HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3646 Lot 2 Compaction Test Results Rough Grading
I /'A ,-,
~
I - '~,!:~!~:; ';GEN
~/ltJ~-ab~
Cor~oration
-Soil EnllineerinllandConsultingServices-EngineeringGeOlogy. Compaction Testing
-Inspections- COllStructionMaterialsTesting -laboratoryTes1inll-PercolationTesling
e Geology. Waler Resource Studies -Phasel & II Environmenlal Site Assessments
I
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NElWORK
-:rR 3~1~ 10 1" d-
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Hollowell Residence
29234 Vallejo Avenue
Lot 2, Tract 3646
Assessor's Parcel Number: 922-190-013
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2583-C
June 14, 2002
I
I
I
I
I
Prepared for:
RECEIVED
JUL 2 3 2002
em OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMEN1'
I
Mr. and Mrs. Edward Hollowell
26489 Ynez Road, Suite 221
'~~mecula, California 92590
, .
, '
'/ ... ,-
I .-" \ _ _ _ \
,,- "-
~ / '- ,~
,- -- \
, -
-. ,
, '
( ,
, '
( ,
-
\ ~ "' "
,. '
, ' -
, !
,
~ - - , \
- ... 'I
I \ I ,
! -
"
-' __ i
~ __ i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Edward Hollowell
Project Number: T2583-C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE
PAGE
1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ......................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................ ............. ...............................1
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................. ................................. ................1
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........ ............................... ................ ............. .....2
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ..............................................................................................................2
2.1 TIME OF GRADING... ............................................... ..............2
2.2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT ................................. .....................................................2
2.3 GRADIN'G OPERATIONS......................................................................................................2
3.0 SLOPE STABILITY. .... ... ...... .............. ................. .......................... ........ ... ... ......... ...... ..........3
3.1 FILL SLOPES .......................... ............................................. ............. ............................3
3.2 CUT SLOPES.....................................................................................................................3
4.0 TESTING ........... .... ..................... ........... ... .................. ................ ...... ..... ... ............ ... ..........3
4.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES ............................................................................................3
4.2 LABORATORY TESTING......................................................................................................3
4.2.1 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST ....................................................4
4.2.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST .............................................................................4
4.2.3 SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST ............................................................................4
4.2.4 PLASTICITY INDEX........................................... ...........................................4
5.0 EARTH MATERIALS ............................................................... ........ ................. ............... ....4
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ................... .........................4
6.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... ............ ....................4
6.2 FOUNDATION SIZE ...... ..................................................................... ........... ....................5
6.3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT .....................................................................................................5
6.4 BEARING CAPACiTY........................................................................................................ ...5
6.5 SETTLEMENT .................................................................................................................... 6
6.6 LATERAL CAPACiTY............................... ......................................................................... ...6
6.7 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................6
6.8 INTERIOR SLABS...................................... ......................................................................... 7
6.9 EXTERIOR SLABS ................................................................................... ................ .7
6.10 GENERAL ........................................................................ ..................... ..........7
7.0 CLOSURE ............. ...... ....... .......................................... ............. ...... ........ .:............. ... ........8
ApPENDIX
TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
~
I~
I .7. .,....~........'.;GEN
,.,...., '.1;.'iJ..l..O..U.i..,,-.....,~:_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Coq~oration
. Soil Engineering aIld Consulling Sel'lices -EngineeringGeology.CompaclionTesting
-lnspeclions.ConstructionMaterialsTesting. LaboraloryTestil1\l.PercolalionTesting
-Geology . Water Resource Studies . Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NElWORK
June 14, 2002
Mr. and Mrs. Edward Hollowell
26489 Ynez Road, Suite 221
Temecula, California 92590
(909) 698-7840 I FAX (909) 461-9390
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Hollowell Residence
29234 Vallejo Avenue
Lot 2, Tract 3646
Assessor's Parcel Number: 922-190-013
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2583-C
References:
1.
EnGEN Corporation, LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL STUDY, Proposed Single
Family Residence, 29234 Vallejo Avenue, Lot 2, Tract 3646, Assessor's Parcel
Number: 922-190-013, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California,
Project Number: T2583-LGS, report dated June 6, 2002.
Manning Enginee"ring, Erosion Control and Grading Plan, Hollowell
Residence, Lot 2 of Tract 3646, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, plans
undated.
2.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hollowell:
Pursuant 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
SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject site consists of approximately 3 acres, located east
Vallejo Avenue and La Paz Avenue, in the City of Temecula,
California.
of the intersection of
County of Riverside,
1.2
"'-
\
\
SITE DESCRIPTION
Prior to grading operations,' topography and surface conditions of the site were gently
sloping with surface drainage to the soutneast at a gradient of less than five percent.
~
- / ~ " -....
'" -.. ~,
. I __ \ _ .. _ \
" .... ,,/ _'" _... ~ ,. I _' _
... \ - \ '"" <' I ~
~ / .... "
I/"\ _ _ _ \
, -
, '
, .
,- -- \--
. - -
, '
- ,
" -- - I
" ,
-' -- J
/ .:-..::.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Edward Hollowell
Project Number: T2583-C
June 2002
Page 2
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
It is understood that the subject site is to be developed with a single family residence with
raised wood joist floors supported on pier footings, with associated driveway as well as
hardscape and landscape improvements.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
2.1 TIME OF GRADING
This report represents geotechnical observations and testing during the construction
operations from May 23. 2002 through June 5, 2002.
2.2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT
The grading operations were performed by the property owner through the use of one (1)
650 loader and one (1) vibratory sheepsfoot compactor.
2.3 GRADING OPERATIONS
Grading within the subject site consisted of a cut/fill operation and an overexcavation and
replacement operation. Grasses and weeds were removed prior to fill placement. Fill
material was generated from the northwest portions of the site, and used to bring the
middle portions of the site to finish grade elevation. Removal of alluvium, slopewash, etc.,
was performed to a depth of 8-feet below original elevation. Overexcavated earth material
was stockpiled and later used as fill. Bottoms were observed, probed and found to be into
competent bedrock by a representative of this firm. Keying and benching into competent
bedrock was observed during the grading operations. Overexcavation was performed in
the cut portion of the building pad to a depth of 5-feet below finish grade elevation and to a
distance of 10-feet outside the proposed structure. The exposed bottoms were scarified
and moisture conditioned to a depth of 12-inches then compacted to 90 percent. Fill was
placed in lens thicknesses of 6 to 8-inches, thoroughly moisture conditioned to near
optimum moisture content, then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative
compaction. Moisture conditioning of the on-site soils was performed during the
compaction process, through the use of a 3-inch hose. 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. It should be noted that the
house location was moved approximately 37-feet south of the proposed location due to the
presence of unsuitable alluvial soils within the footprint of the initial structure location.
EnGEN Corporation
bt
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Edward Hollowell
Project Number: T2583-C
June 2002
Page 3
3.0 SLOPE STABILITY
3.1 FILL SLOPES
All design fill slopes were constructed in substantial accordance with the plans at a slope
ratio of approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). It is our opinion that the fill slopes as
constructed possess gross and surficial stability in excess of generally accepted minimum
engineering criteria (Factor of Safety at least 1.5) and are suitable for their intended
purpose, provided that proper slope maintenance procedures are maintained. These
procedures include but are not limited to installation and maintenance of drainage devices,
and planting of slope faces to protect from erosion in accordance with City of Temecula
Grading Codes. The maximum height of fill slope covered in this report is seven (7) feet.
3.2 CUT SLOPES
All cut slopes were constructed in substantial accordance with the plans at a slope ratio of
approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The cut slopes were surficially inspected by the
Project Geologist and consist of Pauba Formation. No adversely oriented joints or planes
of weakness were observed during our inspection. It is our opinion that the cut slopes as
constructed possess gross and surficial stability in excess of generally accepted minimum
engineering criteria (Factor of Safety at least 1.5) and are suitable for their intended
purpose. The maximum height of cut slope covered in this report is seven (7) feet.
4.0 TESTING
4.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES
Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed in general accordance
with ASTM D 2922-96 and ASTM D 3017-96 procedures for determining in-place density
and moisture content, respectively, using nuclear gauge equipment. Relat!ve compaction
test results were within the 90 percent required for all material tested, which is an indication
that the remainder of the fill placed has been properly compacted. Test results are
presented in the Appendix of this report. Fill depthS and test locations were determined
from review of the referenced grading plans.
4.2 LABORATORY 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,
EnGEN Corporation
s
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Edward Hollowell
Project Number: T2583-C
June 2002
Page 4
4,2,1 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
Maximum dry density - optimum moisture content relationship tests were conducted on
samples of the materials used as fill. The tests were performed in general accordance with
ASTM D 1557-91 (1998) procedures. The test results are presented in the Appendix
(Summary of Optimum Moisture Content/Maximum Dry Density Relationship Test Results).
4.2.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST
A soil sample was obtained for expansion potential testing from the building pad area upon
completion of rough grading of the subject site. The expansion test was performed in
accordance with ASTM D 4832-95, The material tested consisted of brown clayey sand,
which has an Expansion Index of 66. This soil is classified as having a medium expansion
potential. The results are presented in the Appendix (Summary of Expansion Index Test
Results).
4,2.3 SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST
Soil samples were obtained for soluble sulfate testing from the building pad areas upon
completion of grading of the subject site. The concentration of soluble sulfate was
determined in general accordance with California Test Method 417 procedure::;. The test
results were not available at the writing of this report. When the results become available,
they will be forwarded to you.
4,2.4 PLASTICITY INDEX
Liquid limit and plastic limit testing was performed on samples of the material used as fill.
The tests were performed in general conformance with ASTM D 4318-98 procedures. The
material tested has a Plasticity Index of 19. The results are presented in the Appendix
(Summary of Plasticity Index Test Results).
5.0 EARTH MATERIALS
The natural earth materials encountered on-site generally consisted of silty to clayey sand
that way dry to moist and medium dense in-situ.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional continuous wall
footings and pier footings tied with grade beams founded upon properly compacted fill.
The recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and
construction are based on geotechnical characteristics and a medium expansion potential
EnGEN Corporation
<'c.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Edward Hollowell
Projecl Number: T2583-C
June 2002
Page 5
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 based on the following results of
inspection and material testing:
Expansion Index: 63
The following seismic design parameters apply:
Type of Fault: Type B Fault
Closest Distance to Active Fault: 0,3 miles
Soil Profile Type: SD
6.2 FOUNDATION SIZE
Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches. Continuous footings
should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of two (2) No. 4 steel reinforcing bars
located near the top and two (2) NO.4 steel reinforcing bars located near the bottom of the
footings to minimize the effects of slight differential movements which may occur due to
minor variations in the en9ineering 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. Any interior isolated pier
footings should be tied together with a 12-inch by 12-inch minimum grade beam reinforced
with two (2) NO.4 steel reinforcing bars on top and two (2) NO.4 steel reinforcing bars on
the bottom.
6.3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT
Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill should extend to a
minimum depth of 18-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for the structure. The
foundations should be founded in properly compacted fill with a minimum of 24-inches of
compacted fill below the bottom of the footings.
6.4 BEARING CAPACITY
Provided the recommendations for site earth work, minimum footing width, and minimum
depth of embedment for footings are incorporated into the project design and construction,
the allowable bearing value for design of continuous and column footings for the total dead
EnGEN Corporation
1-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Edward Hollowell
Project Number: T2583-C
June 2002
Page 6
plus frequently-applied live loads is 1,500 psf for continuous footings and 1,500 psf for
column footings in properly compacted fill material. The allowable bearing value has a
factor of safety of at least 3.0 and may be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of
live and/or dynamic loading such as wind or seismic forces.
6.5 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-inch or a differential settlement of 025-
inch in properly compacted fill.
6.6 LATERAL CAPACITY
Additional foundation design parameters based on compacted fill for resistance to static
lateral forces, are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Compacted Fill - 150 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
Compacted Fill- 0.30
Lateral load resistance may be developed by a combination of friction acting on the base of
foundations and slabs and passive earth pressure developed on the sides of the footings
and stem walls below grade when in contact with undisturbed, properly, compacted fill
material. The above values are allowable design values and may be used in combination
without reduction in evaluating the resistance to lateral loads. The allowable values may
be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading, such as
wind or seismic forces. For the calculation of passive earth resistance. the upper 1.0-foot
of material should be neglected unless confined by a concrete slab or pavement. The
maximum recommended allowable passive pressure is 5.0 times the recommended design
value.
6.7 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations for concrete slabs, both interior and exterior, excluding PCC
pavement, are based upon the anticipated building usage and upon a medium expansion
potential for the supporting material as determined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code. Concrete slabs should be designed to minimize cracking as a result of shrinkage.
Joints (isolation. contraction, and construction) should be placed in accordance with the
American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. Special precautions should be taken during
EnGEN Corporation
i)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs, Edward Hollowell
Projecl Number: T2583-C
June 2002
Page 7
placement and curing of all concrete slabs. Excessive slump (high water/cement ratio) of
the concrete and/or improper curing procedures used durin9 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. Slab-on-grade reinforcement and
thickness should be provided by the Structural Engineer in accordance with Section 5.1 of
this report,
6.8 INTERIOR SLABS
Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4-inches in actual thickness and
be underlain by a minimum of 2.0-inches of clean coarse sand or other approved granular
material placed on properly prepared subgrade. Minimum slab reinforcement should
consist of No. 3 reinforcing bars placed 18-inches on the center in both directions or a
suitable equivalent.
The reinforcing should be placed at mid-depth in the slab. The concrete section and/or
reinforcing steel should be increased appropriately for anticipated excessive or
concentrated floor loads. In areas where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated
over the slab, we recommend the use of a polyethylene vapor barrier with a minimum of
6.0 mil in thickness be placed beneath the slab. The moisture barrier should be overlapped
or sealed at splices and protected top and bottom by a 1.G-inch minimum layer of clean,
moist (not saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures.
6.9 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 9ravel base beneath the slabs
should be according to the current local standards. Subgrade soils should be moisture
conditioned to at least 5 percent above optimum moisture content to a depth of 18-inches
immediately before placing the concrete.
6.10 GENERAL
Based on the observations and tests performed during grading, the subject site, in the
areas noted as test locations, has been completed in accordance with the 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
EnGEN Corporation
q
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Edward Hollowell
Project Number: T2583-C
June 2002
Page 8
subsequent grading for development of the subject property should be performed under
engineering observation and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Subsequent
grading includes, but is not limited to, any additional fill placement and excavation of
temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN Corporation should
observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be made prior to installation of
concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel so as to verify and/or modify, if necessary, the
conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations of overexcavation cuts, fill
placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement subgrade and base
course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other earth work' completed for the
development of subject site should be performed by EnGEN Corporation. If any of the
observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions are not performed by
EnGEN Corporation, liability for the safety and performance of the del1elopment is limited
, to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by EnGEN Corporation.
7.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described above.
It mayor may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes. The findings
and recommendations expressed in this report are based on field and laboratory testing
performed during the rough grading operation and on generally accepted engineering
practices and principles. No further warranties are implied or expressed beyond the direct
representations of this report.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services. If you should have any questions
regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
EnGEN Corporation
JPK/OB:hh
Distribution: (4) Addressee
FILE: EnGEN/Reporting/CfT2583-C Hollowell, Rough Grading
EnGEN Corporation
\0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Edward Hollowell
Project Number: T2583-C
Appendix Page 1
APPENDIX:
TEST RESULTS
v\
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Edward Hollowell
Project Number: T2583-C
Appendix Page 2
I (5. G.) = Subgrade / (F. G.) = Finish Grade
Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
I Test Date Test Locations Elevation Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
No. (2002) (FT) Type (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%)
I A 05-29 Bottom of Overexcavation 1006 A2 121.3 14.7 113.4 93.5% 85.0%
1 05-30 Pad Area 1009 A2 121.3 9.3 118.6 97.8% 90.0%
2 05-30 Pad Area 1010 A2 121.3 7.5 118.4 97.6% 90.0%
I 3 05-30 Pad Area 1010 A2 121.3 8.1 113.9 93.9% 90.0%
B 05-30 Bottom of Overexcavation 1005 A1 133.2 7.8 117.6 88.3% 85.0%
I 4 05-31 Pad Area 1012 A2 121.3 9.2 112.6 92.8% 90.0%
5 06-03 Pad Area 1014 A2 121.3 10.5 110,2 90.8% 90.0%
6 06-04 Pad Area 1014 A2 121.3 8.6 110.2 90.8% 90.0%
I 7 06-05 Pad Area F.G. A2 121.3 11.2 112.6 92.~% 90.O%
06-05 Pad Area F.G. A2 121.3 12.1 111.7 92.1% 90.0%
8
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(Summary of Field In-Place Density Test Results)
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EnGEN Corporation
\Z-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Edward Hollowell
Project Number: T2583-C
Appendix Page 3
SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557-91 (1998)
Soil Description (USCS Symbol) Soil Type Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture Content
Density (PCF) (%)
Silty Sand, Brown (SM) A1 133.2 8.2
Silty Sand, Brown (SM) A2 121.3 12.8
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4832-95
Dry Moisture Moisture
Condition Condition Expansion
Soil Type Depth (FT) Density Before Test After Test Index
(pcf) (%) (%)
E-1 -1 112.4 9.9% 24.5% 63
EnGEN Corporation \D
, I
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Edward Hollowell
Project Number: T2583-C
Appendix Page 4
APPENDIX:
DRAWINGS
\~
EnGEN Corporation