HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3883 Lot 496 Rough Grading
:~EN
Corporation
-Soil EngineeringandConsulting5ervices-Engine€rlngGeology .CompaclionTestinij
-lnspections-ConSlruClionMaterialsTesting-laboraloryTesling.Percolalion Testing
-Geology . Water Resource Studies . Phasel&IIEnvilonmentalSiteAssessmenls
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
.
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Assessor's Parcel Number: 919-323-003
Lot 496 of Tract 3883, 30839 Del Rey Road
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
LD98-114GR
Project Number: T1574-C
I
December 18, 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Prepared for:
'.
I
Mr. Joe Krieger
3095 San Francisco Avenue
_, Long Beach, California 90806
"
\
, '
1'// " ,/ \....
~ - - I
"/ .... ~,I _
, ,- \ - - ~ \
"' - ," -
,
~ '- ~ - -_ I
, ,
" ,
, '
-' -.- \ - -- :: ~
, ,
,\' -/ \-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Mr. Joe Krieger
Project Number: T1574-C
SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE
PAGE
1.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ....................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION .................... ............................................................................1
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION. ............ ...... ........ ............ ......... ...... ... ...... ....... ..... ... ... ....... ...1
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ........i...........................................................................................2
2.1 TIME OF GRADING ................................................................................................... 2
3.0 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 2
3.1 GRADING OPERATIONS............................................................................................ 2
4.0 TESTING.......... ..................................................... .................... ...... ........................3
4.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES...................................................................................3
4.1.1 LABORATORY TESTING ..............................................................................3
4.1.2 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST ..............:....................................3
4.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST...........................................................................................3
4.3 EARTH MATERIALS.................................................................................................. 3
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................3
5.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... .............................3
5.2 FOUNDATION SiZE................................................................................................... 4
5.3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT............................................................................................ 4
5.4 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................... 4
5.5 INTERIOR SLABS............. ......................................................................................... 5
5.6 EXTERIOR SLABS.................................................................................................... 5
5.7 BEARING CAPACITY ................................................................................................. 5
5.8 LATERAL CAPACITY .................................................................................................5
6.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................6
6.1 EARTH PRESSURES ................................................................................ ................. 6
6.2 FOOTING DESiGN.......... .......................................................................................... 6
6.3 SUBDRAIN............................................................................................................... 6
6.4 BACKFILL ............................................................................................................... 6
6.5 GENERAL............................................................................................................... 7
7.0 CLOSURE ............................................................................................................8
ApPENDIX
TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
z.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
.." . .'., ,,:. .... . EN Corporation
.SoiIEngineeringandConsultin!lServices.Engineeri~Geology.CompactionTesting
-lrlSpeclions.ConslruclionMalerialsTesling.laboraloryTesting_Percolalion Testing
e Geology. Water Resource Studies . Phase I &11 Environmental Site Assessmenls
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
December 18, 1998
Mr. Joe Krieger
3095 San Francisco Avenue
Long Beach, California 90806
(562) 427-2646
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Assessor's Parcel Number: 919-323-003
Lot 496 of Tract 3883, 30839 Del Rey Road
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
LD98-114GR
Project Number: T1574-C
References: 1. EnGEN Corporation, Soils Report, Single Family Residence, Assessor's
Parcel Number: 919-323-003, 30839 Del Rey Road, Meadowview area, City
of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Project Number: T1574-LGS,
report dated November 24, 1998.
2. Bratene Construction and Engineering, Precise Grading Plan, Krieger
Residence, 30839 Del Rey Road, City of Temecula, County of Riverside,
California, plan dated September 14,1998, sheet G1.
Dear Mr. Krieger:
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 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The subject property is located southeast of the intersection of Del Rey Road and Avenida
Buena Suerte, 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
moderately sloping with surface drainage towards the west at gradients ranging from 10 to
\ '.
. 25 percent.
, '
- ~ / ... J' I ~' _ /
" ~ I ~ \ _ _ _ \ "' ... ~ I " \_
,,' ~ : \ ,\' - / _ ~' : ~~ J
I _' _
\ ,,'" I
~ / "'- ~,/ - -
..- \ - - - \.-"' '" I
. - '
'/ " ? ~
i .-' \ \"
\ "',' - / 1-
, ,
, ' -
, '
~ -- I
.";q.;r:':<l'.---
ENCoe~COM.~ E_M~:~:-E~~~~~I~~~tt~~~~~l~~~~:;~==T~=~
:,_"",,*,M~ ;:::~~_'."l c-':---'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
'.
I
Mr. Joe Krieger
Project Number: T1574-C
December 1998
Page 2
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
2.1 TIME OF GRADING
This report represents geotechnical observations and testing during the construction
operations from November 23, 1998 through December 2, 1998.
.
3.0 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT
The grading operations for the house pad were performed by One Tractor Doze-It-AII
through the use of one (1) John Deere 550 track mounted dozer, one (1) track mounted
loader, and a water hose attached to a hydrant.
3.1 GRADING OPERATIONS
Grading within the subject site consisted of a cut/fill operation. Grasses and weeds were
removed prior to fill placement. Fill material was generated from the cuts made in the
higher elevations of the site, and used to bring the driveway and front yard area of the site
to finish grade elevation. Removal of alluvium, slopewash, etc., was performed to depths
ranging from 1 to 2 feet below original elevation. Excavated earth material was stockpiled
and later used as fill. Keying and benching into competent bedrock was observed during
the grading operations. No over-excavation of the house footprint area was performed
since actual natural grades in the higher elevations did not exactly match the topography
contours, resulting in only a small corner (northwest) of the living area being in fill. The
remainder of the building area is in cut. No over-excavation was necessary in the garage
area since it was entirely in cut. The exposed bottoms of all areas to receive fill 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 hose. The pad area was generally
graded to the elevations noted on the Grading Plan. A small vertical cut was made along
the south property line for the construction of the retaining wall. A stockpile of soil was left
at the top of the driveway, to be used for retaining wall backfill. However, the actual pad
location, dimensions, elevations, slope locations and inclinations, etc. were surveyed and
staked by others and should be verified by the Project Civil Engineer.
EnGEN Corporation ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Joe Krieger
Project Number: T1574-C
December 1998
Page 3
4.0 TeSTING
4.1 FIELD TeSTING PROCEDURES
Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed in general accordance
with the ASTM-D-2922-81 (90) and ASTM-D-3017-88 procedures for determining in-place
.
density and moisture content, respectively, using nuclear gauge equipment. Relative
compaction test results were within the 90 percent required for all material placed and
compacted. Test results are presented in the Appendix of this report. Fill depths and test
locations were determined from review of the referenced grading plans.
4.1.1 LABORATORY TESTING
The following laboratory tests were performed as part of our services during the
compaction operations for the subject project. The test results are presented in the
Appendix of this report.
4.1.2 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TeST
Maximum dry density - optimum moisture content relationship tests were conducted on
samples of the materials used as fill. The tests were performed in general accordance
with ASTM D1557-91 procedures. The test results are presented in the Appendix of this
report under the Summary of Optimum Moisture Content I Maximum Dry Density
Relationship Test Results.
4.2 EXPANSION INDex TEST
A soil sample was obtained for expansion potential testing from the building pad area
upon completion of rough grading of the subject site. The expansion test procedure
utilized was the Uniform Building Code Test Designation 18-2. The material tested
consisted of silty sand, which has an Expansion Index of 8. This soil is classified as a
very low expansion potential. The results are presented in the Summary of Expansion
Index Results in the Appendix of this report.
4.3 EARTH MATERIALS
The natural earth materials encountered on-site 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 footing and
continuous wall footings founded upon properly compacted fill or sound bedrock.. The
EnGEN Corporation
-s
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Joe Krieger
Project Number: T1574-C
December 1998
Page 4
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 .Jertical, horizontal, and uplift forces.
5.2 FOUNDATION SIZE
Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches. Continuous footings
should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of one (1) No.4 steel reinforcing bar
located near the top and one (1) NO.4 steel reinforcing bar located near the bottom of the
footings to minimize the effects of slight differential movements which may occur due to
minor variations in the engineering characteristics or seasonal moisture change in the
supporting soils. Column footings should have a minimum width of 18-inches by 18-
inches and be suitably reinforced, based on structural requirements. A grade beam,
founded at the same depths and reinforced the same as the adjacent footing, should be
provided across garage door openings and other doorway entrances.
5.3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT
Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill should extend to a
minimum depth of 12-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for the structure.
Perimeter footings in the northwest corner of the house will need to be deepened to rest in
sound natural ground. Exact depth of embedment will be determined during footing
excavation.
5.4 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 very low expansion
potential for the supporting material as determined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code. Concrete slabs should be designed to minimize cracking as a result of
shrinkage. Joints (isolation, contraction, and construction) should be placed in accordance
with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. Special precautions should be
taken during placement and curing of all concrete slabs. Excessive slump (high
water/cement ratio) of the concrete and/or improper curing procedures used during either
hot or cold weather conditions could result in excessive shrinkage, cracking, or curling in
EnGEN Corporation
Co
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Joe Krieger
Project Number: T1574-C
December 1998
Page 5
the slabs. It is recommended that all concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be
performed in accordance with ACI recommendations and procedures.
5.5 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 #3
deformed reinforcing bars placed at 24-inches on center, each way, 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,
moist (not saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures.
5.6 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 01557-
91 procedures immediately before placing the concrete.
5.7 BEARING CAPACITY
Provided the recommendations for site earthwork are incorporated into the project
construction, the allowable soil bearing value for footings founded in compacted fill is
1,500 psf, and the bearing value for footings founded in competent bedrock is 2,000 psf,
plus an additional 250 psf per foot in width for footings over 2-feet in width. These values
may be increased by one-third (1/3) for short duration's of loading such as wind or seismic
forces.
5.8 LATERAL CAPACITY
Additional foundation design parameters based on undisturbed bedrock for resistance to
lateral forces are as follows:
EnGEN Corporation
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Joe Krieger
Project Number: T1574-C
December 1998
Page 6
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure):
Passive Case - 350 pet
Allowable Coefficient of Friction: 0.35
The above values are allowable design values and have safety factors of at least 2.0
I
incorporated into them.
6.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 EARTH PRESSURES
Retainin9 walls backfilled with non-expansive granular soil (EI=O) or very low expansive
potential materials can be designed in accordance with the following lateral soil pressures
and design parameters:
Active - 30 pet - level backfill; 40 pcf - 2: 1 sloping backfill
Passive - 350 pcf
Coefficient of Friction - 0.35
The above values assume well drained backfill and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure.
Surcharge loads, if any, acting on the backfill should also be considered in the design.
6.2 FOOTING DESIGN
All retaining walls will be supported in competent bedrock and may be designed for an
allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot. An approximate factor of safety
of 1.5 should be achieved.
6.3 SUBDRAIN
A subdrain system should be constructed behind and at the base of all retaining walls to
allow drainage and to prevent the buildup of excessive hydrostatic pressures. Typical
subdrains may include weep holes with a continuous gravel gallery, perforated pipe
surrounded by filter rock, or some other approved system. Subdrains should maintain a
positive flow gradient away from the retaining walls and have outlets that drain in a non-
erosive manner.
6.4 BACKFILL
Backfill directly behind retaining walls (if backfill width is less than 3 feet) may consist of
3/8 to 3/4-inch rounded to subrounded gravel enclosed in a geotextile fabric or a clean
sand (Sand Equivalent Value greater than 50) water jetted into place to obtain proper
compaction. If water jetting is used, the subdrain system should be in place. Even if
EnGEN Corporation
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Joe Krieger
Project Number: T1574-C
December 1998
Page 7
water jetting is used, the sand should be densified to a minimum of 90 percent relative
compaction. If the required density is not obtained by water jetting, mechanical methods
will be required. If other types of soil or gravel are used for backfill, mechanical
compaction methods will be required to obtain a relative compaction of at least 90 percent
,
of maximum dry density. Backfill directly behind retaining walls should not be compacted
by wheel, track or other rolling by heavy construction equipment unless the wall is
designed for the surcharge loading. If gravel, clean sand or other imported backfill is used
behind retaining walls, the upper 18-inches of backfill in unpaved areas should consist of
typical on-site material compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in
order to prevent the influx of surface runoff into the granular backfill and into the subdrain
system. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill materials should
be determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-78(90) procedures.
6.5 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 report, project
plans, and the Grading Code of the City of Temecula. The graded site in the areas noted
as graded is determined to be adequate for the support of a typical residential
development. Any subsequent grading for development of the subject property should be
performed under engineering observation and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation.
Subsequent grading includes, but is not limited to, any additional fill placement and
excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN
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 earthwork
completed for the development of subject site should be performed by EnGEN
Corporation. If any of the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions
are not performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the safety and performance of the
development is limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by
EnGEN Corporation.
EnGEN Corporation
'\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Joe Krieger
Project Number: T1574-C
December 1998
Page 8
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,
Cf1~~"
Field Ope ratio
Q,bjoc ,~
Princ' al Geotechnical Engineer
Ex res 09-30-01
JDG/OB:ch
Distribution: (4) Addressee
FILE: EnGEN/ReportingCfT1574C Joe Krieger, 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. Joe Krieger
Project Number: T1574-C
Appendix Page 1
ApPENDIX
~
EnGEN Corporation
\\
I
I
I
It
1
I
4
,
I
9
*'
Mr. Joe Krieger
Project Number: T1574-C
Appendix Page 2
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(Summary of Field In-Place Density Test Results)
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
Date Test Locations Elev. Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
(1998) ~ (FT) (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%)
11-23 Driveway +1.5 1 126.3 11.2 118.7 94.0 90
11-23 Keyway (Fill Slope) +1.5 1 126.3 13.1 115.9 91.8 90
11-24 Driveway +2.5 1 126.3 11.9 117.4 92.9 90
11-24 Fill Slope (Keyway) +2.5 1 126.3 16.7 107.7 85.3 90
11-25 Retest of #4 +2.5 1 126.3 9.8 114.8 90.9 90
11-26 Fill Slope (Side) +5.0 1 126.3 7.9 113.9 90.2 gO
11-27 Pad Fill F.G. 1 126.3 15.7 . 108.1 85.6 90
11-27 Garage F.G. 1 126.3 11.3 112.0 88.7
11-27 Driveway F.G. 1 126.3 13.4 109.1 86.4 90
12 -2 ' House Pad F.G. 1 126.3 12.8 110.4 87.4
12-2 Retest of #7 F.G. 1 126.3 9.7 113.7 90.0 90
12-2 Retest of #9 F.G. 1 126.3 12.7 115.9 91.7 90
Test in cut (natural ground) no percentage compaction requirement.
Indicates Finish Grade.
(*)
(F.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
Soil
Type
1
Soil
Type
1
Mr. Joe Krieger
Project Number: T1574-C
Appendix Page 3
SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
(Maximum Dry Density Relationship Test Results)
ASTM D1557-91
Soil Description
(USCS Symbol)
Brown Silty Sand (SW-SM)
Depth
(FT)
F.G.
Maximum Dry
Density (PCF)
126.3
9.6
Optimum Moisture
Content ("!o)
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
Dry Density
(PCF)
126.3
Moisture
Condition
Before Test ("!o)
Expansion
Index
Moisture
Condition After
Test ("!o)
9.6
14.2
8
EnGEN Corporation
\~
I
Mr. Joe Krieger
I Project Number: T1574-C
Appendix Page 4
I DRAWINGS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I EnGEN Corporation \tt
_ :__ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 1IIIIiII..' _ _ _ _ ___
'.
,.
"
~
....
"'VNO------ .
a . --
-
.
...----
r' -.... .
<>
....
'....
I ~
"
I
," 'I,
. '.
" '{'~~'
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
-
VI
""
...
; .
~
~ ",./'
--
V
1'1\<1 O'?.s~ I
/Il,L _0 'P.!i.z
~"ll
,<,tll"I A9;:1 d P
",.
S../IH? . X()?Jddtl
oS!. I ,.J~'- -- - -
Q-\lr'ZI'" -,,-
S~~l ,-----
.-- -- ~
,4C.'
,
. . ---- .---
_---r - .
\.....
A3~~3a' J>'L
aVo~
--
1I11DlIllI}llIOr I lllWVN J.N311:>
8618J/tl : :uva
C88C .L:)V1U 110 96" 1.0'1 I : NOUdI1l:lS:ilCI 'IVD:iI'I I :l....L5UI :lI:i1lIWllN .L:)UOlld
NV'Id :!IJ.IS nIOd:m DlIII<IVlID HDllOH
..= -= ~ = uO!lluOd.103 N~DU~
.' ~ Sl.S:il.L AJ.lSIIl:ila :il:lV'Id 111I110
-rJ/' NOI1.V:lO'l :il1.VWIXOllJdV .