HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechReport&CompactionResultsRoughGrading(Sept.24,2001)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
_I
.,:1:
"
;'
~""l r- 'I~' '~-"G
d"02,,,,~~"L,,.,,,"'".'"". '. EN
~''''d~/lla,m, ",'
-- \ ,"
- - ,
, I
, '
, "
,
,
CO!"Roration
eSoilEngineeringandConsultingServices-ErrgineeringGeolollY. Compaction Tesling
-Inspections- ConslructionMaterialsTesting. LalloratoryTesting-PercolationTesting
-Geoiogy.WaterResourceStudies .Phasel&IIEnvironment;lISiteAssessmenls
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Redhawk Medical Center
Lots 23 and 24 ofTract 23172
Highway 79 South and George Cushman Court
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2183-C
September 24, 2001
APPROVED
Ctl.l: OF T~MF('lJLA
D' j:"\l:>"T""<JPNITl 0 J J"" Jf V '0RK' C
. :~ ..-., .~1l.h.'..'_', .. . I, C'.L.... 'iJ , ;j'
,M~~
,...
~
','
~/2-8/e/
RECEIVED
SEP 2. 7 2001
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Prepared for:
Don Veasey Construction
27574 Commerce Center Drive
Temecula, California 92590
""?~ - 4"2-lV
53B-46\DC~
;:~.~~.: 'm":~:';'ff'--'-;'~",. :', , , . : :
~','-_: : - -~' ,'-~: ,-, ~'" .-,
f.~ ,. "J '.-
E'__'l'tiS!',fircle N rt~, $uileJ; Temecula, CA n599 . phone:,(9091296-2230.1axc19b9J '29,6.2237
_ . I. B~~~O;::.~ :1::~p~::~~~~~~~~~:~en'c~~~;:~::~~:;:.~~~1 . fax: (714) 546-!052
;'
/ , "
, ,
\
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Don Veasey Construction
Project Number: T2183-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..... ........... ........... ....... ....,................................. ..., ,....................2
1.3 PROJECT DESCRiPTION......,.................. :'........................... ,..,'..,......... ......,......, ,:.... 2
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ,......................................................,..........,........,:...,.............................2
2,1 TIME OF GRADING ..............,................L.................,..,..............,...........................,2
2.2 : CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT. .............L ....,..'.................. ...............,..., '.... ..,...........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 EXPANSION INDEX TEST .,........................................,....,......................"..,..3
3.2.3 SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST ....,........................ .............................. ...............3
,
4.0 EARTH MATERIALS ......,....,...., ,.,..,., ,.,....,.:.., ......... .............,., ,.,..,..,.:,., ,.',."., ..... ....,..,...,.., ,4
5:0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....".....................................:................,................4
6.0 CLOSURE ............. .................... ... .......,., ,., ,.,.,......... ... ................,..", ,.,., ,.., ",., ... .... ...,.., ,., ,.4
ApPENPIX
TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
!
EnGEN Corporation
"V
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~I
':1
~~,";~I".
""':"- -
It<"E~ '
-
4!1r-~
€:J~~"""~i~~""'''';''- ,cc'G, EN
~...'..dl~,.". ...' .:c
CO!"Roration
-SoiIEngineeringandConsullingServices-EngineeringGeology-CompactionTesting
-lnspec\ions-ConslruclionMalerialsTesling.LaboraloryTesling-PercolationTesling
. Geology .WalerResourceStudies . Phase!&1I Environmenlal Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
September 24, 2001
Don Veasey Construction
27574 Commerce Center Drive
Temecula, California 92590
(909) 694-1957 I FAX (909) 694-1398
Attention:
Mr. Don Veasey
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Redhawk Medical Center
Lots 23 and 24 of Tract 23172
Highway 79 South and George Cushman Court
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2183-C
EnGEN Corporation, Agreement for Grading Release, Redhawk Medical
Center, Lots 23 and 24 of Tract 23172, Highway 79 South, Temecula,
California, Project Number: T2183-GS, report dated July 26, 2001.
2, EnGEN Corporation, Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study, Proposed
Structure, Medical Building, Lots 23 and 24 of Tract 23172, Vail Ranch Area
of Riverside County, California, Project Number: T2183-GS, report dated
October 30, 2000.
References: 1.
3. HLC Civil Engineering, 20-Scale Precise Grading Plan, Plot Plan 16699,
Lots 23 and 24, Tract No. 23172, plans dated June 18, 2001.
Dear Mr. Veasey:
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 2 acres, located southeast of the intersection of State Highway
79 South and George Cushman Court, in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside,
California (Figure 1).
/ ., "
c. 7~ ~r~"".--.~-c..~~-_.; ;:
E t~cpr.\S.e Circle N ,* Suite'.;; Temecule, CA 92590 . phone: 190,9) 296,2236. 'fax: ,19Il.9) 296-2237
.~ ~ _.I~: ~~~p=:: :1~~::~:~;:~~~~:~e;c~~;:~~:~~::'c~~1' o,faX::114) 546.4052 ,
, .
'. '
I "\ _ _ \ __
" ,
.- - - I
. ,
, .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'1
'I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
Don Veasey Construction
Project Number: T2183,C
Septembe, 2001
Page 2
1,2 SITE DESCRIPTION
Prior to recent grading operations, topography and surface conditions of the site were
relatively flat. The site had been previously graded in 1994, under the observation of
Geocon, Inc. Based on the findings in the Referenced No, 2 Report and our observations
during grading, up to 6-feet of engineered fill cover the site,
1,3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
It is understood that the subject site is to be developed with a one to two-story medical
building with slab-on-grade concrete floors, surrounded by parking and landscape areCjs,
2.0 SCOPE OFWORK
2.1 TIME OF GRADING
This report represents geotechnical observations and testing during the construction
operations from August 27, 2001 through September 21, 2001.
2.2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT
The grading operations were performed by eighorn Grading and Engineering,: fnc,
througb the use of rubber-tired and track-mounted heavy equipment. A water truck was on
site to provide moisture for fill operations and to .control fugitive dust.
2.3 GRADING OPERATIONS
Grading within the subject site consisted of an overexcavation and replacement operation.
Grasses and weeds were removed prior to fill placement. Removal of engineered fill and
alluvium was performed to a depth of 12-feet below proposed elevation and at least 1 ()-feet
outside the proposed structure. Bottoms were processed according to specifications
outlined in our previous report, The exposed bottoms were scarified and mo(sture
conditi9ned to a depth of 12-inches then compacted to 90 percent relative compaction. A
. ,
geogrid section as described in the Referenced No, 1 Report was constructed over the
processed bottom. The two (2) foot thick "sandwich" section consisted of an engineered fill
"core" with geogrid "skins" top and bottom, Engineered fill was then placed over the top
geogrid layer to the design grade. Fill was pl,!ced in lens thicknesses of 8 to 10-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 soil~ 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 Referenced No. 3 Grading Plan.
However, the actual pad location, dimensions, elevations, slope locations and inclinations,
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Don Veasey Construction
Project Number: T2183-C
September 2001
Page 3
etc. were surveyed and staked by others and should be verified by the Project Civil
Engineer.
3~O TESTING
3.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES
Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed in general accordance
with ASTM 0 2922-96 and ASTM D 3017-96 procedures for determining in-place density
and rnoisture content, respectively, using nuclear gauge equipment. Relative compaction
l '
test results were within the 90 p'ercent 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, Locations of density tests are illustrated on
the Density Test Location Map (Plate 1).
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 ContenUMaximum Dry Density Relationship Test Results).
3,2,2 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 gray
silty fine sand, which has an Expansion Index of O. This soil is classified as having a very
low expansion potential. The results are presented in the Appendix (Summary of
Expansion Index Test Results),
3.2.3 SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST
Soil samples were obtained for soluble sulfate testing from the building pad areas upon
completion of grading of the subject site. The concentration of soluble sulfate was
determined in general accordance with California Test Method 417 procedures. The test
results indicate a low percentage of water-soluble sulfates (0.02% by weight), as a result
EnGEN Corporation
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Don Veasey Construction
Project Numbe,: T2183,C
September 2001
Page 4
no sulfate resistant concretes are necessary. The test results are presented in the
Appendix (Summary of Soluble Sulfate Test Results).
4~0 EARTH MATERIALS
The natural earth materials encountered on-site generally consisted of light gray to dark
gray sandy silt with clay to silty fine sand,
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
No conditions were encountere(j which would cause a change in the previously provided
design and construction recommendations. As a result, design and constru~tion should
adhere to the recommendations provided in the Referenced Reports.
Based on the observations and tests performed during grading, the subject; site, in the
areas noted as test locations, has bee!l completed in accordance with the ;Referenced
Reports, 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
medical center. Any subsequent gradingJor development of the subject property should be
- c
performed under engineering observation and testing performed by EnGEN <;:orporation.
,Subsequent grading includes, but is not limited to, any additional fill placernent 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 re~mmendations in this report, Obs~rvations of
,
overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finisb 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 geotechnicql conditions
'are not performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the safety and perfomiance 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 on field and laboratory testing
performed during the rough grading operation and on generally accepted engineering
EnGEN. Corporation
-s
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Don Veasey Construction
P,ojecl Number: T2183-C
September 2001
Page 5
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.
EWR/OB:hh
~r;:ne, GE 162
Pre. nt
Expire .
I/y.Or SSIO/~ ~
~fS1 \\\l\M /J1Vt~~\
~ ~ ~",~'@\
~ (:) ~.
:0 \<1\
, 1-" No 162 1::"\\
~ ' }:>.il'
~*\ /*11
\ .~@" ~r/ I
~~~{!I
~r.~,;/
--
Distribution: (4) Addressee
FILE: EnGEN/Reporting/CfT2183-C Veasey, Redhawk Medical, Rough Grading
EnGEN Corporation
Ce
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Don Veasey Construction
Project Numbe,: T2183-C
Appendix Page 1
APPENDIX:
TEST RESULTS
,
1
EnGEN Corporation -.
I
I
Don Veasey Construction
Project Numbe,: T2183-C
Appendix Page 2
(S, G.) = Subgrade / (F. G.) = Finish Grade
I Test Test - Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
No. Date Test Locations Elevation Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
(2001) (FT) (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%)
.
1 09-05 Northwest End of Building Pad.. 1070 A2 129.1 7.0 120,1 93.0% 90,0%
2 09-06 Northeast End of Building Pad 1077 A1 119.1 12,7 116.2 97.6% 90.0%
3 09-06 Northeast End of Building Pad f 1078 A2 129.1 13,8 116.5 90.2% 90.0%
4 09-06 Northeast End of Building Pad 1078 A2 129.1 12.8 1164 90.2% 90,0%
,; 09-06 Northeast End of Bl:lilding Pad 1079 A1 119.1 9.8 112.5 94.5% 90.0%
09-06 Northeast End of Building Pad 1080 A1 119.1 10.8 111.0 93.2% 90.0%
09-06 Central Portion of Building Pad 1081 A1 119.1 12,0 111.7 93.8% 90.0%
8 09-07 North End of Pad 1082 A2 129.1 11.9 116,5 90.2% 90.0%
9 09-07 North End of Pad 1083 A2 129.1 9.2 116.2 90.0% 90.0%
I 10 09-07 North End of Pad 1084.5 A2 129.1 8.8 116,7 904% 90.0%
11 09-07 North End of Pad 1085 A1 119.1 10.3 105,9 88.9% 90,0%
09-07 Retest #11 . 1085 A1 119.1 124 109.1 91.6% 90.0%
12
13 09-07 North End of Pad 1086 A1 119.1 9.8 107.5 90.3% 90,0%
14 09-07 North End of Pad 1087 A1 119.1 11,8 112.9 94.8% 90,0%
15 09-07 North End of Pad 1088 A1 119,1 11.8 112,7 94.6% 90,0%
16 09-07 North End of Pad 1090 A1 119.1 8.5 111.8 93.9% 90.0%
17 09-11 Southwest End of Pad 1079 A1 119.1 12.9 110.6 92.9% 90.0%
18 09-11 Southeast End of Pad 1080 A1 119,1 11.8 105.9 88.9% 90,0%
19 09-11 Retest #18 - 1080 A1 119,1 14.5 107.2 90.0% 90.0%
20 09-12 South End of Pad 1081 A1 119.1 11.6 110.2 92.5% 90.0%
21 09-12 South End of Pad ! 1081 A1 119.1 12.9 106,8 89.7% 90.0%
22 09-12 Retest #21 - 1081 A1 119,1 11.8 113.1 95.0% 90.0%
23 09-12 South End of Pad 1082 A1 119.1 13.1 114,1 95.8% 90.0%
I 24 09-12 South End of Pad 1082 A1 119.1 134 115.1 96.6% 90.0%
25 09-12 South End of Pad 1083 A2 129.1 134 116.9 90.5% 90.0%
26 09-12 South End of Pad 1083.5 A2 129.1 10.0 1164 90.2% 90,0%
27 09-12 South End of Pad 1084 A2 129.1 9,5 117.8 91.2% 90.0%
28 09-13 South End of Pad 1085 A2 129.1 74 119.1 92.3% 90.0%
29 09-13 South End of Pad 1086 A2 129.1 8.2 118.7 91.9% 90.0%
30 09-13 South End of Pad 1085 A2 129.1 84 120,1 93.0% 90.0%
31 09-13 South End of Pad 1086 A2 129.1 7,9 119.8 92.8% 90.0%
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(Surnrnary of Field In-Place Density Test Results)
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
I
EnGEN Corporation
~
I
I
Don Veasey Construction
Project Number: T2183-C
Appendix Page 3
(S, G) = Subgrade / (F. G) = Finish Grade
I~est Test Depth ' Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
No, Date Test Locations Elevation Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
(2001) (FT) (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%)
32 09-13 South End of Pad 1085 A2 129.1 8.9 120,1 93.0% 90,0%
33 09-13 South End of Pad 1086 A2 129,1 8.6 118.6 91.9% 90,0%
34 09-13 North End of Pad 1087 A2 129.1 12.6 117,1 90.7% 90.0%
35 09-13 South End of Pad 1088 A2 129.1 10.9 118.2 91,6% 90.0%
36 09-13 South End of Pad 1086 A2 129.1 11,1 119,2 92.3% 90.0%
37 09-13 South End of Pad 1087 A2 129.1 9.2 120.4 93.3% 90.0%
38 09-14 Building Pad 1089 A2 129.1 9.9 119.3 92.4% 90,0%
,
39 09-14 Building Pad 1090 - A2 129.1 8.7 118.~ 91.9% 90,0%
40 09-17 Building Pad 1091 A2 129.1 10,5 121.0 93.7% 90,0%
41 09-17 Building Pad F.G. A2 129.1 8.3 121.2 93.9% 90.0%
42 09-17 Building Pad F.G. A2 129.1 6.7 117,~ 91.2% 90,0%
,
43 09-17 Building Pad F.G. , A2 129.1 8.2 121.4 94.0% 90.0%
44 09-19 Parking Lot F.G. A1 119.1 6,5 112.9 94.8% 90.0%
45 09-19 Parking Lot F,G, 0 A2 129.1 6.2 117,0 90.6% 90,0%
46 09-19 Parking Lot F.G. - A1 119.1 8.1 112.5 94.5% 90.0%
47 09-19 Parking Lot F.G. A2 129.1 7.4 117.4 90.9% 90.0%
48 09-19 Parking Lot F.G. A1 119.1 4.1 110.9 93.1% 90.0%
,
,
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(Surnrnary of Field In-Place Density Test Results)
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EnGEN Corporation - q
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Don Veasey Construction
Project Number: T2183,C
Appendix Page 4
SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557-91 (1998)
. Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture .
Soil Description (USCS Symbol) Soil Type Density (PCF) Content (%)
Fine Sand, Gray (SP) A1 119,1 13.9
Fine Sand wI Clay, Dark Gray (SM) A2 129,1 10.0
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
UBC 18-2
.
Dry , Moisture Moisture <
, Soil Type Depth 1FT) Density Condition Condition Expansion
(pet) Before Test After Test Index:
(%) (%)
E-1 -1 118.4 8,1% 13.6% 0 ,
,
- -
,
SUMMARY OF SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
Location Soil Type % By Weight
Building Pad Area E-1 0,02
\0
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
i
I
Don Veasey Construction
Project Number: T2183-C
Appendix Page 5
APPENDIX:
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation _ \\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
<
/
,-
<'tI>_ ~~"
/;y '" ^
~I ~<J
~\ ~,/
//l:~
,
,
,
"
',. RD .."
- --r--:'--=---':]- -
/
#~
I ~,'
).,-
'L.. PECHAIGl
'.
"
,u":;~'
...'
".
','-
\~"
'" .'
Y
$/ \
€' .
II ,/'
/ /
;'l:-/ ,/'
"''';/ / 28
, "
;/
, .'
.:!-;<,;'
,'r-,'
,',
PECHANGA
27
/[NOD"
,/ - \
"
/
"
", /
"./
-~ '
INDIAN
RESERVATION
RfSfllfATf
"
'\
,
--~"
---- ,',,-
EnGEN Corporation ==
SITE VICINITY MAP
Engineering
--
"-
--
-
Testing
EM_
.............
PROJECT NUMBER: T2183.c .979
DATE: SEPTEMBER 2001 SCALE: 1" = 2400'
CLIENT NAME: ' DON VEASEY CONSTRUCTION FIGURE 1
'\