HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3552 Lot 7-8 Geotechnical Rpt & Compaction Test Results 11-30-04
I
3~
1- 0f6
7r:rg
1
'1_, /'
-:l-{~EfiGEN
COfl~oration
. Soil Engineering and GonsultingServices-EngineeringGeology . Compaction Testinll
-Inspections. Construction MalerialsTesting . LahoratoryTesling.PercolationTesling
-Goology.WaterResource5Iudies . Phase I & II Environmental SileAssessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
I
1
1
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Ahmed Property
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 922-170-001 and 922-170-002
Lot 8 and Portion of Lot 7, Tract 3552, Vallejo Avenue
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T1060-CS
1
1
November 30, 2004
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Prepared for:
1
Mr. Nasir Ahmed
29720 Rancho California Road, Suite GB3
Temecula, California 92591
/~/_-\
'\
1
f \ // '\.
1/;--
-::;
-- .,",.~-'-'~",^,'-'
.,,-
/
/
"
,
, -
/ " ~ ~ -
~ \ - - - \ "
~,' -
/" -- !
, --
, ,
\ ~
, ,
. - ,
- -
F /" / '- _ / , ,I _' _
\ ...- ' - - \ !" - - \...." / I ___
",' - / ,-, '" - I. ::.;:......::...<--_:~~::-.::-=-~,~'::
~;:"__"'~__II-=:-J-~-" -~_......- 11
-- \
'- -
, -
, -
, , -
, -
,
/ -- i ,
/ __ I
/ -- I
1;11
~ I , I I ,\.' ~./, _----:::-.L. _.......<-.,. \ -,--,,-:-1
_~ "0' .L..~j, "
C~._ A~.bf!.JJ:E..~1EO E terpris~~jJ:.c'ie~ rt ,~Sult""l,:reihe<:tJla.CA 92590."phone:.(95)L~~~;1230.Ja1C(951J-296'2237'
n -lrRANGE COUNTY 0 FI E2615 Orange A e ue, Santa Ana, CA 92707 . phone: 17141 546~4051 . fax: 1714) 546-4052
.. 8 -SiTE~\.vww.-en e corp.come E"..MAIL: engencor-p@Ehlgencorp;com
-~-
'''r-
~ ;" . . ., .
~"
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
Mr. Nasir Ahmed
Project Number: T1060-CS
TARI FOr: CONTFNTS
SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE
PAGE
1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ..................................................................... 1
1,1 PROJECT LOCATION ..............................................................,............. ....,........................ 1
1.2 SITE DESCRiPTION....... ,........................., ,........................................................... ,. ,...,.. ,... 2
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ,.............,.... ,....................,.. ,. ,...................................,.................. 2
2.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 2
2.1 HISTORICAL SITE STUDIES AND GRADING, 1996-1999....................................................... 2
2.2 RECENT SITE OBSERVATIONS, 2004 ................................................................................. 2
2.3 FINDINGS..................................................,.............................................................,..... 3
2.3.1 liQUEFACTION .....................................................................,..................,. 3
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................. 3
3.1 TIME OF GRADING ............................................................................................................ 3
3.2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT ......................................................................................... 4
3.3 ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS ........................................................... .........,.................... 4
4.0 SLOPE STABILITY ............................................................................................................. 4
4.1 FILL SLOPES....... ..............................................................,............................................... 4
4.2 CUT SLOPES ........................... ............................................................. ............................ 5
5.0 TESTING ..........................................................................................,............................... 5
5.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES ........................................................................................... 5
5.2 LABORATORY TESTING....................................................,................................................ 5
5.2.1 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST ................................................... 5
5.2.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST ............................................................................ 5
5.2.3 SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST ........................................................................... 6
6.0 EARTH MATERIALS........................................................................................................... 6
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 6
7.1 PRECISE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 6
8.0 SOIL EXPANSION POTENTIAL ............................................................................................ 6
9.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................ 7
9.1 GENERAL.......................................................................,.............................................. 7
9.2 FOUNDATION SiZE................,........................................................................................... 7
9.3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT.....................................................................................................8
EnGEN Corporation \
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mr. Nasir Ahmed
Project Number: T1060-CS
TARI F OF CONTFNTS (Cnnt)
9.4 BEARING CAPACITY ..........................................................................................................8
9.5 SETTLEMENT.....................................,............................,.,............................................... 8
9.6 LATERAL CAPACITY ..........................................................,............................................... 8
9.7 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS.......................................................................................... 9
9.8 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS.,............................................................................. 9
9.9 INTERIOR SLABS..,...........................................................................................................1 0
9.10 EXTERIOR SLABS ................... ... ......................................................,...............................1 0
10.0 GENERAL .......................................................................................................................10
11.0 CLOSURE........................................................................................................................11
APPENDIX:
TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation Z.
I r"..." '1'. /"
. .~, G
1 st:;'Nfj"' ~t;rED. EN
:~- l'!i 0, !v~
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
Ic~_~-
.f
r
~.
COf1~oration
. Soil Engineering and Consulling Sel'lires . EngineeringGoology. Compaction Tesling
elnspections.ConslruclionMalerialsTesling-laboraloryTesling-PercoiationTesting
e Geology. Waler Resource Sludies . Phase 1& II Environmenlal $ite ASS8ssments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
Mr. Nasir Ahmed
c/o Ms. Teri Schultz
29720 Rancho California Road, Suite GB3
Temecula, California 92591
(951) 640-2923 / FAX (951 ) 699-1804
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL REpORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Ahmed Property
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 922-170-001 and 922-170-002
Lot 8 and Portion of Lot 7, Tract 3552, Vallejo Avenue
City of T emecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T1060-CS
Reference:
1.
Forker! Engineering and Surveying, Inc., Precise Grading Plan, Portion of
Lot 7, Tract 3552,28915 Vallejo Avenue, scale 1"=20', plan undated.
2.
Forker! Engineering and Surveying, Inc., Precise Grading Plan, Lot 8, Tract
3552,28945 Vallejo Avenue, scale 1"=20', plan undated.
Temecula Engineering Consultants, Rough Grading Plan, Portions of Lots 7,
8,9 and 10 of Tract 3552, Rancho Community Church, Sheet 2A, scale 1"=40',
plan dated November 6, 1998.
EnGEN Corporation, Alluvial Removal Study, Future Addition to Rancho
Community Church, project No. T1060-GS, study dated July 9,1996.
3.
4.
Dear Mr. Ahmed:
EnGEN Corporation has performed field observations, sampling, and in-place density testing at the
above referenced site. Submitted, herein, are the test results and the supporting field and laboratory
data.
1.0
1.1
SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
PROJECT LOCATION
//
The subject site consists of two (2) lots comprised of approximately 2.5-acres each, located
on the southwest side of Vallejo Avenue, southwest of the intersection of Vallejo Avenue
and Ynez Road, in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California.
/-\
~-;
/'
/
/" ',-
'/",,'- "/-,,/ - '/",-- '/",,-- / ,,--
/.,___\" '1,,\___\.- /,___\ "''',___\"r __\/""/ __\.--""/
- .-"" -/ "-, " - / "-, / -" /' -......--~- / " -/ ~ - ~ I
\ ' / \ ~ ' ,,\ \ I I ~. _,~ -:~ -,r-'--_,......._____
~ ,,-' __ I / __ I '. / -- I .- -.~"--." Ii
I \ { ~ I I I -' I ---'.... . "__~:_..i ,'_:::0-->---1[" j[
-~---""--,;4 ~_ i~ ~""";'--J[ " ".".. " " 1\
-C_'= Cql' __.~:!5.QfJ'JCE~lc1!lO E terprise .f~I.' rt ,,~uila.1,Jemecjjfa, cA-92590"phone:.J~5J'-~~602230 o.tex:,j95l)c296:2231" , .' - .
- - -'-crRANGE COUNTY 0 FI E 2615 Orange A e ue, Santa Ana, CA 92707 0 phone: (714) 546-4051 0 fax: (714) 546-4052 :3
~----- <<_.. ,- S-SITE-::www.en e .corp_com.E:..iMAIL:engencorp@engenoorp;com . ,..;
, "
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mr. Nasir Ahmed
Project Number: T1060-CS
November 2004
Page 2
1.2 SiTE DESCRIPTiON
Prior to grading operations, topography and surface conditions of the site were gently
sloping with surface drainage to the south towards a southwest flowing drainage at
gradients of approximately 5-10 percent.
1.3 PROJECT DESCRiPTION
It is understood that the subject site is to be developed with two (2), two story, single family
residences with slab-on-grade concrete floors supported on conventional continuous and
pier footings, with associated driveways as well as hardscape and landscape
improvements.
2.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The following is a summary of our findings and recommendations with respect to precise
grading of the subject site.
2.1 HiSTORICAL SITE STUDiES AND GRADiNG, 1996-1999
The Referenced No. 4 Alluvial Removals Study was prepared by EnGEN Corporation in
1996. Rough grading of the site began in 1998. The grading at this time included Lots 7,
8, 9 and 10, which was performed intermittently from July 1998 to January 1999. Grading
of Lots 7-8 was observed by EnGEN Corporation on the dates given in Section 3.1, the
Time of Grading Section, of this Report. The grades proposed in the Referenced NO.3
plan were not achieved at the time of Rough Grading in 1998-1999, and the site was left
approximately 1 to 2 feet below the proposed grades. The intended use of the site at the
time of Rough Grading in 1998-1999, for the area northwest of the channel, was as a
playground for the .Rancho Community Church. The area southeast of the channel, as well
as the adjacent southeastern lot, was intended to be used as a parking lot for the adjacent
Rancho Community Church,
2.2 RECENT SITE OBSERVATiONS, 2004
The subject site, Lots 7-8, was observed and samples were collected by a representative of
EnGEN Corporation on October 12 and November 10, 2004. The site had been graded
nearly flat, with drainage to a drainage channel on the southeastern portion of Lot 8. The
channel flows northeast to southwest, from Vallejo Ave to Interstate 15. Cut slopes, with a
maximum height of approximately 15 feet and inclined at 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) are
located along the northern and western sides of Lot 7. Fill slopes, with a maximum height
EnGEN Corporation ~
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mr. Nasir Ahmed
Project Number: T1060-CS
November 2004
Page 3
of approximately 10 feet and inclined at 2: 1 are located on either side of the existing
drainage channel along the southeastern portion of Lot 8. Currently the site has a
moderate growth of weeds. No additional grading appears to have been performed since
the site was last observed by EnGEN Corporation in January, 1999. Two 18-inch
corrugated metal pipes and possibly some utilities were installed at the southwest corner of
Lot 8 subsequent to the last observations of Lots 7-10 made by EnGEN Corporation in
January 1999, and prior to the recent site observations in October and November 2004.
The backfill of the pipes and utilities was not observed by EnGEN Corporation; therefore,
the backfill material is considered Undocumented Fill (Afu).
2.3 FINDINGS
Based on site observations and a review of the historical documents for the site, it appears
that the area of the proposed structures is underlain by Engineered fill (Afe) and Pauba
Formation bedrock (Qps), Therefore, two cut/fill transitions exist on the site, one on each
lot. The fills on Lot 7 range in thickness, up to approximately 2 to 4 feet. The fills on Lot 8
range in thickness, up to approximately 10 to 14 feet thick. Undocumented backfill (Afu)
exists at the corrugated metal pipes which drain the southwestern portion of Lot 8. Utilities
may also exist on this lot. The current plans, Reference No. 1 and 2, were reviewed with
respect to the grading performed in 1998-1999, and recommendations for Precise grading
of Lots 7 and 8 are given in Section 7.0.
2.3.1 LIQUEFACTION
Since the site is underlain by Engineered fill (Afe) and Pauba Formation bedrock (Qps), the
probability of liquefaction on site is negligible due to the densities of these materials.
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK
3.1 TIME OF GRADING
This report represents part time, on-call geotechnical observations and testing during the
rough grading operations for Lots 7 and 8 on July 8, 1998, through July 23, 1998,
November 23, 1998, December 7, 1998, December 9, 1998, and December 17, 1998.
Reported herein are the results for the current subject site only, which consist of Lot 8 and
a portion of Lot 7.
EnGEN Corporation 5'"
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mr. Nasir Ahmed
Project Number: T1060-CS
November 2004
Page 4
3.2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT
The Rough Grading operations were performed by Clayton Engineering, Inc. through the
use of one (3) CAT 623 self loading scrapers, one (1) CAT 06 dozer, one (1) CAT 08
dozer, one (1) motorgrader, one (1) 824 compactor and one (1) water truck.
3.3 ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Rough Grading within the subject site consisted of a cut/fill operation. Grasses and weeds
were removed prior to fill placement. Fill material was generated from the northwestern
portions of the site, and used to bring the southeastern portions of the site to finish grade
elevation. Removal of alluvium, slopewash, etc., was performed to a depth of
approximately 1 to 10-feet below original elevation. Overexcavated earth material was
stockpiled and later used as fill. In the areas of the proposed structures, bottoms were
observed, probed and found to be into competent bedrock by a representative of this firm.
Keying and benching into competent bedrock was observed during the grading operations.
The exposed bottoms were scarified and moisture conditioned to a depth of 12-inches then
compacted to 90 percent. Fill was placed in lens thicknesses of 6 to 8-inches, thoroughly
moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, then compacted to a minimum of
90 percent relative compaction. Moisture conditioning of the on-site soils was performed
during the compaction process through the use of a water truck.
The pad areas in 1998-1999 were not graded to the elevations noted on the Reference No.
3 Grading Plan. Based on the staking performed in the field during grading operations the
pad elevations are approximately 1 to 2 vertical feet below proposed elevations. However,
the actual pad locations, dimensions, elevations, slope locations and inclinations, etc. were
surveyed and staked by others and should be verified by the Project Civil Engineer.
4.0 SLOPE STABILITY
4.1 FILL SLOPES
All design fill slopes were constructed in substantial accordance with the plans at a slope
ratio of approximately 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical). It is our opinion that the fill slopes as
constructed possess gross and surficial stability in excess of generally accepted minimum
engineering criteria (Factor of Safety at least 1.5) and are suitable for their intended
purpose, provided that proper slope maintenance procedures are maintained. These
procedures include, but are not limited to, installation and maintenance of drainage
EnGEN Corporation <'e
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
Mr. Nasir Ahmed
Project Number: T1060-CS
November 2004
Page 5
devices, and planting of slope faces to protect from erosion in accordance with City of
Temecula Grading Codes. The maximum height of fill slope covered in this report is
approximately 10-feet.
4.2 CUT SLOPES
All cut slopes were constructed in substantial accordance with the plans at a slope ratio of
approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The cut slopes were surficially inspected by the
Project Geologist and consist of Pauba Formation Bedrock. No adversely oriented joints or
planes of weakness were observed during our inspection, It is our opinion that the cut
slopes as constructed possess gross and surficial stability in excess of generally accepted
minimum engineering criteria (Factor of Safety at least 1.5) and are suitable for their
intended purpose. The maximum height of cut slope covered in this report is approximately
15-feet.
5.0 TESTING
5.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES
Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed in general accordance
with ASTM D 2922-96 and ASTM D 3017-96 procedures for determining in-place density
and moisture content, respectively, using nuclear gauge equipment. Relative compaction
test results were within the 90 percent required for all material tested, which is an indication
that the remainder of the fill placed has been properly compacted. Test results are
presented in the Appendix of this report. Fill depths and test locations were determined
from review of the referenced grading plans.
5.2 LABORATORVTESTING
The following laboratory tests were performed as part of our services during the grading of
the subject site. The test results are presented in the Appendix of this report.
5.2.1 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
Maximum dry density-optimum moisture content relationship tests were conducted on
samples of the materials used as fill. The tests were performed in general accordance with
ASTM D 1557-00 procedures.
5.2.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST
Soil samples were obtained for expansion potential testing from the building pad areas.
The expansion test was performed in accordance with ASTM D 4829-95. The material
EnGEN Corporation 1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
Mr. Nasir Ahmed
Project Number: T1 060-CS
November 2004
Page 6
tested consisted of silty sand, which has an Expansion Index of O. This soil is classified as
having a very low expansion potential. The results are presented in the Summary of
Expansion Index Results in the Appendix of this report.
5.2.3 SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST
Based on this firm's familiarity with the soils used to construct the building pads, it is our
opinion that soluble sulfates are not a concern, and as a result, normal Type II cement can
be used in concrete making contact with the native soils.
6.0 EARTH MATERIALS
The natural earth materials encountered on-site generally consisted of silty sand.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 PRECISE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Prior to grading, weeds, debris, and any other deleterious materials should be removed
from the site and not used in the fills. .
2. Due to cut/fill transitions and shallow to deep fill transitions, an over-excavation in the
area of the structures should be performed. The over-excavation for the structure on
Lot 7 should be performed to a minimum depth of 3 feet below proposed grade. The
over-excavation for the structure on Lot 8 should be performed to a minimum depth of 5
feet below proposed grade. Over-excavation should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond
the perimeter of the structures.
3. Removal bottoms should be scarified 12-inches, moisture conditioned to near optimum
moisture, and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.
4. Other areas of the site to receive fill should be scarified 12 inches, moisture conditioned
to near optimum moisture, and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative
compaction prior to fill placement.
5. The existing undocumented backfill (Afu) of the 18-inch corrugated metal pipes, as well
as any possible utilities which have been installed at the southeastern corner of Lot 8,
are excluded from this report. Should documentation of this fill be necessary, the
backfill should be removed and replaced under observation and testing of EnGEN
Corporation.
6. All recommendations should be verified in the field during grading, so that additional
recommendations may be made, if necessary.
8.0 SOIL ExPANSION POTENTIAL
Upon completion of precise grading of the building pads, near-surface samples should be
obtained for expansion potential testing to identify the expansion potential for the pads and
EnGEN Corporation ~
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mr, Nasir Ahmed
Project Number: T1060-CS
November 2004
Page 7
assign appropriate foundation and slab-on-grade recommendations for construction. The
results of recent testing indicate a very low expansion potential, with an Expansion Index of
EI=O. However, the site is underlain by Pauba Formation bedrock, Expansive soils are
known to exist within the Pauba Formation which, if encountered during the over-
excavation, may cause the Expansion Index to vary, depending on how these soils become
mixed during grading. As a result, final foundation design parameters should be based on
EI testing of near-surface soils at final pad grade at the conclusion of precise grading.
If selective grading is desired in order to attempt to maintain the same Expansion Index at
the completion of precise grading as was encountered in this current study, then this option
should be discussed with this office, as well as with the grading contractor prior to the start
of grading. It should be determined at this time what areas are to receive selective soils.
Additionally, selective grading activities will typically increase the grading costs of the
project, such as stockpiling undesirable soil, screening import soil, and determining the use
of the undesirable soil. Any imported fill material should be no more expansive than the
soils encountered on site.
9.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 GENERAL
Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional column footings and
continuous wall footings founded upon a minimum of 18-inches of properly compacted fill.
The recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and
construction are based on geotechnical characteristics and a very low expansion potential
for the supporting soils and are not intended to preclude more restrictive structural
requirements. The Structural Engineer for the project should determine the actual footing
width and depth to resist design vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces.
9.2 FOUNDATION SIZE
Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches. Continuous footings
should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of one (1) No.4 steel reinforcing bar
located near the top and one (1) No, 4 steel reinforcing bar located near the bottom of the
footings to minimize the effects of slight differential movements which may occur due to
minor variations in the engineering characteristics or seasonal moisture change in the
supporting soils. Final foundation size and reinforcing should be determined based on the
expansive potential of the supporting soils. Column footings should have a minimum width
EnGEN Corporation
q
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
Mr. Nasir Ahmed
Project Number: T1060-CS
November 2004
Page 8
of 18-inches by 18-inches and be suitably reinforced, based on structural requirements. A
grade beam, founded at the same depths and reinforced the same as the adjacent
footings, should be provided across doorways, garage or any other types of perimeter
openings.
9.3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT
Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill should extend to a
minimum depth of 18-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for two story structures.
Deeper footings may be necessary for expansive soils purposes, depending on the final
determination of pad specific expansive potential.
9.4 BEARING CAPACITY
Provided the recommendations for site earthwork, minimum footing width, and minimum
depth of embedment for footings are incorporated into the project design and construction,
the allowable bearing value for design of continuous and column footings for the total dead
plus frequently-applied live loads is 2,000 psf for continuous footings and 2,000 psf for
column footings in properly compacted fill. The allowable bearing value has a factor of
safety of at least 3.0 and may be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live
and/or dynamic loading such as wind or seismic forces.
9.5 SETTLEMENT
Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values and the maximum
assumed wall and column loads are not expected to exceed a maximum settlement of
0.75-inch or a differential settlement of 0.25-inch in properly compacted fill under static load
conditions. No settlement due to Liquefaction is anticipated.
9.6 LATERAL CAPACITY
Additional foundation design parameters based on compacted fill for resistance to static
lateral forces, are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Compacted Fill - 150 pet
Allowable Coefficient of Friction: Compacted FiII- 0.35
Lateral load resistance may be developed by a combination of friction acting on the base of
foundations and slabs and passive earth pressure developed on the sides of the footings
and stem walls below grade when in contact with properly compacted fill or competent
EnGEN Corporation \ 0
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mr. Nasir Ahmed
Project Number: T1060-CS
November 2004
Page 9
native earth materials. The above values are allowable design values and have safety
factors of at least 2.0 incorporated into them and may be used in combination without
reduction in evaluating the resistance to lateral loads. The allowable values may be
increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading, such as wind
or seismic forces. For the calculation of passive earth resistance, the upper 1.0-foot of
material should be neglected unless confined by a concrete slab or pavement. The
maximum recommended allowable passive pressure is 5.0 times the recommended design
value.
9.7 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
THE FOLLOWING SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS APPLY:
Name of Fault: Elsinore Fault (Temecula Segment)
Type of Fault: Type B Fault
Closest Distance to Active Fault: Less than 2 km (1 km)
Soil Profile Type: SD
THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING NEAR SOURCE FACTORS APPLY:
C. = 0.44 N.
Cv = 0.64 Nv
N. = 1.3
Nv = 1.6
9.8 SLABoON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations for concrete slabs, both interior and exterior, excluding PCC
pavement, are based upon the expansion potential for the supporting material. Concrete
slabs should be designed to minimize cracking as a result of shrinkage. Joints (isolation,
contraction, and construction) should be placed in accordance with the American Concrete
Institute (ACI) guidelines. Special precautions should be taken during placement and
curing of all concrete slabs. Excessive slump (high water/cement ratio) of the concrete
and/or improper curing procedures used during either hot or cold weather conditions could
result in excessive shrinkage, cracking, or curling in the slabs. It is recommended that all
concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be performed in accordance with ACI
recommendations and procedures.
EnGEN Corporation \ \
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mr. Nasir Ahmed
Project Number: T1060-CS
November 2004
Page 10
9.9 INTERIOR SLABS
Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4.0-inches nominal in thickness
and be underlain by a 1.0 to 2.0-inches of clean coarse-grained sand or other approved
granular material placed on properly prepared subgrade as per Section 7.0 of this report.
Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of No.3 reinforcing bars, placed 24-inches on
center in both directions, or a suitable equivalent, as determined by the Project Structural
Engineer. Final pad identification and slab construction requirements will be presented in
the compaction report upon completion of grading. It is essential that the reinforcing be
placed at mid-depth in the slab. The concrete section and/or reinforcing steel should be
increased appropriately for anticipated excessive or concentrated floor loads. In areas
where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slab, we recommend the
use of a polyethylene vapor barrier with a minimum of 6.0 mil in thickness be placed
beneath the slab. The moisture barrier should be overlapped or sealed at splices and
protected top and bottom by a 1.0 to 2.0-inch minimum layer of clean, moist (not saturated)
sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures.
9.10 ExTERIOR SLABS
All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks, etc., with the
exception of PCC pavement) should be a minimum of 4,0-inches nominal in thickness and
should be underlain by a minimum of 12.0-inches of soil that has been prepared in
accordance with Section 7.0 of this report. Reinforcing in the slabs and the use of a
compacted sand or gravel base beneath the slabs should be according to the current local
standards. Subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture
content to a depth of 12.0-inches and proof compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative
compaction based on ASTM D 1557-00 procedures immediately before placing the
concrete.
10.0 GENERAL
Based on the observations and tests performed during grading, the subject site, in the
areas noted as test locations, has been completed in accordance with the Reference No 3
plans or as amended in the field based on conditions encountered and the Grading Code
of the City of Temecula. Provided that the Precise Grading Recommendations given in this
report are followed, the graded site, in the areas noted as graded, is determined to be
adequate for the support of a typical residential development. Any subsequent grading for
EnGEN Corporation \ z,.
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mr. Nasir Ahmed
Project Number: T1 060-CS
November 2004
Page 11
development of the subject property should be performed under engineering observation
and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Subsequent grading includes, but is not
limited to, any additional fill placement and excavation of temporary and permanent cut and
fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN Corporation should observe all foundation excavations.
Observations should be made prior to installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel
so as to verify and/or modify, if necessary, the conclusions and recommendations in this
report. Observations of overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other
trench backfill, pavement subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab
presaturation, or other earth work completed for the development of the subject site should
be performed by EnGEN Corporation. If any of the observations and testing to verify site
geotechnical conditions are not performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the safety
and performance of the development is limited to the actual portions of the project
observed and/or tested by EnGEN Corporation.
11.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described above.
It mayor may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes. The findings
and recommendations expressed in this report are based on field and laboratory testing
performed during the rough grading operation and on generally accepted engineering
practices and principles. No further warranties are implied or expressed beyond the direct
representations of this report.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services. If you should have any questions
regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
EnGEN Corporation
(~/~U1~H- /
Colby Matthews
Staff Geologist
Distribution: (4) Addressee
FILE: EnGEN/ReportinglCIT1060-CS Ahmed, Nasir, Rough Grading
\'2>
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
Mr. Nasir Ahmed
Project Number: T1060-CS
Appendix Page 1
APPENDIX:
TEST RESULTS
EnGEN Corporation \~
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mr. Nasir Ahmed
Project Number: T1060-cS
Appendix Page 2
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(Summary of field In-Place Density Test Results)
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
(5. G.) = Subgrade / (F. G.) = Finish Grade
Test Test Depth Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
No. Date Test Locations Elevation Soil Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
(FT) (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%)
43 12/7 Lot #8 1005 6 126.5 9.1 118.8 93.9% 90.0%
44 12/7 Lot #8 1005 6 126.5 9.5 118.4 93.6% 90.0%
45 12/7 Lot #8 1007 6 126.5 8.4 119.9 94.8% 90.0%
46 12/7 Lot #8 1007 6 126.5 10.0 121.3 95.9% 90.0%
47 12/7 Lot #8 1009 6 126.5 9.8 119.4 94.4% 90.0%
48 12/7 Lot #8 1009 6 126.5 9.5 118.9 94.0% 90.0%
49 12/7 Lot #8 1011 6 126.5 10.1 119.2 94.2% 90.0%
50 12/7 Lot #8 1011 6 126.5 9.7 119.6 94.5% 90.0%
51 12/7 Lot #8 1013 6 126.5 9.1 118.5 93.7% 90.0%
52 12/8 Lot #8 1005 6 126.5 9.4 114.3 90.4% 90.0%
53 12/8 Lot #8 1005 6 126.5 10.9 117.7 93.0% 90.0% ...
54 12/8 Lot #8 1005 6 126.5 10.1 116.1 91.8% 90.0%
55 12/8 Lot #8 1007 6 126.5 10.8 114.1 90.2% 90.0%
56 12/8 Lot #8 1007 6 126.5 9.5 115.0 90.9% 90.0%
57 12/8 Lot #8 1009 6 126.5 10.0 114.7 90.7% 90.0%
58 12/8 Lot #8 1009 4 118.4 9.1 109.0 92.1% 90.0%
59 12/9 Lot #8 1009 6 126.5 12.1 114.5 90.5% 90.0%
60 12/9 Lot #8 1010 6 126.5 12.5 118.0 93.3% 90.0%
61 12/9 Lot #8 1010 6 126.5 11.5 114.2 90.3% 90.0%
62 12/9 Lot #8 1010 6 126.5 11.7 114.6 90.6% 90.0%
63 12/9 Lot #8 1008 6 126.5 8.5 120.2 95.0% 90.0%
64 12/9 Lot #8 1008 6 126.5 7.5 115.9 91.6% 90.0%
65 12/9 Lot #8 1010 6 126.5 8.3 113.9 90.0% 90.0% .
66 12/9 Lot #7 1008 6 126.5 7.2 115.6 91.4% 90.0%
67 12/9 Lot #8 1010 6 126.5 10.2 117.2 92.6% 90.0%
68 12/9 Lot #8 1010 6 126.5 8.9 116.3 91.9% 90.0%
69 12/9 Lot #8 1012 6 126.5 9.8 116.8 92.3% 90.0%
70 12/9 Lot #8 1012 6 126.5 10.0 115.9 91.6% 90.0%
74 12/17 Lot #8 1010 6 . 126.5 11.8 121.3 95.9% 90.0%
75 12/17 Lot #7 1010 6 126.5 10.1 120.3 95.1% 90.0%
76 12/17 Lot #8 1012.5 6 126.5 7.7 114.7 90.7% 90.0%
77 12/17 Lot #8 1012.5 6 126.5 8.1 115.5 91.3% 90.0%
90 12/28 Lot #8 1018 6 126.5 9.8 115.5 91.3% 90.0%
92 12/28 Lot #8 1020 6 126.5 10.4 116.4 92.0% 90.0%
"Testing was performed as a part of grading operations on Lots 7-10. Only test results for the subject site, Lots 7-8, are shown.
EnGEN Corporation \:S'
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mr, Nasir Ahmed
Project Number: T1060-CS
Appendix Page 1
APPENDIX:
TEST RESULTS
EnGEN Corporation \ lP
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mr. Nasir Ahmed
Project Number: T1 060-CS
Appendix Page 2
FJELD TEST RESULTS
(Summary of field In-Place Density Test Results)
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
(S. G.) = Subgrade / (F. G.) = Finish Grade
Test Test Depth Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
No. Date Test Locations Elevation Soil Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
(FT) (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%)
43 12/7 Lot #8 1005 6 126.5 9.1 118.8 93.9% 90.0%
44 12/7 Lot #8 1005 6 126.5 9.5 118.4 93.6% 90.0% .
45 12/7 Lot #8 1007 6 126.5 8.4 119.9 94.8% 90.0%
46 12/7 Lot #8 1007 6 126.5 10.0 121.3 95.9% 90.0%
47 12/7 Lot #8 1009 6 126.5 9.8 119.4 94.4% 90.0%
48 12/7 Lot #8 1009 6 126.5 9.5 118.9 94.0% 90.0%
49 12/7 Lot #8 1011 6 126.5 10.1 119.2 94.2% 90.0%
50 12/7 Lot #8 1011 6 126.5 9.7 119.6 94.5% 90.0%
51 12/7 Lot #8 1013 6 126.5 9.1 118.5 93.7% 90.0%
52 12/8 Lot #8 1005 6 126.5 9.4 114.3 90.4% 90.0%
53 12/8 Lot #8 1005 6 126.5 10.9 117.7 93.0% 90.0%
54 12/8 Lot #8 1005 6 126.5 10.1 116.1 91.8% 90.0%
55 12/8 Lot #8 1007 6 126.5 10.8 114.1 90.2% 90.0%
56 12/8 Lot #8 1007 6 126.5 9.5 115.0 90.9% 90.0% '.
57 12/8 Lot #8 1009 6 126.5 10.0 114.7 90.7% 90.0%
58 12i8 Lot #8 1009 4 118.4 9.1 109.0 92.1% 90.0%
59 12/9 Lot #8 1009 6 126.5 12.1 114.5 90.5% 90.0%
60 12/9 Lot #8 1010 6 126.5 12.5 118.0 93.3% 90.0%
61 12/9 Lot #8 1010 6 126.5 11.5 114.2 90.3% 90.0%
62 12/9 Lot #8 1010 6 126.5 11.7 114.6 90.6% 90.0%
63 12/9 Lot #8 1008 6 126.5 8.5 120.2 95.0% 90.0%
64 12/9 Lot #8 1008 6 126.5 7.5 115.9 91.6% 90.0%
65 12/9 Lot #8 1010 6 126.5 8.3 113.9 90.0% 90.0%
66 12/9 Lot #7 1008 6 126.5 7.2 115.6 91.4% 90.0%
67 12/9 Lot #8 1010 6 126.5 10.2 117.2 92.6% 90.0%
68 12/9 Lot #8 1010 6 126.5 8.9 116.3 91.9% 90.0%
69 12/9 Lot #8 1012 6 126.5 9.8 116.8 92.3% 90.0%
70 12/9 Lot #8 1012 6 126.5 10.0 115.9 91.6% 90.0%
74 12/17 Lot #8 1010 6 126.5 11.8 121.3 95.9% 90.0%
75 12/17 Lot #7 1010 6 126.5 10.1 120.3 95.1% 90.0%
76 12/17 Lot #8 1012.5 6 126.5 7.7 114.7 90.7% 90.0%
77 12/17 Lot #8 1012.5 6 126.5 8.1 115.5 91.3% 90.0%
90 12/28 Lot #8 1018 6 126.5 9.8 115.5 91.3% 90.0%
92 12/28 Lot #8 1020 6 126.5 10.4 116.4 92.0% 90.0%
"Testing was perfonned as a part of grading operations on Lots 7-10. Only test results for the subject site. Lots 7-8, are shown.
EnGEN Corporation \1
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mr. Nasir Ahmed
Project Number: T1060-CS
Appendix Page 3
SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM CONTENT!
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS
ASTM D1557-00
Soil Type
Soil Description
(USCS Symbol)
Maximum Dry
Density (PCF)
Optimum Moisture
Content (%)
4 Silty sand, Tan (SM) 118.4 10,5
6 Silty sand, Brown (SM) 126,5 9.4
A Silty sand, Brown (SM) 130.4 8.3
B Silty sand, Brown (SM) 129.1 8.5
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
Soil Type Location Depth (Ft) Dry Moisture Moisture Expansion
Density Condition Condition Index
(PCF) Before After Test
T est!% \ (%\
A Lot #7 -1 114.8 8.1 12.5 0
B Lot #8 -1 113.0 8.0 13.2 0
I~
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
Mr. Nasir Ahmed
Project Number: T1060-CS
Appendix Page 4
APPENDIX:
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation \<\