HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 22208 Lot 4 Grading & Compaction
.
.
John R. BlIErlll
I N COR P 0 RAT E D
GRADING OBSERVATION AND FILL COMPACTION REPORT
.
'.
...
.
.
.
.
NEW RESIDENCE
LOT 4 OF TRACT NO, 22208
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
BRAD PETERSON
RECEIVED
APR 1 0 2003
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS. TESTING AND INSPECTION
2257 South Ulac Ave" Bloomington, CA 92316-2907
Bloomington (909) 877-1324 Riverside (909) 783-1910 Fax (909) 877-5210
\
.
John R. BlIErl~
I N COR P 0 RAT E D
.
April 10, 2003
.
Brad Peterson
30520 Rancho California Road, Suite 107146
Temecula, California 92591
Rpt No,: 3488
File No,: S-10537
.
Project:
New Residence, Lot 4 of Tract No, 22208, Southwest Corner of Rycrest Drive
and Windwood Circle, Temecula, California
Subject: Grading Observation and Fill Compaction Report
Reference: Geotechnical Update, John R Byerly, Inc" Rpt No, 2969, December 6, 2002
.
Dear Mr. Peterson:
.
Presented herewith is the report of our grading observation and soil testing conducted during
grading for a new single-family residence at the project site, In our opinion, the grading was
performed in accordance with the applicable geotechnical requirements of the Uniform Building
Code and the referenced geotechnical update report,
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service, Should there be questions, please contact our
office, (909) 877-1324,
,
.
,
ohn R Byerly, Geotechnical Engineer
.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN R. BYERLY, INC.
JRB:CL:kd
.
Enclosures: (1) Grading Plan
(2) Density Test Data
(3) Expansion Test Data
Copies: (4) Client
.
.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS. TESTING AND INSPECTION
2257 South Lilac Ave" Bloomington, CA 92316-2907
Bloomington (909) 877-1324 Riverside (909) 783-1910 Fax (909) 877-5210
.
John R. B~Erll.t
INCORPORATED
,.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.'.
SECTION
PAGE NO,
Project Description"""""""..,......,.."""""""""""""""""""""""""",..""".." 1
.
Scope of Services ...... ......,...................., .............., ,........ ........ ,.. ........,.... ,........,
1
. Conclusions""""",..."""""""..,."""""".."""""""..,.."""",..""".....""",..",.. 1
Recommendations"""",.....""".."....."."",."..,."""""..,....""",.."",..,..""""". 2
.
Foundation Recommendations .."", "..., ....,..""..", ,." '" """'" ..".", ..,..,.. 2
Lateral Loading"""..,..,.."""...""""".."""""",.,..""",..,.."".."""."""" 3
Concrete Slab-On-Grade Recommendations ......................................, 4
.
Discussion Section,........"",......."""......""""..."""""......,.."..,......""""."""" 4
Observations"",....""""...,.,.."",...",.."",..""""".""""",."""""....""" 4
.
Field and Laboratory Tests .......................................,........................,.. 5
References,...""".,...."""..,."""""..."",.....,..""..."""",...,.""":".."",.,...."",,. 5
.
.
.
.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS. TESTING AND INSPECTION
2257 South Ulac Ave" Bloomington, CA 92316-2907
Bloomington (909) 877-1324 Riverside (909) 783-1910 Fax (909) 877-5210
1--
.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
.
.
The site is located at the southwest corner of Rycrest Drive and Windwood Circle in the city of
Temecula, Development of the site will include construction of a single-family residence,
associated driveway, and landscaping, The building and general site configurations are shown
on the attached map, Enclosure 1,
SCOPE OF SERVICES
i.
.
During April 4 through April 7, 2003, a representative of John R Byerly, Inc. observed
(non-continuously) the grading performed to construct the building pad at the project site.
To support his observations, relative compaction tests were performed on surfaces prepared to
receive fill and at varying elevations within the fill soils, In addition, representative soil samples
were obtained and returned to our laboratory for maximum density/optimum moisture and
expansion potential determinations,' The purposes of our observations and tests were:
.
1. To observe that the grading contractor prepared the existing ground surface, including
subexcavation and removal of existing artificial fill, in substantial conformance with the
geotechnical recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical report;
.
2. To ascertain the moisture content and degree of compaction during natural ground
preparation and fill placement;
3, To determine the expansion potential of typical on-site soils; and
.
4, To provide foundation design recommendations and additional geotechnical engineering
recommendations as needed,
.
CONCLUSIONS
.
Based on our observations and tests, the fills at the site were compacted to a relative
compaction of at least 90 percent Test data indicate the soils on the building pad exhibit a
"very low" expansion potential as defined on Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Code.
1
.
Rpt No,: 3488
File No.: S-10537
?
.
.
In our opinion, the site grading was performed in accordance with the applicable geotechnical
requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the referenced geotechnical update report,
Accepted engineering and testing procedures were employed to evaluate the preparation of the
natural ground surface and the placement and compaction of the fill. We do not undertake the
guarantee of the construction, nor do we relieve the contractor of his primary responsibility to
produce a completed project conforming to the project plans and specifications,
.
RECOMMENDATIONS
.
I
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundation design recommendations for the residential structure are as follows:
.
.
1, To preclude footings spanning from cut to fill, building footings should extend through the
fill and bear entirely on competent natural soil. Competent natural soil is defined as
undisturbed material exhibiting a relative compaction of at least 85 percent
(ASTM D 1557). Based on our review of the grading plan, the footings along the north
side of the residence will need to extend approximately 3 feet below finish grade to
penetrate the fill soil. A representative of the geotechnical engineer should inspect the
foundation soils exposed in the footing excavations to verify the suitability of the
foundation basal soils prior to concrete placement
.
2, Footings should be at least 12 inches wide and placed at least 12 inches below the
lowest final adjacent grade,
.
3. Footings should be designed for a maximum safe soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds
per square foot for dead plus live loads, This value may be increased by 1/3 for wind
and seismic loading.
.
4, Continuous footings should be reinforced with at least two NO.4 bars, one placed near
the top of the footing and one near the bottom - structural considerations may require
additional reinforcement
.
2
I.
I
Rpt No.: 3488
File No,; S-10537
t\
.
.
5, Footings should be set back from the face of all fill slopes a horizontal distance equal to
1/3 the vertical slope height with a minimum setback of at least 5 feet The face of the
proposed structures should be set back from the toe of all cut slopes a horizontal
distance equal to at least 1/2 the vertical slope height but need not exceed 15 feet
(Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, Figure 18-1-1),
.
6, For footings designed as described above, we would anticipate a maximum settlement
of 1 inch and a maximum differential settlement slope of 1 :850.
.
LATERAL LOADING
Recommendations for lateral loading design criteria are listed below:
.
1. Unbraced retaining walls supporting horizontal backfill should be designed to support an
equivalent active fluid pressure of 35 pounds per square foot of depth exclusive of
surcharge loads, Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by passive earth pressure
and basal friction.
..
.
2, For footings bearing against competent bedrock or compacted fill, passive earth
pressure may be considered to develop at a rate of 350 pounds per square foot per foot
of depth.
it
3. Basal friction may be computed at 0,4 times the normal dead load, Basal friction and
passive earth pressure may be combined directly without reduction. These values may
be increased by 1/3 for wind and seismic loading.
4, Backfill placed within 5 feet of the retaining walls should be granular soil exhibiting an
expansion index of less than 21.
.
5, Retaining walls should be provided with a subdrain system or weep holes and one cubic
foot of gravel behind each weep hole,
.
3
.
Rpt No,: 3488
File No,: S-10537
~
.
CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS
.
Concrete slab-on-grade design recommendations are listed below, The slab-on-grade
recommendations assume underlying utility trench backfills and building pad subgrade soils
have been compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent (ASTM D 1557),
.
1. The building slab-on-grade floor should be at least 3,5 inches thick - structural
considerations might require a thicker slab,
.
2. Slabs to receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings should be underlain with a moisture
retardant membrane, such as 10-mil visqueen or equivalent.
.
3, A 2-inch layer of clean sand (SE>30) should be placed over the visqueen to promote
uniform setting of the concrete, To minimize moisture vapor transmission through the
slab, excess moisture should not be allowed to accumulate in the sand blanket prior to
concrete placement.
.
4, There are no geotechnical conditions requiring the reinforcement of building slabs.
.
5, We recommend a maximum water-cement ratio of 0.65 for all slab concrete - where
moisture-sensitive floor coverings are anticipated, a lower water-cement ratio may be
required to reduce concrete porosity and moisture vapor transmission,
DISCUSSION SECTION
.
OBSERVATIONS
.
Organic matter was stripped from the natural ground surface, and the strip pings were removed
from the construction site, Surfaces to receive fill were scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches,
moistened to the approximate optimum moisture content, and compacted to a relative
compaction of at least 90 percent (ASTM D 1557). Fill was then placed in maximum
8-inch-thick lifts, each lift moistened to approximately the optimum moisture content, and
compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent (ASTM D 15557).
.
4
.
Rpt. No.: 3488
File No,: S-10537
4-
.
FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS
.
.
A total of 3 in-place density tests were taken by either the sand cone (ASTM D 1556) or nuclear
gauge (ASTM D 2922) method during the grading, The approximate locations of the
compaction tests are shown on the attached map, Enclosure 1. Compaction test results are
summarized on Enclosure 2, In addition to the field tests, a representative bulk sample of the fill
soil was returned to the laboratory for determination of the optimum moisture/maximum density
and expansion index. The results of the maximum density and expansion tests are shown on
Enclosures 2 and 3, respectively,
.
REFERENCES
.
(a) Geotechnical Investigation, John R Byerly, Inc" File No. S-8976, Rpt No, 5266-A,
June 16, 1998
.
(b) Report of Off-Site Grading, John R. Byerly, Inc" File No. S-8976, Rpt No. 6795,
July 6, 1999
(c) Geotechnical Update, John R Byerly, Inc., File No. S-10537, Rpt. No, 2969,
December 6, 2002
.
..
.
I.
I
5
.
Rpt. No.: 3488
File No.: S-10537
"\
.
.
~
N
I
.
h-
. .
.
-
.
......
it
'..
~
/_ _ Ol=- _ 3)) \
----"'I _ _______./ . \
Enclosure 1 16
Rpt No,: 3488
File No.: S-1053i
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
!!
m
r-
o
)>
z
o
>
Dl
o
~
o
;0
-<
-I
m
III
-I
o
~
)>
"tI
;0
o
'-
m
(')
::I
Z
(1)
::;:
;0
(1)
III
c:
(1)
:J
"
(1)
o
~
m
)>
"0
::l.
~
o
'"
o
o
'"
s:o
~~
3:S:
c:C:
s:S:
oS:
mo
z-
III III
_-I
::;!C:
.,;0
m
~
-I
s:
o
...
(J1
(J1
.....
s:
CD
...
::T
o
C.
)>
III
o
r-
-I
-<
"tI
m
(')
r-
)>
III
!!!
"Tl
n
~
o
z
o
"tI
:::!
s:
c:
s:
s:
o
Cii
-I
c:
;0
m
~
~
o
~
s:
~
~
c:
s:
o
~
o
m
z
III
::;!
~
'C
l"l
.::!l
)>
OJ
~
o
::;:
:J
"
OJ
'<
ct>
'<
::.
:J
(1)
...
o
3
(1)
c.
c'
3
III
OJ
:J
0.
Cil
o
~
~
~
o
~
'"
:"l
o
(')
o
s:
"tI
l=;
:::!
o
Z
-I
m
III
-I
o
~
)>
zm'
~ III
...
r-
o
l"l
III
...
o'
::::l
~1Il
'Co
CD ==
m
0-
...CD
-I~
C'D ~
!!l.o
::::l
m "Tl
iD G) 5'
< ... _.
III III en
::t.Q.~
o CD CD
::::l C.
~o
"tICDO
0;-,
~ -.'<
~
(')s:
~oo
~::::J -.
o ... en
~CD'"
::::l l:
...(jl
(')
0;0
3 CD
-::0" Dr
-, III ...
o l"l _.
~ ...<
o' CD
::::l
-1-1
'<CD
'C!!l.
CD
;0
CD
3
III
...
:><'
en
Cil
(1)
(1)
OJ
...
iii
()
::T
(1)
C.
"0
0-
...
"0
OJ
::::l
~
'" ...
0 0
)>!!l.)>)>!!l.
CD CD
0 0
- ...
~--1-,"-,"--1
.....lo. CD .....lo. .....lo. CD
....lr.~.....lo.....lr.~
~CI) 0l0l(/)
iD;'iDiD;'
- :i>;
.....
- -
0 0
'" '"
... ~~
~ ...~
... ... ...
UI UlO>
iD <o~
~ ~...
~ ~...
:I>- .....0>
UI '-..l~
co ex> co
0 '-..li-v
co coco
0 "''''
CIl zz
'"
Z
o
...
~
ZCIl
C. 0.
CD CD
:J :J
o 0
coco
III III
:J III
C OJ
" :J
(1)0.
OJ ()
~ 0
"':J
m CD
3m
CD'"
s:~
OCll
c.-I
-S;:S:
CIlo
-I~
S:UI
OUl
0>
"'~
co
'"
'"
OJ
:J
C.
o
'"
o
~
-:::!
'Q
T1;om
=';"'0 ::J
CD=-Q.
zzg
9 9 c
.. .. CD
CIl"''''
'.j:>.
"'OJ
~OJ
'"
.....
.
.
.
EXPANSION INDEX TEST DATA
.
Project: New Residence
Date: April 10, 2003
Test Method:
UBC Standard No, 29-2
.
Compaction Classification
Sample Moisture Dry Density Expansion of Expansion
Location Soil Type Content (%) (pct) Index Potential
. Building pad A 8.2 114.2 15 Very low
.
.
.
.
.
.
Enclosure 3
Rpt. No.: 3488
File No.: 8-10537
\<5