The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutParcel Map 22629 Parcel 3 Geotech & Compaction Test Results Aug.30, 2006 .' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~I ~:EnGEiN 1::'c 0 RP 0 RAT I ON GEOTECHNICAL REpORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS ROUGH GRAD.ING OPERATIONS Edwards Residence Assessor's Parcel Number: 955-050-032 Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 22629 Via Telesio and Green Tree Road City of T emecula, County of Riverside Project Number: T3411-C August 30, 2006 Prepared for: Tom and Maryann Edwards 32478 Corte Zaragoza Temecula, California 92592 257591efferson Avenue, MUrrlf'til, California 92562 . Phone ~9')): fG4-9GOO' f"x; '9'j 1) 834-9001 / \ 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Tom and Maryann Edwards Project Number: T3411-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 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 MA TERIALS........................................................................................................... 4 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................................4 6.1 GENERAL . .............. .................... ......... ................................. ...................... ............4 7.0 CLOSURE......................................................................................................................... 5 APPENDIX: TESl RESULTS DRAWINGS 'Z-- EnGEN Corporation I . . I I -. . I I I I I . . I I I I I ~iEnGEN ~CbRPORATION August30,2006 T.om and Maryann Edwards 32478 Corte Zaragoza Temecula, California 92592 (951) 302-5449 . Regarding: GEOTECHNICAL REpORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS Edwards Residence Assessor's Parcel Number: 955-050-032 Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 22629 ViaTelesio and Green Tree Road City of Temecula, County of Riverside Project Number: T3411-C References: 1. EnGEN Corporation, Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Edwards Residence, Assessor's Parcel Number: 955-050-032, Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 22629, Via Telesio and Green Tree Road, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, Project Number: T3411-GFS, September 14, 2005 2.' BMB Technical Services, Precise Grading Plan, Thomas and Maryann Edwards Residence, Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 22629, APN: 955-050-032, City of Temecula, plan dated August 25, 2006. Dear Mr. and Ms. Edwards: 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. 1;0. SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 1;1 PROJECT LOCATION The subject site consists of approximately i-acre, located on the southern side of Via Telesio west of the intersection of Via Telesio and Green Tree Road, 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 north and south at a gradient of less than 5 percent. 3> 25759 Jefferson Avenue, fv1ur,;,'til, Cciifornia ':)2';62, Ph,'r,c :93:, 8_,4 QOOO- Fax:!951j 334-9001 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Tom and Maryann Edwards Project Number: T3411-C August 2006 Page 2 1 ~3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION It is understood that the subject site is to be developed with a single family residence as well as a separate detached garage type structure with slab-on-grade concrete floors supported .on conventional continuous and pier footings, with associated driveway as well as hardscape and landscape improvements. A 32-inch CMP storm drain was constructed in the drainage along the northern portion of the site. 2:0 ~ SCOPE OF WORK 2!1 TIME OF GRADING This report represents geotechnical observations and testing during the construction operations from July 12, 2006 through August 14, 2006. 2,2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT The grading operations were performed by Custom Dirt Work through the use of one (1) CAT 623 scraper, one (1) CAT 883 track mounted dozer, and one (1) water truck. 2J3 GRADING OPERATIONS Grading within the subject site consisted of a cut/fiIi operation as well an import fill operation. Grasses and weeds were removed prior to fill placement. Fill material was generated from the cut portions of the site, as well as from the adjoining property and used to bring the pad portion of the site to finish grade elevation. Removal of alluvium, slopewash, etc., was performed to a depth of 2-3-feet below original elevation. Overexcavated earth material was stockpiled and later used as fill. Bottoms within the pad area were observed, probed and found to be into competent bedrock by a representative of this firm. Bottoms within the location of the storm drain were observed, probed and found to be into competent alluvium by a representative of this firm, Keying and benching into competent bedrock was observed during the grading operations. Overexcavation was performed in the cut and shallow fill portion of the building pad and detached garage pad to a depth of 3 to 5-feet below finish grade elevation and to a minimum distance of 5-feet outside the proposed structures. 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 " EnGEN Corporation I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I il Tom and Maryann Edwards Project Number: T3411-C August 2006 Page 3 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 Precise Grading Plan. However, the actual pad location, dimensions. elevations, slope locations and inclinations, etc. were surveyed and staked by others and should be verified by the Project Civil Engineer. 3.0 . 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) or flatter. 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 10- 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 2922-03 and ASTM D 3017-01 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. 4.2 LABORATORVTESTING 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, 6' EnGEN Corporation I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I II I I II I I Tom and Maryann Edwards Project Number: T3411-C August 2006 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 1557-02 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 CBC 18-2. The material tested consisted of light Brown Silty Sand, which has an Expansion Index of 6 This soil is classified as having a very low expansion potential. The results are presented in the Summary of Expansion Index Results in the Appendix of this report. 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 solubie sulfates are not a concern, and as a result, normal Type 'I cement can be used in concrete making contact with the native soils. 5.0 :EARTH MATERIALS The natural earth materials encountered on-site generally consisted of light Brown Silty Sand. 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. 6.1 GENERAL Based on the observations and tests performed during grading, the subject site, in the areas noted as test iocations, has been completed in accordance with the The Referenced Geotechnical Feasibility Study, or as amended in the field based on conditions encountered, 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 ~ EnGEN Corporation I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I 'I Tom and Maryann Edwards Project Number: T3411-C August 2006 Page 5 Corporation. Subsequent grading includes, but is not limited to, any additional fill placement and excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN Corporation should observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be made prior to installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel so as to verify and/or modify, if necessary, the conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations' of overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other 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 performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the safety and performance of the development is limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by EnGEN Corporation. 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. Distribution: FILE: EnGEN/ReportinglCrr3411.c Edwards Residence, Rough Grade 1 EnGEN Corporation I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Tom and Maryann Edwards Project Number: T3411-C Appendix Page 1 APPENDIX: TEST RESULTS ~ EnGEN Corporation I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Tom and Maryann Edwards Project Number: T3411-C Appendix Page 2 FIELD TEST RESULTS (Summary of Field In-Place Density Test Results) (Nuclear Gauge Test Method) (S. G.) = Subgrade I (F. G.) = Finish Grade Test Test Depth Max Moisture Dry Relative Required No. Date Test Locations Elevation Soil Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction ,(2005) (FT) (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%) 1 07-12 North Drainage 1085 Ai 128.0 10,2 116.3 90.9% 90.0% 2 07-12 North Drainage 1085 A1 128,0 10.7 117,1 91.5% 90,0% 3 07-12 North Drainage 1086 A1 128.0 11.1 115.9 90,5% 90.0% 4 07-14 North Drainage 1087 Ai 128,0 9.2 118.2 92.3% 90.0% 5 07-14 North Drainage 1088 A1 128.0 10,1 116,0 90.6% 90,0% 6 07-14 North Drainage 1088 A1 128.0 9,7 117.4 91,7% 90.0% 7 07-17 North Drainage 1090 A1 128,0 10.2 117.0 91.4% 90,0% 8 07-17 North Drainage 1090 A1 128.0 11.3 118.4 92.5% 90,0% 9 07-19 Pad 1102 Ai 128,0 9.2 116.3 90,9% 90,0% 10 07-19 Pad 1102 A1 128.0 9.7 117,9 92.1% 90,0% 11 07-19 Pad 1102 Ai 128.0 10.5 118.2 92,3% 90.0% 12 07-19 Pad 1102 Ai 128,0 10.3 117.1 91,5% 90.0% 13 07-20 Pad 1104 A1 128.0 10,3 117,6 91.9% 90.0% 14 07-20 Pad 1104 Ai 128.0 9.2 118,2 92.3% 90,0% 15 07-20 Pad 1102 A1 128.0 10.7 119.3 93.2% 90,0% 16 07-20 Pad 1103 A1 128.0 9.8 118,7 92.7% 90,0% 17 07-20 Pad 1104 Ai 128.0 10,1 116.8 91,3% 90,0% 18 07-25 Fill Slope 1094 A2 128.8 8.7 119,3 92.6% 90.0% 19 07-25 Fill Slope 1095 A2 128,8 9.4 120.1 93.2% 90,0% 20 07-25 Fill Slope 1096 A2 128.8 9,7 118,9 92,3% 90.0% 21 07-26 Fill Slope 1096 A2 128.8 10.3 120.3 93.4% 90,0% 22 07-26 Fill Slope 1097 A2 128.8 9.2 118.8 92.2% 90,0% 23 07-26 FiJI Stope 1097 A2 128,8 10.6 121.2 94,1% 90,0% 24 08-02 Fill Siope 1098 A2 128.8 10,9 119,6 92.9% 90,0% 25 08-02 Fill Slope 1098 A2 128.8 9,2 118.6 92,1% 90,0% 26 08-02 Fill Slope 1099 A2 128,8 10.4 119,5 92.8% 90,0% 27 08-02 Fill Slope 1098 A2 128.8 10.3 117.6 91,3% 90.0% 28 08-03 Fill Slope 1100 A2 128,8 10.0 119.7 92.9% 90,0% 29 08-03 Fill Slope 1102 A2 128,8 9.1 120.2 93.3% 90,0% 30 08-03 Fill Slope 1100 A2 128.8 9,6 118.9 92,3% 90,0% 31 08-04 Fill Slope 1103 A2 128.8 10.4 117.8 91,5% 90.0% 32 08-04 Fill Slope 1102 A2 128.8 9.7 118.6 92,1% 90.0% 33 08-04 Fill Slope 1102 A2 128,8 11,3 119.4 92,7% 90,0% 34 08-04 Fill Slope 1103 A2 128.8 10.7 120,8 93,8% 90.0% C\ EnGEN Corporation I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II Tom and Maryann Edwards Project Number: T3411-C Appendix Page 3 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 Date Test Locations Elevation Soil Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction No. :(2005) (FT) (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%) 35 08-07 Pad FG A1 128.0 8.4 118.2 92,3% 90.0% 36 08-07 Pad FG A1 128,0 8,7 117,9 92,1% 90,0% 37 08-07 Pad FG A1 128.0 8.2 119.2 93,1% 90.0% 38 08-07 Pad FG A1 128.0 8,9 120.9 94.5% 90.0% 39 08-07 Slope FG A2 128,8 9.7 118.9 92.3% 90,0% 40 08-07 Pad FG A2 128.8 10,7 119,6 92.9% 90.0% 41 08-11 Pad 1104 A2 128.8 10,2 120.1 93.2% 90.0% 42 08-11 Pad 1103 A2 128.8 10.8 118.6 92,1% 90,0% 43 08-11 Pad 1102 A2 128.8 9.6 119,8 93.0% 90.0% 44 08-14 Pad 1105 A2 128.8 9,2 117.9 91,5% 90,0% 45 08-14 Pad 1105 A2 128,8 8.7 120.2 93.3% 90.0% 46 08-14 Pad 1103 A2 128.8 9,5 118.9 92.3% 90.0% 47 08-14 Pad 1103 A2 128,8 10.1 120.6 93,6% 90.0% \0 EnGEN Corporation I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Tom and Maryann Edwards Project Number: T3411.C Appendix Page 4 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1557-02 Soil Description (USeS Symbol) Soil Type Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture Content Density (PCF) (%) Silty Sand Light Brown (SM) A1 128.0 9.5 Silty Sand Light Brown (SM) A2 128.8 9.1 SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS eBe 18-2 Dry Moisture Moisture Expansion Soil Type Depth (FT) Density Condition Condition (pcf) Before Test After Test Index E1 -1 116.0 9.2% 17.5% 6 \\ EnGEN Corporation . : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Tom and Maryann Edwards Project Number: T3411-C Appendix Page 5 APPENDIX: DRAWINGS \~ EnGEN Corporation