HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3929 Lot 202 Geotechnical & Compaction
I~
1..""L~~'tGEN
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jpftf-03~
Corporation
. Soil Engineering and Consulting Services- EngineeringGeology. Compaction Testing
-lnspeclions-ConslruclionMaterialsTesling-LaboratoryTesling-PercolalionTesting
-Geology-WalerResourceSludies -?hasel & II Environmental Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Rice Residence, Assessor's Parcel Number: 921-192-004
Lot 202 of Tract 3929, Los Nogales Road
City of T emecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T1679-C
Permit Number: LD 99-038GR
August 9, 1999
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RECE\VED
~UG 091999
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Prepared for:
I~... " --\ / '\
......-:_~..._-'C-.."" --. \
V:C ".. ,
{/ ----
-..' .\"..
~ '~
- -~
Jeff and Pamela Rice
29861 Vailbrook Drive
//-~emecula, California 92591
. . ~.
/ / " / / I _ ~ / " ,,~ _ ~ / " / / I _' _ /"... ~ / I _' _ ~ / .... ,~I _" _ '"
I,," ,___ \ '/ \_~_ \ "-"/". \~__ \...."/1/ ,___ \/,/1" ,- __ \..."'''-
: : \ // \~__; \ F".... '/ \~__I :/:: \ / \' ~-, _~ :_~~.~;:,.-~----_:.._~~~~.,;..~_,~...;'~-~"
- ~.-.--.....-;".L. ~...:: ~ , -' _ :--':~~~-lT-- -. i
,$;;tl:~..-~",__,~,;,_;:"""v" -', ' ':-', -," -.,-, I': 11' .
E @iBll'iic!i~~" rt i;_~loii~,~~~eCUI~;'GAil2590'.~bhOn",j!l0~L~6-~5 .r."c(909) 676'3294-
I ~~iipJfJl~A e~~;!~~~!jf'M;FA92707 . phone, (7141546-4051 . fa", (7141 546-4052
EB SITE: WWW.NENC6R.p.COM -.E.MAIL: ENG-ENCORP@PE.NET
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jeff and Pamela Rice
Project Number: T1679-C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE
PAGE
1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION .............................................................1
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION.................................................................................................1
1.2 PROJECT DESCRiPTION............................................................................................1
1.3 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................1
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ....................................................................................................2
2.1 TIME OF GRADING ...................................................................................................2
2.1 CONTRACTOR AND EaUIPMENT.................................................................................2
2.2 GRADING OPERATIONS... ..... ....... ................ ........... .... ........................... .......... ......... 2
3.0 TESTING ................................................................................................................. 3
3.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES...................................................................................3
3.1.1 LABORATORY TESTING...............................................................................3
3.1.2 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST....................................................3
3.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST...........................................................................................3
4.0 EARTH MATERIALS .................................................................................................. 3
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................3
5.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................3
5.2 FOUNDATION SIZE ...................................................................................................4
5.3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT............................................................................................4
5.4 BEARING CAPACITY .................................................................................................4
5.5 SETTLEMENT........................................................................................................... 4
5.6 LATERAL CAPACITY ....... .......... ....................................... ............. ........ ..... ....... ........ 5
5.7 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................5
5.8 INTERIOR SLABS...................................................................................................... 6
5.9 EXTERIOR SLABS..................................................................................................... 6
5.10 GENERAL ........................................................................................................6
6.0 CLOSURE................................................................................................................ 7
ApPENDIX
TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
\
I~
I . .,'.' ~~;, ',.f,'."""'-;GEN
",~j,.,,<.n_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corporation
. Soil Engineering and Consulling Services . Engineering Geology. Compaction Testing
.lnspectiollS. Construction MalerialsTesting . Laboratory Testing . Percolation Testing
-Geology-WalerResourceSludies . Phase I & II Environmenlal Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
August 9, 1999
Jeff and Pamela Rice
29861 Vailbrook Drive
Temecula, California 92591
(909) 676-1213 I FAX (909) 308-6782
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Rice Residence, Assessor's Parcel Number: 921-192-004
Lot 202 of Tract 3929, Los Nogales Road
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T1679-C
Permit Number: LD 99-Q38GR
References:
1.
EnGEN Corporation, Limited Geotechnical Study, Proposed Single Family
Residence, Lot 202 of Tract 3929, Los Nogales Road, City of Temecula,
County of Riverside, California, Project Number: T1679-LGS, report dated
March 17, 1999.
2.
Manning Engineering, Grading Plan, Lot 202, Tract 3929, City of
Temecula.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rice:
According to your request and signed authorization, 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
SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
1.1
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject site consists of approximately 2.5 acres, located north of Los Nogales Road in
the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California.
1.2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Present plans call for a single family residence with slab-on-grade concrete floors.
1.3 SITE DESCRIPTION
I Prior to grading ore;~, topography and surface conditions of the site were gently
,y-.''; ,\; \Ioping with sUr'face drai,:;-ag~ to the ,north at a gradient of less than 10 percent.
~ ',' '''' \ ~/ . .
"~
"/ ..... ~ ~ I _ ~ I " ~ F _ F / " ~, I _~ _ -' / '- -' -' I _" _ ~ I '- ~.- I _.... _ ~ I
1,\___ \ ~IF\___ \ "1/\___ \...-'~'/\-__ \,.."'/,--- \/'~'/
: ~~: \~-~; \ ~..... - \ ~~ ,~--; ~~~~~:~ \~":r---: \-;.~' ~-~~~Iir-----~~---'~_::~'-=::''-=:-.':-'-=-
~~"- -
.'0, __"'__'.".,:;:.::: ~" l! '_.~,-__,_...;_.:: i~ "
,'1I'J'. rt ':~~~i,;r!iI'ri..<$la;CA '92590"~pl1Pn8~(90~r [7.S,3095.fax:, (909) 676'3294 .
e,"'", e !.Ia,~~~i;"9a,.cA92707 . Ph9ne;t?1.4)546.4051' fax: 1714) 546.4052 'l/
Ea, ,ITE:WWW. N EN.;ORP.1:oiVl.OE-MAIL: E~I\rGENCORP@PE.NET -
, '
, ,
'" \ - - - \ "'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jeff and Pamela Rice
Project Number: T1679,C
Augusl1999
Page 2
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
2.1 TIME OF GRADING
This report represents geotechnical observations and testing during the construction
operations from June 1, 1999 through July 27,1999.
2.1 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT
The grading operations were performed by Kay Wall and Son through the use of one (1)
track-mounted dozer, one (1) 4' x 4' sheepsfoot, one (1) rubber tire loader.
2.2 GRADING OPERATIONS
Grading within the subject site consisted of a cuUfill and imported fill operation. Grasses
and weeds were removed prior to fill placement. Fill material was generated from the
southern portions of the site, and used to bring the northern portions of the house and
garage pad to finish grade elevation. Imported fill material was stockpiled in the proposed
leach field area on the northern portion of the property and used to bring the north garage
pad and northern portion of the house pad to finish grade. Removal of alluvium,
slopewash, etc., was performed to a depth of 3.0-feet below original elevation. Over-
excavated earth material was stockpiled and later used as fill. Bottoms were observed,
probed and found to be into competent soil by a representative of this firm. Keying and
benching into competent bedrock was observed during the grading operations. Over-
excavation was performed in the cut portion of the building pad and the entire garage pad
to a depth of 3.0-feet below finish grade elevation and to a distance of 5.0-feet outside the
proposed structure. 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 4
to 6-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 hose
attached to a water hydrant. The pad area was generally graded to the elevations noted
on the Grading Plan. However, the actual pad location, dimensions, elevations, slope
locations and inclinations, etc. were surveyed and staked by others and should be verified
by the Project Civil Engineer.
EnGEN Corporation 2>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jeff and Pamela Rice
Project Number: T1679-C
August 1999
Page 3
3.0 TESTING
3.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES
Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed in general accordance
with ASTM-D-2922-81 (90) and ASTM-D-3017-88 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 placed and
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.
3.1.1 LASORA TORY TESTING
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.
3.1.2 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 D1557-91 procedures. The test results are presented in the Appendix (Summary of
Optimum Moisture Content I Maximum Dry Density Relationship Test Results).
3.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST
A soil sample was obtained for expansion potential testing from the building pad area upon
completion of rough grading of the subject site. The expansion test procedure utilized was
the Uniform Building Code Test Designation 18-2. The material tested consisted of SAND
and silt with minor amounts of clay, which has an Expansion Index of 58. This soil is
classified as having a medium expansion potential. The results are presented in the
Summary of Expansion Index Results in the Appendix of this report.
4.0 EARTH MATERIALS
The natural earth materials encountered on-site, generally consisted of sand and silt with
minor amounts of clay.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional column footings and
continuous wall footings founded upon properly compacted fill. The recommendations
presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and construction are based
EnGEN Corporation t\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jeff and Pamela Rice
Project Number. T1679-C
August 1999
Page 4
on geotechnical characteristics and a medium expansion potential for the supporting soils
and should not 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.
5.2 FOUNDATION SIZE
Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches. Continuous footings
should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of two (2) NO.4 steel reinforcing bars
located near the top and two (2) NO.4 steel reinforcing bars 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. Column footings should have a minimum width 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 garage door openings and other doorway entrances.
5.3 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 the structure.
5.4 BEARING CAPACITY
Provided the recommendations for site earth work, 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 1,500 psf for continuous footings and 1,500 psf for
column footings in properly compacted fill material. 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.
5.5 SETTLEMENT
Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values for continuous and
column footings, respectively, and the maximum assumed wall and column loads are not
expected to exceed a maximum settlement of 0.5-inches or a differential settlement of
0.25-inches in properly compacted fill.
. /'
EnGEN Corporation b
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jeff and Pamela Rice
Project Number: T1679-C
August 1999
Page 5
5.6 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 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
Compacted Fill- 0.30
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 undisturbed, properly, compacted fill
material. 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.
5.7 SLAB-QN-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations for concrete slabs, both interior and exterior, excluding PCC
pavement, are based upon the anticipated building usage and upon a medium expansion
potential for the supporting material as determined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code. 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 f.JI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jeff and Pamela Rice
Project Number: T1679-C
August 1999
Page 6
5.8 INTERIOR SLABS
Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4-inches in actual thickness and
be underlain by a minimum of 2-inches of clean coarse sand or other approved granular
material placed on properly prepared subgrade. Minimum slab reinforcement should
consist of #3 reinforcing bars placed 18-inches on the center in both directions or a suitable
equivalent. The reinforcing should 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 covered by a 1.0-inch minimum layer of clean,
moist (not saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures.
Due to the expansive character of the soils encountered, it is recommended that the soils
in the building's footprint area be brought to at least 5 percent above optimum to a depth of
18-inches just prior to pouring the concrete floor slab. ' Flooding of the slab area may be
necessary in order to accomplish this.
5.9 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-inches nominal in thickness.
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 5 percent above optimum moisture content to a depth of 12-inches
immediately before placing the concrete.
5.10 GENERAL
Based on the observations and tests performed during grading, the subject site in the
areas noted has been completed in accordance with Referenced No. 1 report the project
plans and the Grading Code of the City of Temecula. 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 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
EnGEN Corporation 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jeff and Pamela Rice
Project Number: T1679-C
August 1999
Page 7
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 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.
6.0 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
~ D.J!ner!!ut-
Field Operations Manager
~~I~' GE 162
Prin . al Geotechnical Engineer
E ires 09-30-01
JDG/OB:ch
Distribution: (4) Addressee
FILE: EnGEN/Reporting/CfT1679C Rice Residence. Rough Grade
EnGEN Corporation ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jeff and Pamela Rice
Project Number: T1679-C
Appendix Page 1
APPENDIX
TEST RESULTS
EnGEN Corporation <\
-------
I Jeff and Pamela Rice
Project Number: T1679-C
I Appendix Page 2
FIELD TEST RESULTS
I (SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSI1Y TEST RESULTS)
(NUCLEAR GAUGE TEST METHOD)
est Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
No. Date Test Locations Elev. Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
1 (1999) (FT) (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%)
1 6-1 Keyway 86' A1 127.9 10.1 115.8 90.5 90
12 6-1 Keyway 86' A1 127.9 11.4 116.7 91.2 90
3 6-1 Pad Fill 88' A1 127.9 14.0 115.6 90.3 90
I: 6-1 Pad Fill 88' A1 127.9 13.6 116.8 91.3 90
6-3 Pad Fill 90' A1 127.9 11.9 116.4 91.0 90
6 6-3 Pad Fill 90' A1 127.9 11.8 116.3 91.0 90
I~ 6-3 Pad Fill 92' A1 127.9 13.6 115.5 90.3 90
6-3 Pad Fill 92' A1 127.9 13.9 114.8 90.0 90
9 6-16 Pad Fill 94' A2 122.8 15.0 111.9 91.1 90
110 6-16 Pad Fill 93' A1 127.9 10.9 114.9 90.0 90
11 6-22 Pad Fill 96' A2 122.8 12.7 113.5 92.4 90
I~ 6-22 Pad Fill 96' A2 122.8 12.4 116.0 94.5 90
7-6 House Pad O-X 95' (B) A2 122.8 11.7 112.3 91.5 90
B 7-6 Lower Garage 82' (B) A2 122.8 10.8 115.7 94.2 90
113 7-12 Pad Fill 96' A2 122.8 12.9 113.6 92.5 90
14 7-12 Pad Fill 97' A2 122.8 13.1 112.3 91.4 90
115 7-12 Pad Fill 97' A2 122.8 12.3 114.7 93.4 90
16 7-12 Garage Fill 97' A2 122.8 13.4 115.3 93.9 90
17 7-27 House Pad F.G. A2 122.8 12.4 120.3 98.0 90
118 7-27 House Pad F.G. A2 122.8 9.7 114.4 93.2 90
19 7-27 Garage Pad F.G. A2. 122.8 11.5 116.4 94.8 90
120 7-27 Garage Pad F.G. A2 122.8 12.4 115.3 93.9 90
(F. G.) Indicates Finish Grade.
I (B) Indicates Bottom.
1
I
I
EnGEN Corporation "IJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT I
MAxIMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS
ASTM 01557-91
Jeff and Pamela Rice
Project Number: T1679-C
Appendix Page 3
Optimum
Soil Maximum Moisture
Soil Description Dry Density Content
Type (USCS Symbol) (PCF) (%)
A1 Silty Sand, Brown (SM) 128.2 10.0
A2 Sandy Silt, Brown (ML) 122.8 11.2
SUMMARY OF ExPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
Moisture
Condition Before
Test(%)
Dry Density
(PCF)
115.7
Soil
Type
Depth
(FT)
1.5
10.1
2
Moisture
Condition After
Test (%)
19.2
Expansion
Index
58
EnGEN Corporation \\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jeff and Pamela Rice
Project Number: T1679-C
Appendix Page 4
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation \v