The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTract Map 3883 Lot 165 Rough Grading I~....-.<~ .~ ....... ,'~'. . E I -~N 3gr:3 - L IwS Coq~oration . Soil EngineeringandConsultingSer~ices. Engineering Geology . Compaction Testing -lnspections-ConslruclionMaterialsTesting-LaboraloryTesling.PercolalionTesling -Geology-WalerResourceStudies . Phase I & II Erwironmental Site Assessments ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK I I GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS Murphy Residence, Assessor's Parcel Number: 919-140-008 Paseo Sereno, Meadowview Area City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California Project Number: T1447-C I I J'~~. I I January 7,1999 I I I I I I Prepared for: .1 Mr. Kenneth Murphy 520 Roosevelt Avenue ~orona, California 91719 141"'- \ ;c .'~' , . ~ I' " ~ ~ . , \ , ~ / " "I _ r / ..... I? \_ __ \ l,r ,,- ..." - ' " - \ ' , . - \ , - . . , I 'F / " " I -.... - ' I " ~ ~ I _~ - I" I ~ _ "I - - \..-'" ~ , __ \ - - - \...-'" I .-' ,_ _ _ \ / " -' ;, _: __~ ~ ~:; ~--~~;~_~;~~i::~~~~2~Z~Eiisi;;i~~'~~~~~~ ,~,~~~~~~~~U~-i}'>.>.~~~~~5::!L't~~~m=mfuj~flli~!t~*=5iiil1.EE!!l ~:;:e~~;;;:;:5~~~~;;,;;;;!;;;~e:: ~~;~~~~m .::=~ ~~ ~==-::;:~: ~ ."'=-=.-..-..""'''''''-=. " __ I ;:,;:0 i~;--: - I I I I I I I I I I I I " I I I I I I I Mr. Kenneth Murphy Project Number: T1447-C TABLE OF CONTENTS 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 ....................................................................................................2 2.1 TIME OF GRADING ...................................................................................................2 2.2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT....... ........... ....... ....... ............ ............. ......... ...... .........2 2.3 GRADING OPERATIONS.... .......... .............................. ............................... ................. 2 2.4 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES..... ...... ... ..... ......... ..... ... ...... ....... ....... ............. .............. 2 2.4.1 LABORATORY TESTING .............................................................................. 3 2.4.2 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST ...................................................3 2.5 EXPANSION INDEX TEST........................................................................................... 3 3.0 EARTH MATERIALS. .................................................................................................3 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 3 4.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................3 4.2 FOUNDATION SIZE ............... ............. ..... ... ............ ..................... ................. ... .......... 4 4.3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT... ...... ....... ....... ... ...... .......................... ......... ................ ..... .... 4 4.4 BEARING CAPACITY.. .... ... ... ................ .... ............ ...... ... ... ....................... ....... ... ........ 4 4.5 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS ...... ....... ...................... ............... ....................4 4.6 INTERIOR SLABS..... .... ...... .......... ...... .... ...... ....... ................. ............ ......... ....... ......... 5 4.7 EXTERIOR SLABS. ... .... ..................... ..... ...... ............... ...... .............. ... ...... ..... ..... ...... 5 4.8 GENERAL........ .... .... ... ... ... .......... ... ... ..... ... .............. ................... .... ......... ... .............5 5.0 CLOSURE ............................................................................................................6 ApPENDIX TEST RESULTS DRAWINGS EnGEN Corporation 7.- :~EN I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6:'CC' .'~."~';e-"'~'" C,' ",' -. \ ,,~-'''''-'''' '''" .'.-/ ." -------------=----------...--. Coq~oration . Soil EngioeeringandConsultingServices. EngineeringGeology.CompactionTesting -Inspections. Construction Materials Testing -LaboratoryTesling. PercolalionTesling -Geology . Water Resource Studies . Phase I & II Environmental SileAssessments ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK January 7,1999 Mr. Kenneth Murphy 520 Roosevelt Avenue Corona, California 91719 (909) 734-3177 I FAX (909) 735-8093 Regarding: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS Murphy Residence, Assessor's Parcel Number: 919-140-008 Paseo Sereno, Meadowview Area City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California Project Number: T1447-C .r:;;: References: 1. EnGEN Corporation, Limited Geotechnical Study Soils Report, Single Family Residence, Assessor's Parcel Number: 919-140-008, Paseo Sereno, Meadowview area, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Project Number: T1447-LGS, report dated October 26, 1998. 2. California Group A and E, Grading and Drainage Plan/Site Plan, plans dated May 22, 1998. Dear Mr. Murphy: 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 site is located at the end of the Paseo Sereno cul-de-sac, in the Meadowview Area of the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION It is understood that the subject site is to be developed with a single family residence with slab-On-grade/cohCf:~e floors. Prior to grading operations, topography and surface conditio~sof the ,site were moderately sloping with surface drainage to the C 'florth at a gf:adient ranging from 15't030 percent. ~ / .... - ~ I _ I/"\ _ _ _ \ ,,- ~,,- \ \ / I ',,- ~ -- ) -"~-r.,& ~ ~ / _" - ' ~ / "'- ~.c I _' _ .- / ... '" I _" _ 'I - - \..'''... , ~ ,_ - - \ __ " " I -" ,_ _ _ \ " ~ / I ,.- ~:',~,,~~~;!~Ii~:~i:~~~~~fu~~~~~~~~i~~i~~~~~~i, ~~~~=~:;;~~~~5i~~~5l;;;;;~:;=::==~~~;:;!;=~J!~~~t:'!;! II I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I '1 Mr. Kenneth Murphy Project Number: T1447-C January 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 December 10, 1998 through December 15, 1998. 2.2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT The grading operations were performed by Kemmis Equipment through the use of one (1) D8N track-mounted dozer, one (1) motorgrader and one (1) 4,000 gallon water truck. " 2.3 GRADING OPERATIONS Grading within the subject site consisted of a cuUfill and replacement operation. Grasses and weeds were removed prior to fill placement. Fill material was generated from the southern portions of the site, and used to bring the northern portions of the site to finish grade elevation. Removal of alluvium, slopewash, etc., was performed to a depth of 2 to 3 feet below original 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. Keying and benching into competent soil was observed during the grading operations. 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. 2.4 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 EnGEN Corporation "\ I I I I I I I I I I I I '~I I I I I I I Mr. Kenneth Murphy Project Number: Tl447-C January 1999 Page 3 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. 2.4.1 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. 2.4.2 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 (Summary of Optimum Moisture Content I Maximum Dry Density Relationship Test Results). 2.5 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 tan to dark brown silty sand, which has an Expansion Index of 9. 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. 3.0 EARTH MATERIALS The natural earth materials encountered on-site, generally consisted of tan to dark brown silty sand. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional column footings and continuous wall 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 EnGEN Corporation 5" I I I I I I I I I I I I ~" I I I I I I I Mr. Kenneth Murphy Project Number: T1447-C January 1999 Page 4 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. 4.2 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 footings, should be provided across garage door openings and other doorway entrances. 4.3 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 single story structures and at least 18-inches below lowest adjacent grade for two-story structures. 4.4 BEARING CAPACITY Footings may be designed using an allowable bearing value of 1,000 pounds per square foot. 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. 4.5 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 EnGEN Corporation ~ f. . . . I . I I . I . I ? I I . I I I Mr. Kenneth Murphy Project Number. T1447-C January 1999 Page 5 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 the slabs. It is recommended that all concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be performed in accordance with ACI recommendations and procedures. 4.6 INTERIOR SLABS Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4-inches nominal in thickness and be underlain by 1 to 2-inches of clean coarse sand or other approved granular material placed on properly prepared subgrade. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of #3 reinforcing bars placed 24-inches on the center in both directions or a suitable equivalent. 4.7 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 aggregate base material or placing the concrete. 4.8 GENERAL Based on the observations and tests performed during grading, the subject site in the areas noted 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 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 EnGEN Corporation 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I " I .' I I I I I I Mr. Kenneth Murphy Project Number: T1447-C January 1999 Page 6 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 development is limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by EnGEN Corporation. 5.0 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 ~" ~,,1Jt--- Field Operations Manager 8. JDG/OB:rr Distribution: (4) Addressee FILE: EnGEN/Reporting/CfT1447C Mr. Kenneth Murphy. Rough Grading I . I . . . . . I . . I ". . I . I I I Mr. Kenneth Murphy Project Number: T1447-C Appendix Page 1 APPENDIX TEST RESULTS EnGEN Corporation q I Mr. Kenneth Murphy I Project Number: T144 7-C Appendix Page 2 FIELD TEST RESULTS I (SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS) (NUCLEAR GAUGE TEST METHOD) I Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required Test Date Elev. Density Content Density Compaction Compaction I No. (1998) Test Locations (FT) Type (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%) I 1 12-10 See Site Plan 1186 1 130.8 7.9 118.2 90.4 90 2 12-10 See Site Plan 1182 1 130.8 8.4 117.8 90.0 90 3 12-10 See Site Plan 1186 1 130.8 6.4 118.0 90.2 90 I 4 12-10 See Site Plan 1189 1 130.8 7.9 119.1 91.1 90 5 12-10 See Site Plan 1187 1 130.8 7.6 117.8 90.0 90 I 6 12-10 See Site Plan 1190 1 130.8 8.3 118.8 90.8 90 7 12-10 See Site Plan 1195 1 130.8 10.1 119.2 91.1 90 8 12-10 See Site Plan 1197 1 130.8 8.2 118.0 90.2 90 I 9 12-11 See Site Plan 1199 1 130.8 7.7 117.9 90.1 90 10 12-11 See Site Plan 1200 1 130.8 8.4 118.3 90.5 90 11 12-12 See Site Plan 1202 1 130.8 10.0 118.5 90.6 90 I 12 12-12 See Site Plan 1203 1 130.8 12.2 117.9 90.1 90 13 12-12 See Site Plan 1205 1 130.8 9.0 119.1 91.1 90 I 14 12-12 See Site Plan 1208 1 130.8 11.5 118.7 90.7 90 15 12-14 See Site Plan 1210 3 118.5 10.3 110.2 93.0 90 16 12-14 See Site Plan 1212 3 118.5 9.9 109.5 92.4 90 I 17 12-14 See Site Plan 1214 3 118.5 9.8 107.5 90.7 90 18 12-14 See Site Plan 1216 3 118.5 9.9 111.5 94.1 90 I 19 12-14 Slope F.G. 3 118.5 11.2 108.2 91.2 90 20 12-14 Slope F.G. 3 118.5 10.3 107.9 90.3 90 21 12-14 Slope F.G. 3 118.5 10.8 108.6 91.6 90 I 22 12-15 House Pad F.G. 3 118.5 8.9 111.5 94.1 90 23 12-15 House Pad F.G. 3 118.5 8.4 110.6 93.4 90 I 24 12-15 House Pad F.G. 3 118.5 7.9 111.2 93.8 90 (F. G.) Indicates Finish Grade I I I I EnGEN Corporation \0 \\ I I I I I I I I I I I I r~'1 I I I I I I Mr. Kenneth Murphy Project Number: T1447-C Appendix Page 3 SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT I MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS ASTM 01557-91 Optimum Soil Maximum Moisture Soil Description Dry Density Content Type (USCS Symbol) (PCF) (%) 1 Silty Sand, Dark Brown (SM) 130.8 8.4 2 Silty Sand, Dark Brown (SM) 131.1 7.8 3 Silty Sand, Tan (SM) 118.5 11.9 SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS 1.5 108.3 Moisture Condition Before Test (%) 10.9 Moisture Condition After Test (%) 20.0 Expansion Index Soil Type 1 Depth Dry Density (FT) (PCF) 9.2 EnGEN Corporation \\ . ----------~.__..... . - ----~ ---- I I I I I I I I I I I I ""1 I I I I I I Mr. Kenneth Murphy Project Number: T1447-C Appendix Page 4 DRAWINGS EnGEN Corporation \2- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i ~ ill ;l ~ .. !:l i S .. i I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ B 2l 6l i: = n ~ ~ .a ~ $! Q J:l ;t ~ g- o = ~ II ~ ~ If ~ II II ( \\'" , , , \ , \ \ \ \ \ . " ,\0 \. \ \ N , .. @ , ~ ' , I ::I, , f f I I I I , I I I , I I I ~I .78 / 21, .". ~ ~ ~ . 1ti3\ I ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ! s t'" ~ ~ '" ::l o 0 .., z ~ ~ r< ~ [;l 1il ~ ~ ;j '" ... ~\