The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRough Grading Report �...��./ � ` ProTech ENVIRONMENTAL & TESTING (909) 335-1314 • 624 East Mariposa • Redlands, CA 92373 June 9, 1998 ��CEIVE Mr. Jim Richardson Don Veasey Construction JUN 3 p�ggg 27574 Commerce Center Drive, #131 CI�Y OF TEMECULA Temecula, California 92590 ENGINEERING DEPARTMEIdT SUBJECT: REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING Proposed Stout Funeral Home Northeast Corner of McCabe Court and Madison Ave. City of Temecula, Riverside County, California Work Order No. 021801.23 Dear Mr. Richardson: 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 of the subject site. All compaction test ' results are included in this report in Appendix C Table I. The 20-scale Precise Grading & Erosion Control plan prepared by Armstrong Development Services of Corona, California was utilized during grading and to locate our field density tests and was utilized as a base map for our test locations presented as Plate 1. ACCOMPANYING MAPS AND APPENDICES Location Map - Figure 1 Compaction Test Location Map (20-scale) — Plate 1 Appendix A - References Appendix B- Laboratory Test Results Appendix C- Results of Compaction Tests + Mr. Jim Richardson Don Veasey Construction June 9, 1998 Page 2 Proiect Description The subject site had been previously mass graded. We have reviewed the report of grading prepared by Leighton (1991) and the preliminary geotechnical investigation performed by ProTech (1998). We utilized the recommendations contained in these reports during rough grading of the subject site. A maximum of approxirr�ately 2.0 feet of additional fill was required to bring the site to design grade along the easterly side to achieve finish grade. The project site is located along the east side of McCabe Court, at the intersection of McCabe Court and Madison Ave in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. A site map, depicting site boundaries and geographic relationships of the site, is presented as Figure 1 of this report. Grading included clearing and grubbing, placement and compaction of fill material to prepare the site. Maximum fill depth was approximately 2 feet in the easterly portion of the building pad. Site Descriation The site consists of one generally rectangular-shaped parcel of land. The site is bordered to the east and north by vacant rough graded lots, on the south by Madison Ave, on the west by McCabe Court. Topographically, the site, prior to the subject grading, consisted of a relatively flat graded site sloping to the west toward McCabe Court at approxirriately 2%±. Overall relief at the site, prior to the subject grading, was approximately 3 feet. GRADING PROCEDURES Site Preparation The preliminary soils report required scarification and processing of the upper one foot of the existing fill, prior to placement of new fill. The upper one foot of the site was ripped, and moisture conditioned to achieve uniform, near optimum moisture. The material was leveled and rolled in with a D4 dozer then wheelrolled with a loaded scraper to achieve a minimum compaction of 90%. 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 D1557-91). Per the preliminary soils report the fill was compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density. Compaction was achieved by wheel rolling with a Caterpillar rubber tired loader, and loaded scraper. 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. r i roTech ENVIRONMENTAL & TESTING * ,, .� ��r �''�.: .'�.-, ,., : ,4;: ``o _ �j. ., , r �� +� � 1 1. f d r R� "'` � O Yc. - R �*� � l.l � , .. , � �4 �L. ) �' tr. .r ' � � y ;o; /� (�� • / %rr�+! ' .�.f ;"iyy,'� !. � ,�� (]' � �t� '?2:. � �� . ° /� � �.�V � j� , _� t: �� J �: .� . ,. q - � , f"° � �1 �� .t1 .. .� � r i i6e i.. �F � ._�. �� , � :� .�: - � :� �� o� ` % � �s'� l � - - - �� ' N"'' g� � ✓ .1 ° o� ., '�. ' i' , � � � � �� ,; s ' � � -� � � ; .a .. � � a,,. J J Q � � � :4 f . r �� \ ��C / � Zi � /_� / 0 ` �1 �� ` � �, t � � � � $> „ - - Q ��l V!"'� J., a h � •�� Z� • : , -. �-�`_' " / s� '1 �. � :� , '�. f r r .�� -�, E' � o _ ;�o o � ..�y . �� ,�. �� ;� , a ;• •- r �k „ oo ° � , `—� � , y �. `� �) � �/ � N r ';� y^ ` °S �r j ; �,�(`� �� ' - ��, ' ,� � , � � ,� � ' �---`�� ` , . o � :, � � -(`i!' � ,,�--; : / , � � �' � � n �`� �n/ L" ��- , ✓ S � � ��i✓'�� 4'. -� � � ` o„ / I : ( - �C� ° i� �'�'/ � J � / �' _ < ' 4 o / 0 � / � ��5� , �5� �/ /' '�•� �` �� -; p sl,�--:' C /" p � � �/� r �' / . o %� ✓ � �� ,,�pG .,;�• j_ � o� / �� ,� � �„ �� ti s ��1� . �� .�. � 1 • /� ; �Q � , ( t �1 // ' - . �� j 'ro�6 GaQfie Stg e .+ � / � l " "_ � � : 1 '� M 107.Z' �� , : 5;•' A '9/ � � � ' � / �/� � ) ro' l � � � � � � � j � G � �1��1 � f ' �� O � � ~;y V'� � r', � � l�` � /:<. � .� �� - . � � ,, / —� j f� /I�,�i� �` � �o Well noQ�:� F M '�� 2�+ .. '� r--� � �' 1 �� / `�; / . ��'� , o ..��, Z , .,,, - ��oi .{: �, L �j �� r�- �/ l i'r � z o � �t^ � � � � �1M2 N /� � . ... " � �i `� � ry Q U ° �•� )� � `��' � G, . . ov L �� '.� .o. ..�_ , ✓ � � r �- \ -� ` �� ---.': �F�, �.-� ° �' ,� ;�� `�. �� ;�'r \�•'�� 7• ��- 9G � ; �y�+` a�_Reservoir � . ? � I �.\,` • { �.. �� Ga4i q � . '� ,� , � , j1"' . . G �� y`' / � . � \� ��SO- Feservo�r•. / \�� ,� \ \` J �.\� � ' �`� , . ' " /'� //� � ^ ♦ /� . l '� ��; ti''••d;, fi ... � � \ v f •- -r ✓ ��,� � � - ° �\--. I. � � J ' .� �'�� `' . t�;ozs � ��'-?'�'' F ��' � _ o \ \\ _ j�� ,:. !.% /'1 ,� , ��'�,. �: •. �1 _, ' // , � ' ^�'�/!, :,, .;,� \\ , �� l / ` � a . r�. � / J • 1 i �� . , \ / �O • J ' V . � \ �: (.--.J � ( ''I/ � '\ ��/ � �� . • �: � �.��,� •' '•., \ �� 1 �� 1 / �-l' - i � V ,/��`\� \\ / \� � � \� "// � / ' '�'�� ` �L � /��) � " D �` ^ / \ \ � \�.� � � �/^ O i ' / � \ • r ` /� / ^ �, , I \ � 1 `\ : . �� ✓ �� \^ ` �� , � — , � , _. ,., � �� `-_;^' ;, c o Ir �l ,; ��,° :�� \ , \`� , °`�,� /?�, ✓ � � ��il� � �. „ <�s�.,`"il%�, ��'��.�� _ �� — i / � "\ ADAPTED FROM CA SPECIAL STUDIES ZONE MAP MURRIETA QUADRANGLE 1980 , :� � ;� 1 � sc.u� F SI TE L OC.-� TION :tiL-�P `.I�O.# 021U01. �� Date: �U � G 1�� FiSUre: 1 r Mr. Jim Richardson Don Veasey Construction June 9, 1998 Page 3 Fill Soils Soils utilized for compacted fill typically consisted of on-site silty sands. Test results are presented in Appendix B. Cut/Fill Transitions Rough grading at the site included clearing, processing the existing material, fill placement and compaction. The subject site was previously mass graded as a fill pad. No transitions from cut to fill exist on site. The entire site as graded consists of fill. Slope Construction There were no cut or fill slopes over two feet constructed on this project. TESTING PROCEDURES Fietd Densitv Testing Field density testing was perfonned in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1556-82 (sand-cone method) and 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 Appendia� C, Results of Compaction Tests Table I. The approximate location of the tests are shown on the Compaction Test Location Maps, Plate 1. Maximum Densitv Determinations Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture determinations used were obtained from the geotechnical investigation and confirmed in the laboratory on representative samples of on-site soils used in the fill operations. The tests were perfornied in accordance with ASTM D1557-91, Test Method A. The test results, which were utilized in deternuning the degree of compaction achieved during fill placement, are presented in Appendix B, Table I. Expansion Index Testin� Expansion index testing was performed on representative on site soil samples collected at the completion of grading. The results, which are listed in Appendix C, Table II, indicate that on-site soils e�chibit very low potential. Additional testing for expansion should be conducted on imported soils prior to their approval as structural fill material. � Mr. Jim Richardson Don Veasey Construction June 9, 1998 Page 4 RECOM�NI�ATIONS Sloae Protection and Maintenance Slope erosion of the silty sands is a significant concern with regard to surficial stability. We recommend that any unprotected slopes, be planted with erosion resistant vegetation or otherwise protected as soon as practical. Foundation Svstem Desisn Based on the information in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (ProTech, 1998) foundation elements should be placed on engineered fill material compacted to a minimum of 90%. Continuous spread footings should be a minimum 12 inches wide and 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Isolated square footings should be designed by the structural engineer in accordance with the anticipated loads and the soil parameters given. Concrete slabs-on-grade should have a minimum nominal thickness of 4 inches for lightly loaded floors. A polyethylene vapor bacrier should be installed beneath floors to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings. The vapor barrier should be a minimum of 6 mil thick and should be covered with a 2-inch thick sand layer to prevent puncture damage during construction and enhance curing of the concrete. . Allowable Bearing Pressure . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . ... .. . . ..1,800psf Maximum Allowable Bearing . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,OOOpsf Increased Capacity for each additional foot of depth. ...........180psf Utilitv Trench Backfill Utility trench bacld'ill should be compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density, as deternuned by the ASTM 1557-91 test method. It is our opinion, that utility trench bacl�ill consisting of on-site 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- OSHA standards, as a minimum. Surface Drainage 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. � Mr. Jim Richardson Don Veasey Construction June 9, 1998 Page 5 Structural Section Based on R-Value testing of the material, considering a minimum R-Value of 42, we recommend the following structural sections over 95% compacted subgrade materials. Light Dutv(TI 5) • 0.25 feet Portland Cement Concrete over 0.35 feet of Class 2 aggregate base. Heaw Dutv(TT 8) • 0.38 feet Portland Cement Concrete over 0.70 feet of Class 2 aggregate base. Fill Placement On-site soils are expected to be suitable for use as structural fill. Imported soils, if utilized, should be evaluated by ProTech Environmental & Testing for suitability as structural fill when specific boirow locations are identified. Approved fill material 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. Foundation Plan Review ProTech Environmental & Testing, should review the final foundation plans, to verify conformance with the intentions of these recommendations and those in the referenced reports. Some additional field or laboratory work may be necessary, at this time. Construction Monitoring Continuous observation and testing, by ProTech is essential to verify compliance with recommendations and to confirm that the geotechnical conditions encountered are consistent with the recommendations of this report. Construction monitoring should be conducted by Protech Environmental & Testing, at the following stages of construction: • During additional site grading; • During construction and backfill of retaining walls; • During placement and compaction of fill material; J Mr. Jim Richardson Don Veasey Construction June 9, 1998 Page 6 • During excavation of footings for foundations; • During utility trench bacld'ill operations; • During subgrade and Base compaction; • When any unusual conditions are encountered during grading. A final geotechnical report, summarizing conditions encountered during grading, accompanied by an "As-Crraded Geotechnical Map", should be submitted upon completion of site improvements. LIlVIITATIONS 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 architect and engineer for the project and incoiporated into the plans, and the necessary steps aze taken 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. 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 they be 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. ' Mr. Jim Richardson Don Veasey Construction June 9, 1998 Page 7 SUMMARY Our description of rough grading operations, as well as observations and testing services, were limited to those rough grading operations perfonned between May 14, 1998 and May 18, 1998. The conclusions and recommendations contained herein have been based upon our observation and testing as noted. It is our opinion, that the work performed in the areas denoted has generally been accomplished in accordance with the job specifications, the requirements of the regulating agencies and the recommendations of the accepted preliminary soils report. No conclusions or warranties are made for the areas not tested or observed. T'his report is based on information obtained during rough grading. No wazranty as to the current conditions can be made. . In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. 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 architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors cany out such recommendations in the field. This report should be considered subject to review by the corrtrolling authorities. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please call. Very tiuly yours, PROTECH ENVIRONMENTAL & TESTING ��7/� f � ��'w`� ames R. Harrison T. Reinhart, RCE 23464 Project Manager Civil Engineer, Expires 12-31-01 � � cdrr� �� . ��t��, a � �o � �. � ��-�--=° r � �A . '� . ��'� �� ! APPENDIX A References , REFERENCES Leighton and Associates, 1988a, "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential and Slope Stability Analysis, for, Pazcel Map 23594, Rancho California, Riverside County, California", Project No. 11871376-03, June 9, 1988; Leighton and Associates, 1988b, "Geotechinal Report of Rough Grading, Parcel Map Nos. 23590 and 20494, Rancho Califomia, Riverside County, California", Project No. 11871376-02, October 14, 1988; Leighton and Associates, 1990a, "Recertification letter, Finish Crrading Recommendations, Proposed Phase I and Phase II Buildings, Tracts 20490-2 & 23594, Signal Landmark Business Center, Murrieta, California", Project No. 11871376-11, May 21, 1990; Leighton and Associates, 1990b, "Pavement Design for the Parking and Driveway Areas for Lots 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, Tract No. 23594, Temecula, Riverside County, California", Project No. 11871376-11, June 7, 1990; Leighton and Associates, 1991, "Update Geotechinal Conditions of Lots 7, 8, 11-15, Parcel Map No. 23594; Lots 7, 8, 11-13, Tract 20490-2, Murrieta Area, Riverside County, California", Project No. 11901738-02, February 5, 1991; ProTech Environmental & Testing, January 21, 1998, "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Stout Mortuary, North West Corner of McCabe Court and Madison Avenue, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California", Work Order No.021801.00; } APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results Y TABLE I 021801Z3 Magimum IDensity/Optimum Moisture % General Description Lbs/Ft Moisture Source Area 1 Light Brown Silty Sand 127.3 10.3 Parking Area TABLE II EXPANSION INDEX TEST LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL Building Pad 6 Very Low � APPENDIX C Results of Compaction Tests . � TABLE I RESULTS OF COMPACTION ROUGH GRADE Job No. 021801.23 Name: STOUT Date:JUNE 1998 Test Test Elev / Moisture nit D Rel. Soil Location No. Date Depth Content Density omp Type (ft.) (%) (PCF) (%) SEE PLATE 1 1 5/18/98 52 13.7 115.5 91 1 " 2 5/18/98 52 13.1 114.9 90 1 " 3 5/18/98 52 12.4 116.0 91 1 " 4 5/18/98 53 10.6 116.5 92 1 " 5 5/18/98 53 11.2 115.6 91 1 " 6 5/18/98 F.G. 11.4 115.3 91 1 " 7 5/18/98 F.G. 10.2 116.2 91 1 " 6/11/98 Page 1 " .- I �_ _� �� 1 N � � - � � J � � � �) � �� 52 98 � �, S 2 �. � 4'�� E . ( ._ - o I �� y - - - EX�ST• `��E TRANSFORMER � _ ______ -- _ -- ---- - , ```�� , - - ,,.\ . � �, �_ _ _ . __ Q_-';� ' ' �' , __ �;___. - =�� "� �� l � '\ \ 'J 1 1i � � _. ` �.1� - 1 � ' u11\ _ � � / ` �1 ' .�- � • ' � _ _ - � - _ � �` ��' t - ; _ - ��,�,,^ ;R ',,/, �'�� , �� ', -' - _� �� O q. , - �...� �; � �;';...� '`� � � � �` O � � i O � _�- I �,, a�. - , FF _ `-- � l Pq0_ 54 . 5 p , � 54, p ,, ,, . - ,, � `, .. 0 �j 1 ` � ' O _ , O . ,, �, 0 _ ,\ '� _ � � � �� '� �� / ��. - -- / � � / � I ProTech en•� 'IRON:�tENTAL & TESTIIG � / / � ,- �'n ! "�� Sf7'E >tAP STOUT �tORTUARY SIADISOti AVE TE>tECCL4. CALIFOFL`ilA ' 71 -.�PPROXDIA I.00ATIOV OF CO�iPACT10N TFST NONI(()HDF:R: DATF,: JI'\'f:199A PI_4TF: lofl