HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 7556 Parcel 1 Compaction Results of Rough Grading
: ~EN COl"Qoration
. Soil Engineering and Consulting Services-EngineeringGeo!o!IY. Compaction Testing
elnspections.ConstruclionMaterialsTeslingelaboratoryTeslinQ.Perco\ationTesling
-Geology . Water flesource Studies . Phase I &11 Environmental Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Newton Residence Garage Pad
Assessor's Parcel Number: 957-170-009
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 7556
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T1587-C
I
I
December 9, 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Prepared for:
I _,-;-c-- \
h"''-'' - \ /
/4;;:-' , "
>?;
Ms. Kathleen Newton
'"' 30903 Riverton Lane
Temecula, California 92591
,
~ / .... ,~/ ~
I __ \ _ _ _ \
,,- ,,-
" '
'" ? __ I
"/ '- ,,,
, ,
" ,
, ,
\
, \ -
, '
~ - -. I
I .... _ /.... /" _ ~ / " ,~I _' _ ~ /
, ~ \ _ _ _ \ -' " / , .r ,_ _ _ \ -' " ' I " ,_ _ _ \ __ " "
~:~;~~~~~~;;~~~d~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~.~~~~~~1~~
"",,,>mse~.~:m,-~~::!::':.;,& ~il>li; ~$:;i$; 'it:i!;;$>: ~1>.;*:<:;;;;1ii~~~;,:o:o""" 1(;):!!i1I1i iijOi>",';;.,..'&. ~:i\i!!~~&!iili!i~
. """=='='=""'f::;::"''''''''"'-:;:?'''''''''''''';;--~''''''''C''--'---'''f''__:....._--------:.
--'---=>-c.""",';'...!",
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ms. Kathleen Newton
Project Number: T1587-C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE
PAGE
1.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ....................................................................3
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................3
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 3
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ..............................................................................................;..... 3
2.1 TIME OF GRADING ................................................................................................... 3
3.0 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 3
3.1 GRADING OPERATIONS ............................................................................................ 3
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
5.0 EARTH MATERIALS ..................... ........................................................ .....................3
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................4
6.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................4
6.2 FOUNDATION SIZE ........ ............... ................................. .... ............... .............. ..........4
6.3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT....... .............. ............ .......... ............ .......... ...........................4
6.4 BEARING CAPACITY .................................................................................................4
6.5 SETTLEMENT....................................................... ............... .....................................5
6.6 LATERAL CAPACITY .................................................................................................5
6.7 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................6
6.8 INTERIOR SLABS. ....................... .... ........... ........................ ...... .......... ........ ............... 6
6.9 EXTERIOR SLABS.................................................................................................... 6
6.10 GENERAL ........................................................................................................ 7
7.0 CLOSURE ............................................................................................................7
ApPENDIX
TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corpor3tion
~
I~
'",' t1'
I ..... u,uw,"'mllillll, " ". EN
I
I
I
I
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cor~oration
-Soil Engineering and Consulting Services-Engineering Geology. CompaclionTesling
-lnspections-ConstructionMaterialsTesling-laboratoryTesting-Perco\alionTeslinll
-Geology-Water Resource Studies . Phase I &11 Environmental Site Assessmenls
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
December 9, 1998
Ms. Kathleen Newton
30903 Riverton Lane
Temecula, California 92591
(909) 693-5578 I FAX (909) 676-9232
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Newton Residence Garage Pad
Assessor's Parcel Number: 957-170-009
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 7556
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T1587-C
References: 1.
Manning Engineering, Grading Plan, Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 7556,
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California.
Dear Ms. Newton:
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 consists of an existing residence, located southeast of the
intersection of Calle Girasol and Riverton Lane, in the City of Temecula, County of
Riverside, California.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
It is understood th~t th~subject site is to be developed with a. garage structure
~.
. ". with slab-on-grade conCrete floors. Prior to grading operations, topography and
. 'surface conditions of the site were moderatel sloping with surface drainage to the
~,,,_.~y~,~-,,,.~. ~." ^" ~". ',-0. .'_.' .-.,,-
" outhat'ag~ ent'()fless,f n,1'5'perce, .~. ,',',_'-,,:',-:;, ,'",-,_,-,',-:;, ,',',-"_<-:;. ,'.'
\,~ ~~~~~~ ~,-~~.:~;:~;,' ,,- ~;;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ii~i!!~~~::~~~~~~!~!r
.'iiiicr~~ E @i~:----- - ...... ., :;--------,
I
.. "' ~ ~ ",.i..~ ~ " ,. , '. , !;fu ;!)T,E: WWW. NEf>l~911~c;PM.-~ ,E.,MAlL"ENGENCORP
~~~sa~""-O<'~ ii;~i~-- *~i5i~~~niH~~!i@i~-",;'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ms. Kathleen Newton
Project Number: T1587C
November 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 November 24, 1998.
3.0 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT
The grading operations were performed by P.D.Q. Grading through the use of one
(1) track mounted dozer.
3.1 GRADING OPERATIONS
Grading within the subject site consisted of a cut/fill and replacement operation.
Grasses and weeds were removed prior to fill placement. Fill material was
generated from the northern portions of the site, and used to bring the southern
portions of the site to finish grade elevation. Removal of alluvium, slopewash, etc.,
was performed to a depth of 2.0-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 bedrock by a representative of this firm.
Keying and benching into competent bedrock was observed during the grading
operations. Over-excavation was performed in the cut portion of the building pad
to a depth of 3.0-feet below finish grade elevation and to a distance of 5.0-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 12-inches, thoroughly moisture conditioned to near
optimurn 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. 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
Ms. Kathleen Newton
Project Number: T1587C
November 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 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
grading of the subject site. 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 (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 sandy silt, brown, 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.
5.0 EARTH MATERIALS
The natural earth materials encountered on-site, generally consisted of sandy silt,
brown.
=>
EnGEN Corporation
'_" -r" .-- " ........~- '-,"','",
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ms. Kathleen Newton
Project Number: T1587C
November 1998
Page 4
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 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 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.
6.2 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 (s)
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.
6.3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT
Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill should extend to a
minimurn depth of 12-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for the structure.
The foundations should be founded in properly compacted fill with a minimum of
18-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
rninirnum depth of embedment for footings are incorporated into the project design
and construction, the allowable bearing value for design of continuous and column
EnGEN Corporation it::>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ms. Kathleen Newton
Project Number: T1587C
November 1998
Page 5
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 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-inches or a
differential settlement of 0.25-inches 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 - 200 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
Compacted Fill - 0.35
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 1.0-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.
EnGEN Corporation 1.
,.......,.-...-_--~>'~~..,.,.........'..-".-+;"T'7;:"~-..
>.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ms. Kathleen Newton
Project Number: T1587C
November 1998
Page 6
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 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 the slabs. It
is recommended that all concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be
performed in accordance with ACI recommendations and procedures.
6.8 INTERIOR SLABS
Interior concrete slabs-an-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 10/10 - 6x6 welded wire mesh 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 covered by a 1.0-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 gravel
EnGEN Corporation 8
'.
I
.
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ms. Kathleen Newton
Project Number: T1587C
November 1998
Page 7
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 immediately before
placing aggregate base material or placing the concrete.
6.10 GENERAL
Based on the observations and tests performed during grading, the subject site in
the areas noted has been completed in accordance with the 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 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.
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
EnGEN Corporation ~
,-._':':~i.;;-.:......::
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ms. Kathleen Newton
Project Number: T1587C
November 1998
Page 8
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
9:J!G:1t-
Field Operations Manager
JDG/OB:ch
Distribution: (4) Addressee
FILE: EnGEN/Reporting/CfT1587C Newton Residence
~rnte ,GE 162
Prin . al Geotechnical Engineer
Expires 09-30-01
EnGEN Corporation
\<)
,
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ms. Kathleen Newton
Project Number: T1587-C
Appendix Page 1
APPENDIX
TEST RESULTS
EnGEN Corporation \\
::--:;;:;,.,..
II
I
I
I
I
I
Ms. Kathleen Newton
Project Number: T1587-C
Appendix Page 2
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS)
(NUCLEAR GAUGE TEST METHOD)
Test
No,
Test
Date
(1998)
Test Locations
Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
Elev, Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
(FT) (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%)
128 1 131.4 11.4 109.7 83.1 90
130 1 131.4 9.9 120.7 91.8 90
132 1 131.4 10.5 121.2 92.2 90
134 (F. G.) 1 131.4 9.1 119.2 90.7 90
1
2
3
4
I
(F.G.)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11-23
11-24
11-24
11-24
Keyway
Garage Pad
Garage Pad
Garage Pad
Indicates Finish Grade
EnGEN Corporation \1.->-
".
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ms. Kathleen Newton
Project Number: T1587-C
Appendix Page 3
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) (%)
1 Sandy Silt, Brown (SM) 131.4 7.6
SUMMARY OF ExPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
Soil
Type
Depth Dry Density
(FT) (PCF)
Moisture
Condition Before
Test (%)
Moisture
Condition After
Test (%)
Expansion
Index
1
1.5
118.0
7.2
13.4
o
EnGEN Corporation
\~
'I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ms. Kathleen Newton
Project Number: T1587-C
Appendix Page 4
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
Y\