HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3883 Lot 24 Compaction Results Rough Grading
I ~,'''' "". '.
~;~tii;>;' .,i,=,'"
11 '.~_., :w'}~GEN
TR &>3'3 Uyt;;< if
.c
Coq~oration
-Soil Engineering and ConsullingSel'lices -EngineeringGeology.CompaclionTestinll
-lnspections-ConslruclionMalerialsTesting-LaboraloryTesting-PerClllalionTesling
-Geology-WaterResourceSludies -f't\ase 1& II Environmenlal Sile Assessme!1ts
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
.
n
n
n
n
n
n
".~
~I!
, , , ,
, . , .
, ,
, . - , ,
,
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Stute Residence
Assessor's Parcel Number: 919-031-002
Lot 24 of Tract 3883, 29781 Pasada Road
City ofTemecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2624-C
October 20, 2003
R E" C' . i:: "V':c:: ro
1 _.[.,.! i:.._
NOV 1 Z 2003
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMEN~.
Prepared for:
Mr. Terry Stute
30354 Island Bay Lane, Unit D
Murrieta, California 92563
I ~ I "
/ , /, " , ,.
/ ~.~ ^ :,~;=::~,~,;,,_,~,tk~. ~~~:~~:~g~E~i:i~~ ::;~::~: ~ ~~~~~~
,~" :~:: :2sih': Kit ;;:::*ft'f~w:t;$;Mmffi ~~~ Q;~ ~.~a~.~~ffi~*~~@i~f%!i~~~t!!il
,"t:i"':!;:>'tjiSS ~-;:;%Z~~ '~~ l;:;l;J<;;l;:;:::~l;!.H~.,..1i';Ii,;;;;; ~ ii\iIOl_filiWlli!i@i!\S*,~~~4#""," .'~,~' ~*~liH
'''''c~''''==='='''''e>'=''-'''='='''''''''''<;&="'"'''"'''__'''''''''______'''''''__'_--''''''____'''''
,... . "__.. . __"!:~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
Mr, Terry Slute
Project Number: T2624.C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE
PAGE
1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ......................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ..........................................................................................................1
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................1
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .....................................................................................................2
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ..............................................................................................................2
2.1 TIME OF GRADING .............................................................................................................2
2.2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT ..........................................................................................2
2.3 GRADING OPERATIONS................................................. .................................................. ...2
3.0 SLOPE STABILITy.......... ............ .................................................................. ...... ................3
3.1 FILL SLOPES.....................................................................................................................3
32 CUT SLOPES.....................................................................................................................3
4.0 TESTING ......... ........ ........................... ..... .................. .................... ........... ...........,.............3
4.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES ..................,.........................................................................3
4.2 LABORATORY TESTING......................................................................................................3
4.2.1 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST ....................................................4
4.2.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST .............................................................................4
4.2.3 SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST ............................................................................4
5.0 EARTH MATERIALS ................. ... ........................... ............... ............... ... ........... ....... .........4
. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... ........................................... ..............................4
. 7.0 CLOSURE ....... ................................... ..........................,............... .......... ................. ... .......5
, ApPENDIX:
TEST RESULTS
i DRAWINGS
2-
EnGEN Corporation
I ' . ~,'!; ,::".~, .
~"'''~'~''''.F''''' _.:.'''''''''''
I ~~GEN
.
I
I
n
n
n
D
n
I
D
D
I
D
n
~If
"':-c:i
.
. SoiIEngineeringandConsullingServices.EngineeringGeoI~y.Compact!onTest!ng
. Inspections. Construc1ionMalerialsTestmg elaboratoryTestmg. PercolallOnTeslmg
-Geology-WalerResourceStudies -Phasel&11 EnvlronmootalSlleAssessmenls
Coq~oration
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
October 20, 2003
Mr. Terry stute
30354 Island Bay Lane, Unit D
Murrieta, California 92563
(909) 304-2150
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Stute Residence
Assessor's Parcel Number: 919-031-002
Lot 24 of Tract 3883, 29781 Pasada Road
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2624-C
References:
1.
EnGEN Corporation, Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Stute Residence,
Assessor's Parcel Number: 919-031-002, Lot 24, Tract 3883, Pasada Road,
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Project Number: T2624-
GFS, report dated July 9, 2003.
2,
Bratene Construction & Engineering, Precise Grading Plan, Stute
Residence, Lot 24 of Tract Map No. 3883, 29781 Pasada Road, Temecula,
California, plans dated August 19, 2003.
Dear Mr. Stute:
In accordance with 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,
LO
1.1
SITEIPROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject site consists of approximately 2-acres, located on the south side of Pasada
Road, west of the intersection of Pasada Road and Valle Olivera, in the City of Temecula,
County of Riverside, California.
1.2
SITE DESCRIPTION
Prior to grading operations" topography and surface conditions of the site were gently
sloping, with surface drainage to the south at a gradient of less than 8 percent.
. ,
, .
, .
-- ,
'. .
I' _, '- ,,' ..... _ . '/
: : :,': :i,< :----,~q~S'i~~*~~~;,;~~~i~~~~!~
. '-~w"'~,,"'1!lliiiiiii!iiiiii;;;;lIlil;;lil!!l! lili!il1.1;;l!i~"..,.>!i$l!i;;~ii!i!lii'
~::~;;;:;;:;;~M!l:1l'~**=~~<<.~===-=;:=_..~::':;===!!::~:Y:=
;"..,~,..-;"",,,,,,",,,!::,,...,,,,,:-,,::-<,----_...=-=........_.... ,....._~----
'. ,
I, \...
~ - _ J
J _"_ I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
Mr. Terry Stute
Project Number: T2624-C
October 2003
Page 2
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
It is understood that the subject site is to be developed with a single family residence with
slab-on~grade concrete floors supported on conventional continuous and pier footings, with
associated driveway as well as hardscape and landscape improvements,
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
2.1 TIME OF GRADING
This report represents geotechnical observations and testing during the construction
operations from October 2, 2003 through October 8, 2003.
2.2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT
The grading operations were performed by One Tractor "Doze" It AU through the use of
one (1) J.D. 850 dozer and one (1) water truck.
2.3 GRADING OPERATIONS
Grading within the subject site consisted of a cutlfill operation. Grasses and weeds were
removed prior to fill placement Fill material was generated from the eastern and western
cut portions of the site, and used to bring the central pad and driveway portions of the site
to finish grade elevation. Removal of alluvium, slopewash, etc., was performed to a depth
of 2 to 4-feet below original elevation. Overexcavated earth material was stockpiled and
later used as fill. Bottoms were observed, probed and found to be into competent Pauba
Formation bedrock by a representative of this firm. Keying and benching into competent
Pauba Formation bedrock was observed during the grading operations. Overexcavation
was performed in the cut and shallow fill portion of the building pad to a depth of3-feet
below finish grade elevation and to a distance of 5-feet outside the proposed structure.
The exposed bottoms were scarified and moisture conditioned to a depth of 12-inches then
compacted to 90 percent Fill was placed in lens thicknesses of 6 to 8-inches, thoroughly
moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, then compacted to a minimum of
90 percent relative compaction. Moisture conditioning of the on-site soils was performed
during the compaction process through the use of a water truck,
The pad area was generally graded to the elevations noted on the Grading Plan. However,
the actual pad location, dimensions, elevations, slope locations and inclinations, etc. were
surveyed and staked by others and should be verified by the Project Civil Engineer.
i\
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
Mr. Terry Stute
Project Number: T2624.G
October 2003
Page 3
3.0 SLOPE STABILITY
3.1 FILL SLOPES
All design fill Slopes were constructed in substantial accordance with the plans at a slope
ratio of approximately 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical). It is our opinion that the fill slopes as
constructed possess gross and surficial stability in excess of generally accepted minimum
engineering criteria (Factor of Safety at least 1.5) and are suitable for their intended
purpose, provided that proper Slope maintenance procedures are maintained. These
procedures include but are not limited to installation and maintenance of drainage devices,
and planting of slope faces to protect from erosion in accordance with City of Temecula
Grading Codes. The maximum height of fill slope covered in this report is seven (7) feet
3.2 CUT SLOPES
All cut slopes were constructed in substantial accordance with the plans at a slope ratio of
approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The cut slopes were surficially inspected by the
Project Geologist and consist of Pauba Formation bedrock. No adversely oriented jOints or
planes of weakness were observed during our inspection. It is our opinion that the cut
slopes as constructed possess gross and surficial stability in excess of generally accepted
minimum engineering criteria (Factor of Safety at least 1.5) and are suitable for their
intended purpose. The maximum height of cut slope covered in this report is fifteen (15)
feet
,4.0 TESTING
,4: 1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES
Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed in general accordance
with ASTM D 2922-96 and ASTM D 3017-96 procedures for determining in-place density
and moisture content, respectively, using nuclear gauge equipment Relative compaction
test results were within the 90 percent required for all material tested, which is an indication
that the'remainder of the fill placed has been properly compacted. Test results are
presented in the Appendix of this report. Fill depths and test locations were determined
from review of the referenced grading plans.
14.2 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.
::)
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;.
.
Mr. Terry Stute
Project Number: T2624-G
October 2003
Page 4
4.2.1 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 1557-00 procedures.
4.2.2 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 was performed in
accordance with ASTM D 4829-95, The material tested consisted of brown silty sand,
which has an Expansion Index of 8, This soil is classified as having a very low expansion
potential.
4.2.3 SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST
Based on this firm's familiarity with the soils used to construct the building pad, it is our
opinion that soluble sulfates are not a concern, and as a result, normal Type II cement can
be used on concrete making contact with the native soils.
5.0 EARTH MATERIALS
The natural earth materials encountered on-site generally consisted of brown to red brown
sand with varying percentages of silt and clay.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
No conditions were encountered which would cause a change in the previously provided
design and construction recommendations. As a result, design and construction should
adhere to the recommendations provided in the Referenced No. 1 Geotechnical Feasibility
Study.
Based on the observations and tests performed during grading, the subject site, in the
areas noted as test locations, has been completed in accordance with the Referenced
NO.1 Report, the project plans and the Grading Code of the City of Temecula. The
graded site, in the areas noted as graded, is determined to be adequate for the support of
a typical residential development. Any subsequent grading for development of the subject
property should be performed under engineering observation and testing performed by
EnGEN Corporation. Subsequent grading includes, but is not limited to, any additional fill
placement and excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition,
EnGEN Corporation should observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be
~
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;.
.
Mr. Terry Stute
Project Number: T2624-C
October 2003
Page 5
made prior to installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel so as to verify and/or
modify, if necessary, the conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations of
overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement
subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other earth work
completed for the development of the subject site should be performed by EnGEN
Corporation. If any of the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions
are not perforrned by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the safety and performance of the
development is limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by
EnGEN Corporation.
7.0- CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described above.
It mayor may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes. The findings
and recommendations expressed in this report are based on field and laboratory testing
performed during the rough grading operation and on generally accepted engineering
practices and principles. No further warranties are implied or expressed beyond the direct
representations of this report.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services. If you should have any questions
regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience.
SRW/OB:hh
Distribution: (4) Addressee
: FILE: EnGEN/ReportinglCfT2624.C Terry Stute, Rough Grading
1
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. .
APPENDIX:
TEST RESULTS
Mr. Terry Stute
Project Number: T2624-C
Appendix Page 1
fb
EnGEN Corporation
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
Mr. Terry Stute
Project Number: T2624-C
Appendix Page 2
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(Summary of Field In-Place Density Test Results)
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
(s. G.) = Subgrade / (F. G.) = Finish Grade
Test Test Depth Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
No. Date Test Locations Elevation Soil Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
(2003) (FT) (PC F) (%) (PCF) (%) (%)
1 10-02 Fill Slope 1044 A1 124.1 6.9 107.5 86.6% 90.0%
2 10-02 Fill Slope 1040 A1 124.1 9.4 115.4 93.0% 90.0%
3 10-03 Retest #1 1044 A1 124.1 13.2 117.2 94.4% 90.0%
4 10-03 Fill Slope 1041 A1 124.1 9.8 113.5 91.5% 90.0%
5 10-03 Fill Slope 1042 A1 124.1 9.6 116.0 93.5% 90.0%
6 10-03 Fill Slope 1045.5 A1 124.1 10.8 116.4 93.8% 90.0%
7 10-03 Fill Slope 1044.5 A2 124.0 8.5 115.7 93.3% 90.0%
8 10-03 Fill Slope 1042 A2 124.0 8.4 114.0 91.9% 90.0%
9 10-06 Fill Slope 1044 A2 124.0 13.5 111.6 90.0% 90.0%
10 '10-06 Fill Slope 1045 A2 124.0 12.9 112.4 90.6% 90.0%
11 10-07 Pad Area 1047 A2 124.0 10.0 111.9 90.2% 90.0%
12 10-07 Pad Area 1047 A2 124.0 10.4 114.4 92.3% 90.0%
13 10-07 Fill Siope 1046 A2 124.0 9.0 112.4 90.6% 90.0%
14 '10-07 Fill Slope 1045 A2 124.0 9.4 113.7 91.7% 90.0%
15 10-07 FIll Slope 1046 A2 124.0 9.9 119.2 96.1% 90.0%
16 10-08 Pad Area F.G. A2 124.0 9.8 117.3 94.6% 90.0%
17 10-08 Pad Area F.G. A2 124.0 9.9 114.3 92.2% 90.0%
~
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
Mr. Terry Stute
Project Number: T2624-C
Appendix Page 3
SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS
ASTM 0 1557-00
Soil Description (USCS Symbol) Soil Type Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture
Density (PCF) Content (%)
Silty Sand wi Clay, Brown (SM) A1 124.1 10.2
Clayey Sand, Red Brown (SC) A2 124.0 11.0
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829-95
Dry Moisture Moisture Expansion
Soil Type Depth (FT) Density Condition Condition
(pet) Before Test After Test Index
E1 -1 115,1 8,3% 15.1% 8
\0
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I I
I
II
I
I
;1
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
II
il
II
II
il
. .
APPENDIX:
DRAWINGS
Mr. Terry Slule
Project Number: T2624-C
Appendix Page 4
\\
EnGEN Corporation