Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3552 Lot 28 Final Compacted Fill & Foundation (2) , . �� �� �,,. � . . . , : . � �tc%C!' S/G,c�/�"� �> t 'f J ` � � � {/ � � �- ( � 3y .. . ���V�K/� 1 ,.. •. �.:ti:. . . • . � . � . � � � c�lc�ncl En � in��rs b� ��ssoc��t�s -��� � �J CIVIL ENGINEERS • t'LANNERS � ARCHITEGTS • SURVEYORS � - FINAL REPORT OF COMPACTED FILL AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS A large, single-family residential6uilding pad area, including access driveway and parking area, located on Vallejo Avenue, Temecula, California Le�al Description: Lot 28, Parcel Map 3552; A.P.N.922-160-012� Site Location: Vallejo Avenue • Temecula, CA 92593 Owner/Anplicant: Marvin Hayes � M� h!Ay 6S Butte�eld Square NEha`r�✓ead GoNs'�''Ru� P. O. Box 69 Temecula, CA 92593 � 951� 732-�-33 � � �a� �33 Job No. CF04-238 September 10, 2004 28481 Rancho California Rd., 5uite. 201 � Temecula, CA 92590 i'hone: (909) 699-4624 e Fax: (909) 695-5084 0 E-mail: mega@ez2.net • � • } � S TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................... : ..............................................................1 GENERAL SITE PREPARATION .......................................................................1 GENERAL EXCAVATION AND GRADING PROCEDURES .........................2 GENERAL LABORATORY TESTING ...............................................................2 ExpansionTest Results ................................................................................3 SettlementCriteria .......................................................................................3 FIELD COMPACTION TESTING .......................................................................3 RelativeCompaction Test Results .......................:......................................4 RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SOIL CRITERIA ........:...........5 Grading Compaction Conclusions ......................................................5 ApprovedAllowable Soil Bearing Values ..................................................5 FoundationRecommendations ...................................................................6 UtilityTrenches ..............:.............................................................................7 Subgrade Driveway and Parking .........................................................7 Suggested Pavement Design ........................................................................7 SolubleSulfate Content ...............................................................................8 � CLOSURE ................................................................................................................8 U NIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ...................................................9 MAXIMUM DENSITY CURVE ............................................................................10 KEYING-BENCHING DETAIL ............................................................................11 PLANS ..........................................................................................................Enclosed n , 1 �' � Job No. CF04-238 , September 10, 2004 Page 1 FINAL itEPORT OF COMPACTED FILL AND FOUNDATION RECOMIVIENDATIONS A large, single-family residential building pad area, including access . driveway and parking area, located on Vallejo Avenue, Temecula, California Le�al Description: Lot 28, Parcel Map 3552; A.P.N. 922-160-012 Site Location: Vallejo Avenue Temecula, CA 92593 Owner/Applicant: Marvin Hayes INTRODUCTION , - At the request of owner, Marvin Eiayes, Megaland Engineers has provided all the field supervision and compaction testing of all fill soil emplacements, and all the required laboratory analysis necessary to control all of the grading operations. This soils engineering work has been conducted in complete accordance with currently accepted engineering techniques as set forth by the U.B.C., (Appendix, Chapter 33). GENERAL SITE PREPARA'I'ION The entire project area involved in the grading operations was stripped of all vegetation and any other materials which could not be used in the fill slope emplacements. The exposed fill soils were thoroughly processed and premixed to optimum moisture conditions prior to their emplacemenf as compacted fills. i • Job No. CF04-238 September 10, 2004 Page 2 GENEItAL EXCAVA'TION A1�1D GRADING PROCEDi11tES � The grading equipment used included a D-4 Cat equipped with slope blade and ripper teeth, and a 2500-gallon water truck equipped with a high pressure fire hose. The entire building pad area was over-excavated to a minimum depth of 4.5 feet below the existing natural grade. The exposed subgrade soils in the over-excavated area were solid, natural, undisturbed soils formations. � The over excavated fill soils were recomputed in 6-inch to 8-inch lifts using optimum moisture until the proposed building pad elevation was attained. . All the grading operations and compaction testing were completed in compliance with the Uniform Quilding Code, (Appendix Chapter 33). GENERAL LABORATORY 'I'ESTING Maximum density determinations were made on the typical structural fill soils, as accepted by the Uniform Building Code and the County of Riverside gradin� ordinances. The maximum density determinations were made in accordance with A.S.T.M. D1557- 70T, modified to use 25 blows on each of five layers with a 10-pound hammer falling 18 inches in a mold of 1/30 cubic foot volume. Soil Tvpe l: Tan-brown coarse to fine sand and silt with some clay; SM and SC according to U.S.C.S.; Maximum I)ensity 129.0 p.c.f.. @ 10.2% Optimum Moisture. The results oFthe expansion tests performed on the remolded samples of the typical backfill soils are as follows. The samples were compacted to over 90% relative compaction and set up to be equai to 50% saturation, and then measured to full 100% s • Job No. CF04-238 September 10, 2004 Page 3 saturation after a period of several days and until� no further expansion occurred in a 24- hour period in accordance with Table 29-C of the Uniform Building Code. Exnansion Test Results Soil Ty�e Confining I.oad Expansion Index % Expansion 1 144 p.s.f. 9 0.9 The typical fill soils involved in the grading process are essentially non-expansive and as such will not require any special foundation design. Settlement Criteria , The total settlemeni calculated to occur over the proposed project will be less than� 1/2 inch and the differential settlement total will be 1/4 inch. FIEL� COMPACTION TESTING The results of relative compaction testing throughout the building pad area were in all instances at least 90% of the maximum soil density values obtained for Soil Type A, based on the results of testing methods (Drive Cylinder Method D2937-71 and/or Sand Cone Method D1556-64). (See Page 4.) � . � � Job No. CF04-238 September 10, 2004 Page 4 Relative Compaction Test Results Test Date Soil Elev. ** Dry Dens. Field Maximum No Type (ft ) p.c.f. Moist. Density--% S-1 9/8 1 -5.0 125.4 8.2 97 S-2 9/8 1 -5.0 121.6 7.3 94 S-3 9/8 1 -5.0 120.5 8.0 93 S-4 9/8 1 -3.0 119.9 7.3 - 93 S-5 9/8 1 -3.0 119.7 14.0 93 S-6 9/8 1 -2.5 124.6 7.7 96 S-7 9/11 1 -2.0 125.1 6.5 97 S-8 9/I1 � 1 -1.0 121.1 6.8 94 * S-9 9/11 1 -0.5 118.3 5.5 92 * Sand Volume Tests ** NOTE: Compaction tests measured from existing pad grade. , ,, � � Job No. CF04-238 September 10, 2004 Page 5 RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SOIL CRITERIA Gradin� and Comnaction Conclusions - THe fill soils used in the grading operations consisted of light tan-brown fine to coarse sand and silt with very minor clay component. 'These fill soils were thoroughly processed and pre-mixed to optimum moisture and were then emplaced in thin lifts and � track rolled in multiple directibns until the required 90% relative compaction test results were attained. An area extending 5 feet beyond the two building perimeter areas was over excavated a minimum 36 inches in depth. The fill soils were recompacted in place and � tested or 90% relative compaction values. This procedure minimizes the potential risk � for differential settlement. All grading operations were completed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, (Appendix, Chap�er 33). Annroved Allowable Soil Bearin� Values The results of laboratory analysis and direct shear testing, utilizing a controlled rate of strain .050 inch per minute under varying normal loads, has produced test results indicating an angle of internal friction of 30 with 100 p.s.f. available cohesion. Utilizing the Terzaghi Bearing Capacity Equation with a factor of safety of 3.0, the following calculations have been determined: 1 i � � � Job No. CF04-238 September 10, 2004 Page 6 Square or Continuous Footin�s q = CNc + wDfl�1q + wBNw = 100(23) + 100(1.0)18 + 100(0.5)14 = 2300 + 1800 + 700 = 4800 p.s.f. (ultimate) qa = 1600 p.s.f. (allowable for squaze or continuous footings 12" wide and 12" deep); qa = 1900 p.s.f. (allowa6le for square or continuous footings 12" wide and 18" deep); qa = 2100 p.s.f. (allowable for square or continuous footings 18" wide and 18" deep); qa = 2300 p.s.f. (allowable for square or continuous footings 24" wide and 18" deep). NOTE: Allowable soil bearing pressures may be increased by a factor of one-third when considering momentary wind and seismic loadings which are not considered to act simultaneously and is in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. Foundation Recommendations All of the footing trenches should be excavated into well compacted, non- expansive equigranular soils. For adequate support we recommend that all single-story structures have a minimum 12-inch deep footing and all two-story structures have at least an 18-inch deep footing. All continuous bearing footings should be reinforced with not less than one #4 steel bar in the top and one #4 steel bar in the bottom. We also strongly recommend that a field inspection of the footing trenches be made prior to concrete emplacement. J � M Job No. CF04-238 September 10, 2004 ' Page 7 Utility Trenches All plumbing, utility and other trenches beneath the concrete slab should be properly restored to minimum 90% compaction value comparable to the remaining building pad. Sub�rade for Drivewav and Parkin� Care should be taken to properly backfill and compact any utility trenches involved in subgrade areas that will be subsequently paved. This can be accomplished by moistening the native soils and wheelrolling or mechanically tamping them so that the utility trench and surrounding subgrade has approximately the same compaction, which should be 90% or bett8r. Su��ested Pavement Desi�n All of the earth materials on the site are high maximum density with excellent bearing values, and R-values would fall in the approximate 60 range, which is excellent support for vehicular wheel loads. If concrete surfacing is desired, a 4-inch thick concrete driveway could be placed directly on the compacted subgrade where the top 6 inches is 95% compaction. � . If asphaltic concrete is utilized, then we would recommend that a minimum thickness of 3 inches of A.C. be placed over 4 inches of Class II rock base, which is compacted to minimum 95%. Asphaltic concrete could be placed directly on the subgrade, which should be compacted to a minimum 95% also. , . .. � Job No. CF04-238 September 10, 2004 Page 8 Soluble Sulfate Content Numerous laboratory test results for the soluble sulfate content in typical decomposed granitic-type soils indicate very low p.p.m. soluble sulfate content, thus permitting the use of Type II cement with a minimum compressive strength of 2500 pounds per square inch. CLOSURE All the soils engineering work, including the field inspections, supervision and laboratory analysis, aqd all the grading and compaction operations have been undertaken in complete compliance with and according to the Uniform Building Code and all city and other local codes and requirements. We appreciate this opportunity to be of.service and remain available to answer any questions or provide any additional information. Respectfully submitted, MEGALAND ENGINEERS & ASSOCIATES � v� � Peter H. Buchanan, Art Bananal, Soils Consultant R.C.E. 36117 Q PpFESS/p N �� JP p M. Bq y Q � Z c� � No.36117 r m d Exp:6/30/06 � �t �t s l CIV1� � � CA1.1F�Q� , .. . �jrg N{D: C'G �238 � ��,� , :.0,4T�:. / ¢. . , . B tt F SO �/D p � : . MAJOR D'IVISIONS • �� TYPICAL NAMES . � � , �� *«� r*+i+ t+w��, rtw�•..N �,.w..,. . �CIEAN � �;nN Y M �kw. GAAVELS . , � , . • ll�nw i � Ii.w)` .t•�, :.� Ael�.r-wN .f...p « f�.N•wN n��n�, , � GRpYELS �•�, ` b«q . �. tw.: ' (►w� n�.� D01� � � �' - , ' • . . ce. w Mit►w M , � • • ' � . uect� nw en. � . � {GM s�nr� ►k++�. r»�-.r.�-•in �..ti..�,. . ►r.. � ��..� unl.' GRAVEIS ` � � . • ' wITH f INES ` ' COAASE (�N,��.++. �►.��, ' . . ...GAaINED M �.»�) :GC . u.T.� ��-..r-arr ��.ir.+.. - � SQ i l5� �.,�,;; . . ' � • D+.• w.�.bp�c • . � ' . �:. w.N f�w+ �.►«. r.�..�► w�.�. bn�. . � � �.�e..�N. • L�J1Gt'R `•tJ� � �r (ir�N • r m�n w. 200 ��ew � CLfA1� SANOS �''�' - • . . . n») ~ . � • 0.1M1� b M Iiw I 1:..� . '�.... hHy'*w�' Frw� �r prNll� �a� . MMM ' � S�NOS ��; :� • �. w»s. �... w:� ao i .� . • ;, aww h�rAr� is ' � ' . � � . 3Lal�[11 n�.w.IM ' �S�1� f�N� +rN�. �.,a-..n rw�.h�.r. . • � . K.. • ..... w» 1 � ' ' S�►NOS . � - WITH FINES � . ' • ' (jr.ecaw «w�. : • �(�f � K. ' C1�► r�O�. ►rH•cM� iw.�lvr. • . Nr'�w�ic M1b � v� frw� w+h. rw 14v� ' . ' • . � � M/1�^♦ eM�w t+r �nls � cwM �Nt� • . «�►7wMd W.�.oh. - • SI LTS A N� CLAYS �„��.,K a.�� « ti ti�,.�„� ����. (�..r.�. �....� �tsi �n.�.�ol ' CL n»�4 ss.n. ...r a.�., wti s+. � . cw�s. • � . � . F1NE � , i � � �pl �c Mln ...� .�.mc •Je� cN/� �f ►.. . • . . . � ..6Aa•INED r.w�t.q � . 501�5 . (MW M.n �0�'N � M�.�.�t Wr�. n.�crwv� • M�+«�+c�+�r� 1w.rwrMhS►�+LLC/� � ' � Iw'�r.� p �N►�'p.h..+«�K wn. ' ' hM 1N 200 �� ' . . . Nl�� . ' _ ' . . , ' � � � SILTS �ANO aars � . . , • (l�w..� 1.�.� G+�[�TtI1 iMn �0) C!1 r�«pwK cle�s �t.�N� N��u��h, tM c���. , . . _ . . � 0��'v!K tN�f �1 w�+�ww� N Ar�ll ./��IKNT , . . . � �!��t {Nft. . - . , . , . ' HIGHIY ORGANIC SOILS Pt ►'.n �r «n�. ►»�n�� v��c �«h. WUMD��s�C1�331�1UT10h3: 3�h �+�����h.c►w�trwi�hc• M'M p�w• �.• •ti.p,��N ►�, - � . u.�arwl�� M �r� qwM�h � . � . P A R T 1 C l�E 5 I Z E L 1 M I T.S Sw0 � w�vCl ' �iir ai c�.r coee�[s j. �oui�[�s . .wt .+oa.. cwn� .� c�..x � w t00 r0 �0 M4c �0 rG �. .. )►: 117 rl ' u. �..�1t��o.a�o ��crt ��tt UNIFIED SOIL C.LASSIFICATI�N SYSTEM �.�K.�n . . � �M ll��IwO Sal' ('IO1��htOlw� Snr�+n, Co�M d � . � (nO�n�H1. U 3 lren� iKAnKN Y�...y�ndven Hd )•)�7 � . vw.i, wnn, i9�) IR�n►w ►►n1, I?601 � . . � � •.: • � M� �Inn�c! rEn - �n��rs, �t �ssoe��t�s . 9 .:.9 CIYIL EN6INEERS • PLt1NNER5. �`�ARCHITEGTS • 5UR1/�YORS ,.. . . - 9/ ��� �C�D¢--23g.. � _ !�'. � � � . � � � � � � �ocaT �oN . �o� �.� �rvGiN���� . .A�� dorin - � 9 Na.. � . . . _: _� lyprcdl Fill Md�te.rials .� . o� P�h , in fcel'? i�t�4XIMUM �ENS11Y CURVE _ � � Masturc � Contenl �in Aer �e�1. of Dry .Wiei9ht . . � � . •�� 1�3d .. � $. •" 125 � .. . -� � 'SOII C1A551f�C�1T14N U� . � � . Soil. Trc>s cnd Ots4�iotiQ�:.- ` 120 . . . . _ _ � . ` �, Tah6�v� �oar.5p7a ��e .: -�' ` : « � �`, .s�l.x��hcd�'./ w.7` r� n c _ :� . • � 115 �N .S7�I sc �' in� a �`; ,P`-.�...�. � . G� � ,� � � METNOa Of C4MP�CT �j(�1' 110 . ,� . - . � � �S1M S�ondord kst Mr �t�iod 0-1. Q C �• ��orne�tr �+o1d: 1/JO cu.. h�wlwns 105 S �c,►�.� 1s Wo� p., -1or.�, - � 10 Ib. !w�r dropA+d �! inc!►e� O 100 � t�PtIh1UM M41STU�E CC�NTENT, 1� �tt C�n► of Qrr Wtiahl � �MAXIMUM ORY �ENSI1'Y, In 'ounds 'ir Culait foot ___ ..._ � 'y� 1 . . ° .�, , . CFo¢ - ��� Co�r � _ � tay �' � . � � 9 io o¢ C�c.�4r/o�,s' LE� /!' :;/� �:;' `;�''Ca»�Gicsc7�to/I � s f ````�_� Loc_a7`�o•'� `i , , �^ � , � ,,- s' � �` ' ,�'/ o� E - ^ �Q� 2 � � s� P 9 ,y'L - 8.� s; � �. / , 9.;� .ij " �� �� •�� ` � �_ X � � - �` � ��� _���� - �� ►�'� ,�1� �� 4 �� 9�'� O �.�' , ° � �ti ��-�;.