HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3552 Lot 77 Rough Grading
I~
'- ,': - A :;i - - .
.. ",'. ",.1
1..._..~,,::m;'~I~~"' 'GEN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
7R3~
Lo-l- 77
Coq~oration
. SoilEngineeringandConsullingServices. EngineeringGeology. CompattionTesting
-Inspections. Construction MalerialsTesting . LaboraloryTesling. PercolalionTesting
eGeologyeWaterResourceStudies .Phasel&IIEnvironmentaISileAssessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TeST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Minegar Residence
John Warner Road and Cabrillo Avenue
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T1610-C
Permit Number: lD99-051GR
August 9, 1999
RECE\VED
DEe - 8 1999
CITY OF TEMECULA _
ENGINEER1NG DEPARTMEN
Prepared for:
1&, ,~0,
/I'~ " \
"'-'"
"
Minegar Contracting
27705 Commerce Center Drive
~=-secula, California 92590-0879
,/ ---
/'
/
_/
"
~
"
~ " I _
~ / '- ~" -'
I -: ,,_ _ _ \ ,-
~ \' - / \-
~ '- -' -_ I
'/ .... - ~ / ... ~,."" -' / .... ~ ~ I _' _ ,. / -.. ~, I _'
F' ". \_ __ \ '" I .-' \_ __ \ -," ~ , ,. \_ __ \ __",' I ..- ,_ __ \ .r' '- '" I /"
~ \~_-; ,/:: \ ~ \~_~~~~ :"-~~-lr'-~-:"''::'_~F-'-:_~'::'_'' '- -
~ ~ , ,-,"":--~-'l! 11
, ;..'" c, ;'~ ",:- '. '11 ' " .. II It ~I
E@~ptf~~. rt '~~~"T1!ffieCUla,TA-92590""bhon";J~Q~t91~3095 ..faxc(909) 676:3294'
I :E2.6].!i,Q):a'n'seA e ue,S~ot"',!,,oa,(;A 92707 . phone: (714) 546-4051 . fax: (714) 546-4052
Ea SITE:WWW.NENCORP.COM ; E-MAil: ENGENCORi.@I.E.NE..---
.~
',' .... ,,/-
I " \ _ _ _ \
" - \ '\' -/
~ '- ,,--
\
n"r:! ;c,:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
Minegar Contracting
Project Number: T1610-C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE
PAGE
1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION......................~......................................1
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION................................................................................................. 1
1.2 PROJeCT DESCRiPTION.................,..........................................................................1
1.3 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................1
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ....................................................................................................2
2.1 TIME OF GRADING ...................................................................................................2
2.1 CONTRACTOR AND EaUIPMENT.................................................................................2
2.2 GRADING OPERATIONS .........................................................:..................................2
3.0 TESTING ................................................................................................................. 2
3.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES...................................................................................2
3.1.1 LABORATORY TESTING.....,.....,..,.........,..,..,................................................3
3.1.2 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST....................................................3
3.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST.................. ...., ......... ..... .......................... ............................ 3
4.0 EARTH MATERIALS .................................................................................................. 3
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................... 3
5.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................3
5.2 FOUNDATION SIZE ...................................................................................................3
5.3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT................................,...........................................................4
5.4 BEARING CAPACITY .... ..... .......... ................. ..... ... ..... .......... .......................... ...... ......4
5.5 SETTLEMENT........................................................................................................... 4
5.6 LATERAL CAPACITY ................................................................................................. 4
5.7 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................5
5.8 INTERIOR SLABS.... ........... ............................................... .........,... .................. ......... 5
5.9 EXTeRIoR SLABS..................................................................................................... 6
5.10 GENeRAL ........................................................................................................6
6.0 CLOSURE................................................................................................................ 6
ApPENDIX
TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
"2.J
I~
~ ...... '.' . ...-
"-." <:- - ,." _ ',.1'-' ,'.' ..~
1 ''':::'',"'' '::;'~I'. ,GEN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COrRoration
-Soil Engil18eringandConsulting Services. EngineeringGeology. Compaction Tesling
-lnspections-ConslruclionMaterialsTesling- LaboraloryTeslill!l-PercolalionTesling
. Geology. Water Resource Studies . Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
August 9, 1999
Minegar Contracting
27705 Commerce Center Drive
Temecula, California 92590-0879
(909) 699-4898 / FAX (909)699-3598
Attention:
Mr. Pete Minegar
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Minegar Residence, John Warner Road and Cabrillo Avenue
City of Ternecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Nurnber: T1610-C
Permit Number: lD99-051GR
References:
1.
EnGEN Corporation, Geotechnical Study, Proposed Residential Structure,
lot 77 of Tract 3552, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California,
Project Number: T1610-GSSP, report dated March 2, 1999.
Markharn and Associates, Precise Grading Plan and Erosion Control Plan
for: Minegar Residence, Lot 77 of Tract 3552, M,8, 56/63-66, Assessor's
Parcel Number: 922-150-022, dated June 23,1999.
2.
Dear Mr. Minegar:
According to your request and signed authorization, EnGEN Corporation has performed field
observations, sampling, and in-place density testing at the above referenced site. Submitted, herein,
are the test results and the supporting field and laboratory data.
1.0
1.1
SITElPROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
PROJECT lOCATION
The subject site consists of approximately 5 acres, located south of the intersection of John
Warner Road and Cabrillo Avenue, in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California.
1.2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Prior to grading operations, topography and surface conditions of the site were relatively
I flat with sUrface,dr,age to the west at gradient of less than 2 percent.
~~~~ \SITE DESCRIPTIO(~ _ o-~j/_ _. . ." /
r ',. Present plapscall for a single family resi~~nce with slab o~ grade concrete floors.
""'" - "'~ ~ . -, .
/ "- ~"I_'
" \ - - - \ .-
- ," -
\ \,' " ,,\ '\ "I
::: '- " -- J _ ,,'" -- I
I " \ I ~ I, ,I I / \ f ~ I ,_
~i~'~2~~f~~Il~~
- ( .
/ " '" -
J / \ _ _ _ \ /
",' " ~.r I _ /,..... "" _ '/ '- '" / _' _ ' "/ " ,,~I _' _ "'-" "I _" _ ",'
, ." ,_ __ \ ~ I -' \_ __ \ '" I /" \_ __ \ .--"" I " \_ __ \ ,,'" , " \_ ~_ \ ~'" , "
: ~ \ ,\' - / I ',- \ ~ \' - / ;~ : ~ \ ~,\' _ -: 1-' ;~.:_~; ~~-~"::'''':_-;~-:/_'-=:'_~:-'--'-;'
~ -- I "" ~- I ' ~ .
-~...L. .:..~" ,_ - . -~~Ir- -- ..
.It." rt It'
E te'i>[I~~I~N rt _)",i,;iei\,ectila;"tAc92s90-411one:.(90~J67.[-3095-'fax: (909)'676'3294'->-' ..
I :8~:2615:Q[alTg~A e ue, SahtiFAna. CA 9:2707 . phone: (7141546-4051 . fax: 17141546-4052 ~
108 SITE: WWW. N ENCciRP.GOM-.~E.MAIL:ENGENCORP@PE.NET..- ~-
,
.. ': I' ;r-.... '-~f" ..."
, ! '.:
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
Minegar Contracting
Project Number: T1610-C
August 1999
Page 2
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
2.1 TIME OF GRADING
This report represents geotechnical observations and testing during the construction
operations from June 28, 1999 through July 9,1999.
2.1 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT
The grading operations were performed by Herschel H. lackey and Sons through the use
of one (1) track-rnounted dozer, one (1) self loading scraper, and one (1) water truck.
2.2 GRADING OPERATIONS
Grading within the subject site consisted of an overexcavation, replacement and import fill
operation. Grasses and weeds were removed prior to fill placement. Fill material was
generated from the 33425 Monte Verde, Temecula (import site) and used to bring the
building pad and driveway portions of the site to finish grade elevation. Removal of
alluvium, slopewash, etc" was performed in the residence and garage pad to depths
ranging from 1 to 3 feet below original elevation and to a distance of 5,0-feet outside the
proposed structure. The depth of fill in the subject pad ranges from 3 to 6 feet below finish
grade elevation. Over-excavated earth material was stockpiled and later used as fill.
Bottoms were observed, probed and found to be into competent soil by a representative of
this firm. The exposed bottoms were scarified and moisture conditioned to a depth of 12-
inches then compacted to 90 percent. Fill was placed in lens thicknesses of 4 to 6-inches,
thoroughly moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, then compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Moisture conditioning of the on-site soils was
performed during the compaction process, through the use of a water truck. The pad area
was generally graded to the elevations noted on the Grading Plan. However, the actual
pad location, dimensions, elevations, slope locations and inclinations, etc, were surveyed
and staked by others and should be verified by the Project Civil Engineer.
3.0 TESTING
3.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES
Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed in general accordance
with ASTM-D-2922-81 (90) and ASTM-D-3017-88 procedures for determining in-place
density and moisture content, respectively, using nuclear gauge equipment. Relative
compaction test results were within the 90 percent required for all material placed and
cornpacted. Test results are presented in the Appendix of this report. Fill depths and test
locations were determined from review of the referenced grading plans.
~
EnGEN Corporation
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Minegar Contracting
Project Number: T1610-C
August 1999
Page 3
3.1.1 LASORA TORY TESTING
The following laboratory tests were performed as part of our services during the grading of
the subject site. The test results are presented in the Appendix of this report.
3.1.2 MOiSTURE,DENSITY RELATiONSHiP TEST
Maximum dry density - optimum moisture content relationship tests were conducted on
samples of the rnaterials used as fill. The tests were performed in general accordance with
ASTM D1557-91 procedures. The test results are presented in the Appendix (Surnmary of
Optirnum Moisture Content I Maximum Dry Density Relationship Test Results).
3.2 EXPANSiON INDEX TEST
A soil sample was obtained for expansion potential testing from the building pad area upon
cornpletion of rough grading of the subject site. The expansion test procedure utilized was
the Uniform Building Code Test Designation 18-2. The material tested consisted of brown
silty sand, which has an Expansion Index of O. This soil is classified as having a very low
expansion potential. The results are presented in the Summary of Expansion Index
Results in the Appendix of this report.
4.0 EARTH MATERIALS
The natural earth materials encountered on-site, generally consisted of brown, sandy silt
with clay. The imported earth materials placed on the site as fill, generally consisted of
brown, silty sand.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 FOUNDATiON DESiGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional column footings and
continuous wail footings founded upon properly compacted fill. The recommendations
presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and construction are based
on geotechnical characteristics and a very low expansion potential for the supporting soils
and should not preclude more restrictive structural requirements. The Structural Engineer
for the project should determine the actual footing width and depth to resist design vertical,
horizontal, and uplift forces.
5.2 FOUNDATiON SIZE
Continuous footings should have a minirnum width of 12-inches. Continuous footings
should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of one (1) NO.4 steel reinforcing bar
located near the top and one (1) NO.4 steel reinforcing bar (s) located near the bottom of
EnGEN Corporation
~
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
Minegar Contracting
Proiect Number: T1610-C
August 1999
Page 4
the footings to rninimize the effects of slight differential movements which may occur due to
minor variations in the engineering characteristics or seasonal moisture change in the
supporting soils. Column footings should have a minimum width of 18-inches by 18-inches
and be suitably reinforced, based on structural requirements. A grade beam, founded at
the same depths and reinforced the same as the adjacent footings, should be provided
across garage door openings and other doorway entrances,
5.3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT
Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill should extend to a
minirnum depth of 12-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for single story structures
and 18-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for two-story structures.
5.4 BEARING CAPACITY
Provided the recornmendations for site earth work, minimum footing width, and minimum
depth of embedrnent for footings are incorporated into the project design and construction,
the allowable bearing value for design of continuous and column footings for the total dead
plus frequently-applied live loads is 1,500 psf for continuous footings and 1,500 psf for
column footings in properly compacted fill material. The allowable bearing value has a
factor of safety of at least 3.0 and may be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of
live and/or dynarnic loading such as wind or seismic forces.
5.5 SETTLEMENT
Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values for continuous and
column footings, respectively, and the maximum assumed wall and column loads are not
expected to exceed a maximum settlement of 0.5-inches or a differential settlement of
0.25-inches in properly compacted fill.
5.6 LATERAL CAPACITY
Additional foundation design parameters based on compacted fill for resistance to static
lateral forces, are as follows:
Allowable lateral Pressure
(Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Compacted Fill - 150 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
Compacted FiII- 0.3
EnGEN Corporation
~
II
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Minegar Contracting
Project Number: T1610-C
August 1999
Page 5
Lateral load resistance may be developed by a combination of friction acting on the base of
foundations and slabs and passive earth pressure developed on the sides of the footings
and stem walls below grade when in contact with undisturbed, properly, compacted fill
material. The above values are allowable design values and have safety factors of at least
2.0 incorporated into them and may be used in combination without reduction in evaluating
the resistance to lateral loads, The allowable values may be increased by 33.3 percent for
short durations of live and/or dynamic loading, such as wind or seismic forces. For the
calculation of passive earth resistance, the upper 1 ,O-foot of material should be neglected
unless confined by a concrete slab or pavement. The maximum recommended allowable
passive pressure is 5.0 times the recommended design value.
5.7 SLAB-oN-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS
The recomrnendations for concrete slabs, both interior and exterior, excluding PCC
pavement, are based upon the anticipated building usage and upon a very low expansion
potential for the supporting material as determined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniforrn Building
Code, Concrete slabs should be designed to minimize cracking as a result of shrinkage.
Joints (isolation, contraction, and construction) should be placed in accordance with the
American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. Special precautions should be taken during
placement and curing of all concrete slabs. Excessive slurnp (high water/cement ratio) of
the concrete and/or improper curing procedures used during either hot or cold weather
conditions could result in excessive shrinkage, cracking, or curling in the slabs. It is
recommended that all concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be performed in
accordance with ACI recommendations and procedures.
5.8 INTERIOR SLABS
Interior concrete slab-on-grade may be a minimum of 4-inches nominal in thickness and be
underlain by a properly prepared subgrade. Slab reinforcement may consist of 6 gauge
wire mesh (in sheets), supported on cement blocks for proper placement.
The reinforcing should be placed at mid-depth in the slab. The concrete section and/or
reinforcing steel should be increased appropriately for anticipated excessive or
concentrated floor loads. In areas where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated
over the slab, we recommend the use of a polyethylene vapor barrier with a minimum of
6.0 mil in thickness be placed beneath the slab. The moisture barrier should be overlapped
or sealed at splices and covered by a 1.0-inch minimum layer of clean, rnoist (not
saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures.
EnGEN Corporation
\'
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Minegar Contracting
Project Number: T161 D-C
August 1999
Page 6
5.9 EXTERIOR SLABS
All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks, etc., with the
exception of PCC pavement) should be a minimum of 4-inches nominal in thickness.
Reinforcing in the slabs and the use of a compacted sand or gravel base beneath the slabs
should be according to the current local standards. Subgrade soils should be moisture
conditioned to at least optimum moisture content to a depth of 6,0-inches and proof
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D1557-91
procedures imrnediately before placing aggregate base material or placing the concrete.
5.10 GENERAL
Based on the observations and tests performed during grading, the subject site in the
areas noted has been completed in accordance with the Referenced No. 1 Geotechnical
Study, or as amended in the field base on conditions encountered, the project plans, the
project plans and the Grading Code of the City of Temecula. The graded site in the areas
noted as graded is determined to be adequate for the support of a typical residential
development. Any subsequent grading for development of the subject property should be
perforrned under engineering observation and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation.
Subsequent grading includes, but is not limited to, any additional fill placement and
excavation of ternporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN
Corporation should observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be made
prior to installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel so as to verify and/or rnodify,
if necessary, the conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations of
overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement
subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other earth work
completed for the development of subject site should be performed by EnGEN
Corporation. If any of the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions
are not performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the safety and performance of the
developrnent is limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by
EnGEN Corporation.
6.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described above.
It mayor may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes. The findings
and recommendations expressed in this report are based on field and laboratory testing
performed during the rough grading operation and on generally accepted engineering
EnGEN Corporation
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Minegar Contracting
Project Number: T1610-C
August 1999
Page 7
practices and principles. No further warranties are implied or expressed beyond the direct
representations of this report.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services. If you should have any questions
regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
EnGEN ~or~tion
~DG'~~
Field Operations Manager
JDG/OB:ch
Distribution: (4) Addressee
FILE: EnGENlReporting/Crr1610C Minegar Contracting. Rough Grading
EnGEN Corporation
~
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
APPENDIX
TEST RESULTS
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS)
(NUCLEAR GAUGE TEST METHOD)
Minegar Contracting
Project Number. T1610-C
Appendix Page 1
ITest
No.
1
12
3
I:
6
17
18
9
110
111
12
I
I
1
1
I
Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
Date Test Locations Elev. Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
(1999) (FT) (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%)
6-28 House Pad 1030' A1 123.0 14.5 110.9 90.2 90
6-28 House Pad 1029' A1 123.0 15.9 112.8 91.7 90
6-28 Tennis Court 1033' A1 123.0 8.3 114.6 90.7 90
6-28 Tennis Court 1032' A1 123.0 10.1 116.6 94.8 90
7-2 House Pad 1032' A1 123.0 6.2 111.6 90.8 90
7-2 House Pad 1032' A2 127.4 5.6 117.3 92.1 90
7-9 W. Tennis Court 1034' A1 123.0 5.4 114.6 93.1 90
(F,G.)
7-9 E. Tennis Court 1034 A2 127.4 6.3 123.7 97.1 90
(F. G.)
7-9 S. House Pad 1034' A2 127.4 6.5 118.4 92.9 90
(F. G.)
7-9 N. House Pad 1034' A1 123.0 7.6 112,0 91.0 90
(F. G.)
7-9 W. Garage Pad 1032' A1 123.0 5.0 115.7 94.1 90
(F. G.)
7-9 E. Garage Pad 1033' A1 123.0 5.6 113.0 92.4 90
(F.G.)
(F.G.) Indicates Finish Grade.
EnGEN Corporation
\0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Minegar Contracting
Project Number: T1610-C
Appendix Page 2
SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT I
MAxiMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS
ASTM D1557-91
Optimum
Soil Maximum Moisture
Soil Description Dry Density Content
Type (USCS Symbol) (PCF) (%)
A1 Dark Brown, Silty Sand (SM) 123.0 10.8
*A2 Brown, Silty Sand (SM) 127.4 9.8
.Imported Material.
SUMMARY OF ExPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
Soil
Type
Depth
(FT)
Dry Density
(PCF)
Moisture
Condition Before
Test (%)
Moisture
Condition After
Test (%)
Expansion
Index
1
1.5
115.8
7.9
13.2
o
EnGEN Corporation
\\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Minegar Contracting
Project Number: T1610-C
Appendix Page 3
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
rV