HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 21383 GeotechReportGradingPcls10,11(Apr.15,1998)
: ~EN COl"P.oration
-SoilEngineeringandConsullingServices. Engineering Geology . GompaclionTesling
-Inspections. Construction Materials Testing . Laboratory Tesling . PercolalionTesling
-Geology. Water Resource Sludies . Phasel&IIEnvironmentalSiteAssessmenls
I
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
LPql-O~
I
I
I
"
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING
Parcels 10 and 11 of Parcel Map 21383 ~
42116-42140 Winchester Road
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T1287-C
I
April 15, 1998
I
I
,I
I
~_..~....~...~....:-'<'<~- -;_~C"_"""-::-C:
I
~
I!\ IZt""'()~\\vm'"
81'..A"';'} I~~-y v tci:i;
1(-''''', '~cI <<"'rei' ""\r-'4"'\' W A
'<::_ ~A '" h .__:.jJ.,~ h. iC:t.t.....\:~~...~dM"i\
l'j)ld1,j)J:I ,;:;1- ,-)rp-,\',:<, ""',,?y'" "vlY Wr"' ''!/!.ro)CilW'~~
~-_ [C:~lJ.Iti.\.1~\\!U>V..-.J.' .~.~ "0 ~-!J.. ,. '\)''4I''-~,l.~ IJIJ _ I~"~'!
'I
~
'1
~~:___~~. _.:::Jl1':i:E:._4}.sjq8_
11
0'
I,
"
-.
I
I
Prepared for:
I
California Companies
5241 East Santa Ana Canyon Road
Anaheim Hills, California 92807
!
.. .~
". / ~ ~ / __ I ' / "-
, -' \ - - - \ ~'-' - - \ - - \ ,- - - \ ... .... '
~ ' - , - ' " "-
'. / ,-, - -~---
-I ~__I -'-_I ," ,,_~. ^~
: J \ i ~I: .... ~_<_~_:__~__.,:_~~_L _...J_.,.. -:) ,- . A;::-,,<J\~;;C::~?::;S0:f:s~:ot;"'~i,t:'{H
~~~~~~O.:~~~~~'~~;~:d ~ i~ll~~~1~~~~\~I~}~ilf:~:,;~~#i~~il~~~~~~l(t~~~i
, '
/ .... ,~ -
-, ,
"~I - _,
- - \....... ~
\ -
~ " - / .-
~ .,:-=.~-,~-' "
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
California Companies
Project No: T1287.C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE
PAGE
1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................1
1.1 Site Location .........................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Description................................................................................................ 1
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK............................................................................................... 2
2.1 Time of Grading .................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Equipment........................................................... .......... ........... ............................. 2
2.3 Grading Operations......................................... ........................................... .......... 2
3.0 TESTING ..............................................................................................................2
3.1 Field Testing ......................................................................................................... 2
3.2 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................ 3
3.3 Moisture-Density Relationship Test ......................................................................3
3.4 Expansion Index Test ........................................................................................... 3
4.0 EARTH MA TERIALS............................................................................................3
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................4
5.1 Foundation Design Recommendations.................................................................4
5.2 General.... ............ .................................. ......... ......... .... .................................... ..... 4
5.3 Foundation Size................................................... ....... ....... ................................... 4
5.4 Depth of Embedment............................................................................................4
5.5 Bearing Capacity...................................... .... ............ ..... ........................ ............... 4
5.6 Settlement.............................................. ..... ..........................................................5
5.7 Lateral Capacity. ..................................... ........................................................ ...... 5
5.8 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations .......................................................................5
5.9 Interior Slabs.. .............................................. ......................... ................................ 6
5.10 Exterior Slabs .......................................................................................................6
.5.11 General .............................................................:.......................................... 7
, 6.0 CLOSURE ............................................................................................................7
. APPENDIX
TEST RESULTS
'Z-
EnGEN Corporation
I ~' 4F'
I .>2~".,."..,,~GEN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/ , / _.... ~ /" / ~ '/, . / .... , F I _-... _ '/ ~ ",! _....:... '/...., .- I _-... _
/\-~-\/ \ \..- "\---\ ,--- \--\~,~I~,- \...~' ,___\...~"/
, ,-' - \ '\ 1\- "-. ~ \" -/ L.... - J " ~ \ .- \' -/ ,-, '" - .-.... - _ '''''''':::c .:.'::"'_":/ .::_-;:~.'_.:
'-" I '~_ I '.... - - - ' - >.-' .___ __oo _ _ ,"
-I ~ \ I--~ i, , -I:' I ~ I _1- :-__ _~ ___-'_.... ,. .. --I: c_:-; ~'i~;B'*S-'?~
7"'-'''-:'.,-J.--' ' l ~~' "-''' " , ~ , , I' .. :'o,,~,,~;.:~~";;;:::;~.~.
z;;i;;;;~~ a,~;fj.E~~;Ei:4Jli= E !\;iiii.1:s~~qrcL~ N rt ,Suil.~l,;remecula, GA 92590 '-phone: (909).676-3095' fa~:-1909J li76-329,f ~
~1~~;-i.;~]t~'Z.~~:~~~~~~~ I ~~~Q(atig_e-!\ e u.e;:t~'t~na,9A 9270'1L' p~oe: (ilMfs46-40S11' fax: (]1:41546"4ri5~:~.::
EB SITE: WWW.NENCORP.COM.E.MALL:.ENG..ENCORP@PE.NET .."
iiig
~..
COfl~oration
. Soil Engineering and Consulting Services . EngineeringGeology-CompactionTesling
. Inspections. ConstruclionMaterialsTesling. laboraloryTesling. PercolalionTesling
. Geolooy.Water Resource Sludies . Phase 1& II Environmental Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
April 15, 1998
Mr. Charles Johnson
California Companies
5241 East Santa Ana Canyon Road
Anaheim Hills, California 92807
(714) 282-5777 I FAX (714) 283-1805
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING
Parcels 10 and 11 of Parcel Map 21383
42116-42140 Winchester Road
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T1287-C
References:
1.
EnGEN Corporation, Updated Geotechnical Study, Parcels 10 and
11 of Parcel Map 21383, City of Temecula, County of Riverside,
California, report dated December 3, 1997.
Dear Mr. Johnson:
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 AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Site Location
The subject property is located on 42116-42140 Winchester Road in the City of
Temecula, County of Riverside, California, as shown on the Vicinity Map presented
in the Appendix. The site consisted of two (2) flat previously graded pads. The
site was vacant of any man-made structures. The site was covered with a light
growth of native vegetation such as grasses and weeds.
1.2
Project Description
The grading of the referenced site consisted of preparing two building pads. The
referenced site was graded to the elevations as shown on the Referenced No. 2
plans.
. -. ,--.--. ~ ,. .>
c,=,_"".".~"~,_'",,.''''''
" ._,--..,"~-- .... --- ... "-
,c'~~ljwlTII
,
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! I
I
I
I
California Companies
Project No: T1287.C
April 1998
Page 2
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
2.1 Time of Grading
Grading operations were conducted from April 7, 1998 through April 9, 1998.
2.2 Equipment
The grading operations for the building pads were performed by McDonald
Engineering through the use of one (1) Caterpillar track mounted dozer, and one
(1) motorgrader.
2.3 Grading Operations
Grading within the subject site consisted of a cut! fill operation. Grasses and
weeds were stripped prior fill placement. Fill material was generated from cuts in
the driveway and parking area portions of the site, and used to bring the building
pad portions of the site to finish grade elevation. The building pad areas 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 processed
to near optimum moisture content then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent
relative compaction. 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.
3.0 TESTING
3.1 Field Testing
Field observations and in-place density testing were performed on a part-time, as-
needed basis during the grading operations. Where tests indicate failing results,
the soils were reprocessed until at least 90 percent relative compaction was
achieved. Test locations were randomly selected in the areas receiving fill and
were recorded using approximate locations and elevations as could be determined
in the field. Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed
during the placement of the fill materials during the rough grading operations in
general accordance with the following ASTM test procedures:
~
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
California Companies
Project No: T1287-C
April 1998
Page 3
Test Method for Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate in Place by Nuclear
Test Methods (Shallow Depths) - ASTM 02922-81 (1990).
Test Method for Water Content of Soil and Rock in Place by Nuclear
Methods (Shallow Depth) -ASTM 03017-88.
Test Method for Density of Soil by Sand Cone Method-ASTM 01556.
The test results indicate that soils were compacted to a minimum of 90 percent
relative compaction. Test results are presented in the Appendix. The locations of
the in-place density tests are presented on the Rough Grading Report Site Plan in
the Appendix.
3.2 Laboratory Testing
The following laboratory tests were performed as part of our services during the
rough grading of the subject site. The test results are presented in the Appendix.
3.3 Moisture-Density Relationship Test
Maximum dry density - optirnum moisture content relationship tests were
conducted on samples of the materials used as fill. The tests were performed in
general accordance with ASTM 01557-91 procedures. The test results are
presented in the Appendix (Summary of Optimum Moisture Content I Maximum
Dry Density Relationship Test Results).
3.4 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 fine to coarse sand with clay, which had an
Expansion Index of 68, which is classified as medium expansion potential. The
results are presented in the Summary of Expansion Index Results in the Appendix.
4.0 EARTH MATERIALS
The natural earth materials encountered on-site generally consisted of sandy silts
with varying amounts of clay.
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
California Companies
Project No: T1287-C
April 1998
Page 4
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Foundation Design Recommendations
5.2 General
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 medium 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.
5.3 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.5 steel
reinforcing bars located near the top and one (1) NO.5 steel reinforcing bars
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 doorway entrances.
5.4 Depth of Embedment
Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill should extend to a
minimum depth of 18-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for the structure.
5.5 Bearing Capacity
Provided the recommendations for site earthwork, 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 2000 psf for
continuous footings and 2000 psf for column footings in properly compacted fill
'5"
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
California Companies
Project No: T1287-C
April 1998
Page 5
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.
5.6 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.
5.7 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 - 150 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
Compacted Fill - 0.25
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.
5.8 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 medium
EnGEN Corporation
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
California Companies
Project No; T1287-C
April 1998
Page 6
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.
5.9 Interior Slabs
Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4.0-inches in actual
thickness and be underlain by 1.0 to 2.0 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 18-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 potential punctures.
Subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned by flooding to at least 5% above
optimum moisture to a depth of 18-inches immediately before placing concrete.
. 5.10 Exterior Slabs
All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks, etc., with the
exception of PCC pavement) should be a minimum of 4.0-inches nominal in
thickness and be underlain by a minimum of 12.0-inches of soil that has been
properly prepared. Reinforcing in the slabs and the use of a compacted sand or
.1
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
California Companies
Project No: T1287-C
April 1998
Page 7
gravel base beneath the slabs should be according to the current local standards.
Subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned by flooding to at least 5% above
optimum moisture content to a depth of 18-inches immediately before placing the
concrete.
5.11 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
Reference & Geotechnical Study, and the Grading Code of the City ofTemecula.
The graded site in the areas noted as graded is determined to be adequate for the
support of a typical commercial structure and appurtenant facilities. Any
subsequent grading for development of the subject property should be performed
under engineering observation and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation.
Subsequent grading includes, but is not limited to, any additional fill placement and
excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN
Corporation should observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be
made prior to installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel so as to verify
and/or modify, if necessary, the conclusions and recommendations in this report.
Observations of overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other
trench backfill, pavement subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab
presaturation, or other earthwork completed for the development of subject site
should be performed by EnGEN Corporation. If any of the observations and
testing to verify site geotechnical conditions are not performed by EnGEN
Corporation, liability for the safety and performance of the development is limited
to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by EnGEN
Corporation.
6.0 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
EnGEN Corporation
€>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
California Companies
Project No: T1287-C
April 1998
Page 8
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
9:: tic
Field Operation
JDG/OB:rr
Distribution: (4) Addressee
Wayne/D/EnGEN/ReportsfT1287C California Companies Rough Grading
EnGEN Corporation
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
California Companies
Project No: T1287-C
Appendix Page 1
APPENDIX
TEST RESULTS
\0
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
California Companies
Project No: T1287-C
Appendix Page 2
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(Summary of Field In-Place Density Test Results)
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
Test Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
No. Date Test Elev. Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
(1998) Locations (FT) (PCF) ('Yo) (PCF) ('Yo) ('Yo)
1 4-9 Bldg. Pad- -1.0' 1 120.6 12.1 113.9 94.4 90
Front
2 4-9 Bldg. Pad- -0.5' 1 120.6 11.2 114.6 95.0 90
F rant
3 4-9 Bldg. Pad- F.G. 1 120.6 11.7 111.6 92.5 90
Front
4 4-9 Bldg. Pad- -0.5' 1 120.6 12.6 110.0 91.2 90
Rear
5 4-9 Bldg. Pad- F.G. 1 120.6 11.0 111.1 92.1 90
Rear
6 4-9 West Wall F.G. 1 120.6 12.8 112.8 93.5 90
7 4-9 West Wall F.G. 1 120.6 12.0 109.7 91.0 90
(F.G.) Indicates Finish Grade
(*) Indicates Sand Cone Test Method
EnGEN Corporation
\\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Soil
Type
California Companies
Project No: T1287-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 Sandy Silt, Brown (ML) 120.6 11.7
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
1
Moisture Moisture
Condition Before Condition After
Depth Dry Density Test (%) Test (%) Expansion
(FT) (PCF) Index
1.5 108.5 10.8 22.9 68
EnGEN Corporation
\'V
I California Companies
Project No; T1287-C
I Appendix Page 4
I
I DRAWINGS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I
I
I EnGEN Corporation \~
o
o
s:
""U
)>.
(")
~ I
z
~I
""U
~ I
--I
~I
m
;:91
)>
Z I
I
I
I
I
I
!
!
!
!w
ji3
:8
I
!
~~ 1
00 ..._.~ j
a x! ~ .
a 3" : ';j
IDa ! 18, "" "
a(j)- ; = :1
)> : "
m c: i ij
D 3 ' ,.
~ i il'
en : :
_ L...--...............-..........----~...II
!
i
!
'---.
'f12s
'f12s
lJ:Jl
S;;o
i\Jf)
com
wr
~~
wO
.....r ~.~
~1PP
I
I
1
,.,.......L
I; ~"'1
j I :
. '
.. '
, .
i " i
,@ ,
;. (J1 ;
, '
, '
" '
. '
i, j
, '
, '
:. :
, '
:. :
~_. .!
1025
020
WINCHESTER ROAD
+:'
~
I
I
I
~
,
I
1
I
!
~
!
!
!
j
!
~j
o.
oj
Q.
!
I
!@
!
j
---~--------
I _______~
. ---------------------..-.
!
!
!
!
!
I
--------.D27
! .
<
zo
oS"
~~
Q.;:::
<DC
~
lJlJ
sP
;;0
N()
com
wr
-' -'
w~
~j
o :
16!
~j
ro
o
C
OJ
a
D
-<
,
..
<
8
II
0)>
-'0
0'0
00
32S.
IP
glt
go
1D'@
~o
OJ
\t\z
o
en
o
o .
-",
CD
":J;I 0
g. Q.
CD CD
() ..
-
z -6"
c ~
3 =
0" ~
CD -0
~ OJ
CXl
-l
~
N
CXl
"
,
()
Om
(il"
:J 0
- -
z 0
o CD
:3 1)
CD :=.
.. "0
-
o o'
o ?
=;;
o -0
~ 0
:J ~
-. ()
o CD
()cn
o ~
:3 0
"0 0
o :J
:J 0.
(f)" -..l
en ~
o
-
(J
o
CD
s
o
"0
N
CXl
u.>
~
u.>
m
::
Cl
m
Z
C"l
o
...
."
o
...
.,
-
~.
o
::