Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3883 Lot 98 Final Compaction Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . . '1l< ~?o. \....dr ~&l lAKESHORE Engineering EstablisfJ6d 1985 June 22, 2004 Project No. 02-009.FCR Gonsulting Civil Engineers Client: 'Mr. and Mrs. Roderick 32174 Cala T orrante 'Temecula, CA 92542 (909) 757-6292/302-3024/560-4642 RECEIVED JUN 2 B 2004 CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Subject: Final Compaction Report Lot 98 Tract 3883 . Carmelita Circle, Temecula., CA. LD 03-195GR INTRODUCTION This final compaction report presents our test results and observations made during placement of compacted retaining wall backfills, for support of driveway at the subject site. Periodic :field density tests and site observations were provided by a representative of Lakeshore Engineering to check the grading contractors on compliance with approved drawing and job specifications. The presence of our filed representative at the site was to provide to the owner a source of professional advice, opinions and recommendations based upon the field representative's observations of the contractor's work and did not include any supervision, superintending or direction of the actual work of the contractors of the contractor's workmen,. The opinions and recommendations presented hereafter are based on our; field and laboratory testing and observations of the grading procedures used, and represent our engineering judgment as to the contractor's compliance with the job specifications. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The subject site now supports a newly completed built house. Our scope of work during this final compaction report was limited to site observation and density testing of retaining wall backfills and subgTlid~ preparation for support of proposed driveway. The onsite fine grading operation completely recently, were limited to construction of a low 6-foot maximum retaining wall along the toe of rear southerly fill slope and backfilling the top of wall level for a future pool addition, subgrade preparation for driveway construction and the installation of house perimeter swales and flowlines. Reference precise grading plan, with revision date 4/20/04 shows location of wall and pool pad. The grading operation was conducted by Percision Blade Rental (909) 485-1200, local grading contractor with the aid of a small D-5 dozer, skip loader and hand held mechanical compactors. The wall backfill and driveway subgrade preparation were basically accomplished in two phases, with the initially wall backfill operation inspected during the month of May and driveway subgrade preparation completed during the month,of June, 2004. The wall backfill operation was observed to be accomplished as follows: \ ~ 31520-A Railroad Canyon Road . Canyon Lake, CA 92587 . (909) 244-2913 . FAX: (909) 244-2987 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOCATION MAP " SITE , i .::> 5l> " .n- .. LAJKESHORE iEn]gineering MR. & MRS. RODERICK FINAL COMPACTION REPORT LOT 98 TR.3883 CARMEUTA CIRCLE PrOject No: 03-009.FCR Date 6/22/04 CONSULTING CIVIL. ENGINEERS N N.T.S. z.., 4fj) FIgure No: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I June 22, 2004 P,N.02-009FGR Page Two . . I. Surface to receive fills were cleared of vegetation, organics, and misc. construction debris. 2. Approved soils were placed in thin layers of 12 inches thick or less on prepared surface, and each layer was compacted to the minimum specified relative density before new layers added. 3. The minimum acceptable degree of soil compaction was 90 percent relative density of the laboratory determine maximum dry density, for each soil type. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determine by A.S.T.M. D1557-78 method. 4. Field density tests were performed utilizing the drive tube (D2937). 5. Fill dirt were derived from import source. The soils were classified as a light to medium brown Silty SAND (SM/SC), with trace clay. The backfill soils used were predominantly granular and deemed to be of LOW in expansion potential. 6. Field density tests were conducted during the placement of fill to determine the degree of relative compaction and the moisture content of the soil being placed. Where the tests results or field observation (probing) indicates insufficient density, additional compaction effort with adjustment of the soil moisture content where necessary was performed before additional fill layer placement. 7. The field density test'results are presented in the Summary of "Field Density Tests", Table/Figure 3 and.the approximate test locations conducted are shown on the Plot Plan, figure 2. Also shown are the approximate limits of grading operation. 8. Retaining wall back drain system consisted of a cloth sleeved 4" diameter perforated P.V.C. drain pipe, sitting on 4-6 inches of 'I. inch rock, placed along to of footing, surrounded by at least 18 inches of rock cover. The pipe was placed at an incline of I % minimum to maintain positive flow to exit the water towards the natural gully at rear of house. GRADING DEVIATION FROM PLANS At the conclusion of this phase of precise grading operation, no major deviations were noted in the field when compared to the grading plan on file. LABORATORY TESTING- Maximum Drv Density and Optimum Moisture Content Determination A representative soil sample was collected from the field and classified under the Uniform Soil Classification System. The soils sample was then tested in accordance with the procedures as outlined in ASTM'Method DI557-78, to determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the particular soil type. The test results are presented below: Soil Tvoe A Soil Description Brn. Silty SAND(SM/SC) Optimum Moisture Content 9.0 % dry wt. Max. Drv Density 123.0 p.c.f. ~ -- Lakeshore Engineering I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . . June 22, 2004 P.N.02-009FGR Page Three CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our field and laboratory testing, on observations of construction procedures used in the field and on our past experience on this kind of work, it is our opinion that the compacted fill placed and as shown on Plot Plan figure 2, has been placed in accordance with the applicable portions of the 1998 California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 33 as amended by Ordinance 99-23. Any fill added beyond the limits or above the grades shown on the plot plan attached hereon should be placed under engineering control and in accordance with the job specifications, if the work is to be covered by the conclusions and recommendation of this report., The compacted wall backfill for the pool pad and subgrade for driveway areas are now considered suitable for its intended use. SITE DRAINAGE Positive Idrainage provided around the perimeter of the entire structure to minimize water infiltratoing into the underlying soils should be maintained. All drainage should be directly off-site via non-erosive devices. The homeowner should be made aware of the potential problems which may develop when drainage is altered through the construction of garden walls, patios, pools and gazebos. Ponding water situations, leaking irrigation systems, over watering or other conditions which could lead to ground saturation must be avoided. ADDITIONAL GRADING The project consultant should be notified prior to any additional fill placement regarding of the site. This report is limited to the earthwork performed through June 22, 2004, the last day of our site inspection. and/or. density testing conducted at the subject site. Any future appurtenant construction such as cabana, gazebo, pool, spa, barns and second unit building should be plan checked and permitted under separate additional permits by county. Our findings have been obtained in accordance with accepted professional engineering practices in the field of soil engineering. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions concerning this report or require further information and services, please contact this office at your convenience. ",'."', ""-''l'''tll. .t: " ~ . "4:.,'" ,,> I I I I PLOT Pl~N I .' , uJ .J ~ <! L~J I I TwS"I..O({,'} /, ~W:5"Or ;i~tc" ~::?Ge.L- I I I b('O:f,') e.w,>{.c _ A\.L I( ..~ WAl.L~ SUer' I I ,--' ~r b:I::'il~ .jJJ .(~II1<>.OO) ,.r R_ bC,.S-C ....TLES; ~';'J/ '-<':AI( un_,.. __~__~.. .. \1110UUT I~ '2.41:: -r~ - ct.... crt:- t:lU\Jf.lM\'I m'Q.~" . 1\.,/.. '<7..Y:f' ~ ... '>lA' -VIi ,~~-r ..J) <;f"j ~~ .c:.".?" !'V . i<t.5" " G " P<..AOi: LMG.<i.H'ft:bli.i! ~~I..lE:JLJA,'i. > >( ^(.}.;.,> ~<0 I I I I I L~KESH6RE I Engineering I , "<: CARMELlTA CIRCLE 4'. 6 EXPLANATIOW X-4 APPROX. LOCATION OF DENSITY TEST APPROX..UMITS OF FILL PLACED MR. & MRS. RODERICK FINAL COMPACTION REPORT LOT 98 TR. 3883 CARMEUT A CIRCLE 5' ~ CONSULTING CIVIL. ENGINEERS PrOject No: 03-009.FCR Date 6/220/4 Rgure No: 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -- SU.RY OF FIELD DEtl SHY TEST' " , FIELD .~ !:~ DATE EL EVA REFER- MAX IMUM ' '*- " , i:'- ~~ ",-,<::j , 8'" ST OF LOCATION' lION EIICE DR)' HAiER DRY '-:: ~'>:t-<:'" RENARKS O. TEST (feet) ~URVE ' DENS ITY CONTENT DENSITY , ~'v~ <&-~ o~ (pef) (~) (pef) ~G '" ::::tiE ...:' VI ~ J 5.2,] 4>&:L 1M n ' +z. A /23.0 6:] 1/2.' C), V 2- 6-1.7 P66L Pi:\D +4 A [2,3:,.0 cg'3 Il"'~ Cj( I 3 S-~l P&L 00.0. ItS" /\- 1"Z.:~'O ~.O 'IIO.~ 130 / .' . I ~ b-/~ bYLV\!~'-I ~y2... Ii /23.0 j./ I JI.+.1 '13 / , , ' I " : I , I . I , - " " I I .~: , , . I . , v,...:.. ,. ~LAKESHORE \MIkE. i'-DDEfLLGL-. (f.'.. ' , Englneerln~ ' LmLYVtE:tL"'fA uA1L.LL PrqJ. No: , oa~:171laV ' Tabl.. Consulting Civil Engineering and'Geologists , o s-c.dJ.c fib. 0 -'