HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3883 Lot 205 Geotechnical Feasibility
I /'''-, .!;Jc~. .. /~.
I ~GEN COfl~oration
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
38?3
L-o>05
. Soil Engineering and Consulting Se;~jces. Engineering Geology. Compaction Testing
-lnspeclions-ConslruclionMalerialsTesting-LaboraloryTesting.PercolationTesting
. Geology. Water ReS{)urce Studies . Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessments
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Brackin Residence
Assessor's Parcel Number: 919-073-001
Lot 205 of Tract 3883, Via Norte
City of T emecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2797-GFS
I
I
March 7, 2003
I
RECEIVED
APR 2 2 Z003
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
I
I
I
I
I
I
Prepared for:
I
Mr. Tom Brackin
clo Triple Star Construction
_ 29697 New Hub Drive, Suite D
0Sun City, California 92586
\
I
'. ,
, -
, ,,/ -
\
. ~ ,
, "
, ' -
,
." -- I
,
,
, - - I
, '
/ " " - -
.," __ \ /" I
, -
\ /' 1-'
I _' _
\ -' '-'
. ,
, '
I
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797-GFS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title
PaQe
1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... ......... .... .... ........... ................... ...... .......... .................2
1.1 Site Description ....................................................................................................2
1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................... 2
2.0 FINDINGS ......... ....................... ................. ....................... ....... ...... ...........................2
2.1 Site Review..................... ........ ........................ ................ ................... ...... ............. 2
2.2 Laboratory Testing............ ................. ............................................ ...... .................2
2.2.1 General.. ........... ..................... ........... ............................................ .......... 2
2.2.2 Classification.. ..................... ..... .......................................... .............. ...... 3
2.2.3 In-Situ Moisture Content and Density Test............................................. 3
2.2.4 Expansion Potential...... ......... ................................................................. 3
2.2.5 Direct Shear Test.... ........ ........................ .......................................... ...... 3
2.2.6 Soluble Sulfates........ ....................................................................... ....... 4
2.3 Excavation Characteristics.. ................................................................................. 4
3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGYISEISMICITY .......................................................................4
3.1 Geologic Setting ...................................................................................................4
3.2 Seismic Hazards...... .............................................................................................4
3.2.1 Surface Fauit Rupture ............................................................................5
3.2.2 Liquefaction ....................... ........................... .........................................5
3.2.3 Seismically-Induced Landsliding..... ........................................................ 5
3.2.4 Seismically-Induced Flooding, Seiches and Tsunamis........................... 5
3.3 Earth Materials .................. ............................ ................................. ...... ................ 5
3.3.1 Stockpiles (AfI)........................................................................................ 5
3.3.2 Undocumented Fill (Afu).........................................................................5
3.3.3 Road Fill, By Others (Afo)....................................................................6
3.3.4 Alluvium (Oal)........ ..................... ........... ................................................. 6
3.3.5 Pauba Formation (Ops)..........................................................................6
4.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................................6
4.1 All Areas ...............................................................................................................6
4.2 Oversize Material............... ........................................ ............... ....... .....................8
4.3 Structural Fill.. ............... ....... ......... .......................... .................... ............. ............. 8
5.0 SLOPE STABILITY - GENERAL.....................................................................................9
5.1 Fill Slopes ............................................................................................................. 9
5.2 Cut Slopes... ...................... .............................. ......... ........ ....................................9
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................9
6.1 Foundation Design Recommendations ................................................................9
6.1.1 Foundation Size...................................................................................... 9
6.1.2 Depth of Embedment ...........................................................................10
6.1.3 Bearing Capacity.................................................................................. 10
6.1.4 Seismic Design Parameters .................................................................10
6.1.5 Settlement ............................................................................................ 10
EnGEN Corporation
2-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797-GFS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continuedl
Section Number and Title
PaQe
6.2 Lateral Capacity..................................................................................................10
6.3 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations.....................................................................11
6.4 Moisture Barrier Recommendations ...................................................................11
6.5 Exterior Slabs .....................................................................................................12
7.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................12
7.1 Earth Pressures... .... .... .... ..... .... .... ........ ....... .... ..... ....... ... .... ...... .... ........... ... ..... ...12
7.2 Retaining Wall Design ........................................................................................12
7.3 Subdrain ........ ........ ........ ........ ............. ............ ......... ...... .....................................13
7.4 Backfill ...... ............... ................. ........ ............... .............................................. ..... 13
8.0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................14
8.1 Utility Trench Recommendations........................................................................ 14
8.2 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations .............................................................14
8.3 Planter Recommendations .................................................................................15
8.4 Supplemental Construction Observations and Testing ......................................15
8.5 Plan Review........................................................................................................15
8.6 Pre-Bid Conference ............. .................. .......... ............ ........................ ...............15
8.7 Pre-Grading Conference ....................................................................................16
9.0 CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................16
APPENDIX:
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
:?
I P"'h\
I ~~GEN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
/'~
Corporation
. Soil EIlgineeringand ConsullingServices. EngineeringGeology.CompactionTeslinll
-Inspections. Construction Malerials Testing . LaboratoryTesting- PercolalionTesling
-Geology-WaterResourceStudies -Phase 1& II Environmenlal SileAssessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
March 7, 2003
Mr. Tom Brackin
clo Triple Star Construction
29697 New Hub Drive, Suite D
Sun City, California 92586
(909) 672-3900 I FAX (909) 672-2907
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Brackin Residence
Assessor's Parcel Number: 919-073-001
Lot 205 of Tract 3883, Via Norte
City of T emecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2797-GFS
Reference:
1.
Bratene Construction & Engineering, Precise Grading Plan, Brackin
Residence, plans dated March 7, 2003.
Dear Mr. Brackin:
In accordance with your request and signed authorization, a representative of this firm has
visited the subject site on February 27, 2003, to visually observe the surficial conditions of the
subject lot and to collect samples of representative surficial site materials. Laboratory testing
was performed on these samples. Test results and preliminary foundation recommendations
for the construction and grading of the proposed development are provided. It is our
understanding that cut and fill type grading with import will take place for the proposed
structural development. Footings are planned to be excavated into compacted fill. Grading for
hardscape improvements will accompany the structural development and have included
appropriate recommendations. Based on this firm's experience with this type of project, our
understanding of the regional geologic conditions surrounding the site, and our review of in-
house maps, published and unpublished reports, deeper subsurface exploration was not
considered necessary. However, in lieu of subsurface exploration, additional grading beyond
that anticipated in this report may be necessary depending on exposed conditions encountered
during grading.
"':
., ,
\ - - - \..-
, -
, "
". -- I
, , '
I' " ~ "" _
I .- \ _ _ _ \
, -
1'" " "
~ I __ \ _ _ _ \
" ,,! -' - ~"."
\ F'" ...
I'
" ,
. I
, .
, ,
, -
, . II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797 -GFS
March 2003
Page 2
1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Site Description: The subject site is comprised of approximately 0.5-acres with
vertical relief of approximately 30-feet, and drainage to the southeast at a gradient of
approximately 5 to 25 percent. Access to the site is by a dirt driveway on the
southwest side of the site leading from the existing Via Norte. No structures are
located on the site.
1.2 Proiect Description: Based on our review of the referenced grading plan, the
proposed development will consist of a two-story single family wood-framed home
with a slab-on-grade foundation, which includes a daylight basement. All fill slopes
are planned ~o be constructed at a ratio of 2: 1, horizontal to vertical. Cut slopes are
planned to be constructed at ratios of 2: 1 or flatter. We are providing general grading
and minimum footing recommendations for the proposed structure. Any changes to
the plans should be reviewed by this office so that additional recommendations can
be made, if necessary.
2.0 FINDINGS
2.1 Site Review: Based on our site visit, it appears that undocumented fill, alluvium, and
Pauba Formation bedrock underlie the site. Since no deeper subsurface exploration
was performed for this investigation, the thickness and condition of the alluvium and
undocumented fill is unknown. The site is not located within a State designated
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No faulting was observed during our site
reconnaissance.
2.2 Laboratory TestinQ:
2.2.1 General: The results of laboratory tests performed on samples of earth material
obtained during the site visit are presented in the Appendix. Following is a listing and
brief explanation of the laboratory tests performed. The sam pies obtained during the
field study will be discarded 30 days after the date of this report. This office should be
notified immediately if retention of samples will be needed beyond 30 days.
-s
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797-GFS
March 2003
Page 3
2.2.2 Classification: The field classification of soil materials encountered during our site
visit were verified in the laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soils
Classification System, ASTM D 2488-93, Standard Practice for Determination and
Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures). The final classification is shown in
the Moisture Density Test Report presented in the Appendix.
2.2.3 In-Situ Moisture Content and Density Test: The in-situ moisture content and dry
density were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2216-98 and ASTM D
2937-94 procedures, respectively, for each selected undisturbed sample obtained. The
dry density is determined in pounds per cubic foot and the moisture content is
determined as a percentage of the oven dry weight of the soil. Test results are shown
in the Exploratory Boring Log Summaries presented in the Appendix.
2.2.4 Expansion Potential: Preliminary Expansion Index testing was performed, yielding an
Expansion Index (EI) of 9. This is classified as a very low expansion potential. Import
soils or soils used near finish grade may have a different EI. At the conclusion of
grading, our firm should perform sampling and Expansion Index testing of the soils at
final pad grade as well as at footing grade. Those results should be forwarded and
incorporated into the final foundation design by the Project Structural Engineer. The
Project Structural Engineer should determine the actual footing width and depth to
resist design vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces based on the final Expansion Index
test results. The recommendations for concrete slab-on-grade reinforcement and
thickness, both interior and exterior, excluding PCC pavement, should be provided by
the Project Structural Engineer based upon the information provided at the conclusion
of grading, and considering the expansion potential for the supporting material as
determined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code.
2.2.5 Direct Shear Test: Direct shear tests were performed on selected samples of near-
surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 3080-98 procedures. The
shear machine is of the constant strain type. The shear machine is designed to receive
a 1.0-inch high, 2.416-inch diameter ring sample. Specimens from the sample were
sheared at various pressures normal to the face of the specimens. The specimens
were tested in a submerged condition. The maximum shear stresses were plotted
(.,.
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797 -GFS
March 2003
Page 4
versus the normal confining stresses to determine the shear strength (cohesion and
angle of internal friction).
2.2.6 Soluble Sulfates: Based on our visual inspection of the site and of the samples
collected during our site visit, our experience with this type of project, and test results
from similar sites in the immediate vicinity, testing for the presence of soiuble sulfates
was not performed. In our opinion, the near-surface soils do not contain excessive
amounts of soluble sulfates. As a result, normal Type II cement may be used for all
concrete in contact with native soils at the site.
2.3 Excavation Characteristics: Excavation and trenching within the alluvium and
undocumented fill is anticipated to be relatively easy. Excavation and trenching in the
bedrock will be more difficult due to the higher bedrock densities typically encountered
in the area. A rippability survey was not within the scope of our investigation. Based
on our experience on similar projects near the subject site, the bedrock is expected to
be rippable with conventional grading equipment.
3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY
3.1 GeoloQic Settina: The site is located in the Northern Peninsular Range on the
southern sector of the structural unit known as the Perris Block. The Perris Block is
bounded on the northeast by the San Jacinto Fault Zone, on the southwest by the
Elsinore Fault Zone, and on the north by the Cucamonga Fault Zone. The southern
boundary of the Perris Block is not as distinct, but is believed to coincide with a
complex group of faults trending southeast from the Murrieta, California area (Kennedy,
1977 and Mann, 1955). The Peninsular Range is characterized by large Mesozoic age
intrusive rock masses flanked by volcanic, metasedimentary, and sedimentary rocks.
Various thicknesses of colluvial/alluvial sediments derived from the erosion of the
elevated portions of the region fill the low-lying areas. The earth materials encountered
on the subject site are described in more detail in subsequent sections of this report.
3.2 Seismic Hazards: Because the proposed development is located in tectonically active
southern California, it will likely experience some effects from earthquakes. The type or
severity of seismic hazards affecting the site is mainly dependent upon the distance to
the causative fault, the intensity of the seismic event, and the soil characteristics. The
EnGEN Corporation
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797 -GFS
March 2003
Page 5
seismic hazard may be primary, such as surface rupture andlor ground shaking, or
secondary, such as liquefaction or dynamic settlement. The following is a site-specific
discussion about ground motion parameters, earthquake induced settlement hazards,
and liquefaction. The purpose of this analysis is to identify potential seismic hazards
and proposed mitigations, if necessary, to an acceptable level of risk. The following
seismic hazards discussion is guided by UBC (1997), CBC (1998) and CDMG (1997).
3.2.1 Surface Fault Rupture: No known active faults exist on the subject site. The nearest
State designated active fault is the Elsinore Fault (Temecuia Segment), located
approximately 1.8 miles (2.9 Km) from the subject site. This conclusion is based on
literature review (references) and EnGEN Corporation's site visit. Accordingly, the
potential for fault surface rupture on the site is very unlikely.
3.2.2 liquefaction: Based on the densities typically encountered in the underlying material
(bedrock), the potential for hazards associated with liquefaction is considered low.
3.2.3 Seismicallv-Induced LandslidinQ: Due to the overall favorable topographic
conditions of the site, the probability of seismically induced landsliding is considered
low.
3.2.4 Seismicallv-Induced FloodinQ, Seiches and Tsunamis: Due to the absence of a
confined surface bOdy of water in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the
possibility of seismically induced flooding or seiches is considered nil. Due to the large
distance of the project site to the Pacific Ocean, the possibility for seismically induced
tsunamis to impact the site is considered nil.
3.3 Earth Mate~ials
3.3.1 Stockpiles (AfIl: Approximately 40 to 50 end-dump stockpiles exist on-site. The
majority of these stockpiles lie in a roughly triangular area approximately 80-feet by
150-feet on the northern and northeastern portions of the site on the alluvial area of the
previously graded pad. Two large end-dump stockpiles overlie the Via Norte fill slope.
Some of the stockpiles contain organic material and minor amounts of trash. The
thickness of the stockpiles was observed to be on the order of 3 to 4-feet. They consist
of medium-grained sand and silty fine- to medium-grained sand, and were found to be
moist and loose in-place.
EnGEN Corporation
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
4.0
4.1
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797 -GFS
March 2003
Page 6
Undocumented Fill IAful: The site was previously graded to a generally flat L-shaped
pad in the northeastern and northwestern portions of the site. The northeastern and
northwestern portions of the existing pad are thought to be underlain by alluvium,
however, this cannot be verified because it is covered by the stockpiles. The southern
portion of the pad is underlain by undocumented fill. No documentation of the grading
was available for review at the time of this study. Undocumented fill in the driveway
was observed to be approximately 2 to 3-feet thick. A 6 to 8-foot tall fill slope was
observed on the southern side of the existing pad, however, the exact thickness is
unknown. The undocumented fill consists of silty fine-grained to medium-grained sand,
and was found to be moist and loose to medium dense in-place.
Road Fill. Bv Others IAfol: Existing road fills lie on the northwestern side of the site,
along Via Norte. The existing fill slope is inclined at approximately 2:1 (horizontal to
vertical) with a vertical height of approximately 15-feet. At least two end-dump
stockpiles were dumped from street grade over the slope face. The condition and
thickness of the road fill is not known.
Alluvium IQall: Alluvium exists in the lower eievations on the southern end of the site,
and is thought to be present in the northeastern and northwestern portions of the
existing pad. However, this area is covered by stockpiles. The alluvium consists of
silty fine- to medium-grained sand and was found to be moist in-place. Since no
deeper subsurface exploration was performed for this investigation, the condition of the
alluvium is unknown. The alluvium is interpreted to be approximately 3 to 5-feet thick in
the proposed fill areas.
Pauba Formation Sandstone IQDSl: Pauba Formation bedrock is exposed on a
portion of the existing dirt driveway. The Pauba Formation is generally massive with
near horizontal bedding. On site the Pauba Formation consists of siity medium-grained
sand, and was found to be moist and medium dense in-place.
EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
All Areas:
1. All vegetation and organic material should be removed from areas to be graded
and not used in fills.
EnGEN Corporation
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797-GFS
March 2003
Page 7
2
All man-made materials and oversize rocks should be removed from the site
and not used in fills.
3.
All stockpiles and undocumented fill must be removed from proposed cut or fill
areas. The depth of undocumented fill is unknown, but is thought to be
approximately 2 to 3-feet thick in the existing driveway, 3 to 4-feet thick in the
stockpile areas and on the order of 6 to 8-feet thick in the fill slope of the
southern end of the existing pad. After the undocumented fill has been
removed, alluvial and weathered bedrock removals should proceed as in NO.4
below.
4.
All alluvium and weathered bedrock should be removed to competent bedrock
in the proposed structure area, cleared of any debris, and may then be placed
as engineered fill. Based on our experience in this area of southwest Riverside
County, depths of removals are anticipated to be approximateiy 3 to 5-feet in
the alluvial areas, and 1 to 2-feet in the weathered bedrock areas. Removals
should extend to a minimum distance of 5-feet outside the structure. Removals
in the tennis court and hardscape areas not included in the structural removals
should extend to a minimum depth of 2-feet in the alluvial areas. Deeper
removals may be required depending upon exposed conditions to be
encountered.
5.
All exposed removal and overexcavation bottoms should be inspected by the
Geotechnical Engineer and/or Engineering Geologists' representative prior to
placement of any fill. Bedrock bottoms should be probed to verify competency.
6.
The approved exposed bottoms of all removal areas should be scarified 12-
inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent relative compaction before placement of fill. Maximum
dry density and optimum moisture content for compacted materials should be
determined according to ASTM D 1557-91 (1998) procedures.
7.
A keyway excavated into competent bedrock should be constructed at the toe
of all fill slopes that are proposed on natural grades of 5: 1 (horizontal to vertical)
or steeper. Keyways should be a minimum of 15-feet wide (equipment width)
EnGEN Corporation
\0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.2
4.3
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797-GFS
March 2003
Page 8
and tilted a minimum of 2 percent into the hillside. A series of level benches
should be constructed into competent bedrock on natural grades of 5: 1
(horizontal to vertical) or steeper prior to placing fill.
8. All fill slopes should be constructed at slope ratios no steeper than 2: 1
(horizontal to vertical).
9. All cut slopes should be inspected by the Project Geologist to verify stability.
Cut slopes exposing adverseiy oriented joints or planes of weakness, or
significant amounts of alluvium or slope wash may be unstable. Unstable cut
slopes may require flattening or buttressing.
Oversize Material: Oversize material is defined as rock, or other irreducible material
with a maximum dimension greater than 12-inches. Oversize material shall not be
buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and piacement methods are
specifically accepted by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. Placement operations shall
be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that oversize
material is completely surrounded by compacted fill (windrow). Alternative methods,
such as water jetting or wheel rolling with a backhoe may be required to achieve
compaction in the fill materials immediately adjacent to the windrow. Oversize material
shall not be placed within ten (10) vertical feet of finish grade, within fifteen (15) lateral
feet of a finished slope face, or within two (2) feet of future utilities.
Structural Fill: All fill material, whether on-site material or import, should be accepted
by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative before placement. All
fill should be free from vegetation, organic material, and other debris. Import fill should
be no more expansive than the existing on-site material, unless approved by the
Project Geotechnical Engineer. Approved fill material should be placed in horizontal
lifts not exceeding 6.0 to B.O-inches in thickness, and watered or aerated to obtain
near-optimum moisture content (within 2.0 percent of optimum). Each lift should be
spread evenly and should be thoroughly mixed to ensure uniformity of soil moisture.
Structural fill should meet a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of maximum
dry density based upon ASTM D 1557-91 (1998) procedures. Moisture content of fill
materials should not vary more than 2.0 percent of optimum, unless approved by the
Project Geotechnical Engineer.
EnGEN Corporation
~
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797-GFS
March 2003
Page 9
5.0 SLOPE STABILITY - GENERAL
5.1 Fill Slooes: It is our opinion that properly constructed fill slopes, as pianned, will
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.
5.2 Cut Slooes: All cut slopes should be constructed in substantiai accordance with the
plans at a slope ratio of approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The cut slopes
should be surficially inspected by the Project Geologist. No adversely oriented joints or
planes of weakness should be observed during our inspection. It is our opinion that
properly constructed cut slopes, as planned, will 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.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Foundation DesiQn Recommendations: Foundations for the proposed structures
may consist of conventional column footings and continuous wall footings founded in
properly compacted fill. The recommendations presented in the subsequent
paragraphs for foundation design and construction are based on geotechnical
characteristics and upon an assumed very low expansion potential for the supporting
soils and should not preclude more restrictive structural requirements. It should be
understood that imported soils may exhibit a different expansion potential, which may
cause the following recommendations to be modified. The Structural Engineer for the
project should determine the actual footing width and depth in accordance with the
latest edition of the California Building Code to resist design vertical, horizontal, and
uplift forces and should either verify or amend the design based on final expansion
testing at the completion of grading.
6.1.1 Foundation Size: Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches.
Continuous footings shouid be continuously reinforced with a minimum of one (1) NO.4
EnGEN Corporation
\'Z..-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797-GFS
March 2003
Page 10
steel reinforcing bar iocated near the top and one (1) NO.4 steei reinforcing bar 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 doorway and garage entrances. A
majority of the footings will consist of retaining wall foundations, which are discussed in
Section 7.0 of this report.
6.1.2 Depth of Embedment: Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted
fill should extend to a minimum depth of 18-inches below lowest adjacent finish
grade.
6.1.3 BearinQ Capacity: Provided the recommendations for site earth work, minimum
footing width, and minimum depth of 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 footings in properly compacted fill. 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.
6.1.4 Seismic DesiQn Parameters: The following seismic parameters apply:
Type of Fault: Type B Fault
Closest Distance to Known Fault: 2.9 Km
Soil Profile Type: SD
6.1.5 Settlement: Footings designed according to the recommended bearing vaiues and
the maximum assumed wall and column loads are not expected to exceed a
maximum settlement of 0.75-inch or a differential settlement of 0.50-inch in properly
compacted fill under static load conditions.
6.2 Lateral Capacitv: Additional foundation design parameters based on compacted fill
for resistance to static lateral forces, are as follows:
EnGEN Corporation
\3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.3
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797-GFS
March 2003
Page 11
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Compacted Fill- 250 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
Compacted Fill - 0.35
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 allowable design values 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
andlor 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.
Slab-on-Grade Recommendations: The recommendations for concrete slabs, both
interior and exterior, excluding PCC pavement, are based upon the anticipated
building usage and upon a very 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 waterlcement ratio) of the
concrete andlor 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. Slab-on-grade
reinforcement and thickness should be provided by the structural engineer based on
structural considerations, but as a minimum, it is recommended that concrete floor
slabs be at least 4-inches nominal in thickness and reinforced with at least No. 3
reinforcing bars placed 24-inches on center, both ways, placed at mid-height of the
slab cross-section.
EnGEN Corporation
'A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.4
6.5
7.0
7.1
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797-GFS
March 2003
Page 12
Moisture Barrier Recommendations: Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be
underlain by a minimum of 1.0-inch of clean coarse sand or other approved granular
material placed on properly prepared subgrade per the Earthwork Recommendations
Section of this report. 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.
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 12-inches immediately before placing the concrete.
RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
Earth Pressures: Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive granular soil (EI=O) or
very low expansive potential materials (Expansion Index of 20 or less) within a zone
extending upward and away from the heel of the footing at a slope of 0.5:1 (horizontal
to vertical) or flatter can be designed to resist the following static lateral soil pressures:
Condition Level Backfill 2:1 Slope
Active 30 pcf 45 pcf
At Rest 60 pet --
Further expansion testing of potential backfill material should be performed at the time
of retaining wall construction to determine suitability. Walls that are free to deflect 0.01
radian at the top may be designed for the above-recommended active condition. Walls
that are not capable of this movement should be assumed rigid and designed for the at-
rest condition. The above values assume well-drained backfill and no buildup of
hydrostatic pressure. Surcharge loads, dead and/or live, acting on the backfill within a
horizontal distance behind the wall should also be considered in the design.
EnGEN Corporation
\'6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.2
7.3
7.4
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797 -GFS
March 2003
Page 13
RetaininQ Wall DesiQn: Retaining wall footings should be founded to the same depths
into properly compacted fill, or firm, competent, undisturbed, natural soil as standard
foundations and may be designed for an allowable bearing value of 2,000 psf (as long
as the resultant force is located in the middle one-third of the footing), and with an
allowable static lateral bearing pressure of 250 psf/ft and allowable sliding resistance
coefficient of friction of 0.35. However, retaining wail footings determined to be fully
embedded in unweathered bedrock may be designed for an allowable bearing value of
3,000 pounds per square foot and lateral bearing of 400 pounds per square foot/foot of
depth. When using the allowable lateral pressure and allowable sliding resistance, a
Factor of Safety of 1.5 should be achieved.
Subdrain: A subdrain system should be constructed behind and at the base of
retaining walls equal to or in excess of 5-feet in height to allow drainage and to prevent
the buildup of excessive hydrostatic pressures. Gravel galleries and/or filter rock, if not
properly designed and graded for the on-site andlor import materials, should be
enclosed in a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute
in order to prevent infiltration of fines and clogging of the system. The perforated pipes
should be at least 4.0-inches in diameter. Pipe perforations should be placed
downward. Gravel filters should have volume of at least 1.0 cubic foot per lineal foot of
pipe. For retaining walls with an overall height of less than 4-feet, subdrains may
include weep holes with a continuous gravel gallery, perforated pipe surrounded by
filter rock, or some other approved system. Subdrains should maintain a positive flow
gradient and have outlets that drain in a non-erosive manner.
Backfill: Backfill directly behind retaining walls (if backfill width is less than 3 feet) may
consist of 0,5 to 0.75-inch diameter, rounded to subrounded gravel enclosed in a
geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute or a clean
sand (Sand Equivalent Value greater than 50) water jetted into place to obtain proper
compaction. If water jetting is used, the subdrain system should be in place. Even if
water jetting is used, the sand should be densified to a minimum of 90 percent relative
compaction. If the specified density is not obtained by water jetting, mechanical
methods will be required. If other types of soil or gravel are used for backfill,
mechanical compaction methods will be required to obtain a relative compaction of at
EnGEN Corporation
\(0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.0
8.1
8.2
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797-GFS
March 2003
Page 14
least 90 percent of maximum dry density. Backfill directly behind retaining walls should
not be compacted by wheel, track or other rolling by heavy construction equipment
unless the wall is designed for the surcharge loading. If gravel, clean sand or other
imported backfill is used behind retaining walls, the upper 18-inches of backfill in
unpaved areas should consist of typical on-site material compacted to a minimum of 90
percent relative compaction in order to prevent the influx of surface runoff into the
granular backfill and into the subdrain system. Maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content for backfill materials should be determined in accordance with
ASTM 0 1557-91 (1998) procedures.
MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS
Utility Trench Recommendations: Utility trenches within the zone of influence of
foundations or under building floor slabs, hardscape, and/or pavement areas should be
backfilled with properly compacted soil. It is recommended that all utility trenches
excavated to depths of 5.0-feet or deeper be cut back to an inclination not steeper than
1: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or be adequately shored during construction. Where interior
or exterior utility trenches are proposed parallel and/or perpendicular to any building
footing, the bottom of the trench should not be located below a 1: 1 plane projected
downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing unless the utility lines
are designed for the footing surcharge loads. Backfill material should be placed in a lift
thickness appropriate for the type of backfill material and compaction equipment used.
Backfill material should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction
by mechanical means. Jetting of the backfill material will not be considered a
satisfactory method for compaction. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content for backfill material should be determined according to ASTM D 1557-91 (1998)
procedures.
Finish Lot DrainaQe Recommendations: Finish lot surface gradients in unpaved
areas should be provided next to tops of slopes and buildings to direct surface water
away from foundations and slabs and from flowing over the tops of slopes. The surface
water should be directed toward suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of surface water
should not be allowed next to structures or on pavements. In unpaved areas, a
minimum positive gradient of 2.0 percent away from the structures and tops of slopes
EnGEN Corporation
\1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797 -GFS
March 2003
Page 15
for a minimum distance of 5.0-feet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the
property in a non-erosive manner should be provided.
Planter Recommendations: Planters around the perimeter of the structure should be
designed with proper surface slope to ensure that adequate drainage is maintained and
minimal irrigation water is allowed to percolate into the soils underiying the building.
Supplemental Construction Observations and TestinQ: 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 overexcavation of cut andlor cut/fill
transitions, 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 andlor reinforcing
steel to verify andlor 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 earthwork completed for the development of subject property
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 deveiopment is limited to the actual portions of
the project observed andlor tested by EnGEN Corporation.
Plan Review: Subsequent to formulation of final plans and specifications for the
project but before bids for construction are requested, grading and foundation plans for
the proposed development should be reviewed by EnGEN Corporation to verify
compatibility with site geotechnical conditions and conformance with the
recommendations contained in this report. If EnGEN Corporation is not accorded the
opportunity to make the recommended review, we will assume no responsibility for
misinterpretation of the recommendations presented in this report.
Pre-Bid Conference: It is recommended that a pre-bid conference be held with the
owner or an authorized representative, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer,
the Project Geotechnical Engineer and the proposed contractors present. This
EnGEN Corporation
\E>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.7
9.0
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797-GFS
March 2003
Page 16
conference will provide continuity in the bidding process and clarify questions relative to
the supplemental grading and construction requirements of the project.
Pre-GradinQ Conference: Before the start of any grading, a conference should be
held with the owner or an authorized representative, the contractor, the Project
Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, and the Project Geotechnical Engineer present.
The purpose of this meeting should be to clarify questions relating to the intent of the
supplemental grading recommendations and to verify that the project specifications
comply with the recommendations of this geotechnical engineering report. Any special
grading procedures and/or difficuities proposed by the contractor can also be discussed
at that time.
CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described in
this document. It mayor may not contain sufficient information for other parties or
purposes. In the event that changes in the assumed nature, design, or location of the
proposed structure andlor project as described in this report, are planned, the
conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid
unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions and recommendations of this
report are modified or verified in writing. This study was conducted in general
accordance with the applicable standards of our profession and the accepted soil and
foundation engineering principles and practices at the time this report was prepared.
No other warranty, implied or expressed beyond the representations of this report, is
made. Although every effort has been made to obtain information regarding the
geotechnical and subsurface conditions of the site, limitations exist with respect to the
knowledge of unknown regional or localized off-site conditions that may have an impact
at the site. The recommendations presented in this report are valid as of the date of
the report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the
passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or to the works of man on
this andlor adjacent properties. If conditions are observed or information becomes
available during the design and construction process that are not reflected in this
report, EnGEN Corporation should be notified so that supplemental evaluations can be
performed and the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report can be
EnGEN Corporation
V\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797-GFS
March 2003
Page 17
modified or verified in writing. Changes in applicable or appropriate standards of care
or practice occur, whether they result from legisiation or the broadening of knowledge
and experience. Accordingly, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this
report may be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes outside of the control of
EnGEN Corporation which occur in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our services. Often, because of design and
construction details which occur on a project, questions arise concerning the geotechnical
conditions on the site, If we can be of further service or should you have questions regarding
this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience. Because of our
involvement in the project to date, we would be pleased to discuss engineering testing and
observation services that may be applicable on the project.
Respectfully submitted,
EnGEN Corporation
cOI~:jt~7
Staff Geologist
Distribution: (4) Addressee
CM/OB:hh
FILE: EnGEN\Reporting\GFS\T2797.GFS Tom Brackin, Geotechnical Feasibility
EnG EN Corporation
zP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.
3,
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797-GFS
Appendix Page 1
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
1.
Allen, C.R., and others, 1965, Relationship Between Seismicity and Geoiogic Structure in
the Southern California Region: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 55,
No.4, pg. 753-797.
Bowles, Joseph E., 1996, Foundation Analysis and Design, 51h Edition, pages 277-280.
California Building Code, 1998, State of California, California Code of Regulations,
Title 24, 1998, California Building Code: International Conference of Building Officials
and California Building Standards Commission, 3 Volumes,
California Department of Conservation, 1991, Geology Map of the Santa Ana 1: 1 00,000
Quadrangle, California, Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 91-17.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Earl W Hart and William Bryant, Fault-
Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Revised 1997, Supplements 1 and 2 added 1999,
Special Publication 42.
California Divi.sion of Mines and Geology, 1954, Geology of Southern California,
Bulletin 170.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1966, Geologic Map of California, Olaf P.
Jenkins Edition, Santa Ana Sheet.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117. .
County of Riverside, 1978, Seismic SafetylSafety Element Policy Report, June 1978, by
Envicom.
County of Riverside, 2000, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Technical
Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical and Geoiogic Reports, 2000 Edition.
Dibblee, T. W, Jr., 1970, Regionai Geologic Map of San Andreas and Related Faults in
Eastern San Gabriel Mountains and Vicinity: U.S. Geologic Society, Open File Map, Scale:
1 :25,000.
Hart, E. W, Bryant, W, 1999, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Revised 1997,
Supplements 1 and 2 added 1999, California Division of Mines and Geology, Department
of Conservation, Special Publication 42, 38 pp.
Hileman, J.A, Allen, C.R. and Nordquist, J.M., 1973, Seismicity of the Southern California
Region, 1 January 1932 to 31 December 1972: Seismological Laboratory, California
I nstitute of Technology.
Hull, A. G" 1990, Seismotectonics of the Elsinore-Temecula Trough, Eisinore Fault
Zone, Southern California, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault Map of California with locations of volcanoes, thermal
springs and thermal wells, 1 :750,000: California Division of Mines and Geology,
Geologic Data Map NO.1.
Jennings, C.W., 1985, An explanatory text to accompany the 1:750,000 scale fault and
geologic maps of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 201,
197p., 2 plates.
z..\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28,
29.
30.
31.
32.
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797-GFS
Appendix Page 2
TECHNICAL REFERENCES IContinuedl
17.
Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting along the Elsinore Fault Zone
in southern Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology,
Special Report 131, 12 p., 1 plate, scale 1:24,000.
Lamar, D. L., and Swanson, S. C., 1981, Study of Seismic Activity by Selective
Trenching Along the Elsinore Fault Zone, Southern California, United States Geological
Survey Open File Report 81-882.
Magistrale, H. and Rockwell, T., 1996, The Central and Southern Elsinore Fault Zone,
Southern California, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Volume 86, No.6,
pp. 1793-1803, December 1996.
Mann, J.F., Jr., October 1955, Geology of a portion of the Elsinore fault zone, California:
State of California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, Special Report
43.
Morton, D.M., 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' x 60'
Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0.
Riverside County Planning Department, June 1982 (Revised December 1983),
Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan - Dam Inundation Areas - 100 Year
Flood Plains ~ Area Drainage Plan, Scale: 1-lnch = 2 Miles.
Riverside County Planning Department, January 1983, Riverside County Comprehensive
General Plan - County Seismic Hazards Map, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
Riverside County Planning Department, February 1983, Seismic - Geologic Maps,
Murrieta - Rancho California Area, Sheet 147, Scale 1" = 800'.
Rogers, T. H., 1966, Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, Santa Ana
Sheet, California Division of Mines and Geology.
S.C.E.D.C., 2002, Southern California Earthquake Data Center Website,
http://www.scecdc.scec.org.
Schnabel, P. B. and Seed, H. B., 1972, Accelerations In Rock for Earthquakes in the
Western United States: College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 72-2.
Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Recommended Procedures for
Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating
Liquefaction Hazards in California, March 1999,
Temecula, City of, 1993, General Plan, adopted November 9, 1993.
Tschebotarioff, G. P., 1973, Foundations, Retaining and Earth Structures, The Art of
Design and Construction and Its Scientific Basis in Soil Mechanics, 2nd Edition, McGraw-
Hill Book Company, 642 p.
Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Edition, by International Conference of Building
Officials, 3 Volumes.
Vaughan, Thorup and Rockwell, 1999, Paleoseismology of the Elsinore Fault at Agua
Tibia Mountain, Southern California, Bulletin of the Seismology Society of America,
Volume 89, No.6, pg. 1447-1457, December 1999.
18.
19.
EnGEN Corporation
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
33.
34,
35.
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797-GFS
Appendix Page 3
TECHNICAL REFERENCES IContinuedl
Weber, F. H., Jr., 1977, Seismic Hazards Related to Geologic Factors, Elsinore and
Chino Fault Zones, Northwestern Riverside County, California, California Division of
Mines and Geology Open File Report 77-4.
Wells, D. L., Coppersmith, K. J., 1994, New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude,
Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement, Bulletin of
the Seismology Society of America, Volume 84, No.4, pp. 974-1002, August 1994.
Yeats, R. S., Sieh, K., and Allen, C. R., 1997, The Geology of Earthquakes, Oxford
University Press, 568p.
EnGEN Corporation
2P
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797-GFS
Appendix Page 4
EnGEN Corporation
zA.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
\
1\
\
\
,
\
\
.r I'
) I\. \
, " \
/ 1\
., "- \
!I
\
/ ,
\
\
1\
\
\
130
128
126
'R
f
l:
Cll
"0
~
Cl
124
122
120
4
ZAVfor
Sp.G. =
2.e4
16
6
8
10
Water content, %
12
14
Test specification: ASlM D 1557-98 Procedure A Modified
Elevl
Depth
Classification
uses AASHTO
Nat.
Moist.
%>
No.4
%<
No.200
Sp.G.
LL
PI
SM
15.4
TEST RESULTS
Maximum dry density = 126.3 pef
Optimum moisture = 10.2 %
Project No. 12797-GFS Client: TOM BRACKIN
Project: BRACKIN RESIDENCE
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SILTY SAND,BROWN
Remarks:
SAMPLE A
EXISTING FILUALLUVlUM
CaLL BY CM
CaLL ON 2-27-03
. location: VIA NORTE
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Plate
".-
-z.:;:>
I
I 3000
RESULTS
0 C, pst 541
I $, deg 30.4
~ TAN ~ 0.59
"'
Q. 2000
I Ul
Ul
W
0::
f--
I Ul
W
0:: 1000
:::>
--'
I H
<(
LL
I 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
I Normal Stress, pst
3000
I SAMPLE NO. : 2 3
WATER CONTENT, % 11.2 11.2 11.2
2500 <l. DRY DENSITY. pet 113.5 113.5 113.5
I ~ ~ SATURATION, % 65.5 65.5 65.5
"' Ii VOID RA no
Q. 2000 0.452 0.452 0.452
(J) H DIAMETER, in 2.42 2.42 2.42
I (J) HEIGHT in 1.00 1.00 1.00
4>
'- 1500
~ WATER CONTENT, % 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ul
f-- DRY DENSITY, pet 113.5 113.5 113.5
I '- Ul
a 1000 w SATURATION, % 0.0 0.0 0.0
4> f--
.<: ..! f-- VOID RATIO 0.452 0.452 0.452
Ul
I <( DIAMETER, in 2.42 2.42 2.42
500 HEIGHT in 1.00 1.00 1.00
NORMAL STRESS, pst 1000 2000 3000
I 0 FAILURE STRESS, psf 1115 1741 2289
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 DISPLACEMENT, in 0.07 0.09 0.15
Hor i z. Di spl , , in ULTIMATE STRESS, pst
I DISPLACEMENT, in
S t ra i n rate, in/min 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000
SAMPLE TYPE: CLIENT: TOM BRACKIN
I DESCRIPTION: SILTY SANO,BROWN
PROJECT: BRACKIN RESIDENCE
I SPECIFIC GRAVITY= 2.64 SAMPLE LOCATION: VIA NORTE,
REMARKS: SAMPLE A TEMECULA
I EXISTING FILL/ALLUVIUM PROJ. NO. : T2797-GFS DATE: 3-4-03
COLL BY CM DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT Zk>
COLL ON 2-27-03
I Fig. No. : EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~.
. USC Laboratory Expansion Test Results
Job Number: T2797-GFS
Job_Name: BRACKIN RESIDENCE
Location: VIA NORTE
Sample Source: A (EX. FILL I ALLWlUM)
Sampled by: CM (2-27-03)
Lab Technician: RW
Sample Oeser: SILTY SAND,BROWN
3/3/03
Wet Compacted WI.: 595
RingWt.: 199.3
Net Wet Wt.: 395.7
Wet Density: 119.5
Wet Soil: 257.0
Dry Soii: 237,7
Initial Moisture (%): 8.1%
Initial Dry Density: 110.5
% Saturation: 41.8%
Final Wt. & Ring Wt.: 633.7
Net Final INt.: 434.4
Dry INt.: 366.0
Loss: 68.4
Net Dry INt.: 363.6
Final Density: 109.8
Saturated Moisture: 18.8%
la anae Time
Reading 1: 0.100 N1A 2:45
Reading 2: 0.108 0.008 .:00
Reading 3: 0.110 0.010 3:15
Reading 4: 0.112 0.012 3-Mar
D'I
Ch
Expansion Index:
12
Adjusted Index:
(ASTM D 4832-95)
8.5,
,
EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 296-2230
Fax: (909) 296-2237
2-1,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Tom Brackin
c/o Triple Star Construction
Project Number: T2797-GFS
Appendix Page 5
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
?J?;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EnG EN CorporationG"~"hO;"" Eog;""'og
VICINITY MAP
Special
Material
Environmental
.
PROJECT NUMBER:
DATE: MARCH 2003
CLIENT NAME:
Lot 205 of TR 3883
SCALE: 1"=2400'
TOM BRACKIN
FIGURE:
1
BASE MAP: Thomas Bros., 2000, Riverside Co., pg. 958-959
"bCA...