Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel 3-4 Geotechnical Report & Compaction Results Precise Grading :~EN Coq~oration . Soil EngineeringandConsultingSer~ices. Engineering Geology . Compaction Tesling elnspeclions_ConslruclionMaterialsTesling_LaboratoI)'Testing.Perco\ationTesling . Geology-WaterResourceStudies -Phasel& II EnvironmenlalSileAssessments ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NElWORK I I I GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS PRECISE GRADING OPERATIONS C & H Office Specialisties. Inc. Parcels 3 and 4 of Parcel Map 28471-1 City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California Project Number. T1570-C I I February 10. 1999 I RECEIVEn FEB 171999 I ell i' wt j tiVltCULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT I I I I I Prepared for. I C & H Office Specialisties, Inc. 1616 Francis Stree~ Uint F Ontario, California 91761 ; . '. . ; . " - - \ F" . - . - I I I I it I I II I I I I I I I I I I I C & H Office Speclalisties, Inc. Project Number: T1570.c TABLE OF CONTENTS : SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE PAGE . 1~0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ....................................................................1 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................1 : 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK .................................................................................................... 2 : 2.1 TIME OF GRADING ...................................................................................................2 : 2.1 CONTRACTOR AND EOUIPMENT................................................................................. 2 : 2.2 GRADING OPERATIONS ............................................................................................2 : 3..0 TESTING ........... ......................................................................................................2 .3.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES...................................................................................2 3.1.1 LABORATORY TESTING ..................................... ............. ............................ 2 3.1.2 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST ...................................................2 : 3.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST...........................................................................................3 , 4.0 EARTH MA TERIALS..................................................................................................3 ,5.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................ 3 '5.1 FOUNDATION SIZE ................................................................................................... 3 ,5.2 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT............................................................................................3 .5.3 BEARING CAPACITY ................................................................................................. 3 . 5.4 SETTLEMENT....... .... ... ....... ..... ............ ... ........ ..... ... .............. ...... ....... ... ........ ..... ....... 4 5.5 LATERAL CAPACITY .................................................................................................4 5.6 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................4 5.7 INTERIOR SLABS....... ........................ .......... ............. ...................... ..........................5 5.8 EXTERIOR SLABS .................................................................................................... 5 5.9 GENERAL ............................................................................................................... 5 6.0 CLOSURE ............................................................................................................ 6 . APPENDIX TEST RESULTS DRAWINGS EnGEN Corporation z..- --.--------..- '-C:'-_.~tt_:_.o-=--:~'::..::;c_ I~ I < ..... .v. .\ EN I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I February 10, 1999 Corporation -Soil EngineeringandConsulling5ervices-EngineeringGoology. Compactio nTesting -lnspeclions-ConstructionMaterialsTesling-Labora1oryTesling-PercolalionTesting -Geology-WaterResourceSludies . Phasel& II Environmental 5ite Assessments ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NElWORK I C & H Office Specialisties, Inc. . 1616 Francis Street, Unit F I Ontario, Califomia 91761 1(909) 947-3471 Mr. Vince Maganuco GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS PRECISE GRADING OPERATIONS C & H Office Specialisties, Inc. Parcels 3 and 4 of Parcel Map 28471-1 City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California Project Number. T1570-C 1. EnGEN Corporation, Pavement Design Recommendation, Parcels 3 and 4 of Parcel Map 28471-1, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Project Number. T1570-C, report dated February 1999. , Attention: , Regarding: . References: Dear Mr. Maganuco: 2. EnGEN Corporation, Updated Geotechnical Study, Proposed Structure, Parcels 3 and 4 of Parcel Map 28471-1, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Project Number: T1570-UGS, report dated November 10,1998. Hector Correa, Preliminary Grading Plan, C & H Office Specialisties, Inc., Parcel 3 and 4 of Parcel Map 28471-1, plans dated October 12, 1998. Schaefer Dixon Associates, Geotechnical Mass Grading, Report No.2, Parcel Map 21383 (Core I, Phase II), City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, report dated January 7, 1992. HLC Civil Engineering, Precise Grading Plan, C & H Office Specialisties, Inc., Parcel 3 and 4 of Parcel Map 27471-1, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, PA98-0469. 3. 4. 5. According to 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 PROJECT, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION The subject site is located at the south end of Colt Court in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California. t.1 surface conditions of .,thesite :wererelatively. ilatwith I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :2.0 :2.1 :2.1 :2.2 :3;0 3.1 C & H Office Specialisties, Inc. Project Number. T157D-C February 1999 Page 2 SCOPE OF WORK TIME OF GRADING This report represents geotechnical observations and testing during the construction operations from January 28,1999 through January 29,1999. CONTRACTOR AND EaulPMENT The grading operations were performed by Blackmore Company through the use of one (1) Cat 623 self-loading scraper, one (1) Cat 06 track mounted dozer, one (1) Cat 12G motorgrader, and one (1) 4,000 gallon water truck. GRADING OPERATIONS Grading within the subject site consisted of a cut/fill operation. Grasses and weeds were removed prior to fill placement. Fill material was generated from the southern portions of the site, and used to bring the northern portions of the site to finish grade elevation. Over-excavation was performed in the cut portion of the building pad to a depth of 3.5-feet below finish grade elevation and to a distance of 5.0-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 4 to 6-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. TESTING FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed in general accordance with ASTM- 0-2922-81 (90) and ASTM-0-3017-88 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 placed and 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. 3.1.1 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. 3.1.2 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 D1557-91 procedures. The test results are presented in the Appendix (Summary of Optimum Moisture Content I L\ EnGEN Corporation _.~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 C & H Office Speciallsties, Inc. Project Number: T1570-C February 1999 Page 3 Maximum Dry Density Relationship Test Results). :3.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST A soil sample was obtained for expansion potential testing from the building pad area upon completion of precise grading of the subject site. The expansion test procedure utilized was the Uniform Building Code Test Designation 18-2. The material tested consisted of brown silty sand, which has an Expansion Index of 23. This soil is classified as having a low expansion potential. The results are presented in the Summary of Expansion Index Results in the Appendix of this report. 14;0 EARTH MATERIALS The natural earth materials encountered on-site, generally consisted of silty sand with cobbles. !SJO FOUNDATION DESIGN ReCOMMENDATIONS Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional column footings and continuous wall footings founded upon properly compacted fill. The recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and construction are based on geotechnical characteristics and a low expansion potential for the supporting soils and should not preclude more restrictive structural requirements. The Structural Engineer for the project should determine the actual footing width and depth to resist design vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces. !5.1 FOUNDATION SIZE Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 18-inches. Continuous footings should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of one (1) NO.4 steel reinforcing bars located near the top and one (1) NO.4 steel reinforcing bars located near the bottom of the footings to minimize the effects of slight differential movements which may occur due to minor variations in the engineering characteristics or seasonal moisture change in the supporting soils. Column footings should have a minimum .width of 18-inches by 18-inches and be suitably reinforced, based on structural requirements. A grade beam, founded at the same depths and reinforced the same as the adjacent footings, should be provided across all perimeter door openings and under any perimeter slab areas supporting: storefront type floor-contact glass. !5:2 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT Exterior and interior footings founded in properiy compacted fill should extend to a minimum depth of 18-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for the structure. The foundations should be founded in properly compacted fill with a minimum of 18-inches of compacted fill below the bottom of the footings. ,5:3 BEARING CAPACITY Provided the recommendations for site earth work, minimum footing width, and minimum depth of ::5 EnGEN Corporation --._--" . .~----~--- I 'I il I il :1 '. . I 'I I :1 I . I I I I I C & H Office Speciallstles, Inc. Project Number. T157Q-C February 1999 Page 4 embedment for footings are incorporated into the project design and construction, the allowable bearing value for design of continuous and column footings for the total dead plus frequently-applied live loads is 2,000 psf for continuous footings and 2,000 psf for column footings in properly compacted fill material. The allowable bearing value has a factor of safety of at least 3.0 and may be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading such as wind or seismic forces. : 5.4 SETTLEMENT Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values for continuous and column footings, respectively, and the maximum assumed wall and column loads are not expected to exceed a maximum settlement of 0.75-inches or a differential settlement of 0.25-inches in properly compacted fill. '5;5 LATERAL CAPACITY Additional foundation design parameters based on compacted fill for resistance to static lateral forces, are as follows: Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case: Compacted Fill - 200 pel Allowable Coefficient of Friction: Compacted Fill - 0.30 Lateral load resistance may be developed by a combination of friction acting on the base of foundations and. slabs and passive earth pressure developed on the sides of the footings and stem walls below grade when in contact with undisturbed, properly, compacted fill material. The above values are allow.able design values and have safety factors of at least 2.0 incorporated into them and may be used in combination without reduction in evaluating the resistance to lateral loads. The allowable values may be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading, such as wind or seismic forces. For the calculation of passive earth resistance, the upper 1.0-foot of material should be neglected unless confined by a concrete slab or pavement. The maximum recommended allowable passive pressure is 5.0 times the recommended design value. 5.6 SLAS-QN-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations for concrete slabs, both interior and exterior, excluding PCC pavement, are based upon the anticipated building usage and upon a low expansion potential for the supporting material as determined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code. Concrete slabs should be designed to minimize cracking as a result of shrinkage. Joints (isolation, contraction, and construction) should be placed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. Special precautions should be taken during placement and curing of all concrete slabs. Excessive slump (high EnGEN Corporation (0 i ---......,...........,,-" ._,.:-".,...--~~.--_.~ I I I I I I I I I I . I . '. I I I I il ~.....:_, C & H Office SpeclalJsties, Inc. Project Number: T157D-C February 1999 Page 5 water/cement ratio) of the concrete and/or improper curing procedures used during either hot or cold weather conditions could result in excessive shrinkage, cracking, or curling in the slabs. It is recommended that all concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be performed in accordance with ACI recommendations and procedures. :5.7 INTERIOR SLABS Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4-inches in actual thickness (6" if subject to heavy loadings) and be underlain by a minimum of 2-inches of clean coarse sand or other approved granular material placed on properly prepared subgrade. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of #3 reinforcing bars placed 24-inches on the center in both directions or a suitable equivalent. The reinforcing should be placed at mid-depth in the slab. The concrete section and/or reinforcing steel should be increased appropriately for anticipated excessive or concentrated floor loads. In areas where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slab, we recommend the use of a polyethylene vapor barrier with a minimum of 6.0 mil in thickness be placed beneath the slab. The moisture barrier should be overlapped or sealed at splices and covered by a 1.0-inch minimum layer of clean, moist (not saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures. ! 5.8 EXTERIOR SLABS All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks, etc., with the exception of PCC pavement) should be a minimum of 4-inches nominal in thickness. Reinforcing in the slabs and the use of a compacted sand or gravel base beneath the slabs should be according to the current local standards. Subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content to a depth of 6.0-inches and proof compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D1557-91 procedures immediately before placing aggregate base material or placing the concrete. ~ 5.9 GENERAL Based on the observations and tests performed during grading, the subject site in the areas noted has been completed in accordance with the Referenced No.2 Updated Geotechnical Study, the project plans and. the grading Code of the City ofTemecula. The graded site in the areas noted as graded is determined to be adequate for the support of a typical commercial 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 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 EnGEN Corporation 1 -.~;.- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C & H Office Speclallsties, Inc. Project Number. T157Q.C February 1999 Page 6 backfill, slab presaturation, or other earth work completed for the development of 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. 16;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 precise 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. , Respectfully submitted, I EnGEN Corporation ~ U~'-J;L :Jason D Gardner , Field Operations anager . JDG/OB:ch i Distribution: (4) Addressee I FILE: EnGEN/ReportingC/T1570C C&H Office Specialties. Precise Grading EnGEN Corporation B I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C & H OffIce Speclallsties, Inc. Project Number. T157o.c Appendix Page 1 APPENDIX TEST RESULTS EnGEN Corporation ~ I C & H Office Speclallsties, Inc. Project Number: T1570-C I Appendix Page 2 FIELD TEST RESULTS I (SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS) (NUCLEAR GAUGE TEST METHOD) I Test Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required Date Elev. Density Content Density Compaction Compaction No. (11999) Test Locations (FT) Type (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%) I 1 1-28 Parcel 3 (Existing Fill) 1082 1 124.7 9.7 114.4 91.7 90 I 2 1-29 NW. Side of Pad 1082 1 124.7 12.0 119.8 96.1 90 3 1-29 N.W. Side of Pad 1082 1 124.7 12.1 117.1 93.9 90 4 1-29 N.E. Side of Pad 1084 (FG) 1 124.7 12.8 115.3 92.5 90 I 5 1-29 N.W. Side of Pad 1084 (FG 1 124.7 14.9 117.6 94.3 90 6 1-29 Middle of Pad 1084 (FG) 1 124.7 13.8 115.4 92.6 90 I 7 1-29 S.w. Side of Pad 1084 (FG) 1 124.7 14.8 116.9 93.7 90 8 1-29 S.E. Side of Pad 1084 (FG) 1 124.7 14.7 119.0 95.4 90 I(F.G.) Indicates Finish Grade I I I I I I I I I I EnGEN Corporation \1:> ----'-"-.-'~-- -- -",",...-." I C & H Office Speclallstfes, Inc. Project Number. T157o.c I Appendix Page 3 SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT I I MAxiMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TeST RESULTS i ASTM D1557-91 I Optimum Soil Maximum Moisture iSoil Description Dry Density Content ! I Type (USCS Symbol) (PCF) (%) A1 Brown Silty Sand (SM) 124.7 10.5 I I I I SUMMARY OF exPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS I Moisture Moisture I Soil Depth IDry Density Condition Before Condition After Expansion Type (FT) (PCF) Test (%) Test (%) Index I E1 1.5 113.6 9.4 19.0 23 I I I I I I I EnGEN Corporation \\ I~ ~. ,. I I I . '. . I i. I I I I . I I I . . C & H Office Speclallsties, Inc. Project Number: T157D-C Appendix Page 4 DRAWINGS EnGEN Corporation \-z....