
NO. NO. (n-) GRAVEL SAND FINES LL PL PI
• B-5 3 7.5 0.0 54.2 45.8 N/A N/A N/A Silty Sand ISM)
• ■ -5 5 12.5 0.8 90.5 8.7 N/A N/A N/A W ell Graded Sand with Silt
B
• (SW-SM)
• B-5 7 20 1.7 90.8 7.5 N/A N/A N/A Well Graded Sand with Silt
• (SW-SM)
•
•
• PROJECT NO.:20152384 PLATE
• �� TESTED BY: JD
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
• KLE/NFELDER DATE: 9/29/14 Bright people.Right Solutions. COStco Cooler and Receiving -5
_ B
CHECKED BY: Improvements
• DATE: 26610 Ynez Road
• KLEINFELDER-620 Magnolia Avenue,Building G I Ontario,California 91762 1 PH:1909)657-17161 FAX:(909)988-0185 1 wwwAleinfelder.wm
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• APPENDIX C
• BOREHOLE INFILTRATION TESTING
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• LK E/NFEL DER
• �/�w�.romb.m.
• APPENDIX C
• BOREHOLE INFILTRATION TESTING
•
• Borehole infiltration testing was performed in accordance with Appendix A, Riverside
• County — Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook. Based on the Table 1,
• Infiltration Testing Requirements, and our selection of the Well Permeameter Method
• (USBR 7300-89), we performed four borehole infiltration tests in Borings B-1, B-3, B-4
• and B-5. The total depth of the four borings with permeameter tests were approximately
• 111/2 feet, 161/2 feet, 111/2 feet, and 211/2 feet, respectively. At the conclusion of drilling,
• the augers were removed vertically from the borings to limit the amount of "smearing" of
• the boring sidewall. Within each boring, approximately 2 inches of gravel was added to
• the bottom. Perforated pipe was then placed with the bottom directly on the gravel
• bottom. The pre-saturation of the boreholes subsequently commenced.
• In the test located in .Borings B-1, approximately 4 feet of sand was place around the
• perforated pipe to limit the collapse of the sidewall soil once the infiltration test was
• commenced. In this analysis, we performed a void ratio test to analyze the volume of
• water infiltrating during the test.
•
• The well permeameter test results provide the short-term infiltration rate of a soil layer.
• The long-term design infiltration rate is the short ,term value with factors of safety
• applied. The short term infiltration rates are presented below.
• Table C-1
• Infiltration Rates
• Depth of Test Short-term Long-term Design
• Location Infiltration Rate Infiltration Rate
(n)
• in/hour in/hour
• B-1 11.5 0.40 0.13
• B-3 16.5 0.03 0.03
• B-4 11.5 0.04 0.01
B-5 21.5 3.44 1.15
•
• In addition to the borehole infiltration tests, we also performed 10 grain-size distribution
• laboratory tests to assess the grain size associated with 10 percent finer particles
•
• 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page C-1 November 25, 2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
•
• t KLEWFELDER
• (D10). The results of these tests were analyzed using Hazen's equation to calculate an
• approximate permeability rate "k". Hazen's equation is shown below.
•
• k = C - D10
•
"C" is a constant factor assumed to be 1 for our analysis, and the D10 particle size
• diameter in which 10% of the soil is finer. The results of the Hazen equation
• correlations are presented in Table C-2.
•
• Table C-2
• Soil Permeability
• Boring Sample Depth Approximated Dx Permeability Permeability
• No. No. M D,o(um) 10 (Cm/S) (In/hour)
• B-1 3 7 0.01 0.0001 1 1.00E-04 0.14
• B-1 4 10 0.002 0.000004 1 4.00E-06 0.01
B-2 4 10 0.14 0.0196 1 1.96E-02 27.78
• B-3 3 7.5 0.13 0.0169 1 1;69E-02 23.95
• B-3 4 10 0.012 0.000144 1 1.44E-04 0.20
• B-3 6 15 0.065 0.004225 1 4.23E-03 5.99
B-4 4 10 0.004 0.000016 1 1.60E-05 0.02
• B-5 .3 7.5 0.0025 0.00000625' 1 6.25E-06 0.01
• B-5 5 12.5 0.09 0.0081 1 8.10E-03 11.48
B-5 7 20 0.14 0.0196 1 1.96E-02 27.78
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 20152384.001 A/IRV14R09810 Page C-2 November 25, 2014
• Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder
•
•
•
•
• Percolation Test Data Sheet
Project: Costco Percolation Project No: 20152384.001A Start Date: 9/15/2014
Test Hole No: B-1 Tested By: T. Meier Finish Date: 9/16/2014
• Depth of Test Hole Dr(ft.): 30 USCS Soil Classification: Silty Sand(SM)
• Test Hole Dimension(Inches) Length Width
• Diameter(if round)= 6 Sides(If rectangular)= N/A N/A
Start Weather: Clear Ending Weather: Clear
• Factor of Safety: 3
• Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
• Time Initial Final Chane in
•
Interval, Depth to Depth to Water Greater than or Equal to 6
(min.) water(in.) Water Level (in.)(Y/N)
• Trail No. Start Time Stop Time (in.) (in.)
• 1 1024 1049 25 60 85 25 Y
• 2 1049 1114 25 85 97 12. Y
• *if two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes,the test
shall be run for an additional hour with measurement taken every 10 minutes.Otherwise, pre-soak(fill)
• overnight.Obtain at least twelve measurement per hole over at least six hours(approximately 30 minute
• intervals)with precision of at least 0.25".
• Test Data
• of
• Do Final AD
• At Time Initial Depth to Change Percolation Test Design
• Interval Depth.to' Water In.Water Rate Infiltration Infiltration
Trail No. Start Time Stop Time (min) Water(in) (in) Level(in) (min/in) Rate(In/hr) Rate(in/hr)
• 1 1156 1208 12 64.2 74.4 10.2 1.18 0.60 0.20
• 2 1208 1218 10 74.4 77.5 3.1 3.23 0.25 0.08
• 3 1218 1228 10 77.5 81.4 3.9 2.56 0.34 0.11
4 1228 1238 10 81.4 84.0 2.6 3.85 0.25 0.08
• 5 1238 1248 10 84.0 86.2 2.2 4.55 0.22 0.07
• 6 1248 1258 10 86.2 88.3 2.1 4.76 0.23 0.08
7 1301 1311 10 85.8 88.2 2.4 4.17 0.26 0.09
• 8 1311 1321 30 88.2 92.4 4.2 2.38 0.50 0.17
• 91 1322 1 1332 1 10 1 87.5 91.8 4.3 2.33 0.50 0.17
• 201 1334 1 1344 1 10 1 87.6 1 89.4 1 1.8 1 5.56 1 0.20 0.07
111 1351 1 1401 1 10 1 87.6 1 91.8 1 4.2 1 2.38 1 0.49 0.16
• 121 1402 1 1412 1 10 1 87.7 1 91.2 1 3.5 1 2.86 1 0.40 0.13
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Percolation Test Data Sheet
• Project: Costco Percolation Project No: 20152384.001A Start Date: 9/15/2014
Test Hole No: B-3 Tested By: T. Meier Finish Date: 9/16/2014
• Depth of Test Hole Dt(ft.): 15 LISCS Soil Classification: SM/SP
• Test Hole Dimension(Inches) Length Width
Diameter(if round)= 6 Sides(If rectangular)= N/A N/A
Start Weather: Clear Ending Weather: Clear
• Factor of Safety: 3
• Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
• Time Initial Final Chane In
Interval, Depth to Depth to Water Greater than or Equal to 6
• (min.) water(in.) Water Level (in.)(Y/N)
• Trail No. Start Time Stop Time (in') (in.)
• 1 1610 1635 25 150 158 8 Y
• 2 1638 1703 25 149 151 2 N
• *if two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes,the test
shall be run for an additional hour with measurement taken every 10 minutes.Otherwise,pre-soak(fill)
• overnight.Obtain at least twelve measurement per hole over at least six hours(approximately 30 minute
• intervals)with precision of at least 0.251
,
• Test Data
• of AD
• Do Final Change Design
• At Time Initial Depth to in Water Percolation Infiltration Infiltratio
• Interval .Depth to Water Level Rate . Rate n Rate
Trail No. Start Time Stop Time (min.) Water(in.) (in.) (in.) (min.in.) (In./hr.) (in/hr)
• 1 0843 1 0913 30 1 130.0 133.6 3.6 8.33 '0.22 0.07
• 2 . 0919 0949 30 139.2 141.6 2.4 12.50 .0.18 0.06
• 3 0952 1022 30 137.4 139.8 2.4 12.50 0.17 0.06
4 1052 1055 30 136.8 139.4 -2.6 11.54 0.18 0.06
• 5 1056 1126 30 137.4 139.2 1.8 16.67 0.12 0.04
• 6 1132 1202 30 137.4 139.2 1.8 16.67 0.12 0.04
7 1204 1234 30 138.0 139.2 1.2 25.00 0.08 0.03
• 8 1235 1305 30 137.4 139.0 1.6 18.75 0.11 0.04
• 9 1306 1336 30 136.8 139.2 2.4 12.50 0.17 0.06
• 10 1338 1408 30 138.0 139.2 1.2 25.00 0.08 0.03
11 1409 1439 30 138.0 139.2 1.2 25.00 0.08 0.03
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Percolation Test Data Sheet
• Project: Costco Percolation Project No: 20152384.001A Start Date: 9/15/2014
Test Hole No: B-4 Tested By: T. Meier Finish Date: 9/16/2014
• Depth of Test Hole Dr(ft.): 9.8 LISCS Soil Classification: Silty Sand(SM)
• Test Hole Dimension(Inches) Length Width
Diameter(if round)= 6 Sides(if rectangular)= N/A N/A
• Start Weather: Clear Ending Weather: Clear
• Factor of Safety: 3
• Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
• rime Initial Final Chane In
Interval, Depth to Depth to Water Greater than or Equal to 6
• (min.) water(in.) Water Level (in.)(Y/N)
• Trail No. Start Time Stop Time (in') (in')
• 1 1503 1528 25 76 88 12 Y
2 1531 1556 25 66 748 Y _
• *if two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes,the test
• shall be run for an additional hour with measurement taken every 10 minutes.Otherwise,pre-soak(fill)
• overnight.Obtain at least twelve measurement per hole over at least six hours(approximately,30 minute
intervals)with precision of at least 0.25
• Test Data
Do AD
• Initial of Change
Percolation Infiltration Design
• Depth to Final in Water Rate Rate Infiltration
• At Time Water(In.) Depth to Level
Interval Water (In.) (min.in.) . (in./hr.) Rate(in/hr)
• Trail No. Start Time Stop Time (min.) (in.)
• 1 0851 0901 10 81.0 81.5 0.50• 20.0 0.12 0.04
2 0912 j 0922 10 j 81.6 81.9 1 0.30 33.3 0.07 0.02
• 3 0924 0934 10 80.4 n80.77
0.30 33.3 0.07 0.02
• 4 0934 0944 10 80.7 0.30 33.3 0.07 0.02
5 '0944 0954 10 80.5 0.20 50.0 0.05 0.02
6 0955 1005 10 80.7 0.18 55.6 0.04 0.01
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Percolation Test Data Sheet
• Project: Costco Percolation Project No: 20152384.001A Start Date: 9/15/2014
Test Hole No: B-5 Tested By: T.Meier Finish Date: 9/16/2014
• Depth of Test Hole De(ft.): 20 USCS Soil Classification: Silty Sand(SM)/Poorly Graded(SP)
• Test Hole Dimension(Inches) Length Width
Diameter(If round)= 6 Sides(if rectangular)= N/A N/A
• Start Weather: Clear Ending Weather: Clear
• Factor of Safety: 3
• Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
• Time Initial Final Chane In
Interval, Depth to Depth to Water Greater than or Equal to 6
• (min.) water(in.) Water Level (in.)(Y/N)
• Trail No. Start Time Stop Time (m.) (in')
• 1 1415 1440 25 186 234 48 Y
2 1442 1507 25 186 227 41 Y
• *if two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes,.the test
shall be run for an additional hour with measurement taken every 10 minutes.Otherwise, pre-soak(fill)
• overnight.Obtain at least twelve measurement per hole.over at least six hours(approximately 30 minute
• Intervals)with precision of at least 0.25". -
• Test Data
Do AD
• Initial or Change Factored
Percolation Infiltration
• Depth to Final in Water Rate Rate Infiltration
• At Time
Water(in.) Depth to Level Rate
Interval Water (in.) (min.in.) (in./hr.) (in./hr.)
• Trail No. Start Time Stop Time (min.) (in.)_
• 1 1022 1032 10 212.4 231.3 18.90 0.53 8.66 2.89
2 1039 1049 10 210.0 230.4 20.40 0.49 8.62 2.87
• 3 1052 1102 10 207.6 226.4 18.80 0.53 6.91 2.30
• 4 1105 1115- 10 210.0 225.6 15.60 0.64 5.92 1.97
• 5 1117 1127 10 207.6 224.5 16.90 0:59 5.98 1.99
6 1130 1140 10 210.0 2201 10.10 0.99 3.44 1.15
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•