HomeMy WebLinkAboutRough Grading As Built Geotechnical Design & Construction Records
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
OPl'inl-.:lon
Recycled
Paper
Converse Consultants
Over 50 Years of Dedication in Geotechnical Engineering and Environmental Sciences
RECEIVED
APR 2 3 2001
CITY OF TEMECUL.A
ENGINEEY,JNG DEPAf~TMENT~
ROUGH GRADING, AS-BUILT GEOLOGY,
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
RECOMMENDATION REPORT
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
Temecula, California
Prepared for:
Newland Communities
27393 Ynez Road, Suite 253
Temecula, CA 92591
Converse Project No. 00-81-126-50
March 27, 2001
10391 Corporate Drive, ~edlands, California 92374
Telephone: (909) 796-0544 . Facsimile: (909) 796-7675 . e-mail: ccieconv@aol.com
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
Converse Consultants
Over 60 Vears of Dedication in Geotechnical Engineering and Environmental Sciences
March 27, 2001
Mr. Jim Stewart
Project Manager
Newland Communities
27393 Ynez Road, Suite 253
Temecula, CA 92591
Subject:
ROUGH GRADING, AS-BUILT GEOLOGY, GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATION REPORT
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
Temecula, California
Converse Project No. 00-81-126-50
Dear Mr. Stewart:
Converse Consultants (Converse) has prepared this report to present the results of our
geotechnical observations, field density and laboratory testing performed during grading,
geotechnical design parameters and construction recommendations for the above-
referenced tract in the city of Temecula, California. These services were performed in
accordance with our proposal dated January 24, 2000.
The project included grading of the above-referenced tract in accordance with the project
grading plans prepared by The Keith Companies, the Geotechnical Investigation Report
prepared by Converse, grading requirements of the City of Temecula, and the California
Building Code, (CBC, 1998).
At the time this report was prepared, Tract 24187-F was rough graded to design grades
as shown on Drawings NO.1 and 2 (sheets 3 of 6 and 4 of 6), Approximate Field Density
Test Locations and As Built Geologic Map, included in this report.
Field density tests were performed in accordance with the ASTM Standard D1556-90
(Sand Cone) and D2922-96 (Nuclear Gauge) test methods to determine the in-place
density of compacted fill soils. The approximate test locations are plotted on Drawings
NO.1 and 2 (sheets 3 of 6 and 4 of 6), Approximate Field Density Test Locations and As
Built Geologic Map. Results of the field. density tests performed during grading are
summarized in Table No. A-1, Field Density Test Results, in Appendix A, Summary of
Field Density Test Results.
O''''"'''~
Aecycled
Paper
10391 Corporate Drive, Redlands, California 92374
Telephone: (909) 796-0544 . Facsimile: (909) 796-7675 . e-mail: ccieconv@aol.com
z,.
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology. Rough Grading Report,
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27. 2001
Pageii
Laboratory testing performed during grading included compaction tests to determine
maximum dry density and optimum moisture relationships of the soils used as compacted
fill in accordance with the ASTM Standard D1557-91 test method. The results of these
laboratory tests are summarized in Table No. B-1, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry
Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results, in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing.
Based on the results of our field observation, in-place density and laboratory testing, it is
our opinion that the earthwork associated with the grading of the subject tract has been
completed in substantial compliance with the project plans and specifications.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service to the Newland Communities. If
you have any questions, or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
us at (909) 796-0544.
CONVERSE CONSULTANT;
Hashmi S. E. Quazi, Ph.D., G. E.
Senior Vice President/Principal Engineer
Dist.: 5/Addressee
HSQ/WHC\bag\mjr
~
~ Converse Consultants
CCIENT\OFFICE\JOBFI LE\2000\81 \00-126\00126-5.asb
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology, Rough Grading Report,
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Pageii;
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
This report has been prepared by the staff of Converse Consultants (Converse) under the
supervision of the registered engineers and engineering geologist whose seals and
signatures appear hereon.
The findings, conclusions, recommendations, or professional opinions presented in this
report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering and
engineering geologic principles and practice in effect in Southern California at this time.
There is no other warranty, either expressed or implied.
~- _-~ ~ -;;1' ~
William Chu, G. E.
Senior Engineer
Hashmi S. E. Quazi, P .D., G. E.
Senior Vice President/Principal Engineer
/Jd1{~~
Principal Geologist
~
W Converse Consultants
CCI ENT\OFFICEIJOBFI LE\2000\81 100-126100126-5.asb
A.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology. Rough Grading Report,
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Dei Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page Iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................. ... ........................... ................. 2
2.1 GENERAL...... ........... ....... .... ... .... ... .... ... ...... ... ... ....... ... ... ... ............ .... ...........................2
2.2 SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO GRADING .........................................................................2
2.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.... ........... ...... ...... ................... ........ ................ ....................2
2.4 SITE GRADING IEARTHWORK REQUiREMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS................................ 3
3.0 PROJECT TEAM ........................ ............................. ....... ..... ... ...... ................................ 5
4.0 SCOPE OF WORK ....................:..................................................................................5
4.1 FIELD OBSERVATION AND IN-PLACE DENSITY TESTING.................................................. 5
4.2 LABORATORY TESTING ............. ............................. ............ ............ ..... ......................... 6
4.3 DATA EVALUATION AND REPORT PREPARATION ............................................................6
5.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 6
5.1 GENERAL.................................................................................................................... 6
5.2 PRE-GRADING GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................6
5.3 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS OBSERVED DURING GRADING.................................................. 7
5.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS....................................................................................... 7
5.5 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY. .............. ...................... .......... .......................... ..................8
6.0 GRADING AND EARTHWORK .................................................................................... 9
7.0 FIELD DENSITY AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ...........................................10
7.1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS ..................................................................................10
7.2 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS, DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ..........................10
8.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATION............................................. 11
8.1 BUILDING FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS........................................................... 12
8.2 SLABS-ON-GRADE .................................................................................................... 13
8.3 PAVEMENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................15
8.4 CONCRETE WALKS, DRIVEWAYS, ACCESS RAMPS, CURB AND GUTTER........................ 15
8.5 CORROSION PROTECTION.......:.................................................................................. 16
8.6 SITE DRAINAGE, SLOPE PROTECTION AND LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION
RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................. 16
9.0 ON-SITE TRENCH BACKFILL COMPACTION ..........................................................17
9.1 GENERAL.... ....... ..................................... ... ..................................... .... ...................... 17
9.2 RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLACEMENT OF TRENCH BACKFILL.................... 18
~
~ Converse Consultants
CCIENTlOFFICEIJOBFILE\2000\81 \00-126\00 126-5.asb
-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
U
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology. Rough Grading Report.
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27. 2001
Page v
10.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................... ...........................................19
11.0 CLOSURE........................................................................... ........................................ 20
13.0 REFERENCES ........... ............................................;... ................................................. 21
ILLUSTRATIONS
Following Page No.
Figure No.1, Site Location Map.............................. .... ...................................................2
TABLES
Table No.1, Lot Classifications Based on Expansion Index Test Results.............. ...11
Table No.2, Suggested Guidelines for Design and Construction of Foundations
and Slabs-On-Grade for One- and Two-Story Residential Buildings.... ...14
APPENDICES
Appendix A.................... ................................................................... Field Density Testing
Appendix B...................................................................................... ..... Laboratory Testing
Appendix C............................................................................................. .Corrosivity Study
DRAWINGS
Drawings NO.1 and 2, Approximate Field Density Test Locations and As-Built
Geologic Map....... ...... ............. ........... ......... ..... ..Map Pocket
~
~ Converse Consultants
CCI ENT\OFFICEIJOBFILE\2000\81\00-126\OO 126-5.asb
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
U
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology. Rough Grading Report.
Geotechnicai Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report contains the results of geotechnical field observations, in-place density and
laboratory testing performed during grading of Tract 24187-F within the Paseo Del Sol
Master Planned Community in the City of Temecula, California.
Earthwork associated with the grading was performed by TNT Grading Inc., Temecula,
Califomia between February 2000 and April 2000. Grading was performed in
accordance with the requirements and recommendations set forth in the project grading
plans prepared by The Keith Companies, Moreno Valley, California, grading requirements
of the City ofTemecula, the CBC (1998) and the following geotechnical investigation
reports.
. Geotechnical Investigation Report, Tracts 24136, 24187, 24188, 25417, and 25418,
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Community, City of Temecula, California, dated May
6, 1999, prepared by Converse for Newland Associates, Converse Project No. 99-81-
112-01.
. As-Built Geology and Rough Grading Report, Tracts 24187-1 and 24187-2, Paseo
Del Sol Master Planned Communities, Temecula, California, dated June 15, 2000,
prepared by Converse for Newland Associates, Converse Project No. 00-81-126-50.
. Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report, Tract 24187-1,
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Community, Temecula, California, dated June 16,
2000, prepared by Converse for Newland Associates, Converse Project No. 00-81-
126-50.
. Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation Report, Tract 24187-2,
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Community, Temecula, California, dated June 16,
2000, prepared by Converse for Newland Associates, Converse Project No. 00-81-
126-50.
This report was prepared for the project described herein and was intended for the sole
use of Newland Communities and its authorized agent(s). It may not contain sufficient
information for use by others and/or for any other purposes.
~
W Converse Consultants
CCI ENTlOFFICE\JOBFILE\2000\81 100-126100126-5.asb
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
I
I
As-Built Geology, Rough Grading Report.
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27. 2001
Page 2
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 General
The project site is located in the City of Temecula, California, as shown in Figure No.1,
Site Location Map. The project site is bounded on the north and east by Sunny
Meadows Drive and Tentative Tract 24188, on the south by the Paseo Del Sol Master
Planned Communities, and on the west by the developed Tract 24187-2.
The proposed residential development encompasses the northeastern portion of Paseo
Del Sol Master Planned Community. Once developed, Tract 24187-F will comprise of 92
residential homes, interior streets, parkways, and improvements to portions Sunny
Meadows Drive. The scope of this report is limited to the graded tract herein referred to
as the "project site".
2.2 Site Conditions Prior to Grading
The following is a description of the existing site conditions prior to grading.
Topographically the project site consists of a main drainage channel running north to
east and south to west, a chain of small ridges and drainage channels along the middle
and eastern portion of the site. Site elevations range from approximately 1,210 feet
above Mean Sea Level (MSL) in the northeastern drainage lines and rises to an
approximate elevation of 1,280 feet MSL over one of the ridges in the central portion of
the site. The central drainage area and adjacent to Meadows Parkway had fill placed
during grading of Meadows Parkway to flow gradient out of the canyon. Undocumented
fill soil, construction debris and broken concrete was present across the fill area.
2.3 Proposed Development
The project site is proposed to be developed as a part of a Master Planned Residential
Community consisting of single-family homes, streets with curbs and gutters, sidewalks,
walkways, and associated above-ground and underground utilities including storm drains,
sewer, water, gas and electrical lines. The residences are likely to be constructed of
wood-frame structures with concrete slabs-on-grade and concrete footing foundations.
The project also includes cut slopes and fill slopes graded with a slope ratio of 2:1
horizontal:vertical (H:V) or flatter. The maximum thickness of fill within the site is
approximately 40 feet. Maximum cuts of several hills in the northern portion of the project
site was on the order of 40 feet.
~
~ Converse Consultants
CCI ENnOFFICEIJOBFI LE\2000181 100-126100126-5.asb
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
U
U
U
I
U
I
I
I
.
.
TO SAN DrEGO
,
TO RIVERslOE
TO CORONA
~
~
City of
PROJECT
SITE 81'Z
Z41
NO.
,Fl.
<;
oE
PANULA WAY
"
VlCTNlTv V""P
NOT TO SCALE
,,1,1
Z41u
NO-
,Fl.
-f\\I~
,e.l'i'" Z4166
1'10.
,Fl.
North
SITE LOATION MAP
Newland Tr. 24187-F
Scale
Project No.
Temecula, California
For: Newland Communities
not to scale
Date
00-81-126-50
~ Converse Consultants
March, 2001
Prepared by
AC
Checked by
WHC
Approved by
HSQ
Figure No.
1
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
I
I
I
I
U
U
I
I
As-Built Geology, Rough Grading Report.
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page 3
Information on anticipated subsurface conditions and recommendations for tracts
development including earthwork were provided by Converse in the Geotechnical
Investigation Report, dated May 6, 1999, referenced in Section 1.0, Introduction.
2.4 Site Grading /Earthwork Requirements/Recommendations
Site grading was performed in accordance with the site development requirements set
forth in the above-referenced grading plans, the as-built balance area north of Sunny
Meadows Drive.
The project Geotechnical Investigation Report, dated May 6, 1999, referenced in Section
1.0, Introduction, contains detailed tract development, including site specific grading and
earthwork recommendations. The general recommendations from that report are
summarized as follows:
.
Surface trash, vegetation and other organic materials should be removed from the
grading area. Organic matter resulting from the clearing and grubbing should be
hauled off-site.
.
Undocumented fill existing within the project site shall be removed and replaced as
compacted fills. Based on observation during grading, it may be necessary to
remove loose alluvium or colluvium from underneath the undocumented fills.
.
Unsuitable topsoil, colluvium and alluvial soils shall be removed from site prior to
placing any structural fills. Actual depth of removal shall be based on actual soil
conditions directed by representatives of geotechnical consultant during grading.
.
Proposed fills shall be placed on competent subgrade soils as determined by
representatives from Converse. A representative from Converse shall observe the
bottoms of the excavated areas prior to the placement of any fill.
.
Subsequent to the removal of unsuitable materials, subgrade soil surfaces that will
receive compacted fills shall be scarified to a depth of at least six (6) inches. The
scarified soils shall be moisture-conditioned within three percent of optimum and
compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent as per ASTM Standard
D1557-91.
.
Soils removed during excavation procedures may be utilized as compacted fills,
provided they have been stripped of organic and other deleterious matter.
~
W Converse Consultants
CCI ENTlOFFICEIJOBFILE\2000\81 \00-126\00126-5.asb
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
U
U
U
U
U
U
I
I
As-Built Geology, Rough Grading Report.
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page 4
.
Fills shall be placed in suitable lifts, with lift thickness modified as necessary to
achieve adequate compaction. Fills should be compacted mechanically
throughout to the specified density at moisture content within three percent of
optimum.
.
All fills, if not specified at 95 percent shall be compacted to a relative compaction
of at least 90 percent as per ASTM Standard D1557-91.
.
Fills shall be benched into unyielding sedimentary bedrock or native soil on slopes
steeper than 4: 1 (H:V).
.
In-place density of the compacted fill soils shall be measured in accordance with
the ASTM Standard D1556-90 test method andlor ASTM Standard D2922-96. If a
field density test shows less than the required minimum relative compaction
additional compaction efforts shall be applied to the fill volume represented by the
failing test until a subsequent field density test shows passing results.
.
Converse shall observe the placement of fill and conduct in-place density tests on
the compacted fill to check for adequate moisture content and compaction. Where
less than the specified compaction is indicated, additional compaction efforts shall
be applied and the soils moisture-conditioned as necessary until specified
compaction is achieved.
.
Cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Geologic observation of all cut
slopes should be conducted during grading to observe, if any adversely oriented
planes of weakness are present.
.
Fill slopes should be constructed no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should be
properly compacted out to slope face. This may be achieved by either overbuilding
or cutting back to the compacted core, or by utilizing other methods that meet the
intent of the project specifications.
~
~ Converse Consultants
CCIENTlOFFICEIJOBFILEI2000\81100-126100126-5.asb
<\
I
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology, Rough Grading Report,
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page 5
3.0 PROJECT TEAM
The project team during grading consisted of the following:
OwnerlDeveloper ........................................................ Newland Communities, California
Director of Engineering and Development ............................................ Dean Meyer, R.C.E.
Project Manager................................................................................................. .Jim Stewart
Project Superintendent.... .......................................... ................................ ....... Dennis Smith
Project Civil Engineer .................................. The Keith Companies, Moreno Valley, CA
Project Surveyor ................................................. The Keith Companies, Moreno Valley, CA
Project Geotechnical Consultant............Converse Consultants, Redlands, California
Principal-In-Charge........................................................... Hashmi S. E. Quazi, Ph.D., G. E.
Project Engineer/Manager........................................................................William Chu, G. E.
Project Geologist ............................................................................ Mike Cook, R.G., C.E.G.
Principal Geologist.................... ..... ............................... ............... Richard Escandon, C.E.G.
Field Geologist........................................................................................ Chris Koepke, R.G.
Lead Field Technician .................................................................................Thomas K. Frost
Grading Contractor ....................................... TNT Grading, Inc. San Marcos, California
Grading Superintendent.............................................................................. Barry Blanchard
4.0 SCOPE OF WORK
Our scope of work for the subject project included full-time observation of grading, field
density and laboratory testing to verify earthwork compliance with project plans and
specifications.
4.1 Field Observation and In-place Density Testing
Full-time observation of grading and field density testing of compacted fill soils was
performed by Converse soils technicians working under the supervision of the project
engineer and the geologist. Converse geologists performed geologic mapping and full-
time observation of the canyon clean-outs and grading associated with cut and fill slopes.
Our scope of work also included providing necessary geotechnical consultation services
during grading.
~
~ Converse Consultants
CCIENTlOFFICEIJOBFILE\2000\81100-126100126-5.asb
\0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology. Rough Grading Report,
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F.
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page 6
4.2 Laboratory Testing
Our scope of work during grading included laboratory compaction tests to evaluate the
dry density and moisture content relationships of the fill soils. The results of these
laboratory tests were utilized in the evaluation of the relative compaction of the
compacted fills.
Additional laboratory tests including sieve analysis, direct shear, consolidation and
expansion index were performed on representative samples of building pads and street
subgrade soils retrieved at the completion of rough grading. Laboratory testings are
further discussed in Section 7, Field Density and Laboratory Test Results and in
Appendix B, Laboratory Testing.
4.3 Data Evaluation and Report Preparation
Data obtained during field density testing was examined by the lead field technician and
the project engineers for the purpose of quality assurance/control. The results of
laboratory tests were analyzed and evaluated for relevant engineering parameters. This
report was prepared to summarize field observations, results of geologic mapping, and
field density and laboratory testing.
Results of additional laboratory testing, data analysis/interpretation, geotechnical design
parameters and construction recommendation for building foundations, slabs-on-grade,
retaining walls, street pavements and associated facilities is included in this report.
5.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
5.1 General
A general description of the site geologic conditions prior to and following grading is
presented in this section.
5.2 Pre-Grading Geologic Conditions
Pre-grading site conditions consisted of undeveloped rolling hills, small canyons and
drainage channels, open land, compacted fill placed during previous grading, canyon fill
soils with construction debris. The ridgelines which divided the site were underlain by
Pauba Formation sandstone and siltstone. Undeveloped canyon floors were underlain by
alluvial soils. The elevation of the existing ground surface ranged from approximately
~
~ Converse Consultants
CCI ENTlOFFICE\JOBFILE\2000\81 100-126100126-5.asb
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
U
U
o
o
o
o
I
I
I
As-Built Geology, Rough Grading Report,
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page 7
1,210 feet at the northeastern corner of the site to approximately 1,280 feet of the
ridgeline running along the west to east through the center of the site. The existing
canyons were generally flat floored with gentle to moderately sloped side walls and
localized areas with steep side walls. The canyons drained from south to north towards
Meadows Parkway.
5.3 Geologic Conditions Observed During Grading
Top Soil/Colluvium: Top soil/colluvium mantled all the hills and canyon areas throughout
the site. These soils were generally highly porous, comprised of silty sand and clayey
sand and varied in thickness from about one (1) foot to 13 feet.
Fills (Documented/Undocumented): Fill soils were present as part of Meadows
Parkway roadway embankment along the west side of the tract, and locally some end
dump stockpile soils associated with prior earthwork activity. A fill slope along the
southern tract boundary was graded as part of previous earthwork for Tract 24186.
Alluvium: Recent to older alluvial soils were present within the canyons which traverse
Tract 24187. The recent alluvial soils consisted predominantly of poorly graded, coarse-
grained sand in the center of main canyons to dark brown, fine to coarse-grained silty to
clayey sand along the sides of the canyons. These alluvial soils were porous to highly
porous with abundant root casts and generally very dry at the surface and moist below a
depth of approximately five (5) feet. Older alluvium generally consisted of massive brown
to red-brown fine to coarse-grained sand. These older alluvial soils were moist and free
of visible porous root casts. '
Bedrock: Pauba Formation bedrock consisted of poorly interbedded to massive,
moderately to well consolidated, fine to coarse-grained sandstone and occasional
inter-bedded siltstone. The sandstone is alluvial channel-type deposit with lenses of
gravelly sandstone, siltstone, and silty claystone. The sandstone and siltstone is
moderately to well cemented.
5.4 Groundwater Conditions
No groundwater was observed in any of the canyon removals completed as part of the
grading for Tract 24187.
~
~ Converse Consultants
CCI ENTlOFFICElJOBFILE\2000\81 100-126\00126-5.asb
\\
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
U
U
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology, Rough Grading Report,
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page 8
5.5 Faulting and Seismicity
5,5,1 General
The site is located in a seismically active region. The detailed discussion on site specific
faulting, seismicity and liquefaction potential was presented in the Geotechnical
Investigation Report, dated May 6, 1999, referenced in Section 1.0, Introduction.
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of California defines an active and a
potentially active fault as follows: an active fault is a fault which has had surface
displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years) and a fJotentiallvactive
fault is a fault which showed evidence of surface displacement during Quaternary time
(the last 1.6 million years).
A brief discussion on faulting including field observations made during grading and
seismicity is presented below.
5.5.2 Regional Faulting
The project site is not located within a currently designated State of California Earthquake
Fault Zone. No known active faults projects toward or through the site. The nearest
known active fault zone capable of generating significant ground motion at the site is the
Temecula Segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone, which is located approximately one mile
southwest of. the site.
5.5.3 Site Faulting
Evidence of active or potentially active faulting was not observed during grading of the
site. Bedrock faulting with significant offset or deformation was not observed within any of
the graded areas.
5.5.4 Seismicity
Based on a deterministic seismic hazard analysis, the project site may experience a peak
ground acceleration of about 0.65g, where g is the acceleration due to gravity, in the
event of an earthquake of moment magnitude 6.8 on the nearby Temecula (Elsinore)
Fault Zone.
~
W Converse Consultants
CCIENT\OFFICElJOBFI LE\2000\81 IOO-126100126-5.asb
\-z.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology. Rough Grading Report,
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page 9
6.0 GRADING AND EARTHWORK
Earthwork associated with grading was performed by TNT Grading, Inc. Site grading
commenced in February 2000 and was completed in April 2000. Earthwork equipment
included dozers, excavators, loaders, rubber tire compactors, scrapers, blades, water
trucks and water pulls.
Prior to grading, the ground surface was grubbed of vegetation and all deleterious debris
was removed and disposed from the site. Surficial colluvial and alluvial soils were
removed to competent older alluvium or Pauba formation bedrock. Canyon areas with
loose, unsuitable alluvium/colluvium soils involved removal on the order of three (3) to 15
feet. Subgrade soils were scarified, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture and
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction as per ASTM Standard
D1557-91 prior to placement of compacted fill soils.
Excavated site soils were placed as compacted fills. Fills were placed in loose, six (6) to
eight (8) inch thick lifts, mixed and moisture conditioned, if necessary, to plus or minus
three percent (:t 3%) moisture. The loose fill lifts were then compacted to a relative
compaction of at least 90 percent as indicated by random in-place density testing. The
field density tests were performed in accordance with either the ASTM Standard D1556-
90 or ASTM Standard 02922-96 test methods.
If the results of a field density test indicated failing results the representative fill volume
was reworked and re-compacted by the contractor until a subsequent field density test
indicated passing results. Where fills were placed against existing slopes steeper than
5:1 (H:V), the new fill slopes were keyed and benched to provide increased lateral
support and remove the surficial unsuitable soils when present. Fill slopes were overbuilt
three (3) to four (4) feet and compacted as they were filled horizontally. The overfilled
slope face was then tract rolled prior to trimming back to finish grade.
Cut slopes exposed sandstone of the Pauba Formation. The sandstone is generally
moderately cemented. Cut slopes were constructed at a gradient of at least 2:1 (H:V).
Tracts 24187-F was graded to mass grade elevations as shown in Drawings NO.1 and 2,
Field Density Test Locations and As- Built Geologic Map, included in this report.
~
W Converse Consultants
CCIENT\OFFICE\JOBFI LE\2000\81 100-126100126-5.asb
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology. Rough Grading Report,
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F .
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page 10
7.0 FIELD DENSITY AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
7.1 Field Density Test Results
The earthwork associated with the grading was observed from a geotechnical point of
view and in-place density of the compacted soil was tested by Converse on a full-time
basis. At the end of each working day, each soils technician prepared a Daily Field
Report of Grading Observation documenting the geotechnical observations made during
the day. A copy of the daily field report was submitted to the client's representative.
Nuclear Gauge (ASTM Standard D2922-96) and/or Sand Cone (ASTM Standard D1556-
90) test methods were utilized to evaluate the in-place density of compacted fills at
random locations. The results of the field density tests performed during grading of Tract
24187-F are summarized in Table No. A-1, Field Density Test Results, in Appendix A,
Summary of Field Density Test Results. Test numbers not mentioned in this report, other
report(s) previously published or will be published in futUre reports by Converse. The
approximate locations of the field density tests for Tract 24187-F are plotted in Drawings
NO.1 and 2, Field Density Test Locations and As Built Geologic Map.
The relative compaction for each field density test reported in Table No. A-1, Summary of
Field Density Test Results, is obtained by dividing the measured in-place dry density by
the maximum laboratory dry density of the same "soil type" presented in Table No. B-1,
Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Tests, in
Appendix B, Laboratory Testing.
7.2 Laboratory Test Results, Data Analysis and Interpretation
Sieve Analyses (ASTM Standard 421-85) was done on all representative bulk samples of
the fill soils that were retrieved during grading. The results are shown in Drawing No. B-1,
Grain Size Distribution Results, in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing.
Representative bulk samples of the fill soils were retrieved during grading and tested in
the laboratory to determine their laboratory maximum dry densities and optimum moisture
contents. These tests were performed in accordance with the ASTM Standard D1557-91
test method. Results of these tests are summarized in Table B-1, SummaryofLaboratory
Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Tests and presented in Drawings
No. B-2 through B-4, in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing.
~
~ Converse Consultants
CCI ENT\OFFICEIJOBFILE\2000\81 100-126100 126-5.asb
\P
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology. Rough Grading Report,
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Dei Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page 11
Expansion Index (ASTM 4829-95) tests were done on representative samples were
classified based on their expansion potential as presented in Table No.1, Lot
Classifications Based on Expansion Index Test Results.
TABLE NO.1, LOT CLASSIFICATIONS BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
Exoansion
Potential
Very Low Low Medium High
Expansion 0-20 21-50 51-90 91-130
Index (EI)
TRACT 24187-F
Lots No. 1 to 22, 42 to 92 23 to 41 and 62 to 65 None None
Direct Shear (ASTM Standard 3080-98) tests were done to determine the soil parameters
(C and <1>) . Results of direct shear tests performed on remolded ring samples are
presented in Drawings No. B-5 and B-6, Direct Shear Test, in Appendix B, Laboratory
Testing. Based on these results, the cohesion (C) of the site soils range from 50 to 150
pounds-per-square-foot (psf) with a friction angle (<1>) of 31 to 35 degrees, respectively.
Consolidation (ASTM Standard 2435-96) and collapse (ASTM Standard 5333) tests
were performed on bulk samples. Results are presented in Drawings No. B-7 and B-8,
Consolidation Test, in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing. When inundated with water at
2.0 kips per square foot (ksf), the samples experienced minor collapse or swell.
A soil corrosivity study was performed by M. J. Schiff and Associates, Upland,
California, on representative samples of subgrade soils retrieved from the tract. The
results of the study are included at the end of this report in Appendix C, Soil Corrosivity
Study.
All the tests mentioned above are discussed in detail in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing.
8.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATION
This section contains our recommendations regarding design and construction of
various facilities including building foundations, slabs-on-grade, retaining walls,
pavements, driveways, walkways, curb and gutter.
a>-
~ Converse Consultants
CCIENT\OFFICEIJOBFILE\2000181100-126100126-5.asb
\4.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
I
As-Built Geology, Rough Grading Report,
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page 12
8.1 Building Foundation and Retaining Walls
One and/or two-story buildings and retaining walls may be supported by continuous
and/or isolated spread footings. Continuous footings should be at least 12 inches and
18 inches wide for one-story and two-story buildings, respectively. The recommended
minimum width for an isolated spread footing for an individual column is 24 inches and
30 inches for one-story and two-story buildings, respectively.
The recommended minimum depth of embedment and reinforcement for footings for
various ranges of expansion potential of the subgrade soils are included in Table No.2,
Suggested Guidelines For Design and Construction of Foundations and Slabs-on-
Grade for One and Two Story Residential Buildings. For lot classifications based on
expansion potential, see Table No.1, Lot Classifications Based On Expansion Index
Test Results, in Section 7.0, Data Analysis and Interpretation.
Footings should be designed based on an allowable bearing pressure of 1,800 pst. This
bearing stress may be increased by one-third for short duration loading such as wind or
seismic forces. This allowable bearing pressure should be used with the allowable
stress design load combinations specified in Section 1612.3, Load Combinations Using
Allowable Stress Design, of the CBC (1998).
Structural designs may require wider footings andlor more reinforcement than
recommended in this report.
Building clearance from ascending slopes, footing setback from descending slopes and
foundation elevations should meet the requirements of Section 1806.5, Footings on or
Adjacent to Slopes, of the CBC (1998).
Active lateral earth pressures from soils at the site may be taken as equal to that
developed by a fluid of density of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pet) for horizontal backfill
conditions. At-rest earth pressure may be taken as equal to that developed by a fluid of
density of 60 pcf. In recommending these values, it is assumed that adequate
measures will be taken to prevent development of hydrostatic pressure on the retaining
walls during their service life.
Resistance to lateral loads can be assumed to be provided by friction acting at the base
of foundations and by passive earth pressures against the sides of the foundations
and/or walls. An ultimate value of the coefficient of friction of 0.30 between concrete
and soil may be used with the dead load forces. An ultimate value of the passive earth
pressure resistance of 250 psf per foot of depth may be used for the sides of
~
~ Converse Consultants
CCIENT\OFFICEIJOBFI LE\2000\81 100-126100 126-5.asb
\1
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology, Rough Grading Report.
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F .
Paseo Dei Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page 13
footingslretaining walls. The maximum value of the passive pressure should be limited
to 1,800 psf. The lateral resistances provided by the friction and the passive resistances
may be combined directly without any reduction. These lateral resistances may be
increased by one-third for short duration seismic/wind forces. Based on the distance of
the Elsnore fault to the site and Seismic Source classification of Type "An, the Seismic
Coefficients as defined in CBC (1998), may be taken as follows:
Ca=0.48. Na=1.2
Cv=0.82, Nv=1.5
Footings should be founded on firm and uniform native soils or compacted fills. Footing
excavations should be observed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant
after the rebars are in place and prior to placing any concrete.
The total footing settlement will depend, among other factors, on the actual load applied
to the subgrade soils, type of subgrade materials (e.g. native or compacted fills), soil
type, thickness of compacted fills underneath the footings and changes in the moisture
conditions of the subsurface soils. Anticipated total settlements of footings, designed
and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided herein, should be
less than one (1) inch. The expected differential settlement between similarly loaded
footings for individual residences may be taken as equal to half of the total settlement.
8.2 S/abs-On-Grade
Based on the expansion index tests, the pad subgrade soils for the majority of the lots
can be classified as having very low to low expansion potential as shown in Table No.
1, Lot Classifications Based on Expansion Index Test Results.
Recommendations regarding slabs-on-grade thickness, reinforcement and presoaking
of subgrade soils at the time of construction are provided in Table No.2, Suggested
Guidelines For Design and Construction of Foundations and Slabs-on-Grade for One-
and Two-story Residential Buildings.
~
~ Converse Consultants
CCI ENT\OFFICEIJOBFI LE\2000\81 \00-126\00126-5.asb
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology. Rough Grading Report,
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page 14
TABLE NO.2, SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF FOUNDATIONS AND
SLABS-ON-GRADE FOR ONE- AND TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
Foundation Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V
System
Exoansion
Potential Very Low Low Medium Hioh Very Hioh
Expansion 0-20 21-50 51-90 91- 130 Above 130
Index (E.I)
Footin9 Depth One Two One Two One Two One Two One Two
Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story
Perimeter 12" 18" 12" 18" 18" 18" 18" 18" 30" 30"
Interior 12" 18" 12" 18" 12" 18" 18" 18" 18" 18"
Footing 1-#4 Bar 1-#4Bar 1-#4 Bar 2-48ar5 2-#4 Bars .
Reinforcement Top and Bottom Top and Bottom Top and Bottom Top and Bottom Top and Bottom
Garage Grade 12"x 12" wi 12"x 12"w/ 12"x 12"w/ 12"x 12"w/ 18"x 18" wi
Beam At Door 1-#4Bar 1-#4 Bar 1-#4 Bar 1-#4 Bar 1-#4 Bar
Opening Top and Bottom Top and Bottom Top and Bottom Top and Bottom Top and Bottom
Floor Slab 4" Nominal 4" Nominal 4" Nominal 4" Nominal 6" Nominal
Thickness
Floor Slab 6" x 6" - #101 # 10 #4 at 18" D.C.
Reinforcement 6"x6"-#10/#10 6" x 6" - #101 # 10 6"
Dwellinas Not Mandatory Not Mandatory 6"x6"-#10/#10 x6"-#10/#10 Each Way
Garages 6" x6" -#6/# 6
Subgrade
Moisture Optimum 120 % of Optimum 120% of Optimum 120% of Optimum 120% of
Requirement at Moisture to 12" Moisture to 12" Below Moisture to 18" Optimum Moisture
Time or Higher Below Slab Slab Below Slab to 18" Below Slab
of Construction
Structural designs may require slab thickness and/or reinforcement greater than
recommended herein. It is recommended that adequate reinforcement be provided for
preventing development of shrinkage cracks.
Slabs-on-grade should be underlain by 6-mil Visqueen (or equivalent) moisture barrier.
To help break capillary rise of soil moisture, to aid concrete curing and to prevent
puncture, we recommend that at least two (2) inches of clean sand be placed above
and below the moisture barrier. Joints in the moisture barrier should be lapped a
minimum of six (6) inches and properly sealed.
Slabs-on-grade subgrade soils must be firm and uniform. All loose or disturbed soils
including under slab utility trench backfills should be recompacted prior to the
placement of clean sand base underneath the moisture barrier.
~
~ Converse Consultants
CCI ENTlOFFICEIJOBFi LE\2000\81 \00-126\00 126-5.asb
\(p
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology. Rough Grading Report,
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page 15
Joints for concrete slabs-on-grade must be carefully designed. Joint spacing is
dependent upon slab thickness and concrete properties and should be selected by the
structural engineer. Joints should be properly sealed. Unless local conditions and
concrete properties indicate otherwise, the joint spacing (in feet) should not exceed
approximately twice the slab thickness (in inches). Joint spacing may be increased if
slabs are heavily reinforced.
During hot weather, the contractor should take appropriate curing precautions after
placement of concrete to minimize cracking of the slabs. The potential for slab cracking
may be lessened by the addition of fiber mesh to the concrete, andlor control of
waterlcement ratio. Concrete should be cured by protecting it against loss of moisture
and rapid temperature change for at least seven (7) days after placement. Moist
curing, waterproof paper, white polyethylene sheeting, white liquid membrane
compound, or a combination thereof may be used after finishing operations have been
completed. The edges of concrete slabs exposed after removal of forms should be
immediately protected to provide continuous curing.
Recommendations regarding garage grade beams at door openings for various
expansion potential conditions are also included in Table No.2, Suggested Guidelines
For Design and Construction of Foundations and Slabs-on-Grade for One- and Two-
story Residential Buildings.
8.3 Pavement Design and Construction
Samples for Resistance (R) value testing were not collected since the streets are in the
developmental phase. A detailed analyses to the determine structural sections of the
pavement will be performed and recommendations will be provided in a separate report.
8.4 Concrete Walks, Driveways, Access Ramps, Curb and Gutter
Except as modified herein concrete walks, driveways, access ramps, curb and gutters
should be constructed in accordance with" Section 303-5, Concrete Curbs, Walks,
Gutters, Cross-Gutters, Alley Intersections, Access Ramps, and Driveways, of the of
the Standard Specifications for Public Works (SSPWC, 1994). .
At least the upper 12 inches of the subgrade soils under these structures should be
scarified, moisture conditioned to plus or minus three percent (:!: 3%) and compacted to
at least 90 percent relative compaction.
~
W Converse Consultants
CCIENT\OFFICEIJOBFI LE\2000\81 100-126100126-5.asb
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology, Rough Grading Report.
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27. 2001
Page 16
The subgrade soils under the driveways of various lots should be pre-soaked prior to
pouring concrete in accordance with the recommendations provided for concrete slabs-
on-grade in Section 8.2, Slabs-an-Grade. The thickness of driveways for passenger
cars should be at least four (4) inches. Transverse control joints for driveways should
be spaced not more than 10 feet apart. Driveways wider than 12 feet should be
provided with a longitudinal control joints.
Concrete walks subjected to pedestrian and bicycle loading should be at least four (4)
inches thick. Transverse joints should be spaced 15 feet or less and should be cut to a
depth of Y. the slab thickness.
Positive drainage should be provided away from all driveways and sidewalks to prevent
seepage of surface andlor subsurface water into the concrete base andlor subgrade.
8.5 Corrosion Protection
Based on the corrosion study report presented in Appendix C, Soil Carrosivity Study
subgrade soils within the subject Tract is not significantly deleterious to concrete. The
soluble sulfate content of site soil can be categorized as negligible per CBC (1998).
Type I or II Portland Cement may be used in concrete construction. Standard concrete
covers of 2.0-inch if placed against form, and 3.0-inch if placed directly against earth,
may be used to protect reinforcing rebars.
Site soils are classified as moderately corrosive to ferrous metal. For corrosion
protection recommendations of steel, iron pipes, copper tubes, plastic and vitrified clay
and other types of pipes, see the attached soil corrosivity study report in Appendix C,
Soil Carrosivity Study. If additional corrosion recommendations are desired, we
recommend that a qualified corrosion specialist be contacted.
8.6 Site Drainage, Slope Protection and Landscape Irrigation
Recommendations
Adequate drainage should be provided away from the structures to prevent ponding
and to reduce percolation of water into structural fill. Adequate positive drainage away
from structures should be provided to prevent ponding and to reduce percolation of
water into subgrade and/or other structural fills. Building pad drainage should satisfy the
requirements of Section 3315, Drainage and Terracing, of the CBC (1998). Planters
and landscaped areas adjacent to the building perimeter should be designed to
minimize water infiltration into the subgrade soils. Gutters and downspouts should be
~
W Converse Consultants
CCIENTlOFFICEIJOBFILE\2000\81100-126100126-5.asb
\\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
U
I
I
I
As-Built Geology. Rough Grading Report.
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F.
Paseo Dei Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page 17
installed on the roofs, and runoffs should be directed to storm drains through non-
erosive devices.
Slopes should be provided with adequate erosion control measures as soon as possible.
Erosion control may include planting the slopes with appropriate drought-resistant
vegetation as recommended by a landscape architect. Landscaping should disturb the
soils as little as possible. Care should be exercised to prevent loose fills from being
placed on slopes during construction and landscaping. Slopes should not be over-
irrigated, as this can soften the near surface soil resulting in surficial slope failures.
Rodents burrowing, small concentrations of uncontrolled surface/subsurface water, or
localized depression of utility trench backfill on slopes should be controlled andlor
repaired as soon as possible.
Most hillside residential lot problems are associated with water. Homeowners should be
aware that altering drainage patterns, landscaping and the addition of patios, planters and
other improvements, broken pipes, as well as irrigation and variations in seasonal rainfall
all affects moisture conditions of the subgrade soils. Excessive landscape irrigation may
significantly increase the subgrade soil moisture conditions resulting in localized ponding
and saturation of the subsurface soils. Percolating groundwater water may even flow from
upper-grade lot areas to adjacent lower-grade lot areas. Excessive soil moisture affects
performance of buildings and other structures, slopes and pavements, as well as
landscaping. Homeowners should consult a professional landscape architect for planting
and irrigation recommendations. Local drainage collection and transporting devices such
as subdrains may be required if waterlogging conditions develop in the future.
Modifications to the graded pad areas should not be attempted without the approval of a
qualified soils engineer and/or geologist.
9.0 ON-SITE TRENCH BACKFILL COMPACTION
9.1 General
Except as modified'herein, the trenches for underground utilities, including water, sewer
and gas pipelines; and conduits for electrical, fiber optics, etc., should be backfilled in
accordance with the recommendations contained in Section 306 of the Standard
Specifications for Public Works (SSPWC, 1994). The pipes should be bedded as
recommended by the pipe designer. The gradation of the bedding material, if used,
should be selected to prevent migration of fines from the surrounding native soils.
~
W Converse Consultants
CCIENl\OFFICEIJOBFILE\2000\81 100-126100 126-5.asb
\~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology, Rough Grading Report.
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page 18
Bedding materials should be tested and approved by the project soils consultant prior to
importing them to the site.
The excavated soils should be suitable for use as trench backfill. These materials may
need to be processed involving mixing and moisture conditioning prior to compaction.
Bedding material, if used, should be vibrated in-place, and care should be taken to
densify the bedding material below the springline of the pipe. Flooding or jetting of the
bedding material should not be attempted because the water from the trench is not
expected to drain freely. Long-term accumulation of water in the pipe trench from any
sources should be avoided, and trenches should be pumped dry if water collects inside.
9.2 Recommended Specifications for Placement of Trench Backfill
Trench backfill shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent as
per ASTM Standard D1557 -91 test method. At least the upper 12 inches of trench
underlying pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction
as per ASTM Standard D1557-91 test method. Additional trench backfill placement and
compaction recommendations are provided below:
· Bedding material for the pipe should be selected by the pipe design engineer.
Bedding material should have a Sand Equivalent (SE) greater than or equal to 30,
as determined by the ASTM Standard D2419 test method.
. Trench backfill shall be compacted by mechanical methods, such as sheepsfoot,
vibrating or pneumatic rollers, or mechanical tampers, to achieve the density
specified herein. The. backfill materials shall be brought to two (2) to three (3)
percent above optimum moisture content, then placed in horizontal layers. The
thickness of uncompacted layers should not exceed eight (8) inches. Each layer
shall be evenly spread, moistened or dried as necessary, and then tamped or rolled
until the specified density has been achieved.
· The contractor shall select the equipment and processes to be used to achieve the
specified density without damage to adjacent ground and completed work.
· The field density of the compacted soil shall be measured by the ASTM Standard
D1556-90 (Sand Cone) or ASTM Standard D2922-96 (Nuclear Gauge) test methods
or equivalent.
~
W Converse Consuitants
CCIENT\OFFICElJOBFILE\2000\81100-126100126-5.asb
\'\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
I
I
I
I
I
U
I U
I
I
As-Built Geology, Rough Grading Report,
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27. 2001
Page 19
· Observation and field tests should be performed by the project soils consultant
during construction to confirm that the required degree of compaction has been
obtained. Where compaction is less than that specified, additional compactive
efforts shall be made with adjustment of the moisture content as necessary until the
specified compaction is obtained.
· It should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe conditions during
excavation, backfilling and compaction operations.
· Trench backfill shall not be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather
conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rain, fill operations shall not be
resumed until field tests by the project's geotechnical consultant indicate that the
moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified.
10.0 CONCLUSIONS
· Based on our field observation, in-place density and laboratory testing, and data
analyses and interpretation, it is our opinion that earthwork associated with the
grading of the subject tracts were completed in substantial compliance with the project
plans and specifications.
· Excavated site soils were placed as compacted fills. The fills soils were composed of
primarily silty sand, clayey sand, sand and sandy or clayey silt.
· The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the fill soils
ranged from 118.5 pound per cubic-foot (pcf) to 132.0 pet and 7.5 percent to 14.5
percent, respectively.
· Tract 24187-F has been rough graded. Future grading involving minor amounts of cut
and fill to reach precise grade will be performed. Separate compaction reports will be
prepared after the completion of finish grade.
· Fill slopes have been graded at 2:1 (H:V) or flatter, and are considered to be grossly
stable under static as well as anticipated seismic loading conditions.
· Cut slopes were graded at 2:1 (H:V) or flatter and are anticipated to be grossly stable
against static as well as anticipated dynamic loading since the bedrock materials are
generally massive in nature and no continuous adverse geologic structures are
~
~ Converse Consultants
CCi ENTlOFFICEIJOBFILE\2000\81 100-126100126-5.asb
7P
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology, Rough Grading Report.
Geotechnicai Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27. 2001
Page 20
present. Some surficial erosion may occur prior to the establishment of vegetation,
particularly where there are sands with little or no cohesion.
· Evidence of active or potentially active faulting was not observed during grading of the
.site.
· Single-family residential structures may be supported on continuous and/or isolated
spread footings.
11.0 CLOSURE
The findings and recommendations of this report are provided in accordance with
generally accepted professional engineering and engineering geologic principles and
practice within our profession in effect at this time in Southern California. Our
conclusions and recommendations are based on field observation, field and laboratory
testing performed in accordance with applicable industry standards, data
analysis/interpretation and our experience. We make no other warranty, either
expressed or implied.
Our field density testing to evaluate fill compaction was performed at random and discrete
locations; and at various time intervals during the fill placement operations. Our test
results are considered to be representative of the locations and material tested within the
compacted fill. Some variations in the densities and moisture of the compacted fills at
other locations should be expected.
This report presents opinion formed as a result of our observation of fill placement. We
have relied on the contractor to continue applying the recommended compaction effort
and moisture to the fill to meet the project specifications. Tests were performed on
compacted fill in accordance with ASTM Standards to calibrate our observer's judgment,
and to provide data on the overall compactive effort.
Elevations and locations used in this report were based on data provided by others.
Although the grading for lots was considered suitable at the time of completion, natural
weathering and degradation of the near-surface soils may occur with time. It has been
our experience that significant deterioration of surficial soils, in particular growth of
vegetation and erosion, may occur if a significant period of time elapses before
construction. We recommend that the conditions of impacted lots, if any, be reevaluated
by a qualified geotechnical engineer prior to construction.
.~
~ Converse Consultants
CCIENTlOFFICEIJOBFILE\2000\81 100-126\00 126-5.asb
'],.\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
o
As-Built Geology, Rough Grading Report,
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Dei Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page 21
13.0 REFERENCES
ANNUAL BOOK OF ASTM STANDARDS (1995), Vol. 04.08, Soil and Rock; Dimension
Stone; Geosynthetics.
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS (1999), Geotechnical Investigation Report, Tracts 24136,
24187,24188,25417 and 25418, Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Community, City of
Temecula, California, dated May 6, 1999, prepared by Converse for Newland
Associates, Converse Project No. 99-81-112-50.
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE (1996), Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation, Eastern and Southwestern Portion of ''The Meadows, Approximately
800-Acre Site", Temecula, California, dated April 26, 1996, Converse Project No. 96-
81-420-01.
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE (1991), Interim Compaction Report,
Portions of Tracts 24186 and 24187, Paloma Del Sol Development, Temecula,
California, dated June 10, 1991, prepared for Mesa Homes, Converse Project No. 88-
871-148-02.
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE (1988a), "Liquefaction Investigation, The
Meadows at Rancho California APN Nos. 926-13-9, -10, -12, -13, and -14, Rancho
California, California", Dated December 9, 1988, prepared for Rancho California
Development Company, .Converse Project No. 88-81-148-02.
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE (1989), "Geotechnical Investigation,
Eastem Portion of the Meadows, Rancho California, California," dated
January 6,1989, prepared for the Rancho California Development Company,
Converse Project No. 88-81-155-01.
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS INLAND EMPIRE (1989 Geotechnical Investigation
Report, Tracts 24136, 24187, 24188, 25417 and 25418, Paseo Del Sol Master
Planned Community, City of Temecula, California, dated May 6, 1999, prepared by
Converse for Newland Associates, Converse Project No. 99-81-112-01.
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS, As-Built Geology and Rough grading Report, Tracts
24187-1 and 24187-2, Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities, Temecula,
California, dated June 15, 2000, prepared by Converse for Newland Associates,
Converse Project No. 00-81-126-50.
~
W Converse Consuitants
CCIENT\OFFICEIJOBFI LE\2000\81 100-126100 126-5.asb
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology, Rough Grading Report.
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page 22
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Report, Tract 24187-1, Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Community, Temecula,
California, dated June 16, 2000, prepared by Converse for Newland Associates,
Converse Project No. 00-81-126-50.
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS, Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Report, Tract 24187-1, Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Community, Temecula,
California, dated June 16, 2000, prepared by Converse for Newland Associates,
Converse Project No. 00-81-126-50.
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS (1998), California Building
Code (CBC).
KENNEDY, M.P. (1997), "Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault
Zone in Southern Riverside County, California ", CDMG Special Report 131.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (1994),
Building News, Inc., Los Angeles, California.
WARING, G. A., 1919; "Groundwater in the San Jacinto and Temecula Basins,
California," USGS Water Supply Paper 429.
~
~ Converse Consultants
CCIENTlOFFICElJOBFILE\2000\81 \00-126\00126-5.asb
']..-z..
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
?,.~
.
I
As-Buill Geology, Rough Grading Report. Geotechnical Design Construction Recommendation
Tract24187.F .
Paseo Del So! Master Planned Communites
March 27, 2001
PageA-'
I
TABLE. NO.'2 .
, Field. Densitv Test Results ...,.
location Approx. - ..-
Test Test App~ox. Fill Below 0", Moist. 5011 Camp. Remarks (90% Req. Unless
No. Date Tract No. Test Elev. Test Density Content Type action Noted)
East West (ft) (pel) (%) (%)
(ft)
..
Rough Grading .
369 03/21/00 486400 743930 24187-F 1224 2 118.2 9.4 5 92
370 03/21/00 486330 743960 24187-F 1214 2 119.3 9.1 5 93
479 03/14/00 486075 743560 24187-F 1202 2 117.7 12.1 6 95 95% Req.
480 03114/00 486020 743580 24187-F 1204 4 118.8 11.5 6 95 95% Req.
481 03114/00 486120 743595 24187-F 1206 6 122.4 10.0 5 96 95% Req.
482 03/14/00 486050 743625 24187-F 1208 8 122.3 11.3 5 96 95% Req.
483 03/14/00 486030 743515 24187-F 1210 10 122.6 10.5 5 96 95% Req.
484 03/14/00 485970 743565 24187-F 1212 12 122.2 11.2 5 95 95% Req.
485 03/14/00 486075 743700 24187-F 1206 4 122.0 10.9 5 95 95% Req.
486 03/14/00 486155 743645 24187-F 1208 2 122.1 10.4 5 95 95% Req.
487 03/14/00 486115 743685 24187-F 1210 6 122.9 8.8 5 96 95% Req.
488 03/14/00 486090 743655 24187-F 1212 8 121.7 8.4 5 95 95% Req.
489 03/14/00 485975 743605 24187-F 1214 14 117.2 11.7 5 92 Failed, See #489A.
95% Req.
489A 03/14/00 485975 743605 24187-F 1214 14 122.8 10.3 5 96 AT of #489, 95% Aeq.
490 03/14/00 486010 743650 24187-F 1216 16 120.6 11.6 5 94 Failed. See #490A,
95% Reo.
490A 03/14/00 486010 743650 24187-F 1216 16 121.5 9.6 5 95 RT of #490. 95% Req.
491 03/15/00 486160 743615 24187-F 1214 14 121.7 10.0 5 95 95% Req.
492 03/1 5/00 486200 743645 24187-F 1216 16 121.4 9.4 5 95 95% Req.
493 03/15/00 486065 743520 24187.F 1218 18 122.5 9.9 5 96 95% Aeq.
494 0311 5/00 486015 743540 24187-F 1220 20 122.0 10.9 5 95 95% Req.
495 03/15/00 486130 743660 24187-F 1218 18 121.6 9.6 5 95 95% Req.
496 03/15/00 486105 743615 24187-F 1220 20 122.9 9.3 5 96 95% Req.
633 03/17/00 485950 743680 24187-F 1220 2 119.6 10.1 1 92
634 03/17/00 485910 743640 24187-F 1222 4 119.4 10.7 1 92
635 03/17/00 486045 743520 24187-F 1222 22 118.7 10.2 1 91
636 03/17/00 486105 743545 24187-F 1224 24 117.7 11.3 1 91
637 03/17/00 486095 743715 24187.F 1222 22 120.1 10.9 1 92
638 03/17/00 486055 743685 24187-F 1224 24 118.7 9.4 1 91
645 03/17/00 486040 743745 24187-F 1224 14 117.9 8.9 1 91
646 03/17/00 485990 743725 24187-F 1226 16 117.6 8.1 1 90
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
I
I
Converse Consultants
CCIENnOFFICE\JOBFllE\2000\B1\OO-126\TR24187-FJdl
7,.A..
I
I
As.Buill Geology, Rough Grading Report, Geotechnical Design Construction Recommendalion
Tract24187-F.
Paseo Del Sot Master Planned Communites
March 27, 2001
PageA-2
I
TABLE NO:2 .
FieldOensitv Test Results
location -c- ...
Approx. Approx. D'Y Moist. CamP"'
Test rest Fill Below Soli Remarks (90% Req. Unless
Tract No. rest Elev. Density Content :actlon
No. Date Test Type Noted)
East West (ft) (pcn (%) (%)
(ft)
647 03/17/00 486235 743750 24187+F 1205 6 125.5 8.4 2 95 95% Req.
548 03/17/00 486170 743760 24187.F 1207 8 123.7 8.6 1 95 95% Req.
649 03/17/00 485930 743730 24t87-F 1226 9 118.0 11.1 1 91
650 03/17/00 485870 743695 24187-F 1228 11 119.3 12.1 1 92
-
657 03/17/00 486100 743465 24187-F 1211 2 122.9 10.7 1 95 95% Req.
658 03/17/00 486150 743490 24187-F 1213 4 124.2 9.4 1 96 95% Aeq.
659 03/17/00 486250 743820 24187-F 1209 10 123.5 10.2 1 95 95% Req.
660 03/1 7/00 486260 743860 24187.F 1211 12 123.5 9.9 1 95 95% Req.
661 03/20/00 486190 743875 24187-F 1213 6 122.0 9.2 5 95 95% Req.
662 03/20/00 486180 743835 24187.F 1215 8 123.4 8.8 5 96 95% Req.
663 03/20/00 486240 743560 24187.F 1215 8 123.3 8.8 5 96 95% Req.
664 03/20/00 486185 743550 24187-F 1217 10 113.9 12.1 5 89 Failed, See #664A,
95% Ren.
664A 03/20/00 486185 743550 24187-F 1217 10 122.9 8.9 5 96 RT of #664, 95% Req.
665 03/20100 486280 743740 24187.F 1217 10 122.9 9.4 5 96 95% Req.
666 03/20/00 486255 743705 24187-F 1219 12 123.9 9.1 5 97 95% Req.
667 03/20/00 486300 743640 24187-F 1219 6 122.8 8.9 5 96 95% Req.
668 03/20/00 486245 743615 24187-F 1221 8 122.2 8.7 5 95 95% Req.
669 03/20100 486320 743610 24187.F 1221 8 119.2 11.4 5 93
670 03/20/00 486280 743565 24t87-F 1223 10 115.7 10.8 5 90
671 03/20/00 486380 743760 24187-F 1221 9 123.2 9.4 5 96 95% Req.
672 03/20/00 486360 743695 2418H 1223 11 121.6 9.7 5 95 95% Req.
673 03/20/00 486315 743825 24187-F 1225 18 115.2 10.2 5 90
674 03/20/00 486295 743790 24187-F 1227 20 116.7 11.3 5 91
675 03/20/00 486330 743690 24187.F 1225 8 121.1 10.8 5 95
676 03/20/00 486300 743670 24187-F 1227 10 120.3 11.2 5 94
677 03/20100 486225 743775 24187-F 1225 25 112.4 12.9 10 91
678 03/20/00 486180 743785 24187.F 1227 27 111.5 10.8 10 89 Failed, See #678A
678A 03/20/00 486180 743785 24187-F 1227 27 113.4 13.1 10 92 RT of #678
679 03/21/00 486065 743875 24187.F 1229 14 119.3 9.9 5 93
680 03/21/00 486060 743820 24187.F 1231 16 119.7 9.1 5 94
681 03/21/00 486150 743935 24187.F 1229 4 118.4 9.4 5 92
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
ConverseConsultanls
CCJEN1\OFFICE\JOBFILE\2000\81\OO-126\TR24187.F.fdl
,/'
ZJr1
I
I
TABLE NO:2
Field Densitv Test Results
Location Approx.
Test Test Approx. Fill Below Dry Moist. Soli Camp- Remarks (900/. Req. Unless
No. Date . Tract No. Test Elev. Test Density Content Type action Noted)
I. East West (ft) (pel) (%) (%)
(ft)
682 03/21/00 486090 743930 24187-F 1231 6 119.6 10.2 5 93
683 03/21/00 486390 743805 24187-F 1229 19 119.2 9.1 5 93
684 03/21fOO 486345 743775 24187-F 1231 21 118.1 8.9 5 92
685 03/21/DD 485965 743780 24187-F 1229 4 121.2 9A 4 94
686 03/21/00 485900 743765 24187-F 1231 6 118.8 8.9 4 92
687 03/21fOO 486245 743990 24187.F 1213 2 119.0 9.8 4 92 Failed, See #BalA,
95% Req.
GalA 03/21/00 486245 743990 24187.f 1213 2 122.5 9.4 5 96 RT of #687, 95% Req.
688 03/21/00 486275 744030 241B7-F 1215 4 118.5 8.7 4 92 Failed, See IBalA,
95% Req.
6aBA 03/21/00 486275 744030 24187.F 1215 4 121.7 9.7 5 95 Failed, See 16aBA,
95% Req.
691 03/21/00 486295 743950 24187-F 1221 10 122.4 9.9 4 95 95% Req.
692 03/21/00 486325 744030 24187-F 1223 12 122.3 8.9 4 95 95% Req.
693 03/22/00 486020 743775 24187-F 1231 18 114.4 11.0 4 89 Failed, See #693A
693A 03/22/00 486020 743775 24187-F 1231 18 118.6 9.7 4 92 AT of #693
694 03/22/00 486025 743735 24187-F 1233 20 118_9 8.8 4 92
697 03/22/00 486085 743625 24187-F 1231 27 120.5 8.5 4 93
698 03/22/00 486080 743590 24187.F 1233 29 118.0 9A 4 91
701 03/22/00 486490 743850 24187.F 1220 2 112.7 12.6 10 91 Failed, See #701A,
95 % Req.
701A 03/22/00 486490 . 743850 24187-F 1220 2 121.7 9.9 5 95 RT of #701, 95% Req.
702 03/22/00 486450 743815 24187-F 1222 4 112.6 11.9 10 91 Failed, See #702A,
95% Ren.
702A 03/22/00 486450 743875 24187-F 1222 4 121.6 10.2 5 95 RT of #702, 95% Req.
703 03/22/00 486235 743805 24187.F 1231 22 117.6 11.9 5 92
704 03/22/00 486190 74315 24187-F 1233 24 114.0 13.0 5 89 Failed, See #704A
704A 03/22/00 486190 743815 24187-F 1233 24 120.6 9.1 5 94 AT of #704
705 03/22/00 486490 743770 24187-F 1224 8 123.0 9.0 4 95 95% Req.
706 03/22/00 486520 743720 24187-F 1226 10 122.2 9.9 4 95 95% Aeq.
707 03/22/00 486260 743905 24187-F 1229 18 115.1 11.9 1 88 Failed, See #707 A
707A 03/22/00 486260 743905 24187-F 1229 18 118.9 8.6 4 . 92 AT of #707
708 03/22/00 486225 743865 24187-F 1231 20 117.0 9.3 4 91
709 03/22/00 486470 743810 24187-F 1226 10 115.6 12.1 10 94
710 03/22/00 486455 743760 24187-F 1228 12 113.3 12.4 10 92
711 03/22/00 486120 743985 24187-F 1229 2 110.7 13.4 9 92
As-Built Geology. Rough Grading Report, Geotechnical Design Construction Recommendation
TraCf24187-F.
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communites
March 27,2001
PageA-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Converse Consultants
CCIENnOFFICE\JOBFILE\2000\81\OO-126\TR241B7-FJdl
7JD
I
I
. . TABLE NO:2
. .. Field Densitv Test Results ...
Location Approx. . .
Test Test Approx. FlII Below D'Y Moist Soli Camp. Remarks (90'"1. Req. Unless
Tract No. Test Elev. Density Contant action
No. Date Test Type Noted)
East West (It) (pcij {'"I.} (%)
. (It)
712 03/22/00 486100 743955 24187-F 1231 4 108.8 12.9 9 91
713 03/23/00 486375 743910 24187-F 1229 15 107.9 12.9 9 90
714 03/23/00 486385 743945 24187-F 1231 17 109.4 13.0 9 91
715 03/23/00 486050 743850 24187-F 1231 13 107.9 12.5 9 90
716 03/23/00 486035 743825 24187-F 1233 15 110.3 12.7 9 92
717 03/23/00 486445 743670 24187-F 1231 6 109.6 13.1 9 91
718 03/23/00 486440 743630 24187-F 1233 8 109.3 13.9 9 91
719 03/23/00 486355 743750 24187-F 1231 19 111.1 12.8 10 90
720 03/23/00 486310 743725 24187-F 1233 21 , 12.9 12.4 10 91
721 03/23/00 486150 743910 241B7-F 1233 15 112.4 12.6 10 91
722 03/23/00 486130 743880 24187-F 1235 17 111.8 12.5 10 91
723 03/23/00 486130 743555 24187-F 1233 23 111.8 12.3 10 91
724 03/23/00 486120 743510 24187-F 1235 25 112.3 13.0 10 91
725 03/23/00 486310 743930 24187.F 1233 22 112.8 13.1 10 91
726 03/23/00 486260 743935 24187-F 1235 24 112.1 12.7 10 90
727 03/23/00 486215 743820 24187-F 1233 13 113.6 12.1 10 92
728 03/23/00 486165 743815 24187-F 1235 15 112.9 12.3 10 91
751 03/27/00 486420 743930 24187-F 1228 7 107,3 12.7 8 91
752 03/27/00 486440 744000 24187-F 1230 9 105.6 9.2 8 89 Failed, See 1/752A
752A 03/27/00 486440 744000 24187-F 1230 9 109.2 13.2 8 92 RT of 1/752
755 03/27/00 486465 743905 24187-F 1232 7 118.5 9.7 5 93
756 03/27/00 486490 743960 24187.F 1234 9 110.2 12.7 8 93
759 03/27/00 486470 743725 24187-F 1232 2 108.6 12.5 8 92
760 03/27/00 486420 743710 24187-F 1234 14 108.4 12.8 8 91
761 03/27{00 486365 743890 24187-F 1232 21 116.6 9.6 5 91
762 03127/00 486330 743905 24187-F 1234 23 111.5 12.3 10 90
763 03127/00 486520 743970 24187.F 1236 6 102.4 19.2 8 86 Failed, See 1/763A
763A 03/27/00 486520 743970 24187-F 1236 6 112.5 13.5 10 94 RT of 11763
764 03/27100 486500 743920 24187-F 1238 8 105.1 16.0 8 89 Failed, See 11764A
764A 03/27/00 486500 743920 24187-F 1238 8 109.3 13.2 10 91 AT of #764
767 03/28/00 486015 743680 24187-F 1233 15 113.5 12.3 10 92
As-Buill Geology, Rough Grading Report, Geotechnical Design Construction Recommendation
Tract24187-F .
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communiles
March 27,200f
PageA-4
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ConverseCOllsultanls
CC1ENT\OFFICE\JOBFILE\2000\81 \OO-126\TR24187.F .fdl
'2J'
I
.
As-Built Geology, Rough Grading Report, Geotechnical Design Construction Recommendation
Tract241B7.f .
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communites
March 27, 2001
PageA-5
.
-:- . TABLE NO:2
. Field Densitv Test Results
. Location .. .
Approx. Approx. Coy Moist. Comp~
Test Test Tract No. Test Elav. Fill Below Density Content Soli action Remarks (900/. Req. Unless
No. Date Test Type Noted)
East West (III (pc~ (OY.) ('/0)
(II)
768 03/28/00 485975 743700 24187-F 1235 17 115.6 13.3 10 94
769 03/28/00 485550 743515 24187.f 1216 2 119.1 9.7 5 93
770 03/2a1DO 485500 743525 24187-F 1217 4 118.5 9.1 5 93
771 03/28/00 485450 743450 24187-F 1218 6 111.6 11.3 10 90
772 03/28/00 485390 743445 24187-F 1219 8 109.8 11.7 10 89 Failed, See #772A
772A 03/28/00 485390 743445 24187-F 1219 8 112.1 12.1 10 91 AT of #772
773 03/28/00 485350 743465 24187-F 1220 10 110.5 13.7 8 93
774 03/28/00 485375 743495 24187.F 1217 6 108.8 13.0 8 92
775 03/28/00 485495 743420 24187-F 1217 4 108.7 14.2 8 92
776 03/28/00 485415 743410 24187-F 1219 8 108.9 13.3 8 92
777 03/28/00 486240 743995 24187-F 1232 21 109.6 12.9 8 93
778 03/28tOO 486275 744035 24187-F 1234 20 108.7 12.6 8 92
779 03/28/00 485880 743725 24187-F 1231 6 109.4 12.9 8 92
780 03/28/00 485860 743750 24187-F 1233 8 108.4 13.5 8 91
781 03/28/00 485985 743535 24187-F 1235 38 109.1 13.9 8 92
782 03/28/00 486020 743500 24187.F 1237 40 109.9 13.9 8 93
783 03/28/00 486200 743680 24187-F 1235 28 121.0 9.0 5 94
784 03/28/00 486160 743695 24187-F 1237 30 117.0 9.4 5 91
785 03/28/00 486550 743745 24187.F 1234 4 106.9 14.9 9 89 Failed, See #785A
785A 03/28/00 486550 743745 24187-F 1234 4 108.8 13.6 9 91 RT of #785
786 03/28/00 486540 743795 24187-F 1236 6 108.7 14.4 9 91
787 03/28/00 486310 743585 24187-F 1238 27 119.4 9.4 5 93
788 03/28/00 486270 743630 24187-F 1240 29 118.8 9.2 5 93
789 03/29/00 486420 743620 24187-F 1238 10 118.5 9.0 5 90
793 03/29/00 486290 743775 24187-F 1238 29 117.9 8.4 5 90
794 03/29/00 486250 743770 24187.F 1240 31 119.0 9.0 5 91
795 03/29/00 486540 743670 24187.F 1238 10 110.9 13.3 5 92
796 03/29/00 486485 743690 24187.F 1240 12 111.8 12.5 5 90
797 03/29/00 486300 743895 24187-F 1238 27 117.6 9.4 5 93
798 03/29/00 486250 743920 24187-F 1240 29 118.4 10.0 5 92
799 03/29/00 486515 743805 24187-F 1238 13 119.6 8.5 3 92
.
.
I
I
I
I
u
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ConverseConsullanls
CCIENT\OFFICE\J08FILE\2000\81\OO-126\TR24187 -F Jdl
~
I
I
TABLE NO:2
Field Densitv Test Results ..
Location Approx.
Test I Test Approx. Fill Below D'Y Moist. Soil Camp- Remarks (90% Req. Unless
Tract No. Test Elev. Density Content action
No. Date East West (ft) Test (pel) (%) Type (%) Noted)
(ft)
800 03/29/00 486500 743835 24187.F 1240 '5 121.1 9.0 5 91
901 03/29/00 486065 743895 24187-F 1236 23 117.8 9.5 5 92
902 03/29/00 486095 743765 24187-F 1238 37 , 19.2 10.1 5 93
903 03/29/00 486345 743730 24187-F 1242 35 110.4 11.2 '0 89 Failed. See #903A
903A 03/29/00 486345 743730 24187-F 1242 35 111.4 12.1 '0 90 RT of #903
904 03/29/00 486305 743740 24187.F 1244 34 112.2 11.9 10 9'
905 03/29/00 486410 743855 24187.F 1242 26 116.7 8.5 5 91
906 03/29/00 486380 743875 24187-F 1244 28 116.5 10.9 5 9'
907 03/29/00 486550 743680 24187.F 1242 7 107.3 12.9 10 87 Failed, See #SOlA
SOlA 03/29/00 486550 743680 24187.F 1242 7 111.6 12.4 '0 90 AT of #907
908 03/29/00 486535 743715 24187-F 1244 9 111.0 12.6 10 90
909 03/30/00 486390 743610 24187.F 1242 17 108.3 13.2 8 91
910 03/30/00 486410 743645 24187-F 1244 19 109.2 12.6 8 92
911 03/30/00 486290 743960 24187.F 1242 30 110.0 12.9 8 93
9'2 03/30/00 486340 743940 24' 87-F '244 32 109.7 '2.7 8 93
913 03/30/00 486500 743790 24187-F 1242 17 109.7 13.1 8 93
914 03/30100 486480 743835 24187.F 1244 '9 108.8 13.8 8 92
990 04/1 2100 486110 743710 24187-F 1238 3 111.5 12.6 '0 90
991 04/12/00 486110 743745 24187.F 1240 2 113.1 11.3 10 91
992 04/12/00 486150 743730 24187-F 1240 2 112.1 10.6 '0 90
993 04/12/00 486'50 743700 2418H 1242 4 117.7 8.7 11 91
994 04/12/00 486180 743700 24187.F 1240 2 107.2 12.9 8 90
1000 04/12/00 486600 743655 24187-F 1245 2 111.7 6.8 10 90 Failed, due to low moiS1ure,
See #1000A,
1000A 04/1 2/00 486600 743655 24187.F 1245 2 109.5 13.1 8 92 RT of #1 OOOA
1014 03/31/00 485200 743400 24187.F 1215 2 113.9 12.2 6 9'
1015 03/31/00 485300 743500 24187-F 1216 3 111.5 13.1 6 90
1016 03/31/00 485800 743600 24187-F 1225 2 113.0 10.9 6 91
1017 03/31/00 485850 743695 24187-F 1229 3 111.7 13.6 6 90
1018 03/31/00 485800 743750 24187-F 1231 5 103.7 8.7 6 87 Failed, See #1018A
1018A 03/31/00 485800 743750 24187-F 1231 5 117.6 12.0 6 94 RT of #1018
1019 03/31/00 485800 743780 24187~F 1234 8 111.9 13.9 6 90
As-Built Geology, Rough Grading Report, Geotechnical Design Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187.F' .
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communites
March 27,2001
PageA-6
I
I
I
I
I
u
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Converse Consultants
CCIENT\OFFICE\JOBFIlE\2000\B1 \00-126\ TR241 87 -F Jdt
'2A
g
As-Built GeOlogy, Rough Grading Report, Geotechnical Design Construction Recommendation
Tract24187-F _
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communiles
March 27,2001
PageA-7
g
g
TABLE NO:2
Field DensilyTesfResulls ..
location Approx.
Test Test ' Approx. Fill Below Doy Moist. Soli Camp- Remarks {go,!. Req. Unless
Tract No. Test Elev. Density Content action
No~ Date East West (It). Test (pen Type Noted)
(It) (%) (%)
1020 03/31/00 485840 743720 24187-F 1236 10 111.5 14.7 6 90
1043 04/05/00 486400 743670 24187-F 1218 0 112.1 14.5 6 90
1044 04/05/00 485520 743665 24187-F 1220 0 113.8 13.9 6 91
1045 04f05/00 485345 743635 24187-F 1219 2 112.2 12.9 6 90
1046 04/05/00 485465 743630 24187-F 1221 2 114.9 12.4 6 92
1047 04/05/00 485760 743710 24187-F 1225 2 112.9 14.1 6 91
1058 04/06/00 485880 743800 24187-F 1233 6 112.8 10.7 6 91
1059 04/06/00 485820 743845 24187-F 1231 4 112.0 10.8 6 90
1060 04/06/00 485750 743800 24187-F 1228 2 112.7 11.5 6 91
1107 04/12/00 486610 743625 24187.F 1246 3 109.9 8.0 10 88 Failed, See #1107A
1107A 04/12/00 486610 743825 24187-F 1246 3 108.8 12.8 8 92 AT of #1107
1108 04/12/00 486335 743970 24187.F 1239 4 114.8 10.6 10 92
1109 04/12/00 486365 743965 24187.F 1238 2 112.8 10.1 10 91
1136 04/21/00 484830 743570 24187-F 1202 3 125.8 9.8 1 96
1137 04/21/00 485185 743630 24187-F 1203 3 110.5 10.1 10 89 Failed, See 1137A
1137A 04/26/00 485185 743630 24187.F 1203 3 111.9 9.9 10 91 AT of #1137
1138 04/21/00 485170 743660 24187-F 1204 3 116.3 9.7 11 90
1139 04/21/00 485145 743735 24187-F 1204 9 122.1 10.7 1 93
1140 04/21/00 485095 743760 24187-F 1205 10 118.9 10.1 1 91
1141 04/21/00 485105 743825 24187.F 1206 13 108.3 10.3 8 91
1142 04f21/00 485050 743850 24187-F 1207 17 108.1 10.2 8 91
1143 04/21/00 485035 743915 24187.F 1207 21 101.7 10.3 8 86 Failed, See #1143A
1143A 04/26/00 485035 743915 24187-F 1207 21 106.4 10.6 8 90 AT of #1143
1144 04/21/00 485365 743955 24187-F 1207 23 114.7 10.7 10 92
1145 04/21/00 485305 743945 24187-F 1208 16 107.3 10.5 8 90
1146 04/21/00 485250 743915 24187-F 1211 11 122.4 11.5 1 94
1147 04/21/00 485580 743895 24187-F 1212 8 107.3 10.4 8 90
1148 04/25/00 486080 743940 24187-F 1240 10 111.9 10.7 3 90
1149 04/25fOO 486400 743680 24187-F 1246 26 , 11.8 10.5 3 90
1150 04/25/00 486320 743765 24187-F 1245 35 114.6 10.0 6 92
1151 04/25/00 486200 743800 24187-F 1244 34 112.1 10.4 6 90
I
I
u
u
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ConverseConsultanls
CC1ENTlOFFICE\JOBFILE\2000\81 \00- 1 26\ TR24187 -F. fdl
3P
I
.
.... TABLE NO.'2 ...
. Field Density Test Results
Location . Approx.
rest Test Approx. Fill Below 0,>, Moist. Soli Camp- Remarks (900/. Req. Unless
No. Date Tract No. Test Elev. Test Density Content Type action Noted)
East West (ft) (pcij (0/.) (%)
. 1ft) .
1152 04/25/00 486065 743715 24187-F 1238 35 111.4 10.7 3 90
1153 04/25/00 486200 743720 24187-F 1241 38 115.2 11.4 5 90
1154 04/25/00 486260 743570 24187.F 1241 20 116.4 11.5 5 91
1155 04/25/00 486065 743540 24187-F 1239 30 115.1 10.8 5 91
1156 04/25/00 486400 743600 24187-F 1246 18 114.5 10.4 3 92
1157 04/25/00 486400 743725 24187-F 1246 26 111.5 10.2 3 90
1158 04/25/00 486265 743800 24187-F 1245 37 112.7 9.7 3 91
1159 04/25/00 486000 743800 24187.F 1237 35 114.3 10.8 3 92
1160 04/25/00 486100 743675 24187-F 1240 36 , 15.2 ".4 5 90
1161 04/25/00 486270 743600 24187-F 1241 25 118.9 9.2 5 93
1162 04/25/00 486100 743490 24187.F 1240 30 117.4 8.0 5 92
1163 04/25/00 486000 743600 24187.F 1239 39 114.7 10.8 5 90
1164 04/25/00 485890 743710 24187-F 1238 22 113.8 10.5 3 92
1165 04/25/00 485800 743850 24187-F 1237 7 116.6 8.0 5 91
1166 04/25/00 485350 743680 241B7.F 1220 3 117.6 6.1 5 92
1167 04/25/00 485470 743670 24187-F 1222 3 118.6 10.0 5 93
1168 04/25/00 485515 743510 24187-F 1223 10 116.0 8.5 5 91
1169 04/25/00 485400 743500 24187-F 1221 12 115.7 7.0 5 90
1170 04/25/00 485200 743500 24187-F 1218 5 116.4 9.2 5 91
1171 04/25/00 485000 743400 24187.F 1217 5 116.8 7.4 5 91
1172 04/25/00 485050 743530 24187.F 1216 12 113.1 7.5 3 91
1173 04/25/00 485130 743600 24187-F 1216 12 114.8 7.2 5 90
1174 04/25/00 485200 743700 24187-F 1215 5 120.2 7.7 5 94
1175 04/25/00 485070 743800 24187-F 1207 7 113.4 6.1 3 91
1176 04/25/00 485000 743690 24187-F 1205 15 120.7 7.7 5 94
1177 04/25/00 484950 743600 24187.F 1204 5 115.8 11.6 5 91
1178 04/25/00 485930 743600 24187-F 1238 38 118.1 10.4 5 92
1179 04/25/00 485840 743800 24187-F 1237 10 114.8 11.3 5 90
1180 04/25/00 485720 743800 24187-F 1229 5 114.6 8.3 5 90
1181 04/25/00 485800 743700 24187-F 1226 3 114.5 7.0 5 90
1182 04/25/00 485800 743660 24187-F 1226 3 112.8 9.5 6 91
As-Built Geology. Rough Grading Report, Geotechnical Design Construction Recommendation
Tract24167-F .
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communites
March27,2001
PageA-6
.
.
.
I
I
I
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Converse Consultants
CCIENT\OFFICE\JOBFILE\2000\61\OO-126\TR24167-F.fdt
;f\
I
I
As-Built Geology, Rough Grading Report, Geotechnical Design Construction Recommendation
Tract24187-F .
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communiles
March 27, 2001
PageA.9
I
TABLE NO:2
Field Density Test Results
LoCation . Approx..
Test Test ,Approx. Fill Below Ory Moist. Soli ' Camp- Remarks (90% Req. Unless
No. Date Tract No. Test Elev. Test Density Content Type action Noted)
East West (ft) (pel) ("Ie) (%)
(ft)
1183 04/25/00 485400 743625 24187-F 1222 3 114.5 7.0 5 90
1184 04/25/00 485520 743635 24187.f 1223 3 118.8 7.2 5 93
1185 Q4/25fOO 485565 743470 24187-F 1224 12 115.8 7.1 5 90
1186 04/25/00 485455 743500 24187-F 1222 12 111.6 10.7 3 90
1187 04/25/00 485330 743500 24187-F 1220 12 111.7 6.7 3 90
1188 Q4/25fOO 485250 743430 24187-F 1216 3 112.9 8.2 3 91
'189 Q4t25/00 485025 743480 24187-F 1217 5 , 14.6 7.1 5 90
1190 04/25/00 485075 743575 24187.F 1216 8 115.3 7.5 5 90
1191 04/25/00 485160 743665 24187.F 1216 7 116.7 7.2 5 91
1192 04/25/00 485200 743780 24187.F 1215 5 111.0 8.0 3 90
1193 04/25/00 485070 743715 24167-F 1206 6 111.1 10.6 3 90
1194 04/25/00 485000 743600 24187-F 1204 6 114.6 7.0 5 90
1195 04/25/00 484950 743540 24187-F 1203 5 118.4 8.0 5 93
1196 04/25fOO 484870 743500 24187.F 1202 5 111.4 9.5 6 90
1237 04/24/00 486366 743920 24187-F 1239 3 114.8 10.2 10 92
1238 04/24fOO 486270 743940 24187.F 1242 5 115.1 10.0 10 93
1239 04/24/00 486200 743935 24187-F 1244 34 113.4 10.4 8 95
1240 04/24/00 486535 743925 24187-F 1245 32 117.2 9.8 10 94
1241 04/24/00 486485 743905 24187-F 1245 34 109.4 11.9 8 92
1242 04/24/00 486420 743885 24187-F 1245 30 120.3 10.4 6 96
1243 04/24/00 486785 743845 24187.F 1246 25 109.6 11.4 8 92
1244 04/24/00 486145 743800 24187-F 1246 27 114.4 10.3 10 92
1245 04/24/00 486690 743755 24187-F 1246 20 105.1 10.6 8 88 Failed, See #1245
1245A 04/26/00 486690 743755 24187.F 1246 20 106.1 10.5 8 90 RT of #1245
1246 04/24/00 486670 743700 24187-F 1246 5 114.1 9.9 10 92
1247 04/24/00 486640 743650 24187.F 1246 3 120 10.3 6 96
1248 04/24/00 486630 743610 24187-F 1246 3 119.6 11.2 6 96
I
I
I
I
u
u
u
u
u
u
I
I
I
Notes:
RT: Retest
Test numbers not mentioned in this report are part of other report(s) previously published or will be published in future by Converse Consultants
I
I
I
ConverseConsullants
CCIENT\OFFICEWOBFILE\2000\B1\OO-126\TR24187.FJdt
1iZ'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
~
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology. Rough Grading Report.
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page B-1
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were conducted on representative samples of the site soils for the
purpose of evaluating physical properties and engineering characteristics. A brief
description of the test procedures and results are presented below:
Grain-Size Analvsis
The grain-size distribution covers the quantitative distribution of particle sizes in soils.
The particle distribution is used to aid in the classification of the soils. The results of the
gradation tests performed on representative samples of bulk and relatively undisturbed
ring samples are presented in Drawing No. B-1, Grain-Size Distribution.
Laboratory Maximum Densitv and Optimum Moisture Tests
Laboratory compaction tests were performed to determine maximum dry density and
optimum moisture contents of representative bulk samples of fill soils retrieved during
grading. These tests were performed in accordance with the ASTM Standard D1557-
91 Method. The results are presented in Table No. B-1, Summary of Laboratory
Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Tests. Results of compaction
tests are presented in Drawings No. B-2 through B-4, Compaction Test.
. uu,~ .w. B-1. Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Tests
Max Dry Optimum
Soil Type Soil Description Density Moisture Content
(pct) (%j
1 Silty Sand (8M), fine- to medium-grained, trace clay, dark brown 130.0 10.5
2 Sand (SP), fine- to medium-grained, trace coarse-grained sand and gravel, brown 132.0 7.5
3 Silty Sand (8M), fine- to medium-grained, some coarse-grained sand, dark brown 124.0 9.5
4 Silty Sand (8M), fine- to medium-grained, brown 129.0 9.0
5 Silty Sand (SM), fine-grained. brown 128.0 10.0
6 Clayey Sand (Se), fine. to medium- grained, some coarse, trace mica, brown 124.5 12.0
8 Sandy Silt (ML), fine-grained, trace mica, light brown 118.5 13.5
9 Silty Sand (SM), fine-grained. trace clay. light brown 120.0 14.5
10 Silty Sand (8M), fine-to medium-grained, trace coarse, brown 123.5 12.0
11 Silty Sand (8M), fine-to medium-grained, trace coarse, trace mica, brown 128.5 10.0
~
~ Converse Consuitants
CCI ENT\OFFICEIJOBFILE\2000\81 100-126100 126-5.asb
I
I
I
I
I
U
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology. Rough Grading Report.
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27. 2001
Page B-2
Direct Shear Tests
Direct shear tests were performed on remolded samples. These samples were
remolded at 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density and at or near optimum
moisture content. Individual ring samples were prepared and soaked prior to placing
into the shearing box. A pre-selected normal load was then was then applied. Each
ring was then sheared at a constant rate of strain. For each test, three (3) rings were
sheared at three different normal loads 0.5. 2.0 and 4.0 kips per square-foot. Results of
the tests are presented in Drawings No. B-5 and B-6, Direct Shear Test.
Consolidation Tests
Consolidation tests were performed on samples molded from bulk samples retrieved
from the lots. The remolded samples were prepared at 90 percent of the laboratory
maximum dry densities and at' or near optimum moisture contents. This test involved
loading an undisturbed ring or remolded ring sample into the test apparatus, which
contained a Porous stone at the bottom to accommodate vertical drainage during
testing. An additional Porous stone was then placed on top of the ring sample and a
seating load of 0.1 tons-per-square-foot (tsf). The sample was then allowed to stabilize
prior to increasing the vertical load to 0.5 tsf. The resulting deflections were recorded at
various time intervals. Additional loads were then applied in increments after the
sample reached a reasonable state of equilibrium under each load. The specimen was
submerged after the sample reached equilibrium at 2.0 tsf vertical load. Each sample
was loaded to a maximum of 8 tsf before unloading. Test results are presented in
Drawings No. B-7 and B-8, Consolidation Test.
Expansion Index (EI) Test
Representative samples of the pad soils were tested in accordance with CBC (1998)
evaluate their expansion potential. Test results are presented in Table No. B-2,
Expansion Index Test Results.
~
~ Converse Consuitants
CCI ENT\OFFICE\JOBFI LE\2000\81 \00-126\00126-5.asb
?f'\
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As-Built Geology, Rough Grading Report,
Geotechnical Design and Construction Recommendation
Tract 24187-F
Paseo Del Sol Master Planned Communities
March 27, 2001
Page B-3
Table No, B-2, Expansion Index Test Results
Sample Collection Lot Representative LoIs Expansion
No. Index Soil Classification
1 39 23 to 41 and 62 to 65 23 Silty Sand (SM) with clay
2 51 42 to 55, 69 and 70 0 Silty Sand (SM)
3 18 13 to 22. 56 to 61 and 56 to 68 11 Silty Sand (SM)
4 73 71 to 85 0 Silty Sand (SM)
5 3 1 to 12 and 86 to 92 6 Clayey Sand (SC)
Soil Corrosivitv Tests
Bulk samples of representative pad subgrade soils from the tract were retrieved and
tested for soil corrosivity. These tests were performed by M. J. Schiff and Associates,
Upland, California. Test results are included in the Appendix C, Corrosivity Study.
~
~ Converse Consultants
CCIENT\OFFICEIJOBFI LE\2000181 100-126100126-5.asb
}~
I
U
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
U
U
I
I
I
I
I
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200
HYDROMETER
10
6 3 1.5 314 316 . 14 20 40 60 140
I 1 , I , :( ~ I I I I I
,
~ . :1
., :1
,
\ :1
, \ I'~:
, \ 1\
:1\
, \
\
\
:~ \
, ,
, , \
I'
I, ,
I: \\
I: , ~
I:
I:
I: ,
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
>-
I
Q 60
w
;;:
>- 55
'"
c::
w 50
z
G:
>- 45
z
w
~ 40
w
a.
35
30
25
20
15
5
o
100 10 1 0.1
GRAIN SIZE IN MilLIMETERS
0.01
0.001
COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY
coarse I fine coarse I medium I fine
Sample No. Depth (ft) Description LL PL PI Cc Cu
. 1 0-5' CLAYEY SAND (SCI
IZI 2 0-5' SILTY SAND ISM)
"" 3 0-5' SILTY SAND (SM)
* 4 0-5' SILTY SAND (SM)
0 5 0-5' CLAYEY SAND (SC
Sample No. Depth (ft) 0100 060 030 010 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay
. 1 0-5' 4.75 0.781 0.249 0.0 84.9 15.1
IZI 2 0-5' 4.75 0.27 0.0 68.3 31.7
"" 3 0-5' 2.36 0.72 0.247 0.0 74.5 12.6
* 4 0-5' 2.36 0.218 0.0 57.3 38.6
0 5 0-5' 2.36 0.26 0.0 57.6 37.5
I GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION RESULTS
~ Project Name . Project No.
~ Converse Consultants TR. 24187- F 00-81-126-50
I ~ . Temecula, California
Drawing No.
B-1
Jj.p
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
o
:1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I~
I~
150
145
140
135
130
125
13
c.
,:
f-
en 120
z
w
0
>-
'"
0 115
110
105
100
95
90
o
Curves of 1 00% Satu alion
for Specific Gravity E .uaJ to:
5
10
30
15
WATER CONTENT. %
20
25
ASTM OPTIMUM MAXIMUM DRY
SYMBOL SAMPLE NO. DEPTH (ft) DESCRIPTION TEST METHOD WATER, % DENSITY. pel
. Soil Type 1 0-5' SILTY SAND (SM) A 10.5 130
IZI Soil Type 2 0-5' SILTY SAND (SM) A 7.5 132
... Soil Type 3 0-5' SILTY SAND (SM) A 9.5 124
* Soil Type 4 0-5' SILTY SAND (SM) A 9 129
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP RESULTS
Converse Consultants
Project Name
TR. 24187- F
Temecula, California
. Project No.
00-81-126-50
V"
Drawing No.
B-2
I
U
U
U
I
U
U
I
I
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Ii)
I
150
GUlves of 100% Satu ation
for Specific Gravity E 'uar to:
145
140
135
130
125
13
Q.
,:
f-
~ 120
w
o
>-
'"
o 115
110
105
100
95
gO
o
5
10
15
WATER CONTENT, %
20
25
30
ASTM OPTIMUM MAXIMUM DRY
SYMBOL SAMPLE NO. DEPTH (ft) DESCRIPTION TEST METHOD WATER, % DENSITY. pcf
. Soil Type 5 0-5' SILTY SAND (SM) A 10 128
III Soil Type 6 0-5' CLAYEY SAND (SM) A 12 124.5
'" Soil Type 8 0-5' SANDY SILT (ML) A 13.5 118.5
* Soil Type 9 0-5' SILTY SAND (SM) A 14.5 120
.
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP RESULTS
Converse Consultants
Project Name
TR. 24187- F
Temecula, California
Project No.
00-81-126-50
Drawing No.
B-3
~
II
I
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I~
95
Curves of 100% Satu ation
for Specific Gravity E .ua[ to:
150
145
140
135
130
125
13
"-
,:
....
~ 120
UJ
o
>-
~
o
115
110
105
100
90
o
5
10
15
WATER CONTENT. %
20
25
30
ASTM OPTIMUM MAXIMUM DRY
SYMBOL SAMPLE NO. DEPTH (ft) DESCRIPTION TEST METHOD WATER, % DENSITY. pel
. Soil Type 10 0-5' SILTY SAND (SM) A 12 123.5
I1l Soil Type 11 0-5' SILTY SAND (SM) A 10 128.5
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP RESULTS
Converse Consultants
Project Name
TR. 24187- F
Temecula, California
. Project No.
00-81-126-50
Drawing No.
B-4
~
o
I
I
I
I
U
U
U
U
I
U
U
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I~
4,000
3,000
-
"'
"-
I
l-
e>
z
w
0:
t; 2,000
0:
;li
I
en
1,000
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
NORMAL PRESSURE. psI
SAMPLE NO. 1 DEPTH (ft) : 0-5'
DESCRIPTION : SILTY SAND (SM)
COHESION (psn : so FRICTION ANGLE (degrees): 35
MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 12.1 DRY DENSITY (pet) 113.0
NOTE: 0-5'
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Converse Consultants
Project Name
TR. 24187- F
Temecula, California
Project No.
00-81-126-50
Drawing No.
8-5
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
I
! U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I~
4,000
3,000
-
~
C-
o:
l-
e>
z
w
'"
t; 2,000
'"
~
W
I
rfl
1,000
o
o
SAMPLE NO.
DESCRIPTION
COHESION (psfj
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
NOTE:
1,000
2,000
NORMAL PRESSURE. psi
5
DEPTH (ft)
3,000
4,000
0-5'
31
20.8
SILTY SAND (SM)
150
FRICTION ANGLE (degrees):
10.6
DRY DENSITY (pel)
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Converse Consultants
Project Name
TR. 24187- F
Temecula, California
. Project No.
00-81-126-50
Drawing No.
B-6
'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I~
;F.
u -----.. ---..
r-----.. r--
r------ I'---,
~ r----,
"- --
....
----- ~
5
0
5
0
z
~
>-
(I)
1
2
100
1,000
10,000
10'
STRESS. ks!
SAMPLE NO. 2
DESCRIPTION : SILTY SAND (SM)
MOISTURE DRY DENSITY
CONTENT (%) (pel)
INITIAL 11 114.8
FINAL 15.63 120.1
DEPTH (ft)
0-6'
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
2.65
PERCENT
SA TURA TION
VOID
RATIO
67
100
0.437
0.373
NOTE:
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Converse Consultants
Project Name
TR. 24187- F
Temecula, California
~
. Project No.
00-81-126-50
Drawing No.
B-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I~
""
o
U --... t----.
--............ --...
--.., '--
h-.....
'----- ------.,
r----..
1'---]'-.
5
'-
'---- t---.-.. ~
....
.
0
5
0
z
- 1
C2
f-
III
1
2
100
10,000
105
1,000
STRESS. ksf
SAMPLE NO. : 5
DESCRIPTION: CLAYEY SAND (SC)
MOISTURE DRY DENSITY
CONTENT (%) (pet)
INITIAL 11 114.8
FINAL 15.63 120.1
DEPTH (ft)
0-5'
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
PERCENT
SATURATION
2.65
VOID
RATIO
67
100
0.437
0.373
NOTE:
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Converse Consultants
Project Name
TR. 24187- F
Temecula, California
"fb
Project No.
00-81-126-50
Drawing No.
B-8
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
I
I
'.
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
I
APPENDIX C
CORROSIVITY STUDY
Aft
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
M.J. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
1308 Monte Vista Avenue, Suite 6
Upland, CA 91786
Phone: (909)931-1360 I Fax: (909)931-1361
E-mail: mjsa@mjs-a.com
http://www.mjs-a.com
March 13, 2001
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS
10391 Corporate Drive
Redlands, California 92374
Attention:
William Chu
Re: Soil Corrosivity Study
Tract 24187-F
Your #00-81-126-50, MJS&A #01-0208HQ
INTRODUCTION
Laboratory tests have been completed on two soil samples you provided for the referenced single
family housing project. The purpose of these tests was to determine if the soils may have
deleterious effects on underground utility piping and concrete foundations. We assume that the
samples provided are representative of the most corrosive soils at the site.
The scope of this study is limited to a determination of soil corrosivity and general corrosion control
recommendations for materials likely to be used for construction. If the architects and/or engineers
desire more specific information, designs, specifications, or review of design, we will be happy to
work with them as a separate phase of this project.
TEST PROCEDURES
The electrical resistivity of each sample was measured in a soil box per ASTM G57 in its as-
received condition and again after saturation with distilled water. Resistivities are at about their
lowest value when the soil is saturated. The pH of the saturated samples was measured. 5:1 water:
soil extract from each sample was chemically analyzed for the major soluble salts commonly found
in soils and for ammonium and nitrate. Test results are shown on Table 1.
CORROSION AND CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS. FAILURE ANALYSIS. EXPERT WITNESS. CORROSIVITY AND DAMAGE AsSESSMENTS
AP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS
MJS&A#01-0208HQ
March 13,2001
Page 2
SOIL CORROSIVITY
A major factor in detennining soil corrosivity is electrical resistivity. The electrical resistivity of a
soil is a measure of its resistance to the flow of electrical current. Corrosion of buried metal is an
electrochemical process in which the amount of metal loss due to corrosion is directly proportional
to the flow of electrical current (DC) from the metal into the soil. Corrosion currents, following
Ohm's Law, are inversely proportional to soil resistivity. Lower electrical resistivities result from
higher moisture and chemical contents and indicate corrosive soil.
A correlation between electrical resistivity and corrosivity toward ferrous metals is:
Soil Resistivity
in ohm-centimeters
Corrosivity Category
mildly corrosive
moderately corrosive
corrosive
severely corrosive
over
2,000 to
1,000 to
below
10,000
10,000
2,000
1,000
Other soil characteristics that may influence corrosivity towards metals are pH, chemical content,
soil types, aeration, anaerobic conditions, and site drainage.
Electrical resistivities were in moderately corrosive category with as-received moisture and when
saturated. The as-received resistivities are at the saturated values.
Soil pH value was 7.1 for both samples. This value is neutral and does not particularly increase soil
corrosivity.
The soluble salt content of the samples was low. No concentration was high enough to be of
particular concern.
Ammonium and nitrate were detected but in low concentrations that would not be corrosive to
copper.
Tests were not made for sulfide and negative oxidation-reduction (redox) potential because these
samples did not exhibit characteristics typically associated with these conditions.
This soil is classified as moderately corrosive to ferrous metals, not particularly aggressive to
copper, and sulfate attack on concrete as negligible.
b.;~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS
MJS&A #01-0208HQ
March 13,2001
Page 3
CORROSION CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS
The life of buried materials depends on thickness, strength, loads, construction details, soil moisture,
etc., in addition to soil corrosivity, and is, therefore, difficult to predict. Of more practical value are
corros!on control methods that will increase the life of materials that would be subject to significant
corrosIOn.
Steel Pipe
Abrasive blast underground steel piping and apply a dielectric coating such as polyurethane,
extruded polyethylene, a tape coating system, hot applied coal tar enamel, or fusion bonded epoxy
intended for underground use.
Bond underground steel pipe with rubber gasketed, mechanical, grooved end, or other
nonconductive type joints for electrical continuity. Electrical continuity is necessary for corrosion
monitoring and cathodic protection.
Electrically insulate each buried steel pipeline from dissimilar metals and metals with dissimilar
coatings (cement-mortar vs. dielectric), and above ground steel pipe to prevent dissimilar metal
corrosion cells and to facilitate the application of cathodic protection.
Apply cathodic protection to steel piping as per NACE International RP-0169-96.
As an alternative to dielectric coating and cathodic protection, apply a 3/4 inch cement mortar
coating or encase in cement-slurry or concrete 3 inches thick, using any type of cement.
Iron Pipe
Cast and ductile iron piping do not require special protective measures such as a plastic wrap.
However, to avoid possibly creating corrosion problems, iron should not be placed partially in
contact with concrete such as thrust blocks. Use a dielectric coating as described above for steel or
use 8 mil thick linear, low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) plastic sheets per AWWA ClOS to
prevent such contact. Electrically insulate underground iron pipe from dissimilar metals and above
ground iron pipe with insulating joints.
Copper Tube
Bed and backfill bare copper tubing for cold water in sand at least two inches thick around the
tubing. Hot water tubing may be subject to a higher corrosion rate. Protect hot copper by applying
cathodic protection or preventing soil contact. Soil contact may be prevented by placing the tubing
above ground or inside a plastic pipe. The amount of cathodic protection current needed can be
minimized by coating the tubing.
Plastic and Vitrified Clay Pipe
No special precautions are required for plastic and vitrified clay piping placed underground from a
corrosion viewpoint. Protect any iron fittings with a double polyethylene wrap per AWWA CIOS.
Protect any iron valves with wax tape after assembly.
A,1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS
MJS&A#01-0208HQ
March 13,2001
Page 4
All Pipe
On all pipes, coat bare steel appurtenances such as bolts, joint harnesses, or flexible couplings with
wax tape after assembly.
Where metallic pipelines penetrate concrete structures such as building floors, vault walls, and
thrust blocks use plastic sleeves, rubber seals, or other dielectric material to prevent the pipe from
contacting the concrete and/or reinforcing steel.
Concrete
Any type of cement may be used for concrete structures and pipe because the sulfate concentration
is negligible, 0 to 0.1 percent, per 1997 UIriform Building Code (UBe) Table 19-A-4 and American
Concrete Institute (ACI-318) Table 4.3.1.
Standard concrete cover over reinforcing steel may be used for concrete structures and pipe in
contact with these soils.
CLOSURE
Our services have been performed with the usual thoroughness and competence of the
engineering profession. . No other warranty or representation, either expressed or implied, is
included or intended.
Please call if you have any questions.
Respectfully Submitted,
MJ. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Reviewed by,
fj~~~ ~l ~
--~'-
,,/i /J ;.\ _P +
.~?';/Jtu:i~
Adrineh A. Avakian
Paul R. Smith, P.E.
Enc: Table I
4.~
I
M. J. Schiff & Associates, Inc.
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
I
I
I
I
Sample ID
I
I
Resistivity
as-received
saturated
pH
I
Electrical
Conductivity
I
I
I
I
bicarbonate
chloride
sulfate
I
Other Tests
ammonium
nitrate
I
sulfide
Redox
1308 Monte Vista Avenue, Suite 6
Upland, CA 91786-8224
Phone: 909/931-1360
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Tr 24187-F
Your #00-81-126-50, MJS&A #01-0208HQ
13-Mar-Ol
Units
ohm-em
ohm-em
2,200
2,200
7.1
mS/cm
0.04
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium Ca2+
magnesium Mg2+
sodium Nal+
Anions
carbonate
mglkg
mglkg
mglkg
16
NO
NO
CO,'" mglkg
RCO,I- mglkg
CII- mglkg
sot mglkg
NO
49
NO
NO
mglkg
mglkg
qual
mv
1.2
4.2
na
na
NH.I+
NO/-
S'-
I
EEH0h?fI?YFg:;;'k151;;;;;S;uT*,~~h@f!ll14=;;
'" ''''''''',,,,,;,,,,-,,,,,,, -- ~~- = ,==
Lot 39-#1
0-5'
5,900
5,900
7.1
0.03
NO
NO
11
NO
31
NO
ND
1.5
6.4
na
na
~46;;o;
~~:--":^0b%zfW0'i?:fh'lilif;]0;Hf;3'-"'''h''0 "'-!1<<H!S;<i2;i}1~
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract.
mglkg ~ milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
NO ~ not detected
na = not analyzed
I
I
I
I
Page I of I
2\'\-