HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplementalGeotechInvestigation(May16,2005)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tf
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
A LEIGHTO;\l GROUP COMPANY
May 16, 2005
Project No. 111442-003
To: Pulte Home rorporation
2 Technology Drive
Irvine, CA 92618
Attention: Mr. Ron R01:lerts
Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Rancho Highlands II, Tract 23992, Lots 1,
2 and 3, City of Temecula, California.
In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton & Associates, Inc. (Leighton) has
oompleted a SupplemeI1ta1 Geotechnical Investigation of the Rancho Highlands II Tract 23992
project site located south of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road in the
G:ity of Temecula, Riv~rside County, Temecula. This report summarizes our evaluation of the
coridition of the existjng fill soils and geotechnical constraints relative to the proposed
development, geotechnical recommendations related to remedial earthwork and erosion repair,
future site grading, fouI,1dation design parameters and pavement sections. The subject site was
previously rough-grade" under the geotechnical observation and testing of Petra Geotechnical,
Inc.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We
appreciate this opportunjty to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
DEIGHTON AND ASSQClATES, INC.
.SM/ZA/RM/mm
Distribution: (6) Addre.ssee
v
41715 Enterprise Circle N., Suite 103. Temecula, CA 92590-5661
951.296.0530. Fax 951.296.0534. www.leighlongeo.com
; .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
111442-003
May 16, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...,..................................................................... .................................. 2
1.1 Purpose and Sc,ope.................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Site Location and Description....................................................................................2
1.3 Proposed Development....... .................................................... ................................3
2.0 INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTlNG.................................................................4
: 2.1 Field Investigation ..................................................................................................4
: 2.2 Laboratory TesJ:ing............... ................... ................................. ...............................4
: 2.3 Previous Site Grading Operations .............................................................................4
3.0 CONCLUSIONS ... ............... ..... .............. ............................. ............... ............................ 6
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............... ................................ ............... ............... .......................7
'4.1 Earthworl<..... ..,.. .............................. ...... ..... ..................... ...................................... 7
4.1.1 Site Prep'lration and Remedial Removals..........................................................7
4.1.2 Cut/Fill Transition Pads ................................................................................... 7
4.1.3 Structural I Fills........................... ................................................ .....................8
4.1.4 Slope Repair ..................................................................................................8
4.1.5 Temporary Excavations....................... ............................................................ 8
4.2 Preliminary FClundation and Slab Design Parameters ...............................................9
4.3 Foundation S~tback from Slopes ...........................................................................9
4.4 Fault Setback............................................................ ................................. ........ 10
4.5 Structure Seismic Design Parameters................................................................... 10
4.6 Pavement Seqtion Recommendations...................................................................10
5'.0: GEOTECHNICAL RE\(IEW ........ ............... ...................................................................... 12
5.1 Plans and: Specifications ........................................................................................12
,5.2 Construction Reyiew .............................................................................................12
6~0 .UMITATIONS ...................................................................................................... ....... 13
Accomoanvina Fiaures. Tables. and Aooendices
Fiaures
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 - Test Pit Location Map
End of Text
End of Text
- i -
fI
~
Leighton
----------.---
I 111442-003
May 16, 2005
I
I ;
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Tables
I- Table 1 - Minimum Four;1dation Design Recommendations for
Very Low ExJ:\ansive Soils End of Text
Table 2 - Minimum Four;1dation Design Recommendations for
Low Expansiv,e Soils End of Text
I Table 3 - Minimum Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Recommendations
For Very Lowland Low Expansive Soils End of Text
Table 4 - AC PavementlSection Thickness End ofText
I
I Aooendices
Appendix A - References
~ppendix B - Test Pit ILogs
I Appendix C - Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
Appendix D - GenerallEarthwork and Grading Specifications
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I fI A.,
- ii -
I Leighton
_._----._~~--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
111442-003
May 16, 2005
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PurDOserand ~DE!
The purpose ofj:his supplemental geotechnical investigation was to evaluate the condition
of the existing fj.ll soils, evaluate existing geotechnical constraints related to the proposed
residential development, and provide geotechnical recommendations for remedial
earthwork, erosion repair, future site grading, foundation design parameters and
pavement!sections. The site was previously rough-graded in 2001 and 2002. Geotechnical
services during rough grading were provided by Petra Geotechnical, Inc. (petra, 2001 and
2002).
The scope:of services performed by Leighton for this supplemental investigation included the
following items:
· Review of previous geotechnical r~orts for the subject tract, preliminary site plan,
maps, aerial photographs, and other pertinent documents (Appendix A).
· General field reconnaissance to observe the existing onsite geotechnical conditions.
· Subsurface ~xploration consisting of the excavation, logging, and sampling of ten
exploratory J;lackhoe test pits across the previously compacted fill area (see Figure 2).
· Laboratory testing of r~resentative soil samples obtained from the subsurface
exploration program.
,
· Pr~aration of this r~ort presenting our findings, conclusions and preliminary
geotechnical I recommendations with respect to development of the site and general
construction I considerations. It should be noted that additional subsurface
investigationl and evaluation may be recommended based on future site development
plans.
1.2 Site Location and DescriDtion
,
The project site i,s an irregular shaped tract located generally southeast of the intersection
of Rancho Calif9rnia Road and Ynez Road in the City of Temecula, Riverside County,
California. The project site is bounded by Ynez Road to the north, Embassy Suites Hotel
and a plaza to the west, Interstate Highway 15 to the south, and residential development
to the east. Thel approximate limits of the site are shown on the Site Location Map
(Figure 1).
The subject property was previously sheet graded into three (3) super-pads under the
geotechnical obs~rvation and testing services of Petra Geotechnical Inc. (2002). Based
on our review o( the Geotechnical R~ort of the Rough Grading (petra, 2002), grading
consisted of cuts illld fills with a maximum fill thickness of approximately 45 feet.
fI
~
- 2 -
Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! I
I
I
I
111442-003
May 16, 2005
The project site is currently vacant with the exception of an isolated stockpile of
boulders. Desijting basins are located throughout the site and continue to retain water.
The surface soils of the super-pads and slopes appeared to be dry with medium to heavy
growth of weeqs and vegetation scattered across the site. Loose sediment d~osits and
erosion rills up, to 4 feet in depth were encountered along the alignment of Rancho
Highland Drive land Tierra Vista Road.
1.3 ProDOsedDev~loDment
Based on:our r~view of the preliminary site plan (RBF, 2005), we understand that the
proposed :development will consist of approximately 66 two-story triplex residential
buildings,!paveJTlents, detention basins, a park, and other associated improvements.
fI
~
- 3 -
Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
I
2.2
2.3
111442-003
May 16, 2005
2.0 INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
,
2.1
Field Investia~tion
On April 19, 2005, Leighton conducted a field exploration, which consisted of the
excavation, sampling, in-situ density testing, and logging of 10 exploratory test pits at
selected locations throughout the subject tract. The exploratory test pits were excavated
to depths : ranging from approximately 8 to 8.5 feet below the existing ground surface
using a rubber-tired backhoe. Approximate locations of the test pits are d~icted on the
Test Pit Location Map (Figure 2). A staff engineer from Leighton conducted sampling
and logging ofithe test pits. Soil materials were visually classified according to the
Unified Soil Glassification System (ASTM D2488) and further classified in the
laboratory. Logs of the test pits are presented in Appendix A. In-situ density tests of the
previously compacted fill were performed at various d~ths in accordance with ASTM
Test Method D:?992 (nuclear gauge method). After logging, sampling, and testing, the
excavations we~e loosely backfilled with spoils generated during excavation. Selected
r~resentative sljIllples were delivered to our laboratory for testing.
Laboratory Te~ina
Laboratory tests were performed on r~resentative bulk samples, obtained from
previously compacted fill area, to provide a basis for development of design parameters.
Selected samples were tested for maximum dry density and optimum moisture, expansion
index, and corrosion potential (soluble sulfate). Test results are presented in Appendix C.
Previous 'Site Gradina ODerations
,
The subject site,was initially rough graded during August through December of 2000,
and completed I on S~tember through October of 2001, under the geotechnical
observation. and testing of Petra Geotechnical, Inc. A report documenting the
geotechnical observations and field density testing of compacted fill placed at the site
was provided (fIetra, 2002). Based on our review of that report, low-density natural
soils were remo~ed to expose competent bedrock as part of the site pr~aration. Fill
soils were compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with
ASTM D1557. 1fhe approximate depths of removal ranged from 2 to 20 below original
grades. Aisummary of the as-graded condition is as follows:
· The onsite soils have a very low to medium expansion potential with soils very low to
low potential, to expansion more prevalent on site;
· Based on the ASTM Test Method D1557, maximum dry densities of the
r~resentative soil samples were in the range of 102 to 134 pounds per cubic feet
(pc/) with optimum moistures of 8 to 15.0 percent;
fI
.,
- 4-
Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
111442-003
May 16, 2005
· The relative, compaction of the fill placed were at least 90 percent of the maximum
dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557;
· The sulfate yontent of the onsite soils are non-detectable;
· Cut and fill, slopes constructed at a 2:1 with maximum height of 40 and 60 feet,
respectivelYl were grossly stable. Buttress fill was not required.
Due to the length oftime since the completion of original rough grading and weathering
of soils, Petra Geotechnical Inc. performed a supplemental geotechnical investigation
(Petra, 2003) t() evaluate the soil conditions for continued development of the project
site. Eleven exploratory test pits to maximum depth of 4 feet were excavated and in-
situ density testing of the previously compacted fill were performed at various depths.
The geot~chnital consultant concluded that the project site was still suitable for
development with remedial grading to repair surficial weathering and erosion damage
of the pads and ~lopes.
fI
~
- 5 -
Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
g
g
II
g
I
g
g
I
g.
g
I
111442-003
May 16, 2005
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on our preliminary geotechnical evaluation, it is our professional opinion that the proposed
development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The following is a summary of the
geotechnical findings an~ factors that may affect development of the site.
.. The previously compacted fills consist of dry to very moist mixture of silty sands and sandy
silts. The in-situ mpisture content of the fill soils within upper 8.5 feet varied in the range of
3.3 to 21.0 percent.
~ Laboratory test results show that the maximum dry densities of the bulk samples of the on-
site fill soils ranged: from 121.5 to 133 pcfwith optimum moisture contents ranging from 8.5
to 12.0 percent.
.. . The shallow fill soils are currently at less than 90 percent relative compaction. The d~th of
, the undercompacted, material is approximately I to 3 feet throughout most ofthe site.
.. : Based on limited la,boratory testing (Appendix C) and visual classification, the majority of
; onsite earth materials generally have a very low expansion potential. Very low to medium
, expansive soils are ;mticipated to be encountered during rough grading. Soils with medium
. expansion potential (Expansion Index> 50) may be present in the cut areas (petra, 2002).
· ! Limited laboratory \esting (Appendix C) indicates that the on-site soils present a negligible
sulfate exposure to qoncrete.
· ! Localized, shallow ,surficial erosion were observed at different sections of the previously
graded slopes within, the subject tract.
.,
C\
.6.
Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
111442-003
May 16, 2005
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
~.1 Earthwork
Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading
Specifications in Appendix D and the following recommendations. The recommendations
contained.in Appendix D are general grading specifications provided for typical grading
projects. Some ,of the recommendations may not be strictly applicable to this project. The
specific recoI1llflendations contained in the text of this report supersede the general
recommendatioI,1s in Appendix D.
4.1.1 Site Pre~aration and Remedial Removals
We anticjpate that future earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation,
remedial rough-grading, precise grading, foundation installation, trench excavation
and, backfill, permanent slope construction, and construction of street sections.
Previously compacted fill or cut surfaces should be cleared of vegetation,
deleterious materials, desiccated fill soils, wet soils and undocumented fill soils
including all stockpiles of dirt. Based on our field moisture and density testing, it is
our opiniqn that approximately 1 to 3 feet of previously compacted fill area should
be overexpavated to expose fill meeting 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM
D1557. Oeeper removals may be required locally as determined by the
geotechni~al engineer during grading.
Public roadways (Rancho Highlands and Tierra Vista) and private roadways within
the :subject site should be overexcavated to a depth of ,3 feet and 1 foot,
respectively. The overexcavation depth should be measured from the deeper of
existing grade or planned pavement subgrade. The lateral limits of the
overexcavation should extend at least equal to the depth of removal from the face
of the curb.
Prior to pl,acement of additional fill, remedial removal areas should be scarified a
minimum lof 8 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary and recompacted to a
minimum 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D1557.
4.1.2 Cut/FiII1!ransition Pads
In order t!J mitigate the impact of underlying cut/fill transition conditions, we
recommend overexcavation of the cut portion of transition pads. Overexcavation
should ext,end to a minimum depth of 5 feet below the bottom of the proposed
footings o~ one-half of the maximum fill thickness on the pad, whichever is deeper.
- 7 -
fI
\0
Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
!I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
111442-003
May 16, 2005
The limits of overexcavation should extend laterally a minimum of five feet
outside the building footprint.
4.1.3 Structur!'ll Fills
The onsitll soils are generally suitable for re-use as compacted fill, provided they are
free of d~bris and organic matter. Fills placed within 10 feet of finish pad grades
should cop.tain no rocks over 12 inches in maximum dimension.
Fill soils should be placed at a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (based
on ASTM; D1557) and at near or above optimum moisture content. Placement and
compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading
ordinances under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. The
optimum :lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will d~end on the
type .and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in
uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness
4.1.4 SloDe Re,Dair
Previously graded slopes (cut and fill) within the subject tract showed localized,
shallow sUrficial erosion. Slope face repair may be done by simple moisture
conditioning in-place and surficial recompaction without resorting to remedial
stabilizati~n fill. Such surficial recompaction of the slope face may be attained by
track-walking with a small dozer (e.g., Caterpillar D-4 or equivalent). The use of
,
large equipment for surficial recompaction is not recommended for this process.
All slopes, fill and cut, should be landscaped with deep-rooted, drought-tolerant
vegetation. The minimum irrigation necessary to sustain plant vigor should be
utilized. qut slopes which expose weathered, cohesionless sandstone (i.e., clean
sand) should be covered with jute matting or protected with approved other
erosion-co,ntrol measures.
4.1.5 TemDOrarv Excavations
Temporary excavations with vertical sides, such as utility trenches, should remain
stable 'to d~pths of 4 feet or less for the period required to construct the utility. In
accordance with OSHA requirements, excavations greater than 4 feet in d~th
should be I shored, or laid-back to inclinations of 1: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or
flatter, if 'Yorkers are to enter such excavations. Leighton does not consult in the
area of safety engineering. The contractor is responsible for the safety of all
excavations.
- 8-
.,
\\
Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
II
I
I
I
I
111442-003
May 16, 2005
4.2 Preliminarv Foundation and Slab DesiGn Parameters
It is our understanding that the detached two-story triplex residential structures may be
founded on c,onventional or post-tensioned foundation systems. The proposed
foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with the structural consultants'
design, the minjmum geotechnical recommendations presented in this r~ort, the City of
Temecula'requirements and the 1997 UBC.
Residential foun!iation footings may be designed with the following parameters:
Allowable,Bearing Capacity: 2,000 psf at a minimum d~th of embedment of 18
inches, plus an additional 250 psf per 6 inches of
additional embedment to a maximum of 3,000 psf.
(per 1997 UBC, capacities may be increased by Y. for
short-term loading conditions, i.e., wind, seismic)
Sliding C~efficient: 0.38
SettlementiPotential: Total: 1 inch
Differential: Yz inch in 40 feet
For budgetary and planning purposes, preliminary recommendations on the footing width,
d~th, reinJorcerp.ent, slab reinforcement, and the slab-on-grade thickness are provided in
Tables 1 through: 3 (rear of the text) for very low to low expansive soil subgrade (Expansion
Index ~ 50).
We recommend I that as grading progresses, building pads be evaluated for expansion
potential. ,The f,inal footing and slab design for each proposed structure should be
designed based on the results of the lot by lot evaluation upon completion of grading and
structural evalua,tion. If footings are to be founded on medium expansive soil subgrade
(Expansion Index > 50), specific recommendations for foundation design should be
provided by Leighton.
4.3 Foundation Setback from Slooes
We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all
structural footings (retaining and decorative walls, building footings, slabs, patios, pools,
etc.). This:distance is measured from the outside bottom edge of the footing horizontally to
the slope face (or ,to the face ofa retaining wall) and should be a minimum ofH/3, where H is
the slope height (in feet). The setback should not be less than 10 feet. If design constraints
- 9-
~
~ \2-
Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
1
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.4
4.5
4.6
L____~_____
111442-003
May 16, 2005
require smaller setbacks in certain areas, Leighton should evaluate those areas on a case-by-
case basis.
The soils within, the structural setback area possess poor lateral stability and improvements
(such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavements, etc.) constructed within this setback
area may :be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. The potential for
distress to such improvements may be mitigated by providing a de~ened footing or a pier
and grade-beam; foundation system to support the improvement. The de~ened footing
should meet the setback as described above. Modifications of slope inclinations near
foundations may reduce the setback and should be reviewed by the design team prior to
completion of d~sign or implementation.
Fault Setback
Active faulting was previously mapped within the Lot 3 (Leighton, 1987). In accordance
with State of C;t.lifomia and Riverside County requirements, we recommend a structural
setback of 50 feet from the mapped fault trace as shown in the referenced r~ort (Leighton,
1987). We recommend that the setback zone be extended up and away from the fault,
through the compacted fill, at a 1: 1 (horizontal to vertical) slope to the finish grade
Structures for hlpllan occupancy should not be constructed within the fault setback zone.
Other uses may 1:le considered.
Structure Seis,!,ic DesiGn Parameters
Structures ishoul<,i be designed as required by provisions of the Uniform Building Code
(UBe) for Seismic Zone 4 and state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural
Engineers Association ofCalifomia. This site is located with UBC Seismic Zone 4. Seismic
design parametef!l in accordance with the 1997 UBC are presented below.
Sei~mic Source Type
Soi,l Profile Type
Ne;u- Source Factor, Na
Ne;u- Source Factor, Nv
Seismic Coefficient, Ca
Seismic Coefficient, Cv
=
B
SD
1.3
1.6
0.57
1.02
=
=
=
Pavement Sect!on Recommendations
Limited laboratory test results on r~resentative samples show that on-site sub grade soil
have R-values in the range of 14 to 46. We assumed a R-value of 30 for preliminary
fI
\"?
- 10-
Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
.'
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
111442-003
May 16, 2005
pavement section recommendations in this report. For planning and estimating purposes,
a range ,of T~affjc Indexes (TI's) have been provided for preliminary pavement
recommendations. The final pavement design should be based on R-value tests of
representative samples of the actual sub grade materials and appropriate traffic indices
selected by the: project civil engineer or traffic engineering consultant, should be in
general accordance with City of Temecula Standards. The pavement sections should meet
or exceed County of Riverside standards. Minimum pavement sections based on the
Caltrans Highw!lY Design Manual Method are presented on Table 4, (rear of text).
The upper 12 inphes of sub grade soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative
compaction (A~TM DI557). The subgrade soils should be conditioned to near optimum
moisture content and kept in this condition until the pavement section is constructed. The
subgrade should be proof-rolled prior to placement of aggregate base and under the
observation of the geotechnical consultant in order to identify any yielding areas.
I
Aggregate base ishould be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM
DI557). Base rock should conform to the current edition of the "Standard Specifications
for Public Works Construction" (green book) or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base
standards (m~um R-value of 78). Asphaltic concrete should be placed on compacted
aggregate base a,nd compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction based on the
ASTM D1561l11ld D2726 laboratory standards.
- 11-
fI
\~
Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
111442-003
May 16, 2005
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
Geotechnical review ,is of paramount importance in engineering practice. The poor
performances of many, foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to inadequate
construction review. We recommend that Leighton and Associates be provided the opportunity
to -review the following items.
5.1 Plans and S~fications
Leighton and ~sociates, Inc. should review the rough grading plans, foundation plans and
project specifications when they are completed. Such review is necessary to evaluate whether
the geotechnical recommendations have been effectively incorporated in plans and other
construction docfll11ents. Review findings should be reported in writing. If the project design
is revised, ,additi\mal subsurface investigation may be required.
5.2 Construction Review
,
Observation and testing should be performed by Leighton and Associates representatives
during grading land construction. It should be anticipated that the substrata exposed
during construc,tion may vary from those encountered in the test pits. Reasonably
continuous construction observation and review during site grading and foundation
installation allows for evaluation of the actual soil conditions and the ability to provide
appropriate revi~ions during construction, if required.
Site pr~aration; removal of unsuitable soils, approval of imported earth materials, fill
placement, foun<;lation installation and other geotechnically-related site operations should
be observed andltested by representatives of Leighton and Associates.
Additional laboratory testing of subsurface materials should be performed during grading to
confirm compacted density and moisture content, corrosion potential and expansion
potential. A stat(j-licensed corrosion engineer should be consulted to review the results of
laboratory tests apd provide specific recommendations if corrosion sensitive materials are to
be used.
- 12-
.,
/'
\?
Leighton
I
'.
! I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
111442-003
May 16. 2005
6.0 LIMITATIONS
This report was nece~sarily based in part upon data obtained from a limited number of
observances, site visits, soil samples, tests, and analyses. Such information is necessarily
incomplete. The natur~ of many sites is such that differing characteristics can be experienced
within small distances 1lI1d under various climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions
can and do occur over time.
This report was prepa,ed for Pulte Home Corporation, based on their needs, directions, and
requirements. This report is not authorized for use by, and is not to be relied upon by any party
except Pulte Home Corporation, and their successors and assigns as owner of the property, with
whom Leighton has contracted for the work. Use of or reliance on this report by any other party
is at that party's risk. Unauthorized use of or reliance on this report constitutes an agreement to
defend and indemnify Ifeighton and Associates from and against any liability which may arise as
a result of such use or ~eliance, regardless of any fault, negligence, or strict liability of Leighton
and Associates.
fI
\(P
- 13-
Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Site Location
...4\
_~_ /if- i+\,.
//-~.}
/ j
Base Map: The Thomas Guide Digital Edition Inland Empire 2004, Not To Scale
Pulte
Rancho Highlands II
Tract 23992
Temecula, Califomia
Project No.
~
" \'\
SITE LOCATION
MAP
111442-003
Date
May 2005
Figure No. 1
-------------------
II
II
-t
~~
CI
r-
CD
"
-c
t:
-
(if
It
! I
- 5l
J
r
"U
I'll
-t
~ -I :::0
III -w SU
n ~ ~
5. n 0
III ,.. :::r
~ NO
~W
=: \0 ::I:
a- \D --
.,Nee
2. :::r
III -
SU
~
C.
tn
-
-
2~
o I
::a '
. -I i
;::t
m III 'tl
::I g ~
lQ .2.
'" i> ~
Gi -
CD z
!!- !'
,~ ~
~
, Iii ~
'" t -- . - - - - - -' --
s: 0
~ '"
b
0
'"
C C
.. ~
S' !
II
III
'<
s:
.. ::a
'<
'" s:
0
0
'"
~A.".',.,
.....-- .
(D"' 'r,
I\J:" .
".r,
~#
~
I
I
I
I
I,
I.
I
I
I
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
111442-003
May 16, 2005
TABLE 1
Minimum Foundf,'tion DesiGn Recommendations for Very Low EXDansive Sails
(ExDansion Index 0 - 20)
I-Story Footings Minimum 12" depth of embedment. Reinforcement for continuous
[(See Note I) footings: one No.4 bar top and bottom.
2-Story Footings Minimum 12" depth of embedment. Reinforcement for continuous
I(See Note 1) footings: one No.4 bar top and bottom.
Continuous: 12" for I-story
Minimum Footing Width Continuous: 15" for 2-story
Isolated colunm: 24" (18" deep minimum)
Garage Door Grade Beam Minimum 12" wide by 12" deep
(minimum 18" deep for 2-story) shauld be provided across the garage
(See Nate 3) entrance.
ILivingArea Flaor Slabs Minimum 4" thick slab. No.3 bars at 18 inches on center each way (at
I(Se~ Notes 4, 5 and 6) midheililit).
[Garage Floor Slabs Minimum 4" thick slab. No.3 bars at 18 inches on center each way (at
!(See:Notes 5, 6 and 7) midheil!bO. Slab should be quarter-sawn.
, ,
~esaaking At or above optimum moisture to a denth of 6 inches.
liable 1 Noles:
0) Depth of interior or !"xteriar footing to be measured from lowest adjacent finish grade or drainage
swale Ilowline:elevation ifless than 5 feet laterally from the building foundation.
(:f) Exteriar colunm footi,ngs should be structurally tied in two directions using grade beams and founded
at least 18 inches belo,w the lowest adjacent soil grade.
m The base of the grade ,beam shauld be at the same elevatian as that of the adjoining faotings.
(~) Living area slabs sh01.1ld be tied to the footings as directed by the structural engineer.
(5) The under-slab maisture retarder should consist of 2-inches .of sand (Sand Equivalent> 30) over
minimum IO-mil thick visqueen (or equivalent) over an additional 2-inches of sand in accordance
with ASTM E I 643 and ACI guidelines. All laps and penetrations in the vapor inhibitor should be sealed.
@ Garage slabs should b!" isolated from stem wall foatings with a minimum 3/8" felt expansian jaint.
(7) The recamrnendation~ presented above assume that proper maintenance irrigation and drainage are
maintained around th~ structure.
fI
Leighton
\q,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
I
I
I,
I
I
I
o
I
I
111442-003
May 16. 2005
TABLE 2
Minimum Fou"dation DesiGn Recommendations for Low ExDansive Soils
(ExDansion Index 21-50)
1 CStory footing, Depth of 12"
Embedment
2CStory footing, Depth of 18"
E;mbedment
I - or 2-Story Isolated 24" width (I 8" deep, minimum)
ExteriorlColumn Footings
I1resoaking 1.2 x optimum moisture for upper 12
inches of subgrade
Table 2 Notes:
('1) Concrete floor slabs d~si~ed in accordance with UBC Section 1815 should be of sufficient thickness
: to resist design expansive soil pressures and in accordance with the structural engineers
, recommendations and ,the UBe.
(2) I Exterior colunm footi~gs should be structurally tied in two directions using grade beams and founded at
I least 18 inches below \he lowest adjacent soil grade.
(?) The under-slab moisture retarder should consist of 2-inches of sand (Sand Equivalent> 30) over
'minimum IO-mil thick visqueen (or equivalent) over an additional 2-inches of sand in accordance
, with ASlM E 1643 and ACI guidelines. All laps and penetrations in the vapor inhibitor should be sealed.
(~) ~ If the concrete slab/floor for the foundation are designed in accordance with Section 1815 of the UBC,
a continuous perimeteIj footing will likely be used including the garage opening.
(!i) Low expansive soil slabs/foundations designed in accordance with UBC Section 1815 should be
placed monolithically.
(~) Depth of exterior footipg to be measured from lowest adjacent finish grade or drainage swale flowline
'elevation ifIessthan 5,feet laterally from the adjacent exterior footing.
'(7) Floor slab detailing including crack control joints (if necessary) per the structural engineer's
, recommendations.
(~) I The recommendations, presented above assume that proper maintenance irrigation and drainage are
maintained around the ,structure.
~
~ 1,.d)
Leighton
u
u
a
a'
I
I
a
a
a
a'
a
I
I
I
I
.
.
I
I
111442-003
May 16, 2005
TABLE 3
Minimum Post-Tensioned Foundation Desion Recommendations
For VerY low to Low EXDansive Soils (ExDansion Index 0 - 50)
,
Edge Moisture Center Lift: 5.5 feet
Variation, em Edge Lift: 3.0 feet
Differ~tial Center Lift: 1.5 inches
Swell, Ym Edge Lift: 0.4 inches
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) 150 psi/in
Minimum Peri1TIeter Footing I-Story 12 inches
Embedmept Depth 2-Story 18 inches
,
Presoaking 1.2 x optimum moisture for
upper 12 inches of subgrade
Table 3 Notes:
('I) Concrete floor slabs designed in accordance with UBC Seclion 1816 should be of sufficienl thickness
,
to resist design expansive soil pressures and in accordance with the structural engineers
'recommendations and:the UBC.
(2) The under-slab moisture retarder should consist of 2-inches of sand (Sand Equivalent> 30) over
minimum 10-mil thick visqueen (or equivalent) over an additional 2-inches of sand in accordance with
, ASTM E 1643 and ACI: guidelines. All laps and penetrations in the vapor inlubitor should be sealed.
(3) Depth of exterior fool\11g to be measured from lowest adjacent fmish grade or drainage swale flowline
. elevation ifit is,less than 5 feet laterally from the adjacent exterior footing.
(~) Exterior column footings should be structurally tied in two directions and to the main foundation.
(?) Floor slab detailing ;including crack control joints (if necessary) per the structural engineer's
recommendations.
(~) Potential total and differential settlement should be included cumulatively with differential swell
parameters.
(7) I The recommendations: presented above assume that proper maintenance irrigalion and drainage are
maintained around the iStruCture.
J!I
~ 2-\
Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
i I
I
I
I
111442-003
May 16, 2005
Table 4
AC Pavement Section Thickness
Asphaltic-Concrete Class 2 Aggregate Base (AB)
TI (AC)Thickness Thickness
(inches) (inches)
5.0 3.0 6.0
6.0 3.5 6.5
7.0 4.0 9.5
:
8.0 5.0 10.5
~
~ 7.:1/
Leighton
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
i I
II
I
I
I
I
a
I
I
111442-003
May 16, 2005
APPENDIX A
References
Leighton & Associate~, Inc., 1987, Engineering Geologic Investigation of Faulting, Rancho
Highlands; Tentative Tract No. 21760, Rancho California, County of Riverside,
California,. Project No. 6862000-01, dated March 31, 1987.
Leighton & Associates,[ Inc., 2005, Summary of Geotechnical Conditions, Rancho Highlands II,
Tentative fl'ract 23992, Lots 1, 2, and 3, City of Temecula, Riverside County,
California,IProject No. 111442-001, dated January 25,2005.
Petra Geotechnical, In~., 2001, Interim Geotechnical R~ort of Rough Grading, California
Highlands ,II, Parcel Map 23992, Southwest of Rancho California Road and Y nez
Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, J.N. 510-99, dated March
12,2001.
Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 2002, Geotechnical R~ort of Rough Grading, Rancho California
Highlands :II, Parcel Map 23992, Southwest of Rancho California Road and Ynez
Road, Cit): of Temecula, Riverside County, California, J.N. 510-99, dated March
15,2002.
F!etra Geotechnical, Inc" 2003, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation to Provide Remedial
Grading F,ecommendations, Tract 23992 (Rancho Highlands II), Southwest of
Rancho California Road and Ynez Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County,
California, :J.N. 333-03, dated S~tember 29, 2003.
REF Consulting, Inc., 2005, Rancho Highlands Conceptual Layout, dated April 14, 2005.
A -1
~
If ?".~
Leighton
I OJ
u >-
II) :e e ro
0 :0 0 .... -0
I 0;- ;p ;p .f-J e
'ro 19 .... ro
~~ ..... OJ V)
:OJ !:i OJ -0 -0 .r:: cl -0
0:: v :01 01 OJ .f-J OJ
:OJ .... -0 OJ ::J '::;
I.. .> Vl OJ > 0 l;::: Z ~
g >- ~ ..0 -"" Cl <l: -0
~ :J:: .r:: u Vl OJ U
.f-J -0 .f-J '" ro Z :t::: ro
:::; e u '::; ell U'i ~ ell
b ro ro @ 0
Cl V) ell Cl >- 'Vi E
..... .. Z -0 >- Z ~' Qj ~ .....
I ~..... <l: e OJ U'i V) 'Vi 0 b'
0
~=: Vl ro V) .... 0 OJ Z
Cl 0 Vl ....J '!if ....
Pc a .3 ~ ::J U'i
Z z >- cii '0 X
'Vi U'i 'Vi -0
g 0 cii e e E 'E ~ e
~ '!if ~ e '!if ro '5 >- 'Vi '5
'5 V) ro tf ro
'0 '0 B U ." tf U
'Vi ro .r::
; E U E 0 .2' '0 0
>- '0 0 >- Cl z Vi E '0 z
I u ." OJ Z ." Z ....' BV) E ....'
II) .r:: .... .r:: -0 U'i .l!l e' ~ OJ
..... .!2' ::J .... .2' OJ ;;: ~~ .f-J
Q Vi X .l!l Vi :t::: ~ ro OJ ro
;;: 0 .- ..0 > ;;:
'E ~ 0 .... o 0
e' e' E 'Vi -0 ..0 E u B -0
I ~ -0 ;;: e .f-J e
tl b' tf ::J .r:: >-..... .f-J ::J
e e Cl e 01 .,,0 V) e
ell '0 ::J ell Z '0 Z ::; .r:: V) '0
0 Cl Cl
E .... U'i E U'i 01 OJ E
I Cl I 0 I := u 0
Ul ro
1 c- e' 0 i ~ e' ~ Z i .... c' Z
cr: ;;: z ;;: aJ'.f-J ;;:
'Vi 'Vi to >" to
..... 0 ..... e ..... .- Vl e
- .... 00 - <?~
- ..0 - +.1' ..0 '!if 00 ..0 00
it -"" .r:: it Ul -"" .r:: it e.... -"" .r::
II~ .... .f-J '0 .... '0 .f-J _c ;;:Vl .... .f-J
j;j ro C. E ro E c. ro
-0 OJ III -0 OJ IlIg 0'0 -0 OJ
Ie. 'u , Cl 'u Co OJ Cl .- .f-J .... e , Cl
e c' c' ~19 ..oro e
't- Ii: ~ 19 Ii: ;;: ;;:15 ;;: 19 t!:i ;;: 19
:e :e ._ OJ
III) e 0..0 0 ~OI e
U!~ cr: {:. cr: .... 0 .... {:. cr:~ .- .... {:. .....
ell ell ellu ell ....J Vl ell ,
<ll
10 iii ....J ....J ....J
:~ u :E: :E: :E: :E: :E: :E: :E: :E: :E:
1!9 iii , , --
Vl :E: Vl Vl :E: Vl Vl :E: Vl
::i Vl Vl Vl
1 ~~
00
::E:.....
1 )o~1I.
a::1I)~
QZ
I. .....
Q
1 ~.....~ M '" 00 M r..
, , , , ,
c. 0 M \D 0 V
.... l:~..... @ @ @ @ @
0
MU ~ ~ .... N M .... N
0 OOJ ell ell ell ell ell
9E
rN '0
;:r:
'I'j'"4 ,(1J ~f
0 "i'"'~ II)
T.2 .... 00 M \D 00 V
, , , , , , <Xi
:0 w..... 0 .... 0 M \D 0 ,
Zoo Q v
0 ~t- z4
' Z Iii~ N
.....11I .... M
0'" , , ,
r= c.. c..
,"" ... ~e. l- I-
e.u
I I ghton
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U"l
o
......
'"
"'"'.....
~-.......:...
Ii:<: V
I..
>-
,a:I
,
,0
,11.I ..
eI,1I.I
ell-
0,00(
I :Q
II)
I~l:i
Ill.
llii
I!~
'0
lei
1'0
'..I
,
o
I
I
I
I
1
o
B
ci.
L..
o
mU
OQ)
9E
<NO
~J:
.....Q)
...!-t+-'
"HS
I. a..
o
Z..
'I-
~Z
~~w
,e :l
ll.U
l-
II)......
... ~Q
'O<i"
::E"""
~
~lI)u.
oz~
11.I
o
~II.I~
~1l.1I.I
<~O
U'l cIS
~i2
11.I"""
o
lii~
'~~
z
o
~
;/
U
II)
11.I
o
iii
V
iii
::i
o
Z
~
~
'Vi
tf
'0
E
o
.....
.....
III
'0
E
>-
<=l
.<::
.2'
Vi
a)
.2:
o
,
c:
==
e
llJ
I
i
"""
iI:
iii
'u
l;:
:e
00(
i:E
V)
.....
,
o
o
Z
~
~
'Vi
.oJ'
III
'0
E
a)
.2:
(5
,
c:
==
o
L..
llJ
i:E
V)
'1' V
.....
,-c
'2!
i'(ij
'L..
:01
, Q}
I~
I'"
,0
,u
0-
Iz
!<(
,v)
:~
f'(ii
:tf
"0
~E
,~
Q}
,>
'0
,.....
:tl
,'0
E
,a)
101
'c:
''''
'L..
:?
'c:
==
'0
L..
llJ
::E
V)
\0
,
V
@
.....
llJ
V
,
a..
I-
s
....
V)
>-
-c
c:
'"
III
'E-
'"
.<::
tl-
'0
E
c:-
==
e
.e
,
Q)
.2:
o
I
......
III
t:l.
0'
"""
c
o
:c
III
E
..
o
II.
.z
~
III
ll.
..I
::E
00
,
I'-
@
N
llJ
I'-
.tf
-C .-
Q) 0
u:;E
""0
u .....
"'.....
.elll
'0
a:; E
III >-
0_
0.....
.....1'<::
.2'
c: III
'S; C...
a==
o
o L..
z"i'
c:
L.. ==
.l!J 0
'" L..
==.e
-C.....c:
c: ~.Q
" .- 'lil
0.....1...,
L.. I Q)
(!) 01
OC'Q}
Zoo(>
""" Q)
00=:t:J
.J::y:=
..... .<::
-.....
Q) Ill'-
o 'u ==
-l;:0
.l9 .-Z
O~<(
1-00(V)
::E
V)
M
,
.....
@
.....
llJ
.....
,
o
~
'U;
>-
-C
c:
'"
III
'0
c:
'"
o
Z
<(
V)
~
'Vi
....
o
~
"
:1$
E
tl-
'0
E
~
g:
.s
tl
'0
E.s!
.e
'.e
~ 0
;> U
e....
.eO
""lIl
L.. Q)
'" U
'O~
C.....
~ ~'
L.. ....
llJV)
.....I
::E
\0
,
m
@
N
llJ
00
,
.....
Lll
,
a..
I-
.<::
.....
'3:
o
Z
~
al~
~ 'Vi_
~~
llJ 0
E
Q} 0
lIl.....
0.....
o III
...J'O
E
.~ >-
><=l
"'.<::
U01
0=
Z III
c:'
L.. ==
.l!J 0
'" L..
==.e
'0.....
c:'<::
:J .~
0.....1
151
0C'
Zoo(
"""
eo=
.<::iI:
..... c:
-0
Q) Ill._
0'- -I-J
_~19
roo_ Q)
.....~01
~oo(g:
::E
V)
.....
,
o
::E
V)
(Yo, \0
, ,
..... m
@ @
..... N
llJ llJ
m \D
, ,
..... M
o
Z
~
~
'Vi
tl'
'0
E
c:'
==
e
llJ
::E
V)
\D
,
a..
I-
o
Z
<(
V)
~
'Vi
tl'
'0
E
~
Q}
>
.s
tl
'0
E
c:-
==
e
.e
-'>!.
L..
'"
o
.<::
.....
al '3:
u:;0
-'>!.Z
U<(
&lV)
~
a:; =
III III
g tl'
....J '0
E
.~ >-
><=l
"'.<::
U.2'
0-
ZlIl
c:-
L.. ==
.l!J 0
'" L..
==.e
'0.....
c:'<::
::J.~
0.....1
151
0C'
Zoo(
"""
eo=
-EU::C
-0
Q) Ill._
o'ulO
l;:.....
.l9:e ~
~oo(g:
::E
V)
.....
,
o
Q}
:0
.e
o
U
lIl'
'C
.e
Q)
'0
Q}
0.
'5.
~
@
0-
Z
~
~
'Vi
.oJ'
III
'0
E
c:'
==
e
.0
-'>!.
L..
'"
-C
,
c:
==
e
llJ
::E
V)
\0
,
m
@
.....
llJ
00
,
.....
I-
'0
Q}
~
U
'"
llJ
c:
'S:
'"
U
o
Z
~
....
V)
>-
-C
c:
'"
III
L..
Q)
.....
'"
==
'0
c:
"
e
(!)
o
Z
tl-
'0
E
00
.<::
.....
c:-
==
e
llJ
\0
@
Q)
o
.l9
~ ':'
""
.....I
::E
z5
I
U')
I 0
0;-
:::E~
0::'<1'
I I
>=
:I:ll
:0
,LU ..
I ClLU
8!;i:
'0
I
I
I
I
I!~
'lL
I
I Iii
I!~
,0
I
,I:)
1'0
'...I
I
I
I
I ci
....
0
mU
I 0(1)
9E
~~
"'(1)
I ,..H ......'
t.~
0
z..
1 tl-
lIlz
..,.,LU
0'"
.....I
lLV
D I
0
>- (I) Z
'0 ..Q ffi ~'
C ..Q
eo 0 C
Vl U -
'0 Vl
(I) 'Vi
.r:: c .r:: u '0 >- '0
...... eo ...... c:! (I)' (I) '0 .!!!
'3: 0 '0 '3: c
.!!! ...... Vl eo Ii::
Z M c ~ Vl
0 ~ 0 (I) 0 .><
ffi , u '0 u
Z Z ... '0 eo Z' c eo
<( u ffi al <( al
Vl C eo @ tf ~ Vl eo
al '0 0 >-
C 'Vi >- C ~' (I) C z Qj
Qj E Vl Vl
'Vi .... 'Vi 0 'Vi ffi 0
0 Vl - >- .3 .3
tf (I) 0 tf VI ." tf c
.... .3 >- .r::
Z '0 ::> '0 '0 .~ .~ '0 cii
~ 'Vi
0 E cii E c Vi E c
eo '0 'S:
~ >- E c >- Vl (I)' > >-
'S: a eo
." ." '0 ." ~ U
.r:: tf eo .r:: c .::: .r::
Q! .~ u .~ eo 0 0 01 ::> 0
Vl '0 0 Vi 0 , z Vi ~ Z
V E z c E
III c' c' Z ~ .... c' .....'
~ ffi .l!l (I)
LU ~ .....' ~ e ~ tf ......
0 ~ .l!l eo eo
e 0 al ~ e ~
eo .... C '0
..Q .8 ~ ..Q I '0 ..Q E '0
...... '0 ...... 'Vi ..... c ...... c
.r:: ~ c .r:: .... III ::> .r:: c' ::>
01 ::> 01 0 Cl. e 01 0
:::J '0 :::J 0' :::J ~ .....
e ~ ~ ~
I E ~ I ..... I e
::> 0 0
i c' i x c z i al Z
0 0
~ z 'E ' . .>< ,
:0:; .... to
..... e " ..... ro U') ..... eo (I)
<Xi 0- <Xi
..Q''O ex> tf E - , ..Q
ii: ~: Q) .r:: ii: '0 .. .r:: ii: C..Q .r::
_c ....':j:j ...... _c 0 Q ~ 0 ~
ro.Q m:o c. ro .Q E ... -; o u
(I) (I) (I)
.- ...... 'i'! E 0 .- ...... 0 '0 ..... .... 0
U eo .g.l9 c' ro alO
l;:...... c' .1:1 l;:
~.. .l9 ~ ......(1)
._ (I) o!::i ._ (I) :I eo :e .r::u .l9
~Ol ~ 01 0 ~
o(~ 1..,:...... r=. '(1) ..... f Oleo r=.
0( 0( .- .....
al,Vl > al -'......
iii -' -' -'
U ::E ::E ::E ::E ::E ::E ::E
-- -- --
iii Vl ::E Vl ::E Vl VI ::E
:i Vl VI VI
:~;e
00
:E.....
~~Ii:
oifi~
0
~LU~ ~!Co i:o to M
, , , ex> ,
M\O M , 0
~~LU @@ @ "- @
@
0( 0 "',N ... ...
III ell alal al N al
al
~t' Vl U')
... ex> ... <Xi ...
, , , , ex>
LU..... 0 ... 0 , 0 ,
0 ... ...
lfi~ ex> '" 0
...
, , ,
~ Q. Q.
I-lL l- I-
'"
,
al
4zfp
Leighton
E
.
m
o
o
o
,0
, 1
1
o
1
i 0
g
I
-
I
I
I
I
111442-003
May 16, 2005
APPENDIX C
~boratorv Testina Procedures and Test Results
Expansion Index Tests: ,The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated in accordance
With ASTM Test Method D4829. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to
llPproximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation or
approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared I-inch thick by 4-inch diameter
specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated With tap water until
volumetric equilibrium i,s reached. The test results are presented in the test data.
Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical
materials were determined in accordance With ASTM Test Method D1557. The results of these
tests are presented in the, test data.
'iR!'-Value: The resistance "R"-value was determined by the California Materials Method No.
301 for subgrade soils. iThree samples were pr~ared and exudation pressure and "R"-value
determined on each onei The graphically determined "R"-value at exudation pressure of300 psi
is summarized in the tes;t data.
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard
geochemical methods in: accordance With DOT California Test 417. The test results are presented
in the test data.
C - 1
--
cr 7-1
Leighton
u
o
o
o
o
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,..
~, Leighton and Associates, Inc.
Project Name:
Projecl No. :
Boring No.:
Sample No. :
Sample Description:
EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
ASTM 0 4829
PUL TE 1 RANCHO HIGHLANDS II
111442-,003
TP-2
B-2
SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Tested By: JMD
Checked By: PRC
Depth (ft.) 3-6
Location:
Date: 4/25/05
Date: 4;29/05
Dry WI. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
WI. of Container No. (gm.)
Dry WI. of Soil (gm.)
Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve
Percent passing # 4
MOLDEp SPECIMEN
Before Test
After Test
311.9
287.6
11.9
8.8
128.9
118.5
0.423
0.297
61.5
56.2
667.5
392.8
209.8
16.5
137.9
118.3
0.424
0.298
61.7
100.0
SPECIMEN INUNDATION , in distilled waler for lhe period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in.lh.
Date
Time
4125;05
4/2S/05
1.0
1.0
Add Dislilled Water 10 lhe Specimen
1.0
1.0
4/26/05
4;26;05
Pressure
(psi)
Elapsed Time
(min.)
Dial Readings
(in.)
o
10
1052
1112
Expansion Index (EI meas) = I ((Final Rd9 - Initial Rdg) ; Initial Thick.) x 1000
Expansion Index ( EI )50
1.1
=
EI meas - (50 -S meas)x((65+EI meas) 1 (220-S meas))
4
Rev. 08-04
~
I
I
o
n
B
o
o
o
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
I
,.,
fI' Leighton and Associates, Inc.
Project Name:
Project No. :
Boring No.:
Sample No. :
Sample Description:
EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
ASTM 04829
PUL TE I RANCHO HIGHLANDS II
111442,003
TP-3
B-1
SM.BROWN SILTY SAND
Tested By: JMD
Checked By: PRC
Depth (ft.) 0-3
Location:
Date: 4/25/05
Date: 4;29/05
Dry 1M. ,of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
1M. of C.onlainer No. (gm.)
Dry 1M. .of Soil (gm.)
Weighl Soil Retained on #4 Sieve
Percent ,Passing # 4
MOLOEp SPECIMEN
SPECIMEN INUNDATION
0.0
2072.0
95.8
Before Tesl
After Test
311.9
288.4
11.9
8.5
128.9
118.8
0.419
0.295
61.1
54.8
643.5
393.9
190.2
15.1
136.6
118.7
0.422
0.297
61.6
96.4
in distilled waler for lhe period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in.lh.
Date
Time
Pressure
(psi)
Elapsed Time
(min.)
Dial Readings
(in.)
4;25/05
4/25/05
1.0
1.0
Add Distilled Water to lhe Specimen
1.0
1.0
.4;26/05
4;26/05
o
10
1040
1100
Expansion Index (EI meas) = ((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) 1 Initial Thick.) x 1000 3.4
Expansion Index ( EI )50 = EI meas - (50 -S meas)x((65+EI meas) 1 (22D-S meas)) 5
Rev. 08-04
z"
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
I
I
.
.
.
I
I
""
cr. Leighton and Associates, Inc.
Projecl Name:
Project No. :
Boring No.:
Sample No. :
Sample Description:
EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
ASTM D 4829
PUL TE 1 RANCHO HIGHLANDS II
111442-003
TP-9
B-1
SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Dry WI. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
WI. of Container No. (gm.)
Dry WI. of Soil (gm.)
Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve
Percent passing # 4
MOLDED SPECIMEN
Tesled By: JMD
Checked By: PRC
Deplh (ft.) HI
Localion:
100.0
Before T esl
After T esl
Dale: 4;25/05
Date: 4/29/05
312.8
279.2
12.8
12.6
120.7
107.2
0.573
0.364
75.4
59.4
639.2
35S.3
203.0
22.8
131.4
107.0
0.576
0.366
75.8
100.0
SPECIMEN INUNDATION I in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rale < 0.0002 in./h.
I
Dale
Time
4/25/05
4;2S/05
1.0
1.0
Add Dislilled Water to lhe Specimen
1.0
1.0
4;26/05
4;26/05
Pressure
(psi)
Elapsed Time
(min.)
o
10
1035
1095
Dial Readings
(in.)
I Expansion Index (EI meas) = I ((Final Rdg - Inilial Rdg) 1 Initial Thick.) x 1000 3.2
I Expansion Index ( EI )50 = EI meas - (SO -S meas)x((65+EI meas) 1 (220-S meas)) 7
Rsv.Os.04
30
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
I
I
.
.
.
I
I
I MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
,..
4 Leighton and Associates, Inc. ASTM D 1557
Project Name: PUL TE / RANCHO HIGHLANDS II Tested By: AlP
Project No.: 11<1442-003 Input By: PRC
'Boring No.: TP-2 Depth (ft.) 0-3
Sample No. : B-1
Soil Identification: SM, OUVE BROWN SILTY SAND
Date:
Date:
4/25/05
4/29/05
Preparation Method:
[X] Moist
D Dry
I Mold Volume (ft3)
00 Mechanical Ram
D Manual Ram
Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in.
5 6
9.2
139.4
127.7
7.2
133.4
124.4
13.3
137.6
121.5
Maximllm Dry Density (pcf) 11I..~1;1 Optimum Moisture Content (%~EliCQlfi~~1
PROCEDURE, USED 130,0
IIX! Procedure A
Soil Passing NO.4 (4.75 mm) ,Sieve
Mold: 41n. (101.6 mm) dla,meter
Layers: 5 (Five)
Slows per layer: 25 (twenty,five)
Maybe used if +#4 Is 20% or,less 125,0
I 0 ' Procedure B
SOil Passing 3{8In. (9.5 mm) Sieve 'fi'
Mold: 4 In. (101.6 mm) diameter E:
Layers: 5 (Five)
Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five)
Use If +#415 >20% and +3j8Iin. is
20% or less
1\ 1\ I I I
I H \ .\- L.--- SP. GR : 2,65
_ SP. GR,.. 2.70
~ il P\ _).....- SP. GR. = 2.75
/ \ 1\
I \\
rf '\ \
J '\I \ \
\
\
\ 1\
,\
\ \ 1\
. 1\ '\
" '\
1'\ '\
\
r\ ,\
\ \
;\ \
" 1\
: 0 Procedure C
Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm)1 Sieve
Mold: 6 in. (152.4 mm) dlalTleter
Layers: 5 (Five)
; Slows per layer: 56 (fifty-SiX)
, Use If +3/8 in. is >20% and +'14 in.
is <30%
~
.~ 120.0
..
o
c:-
O
115.0
Particle-Size Distribution:
.I~'
A~;.
I,. ,,,~'l
""" . """.,.....?
, .
110.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
Moisture Content (%)
15.0
20,0
3>\
-
" Leighton and Associates, Inc, ASTM D lS57
Project Name: PULTE / RANCHO HIGHLANDS II Tested By: AJP
Project No.: 111442-003 Input By: PRC
Boring No.: TP-3 Depth (ft.) 4-7
Sample No. : B-2
Soil Identification: SM, OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
m
.
.
m
m
I
.
.
.
I
Preparation Method:
MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
[l(J Moist
D Dry
Mold Volume (ft') Iko:~~!ill'g;; I
Date:
Date:
4/26/05
4/29/05
U<J Mechanical Ram
D Manual Ram
Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in.
8.2
143.1
132.3
5 6
'Maxirraum Dry Density (pet) li.-am!!'\ll Optimum Moisture Content (%~lii;h9.B:J}.~:1
PROCEDURE USED
D Procedure A
Soli Passing NO.4 (4.75 mm) Sieve
Mold: 4 in. (101.6 mm) ~lameter
layers: 5 (Five)
Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five)
May be used if +#415 20%lor less
00 Procedure B
Soli Passln9 3;B In. (9.5 m"1) Sieve
Mold: 4 In. (101.6 mm) ~Iameter
Layers: 5 (Five)
Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five)
Use If +#4 is >20% and +3/8 In. Is
20% or less
D Procedure C
Soli Passing 3/4 In. (19.0 mm) Sieve
Mold: 6 in. (152.4 mm) c;fiameter
Layers: 5 (FIVe)
Blows per layer: 56 (fifty-slx)
Use If +3/8 In. is >20% and +34 In.
Is <30%
Particle-Size Distribution:
I~I'
Atterbe Limits:
'\
'\ SP. GR. = 2,6S _ i-
'\ =::: SP.GR.-2.70 _
" _SP.GR.a2.75 f-
'\
;7 ,-
'\
/ '\
'\
/ '\
"
\ '\
-. '\
\ '\
\
1\
\
\
"
140,0
135.0
130.0
<;:'
"
.e:
,..
-
.~ 125.0
'"
C
~
C
120.0
115.0
110.0
0,0
5,0
10,0
Moisture Content (%)
15,0
20.0
Compaction TP-3,B-2 ~z....
~
~ leighton and Associales,:lnc, ASTM 0 lSS7
Project Name: PULTE / RANCHO HIGHLANDS II Tested By : AJP
Project No.: 111442-003 Input By: PRC
Boring No.: TP-S Depth (ft.) 1-3
Sample No. : B-1
Soil Identification: SM, OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND
D
I
I
I
MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
Date:
Date:
4/26/05
4/29/05
I
I
I
m
m
.
.
E
m
m
E
E
E
I
I
Preparation Method:
[Xl Moist
D Dry
Mold Volume (ft.)
'~';O';'031i"':4':':'
.;'l',L",~....;^....:Ett'M"";;'
[Xl Mechanical Ram
D Manual Ram
Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 In.
5 6
10.2
141.4
128.4
8.1
134.4
124.3
14.3
134.6
117.B
I Maxi'llum Dry Density (pet) _"91tr~j'1 Optimum Moisture Content (.I.Jlt~,jj;1t!filS:~1
PROCEDURE USED
o Procedure A
Soli Passing No.4 (4.75 ml11) Sieve
Mold: 4 In. (101.6 mm) ~Iameler
Laye,,: 5 (Ave)
Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five)
May be used If +#4 Is 20% ;or less
00 Procedure B
Soli Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve t;:'
t"lold: 4 In. (101.6 mm) ~Iameter g,"
-
Layers: 5 (Rve)
Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five)
Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is
20% or less
o Procedure:C
Soli Passing 3/4 In. (19.0 mm) Sieve
Mold: 6 in. (152.4 mm) ellameter
laye,,: 5 (Five)
Blows per layer: 56 (flfty-six)
Use If +3/810. Is >20% andl+3f4ln.
Is <30%
Particle-Size Distrib,ution:
~
-'" - - . --:-;:-',,,is',,,,,,,,,
- "._--~.
Atterbe Limits:
120,0
\
1\ SP. GR .2.65 _ f--
\ 1\ --- _SP.GR."2.70 _ f--
_SP.GR...2.75
\
\
1\
'\
'\
1'\
/ \ \' '\
/
" '\
'\'\. 1'\
I'\.
'\. ''\.
1"\ I'\.
\ '\.
!'\. '\
'\.
'\. '\
I'\.
I'\.
1'\
140,0
135.0
130,0
.i:'
.~ 125,0
'"
C
~
C
115,0
110,0
0,0
5,0
10,0
Moisture Contenl ('Yo)
15.0
20,0
Compaction TP-5,B-f
s'!.
D
D
I
I
MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
4le~h'on and Associates, Inc. ASTM 0 lSS7
Project Name: PULTE / RANCHO HIGHLANDS II Tested By: AJP
Project No.: 111442-003 Input By: PRC
Boling No.: TP-6 Depth (ft.) 1-3
Sample No. : B-1
Soil Identification: SM. OLIVE BROWN SIL1Y SAND
Date:
Dale:
4/26/05
4/29/05
Preparation Method:
I
I
I
D
I
I
TEST NO.
W!. Com cled Soil + Mold
We! ht of Mold
Net Wei ht of Soil
[X] Moist
D Dry
Mold Volume (ft.) lilWR!i1
00 Mechanical Ram
D Manual Ram
Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in.
5
6
7.1
137.9
128.7
11.2
142.4
128.0
5.2
127.8
121.5
,MaxilTlum Dry Density (pcf) 1~1l1&] Optimum Moisture Content (%~1:"4.il!il
I
PROCEDURE USED
u
[i] Procedure A
Soli Passing NO.4 (4.75 mm) Sieve
Mold: 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers: 5 (Five)
Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five)
May be used if +#4 Is 20% or less
I
I
R
I
D
I
I
D Procedure B
Soil Passing 3/8 In. (9.5 mm) Sieve c;::-
Mold: 4 In. (101.6 mm) ~iameter [
Layers: 5 (Five)
Blows per layer: 25 (twenW-five)
Use If +#4 Is >20% and +3/8 in. Is
20% or less
D Procedure'C
Soli Passing 3/4 In. (19.0 mm) Sieve
Mold: 6 In. (152.4 mm) diameter
Layers: 5 (Five)
Blows per layer: 56 (fifty-six)
Use If +3/8 In. is >20% andi+3/4 In.
Is <30%
Particle-Size Distribution:
~l'
A~
. ,
140,0
130,0
1\
1\ ~SP.GR.'2.65 _ I--
\ 1\ -- :-SP.GR."2.70 _ I--
!\ -- _SP.GR.-2.75
\
... \
\
_\ 1\
1'\.' \
I \ ~
,1\
\ ~
I \1\
I 1\ \
\1\
I \
\
,
\1\
'\
" "
I\.
'\
135.0
.z:.
.~ 125.0
"
o
~
o
120.0
115,0
110.0
0.0
5,0
10.0
Moisture Contenl (%)
15,0
20,0
Compaction TP-6,B-1
3~
MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
4 Leighton and Assoc~tes,lnc. ASTM 0 lS57
Project Name: PUL TE / RANCHO HIGHLANDS II Tested By: AlP
Project No.: 111442-003 Input By: PRC
Boring No.: TP-B Depth (ft.) 6-8
Sample No. : B-2
Soil Identification: (ML)s. YELLOW BROWN LEAN SILT WITH SAND
R
D
I
B
I
o
o
o
I
.
I
I
I
I
D
D
D
I
I
Preparation Melhod:
TEST NO.
Wt. Com cted Soil + Mold
Wef ht of Mold
Net Wef ht of Soil
Wet Wei htof Soil .+ Cont.
Dry Wei ht of Soil + Cont.
Wef ht of Container
Date:
Date:
4/26/05
4/29/05
[XI Moist
D Dry
Mold Volume (ft.) II'Qre~M'~1
00 Mechanical Ram
D Manual Ram
Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in.
5
6
13.1 11.1
136.6 133.9
120.8 120.5
I Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Imilf.~lI5!~~~1 Optimum Moisture Content (%..tBJ)I~'!l1
[i] Procedure B
Soil Passing 3/8 in. (g.S mm) Sieve c;::-
Mold: 4 In. (101.6 mm) qiameter (J
.eo
layers: 5 (Ave)
Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five)
Use If +#4 is >20% and +3/8 In. is
20% or less
PROCEDURE USED
o Procedure A
Soil Passing NO.4 (4.75 mrl1) Sieve
Mold: 4 In. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers: 5 (Five)
Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five)
May be used If +#4 is 20% ,or less
o Procedure:C
Soli Passing 3;4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve
~lold: 6 In. (152.4 mm) diameter
layers: 5 (Five)
Blows per layer: 56 (fifty-six)
Use if +3/8 In. Is >20% andl+3A In.
Is <30%
Particle-Size Distribution:
I~I'
Atterbe limits:
130.0
115,0
\ ~PG~=~6sl-
\ \ --- r-
v __SP.GR."2.70 _
-\ r-
--- ~ SP. GR. = 2.7S
\ \
\ \
\ \
\
1\ ,\
/ r-... \ \
~ ~ \ \
/ ~
,\ 1\
j ., \
, \ 1\.1\
1\ \
\ \ 1\
1\ .\
\ 1\
1\ ,\
\ 1\
125,0
~
.~ 1200
"
o
'='
o
110.0
0,0
5,0
10,0
Moisture Contenl (%)
15.0
20,0
Campac1lon TP-8,a-2 ~-S-
D
~ Leighton and Associates, Inc.
D
Project Name:
Project Number.
Boring Number:
Sample Number:
Sample Description:
PUL TE ; RANCHO HIGHLANDS II
111442-003
TP-2
B-1
SM. BROWN SILTY SAND
4/29/05
RGO
0-3
Q
I
R
o
TEST SPECIMEN
MOISTURE AT COMPACTION %
HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches
DRY DENSITY,
COMPACTOR AIR PRESS~RE,
EXUDATION PRESSURE, sf
EXPANSION, Inches x 10ex
STABILITY Ph 2,000 Ibs 160
TURNS DISPLACEMENT
R-VALUE UNCORRECTED
R-VALUE CORRECTED
1
1
I
D
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA
GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR
TRAFFIC INDEX
STABILOMETER THICKNESS. ft.
EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft.
o
o
4.00
D
.5
Z 3,50
0
en
z 3.00
<(
D.
><
W 2,50
>
01_
'" .. 2,00
",of
W
Z 1,50
~
0
:c
.... 1,00
~
~ 0,50 .
0 .
0,00 .. ;
0.00 0,50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER In
I feet
D
1
o
1
1
R-VALUE BY EXPANSION:
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION:
EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE:
N/A
46
46
o
D
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
Date:
Technician:
Depth:
Sample Location:
A
10.9
2.50
124.4
250
358
15
41
4.89
80
60
a
1.0
5.0
0.64
0.50
90
so
70
60
w
:> 50
~
~
40
30
20
10
B
12.0
2,52
123.5
160
248
8
79
5.02
34
34
C
13.1
2.58
121.4
120
153
o
135
5.14
8
9
b
1.0
5.0
1.06
0.27
c
1.0'
5,0
1.46
0.00
.
.
.
o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 100 0
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
Rev. 08-04
3f;
I
I
~ Leighton and Associates, Inc.
I
Project Name:
Project Number:
Boring Number:
Sample Number:
Sample Description:
PlUTE ; RANCHO HIGHLANDS II
111442-003
TP-5
B-1
slMll SANDY lEAN SilT
I
u
TEST SPECIMEN
MOISTURE AT COMPACTION %
HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches
DRY DENSITY, cf
COMPACTOR AIR PRESSURE, sf
EXUDATION PRESSURE, sf
EXPANSION, Inches x 10e -4
STABILITY Ph 2,000 Ibs 160
TURNS DISPLACEMENT
R-VAlUEUNCORRECTED
R-VAlUE CORRECTED
I
I
I
I
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA
GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR
TRAFFIC INDEX
STABllOMETER THICKNESS, fl.
EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, fl.
I
.
4,00
.5
z
o
iii
z
<(
11.
1:i
>-
. m ~
: ~ J!
ILl
Z
l<:
'u
':;:
It-.
Ill::
IlL!
115
It.)
3.50
I
3,00
2.50
.
2,00
1.50
.
.
1,00
0.50
.
.
I
0,00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 ~ 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
COVER THICKNESS BY STABllOMETER In
I feet
I
I
'R-VAlUE BY EXPANSION:
I R-VALUE BY EXUDATION:
I EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE:
N;A
14
14
I
I
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
A
12.1
2.53
123.7
220
385
35
99
4.80
24
24
a
1.0
5.0
1.21
1.17
90
80
70
60
w
:> 50
~
40
30
20
10
o
800
Date:
Technician:
Depth:
Sample location:
B
13.2
2.58
120.7
90
296
14
126
5.02
12
13
b
1.0
5.0
1.39
0.47
.
700
BOO
500
400
300
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
4;29/05
RGO
1-3
C
14.3
2.60
117.8
60
186
6
133
5.71
8
9
c
1.0
5.0
1.46
0.20
.
200
100
o
Rev.08-Q4
31
I
I
tIS Leighton and Associates, Inc.
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
D
Projecl Name:
Project Number:
Boring Number:
Sample Number:
Sample Description:
,
PUL TE I RANCHO HIGHLANDS iI
111442-003
TP-10
B-1
SM, BROWN SILTY SAND
Dale:
Technician:
Deplh:
Sample location:
4/29/05
RGO
0-3
D
D
TEST SPECIMEN
MOISTURE AT COMPACTION %
HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches
DRY DENSITY,
COMPACTOR AIR PRESSURE, sf
EXUDATION PRESSURE, sf
EXPANSION, Inches x 10e
STABILITY Ph 2,000 Ibs 160
TURNS DISPLACEMENT
R-VALUE UNCORRECTED
R-VALUE CORRECTED
D
m
m
m
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA
GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR
TRAFFIC INDEX
STABILOMETER THICKNESS, fl.
EXPANSION PRESSURE TI;IICKNESS, fl.
m
.
4,00
.5
z
o
0;
z
<(
a.
><
w
>-
moo 11:
it 2.00
oo~
W
Z
:.:
u
'",
....
I>:
I;\!
,0
'u
3,50
.
3,00
2.50
.
1.50
.
.
1.00
.
0,50
.
.
0,00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 ~ 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
COVER THICKNES,S BY STABILOMETER In
I feel
.
.
, R"VALUE BY EXPANSION:
I R"VALUE BY EXUDATION:
I EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE:
38
38
38
.
I
A
11.7
2.56
125.3
260
434
45
47
4.75
56
57
a
1.0
5.0
0.69
1.50
90
.0
70
so
w
~ 50
~
~
~
40
30
20
10
B C
12.8 13.9
2.47 2.46
122.5 120.5
190 110
263 202
25 12
B4 109
4.83 4.95
32 19
32 19
b c
1.0 1.0
5.0 5.0
1.09 1.29
0.83 0.40
.
.
.
o
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
o
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
Rev. 08-04
38
I
I
I 1
n
n
u
D
D
I
I
I
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,,.,
C' Leighton and Asspciates, Inc.
:Project Name: PUL TE I<RANCHO HIGHLANDS II
:Project Number: :EE~?~QQL~~~~~~~~~:--------------------------
:Date: 4125105
Technician: .RGO-------
.--..----------
:Sample Identification
Boring No.:
Sample No:
Depth (ft.):
Boring No.:
Sample No:
Depth (ft.):
Boring No.:
Sample No:
Depth (ft.):
Boring No.:
Sample No:
Depth (ft.):
Dilution
Reading (PPM)
Water Fraction Tube
3 X
= 210
3 X
= 240
3 X
= 600
3 X
= <150
TP-2
.Ei'.T--------
.0:'3---------
3 :1
TP-3
.8-'2---------
.........---------
4-7
3 :1
TP-6
-s:-r-------.
.1:3----------
3 :1
TP-7
.s:-;---------
.3:6----------
3 :1
Soluble Sulfates
(Hach Sulfate Test Kit)
% Sulfates
0.0210
0.0240
0.0600
<0.0150
Rev,Q8..{)4
3'\
o
1
1
1
1
'I
1
o
o
o
o
o
I 0
o
o
o
o
I
I
3030.1094
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC
GENERAL'EAR11HWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING
1.0
General
1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and
earthworJ.; shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical
report(s).: These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the
geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the
geotechnipal report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the
earthwor/.; by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result
in :new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the
recommelfdations in the geotechnical report(s).
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall
employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The
Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical
report(s) ~d accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions,'
and recoIl)IIlendations prior to the commencement of the grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work
plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel
to perfol1l) the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.
During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe,
map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design
assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the
interpreteq assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall infoInl
the owne~, recommend appropriate changes in design 10 accommodate the observed
conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be
geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground
after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial
removal" ~reas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
The Geotephnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the
subgrade l\Ild fill materials and perfOInl relative compaction testing of fill to detennine the
attained leyel of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to
the owner ~nd the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified,
experience~, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of
ground to ,receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill.
The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these
Specificatic)lls prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely
responsible for perfonning the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications.
J!I
~ A,o
Leighton
D
o
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
o
D
I
0,
o
I
o
o
o
o
Leighton and Associates; Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 2 of6
The Con!rnctor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a
work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of
work an" the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to
commenqement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical
Consul~l of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in
advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and
accompli~hed. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware
of all grading operations.
,
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and
methods ~o accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and
agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved
geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical
Consullaf\t, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition,
inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in
a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant
shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until
the:conditions are rectified.
,
2.0 Preoaration:of Areas to be Filled
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and olher deleterious
material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to
the owner,: governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.
The Geot~chnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on
specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than I percent of organic
materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter.
Nesting of,the organic materials shall not be allowed.
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the
affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immedialely for proper
evaluation ,and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area.
As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline,
diesel fuel,. motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered
to be hazai-dous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids
onto the gr,ound may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment,
and shall not be allowed.
2.2
Processing; Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the
Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing
ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section.
Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay l~s or
cr 4.\
3030.1094
Leighton
I
g
g
g
g
I
U
g
I
o
I
U
o
I
I
I
I
o
o
Leighlon and Associales. Inc.
,GENERAL EARlliWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICA nONS
Page 3 of6
clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that
would inlribit uniform compaction.
2.3 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the
approve~ geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy,
organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to
competeI)t ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.
2.4 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5: I (horizontal
to verticaJ units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details
for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and
at least 2,feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Other beqches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as
otherwis~ recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping
flatter than 5: I shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade
for, the fill.
2.5 EvaluationlAcceotance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and
processed; areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded,
and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive
fill. The !Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant
prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for
determiniJ.1g elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.
2.6
3.0 Fill Material
3.1 General: ;Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to
placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high
expansionlpotential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical
Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.
3.2 Oversize: ,Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum
dimension I greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location,
materials, \lDd placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Placementloperations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and
such that ,oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill.
Oversize n?aterial shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet
of future utilities or underground construction.
3.3
.!!l:mm1: If,importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall
meet the ~quirements of Section 3. I. The potential import source shall be given to the
Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that
its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. Import fill should be free
of all delet~ous material and hazardous waste. Testing for hazardous waste typica1li:. takes
., A,1.,
3030.1094
Leighton
II
I
I
g
g
,I
g
I I
I
I
o
I
I
I
o
I
o
D
D
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
:GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 4 of6
between? and 14 working days.
4.0 Fill Placement and Comoaction
4. I Fill Lavers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (Per
Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The
Geotechn,ical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading
procedur~s can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly
and mixe~ thorougWy to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.
4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed,
as necess3ry to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum.
MaximUlJ,l density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in
accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method
DI557-91).
4.3 Comoaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture~onditioned, mixed, and evenly
spread, it ~hall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density
(ASTM T,est Method DI557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sizedartd be
either sp~cifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently
achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.
,
4.4 Comoaction of Fill Slooes: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above,
compactilin of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot
rollers at I increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing
satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of
grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of
maximum ,density per ASTM Test Method DI557-9I.
4.5 Comoaction Testin!,!: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill
soils shall ;be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests
shall be atl the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction
test.Iocatiqns Will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Tesl locations shall be
selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to
inadequate, compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fiII/bedrock benches).
4.6 FreQUenCVlofComoaction Testing: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in
vertical ris~ and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a
guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope
face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill
construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical
Consultant, The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these
minimum s,tandards are not met.
4.7
Comoactio!1 Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the ap~mate
cr A.?>
3030.1094
Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
o
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EAR1HWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 5 of6
elevationl and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate
with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the
Geoteclmical Consultant can detenmine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a
minimWl1, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than
5 feet apl\fl from potential test locations shall be provided.
5.0 Subdrain mstallation
Subdrain systems, shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the
grading plan, and! the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional
subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions
encountered duri~g grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for
line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by. the
Contractor for the$e surveys.
6.0 ' Excavation
Excavations, as :ovell as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the
Geotechnical Con~ultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans
are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical
Consultant based c;m the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut
slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the
Geotechnical COIl$ultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the
slope, unless othet;wise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
7.0 Trench Backfills
7.1 The ContJ;actor shall follow all OHSA and CaVOSHA requirements for safety of trench
excavations.
7.2 All:beddirlg and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable
provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material
shall have, a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE> 30). The bedding shall be placed to I
foot over ,the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and
densified 1,0 a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from I foot above the top of the conduit
to the surface.
7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
7.4
The Geotephnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least
one test shpuld be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.
3030.1094
fl4A
Leighton
I
I
g
I
I
I
I'
I
.
g
.
.
.
I'
I
I
I
D
I
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTIIWORK MID GRADING SPECIFICA TrONS
Page 60f6
7.5
Lift thic,kness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard
Specificl\tions of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the
Geotec!uj.ical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative
compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
3030.1094
~
4Ac-5"
Leighton