Geotechnical Engineering Report - Temecula CA

REPORT C OVER PAGE

Geotechnical Engineering Report __________________________________________________________________________

Temecula Flood Control Channel Recon and Repair

Temecula, California

October 4, 2019

Terracon Project No. 60195071

Prepared for:

Fullerton, California

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Tustin, California

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 1

REPORT TOPICS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 2 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION ...................................................................... 3 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................ 4 LIQUEFACTION ............................................................................................................. 5

CORROSIVITY ............................................................................................................... 5 GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................... 6 EARTHWORK ................................................................................................................ 6 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ................................................................................. 10

GENERAL COMMENTS ............................................................................................... 11

ATTACHMENTS

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

EXPLORATION RESULTS (Boring Logs and Laboratory Data)

SUPPORTING INFORMATION (General Notes and Unified Soil Classification System)


INTRODUCTION

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Temecula Flood Control Channel Recon and Repair

44900 Temecula Lane

Temecula, California Terracon Project No. 60195071

October 4, 2019

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering

services performed for the proposed sheet pile wall to be constructed within the Pala Park located

at 44900 Temecula Lane in Temecula, California. The purpose of these services is to provide

information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

Subsurface soil conditions Groundwater conditions

Site preparation and earthwork Seismic site classification per CBC

Lateral earth pressure

The geotechnical engineering Scope of Services for this project included the advancement of

three (3) test borings to depths of approximately 101 to 101.5 feet below existing site grades.

Maps showing the site and boring locations are shown in the Site Location and Exploration

Plan sections, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples

obtained from the site during the field exploration are included on the boring logs and as separate

graphs in the Exploration Results section.

SITE CONDITIONS

The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association with the

field exploration and our review of publicly available geologic and topographic maps.

Item Description

Parcel Information

The project is located within the Pala Park at 44900 Temecula Lane in

Temecula, California.

Approximate coordinates for the center of the site are 33.4725°N,

117.1174°W

Existing

Improvements

The project area is along the northern boundary of the existing soccer field.

Temecula Creek is running in east-west direction just north of the project

area.


Temecula Flood Control Channel Recon and Repair Temecula, California

October 4, 2019 Terracon Project No. 60195071


Item Description

Current Ground

Cover Exposed soils and vegetation

Existing Topography

(from google earth)

The site is relatively flat and has an approximate elevation ranging between

1014 and 1015 feet above mean sea level.

Geology

The site is situated within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province in

Southern California. Geologic structures within this Province trend mostly

northwest, in contrast to the prevailing east-west trend in the neighboring

Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province to the north. The Peninsular

Range Province extends into lower California and is bounded by the

Colorado Desert to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San

Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains to the north. 1,2 Surficial geologic

units mapped at the site consists of Quaternary aged recent alluvium3.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Item Description

Proposed Structures

The project will include installation of sheet pile wall and the sheet piles will

be driven to maximum depth of about 40-foot below ground surface (bgs).

The sheet piles will be driven to the ground entirely below the existing

ground surface. Based on the information provided by CWE, approximately

16 to 18 feet of scour/erosion of materials are anticipated due to water flow

along creek. Therefore, the sheet pile system will be designed as

cantilevered system with approximately 16 to 18 feet of retained soil height

and 22 to 24 feet of embedded depth.

Construction

The sheet piles are anticipated to be driven steel W Sections and these

sheet piles are anticipated to retain approximately 16 to 18 feet of soil on the

southside of the wall.

Top of Sheet Pile Elevation (from google earth)

The existing ground surface elevation is approximately 1015 feet and top of

the sheet pile wall is anticipated to be at the same elevation of 1015 feet.

Grading Minimal cut – assumed to be less than one foot. New fills are not anticipated.

1 Harden, D. R., “California Geology, Second Edition,” Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004. 2 Norris, R. M. and Webb, R. W., “Geology of California, Second Edition,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1990. 3 Division of Mines and Geology, “Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, Santa Ana Sheet”, Compilation by Thomas H.

Rogers, 1965, Second Edition 1973, Scale 1:250,000.





GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

We have developed a general characterization of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions

based upon our review of the data and our understanding of the geologic setting and planned

construction. The following table provides our geotechnical characterization.

The geotechnical characterization forms the basis of our geotechnical calculations and evaluation

of site preparation and foundation options. As noted in General Comments, the characterization

is based upon widely spaced exploration points across the site, and variations are likely.

Stratum

Approximate

Depth to Bottom

of Stratum (feet)

Material Description Consistency/

Density

1 20 Sand with variable amounts of silt Loose to

medium dense

2 30 Sand with variable amounts of silt and gravel Dense to very

dense

3 40 Sand with variable amounts of silt and gravel and clay

and silt with variable amounts of sand and gravel

Very

dense/Hard

4 Boring termination

at 101.5 Sand and gravel with variable amounts of silt Very dense

Conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs shown

in the Exploration Results section and are attached to this report. Stratification boundaries on

the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in native soil types; in situ, the

transition between materials may be gradual.

Lab Results

Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in

the Exploration Results section and on the boring logs. Atterberg limit test results indicate that

the on-site soils generally are non-plastic except for the clay and silt layers which have low to

moderate plasticity. Direct Shear tests performed on samples taken at various depths between 5

and 25 feet bgs indicate these soils have cohesion values ranging between 204 and 522 psf and

effective friction angles ranging between 27° and 37°.

Groundwater

Groundwater was observed in the borings between the depths of 20.5 and 22.5 feet, or for the short

duration the boring remained open. These observations represent groundwater conditions at the

time of the field exploration and may not be indicative of other times, or at other locations.

Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff

and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore, groundwater





levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lower than

the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be

considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.

Based on the Department of Water Resources groundwater monitoring wells located within the

Pala Park, the groundwater was encountered at the elevation of 1006.6 feet4 which is about 9 feet

below the existing surface at the project site.

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The seismic design requirements for buildings and other structures are based on Seismic Design

Category. Site Classification is required to determine the Seismic Design Category for a structure.

The Site Classification is based on the upper 100 feet of the site profile defined by a weighted

average value of either shear wave velocity, standard penetration resistance, or undrained shear

strength in accordance with Section 20.4 of ASCE 7.

Description Value

2016 California Building Code Site Classification (CBC) 1 D

Site Latitude 33.4725°N

Site Longitude 117.1174°W

1. Seismic site classification in general accordance with the 2016 California Building Code.

Faulting and Estimated Ground Motions

The site is located in the southern California, which is a seismically active area. The type and

magnitude of seismic hazards affecting the site are dependent on the distance to causative faults,

the intensity, and the magnitude of the seismic event. As calculated using the USGS Unified

Hazard Tool, the Elsinore (Temecula) fault, which is considered to have the most significant effect

at the site from a design standpoint, has a maximum credible earthquake magnitude of 7.23 and

is located approximately 1.5 kilometers from the site.

Based on the USGS Design Maps Summary Report, using the American Society of Civil

Engineers (ASCE 7-10) standard, the peak ground acceleration (PGAM) at the project site is

expected to be 0.775g. Based on the USGS Unified Hazard Tool, the project site has a mean

magnitude of 6.94. Furthermore, the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault

Zone based on our review of the State Fault Hazard Maps.5

4 Data collected from groundwater monitoring wells located within the Pala Park, State Well Number 08S02W19A005S (http://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/ )

5 California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), “Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo

Earthquake Fault Zones of California, Southern Region”, CDMG Compact Disc 2000-003, 2000.





LIQUEFACTION

Liquefaction is a mode of ground failure that results from the generation of high pore water

pressures during earthquake ground shaking, causing loss of shear strength. Liquefaction is

typically a hazard where loose sandy soils exist below groundwater. The California Geological

Survey (CGS) and County of Riverside have designated certain areas as potential liquefaction

hazard zones. These are areas considered at a risk of liquefaction-related ground failure during

a seismic event, based upon mapped surficial deposits and the presence of a relatively shallow

water table.

The project site is mapped within a liquefaction hazard potential zone by the County of Riverside.

However, the proposed sheet piles are not supporting a human occupancy structure. Therefore,

liquefaction potential was not evaluated. Terracon should be notified if liquefaction should be

analyzed for this project.

CORROSIVITY

The table below lists the results of laboratory soluble sulfate, soluble chloride, electrical resistivity,

and pH testing. The values may be used to estimate potential corrosive characteristics of the on-

site soils with respect to contact with the various underground materials which will be used for

project construction.

Corrosivity Test Results Summary

Boring

Sample

Depth

(ft)

Soil

Description

Soluble

Sulfate

(%)

Sulfides

(ppm)

Chlorides

(ppm)

Red-Ox

Potential

(mV)

Electrical

Resistivity

(Ω-cm)

Total

Salts

(ppm)

pH

B-1 0 to 2.5

Poorly

Graded

Sand

0.02 Nil 27 +679 9,409 238 8.77

Results of soluble sulfate testing indicate, concrete should be designed in accordance with the

exposure class S0 provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section 318, Chapter 19.





GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based upon geotechnical conditions

encountered in the test borings, provided that the recommendations provided in this report are

implemented in the design and construction phases of this project.

Based on the information provided by the client, a sheet pile wall is proposed to be installed along

the northern boundary of the existing soccer field in the Pala Park in Temecula. The sheet pile

will be driven entirely below the existing ground to maximum depth of about 40 feet below the

existing ground surface.

The grading plans for the proposed improvement are not finalized at this stage of the project.

However, based on the information provided by CWE, approximately 16 to 18 feet of

scour/erosion of the existing materials are anticipated on the creek side due to flood flow along

the river. Therefore, the proposed sheet pile wall be designed as a cantilevered system with 16

to 18 feet of retained soil height and 22 to 24 feet of embedment depth.

The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of field and laboratory

testing (presented in the Exploration Results section), engineering analyses, and our current

understanding of the proposed project.

The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.

EARTHWORK

The following recommendations include site preparation, excavation, and subgrade preparation

on the project. The recommendations presented for design and construction of earth supported

elements are contingent upon following the recommendations outlined in this section.

Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of

earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade preparation,

foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of

the project.

Site Preparation

Although no evidence of fills or underground facilities such as septic tanks, cesspools, basements,

and utilities was not observed during the site reconnaissance, such features could be encountered

during construction. If unexpected fills or underground facilities are encountered, such features

should be removed, and the excavation thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill placement and/or

construction.





Subgrade Preparation

Based upon the subsurface conditions determined from the geotechnical exploration, subgrade

soils exposed during construction are anticipated to be relatively workable. However, the

workability of the subgrade may be affected by precipitation, repetitive construction traffic or other

factors. If unworkable conditions develop, workability may be improved by scarifying and drying.

Fill Materials and Placement

If required for planned grading, all fill materials should be inorganic soils free of vegetation, debris,

and fragments larger than 6 inches in size. Pea gravel or other similar non-cementatious, poorly-

graded materials should not be used as fill or backfill without the prior approval of the geotechnical

engineer.

Imported soils for use as fill material within proposed structure areas should conform to low

volume change materials as indicated in the following specifications:

Percent Finer by Weight

Gradation (ASTM C 136)

3” ......................................................................................................... 100

No. 4 Sieve ..................................................................................... 50-100

No. 200 Sieve ................................................................................... 10-40

◼ Liquid Limit ....................................................................... 30 (max)

◼ Plasticity Index ................................................................. 15 (max)

◼ Maximum expansion index* .............................................. 20 (max)

*ASTM D 4829

Engineered fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, using equipment and

procedures that will produce recommended moisture contents and densities throughout the lift.

Fill lifts should not exceed 10 inches loose thickness.

Compaction Requirements

Recommended compaction and moisture content criteria for fill materials are as follows:

Material Type and Location

Per the Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D 1557)

Minimum

Compaction

Requirement

Range of Moisture Contents for

Compaction Above Optimum

Minimum Maximum

Low volume change materials:

Utility trenches: 90% -1% +4%

Miscellaneous backfill: 90% 0% +3%





Grading and Drainage

Positive drainage should be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life of

the development. Infiltration of water into utility trenches should be prevented during construction.

Backfill against utility and sprinkler line trenches should be well compacted and free of all

construction debris to reduce the possibility of moisture infiltration.

Utility Trenches

It is anticipated that the on-site soils will provide suitable support for underground utilities and

piping that may be installed. Any soft and/or unsuitable material encountered at the bottom of

excavations should be removed and be replaced with an adequate bedding material. A non-

expansive granular material with a sand equivalent greater than 30 should be used for bedding

and shading of utilities, unless allowed or specified otherwise by the utility manufacturer.

On-site materials are considered suitable for backfill of utility and pipe trenches from one foot

above the top of the pipe to the final ground surface, provided the material is free of organic matter

and deleterious substances.

Trench backfill should be mechanically placed and compacted as discussed earlier in this report.

Compaction of initial lifts should be accomplished with hand-operated tampers or other lightweight

compactors. Where trenches are placed beneath slabs or footings, the backfill should satisfy the

gradation and expansion index requirements of engineered fill discussed in this report. Flooding

or jetting for placement and compaction of backfill is not recommended.

Construction Considerations

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, dense to very dense sand and

gravel along with layers of hard fine-grained materials were encountered below the depth of about

30 feet below the existing ground surface. Based on this, difficult pile driving could be encountered

in these very dense granular or hard fine-grained materials. The contractor should select a driving

hammer suitable for the subsurface conditions. Furthermore, the contractor should select a driving

hammer and cushion combination that can install the selected piling without overstressing the pile

material. Considerations should be given to using protective points or flange stiffening.

The existing facility (structures and subsurface utilities) should be observed prior to pile

installation to document its condition. Structures should also be observed during pile installation

for indications of movement. Pile driving should be stopped, and Terracon contacted if movement

or cracking of the existing structures is observed. Monitoring vibration levels during pile driving

should be considered. Although vibrations from pile driving may be below levels that will cause

structural damage, they may be felt by occupants of the adjacent buildings. The potential impact

of driving piles at this site should be considered when evaluating this alternative.





The pile driving process should be performed under the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer.

The Geotechnical Engineer should document the pile installation process including soil/rock and

groundwater conditions encountered, consistency with expected conditions, and details of the

installed pile.

We recommend that the earthwork portion of this project be completed during extended periods

of dry weather if possible. If earthwork is completed during the wet season (typically November

through April) it may be necessary to take extra precautionary measures to protect subgrade soils.

Wet season earthwork operations may require additional mitigative measures beyond that which

would be expected during the drier summer and fall months. This could include diversion of

surface runoff around exposed soils and draining of ponded water on the site. Once subgrades

are established, it may be necessary to protect the exposed subgrade soils from construction

traffic.

Construction Observation and Testing

The geotechnical engineer should be retained during the construction phase of the project to

observe earthwork and to perform necessary tests and observations during subgrade preparation,

proof-rolling, placement and compaction of controlled compacted fills, backfilling of excavations

to the completed subgrade.

The exposed subgrade and each lift of compacted fill should be tested, evaluated, and reworked

as necessary until approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of additional lifts.

One density and water content test for every 50 linear feet of compacted utility trench backfill.

In addition to the documentation of the essential parameters necessary for construction, the

continuation of the Geotechnical Engineer into the construction phase of the project provides the

continuity to maintain the Geotechnical Engineer’s evaluation of subsurface conditions, including

assessing variations and associated design changes.





LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

It is anticipated that the proposed sheet pile wall system is a nongravitiy cantilevered wall system.

For retained materials comprised of on-site soils above any free water surface, recommended

equivalent fluid pressures for unrestrained foundation elements are:

ITEM VALUEa

Above Groundwater (Unsaturated) b

Below Groundwater (Saturated) b

Active Case 34 psf/ft c 16 psf/ft

Passive Case d 425 psf/ft 205 psf/ft

Coefficient of Friction 0.30 0.30

Surcharge Pressure 0.3 * Surcharge Load 0.3 * Surcharge Load aNote: The values are based on on-site materials with level retained soil condition.

bNote: Consider groundwater at the elevation of 1006.6 feet which is about 9 feet below the existing ground. cNote: If saturated condition is anticipated and soils behind the wall cannot be drained, hydrostatic pressure of 62 psf/ft should be added. dNote: The lateral resistance should be capped at 15 times these values.

The lateral earth pressures herein do not include any factor of safety and are not applicable for

submerged soils/hydrostatic loading, sloping retained soil and retained soil with ground anchors.

Additional recommendations may be necessary if such conditions are to be included in the design.

If deadman anchors are needed to limit the sheet pile head deflection, such deadman anchors

may be designed considering the active and passive pressures presented above6. The deadman

anchors should be located at a minimum setback distance of 1.5 times the exposed height of the

sheet pile. The top of the deadman anchor should be located at a minimum depth of 2 feet below

the existing ground surface.

The design of wall system should consider surcharge loads imposed by any structures and

vehicular loads in the vicinity of the wall. In general, surcharge loads should be considered where

they are located within a horizontal distance behind the wall equal to the height of the cantilevered

portion of the sheet pile wall.

Surcharge loads acting at the top of the wall should be applied to the wall as a uniform pressure

over the entire sheet pile height and should be added to the static earth pressures. Surcharge

stresses due to point loads, line loads, and those of limited extent, such as compaction equipment,

should be evaluated using elastic theory.

Adequate drainage should be provided for the retaining walls to collect water from irrigation,

landscaping, surface runoff, or other sources, to achieve a free-draining retained soil condition. If

6 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineers Manual 1110-2-2504, Design of Sheet Pile Walls, March 31, 1994





saturated conditions are anticipated, hydrostatic pressure should be added to the active lateral

earth pressures.

Fill against walls should be compacted to densities specified in the Earthwork section of this

report. Compaction of each lift adjacent to walls should be accomplished with hand-operated

tampers or other lightweight compactors.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical

conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration. Natural variations will occur

between exploration point locations or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather.

The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction.

Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer, where noted in this report, to provide

observation and testing services during pertinent construction phases. If variations appear, we

can provide further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If variations are noted in the

absence of our observation and testing services on-site, we should be immediately notified so

that we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations.

Our Scope of Services does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or

biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of

pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for

such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

Our services and any correspondence or collaboration through this system are intended for the

sole benefit and exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and

are accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with

no third-party beneficiaries intended. Any third-party access to services or correspondence is

solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our client.

Reliance upon the services and any work product is limited to our client and is not intended for

third parties. Any use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their

own risk. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made.

Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation cost. Any

use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost estimator as there

may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly impact

excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation costs should seek their own site

characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing.

Site safety, and cost estimating including, excavation support, and dewatering

requirements/design are the responsibility of others. If changes in the nature, design, or location

of the project are planned, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid

unless we review the changes and either verify or modify our conclusions in writing.

Responsive Resourceful Reliable

ATTACHMENTS




Responsive Resourceful Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 1 of 2

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

Field Exploration

Number of Borings Boring Depth (feet) Location

3 101 to 101.5 Along the proposed wall

alignment

Boring Layout and Elevations: Coordinates were obtained with a handheld GPS unit (estimated

horizontal accuracy of about ±10 feet) and approximate elevations were obtained by interpolation

from the Google Earth. If elevations and a more precise boring layout are desired, we recommend

borings be surveyed.

Subsurface Exploration Procedures: We advanced the borings with a track-mounted drill rig

using continuous hollow stem flight augers. Samples were obtained at intervals of 2.5 and 5 feet.

Soil sampling was performed using split-barrel sampling procedures. In the split-barrel sampling

procedure, a standard 2-inch outer diameter split-barrel sampling spoon is driven into the ground

by a 140-pound automatic hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required

to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of a normal 18-inch penetration is recorded as

the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance value. The SPT resistance values, also referred

to as N-values, are indicated on the boring logs at the test depths. A 2.5-inch O.D. split-barrel

Modified California sampling spoon with 2.0-inch I.D. rings lined sampler was also used for

sampling. The Modified California split-barrel sampling procedures are similar to standard split

spoon sampling procedure; however, blow counts are typically recorded for 6-inch intervals for a

total of 12 inches of penetration. The samples were placed in appropriate containers, taken to our

soil laboratory for testing, and classified by a geotechnical engineer. In addition, we observed and

recorded groundwater levels during drilling and sampling. For safety purposes, all borings were

backfilled with auger cuttings after their completion.

The sampling depths, penetration distances, and other sampling information was recorded on the

field boring logs. Our exploration team prepared field boring logs as part of the drilling operations.

These field logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling and our

interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs were prepared

from the field logs. The final boring logs represent the Geotechnical Engineer's interpretation of

the field logs and include modifications based on observations and tests of the samples in our

laboratory.

Laboratory Testing

The project engineer reviewed the field data and assigned laboratory tests to understand the

engineering properties of the various soil strata, as necessary, for this project. Procedural




Responsive Resourceful Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 2 of 2

standards noted below are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases, variations to

methods were applied because of local practice or professional judgment. Standards noted below

include reference to other, related standards. Such references are not necessarily applicable to

describe the specific test performed.

ASTM D2216 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture)

Content of Soil and Rock by Mass

ASTM D7263 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Dry Density (Unit

Weight) of Soil Specimens

ASTM D4318 Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of

Soils

ASTM C136 Standard Test Methods for Determining the Amount of Material Finer than

75-µm (No. 200) Sieve in Soils by Washing

ASTM D422 Standard Test Methods for Determining Grain Size Distribution

ASTM D3080 Standard Tests Methods for Direct Shear Tests

Corrosivity Testing will include pH, chlorides, sulfates, sulfides, Redox potential, and

electrical lab resistivity

The laboratory testing program included examination of soil samples by an engineer. Based on

the material’s texture and plasticity, we described and classified the soil samples in accordance

with the Unified Soil Classification System.


SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

SITE LOCATION

Temecula Flood Control Channel Recon and Repair Temecula, CA

September 17, 2019 Terracon Project No. 60195071

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: TEMECULA, CA (1/1/1975) and PECHANGA, CA (1/1/1997).

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

SITE

EXPLORATION PLAN

Temecula Flood Control Channel Recon and Repair Temecula, CA

September 17, 2019 Terracon Project No. 60195071

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS

NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS

LEGEND

B-1: BORING APPROXIMATE LOCATION


EXPLORATION RESULTS

11-11-13

3-4-6

4-5-5N=10

17-23-33

10-10-50/5"

44-45-50/5"

15-17-33N=50

2

25

5

30

68

4

2

2

12

101

94

110

119

NP

43-23-20

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), trace silt, brown,medium dense

loose

SILTY SAND (SM), trace clay, brown, mediumdense

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), brown, mediumdense

very dense

SILTY SAND (SM), trace gravel, brown, verydense

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace gravel, darkbrown, hard

10.0

15.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1005+/-

1000+/-

990+/-

985+/-

980+/-

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

601

950

71 T

EM

EC

ULA

FL

OO

D C

O.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

9/1

2/1

9

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

STRENGTH TEST

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(tsf

)

TE

ST

TY

PE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

LOCATION See Exploration Plan

Latitude: 33.4725° Longitude: -117.118°

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

DEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)

Approximate Surface Elev.: 1015 (Ft.) +/-

Page 1 of 3

Advancement Method:Hollow Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

Notes:

Project No.: 60195071

Drill Rig: CME 75

BORING LOG NO. B-1CWE CorpCLIENT:Fullerton, CA

Driller: 2R Drilling

Boring Completed: 08-16-2019

PROJECT: Temecula Flood Control Channel Recon andRepair

See Exploration and Testing Procedures for adescription of field and laboratory proceduresused and additional data (If any).

See Supporting Information for explanation ofsymbols and abbreviations.

Pala Park at 44900 Temecula Ln. Temecula, CASITE:

Boring Started: 08-16-2019

1421 Edinger Ave, Ste CTustin, CA

groundwater encountered

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

37-41-50/5"

33-50/3"

50/4"

14-35-50/3"

50/4"

19-50/5"

43-50/3"

71

31

7

42

19

11

16

109

121

114

40-26-14SILT WITH SAND (ML), brown, hard


POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT ANDGRAVEL (SP-SM), brown, very dense

SILTY SAND (SM), dark brown, very dense

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), brown, verydense

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT ANDSAND (GP-GM), brown, very dense

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

65.0

975+/-

970+/-

965+/-

960+/-

950+/-


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

601

950

71 T

EM

EC

ULA

FL

OO

D C

O.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

9/1

2/1

9

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

STRENGTH TEST

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(tsf

)

TE

ST

TY

PE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G



Page 2 of 3



Notes:


Drill Rig: CME 75












SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

23-50/3"

33-50/3"

12-39-50/3"

20-50/4"

23-50/5"

30-50/3"

17-50/6"

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT ANDSAND (GP-GM), brown, very dense (continued)

SILTY SAND (SM), brown, very dense


Boring Terminated at 101 Feet

80.0

90.0

101.0

935+/-

925+/-

914+/-


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

601

950

71 T

EM

EC

ULA

FL

OO

D C

O.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

9/1

2/1

9

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

75

80

85

90

95

100

STRENGTH TEST

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(tsf

)

TE

ST

TY

PE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G



Page 3 of 3



Notes:


Drill Rig: CME 75












SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

17-24-30

6-8-11N=19

10-14-15

11-13-19N=32

21-30-45

6-16-26N=42

19-53/6"

4

6

23

9

9

10

13

103

102

123

109

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), trace silt, brown,medium dense

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM),trace gravel, medium dense

dense

SILTY SAND (SM), trace gravel, browndense

very dense

10.0

25.0

1005+/-

990+/-


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

601

950

71 T

EM

EC

ULA

FL

OO

D C

O.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

9/1

2/1

9

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

STRENGTH TEST

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(tsf

)

TE

ST

TY

PE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G



Page 1 of 3



Notes:


Drill Rig: CME 75












SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

11-22-29N=51

5-27-50/3"

26-50/6"

50/3"

52/6"

50/6"

33-50/6"

27

4

16

12

25

113

113

100

33-28-5SILTY SAND (SM), trace gravel, brown (continued)

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP),trace silt, brown, very denseencountered shale layer

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL W/SAND (GP),brown, very dense

40.0

50.0

70.0

975+/-

965+/-

945+/-


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

601

950

71 T

EM

EC

ULA

FL

OO

D C

O.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

9/1

2/1

9

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

STRENGTH TEST

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(tsf

)

TE

ST

TY

PE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G



Page 2 of 3



Notes:


Drill Rig: CME 75












SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

7-34-50/3"

30-39-50/5"

10-22-50/5"

31-50/6"

29-50/4"

13-32-50/4"

26-45-50N=95

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP),trace silt, brown, very dense

SILT WITH SAND (ML), brown, hard

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL W/SAND (GP),brown, very dense

SILT WITH SAND (ML), brown, hard

Boring Terminated at 101.5 Feet

80.0

85.0

95.0

101.5

935+/-

930+/-

920+/-

913.5+/-


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

601

950

71 T

EM

EC

ULA

FL

OO

D C

O.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

9/1

2/1

9

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

75

80

85

90

95

100

STRENGTH TEST

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(tsf

)

TE

ST

TY

PE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G



Page 3 of 3



Notes:


Drill Rig: CME 75












SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

7-13-19

10-15-19

5-5-6N=11

14-17-19

9-13-14N=27

12-12-10

8-20-29N=49

37

5

2

3

4

16

105

99

107

95

33-25-8

SILTY SAND (SM), trace gravel, brown, mediumdense

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), brown, mediumdense

SILTY SAND (SM), brown, medium dense

trace gravel, dense

15.0

25.0

35.0

1000+/-

990+/-

980+/-


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

601

950

71 T

EM

EC

ULA

FL

OO

D C

O.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

9/1

2/1

9

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

STRENGTH TEST

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(tsf

)

TE

ST

TY

PE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G



Page 1 of 3



Notes:


Drill Rig: CME 75












SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

7-11-50/5"

8-25-28N=53

14-44-50/3"

16-33-42N=75

50/6"

7-50/6"

26-50/5"

73

31

12

9

9

115

127

114

SILT WITH SAND (ML), trace gravel, brown, hard


40.0

70.0

975+/-

945+/-


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

601

950

71 T

EM

EC

ULA

FL

OO

D C

O.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

9/1

2/1

9

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

STRENGTH TEST

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(tsf

)

TE

ST

TY

PE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G



Page 2 of 3



Notes:


Drill Rig: CME 75












SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

20-28-50/3"

6-26-50/3"

44-50/3"

8-30-50/3"

10-25-26N=51

18-37-50/3"

14-17-28N=45


POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM),brown, very dense



dark brown with black

dense

Boring Terminated at 101.5 Feet

75.0

80.0

90.0

101.5

940+/-

935+/-

925+/-

913.5+/-


TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

GE

O S

MA

RT

LO

G-N

O W

ELL

601

950

71 T

EM

EC

ULA

FL

OO

D C

O.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

9/1

2/1

9

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

75

80

85

90

95

100

STRENGTH TEST

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(tsf

)

TE

ST

TY

PE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G



Page 3 of 3



Notes:


Drill Rig: CME 75












SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

CH o

r

OH

CL o

r

OL

ML or OL

MH or OH

"U" L

ine

"A" L

ine

ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTSASTM D4318

PLASTICITY

INDEX

LIQUID LIMIT

PROJECT NUMBER: 60195071

SITE: Pala Park at 44900 Temecula Ln. Temecula, CA

PROJECT: Temecula Flood Control ChannelRecon and Repair

CLIENT: CWE Corp Fullerton, CA


LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

AT

TE

RB

ER

G L

IMIT

S 6

0195

071

TE

ME

CU

LA F

LO

OD

CO

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T 9

/12

/19

NP

43

40

33

33

NP

23

26

28

25

NP

20

14

5

8

PIPLLLBoring ID Depth

B-1

B-1

B-1

B-2

B-3

25.1

68.1

70.7

27.4

Fines

10 - 11.5

30 - 31.5

35 - 36.4

35 - 36.5

30 - 31.5

SM

CL

ML

SM

SM

SILTY SAND

SANDY LEAN CLAY

SILT with SAND

SILTY SAND

SILTY SAND

DescriptionUSCS

CL-ML

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

2

10

4

16

NORMAL PRESSURE, psf

SH

EA

R S

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

c, psf

204

450

384

522

34

37

30

27

°

DIRECT SHEAR TESTASTM D3080

94

123

107

95

PROJECT NUMBER: 60195071PROJECT: Temecula Flood Control Channel

Recon and Repair



EXHIBIT: B-1


, pcf

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)

SILTY SAND (SM)

Specimen Identification Classification

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-3

WC,%

5 - 6.5

20 - 21.5

15 - 16.5

25 - 26.5

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

DIR

EC

T_S

HE

AR

601

950

71 T

EM

EC

ULA

FLO

OD

CO

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T 9

/12

/19

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

3/4 1/23/8 30 403 60

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

16 20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

44 10063 2 10 14 506 2001.5 81 140

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

BY

WE

IGH

T

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONASTM D422 / ASTM C136






LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

GR

AIN

SIZ

E: U

SC

S 1

601

950

71 T

EM

EC

ULA

FL

OO

D C

O.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

9/1

2/1

9

2.7

9.8

1.8

67.6

59.5

74.8

29.8

30.8

23.4

B-1

B-1

B-2

fine coarse

1.016 0.955 0.876

0.079 0.165

finemediumCOBBLES

GRAVEL SANDSILT OR CLAY

0.0

0.0

0.0

D30

D60

BORING ID

1"3/4"1/2"3/8"#4#8#16#30#40#60#100#200

100.098.298.298.297.3486.6966.9851.6546.440.3333.1829.76

1 1/2"1"

3/4"1/2"3/8"#4#8#16#30#40#60#100#200

100.098.4296.5295.2993.8490.2182.569.2354.9554.845.4837.9130.76

100.099.2198.8298.8298.2394.2279.2158.0548.7239.7128.4123.42

1"3/4"1/2"3/8"#4#8#16#30#40#60#100#200

CC

CU

coarse

D10

25 - 26.4

40 - 40.8

25 - 26.5

Sieve

REMARKS

SOIL DESCRIPTION% Finer% Finer SieveSieve% Finer

USCS% CLAY% FINES% SILT% SAND% GRAVEL% COBBLESDEPTH

COEFFICIENTS

GRAIN SIZE

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

3/4 1/23/8 30 403 60

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

16 20

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

44 10063 2 10 14 506 2001.5 81 140

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

BY

WE

IGH

T

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONASTM D422 / ASTM C136






LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

GR

AIN

SIZ

E: U

SC

S 1

601

950

71 T

EM

EC

ULA

FL

OO

D C

O.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

9/1

2/1

9

0.4

9.8

26.9

59.0

72.6

31.2

B-3

B-3

fine coarse

1.144

finemediumCOBBLES

GRAVEL SANDSILT OR CLAY

0.0

0.0

D30

D60

BORING ID

1/2"3/8"#4#8#16#30#40#60#100#200

100.099.8299.5597.9396.8596.8596.7293.5384.872.64

1"3/4"1/2"3/8"#4#8#16#30#40#60#100#200

100.097.9796.2395.3590.2276.061.1648.7644.5740.5134.931.2

CC

CU

coarse

D10

35 - 36.4

45 - 46.3

Sieve

REMARKS

SOIL DESCRIPTION% Finer% Finer SieveSieve% Finer

USCS% CLAY% FINES% SILT% SAND% GRAVEL% COBBLESDEPTH

COEFFICIENTS

GRAIN SIZE

Project Number:

Service Date:

Report Date:

Task:

Client

Date Received:

B-1

0.0-2.5

8.77

0.02

Nil

27

+679

238

9409

Analyzed By:

CHEMICAL LABORATORY TEST REPORT

Trisha Campo

pH Analysis, AWWA 4500 H

Water Soluble Sulfate (SO4), AWWA 4500 E

(percent %)

Sulfides, AWWA 4500-S D, (mg/kg)

Chlorides, ASTM D 512, (mg/kg)

Red-Ox, AWWA 2580, (mV)

Total Salts, AWWA 2540, (mg/kg)

Resistivity, ASTM G 57, (ohm-cm)

CWE Corp Temecula Flood Control Channel Recon and Repair at Pala Park

09/03/19

750 Pilot Road, Suite F

Las Vegas, Nevada 89119

(702) 597-9393

Project

Fullerton, CA

Lab No.: 19-0962

Sample Number

Sample Location

Sample Depth (ft.)

The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client

indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to

the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials.

60195071

Terracon (60)Sample Submitted By: 8/26/2019

Results of Corrosion Analysis

Chemist

08/27/19


SUPPORTING INFORMATION

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM


UNIFIED SOIL C LASSIFIC AT ION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Soil Classification

Group Symbol

Group Name B

Coarse-Grained Soils: More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels: More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F, G, H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F, G, H

Sands: 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G, H, I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G, H, I

Fine-Grained Soils: 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays: Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic: PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line J

CL Lean clay K, L, M

PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K, L, M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL Organic clay K, L, M, N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, O

Silts and Clays: Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic: PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K, L, M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K, L, M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH Organic clay K, L, M, P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve.

B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles

or boulders, or both” to group name.

C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded

gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded

sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay.

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

6010

2

30

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with

gravel,” whichever is predominant.

L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add

“sandy” to group name.

M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name.

N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O PI 4 or plots below “A” line.

P PI plots on or above “A” line.

Q PI plots below “A” line.

less than 0.25

0.50 to 1.00

> 4.00

UnconfinedCompressive Strength

Qu, (tsf)

0.25 to 0.50

1.00 to 2.00

2.00 to 4.00

AugerCuttings

ModifiedDames &Moore RingSampler

StandardPenetrationTest

Trace

PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

Water levels indicated on the soil boring logs arethe levels measured in the borehole at the timesindicated. Groundwater level variations will occurover time. In low permeability soils, accuratedetermination of groundwater levels is notpossible with short term water levelobservations.

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONSGENERAL NOTES

> 30

11 - 30

1 - 10Low

Non-plastic

Plasticity Index

#4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm

Boulders

12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm)Cobbles

3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)Gravel

Sand

Passing #200 sieve (0.075mm)Silt or Clay

Particle Size

Water Level Aftera Specified Period of Time

Water Level After aSpecified Period of Time

Water InitiallyEncountered

Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of theirdry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soilshave less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic,and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituentsmay be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils aredefined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.

GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINESRELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION

LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES

SAMPLING WATER LEVEL FIELD TESTSN

(HP)

(T)

(DCP)

UC

(PID)

(OVA)

Standard Penetration TestResistance (Blows/Ft.)

Hand Penetrometer

Torvane

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

Unconfined CompressiveStrength

Photo-Ionization Detector

Organic Vapor Analyzer

Medium

0Over 12 in. (300 mm)

>12

5-12

<5

Percent ofDry Weight

TermMajor Component of Sample

Modifier

With

Trace

Descriptive Term(s) ofother constituents

>30Modifier

<15

Percent ofDry Weight

Descriptive Term(s) ofother constituents

With 15-29

High

Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. Theaccuracy of such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographicalsurvey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined fromtopographic maps of the area.

Descriptive Term(Consistency)

0 - 6

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

Hard

Very Loose

Loose

Medium Dense

Dense

Very Dense

Descriptive Term(Density)

Standard Penetrationor N-ValueBlows/Ft.

0 - 3

4 - 9 7 - 18

10 - 29 19 - 58

30 - 50 59 - 98

> 50 > 99 Very Stiff

Standard Penetration orN-Value

Blows/Ft.

Ring SamplerBlows/Ft.

Ring SamplerBlows/Ft.

5 - 9

Stiff

Medium Stiff

Soft

Very Soft

(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field visual-manual

procedures or standard penetration resistance

STRENGTH TERMS

RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance

2 - 4

4 - 8

8 - 15

15 - 30

> 30

0 - 1

3 - 4

< 3

10 - 18

19 - 42

> 42

Documents

Geotechnical Engineering Report - Temecula CA