HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 9833-1 Lot 28 Compaction Rough Grading
I /~\/'" /
I ~GEN
CorRoration
. Soil Engineering and ConsullingServices . EngirMleringGeology-CompactionTesting
-lnspections-ConstructionMaterialsTesling-LaboratoryTesting-PercolalionTestinll
-Geology.WalerResourceSludies . Phasel& II Environmental Sile Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Malek Residence
Lot 28 of Tract 9833-1
Pio Pico Road and Margarita Road
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2438-C
I
I
May 20, 2002
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Prepared for:
I
I
Malek Engineering
3772 Brennan Avenue
'''\ Perris, California 92571
,. , ~ ~
.' " --
, '
" ,
,. .... "
, '
,- -- \
\ "
, -
,
,
/ ,__ I
~ \' -
-- ,__ I
\
~ - - I
, -,
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Malek Engineering
Project Number: T2438-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 GRADING OPERATIONS......... ....,..,...... ..........,.. ..,.......,....".... ,..,..2
3.0 TESTING.. ........................................ ............... ..................................................................3
3,1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES ......,......,..,..,.. ............ ............... ..,..3
3.2 LABORATORY TESTING ,..,....,.... ............. ...........,....,..... ,.....,.... ,..3
3.2.1 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST ,.... .......,.... .........,..3
3.2.2 EARTH MATERIALS / EXPANSIVE SOILS / SOLUBLE SULFATES ..........,.. ......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 SETTLEMENT ........,.. ..........,..,..............,..............,.... ....,..,......,.. ....,..,..,..,..,..5
4.6 LATERAL CAPACiTy.......,..,....,..,......,....,..........,........ ..'....,...... .....,..,.... ......,..,........,..5
4.7 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS................ ......,..,......,.... ...5
4,8 INTERIOR SLABS .......................................................,............ ...,..,..... ...................... ...6
4,9 EXTERIOR SLABS ....,..,........,............................,............ .,.,....,... ..,....,..,........,..,..,...6
4.10 EROSION PROTECTION AT DRAINAGE EASEMENT .......,......... ....,....,.. ............. ...............6
4,11 GENERAL ....,........ ........,..................................,..... ......,.......... .............6
5.0 CLOSURE .... .......... ... ...... ... ... .......... .......... ........ ....... ............. ....... ..... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... ... .......7
ApPENDIX
TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
-z,.
EnGEN Corporation
I -~ /, .-
/~"\';:~';''>-'- -- _/ -
~~GEN
1 -,', '" ,~, ""'C" . '. :
1
1
1
1
1
I,
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
I
CorRoration
. Soil Engineering and Consulting Services-fngineeringGeology. Compaction Testing
-Inspections- ConslruclionMalerialsTesting- LaboraloryTesting - PercolalionTesting
-Geology-WaterResourceSludles - Phase I & IIEnvironmenlalSileAssessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
May 20, 2002
Malek Engineering
3772 Brennan Avenue
Perris, California 92571
(909) 943-2548 I FAX (909) 940-6078
Attention:
Mr. Sean Malek
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Malek Residence
Lot 28 ofTract 9833-1
Pio Pico Road and Margarita Road
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2438-C
References:
1.
W.C. Hobbs Consulting Engineer, Preliminary Soil Engineering Evaluation,
Proposed residence located at Pio Pico and Margarita Road, Lot 28 of Tract
9833-1, City ofTemecula, California, report dated June 7,2001"
W.C. Hobbs, RCE, Proposed Grading Plan, Lot 28, Tract No. 9833-1, City of
Temecula, Riverside County, California, plans undated.
2.
Dear Mr. Malek:
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 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
1.1
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject site consists of approximately 3.5 acres, located on the southern corner of Pio
Pico Road and Margarita Road, in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California.
1.2
SITE DESCRIPTION
Prior to grading operations, topography and surface conditions of the site were gently
\
sloping, with surface drainage to the drainage easment at the north end of the property at a
gradient of lessthari 5 percent.
/ , "
, , '
/ "'- " -
, , ,
~ "'- ~ ~ / -'
" ,
, '
~ , I _' _
~ \ -- ; - \ ,. ' ~
, ,
-- \..-'
, -
, '
..- -- I
-'---....""."'~,."'.."~.,;,. J"
, ,
, ,
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
Malek Engineering
Project Number: T2438-C
May 2002
Page 2
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
It is understood that the subject site is to be developed with a single family residence with
slab-on-grade concrete floors supported on conventional continuous and pier footings, with
associated driveway 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 October 1, 2001 through October 5, 2001,
2.2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT
The grading operations were performed by C & K Grading through the use of one (1) CAT
623 scraper, one (1) skip loader and one (1) water truck.
2.3 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 northeastern cut
portions of the site, and used to bring the fill slope and building pad portions of the site to
finish grade elevation. Removal of alluvium, -slopewash, etc., was performed to a depth of
5 to 7-feet below original elevation. Overexcavated 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. Overexcavation was performed in the cut portion of the building
pad to a depth of 5 to 7 -feet below finish grade elevation and to a distance of 15-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 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.
EnGEN Corporation
A..
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
I'
I
I
Malek Engineering
Project Number: T2438-C
May 2002
Page 3
3.0 TESTING
3.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES
Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed in general accordance
with ASTM D 2922-96 and ASTM D 3017-96 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 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.
3.2 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,
3.2.1 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).
3.2.2 EARTH MATERIALS I EXPANSIVE SOILS I SOLUBLE SULFATES
The natural earth materials used to construct the building pad generally consisted of brown
silty sands, which are considered non-expansive. As a result, no special design or
construction is necessary for expansive soils purposes. Based on this firm's familiarity with
the soils used to construct the building pad, it is our opinion that soluble sulfates are not a
concern and, as a result, normal Type II cement can be used in concrete making contact
with the native soils.
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 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,
EnGEN Corporation
-5
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Malek Engineering
Project Number: T2438-C
May 2002
Page 4
horizontal, and uplift forces based on the following results of inspection and material
testing:
The following seismic design parameters apply:
Type of Fault: Type B Fault
Closest Distance to Active Fault: Less than 2 Km
Soil Profile Type: SD
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 one story structures
and 18-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for two or three story structures. The
foundations should be founded in properly compacted fill with a minimum of 18-inches of
"
compacted fill below the bottom of the footings.
4.4 BEARING CAPACtTY
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
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.
EnGEN Corporation
(p
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
Malek Engineering
Project Number: T2438-C
May 2002
Page 5
4.5 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 0,50-
inch in properly compacted fill.
4.6 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 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.
4.7 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
EnGEN Corporation
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
1
Malek Engineering
Project Number: T2438-C
May 2002
Page 6
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.
4.8 INTERIOR SLABS
I nterior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4-inches in actual thickness and
be underlain by a minimum of 2-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 24-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 covered by a 1.0-inch minimum layer of clean, moist (not
saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize po.lential punctures
4.9 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 D 1557-91
(1998) procedures immediately before placing aggregate base material or placing the
concrete.
4.10 EROSION PROTECTION AT DRAINAGE EASEMENT
The soils used to construct the building pad are considered erodible and, as a result, the
project Civil Engineer should be consulted regarding the need for erosion control detailed
for the protection of the buildin9 pad.
4.11 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 Referenced No.
EnGEN Corporation
tt>
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
Malek Engineering
Project Number: T2438-C
May 2002
Page 7
1 Report, 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.
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.
EnGEN Corporation
C\
)1
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
Malek Engineering
Project Number: T2438-C
May 2002
Page 8
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.
\
SRW/OB:hh
Distribution: (4) Addressee
FilE: EnGENfReporting/CfT2438-C Malek, Rough Grading
EnGEN Corporation
\0
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
Malek Engineering
Project Number: T2438-C
Appendix Page 1
APPENDIX:
TEST RESULTS
EnGEN Corporation
\\
I
I
I
Malek Engineering
Project Number: T2438-C
Appendix Page 2
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(Summary of Field In-Place Density Test Results)
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
(s. G.) = Subgrade / (F. G.) = Finish Grade
I Test Test Depth Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
No. Date Test Locations Elevation Soil Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
(2001) (FT) (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%)
I A 10-02 Building Area Bottom 1074 A1 129.7 7.2 110.2 85.0% 90.0%
10-02 Building Area Bottom 1074 A1 129.7 6.5 111.7 86.1% 90.0%
B
I 1 10-02 Building Area 1076 A2 131,7 8,6 119.6 90.8% 90,0%
2 10-02 Building Area 1076 A2 131,7 9,5 119.2 90,5% 90.0%
I 3 10-02 Building Area 1078 A2 131.7 6,7 123.3 93,6% 90.0%
4 10-02 Building Area 1078 A2 131.7 7.2 123.3 93,6% 90.0%
5 10-02 Building Area 1080 A2 131.7 9.2 119.6 90.8% 90.0%
I 6 10-02 Building Area 1080 A2 131.7 , 8.9 120.2 91.3% ' 90.0%
7 10-02 Building Area 1075 A2 131.7 7.4 120.2 91.3% 90.0%
I 8 10-02 Building Area 1075 A2 131,7 6.9 119.4 90.7% 90.0%
9 10-02 Building Area 1077 A2 131,7 7,0 119.2 90.5% 90.0%
I 10 10-02 Building Area 1077 A2 131.7 7,5 120.2 91.3% 90.0%
C 10-03 Building Area Bottom 1074 A1 129.7 5.8 112.2 86.5% 90.0%
11 10-03 Building Area 1076 A1 129.7 6.4 120.3 92.8% 900%
I 12 10-03 Building Area 1076 A1 129.7 6.8 120,9 93.2% 90.0%
10-03 Building Area 1078 A1 129.7 7.2 115.6 89.1% 90.0%
13
I 14 10-03 Building Area 1078 A1 129,7 8.0 116.2 89.6% 90.0%
15 10-05 Retest #13 1078 A1 129,7 11.5 119.5 92,1% 90.0%
16 10-05 Retest #14 1078 A1 129.7 10.9 119.2 91.9% 90.0%
17 10-05 Building Area F.G. A1 129.7 7.9 120.1 92.6% 90.0%
18 10-05 Building Area F.G. A1 129.7 9.2 120.1 92.6% 90.0%
1
1
I
I
I
EnGEN Corporation
\'L-'
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
,I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
Malek Engineering
Project Number: T2438-C
Appendix Page 3
SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557-91 (1998)
Maximum Optimum
Soil Description (USCS Symbol) Soil Type Dry Density Moisture
(PCF) Content (%)
Silty Sand, Brown (SM) A1 129.7 8.2
Silty Sand, Brown (SM) A2 131.7 8.1
EnGEN Corporation
\!;l
I Malek Engineering
Project Number: T2438-C
Appendix Page 4
I
1
I APPENDIX:
I DRAWINGS
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
. .
I
I
I
I
I \A..
EnGEN Corporation