The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTract Map 9833-2 Lot 37 Rough Grading Lc, ~1jI:$. Soils C@., Inc.. ~=_~LJ .'. . I . 1 . '. '._ ',:' :C.rp/)()ncl. (95J)894,2121_~M':I~9alc)"'894"21k2 ~. 4is4s1East1uan Drive, Unit G.. Murrieta, CA 92562 ----J" ;-J ~'f r' -/ r .J(".E C'. ~ - ~ _ :._ ~ F,-- - ,'''" . ~.' .- ..f:,H...!......' _~'/ _ .i _--)..-""--~t=.~,--,, (!6ttt;u'''24-i-t-/ ~. / E-mail: .thesoilsco@aol.com 'p(8...:;{~GIE l\ugust 5, 2005 Mr. Gary Ingram 31275 Pescado Drive 1Temecula, California 92592 SUBJECT: REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING Proposeq Single-Family Residence Lot37 of Tract No. 9833-2 Jedediah! Smith Road Temecula Area, Riverside County, California Work Order No. 677401.22 DearMr. Ingram: INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request, we have prepared this "Report of Rough Grading" presenting the results of our observation and testing during rough grading operations for the single-family ~esidentjal pad located at the above referenced site. All compaction test results are included in ~ppendix C of this report. Rough grading operations were performed in accordance with the ~equirements of the referenced "Preliminary Soil Investigation", the City of Temecula and the 2001 California Building Code (CBC). The 40-scale "Grading Plan", given to us by you, was utilized during grading to locate our field density tests and was utilized as a base map for our Compaction Test Location Map presented as Plate 1. GSI Grading Performed the grading operations under the direction ofMr. Gary Ingram. A~COMPANYINGMAPS ,AND APPENDICES !Location Map - Figure I €ompaction Test Location Map (not-to-scale) -Plate I .j\ppendix A - References Appendix B - Laboratory Test Results , Appendix C - Results of,Compaction Tests tHE SOILS COMPANY. INC. w. 0, No. 677401.22 \ , . . 'Mr. Gary Ingram August 5, 2005 Page 2 :Proposed Development IThe proposed development calls for the construction of a single-family residence with attached garage and associated driveway and landscape areas. It is our understanding the proposed residence will consist of wood-framed, stucco-sided structures with conventional footings. ,Site Description The subject parcel is located along Jedediah Smith Road in the Temecula area of southwest Riverside County, California. The subject site is bound on all sides by interspersed large parcel residential development and vacant land. The geographical relationships of the site and surrounding ,area are shown on our Site Location Map, Figure 1. Natural gradients on the site vary from approximately 22 to 45 percent. Drainage onsite is accomplished by sheet flow along the moderately incised drainage courses observed on the subject site to the south and west. Vegetation on the subject site consisted of a moderate to thin growth of chaparral on the ridge slopes and a sparse growth of annual weeds and grasses on the flatter portions of the subject site. Prior to grading, overall relief for the subject site was approximately 100-ft. OVEREXCA V A TION AND RECOMP ACTION OBSERVATIONS & TESTING Prior to grading all vegetation was removed during clearing and grubbing operations and subsequently disposed of off-site. A, keyway was established at the toe of all fill slopes with the outside edge of the keyway being founded a minimum of 2-ft into dense sedimentary bedrock units. The keyway was tilted a minimum of 2 percent into the slope with dense sedimentary bedrock that was free of pinpoint pores and fine roots exposed throughout the keyway. The bottom of the keyway was scarified a minimum of 12-inches below the exposed surface, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture, and recompacted to 90% of the dry density, as determined by ASTM D-1557. Any topsoil/colluvial soils were completely removed during benching operations. The cut portion of the building pad underlying the proposed structure was overexcavated a minimum of 10-feet below finish grade elevation and extended a minimum of 10-ft outside the building footprint as staked by the contractor. The earth materials exposed within the bottom of the overexcavation consisted of dense sedimentary bedrock that was free of pinpoint pores and fine roots. The bottom of the overexcavation was scarified a minimum of 12-inches below the exposed surface, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture, and recompacted to 90% of the dry density, as determined by ASTM 1557. Fill generated during rough grading operations was moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture, placed and recompacted to 90% of the dry density, as determined by ASTM D-1557. The materials used for fill consisted of onsite medium to dark brown silty sand (Unified Soil Classification-SM) derived from onsite topsoil, colluvial soils and sedimentary bedrock. THE SOILS COMPANY, 1Ne. w, o. No. 677401.22 z.-. o o 'I 11000 tl Saolr. I : 15,000 Dotal!: 13-0 na_: WGSlU ~ FIGURE 1 " J' , , :I ~ ~ v ~ .~ ,'-.; 1100011 Scale: 1 : 25.000 D.alh IU nou.: WGSIU . l, It'___-+ ... , ' /! / I . 2> FIGURE 1 . . Mr. Gary Ingranl August 5, 2005 Page 3 Fill placement and compaction was achieved utilizing a CAT D-8 bulldozer and moisture conditioning was accomplished utilizing a water truck. The fill was placed in 6 to 8-inch thick lifts and moisture conditioned with a water truck, as needed, to bring the material to near optimum moisture content, and was then properly compacted by trackwalking with the dozer and incidental contact from a fully loaded and unloaded water truck. A minimum degree of compaction of 90% was required, as determined by ASTM 1557. Fill Placement Fill was placed in thin loose lifts approximately 6 to 8 inches thick, brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM DI557). Compaction was achieved by trackwalking with a dozer and incidental contact from a fully loaded and unloaded water truck. The maximum laboratory dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557-91 Test Method A (Appendix B, Table I), was utilized as the standard for field compaction control. Fill Soils Soils utilized for compacted fill typically consisted of onsite medium to dark brown silty sand (Unified Soil Classification-SM), which were derived from the onsite topsoil, colluvial soils and sedimentary bedrock materials. Test results are presented in Appendix B, Table t. Cut/FiIl Transitions Rough grading operations at the site included overexcavation of the building pad a minimum of lO- ft outside the building footprint to a minimum of 10-ft below finish grade elevation as staked by the contractor. Therefore, eliminating the cut/fill transition. TESTING PROCEDURES Field Density Testinl! Field density testing was performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D2922-91 (nuclear gauge). Areas failing to meet the minimum compaction requirements were reworked and retested until the specified degree of compaction was achieved. The elevations and the results of the field density tests are presented in Appendix C, Results of Compaction Tests, Table I. The approximate locations of the tests are shown on the Compaction Test Location Map, Plate 1. Maximum Density Determinations Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture determinations were performed in the laboratory on representative samples of onsite soils used in the fill operations. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM DI557-91, Test Method A. The test results, which were utilized in THE SOILS COMPANY,INe. W, O. No, 677401.22 A. LVI' 0'( , U~I TR 9833=2 \(\ ........... ....-, ---- ./ / -- / -- .' '" \ '-- '" "---. '-.. \ ---- - . ----..:;::- --- / / / / / / .-. -- I 1 I I -;?: I - . ~~',URAL -- xl' I I . :FLO\.f '1.-.'1' , .,'..... .,A._ l' ,I, W --...' , -,....... - - -- .----- -= ~ ' 48"50'OO"W- 13.13' HRpAIGHT HEAD'w'ALL: E A peR S.D. REG. STD, D-30 , " 2-70LF / 48'CMP @ .85"" I I ::. - (777S, ''?' '" - - \, );g -(11.35) _ ~ --:::- ~, ,---/ -- 1 --- ,- -- . - - (774 ~5:-SO - - -6' Ac7Rt1 ' - ~ - _. _.' _ [~ --- 0) _ D<- '\ _______ ~ I ( _---,------- - - - r -1L -.- - - - -...,.... -\.- - . .....A"-IC'MC'I\IT I? ( - I " :JEDED. I I I : ~EXIST, F,H, I I I I I I I II: I ~ -.'7 -- - .--- o ~f -~ u UJ I~ I~ - T.R.E. SOILS COMPANY, INC. GARY INGRAM DENSITY TEST LOCA nON MAP PROPOSED SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENCE LOT 37 OF TRACT NO. 9833-2 JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD TEMECULA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA WORK ORDER: 677401.22 DATE: AUG2005 PLATE: 1 OF 1 @- APPROXIMATE LOCA nON OF COMPACTION TESTS i ) ;;( 'v . ;. v ~ ~ t ' - GRAPHIC SCALE 20 40 40 120 I I , I ( IN FEET ) ~F~ 1 inch ~ 40 It. ...u o. , . . Mr. Gary Ingram August 5, 2005 Page 4 determining the degree of compaction achieved during fill placement, are presented in Appendix B, Table I. RECOMMENDATIONS Expansion Testinl! Expansion index testing was performed on a representative sample of the upper 3-ft of the earth materials exposed at the pad surface. The test results yielded an expansion index of 12, which indicates a very low expansion potential (0 to 20, Table 18-1-B, 2001 CBC). Test results are presented in Appendix B, Table II. Soluble Sulfate Content A representative sample of the earth materials exposed at the pad surface was obtained at the completion of rough grading. Based on our soluble sulfate test results, it is anticipated that, from a corrosivity standpoint, Type II Portland Cement can be used for construction. Laboratory analysis results were 17ppm (parts per million) of soluble sulfates, which equates to a negligible sulfate exposure (Table 19-A-4, 2001 CBC). Test results are presented in Appendix A, Table III. E.S. Babcock & Sons, Inc. laboratories of Riverside, California performed the laboratory testing. Slone Construction We anticipate that all cut/fill slopes constructed at a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope ratio to a maximum height of 30-ft will be both grossly and surficially stable. Onsite cut and fill slopes were constructed at a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope ratio to a maximum heights of 17 and 27-ft, respectively. Fill slopes were constructed to near finish grade elevations and trackwalked with the bulldozer to achieve the desired percent compaction. RECOMMENDATIONS Lateral Load Resistance The following parameters should be considered for lateral loads against permanent structures founded on fill materials compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Soil engineering parameters for imported soil may vary. Equivalent Fluid Pressure for Level Backfill Active: 35 pcf Passive: 421 pcf Coefficient of friction (concrete on soil): 0.35 THE SOILS COMPANY, INe. W, O. No, 677401.22 (p . . Mr. Gary Ingram August 5, 2005 Page 5 If passive earth pressure and friction are combined to provide required resistance to lateral forces, the value of the passi ve pressure should be reduced to two thirds of the above recommendations. These values may be increased by one third when considering short-term loads such as wind or seismic forces. Allowable Safe Bearinl!: Capacity An allowable safe bearing capacity of 1,625 pounds per square foot (pst) may be used for design of continuous footings that maintain a minimum width of 12-inches and a minimum depth of at least 12-inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The bearing value may be increased by 10% for each additional foot of depth and/or width to a maximum of 2,050 psf. The bearing value may be increased by one-third for seismic or other temporary loads. Total settlements under static loads of footings supported on properly compacted fill and/or in-place bedrock materials and sized for the allowable bearing pressures are not expected to exceed about 1/2 to 3/4 of I inch over a span of 40-ft. Total differential settlements under static loads offootings supported on properly compacted fill and/or in-place bedrock materials and sized for the allowable bearing pressures are not expected to exceed about \I,-inch over a span of 40-ft. These settlements are expected to occur primarily during construction. Soil engineering parameters for imported soil may vary. Foundation Svstem Oesil!:n Foundation elements should be placed entirely in engineered fill compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density. For one-story structures, continuous spread footings should be a minimum of 12-inches wide and 12-inches below the lowest adjacent grade. For two-story structures, continuous spread footings should be a minimum of 12-inches wide and 18-inches below the lowest adjacent grade. As a minimum, all footings should have one No.4 reinforcing bar 'placed at the top and bottom of the footing. Concrete slabs, in moisture sensitive areas, should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of six mil polyvinyl chloride membrane with all laps sealed. A 2-inch layer of clean sand should be placed above the moisture barrier. The 2-inches of clean sand is recommended to protect the visqueen moisture barrier and aid in the curing of the concrete. The structural engineer should design all footings and concrete slabs in accordance with the !anticipated loads and the soil parameters given. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density, as determined by the ASTM 1557 test method. It is our opinion, that utility trench backfill consisting THE SOILS COMPANY, INe. W, 0, No, 677401.22 1 . . Mr. Gary Ingram August 5, 2005 Page 6 of onsite or approved sandy soils can best be placed by mechanical compaction to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density. All trench excavations should be conducted in accordance with Cal-OSRA standards, as a minimum. Fill materials should be placed in 6 to 8-inch lifts, brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum laboratory dry density, as determined by the ASTM 1557 test method. No rocks larger than 6-inches in diameter should be used as fill material. Rocks larger than 6-inches should either be hauled off-site or crushed to a suitable dimension and used as fill material. Surface Drainal!e Surface drainage should be directed away from foundations of buildings or appurtenant structures. All drainage should be directed toward streets or approved permanent drainage devices. Where landscaping and planters are proposed adjacent to foundations, subsurface drains should be provided to prevent ponding or saturation of foundations by landscape water. Construction Monitorinl! Continuous observation and testing, by T.R.E. Soils Company, Inc. is essential to verifY compliance with recommendations and to confirm that the geotechnical conditions encountered are consistent with the recommendations of this report. T.R.E. Soils Company, Inc. should conduct construction monitoring, at the following stages of construction: . Following excavation of footings for foundations. . During fill placement. . During trench backfill operations. SUMMARY Our description of rough grading operations, as well as observations and testing services, were limited to those rough grading operations performed between October 26, and July 6, 2005 and observed and tested by our field personnel. The conclusions and recommendations contained herein have been based upon our observation and testing as noted. It is our opinion, the work performed in the areas denoted has generally been accomplished in accordance with the job specifications and the requirements of the regulating agencies. No conclusions or warranties are made for the areas not tested or observed. This report is based on information obtained during rough grading. No warranty as to the current conditions can be made. This report should be considered subject to review by the controlling authorities. THE SOILS COMPANY,INe. W, 0, No, 677401.22 ~ Mr. Gary Ingram August 5, 2005 Rage 7 . . LIMITATIONS This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to ,the attention of the project architect and engineer. The project architect or engineer should incorporate such information and recommendations into the plans, and take the necessary steps to : see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the ,contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for other than our own personnel on the site; therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should 'notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. This firm did not provide any surveying services at the subject site and does not represent that the building locations, contours, elevations, or slopes are accurately depicted on the plans or represented on the map. The findings of this report are valid as of the report date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. 'Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are .identified. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, T. emhart, RCE 23464 Civil Engineer, Expires 12-31-05 ITLH.E. Soils!Company, Inc. JPF/JTR/JRH:jek THE SOILS COMPANY. INC. w, 0, No. 677401.22 q THE SOILS COMPANY. INC. . . APPENDIX A References W, 0, No, 677401.22 \0 . . T.H.E Soils Company Inc. 2003 "Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single Family Residence, APN No. 945-030-015, Lot 37 of Tract 9833-2. Jedediah Smith Road, Temecula, Riverside County, California", Work Order No. 542301.00, Dated April 7, 2003. THE SOILS COMPANY.INe. w. O. No, 677401.22 \\ ! THE SOILS COMPANY, INe. . APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results . w, 0, No, 677401.22 \1-- . . TABLE I Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture % Type Description LbslFe Moisture I Dark Brown Silty Sand 131.6 8.4 OnSite 3 Medium Brown Silty Sand 118.9 10.1 OnSite TABLE II EXPANSION INDEX TEST LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL Pad Surface - 0-2-ft 12 Very Low I TABLE III I SULFATE CONTENT I TEST LOCATION I SULFATE CONTENT I Pad Surface 17 ppm THE SOILS COMPANY, INe. w. O. No. 677401.22 \~ THE SOILS COMPANY, 1Ne. . APPENDIX C Results of Compaction Tests . W, 0, No, 677401,22 \l\ . . TABLE I RESULTS OF COMPACTION Job No. 677401.22 GARY INGRAM JEDEDIAH SMITH RD, TEMECULA CA, LOT 37, DATE: JULY 2005 OF TR 9833-2 Test Test Elev / Moisture Unit Dry ReI. Soil Location No. Date Depth Content Density Compo Type (ft,) (%) (PCF) (%) I I 10/26/04 1127. 0 9.8 121.6 92N 1 SEE PLATE I OF I 2 10/26/04 1130.0 6.9 121.1 92N I SEE PLATE I OF I ~ 10/26/04 1133.0 7.5 120.4 91N I SEE PLATE I OF I j 4 1115/04 1137.0 7.6 121.5 92N I SEE PLATE I OF I 5 1l/5/04 1140.0 7.9 121.1 92N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 6 1115/04 1143.0 7.3 122.3 93N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 7 1115/04 1147.0 8.2 120.7 92N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF I 8 1115/04 1150.0 8.9 120.3 91N 1 SEE PLATE I OF I 9 1115/04 1153.0 7.5 122.5 93N 1 SEE PLATE I OF I 10 1115/04 1157.0 9.0 120,0 91N 1 SEE PLATE I OF I 11 6/7/05 1156.0 9.0 119.3 91N 1 SEE PLATE I OF I 12 6/7/05 1158.0 8.6 120.4 92N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF I 13 6/7/05 1159.0 8.8 120.1 91N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 14 6/7/05 1160.0 9.3 118.5 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF I 15 6/9/05 1162.0 9.2 121.1 92N I SEE PLATE I OF 1 16 6/9/05 1164.0 10.3 120.5 92N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 17 6/9/05 1166.0 7.6 119.3 91N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF I 18 6/9/05 1168.0 7.8 123.4 94N I SEE PLATE I OF I 19 6/9/05 1169.0 8.1 122.6 93N 1 SEE PLATE I OF 1 20 6/9/05 1170.0 9.9 120.2 91N I SEE PLATE I OF I 21 6/9/05 1172.0 7.3 121.3 92N I SEE PLATE I OF I 22 6/9/05 1174.0 7.5 121.9 93N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF I 23 6/9/05 1176.0 8.9 123.4 94N I SEE PLATE I OF I 24 6/9/05 1178.0 7.1 119.8 91N I SEE PLATE 1 OF I 25 7/6/05 1178.0 7.6 113.9 97N 2 SEE PLATE I OF I 26 7/6/05 1178.0 5.9 116.9 98N 2 SEE PLATE I OF I 27 7/6/05 1179.0 6.8 116.7 98N 2 SEE PLATE I OF I 28 7/6/05 1180.0 9.6 111.2 94N 2 SEE PLATE I OF I 29 7/6/05 1180.0 7.6 116.9 98N 2 SEE PLATE I OF 1 30 7/6/05 1181.0 8.9 114.2 96N 2 SEE PLATE I OF 1 31 7/6/05 1182.0 8.6 110.6 93N 2 SEE PLATE I OF I 32 7/6/05 FG 7.3 111.3 94N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 SEE PLANS FOR DETAILS SC-Sand Cone ASTM DI556-64; DC-Drive Cylinder ASTM D2937-71; N-Nuclear ASTM 03017-93, and D2922-91; NG-Natural Ground + 85%= Passing Test; U. Test Failed, See Retest \-5 . . TABLE I RESULTS OF COMPACTION Job No. 677401.22 GARY INGRAM JEDEDIAH SMITH RD. TEMECULA CA, LOT 37, DATE: JULY 2005 OF TR 9833-2 Test Test Elev / Moisture Unit Dry ReI. Soil Location No. Date Depth Content Density Compo Type (ft.) (%) (PCF) (%) I 33 7/6/05 FG 7,5 111.2 94N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF I 34 7/6/05 FG 9.3 112.0 94N 2 SEE PLATE I OF I 35 7/6/05 FG 8.1 125.1 95N 2 SEE PLATE I OF I . 36 7/6/05 FG 9.3 108.0 91N 2 SEE PLATE I OF I 37 7/6/05 FG 6.9 111.0 94N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF I SEE PLANS FOR DETAILS \Cp SC-Sand Cone ASTM DI 556.64; DC-Drive Cylinder ASTM 02937-71; N-Nuclear ASTM D3017-93. and D2922-91; NG-Natural Ground + 85%= Passing Test; "-Test Failed, See Retest