HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 9833-3 Lots 11 & 12 Limited Preliminary Soils
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~...
CALIFORNIA GEO TEK, INC.
42030 Avenida Alvarado, Suite A . Temecula, CA 92390 . (714) 676-2782
June 10, 1991
Project No. BS2WRC-492
INTRODUCTION
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City of Temecula has requested a
Preliminary Soils Report be prepared for the two subject lots. The work was
authorized by Mr. John McKinney, and included:
(1) exploratory trenching and soil sampling,
(2) laboratory testing and analysis, and
(3) preparing this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations
Plate 1 - Proposed Grading Plan/Trench Location Plan, Lot 11 (20-scale)
Plate 2 - Proposed Grading Plan/Trench Location Plan, Lot 12 (20-scale)
Plate 3 - Fill Slope Cross Section
Plate 4 - Fill Slope Search Results
Plate 5 - Cut Slope Cross Section
Plate 6 - Cut Slope Search Results
Appendix A - Trench Logs
Appendix B - Laboratory Test Data Sheets
Appendix C - Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Appendix D - Reference
2.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BS2WRC-492
Page 2
FINDINGS
Proposed Development
The two lots, 2f acres each, are proposed for grading and subsequent residential
construction. The lots will be graded simultaneously.
Site Conditions
The site is located on the southeasterly side of Jedediah Smith Road, northeast
of Ynez Road and southwest of Margarita Road in the Santiago Ranchos Tract. The
terrain is gently rolling to moderately steep with gradients exceeding 50
percent in places. A northeast-southwest trending knoll extends across both
lots. Drainage is directed as sheetflow into a southwesterly trending natural
watercourse which flows along Jedediah Smith Road. The site supports a well
established growth of sage, cactus, and annual grasses. A wet spot was observed
near the terminus of a broad swale as it reaches the pad area.
Plan Review
The proposed Grading Plan, prepared by Lakeshore Engineering, Inc. indicates
transition residential pads are to be graded on each of the two lots. Both pad
elevations are equal (1150.0), therefore, the finished product will resemble one
large pad extended across both lots.
Lot 12 will require cut slopes to a maximum vertical height of 35 feet and fill
slopes to 25 feet. A proposed 5 foot high retaining wall is indicated along a
portion of the cut slope toe easterly of the proposed residence. Riprap is to
be placed at the low points on the northerly and southerly ends of the pad. The
pad is to be accessed via a fill driveway constructed from Jedediah Smith Road
to the northwest. The driveway will require two 66 foot diameter CMP's where it
crossed the natural watercourse. The maximum driveway gradient per plan is 15
percent.
Lot 11 will be graded in conjunction with Lot 12. A 3:1 fill slope at a maximum
vertical height of 25 feet will be required to construct the pad. Fill is also
indicated to the southeast and will extend onto an adjacent lot (Plate 2). The
cut slope on Lot 12 will be extended onto Lot 11 and will be at 2:1 in steepness
and 30f feet in vertical height. The pad will be accessed via a fill driveway
extended from Jedediah Smith Road along a 30 foot access easement. Two 66 foot
diameter CMP's will be required where the driveway crosses the natural
watercourse. The upstream side of the culvert crossing is to be grouted.
Riprap is to be placed at low points to reduce erosion.
Site InvestiQation
Four exploratory trenches were excavated (May 29, 1991) to determine subsurface
conditions (see Trench Location Plan). Two predominant units were observed.
The lower portions of the site are underlain by poorly consolidated alluvium
deposited by the natural watercourse. The remaining areas are underlain by
residual soils (colluvium) which are in turn underlain by the Sandstone-
Siltstone facies of the Pauba Formation. Representative soil samples were
obtained at various depths for laboratory testing (see Trench Logs).
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8S2WRC-492
Page 3
GeoloQic SettinQ
The site is located in a geologic province known as the Peninsular Ranges of
Southern California which is characterized by fault controlled elongated
northwest-southeast trending valleys and mountains. The property is situated on
the southwesterly margin of the Perris Block approximately 2400 feet northeast
of the Wildomar Fault (Elsinore Fault Zone). The Wildomar Fault forms the
southwesterly boundary of the Perris Block and is considered active.
The geologic unit underlying the subject site is known as the Pauba Formation.
In this area the Pauba Formation consists of interbedded, slightly cemented
siltstones and sandstones which resemble soil due to their young age (Late
Pleistocene). The units are nearly flat lying with dips of less than 5 percent
to the northeast. The Pauba Formation is overlain by alluvium of variable
thickness on the lower portions of the site along the natural watercourse.
Seismicitv
See Appendix D - report by Shaefer Dixion Associates.
laboratorv TestinQ
Moisture Densitv
Two moisture density determinations were made on materials in the upper 4 feet.
Two methods were used. A ring sampler was used on the materials in Trench T3,
and a Sand Cone Test was conducted in Trench T2. The results are tabulated
below:
Location
T2
13
Depth
3 feet
4 feet
Drv Densitv
Moisture Content
111.4 pcf
113.9 pcf
Maximum Density
11. 7%
10.8%
One maximum density determination was conducted on the material encountered in
Trench TI from a depth of three feet. The sample has a maximum dry density of
126.0 pcf with an optimum moisture content of 9.0 percent.
Direct Shear
Two direct shear tests were conducted to represent the soil stren9th parameters
of the native materials encountered in the upper 4 feet. Both tests were
performed under saturated conditions. The results (ultimate values) are
tabulated below.
Sample
Location
Tl
13
Depth
3 Feet
4 Feet
Sample
. Condit i on
Cohesion. psf
Angle of
Internal Friction
Remolded
In-Situ
60
45
39'
43'
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8S2WRC-492
Page 4
Expansion Index
One expansion index test was conducted to determine the expansion potential of
the finer grained earth materials. The expansion index is 23 or a LOW EXPANSION
POTENTIAL.
Analvsis
Soil Bearina Capacitv
The ultimate bearing capacity for foundations is a function of the soil
properties and characteristics of the foundation itself (size, depth, shape).
We have assumed that square spread footings and continuous footings will be used
for support of the structural loads
The equation developed by Karl Terzaghi was used, which combines the effects of
soil cohesion, internal friction, foundation size, and soil weight. Bearing
values were determined for continuous footings 12 inches in width and 12 inches
in depth and also for square footings 12 inches square and 12 inches in depth,
measured below the lowest adjacent firm grade (in compacted native soils). The
results are given below:
Continuous Footings
Square Footings
Maximum Soil Bearing Value
2000 psf*
2075 psf**
4000 psf
add 490 psf for each additional foot of width and 995 psf for each
additional foot of depth
** add 415 psf for each additional foot of width and 665 psf for each
additional foot of depth
*
Settlement
ProYided structures are founded in properly placed fills compacted to a mlnlmum
of 90 percent relative compaction, post construction settlement is expected to
be less than 1/2 inch under loads of up to 2 kips per linear foot.
Overexcavation
The non-uniform, loose, porous nature of the underlying soils all indicate that
overexcavation is required. To keep post construction settlement less than
1/2 inch, the cut portions of the slab areas extending at least 10 feet outside
the building perimeter must be overexcavated in a manner which will provide a
minimum of 3 feet of compacted material beneath the bottom of the proposed
footings.
Overexcavation will also be required where driveway fills are placed over
alluvium in the watercourse areas. Proper processing of the bottom of the
overexcavation areas prior to fill replacement is necessary to provide suitable
bonding of the replaced fill and in-situ materials.
s
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8S2WRC-492
Page 5
Active and Passive Soil Pressure
The Rankine equations were used to calculate the active and passive soil
pressures. The values represent the on-site native material (recompacted to
93 percent relative compaction).
Active Pressure
. The equivalent fluid pressure for the earth materials with no surcharge
is 30 pcf.
Passive Pressure
. The equivalent fluid pressure for the earth materials with no surcharge
is 440 pcf. This may be combined with a soil to concrete friction
coefficient of 0.40 to resist lateral movement provided the combined
value does not exceed two-thirds of allowable lateral bearing. A
one-third increase in frictional lateral bearing values may be used to
resist wind load or earthquake forces.
Slope Stabilitv Analvsis
The Simplified Bishop method was used to determine the minimum Factor of Safety
for fill and cut slopes. Fill slopes were evaluated to a maximum vertical
height of 30 feet and cut slopes were evaluated to a maximum height of 40 feet.
All slopes are to be at 2:1 or less in steepness. Fill strength parameters were
obtained from the remolded direct shear test. Cut strength parameters were
determined from the direct shear test conducted on an in-situ sample. The
direct shear tests were conducted under saturated conditions.
The analysis was performed utilizing computer software supplied by Von Gunten
Engineering Software, Inc. (SB-Slope). An automatic search routine was used to
determine the critical circle coordinates which were found to produce minimum
Factors of Safety (see Plates 3 through 6).
The seismic parameters used for the eyaluation are listed below:
Horizontal ground acceleration = .20g
Vertical ground acceleration = .05g
The Slope Stability results are tabulated below:
Slope
2:1 Fill slopes (30 feet)
2:1 Cut slopes (40 feet)
Seismic
Factor of Safety
Static
Factor of Safety
Plate No.
1.29
1. 51
1. 98
2.32
3 & 4
5 & 6
Note: Adequate erosion control for the cut slopes should be provided in the
form of well constructed brow ditches and terraces. Landscaping and
planting of the fill slopes should be conducted after grading as soon as
practical.
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8S2WRC-492
Page 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
1. Development of the site for residential construction is geotechnically
feasible.
2. The in-situ earth materials consist of interbedded sands, silty sands and
silty very fine sands with some clay.
3. Excavation was easy using a Ford 755B Backhoe to a maximum depth of
10 feet.
4. The site is not within any Special Studies Zone for faulting or
liquefaction.
5. The in-situ dry densities were 111.4 pcf and 113.9 pcf in the upper 4 feet.
The moisture contents were 11.7 and 10.8 percent, respectively.
6. The ultimate angles of internal friction (0) for an in-situ sample of silty
sand is 43' with a cohesion (C) of 45 psf.
7. The ultimate angles of internal friction (0) for a remolded sample of silty
sand is 39' with a cohesion (C) of 60 psf.
8. The allowable soil bearing value for footings 12 inches in width and 12
inches in depth, measured below the lowest adjacent firm grade, is 2000
psf.
9. Passive earth pressures are equivalent to the pressure created by a liquid
weighing 440 pcf. The equivalent fluid pressure (active) with no surcharge
is 23 pcf.
10. The expansion index of on-site materials is a 23 (LOW expansion potential).
11. Post construction settlement of the proposed structures is expected to be
less than one-half inch with differential settlement up to one-fourth inch
provided the structural loads do not exceed 2 kips per linear foot and the
overexcavation recommendations are adhered to.
12. The allowable coefficient of friction between concrete and soil is 0.40.
13. The minimum static Factor of Safety for fill slopes to a maximum height of
30 feet and at a maximum slope ratio of 2:1 has been determined to be above
the minimum allowable 1.5 (Factor of Safety =1.98).
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8S2WRC-492
Page 7
Conclusions (continued)
14. The minimum seismic Factor of Safety for fill slopes to a maximum height of
30 feet and at a maximum slope ratio of 2:1 has been determined to be above
the minimum allowable 1.1 (Factor of Safety =1.29).
15. The minimum static Factor of Safety for cut slopes to a maximum height of
40 feet and at a maximum slope ratio of 2:1 has been determined to be above
the minimum allowable 1.5 (Factor of Safety =2.32).
16. The minimum seismic Factor of Safety for cut slopes to a maximum height of
40 feet and at a maximum slope ratio of 2:1 has been determined to be above
the minimum allowable 1.1 (Factor of Safety =1.51).
Recommendations
1. The design for the proposed structures should be based on the Uniform
8uilding Code values for Seismic Zone 4 with a site coefficient of SI'
2. All grading shall be in accordance with applicable provisions of the
Uniform Building Code as amended by County Ordinance 470 and the attached
General Grading and Earthwork Specifications (Appendix C) except as
modified herein.
3. A soil bearing value of 2000 psf may be used for the design of continuous
and square footings 12 inches in width and 12 inches in depth, measured
below the lowest adjacent firm grade.
4. The soil bearing values may be increased 490 psf per foot of additional
width and 995 psf per foot of additional depth to a maximum value of 4000
psf.
5. The cut areas beneath the subject residences shall be overexcavated to a
minimum depth of 3 feet beneath the proposed footings. The overexcavation
shall extend a minimum of 10 feet outside the building perimeter.
6. Overexcavation depths and limits beneath driveway fills shall be determined
at the time of grading by the soil engineer.
7. All overexcavation backfill shall be recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent
relative compaction.
8. All areas to receive fill not overexcavated in accordance with
Recommendation 5 or 6, above, shall be overexcavated to a minimum depth of
2 feet below existing grade.
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SS2WRC-492
Page S
Recommendations (continued)
9. The exposed surface of all overexcavation areas shall be scarified a
minimum of 6 inches, suitably moistened, and precompacted prior to
replacement of the excavated material.
10. The following values may be used for design of retaining walls:
23 pcf (no surcharge)
440 pcf (no surcharge)
0.40
2000 psf (add 99S psf for each
additional foot of depth and
490 psf for each additional foot
of width)
4000 psf
127.7 pcf (93% relative compaction
at optimum moisture)
11. If structural loads exceed the values in this report, a more detailed
settlement analysis should be performed.
Active Pressure
Passive Pressure
Soil:Concrete Friction
Soil Bearing
Maximum Soil Bearing Value
Unit Soil Weight
12. All footings shall be designed to keep the structural loads less than the
allowable soil bearing value.
13. All continuous footings shall be a minimum of 12 inches in width and 12
inches in depth, measured below the lowest adjacent firm compacted grade.
14. A moisture barrier, such as 6 mil Visqueen shall be placed beneath all
structure slab-on-grade concrete where moisture sensitive floor coverings
are proposed. The membrane shall be properly lapped and protected with a
minimum of one inch of sand, above and below.
IS. All util ity trenches, including those within the building envelope, shall
be properly compacted prior to placing sand, Visqueen, concrete, etc.
16. A copy of the foundation plans should be submitted to this office for
review prior to grading.
17. Any import material shall be approved by the Soil Engineer prior to use,
and additional testing may be needed to determine bearing values, expansion
potential, etc.
IS. Any existing vegetation including tree root balls shall be removed from the
site and shall not be blended into any of the fill materials unless
approved by the Soil Engineer at the time of grading.
q
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8S2WRC-492
Page 9
Recommendations (continued)
19. Relative compaction shall be determined in accordance with ASTM DI557-78.
The minimum requirements shall be as follows:
a. all fi 11 s. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. 90 percent
b. precompacted areas........................90 percent
c. recompaction of overexcavated areas.......90 percent
d. trench backfill ...........................90 percent
e. aggregate base............................95 percent
f. subgrade for pavement.....................95 percent
20. The fill slope faces should be track rolled, or otherwise suitably
compacted during the placement to reduce any potential "skin failures".
21. Cut slopes are to be free of any protruding rocks or boulders and protected
from erosion by placement of adequate brow ditches.
22. All fill slopes are to be 30 feet or less in vertical height and at a slope
ratio of 2:1 of less (unless a further, more detailed stability analysis is
completed).
23. All cut slopes are to be 40 feet or less in vertical height and at a slope
ratio of 2:1 of less (unless a further, more detailed stability analysis is
completed).
24. All slopes shall be landscaped and planted as soon after grading as
feasible.
25. Erosion Control should be provided in conformance with Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, Section 13, and County Ordinance 460.
26. The "wet spot" in the pad area should be geotechnically inspected during
grading to determine any remediation necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~-t
Ed Lasater
Staff Geologist
Y:<<e 12 If{
Bruce R. Lee, P.E.
GE 509
\0
EL/ks
Distribution: Addressee (8)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S,mpl,f,ed Bishop Slope StaDllity Analysls
PRO,JECT: 8S2WRC-492 (30 FT. 2 1 FILL SLOPE)
LOCATION: LOT 12 TRACT 9B33-3
FILE: MCKINEY2
COMPLETE SLOPE CROSS SECTION
CIRCLE
1
RADIUS
90 0
FS
1. 98
x
185.5
y
1210.3
1210
~
1200
!j90
1180
Z 1170
o
f--
<(
>
llJ 1160
-.J
W
1150
~140
1130
1120
1110
1100
90
120
130
150
190
200
100
170
180
160
100
110
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE
DATE:
JUNE. 1991
PROJECT NO.:
8S2WI\( -492.
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
PLATE:
3
CALIFORNIA GEO TEK INC.
42030 AVENIPA ALVARAPO, SUITE A
TEMECULA CALIFORNIA 92390
~
LOTS 11 ~ 12., 111..(,C.T 9&33-3
CtTY OF TE.MEWLA C.ALlFOI\NII\
~l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Simplifled BishOP Slope StaD,l,ty Analysls
PRO,JECT: 8S2WRC-492 (30 FT. 2 1 FILL SLOPE)
LOCATION: LOT 12 TRACT 9833-3
FILE: MCKINEY2
1235 ~-
1220
Z 1200
0
H
f--
<(
> 1180 AREA EXPANDED ABOVE
W
-.J
ill
1160
1140
1120
1100
,
180
320
260
280
240
300
80
180
200
220
100
120
140
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE
DATE:
JUNE. 1'3~1
PROJECT NO.:
852IJRC.-'l-'l'L
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
PLATE'
4
CALIFORNIA GEO TEK INC.
42030 AVENIOA ALVARADO, SUITE A
TEMECULA CALIFORNIA 92390
~
LOTS 11 &, \2" TAAtT 9233-:=J
CITY OF TI.MEL.UU\ C.AU FORNIA
\2.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Slmpllfled B1ShOP Slope StaDlllty AnalyslS
PRO,JECT: 8S2WRC-492 (40 FT. 2: 1 CUT SLOPE)
LOCATION: LOT 12 TRACT 9833-3
FILE: MCKINNEY
1280
1265
1250
Z 1235
o
~
f--
<(
> 1220
W
-.J
W
1205
1190
1175
1160
1145
1130
DATE:
&s2WI\c'-"\9t
PROJECT NO.'
~SZ.Wr..L-49t
COMPLETE SLOPE CROSS SECTION
CIRCLE
1
RADIUS
129 3
FS
2.32
x
167.6
y
1293 5
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
PLATE:
LOTS 11 R, 12.. TRAtT 9833-3
CITY OF TEMECULA CALlFORNl/l.
-5
CALIFORNIA GEO TEK INC.
42030 AVENIDA ALVARADO. SUITE A
TEMECULA CALIFORNIA 92390
~.!>
~
I
I
Simplified B1ShOP Slope StaDllity Analysls
PROclECT: 8S2WRC-492 (40 FT. 2: 1 CUT SLOPE)
LOCATION: LOT 12 TRACT 9833-3
FILE: MCKINNEY
~
~310 -
. . . . . . . . .
2.50 2.,45 2.49 2..:15 2.42 2.48 2.<45 2 46 2.62
1305 -, . .
. . . . . . .
2.47 2.44 2.47 2.45 2.48 2.47 2.45 2.49 2.70
i300 ~
. . . . . . . . .
2.4..:1 2.43 2.45 2.<117 2.47 2.46 2.45 2.5.11 2.79
1295 - CENTE.R OF CRITIU,L CIRClE
. . . 2'f, . . . . .
2.,41 2.462.44 2. 2 2.48 2.416 2.47 2.59 2.89
1290 -
. . . . . . . . .
2.38 2.47 2.44 2.40 2.49 2.46 2.50 2.65 3.00
1285 "'
i . . . . . . . . .
2.36 2.45 2.46 2.48 2.48 2.47 2.50 2.72 3.09
I
1280 -'
. . . . . . . . .
1 2.36 2.44 2.50 2.49 2.48 2.49 2.51 2.79 3.07
1275 ~ . . . . . . . . .
2.39 2.-44 2.50 2.51 2.48 2.50 2.52 2.86 2.96
,
1270 -
, . . . . . . . . .
2.46 2.46 2.50 2.51 2.50 2.51 2.55 2.93 2,91
1265 -'
1<5 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195
1300
1270
Z
0 AREA EXPANDED ABOVE
H
f--
<( 1240.
>
W
-.J
W
1210
1180
1150
1120 , , I I 300
30 60 90 120 150 180 210 2.0 270 330 360
HORIZDNTAL DISTANCE
DATE: SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS PLATE:
JUNE. 1991 b
PROJECT NO.: LDTS 11&1'2-. TRALT '3833-3 CALIFORNIA GEO TEK INC. ~
42030 AVENIDA ALVARADO, SUITE A
'Z\57JJRC-4'32- CITY OF TEMEC.ULA CALI FDP-N\I\ TEMECULA CALIFORNIA 92390
\,,\
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL TRENCH lOG
Date May 29. 1991 Trench No.
Project McKinney
Equipment Company RB Backhoe
Project No.
8S2WRC-492
Tl
Type of Equipment Ford 755B Backhoe
Elevation
Logged by .JEL
Sampled by
Lot No. 11
Page
1 of 1
JEl
- ...
~ Cl g"
~ ~ -
... ~ tJ
Cl ... . Geotechnica 1 Description
Cl ~ III >. .
u.. Cl Cl VI .~ .... ... ... IIl-
... l- 0> VI 0 .~ III (Classification, moisture,
c '" ... c . III Cl . "'VI
.~ ~ ... 0 .~o c ~... ~ . tightness, color, etc. )
'" 0 III 0 III ~ '" c uu
~ c ~ IIlN '" ...Cl .
... '" Cl ... '" C Ill'" ~ VI
"'- 0 "'- "'- ... ..~ >. .~ c .~ .
~ ~ ~ Cl o E! ~ :i3 .5l=
'-" c ... z:~ c
SM SILTY SAND, damp loose, light brown, medium fine
7.8 grained, subangular (colluvium) some clay
micacious, occasional +4 quartz fragments
MD
DS
6
SP POORlY GRADED SAND, damp, moderately dense,
7.2 brown less damp, reddish brown very dense
{Pauba} coarser grained
light
EOB
TOTAL DEPTH 10 FEET
NO GROUNDWATER
NO REFUSAL
A i
\(S'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL TRENCH lOG
Oate May 29, 1991 Trench No. T2 Project No. 8S2WRC-492
Project McKinney Type of Equipment Ford 755B Backhoe
Equipment Company RB Backhoe Elevation
Logged by JEl Sampled by JEL lot No. 12 Page 1 of 1
- I+-
- ~ ClI lS.
~ - ~ -
.... - t t~
t .... . Geotechnical Description
~ III >, .
... ClI ClI V'> ,~ " .... .. 1Il-
.... ,... I::'lV'lO .~ III (Classification, moisture,
e '" l+- e . III ClI . "'V'>
.~ ~ I+- 0 '~8 e ~.... ~ . tightness, color, etc.)
.., 0 III III ~ " e '-''-'
~ e ~ III N " ...ClI .
.... " ClI .... '" e Ill.... ~V'>
Q. 0 C. C. c... ...... ~ .~ e .~ .
~ ~ ~ ClI o E! :i8 o=>
~ Q ..z- Q V>-
SM SILTY SAND, damp, loose, gray, some clay
- - (co 11 uvi urn) -
SC CLAYEY SAND, wet, moderately dense, reddish
- - brown, (pauba) -
- - -
?
EI 11.7 SM SILTY SAND, damp, moderately dense, green-gray
- some clay, blocky -
- - -
Ml SILT, damp, moderately dense, gray, some sand
- - -
4
SM SILTY SAND, damp, moderately dense, gray,
- - coarse-fine some clay, micacious -
- - -
- - -
- -
6 16.9
EOB
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
TOTAL DEPTH 6 FEET
NO GROUNDWATER
NO REFUSAL
I"
A ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL TRENCH lOG
Date Mav 29. 1991 Trench No. T3 Project No. 8S2WRC-492
Project McKi nney Type of Equipment Ford 755B Backhoe
Equipment Company RB Backhoe Elevation
logged by JEl Sampled by JEL Lot No. 12 Page 1 of 1
~ ...
~ ~ QI ~
~ - ~ ~
... - t ~~
QI ... . Geotechnical Description
QI ... III >. .
L.I.. QI QI Vl .~..... ... .. 11I-
... ... cnVl 0 .~ III . (Classification, moisture,
c: '0 ... c: . III QI . 'OVl
.~ ~ ... 0 .~o c: ...... ~ .
'" 0 .&: 11I0 III ~ ::s c: <.J<.J tightness. color, etc.)
.&: c: IIl""::S ...QI
... ::s QI ... '0 c: iii... ~Vl
C. 0 C. C. .... ..~ ~ _c: .~ .
QI ... ~ QI os i!8 0:::>
0 '" 0 ..:z:- 0 Vl~
SM SILTY SAND, wet, loose, dark gray, coarse-fine,
- - some clay (colluvium) -
- - -
DS ~ 113.9 10.8 SC CLAYEY SAND, wet, loose, dark brown, coarse-fine
- cohesive, occasional cobbles, micacious ( Paube:-)
~ - -
- - 11.4 -
- - EOB -
- - -
- - -
.lD - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
TOTAL DEPTH 6.5 FEET
NO GROUNDWATER
NO REFUSAL
\1
A iii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL TRENCH LOG
Date May 29. 1991 Trench No. T4 Project No. 8S2WRC-492
Project McKinney Type of Equipment Ford 555B Backhoe
Equipment Company RB Backhoe Elevation
Logged by JEL Sampled by JEl lot No. 11 Page 1 of 1
I
- ....
- - CII g,
- - - -
+> - t ~J
CII +> . Geotechnical Oescription
CII .. III >> .
Ll. CII CII V'> ,~ .... +> .. ill-
+> ... alV'>O ,~ III (Classification, moisture,
c .. .... c . III III . ..V'>
.~ . .... 0 '~8 c ..... - . tightness, color, etc.)
'Q 0 III III c8 " c '-''-'
.s:. c .s:. IIlN::O +>11I .
... ::0 CII ... .. C Ill'" _V'>
Q. 0 Q. Q. 0. ..~ t' .~ c ,~ .
c8 .. ~ c8 0& i8 0:::>
., ..z- Q V'>-
SM SILTY SAND. dry. loose. light gray. coarse-fine,
- ~ damp more dense. wet porous (alluvium) -
- - occasional cobbles and gravel -
- - -
---5 SC ClA YEY SANO. wet moderately loose. brown.
~ micacious. cohesive -
- ~ -
SW WELL GRADED SAND. damp. moderately loose. reddish
- ~ brown, coarse to fine -
- dry. more dense (Pauba) -
10 5.4
- - EOB
-
- - -
- - -
- - -
I-- - -
f- - -
I- - -
f- - -
f- - -
TOTAL DEPTH 10 FEET
NO GROUNOWATER
NO REFUSAL
I~
A iv
-I -I -I ;j -I -I ;::! 8/J1l. / TKfNCf./
~ w w '" .... h/J ~ FIELD
BPR. / TREheH
NO. - FINAL
VI VI VI VI VI rG VI SAMPiF N/J.
.... '" .... '" .... ....
\0 C'l ~ C'l W co w /JurN) FT.
.... .... :!)
.... .... ~ !:>
w .... ~~t>
. . b
\0 ~ ~::::~
.... ~ ""t
'" -<
C'l
. ~
<:>
.... .... .... .... :!)
'" .... <:> C'l .... ..... .....
. . . . . . . :t! ~~
~ ~ co \0 ..... '" co
t:> ~~~
\0 ~ ~~
..,~
<:> :'1
\0 co RELAnvE
<:> co C/JMPACTI/JA/
. .
~ ~ %
MINUS NO.
lD/J (D.75M/'(]
%
LlrYUI/J LIMIT
%
fLAme LIMIT
%
VI VI VI ::!]
!il! VI VI VI ~ ....,
i i :IE: n n 3: .., 3: ...... !::>
, , b ~ r--...:
: ..... -
.... ~
~
~ '"
VI
5ANll
E&UIVIlLENT
~ fXfANSIDN
/N/JEX
PENlTRdMlTEl.
I<SF
~ :l:.~
""
0 ~;:;;
.....::j
~ w :::: ""~
w \0 :"'1
~ ~
.- - - - - -- --.- - - -,- -. - - -"-- .' - -- - -. - " - .- --- - . -- ~ -~ --.... ~ .
.,,~
....,,,,
~ ~ :::: <::;
'" :'1 <!::
---..--
""
~
....
~
""
C
~
:::
~
-.
~
co
VI
'"
:IE:
;:c
C"'l
I
~
\0
'"
~ .....
~ ~
~ ~
~ li:
.... :0.
"" ~
'<
"" ~
~.
~
~
:.,;;
i:;l
:.::i
""
i;:j
V)
"i
~
~
-
....D
I RI R2 R3 R4
I DRY DENSITY (lbs.lft.3) 101.6 109.6 113.4...ffiL TRENCH NO T'
SATURATION (%) ~ ~ ~ --2L SAMPLE 5-1
NATURAL MOISTURE (%) JQ:.L ~ ~ --1Q!.. DEPTH 4'
I FINAL MOISTURE (%) ~ ~ ~ ~ SOIL CLASS Si'\
ULT MAX.
NATURAL MOISTURE D
COHESION (IbsJft. ) = 45
I SATURATED .
00= 4.3
IN-SITU .
I REMOLDED LU D
(;i f::'
1800 LO
I
I 1500
I
I ~ 1200
C\J
+-'
- ~
......
I vi
..c
~
Z
I 0 900
en ~ ~
w I
I ~
I 0
u -,
~
600
I I
~
I
300
I
I I I
300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
II NORMAL LOAD (Ibs./ft.2)
DATE: DI RECT SHEAR RESULTS APPENDIX:
I JUNE. 1991 5ii
PROJECT NO.' LDTS 1\ & 12., II\A('1 9833-3 CALIFORNIA GEO TEK. INC. tt_.
'3S2.WRC-492. 42030 AVENIOA ALVARAOO. SUITE A
CITY DF TEMECULII CALIFORNIA TEMECULA CALIFORNIA 92390
I -z,o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
RI R2 R3 R4
DRY DENSITY Obs./ft.3) ~.Jllil. 1m 1%.7
SATURATION (%).JQ!L. ~ ~ ~
NATURAL MOISTURE (%) ~ ..J,L ~ ~
FINAL MOISTURE (%) 114 1l'L...lbL ~
ULT MAX.
COHESION Obs/ft. )= "0
00= 39
1800
ffi
L()
r--:
@
1500
~
C\I
...:
-
......
vi
.c
1200
-
z
o 900
C/)
W
I
o
U
600
300
BORING NO. T.1
SAMPLE s-,
DEPTH 3.5'
SOIL CLASS SI"I
NATURAL MOISTURE
SATURATED
IN-SITU
REMOLDED
o
.
o
.
I I
-"
-"
~
-I
~
300
600
900
I
1200
1500
1800
DATE:
JUNE. 19'31
PROJECT NO.'
8S2WRC.-4'l2.
NORMAL LOAD <Ibs./ft.2)
01 RECT SHEAR RESULTS APPENDI~:ili
OT" e CALIFORNIA GEO TEK INC. ~
L u 11 &. 12.. TRII."T '3&33-.3 42030 AVENIDA ALVARADO. SUITE A
ClTY OF l'E.Mt.C.ULA c.AUrORNIA TEMECULA CALIFORNIA 92390 .1
ZJv
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I!:Q
LOCATION
BORING/TRENCH NO.
145 BORING / TRENCH DEPTH
SOIL CLASS
140 1\ ASTM D 698 METHOD
\ ASTM D 1557 METHOD
\ 1\
\
135 \ Ibs/ft3
1\ MAXIMUM DENSITY
\ OPTIMUM MOISTURE 0/.
1\
1\
130 \
:\
1\
~
r<'l.
- ,..., 1\
- 125
" \
vi 'I "
..0
- ~ 1\
~
>- 120 ,
I- \
(f) \. \
Z 1\
W \
0
>- 115 1\
a:
0 \
\
110
\ \
1\ \
105 \
\
\
100 \
S,G.=2.50
l(- S.G=2.60 ZERO AIR
S.G.=270 VOIDS CURVE
95
"
1'\ '\
"
90 '\
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
MOISTURE CONTENT (% OF DRY WEIGHT)
DATE: MAXIMUM DENSITY CURVE APPENDIX:
JUNE. \.,91 Biv
PROJECT NO.: LOIS 11 &. H, t II\I\CT 9K~):J-3 CALIFORNIA GEO TEK INC. ~
42030 AVENIOA ALVARA002 SUITE A
8S'l.WI\C- 492. C.11'< OF 'TIM COLA Ci\L1FOmll\ TEMECULA CALIFORNIA 9 390
?,-P
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
GENERAL GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
1.
Scope
a) This section contains general specifications for work relating to the
following construction:
Site Clearing and Grubbing
Preparation of Subgrade in Areas to be Filled
Placement of Fill
Trench Backfi II
b) The owner shall employ a qualified soil engineer to inspect and test
the fill as placed to verify the uniformity of compaction to the
specified density requirement. The soil engineer shall advise the
owner and grading contractor immediately if any unsatisfactory soil
related conditions exist and shall have the authority to reject the
compacted fill ground until such time as corrective measures
necessary are taken to comply with the specifications. It shall be
the sole responsibility of the grading contractor to achieve the
specified degree of compaction.
2.
Clearinq, Grubbinq and Preparinq Areas to be Filled
a) All brush, vegetation, rubbish and desiccated top clay soil shall be
removed, piled, or otherwise disposed of so as to leave the areas to
be filled free of vegetation, debris and desiccated top clay soil.
Any soft and swampy spots in the canyon areas shall be corrected by
draining or by removal of the unsuitable materials.
b) The natural ground which is determined to be satisfactory for the
support of the filled ground shall then be plowed or scarified to a
depth of at least six inches (6") and until the surface is free from
ruts, hummocks, or other uneven features which would tend to prevent
uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. The scarified ground
should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory
density. Where undisturbed bedrock is exposed at the surface,
scarification and recompaction may not be required.
c) Where fills are made on hillsides or exposed slope areas, the
existing top unstable materials should be removed. If existing
slopes are steeper than 5 horizontal to 1 vertical, horizontal
benches shall be cut into firm and competent undisturbed soil or
bedrock in order to provide both lateral and vertical stability.
C i
z.o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.
d) All areas to receive controlled fill, including all removal areas and
toe-of-fill benches and keys, shall be inspected and approved by the
soil engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to placing
controlled compacted fill.
Fill Materials and Special Requirements
The fill soils shall consist of select materials approved by the project
soil engineer or his representative. These materials may be obtained
from the excavation areas and any other approved sources, and by blending
soils from one or more sources. The material used shall be free from
organic vegetable matter and other deleterious substances, and shall not
contain rocks or lumps of greater than eight inches in diameter within a
distance of ten feet from any finished compacted surface. If excessive
vegetation, rocks, or soil with inadequate strength or other unacceptable
physical characteristics are encountered, these shall be disposed of.
During the grading operation, if potential problem soils are found, these
soils shall be tested to determine their physical characteristics. Any
special treatment recommended shall become an addendum to these specifi-
cations. Boulders greater than eight inches but less than or equal to
two feet in diameter should be uniformly distributed in the compacted
fill areas but no closer than ten feet from final grade and should be
surrounded with sufficient amounts of compacted finer-grained materials.
No nesting will be permitted. Boulders greater than two feet in diameter
shall be placed in approved disposal areas no closer than ten feet from
final grade and shall be placed in windrows in such a manner that voids
will not exist around boulders. Continuous inspection by the project
soil engineer is required during rock disposal operations.
Placing, SpreadinQ and CompactinQ Fill Materials
a) The suitable fill material shall be placed in approximately level
layers which, when compacted, shall not exceed six inches (6"). Each
layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during the
spreading to insure uniformity of material and moisture in each
layer.
4.
b) When the moisture content of the fill material is below that
specified by the soil engineer, water shall be added until the
moisture content is near optimum as specified by the soil engineer to
assure thorough bonding during the compaction process.
c) When the moisture content of the fill material is above that
specified by the soil engineer, the fill material shall be aerated by
blending and scarifying or other satisfactory methods until the
moisture content is near optimum as specified by the soil engineer.
d) After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall
be thoroughly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum
density in accordance with ASTM D1557-78 (five layers). Compaction
shall be accomplished with sheepsfoot rollers, multiple wheel
pneumatic-tired rollersor other approved types of compaction
equipment. Rollers shall be of such design that they will be able to
compact the fill material to the specified density.
C ii
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e) Special mlxlng and watering effort may be required where diatomaceous
materials are encountered to achieve the recommended moisture content
and density.
f) Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or
other suitable equipment. Compacting of the slopes shall be
accomplished by backrolling the slopes in increments of three to five
feet in elevation gain or by other methods producing satisfactory
results. Relative compaction shall be at least 90 percent to the
finished slope face.
g) The soil engineer and/or his designated representative shall observe
the placement of fill and shall take sufficient tests to provide an
opinion on the uniformity and degree of compaction being obtained.
5. Trench Backfills
a) Trench excavations for utility pipes shall be backfilled under
engineering supervision.
b) After the utility pipe has been laid, the space under and around the
pipe shall be backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to
a depth of at least one foot over the top of the pipe. The sand
backfill shall be uniformly jetted into placed before the controlled
backfill is placed over the sand.
c) The onsite materials, or other soils approved by the soil engineer,
shall be watered and mixed as necessary prior to placement in lifts
over the sand backfill.
d) The controlled backfill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of
the maximum laboratory density as determined by the ASTM compaction
method described above.
e) Field density tests and inspection of the backfill procedures shall
be made by the soil engineer during backfilling to see that proper
moisture content and uniform compaction is being maintained. The
contractor shall provide test holes and exploratory pits as required
by the soil engineer to enable sampling and testing.
z:D
C iii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPEND IX D
Reference
Schaefer Dixon Associates, Geological Evaluation, Santiago Estates, Portion of
Tract No. 9833-3, Rancho California, California, November 30, 1988.
''If'p