HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3883 Lot 61 Preliminary Soils
.
.
PRELIMINARY SOIL INVESTIGATION
{
for
Lot 61; TR 3883
APN: 919-051-004
Temecula, California
June 10, 2002
Prepared for:
Sean and Heather Hummel
6 Villa Valtelena
Tuscany Hills, CA 92532
Phone: 909/245-7569
Cell: 245-7569
Prepared by:
Gunvant Thakkar, P.E.
45712 Classic Way
Temecula, California 92592
(909) 676-7541
\~ 9-Oe~
W)"\ G.-\
\
.
.
GUNVANT THAKKAR,
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
45712 Classic Way, Temecula, California 92592 (909)676-7541
June 10, 2002
Sean and Heather Hummel
6 Villa Valtelena
Tuscany Hills, CA 92532
Phone: 909/245-7569
Cell: 245-7569
Subject:
Preliminary Soil Investigation
Lot 61; TR 3883
APN: 919-051-004
Temecula, California
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hummel:
In accorda(lce with your request and authorization, this report presents
the results of our soils investigation of the subject property located on Valle
Verde, Temecula, California (see Site Location Map Figure 1), The purpose of
the study was to evaluate the existing soil condition on the subject property
relative to the proposed development.
~.
1. Site Qescription
The property is located on Valle Verde, Temecula, Riverside County,
California, ,and consists of approximately 0,76 acres, and is mostly
accessible: The property is covered with green pastures and vegetation.
2. Proposed development
It is our understanding that the property is proposed to have a single
residence with attached garage. The site is flat to gently rolling hills. The
highest point on the property is the western portion and declines to
approximately a 21 percent grade. Therefore, a substantial amount of
grading will be required to create a pad. The grading plan has been
2-
.
.
prepared by Gunvant Thakkar, P.E., Temecula, California. It is our
understanding that one or two story buildings utilizing wood frame and/or
masonry block construction, with slabs-on-grades and continuous footings
are proposed. Building loads are assumed to be typical for residential
structures. It is also our understanding that sewage disposal will be
accommodated by a subsurface sewage disposal system,
3. Field Studies
The field studies conducted during our evaluation of the property
consisted of the following:
a. review of available geotechnical data in our files
pertaining to the site.
b. field reconnaissance by a soils engineer.
c. laboratory testing of selected representative soil
samples.
d. preparation of this report presenting our
findi,ngs, conclusions, and recommendations.
4. Subsurface Investiqation Laboratorv Testinq
One explor,atory trench was excavated in order to determine the
conditions of the near-surface natural material. The sample was logged,
in-place mcpisture and density of the exposed materials was recorded, and
representative bulk and relatively undisturbed sample was collected for
laboratory testing.
5. Laboratorv:Testinq
'(
a.
Soil ,Classification
Soils were classified visually according to the unified soils
classification system. The soils classifications are shown on the
trench logs (Appendix A).
b. Soils Density
Thelfield moisture content and dry unit weights were determined for
the undisturbed sample of the soils encountered in the trench. The
dry unit weight was determined in pound per cubic foot and the
field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry
J
.
.
unit weight. The results of this test are shown on the trench log
(Appendix A).
6. General Site Gradino
All grading shall be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork
and Grading Specifications (Enclosure C), and the specifications of the
local agencies should be implemented into the design of the proposed
site. Prior to grading, deleterious trash and vegetation should be removed
and hauled off-site. All areas prepared and approved to receive fill should
be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to a minimum of 90
percent relative compaction prior to fill placement.
7. Ground Water
No groundwater or evidence of seepage was encountered within the
exploratory trench at the time and location of exploration However, other
conditions!may be there that would effect the entire proposed project and
final plans land specifications.
8. Consolidation 1 Collapse Potential
Considering the on-site low in-place densities, the susceptibility for
consolidation 1 collapse under the proposed load is anticipated within the
upper three feet throughout the site.
g, Conclusion and Recommendation
a. General
1.
Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, and our
soil engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the project site
is suited for the proposed development from a soils
engineering viewpoint. The recommendation presented
below should be incorporated in the design, grading, and
construction considerations.
{
2. Soils engineering and compaction services should be
provided during grading to aid the contractor in removing
unsuitable soils and in his effort to compact the fill.
3. Ground water is not expected to be a factor in the
development of the site. However, caving and sloughing
may be anticipated to be a factor in all subsurface
excavation and trenching.
"
.
.
4. At the time of preparation of this report, the proposed
finished pad grades, location of any structures, type of
structures and loadings were all of a preliminary planning
nature.
5. General earthwork and grading guidelines are provided at
the end of this report as Appendix C.
b. DemolitionlGrubbing
1. Existing shrubs, and any miscellaneous construction
materials and debris should be removed from the site.
2. Any previous foundation, cesspools, septic tanks, leach
fields, or other subsurface structures, uncovered during the
recommended removal should be observed by the soils
engineer so that appropriate remedial recommendations can
be provided.
3. Cavities or loose soils (including all trenches) remaining after
demolition and site clearance should be cleaned out,
inspected by the soils engineer, processed and replaced
with a fill that has been moisture conditioned to at least
optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 %
of the laboratory standards.
c. Fill placement
1. Fill material should be brought to at least optimum moisture,
placed in thin 6 to 8 inch lifts, and mechanically compacted
to obtain minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the
laboratory standard.
{
2. Fill material should be cleansed of major vegetation and
debris prior to placement.
3. Any oversized rock material greater than 10 inches in
diameter should be placed under the recommendations and
supervision of this soils engineer.
d. General Foundation Criteria
The proposed structure may be supported on conventional spread,
or continuous wall footings, provided that they are at least 12
inChes wide, and 12 inches below the final approved grade with
-5"
.
.
one # 4 rebar at the top and bottom or as designed by the
stru,ctural engineer.
Footings may be designed for a maximum bearing pressure of
1500 psf. A friction coefficient for concrete on natural and
compacted soils of 0.36 may be employed, The effects of seismic
shaking can be mitigated through consideration of the parameters
presented above and by design in accordance with the latest
Uniform Building Code and the Structural Engineers Association,
The, allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third
when considering loadings of short duration such as wind or
seismic forces. This foundation criteria is considered minimum and
may be superseded by more restrictive requirements of the
structural engineers, architects, or governing agency.
e. Concrete Slabs on Grade
SUfficient fine grained materials exist within near surface earth
materials to possibly create moisture problems. Therefore, we
recommend that a moisture barrier be placed under any concrete
slabs that might receive a moisture-sensitive floor covering. This
moisture barrier should consist of a 1 O-mil polyethylene vapor
barrier sandwiched between a one inch layer of sand, top and
bottom, to prevent puncture of the barrier and enhance curing of
the concrete. Nominal reinforcement of the slabs with light six inch
by six inch, 10 gauge/1 0 gauge welded wire fabric is advisable.
Slabs should be designed for any special loads, such as
construction crane loads, if warranted. LargE? slabs should have
crack control joints on 10 foot centers and small slabs should have
them on five foot centers.
'{'
f.
Expansive Soils
Based on visual observations, lab testing, and field classifications,
there does not appear to be any soils within the upper six feet of
the surface which appear highly expansive: however, if fill materials
are imported to the site, it is recommended that expansion testing
be performed upon the completion of grading to evaluate any
expansion potentials.
g. Earthwork Shrinkage and Subsidence
When the existing less dense materials is regraded to compacted
fill standards, earthwork shrinkage should be estimated to range
between 9 and 17 percent (based on an average of 92 percent
"
.
.
relative compaction), for a total 4 foot over-excavation below
existing grade. This variation is due to the large difference in in-
place densities obtained during our soil sampling. It should be
noted that these estimates are exclusive of any losses due to any
possible buried substructures (i.e, septic tanks, pipes, etc.) or
localized fill pockets. Earthwork operations should cause only a
nominal subsidence of approximately 0.1 foot or less.
h. Lateral Loads
Lateral loads in the near surface soils are:
Active
35 pounds per square foot per foot of
soil depth (psflft)
64 psflft
250psflft - wood shoring
350psflft - concrete footings
At Rest
p,assive
Active means movement of the structure away from the soil. At
rest, means the structure does not move relative to the soil (such
as a loading dock or building wall). Passive means the structure
moves into the soil. The coefficient of friction between the bottom
of the footings and the native soil may be taken as 0.35.
i.
Trench Stability
{
The near surface soil is a depth of 6 feet may not stand vertically
for more than several hours when excavated as tension cracks or
joints may be locally found in the soils associated with past seismic
activity from nearby major faults. Trenches in excess of 5 feet in
depth should have the sides laid back at 1: 1 or shored in
accordance with OSHA requirements.
J.
Ger:leral Site Grading
1. General
All grading should be performed in accordance with the
standard grading and earthwork specifications outlined in
Appendix C, or unless otherwise modified in the text of this
report.
\
.
.
.
.
engineer, in attendance. The purpose of this meeting will be
to clarify any questions relating to the intent of the grading
recommendations and to verify that the project specifications
comply with the recommendations of this report.
7. Testing and Inspection
During grading, density testing should be performed by a
representative of the soils engineer in order to determine the
degree of compaction being obtained, Where testing
indicates insufficient density, additional compactive efforts
shall be applied with the adjustment of moisture content,
where necessary, until at least 90 percent relative
compaction is obtained. The subgrade of the over-
excavations and the footing excavations should be inspected
and improved by us prior to placement of fill andlor concrete.
The maximum dry density shall be determined in
accordance with ASTM D1557-78 procedure.
8. Summary
All grading should, at a minimum, follow the "Standard
Grading and Earthwork Specifications" as outlined in
Appendix C, unless otherwise modified in the text of this
report. The recommendations of this report are based on the
assumptions that all footings will be founded in properly
compacted fill soil or natural dense soil as approved by the
soils engineer. All footing excavations should be inspected
prior to the placement of concrete in order to verify that
footings are founded on satisfactory soil and are free of
loose and disturbed materials. All gradings and.fill
placement should be performed under the testing and
inspection of a representative of the soils engineer.
'. .
'.
9.
Investigation Limits
The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in
the laboratory are believed representative of the total area;
however, soils materials may vary in characteristics between
test excavations. Since our investigation is based upon the
site materials observed, selective laboratory testing, and
engineering analysis, the conclusions and recommendations
are professional opinions. It is possible that variations in soil
conditions could exist beyond the points explored in this
investigation. Also, changes in the ground water condition
could occur sometime in the near future due to variations in
\
.
.
temperature, regional rainfall, and other factors. Should
conditions be encountered during grading that appear to be
different than those indicated by this report, the soils
engineer should be notified. These opinions have been
derived in accordance with current standards of practice and
no warranties are expressed or implied.
We 'sincerely appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any
questions concerning this report, please contact us at 909/676-7541.
J.
\0
.
.
Enclosures: F,igure 1: Site location map
Rlate1: Sample location map
Appendix A: Exploratory trench logs
Appendix B: Laboratory test data
Appendix C: Standard grading and earthwork specs.
-.
."
'^
.
~
......
~
~
~
~
?:::>
~
.
~
-
V\
~
~ \'-
?t
(0. ~
~ ~ ~
~
..... (' f'
'\
:::t; .....~ ~7%
~
~ " ~~
~
?\J (tl'/l:::.
() ~~ f1\
.. ~ (\
\
\J -l
"
1'/, G6'1ERAL
frE ,.t}/f?l/y I2D.
;DATE: C-llJ- 02
SITE LOCATION PLAN
~
1-11.< .".,,,,,et, Sea."lt
PLATE 2- J
\Z-.
.
\ \
\ --:-:::.~
,/;, \
\
1 I
\
"
, ,--
I, I
\ ' \ \
\
\ \
,I
~ \
__ c) \
.-~..~
\ ..~
~\0\ .
\ y:" \D
/ \
\ /
\
\ Q
\ \
,
\ \ "
}\ \
q
, ,
10
,
! .
\ "
I,
I
: I \
,
I
I \
\
I ,-
" i\;
-, '",
"
\ I w' ~
"' \ ~
"\
'" '?'
~ r::: , >,
.., ~I
\. "
'" ",
t; "
~ I
1\ " ;:;...
l'\ I
{ .\
1\
I
,
, \
\
I
~
\
I.
\
1/,5% \',
~
, '
/
LEGEND --- --4'------
APPROXIMATE TEST LOCATION
DATE a-j{) - 02-.
TRENCH
LOCATION
.
,
-,
0"
0~'
t', ,
-~
-.....::::
, ~
,.
I ~,
, "
}; I~ , "~l
,
D ,
f1j Ie) \
~ ,I' II
"1
n i"\l
- ,0,
-I
~ It:> /
10
/
(dPC:
, ,'"
\
-- -- - ,
\ 1~\\ :
~
.'- "
t'
\ I
I, -
\
\
\
\
\
\~
)(\ "
..\:. \ '
, 1\
~_\\ W
'.Cj' .. \\\ /{
.~t.;~
1
\
.\
,
.\ ~:~
, ,
'.
------:
/1
oJ
l \,
I'
j"\ \
!) \
I
:..:
;i
"
~
1
/
,
I":
~
I' I
K'
i.'
~
,
, ,~
~
r-' ~
~, ,
1, ,
~
-
)
>'
\
MAP
J-/ l.( Y'r?Y>\e f
PLATE
~e(j
\'?
.
Appendix A
Exploratory trench logs
.
,1,
\,\
Prolect
I WLORATORY
___ Uti 'm ~ I I :; ea '>\ EI...1Ion
TRENCH eOG
BfiCk- HOE-
Trench No.
T- I
Ncun$
pl'Ojoe t Numbel'
EqurpmQnt
'.
<
! i 0
I ~.; . ~ jj :;; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
1: .. ;;,;;l ..
II .t; .f; 8..
>- " ! ~ " Or
. < ~ '" L099q.d by b- 5"-02-
If ;; "- 3 ~ is ~ 081e
,- ;; .2 ~ GT
i . l:' :I ~ j Sampled by
.., 0
0 &-
117. .. 1,9 LT. 1SR.o [,.)tj 'ILT'f (FIND Sa F r Po 1(0 US -
-
- f11/t-/()f2. FO-I F- e--
- SILTY - CLl+ Y E- Y SANOS ,;"TH ~5
6- - GI'.Av'E/... l Dt=:NSE
- r
,.
-
,- -
'0- )J
. ~ c-
- c-
,- f-
,. f-
15 ,,~
,. r
, - -
,- -
GRAPHIC LOG rtend scale: 1"- 5'
0- -~...
- - . Test Symbols
0 -
c- B - 0'-'1 It S"UTlj)te
R - R'lng S~mJllc
, 'l , I '- SC - MOO Cone
I I , '. . , , , , , I
t- - MD- Mllxlmum Don.lcy
t- - GS - OrAln Sl20
t- - SE - .9.lnt1 "'lul"'t\I0>t1t
r- - E I - E..paf'l.ll'-'n Int:1~1I:
RS - Remoldltd $helU
. - -- -,
- - 0
0
{ I I t 1 I [ I , I , I
,I
, , ..
- t-
,
f-
- t- "
- f-
/'
\.-:;,
~
.
.....-
'.
.
Appendix B
Laboratory test data
\~
.
.
GUNVANT THAKKAR, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
45712 Classic Way, Temecula, California 92592 (909) 676-7541
Mr. & Mrs. Sean Hummel
Maximum Density
(ocf)
Optimum Moisture Content
(%)
."
128.0
9.50
\,,\
N
~
Ii
"
ro
~
135 --
1\
1\
130 \
\
I \
II \
125 11\
1\
I \ Source of Material Hummel 0.0
\ Description of Material
1\ \
120 1\
1\ Test Method ASTM 01557 Method A
\
1\
II:
115 \ 1\
\
, \
r\ TEST RESULTS
\ Maximum Dry Density 128.0 PCF
110 \ Optimum Water Content 9.5 %
\ \
- \
"
"- \
,:
.... \ ATTERBERG LIMITS
en 1\
z 105
w \
0
>- 1\ \ LL PL PI
oc \ 1\ - - -
0
\
100 1\
Curves of 100% Saturation
1\ for Specific Gravity Equal to:
\ 1\
2.80
95 1\ ,
\ 1\ 2.70
1\
1\ \ 2.60
'\
90 1\ '\
I \
. "-
85 '\
1"- I\.
"
80 I'\:
"
i'..
75 "-
a 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
WATER CONTENT, %
GeoSoils, Inc. MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
est- 5741 Palmer Way Project: THAKKAR \f()
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 2843-A-SC
Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: June 2002 Figure: C - 2
,
..
,
~
"
~
"
~
z
o
ti
~
~
o
"
~
"
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
JobiData
W.Q.:
Client:
Date:
Sample Data
Sample:
Sample Type:
Remarks:
Test Data
i (Ge -"I Accordance with ASTM 3080)
2843-A-SC
Thakkar
6/7/02
Lot 61 Tract 3883, Hummel
Remolded to 90% 01 128.0 pel @ 9.5%
Samole Innundated Prior to Testina
HQriz. 1 KSF 2 KSF 3 KSF
Oispl. . Dial PSF Dial PSF Dial PSF
(inches) Reading Reading Reading
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.005 42 503 62 716 89 1004
0.010 50 588 77 876 108 1206
0.015 58 673 88 993 123 1366
0.020 65 748 101' 1132 133 1473
0.025 70 801 107 1196 145 1601
0.030 74 844 115 1281 158 1739
0.035 76 865 120 1334 165 1814
0.040 77 876 124' 1377 172 1888
0.045 77 876 126 1398 178 1952
0.050 76 865 128 1419 183 2006
0.055 74 844 130 1441 189 2069
0.060 73 833 130 1441 195 2133
0.065 71 812 130 1441 196 2144
0.070 70 801 130 1441 197 2155
0.075 68 780 129 1430 198 2165
0.080 67 769 129 1430 199 2176
0.085 67 769 126 1398 198 2165
0.090 66 759 124 1377 196 2144
0.095 66 759 123 1366 194 2123
0.100 66 759 123 1366 193 2112
0.105 66 759 123 1366 191 2091
0.110 66 759 122 1355 188 2059
0.115 66 759 122 1355 187 2048
0.120 123 1366 188 2059
0.125 123 1366 189 2069
0.130 124 1377 189 2069
O~ 135 125 1387 188 2059
tr.140 126 189 2069
0:145 187 2048
0.150 187 2048
0.155 188 2059
0i160
0,165
0:170
Reshear 76 865 122 1355 187 2048
Test :Results
Phi C (psI) 1000 2000 3000
33.03 197 PrimarY (ost) 876 1441 2176
30.60 240 Residual (ost) 865 1355 2048
Samole Data
1 KSF 2 KSF 3KSF Ave.
TotallWl. laml ,214.5 214.5 214.5 Den.
Innuridated WI. (am) :222.7 222.8 219.5 115.2
RinoWl. 68 68 68
Drv QensilV I DC '115.2 115.2 115.2 Dog
Natural M.C. (% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% Sat
Saturated'M.C. %) 15.6% . 15.7% 13.2% 0.904
GeaSoils, Inc.
!
PSF vs. Horizontal Displacement
2500
2000
-.-1
1500 KSF
u..
Vl
a.. --+- 2
1000. KSF
--+- 3
500. KSF
o
o 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Horizontal Displacement (Inches)
I
I
I
I
I
I
Vertical Deflection vs Horiz. Displacement
0.01
c
.2
u_
III III
0:: III
Ill.r;
C U
- "
" .-
u-
:;::
III
>
--+-1
KSF
0.005
Illflr""-
O~~'
__2
KSF I
3 I
KSF i
i
I
i
-0.005
-0.01
0.00 0,05 0,10 0.15 0.20
Horizontal Displacement (inches)
Vertical Deflection
Horiz. 1 KSF 2 KSF 3 KSF
Dist. Dial Defl. Dial Oefl. Dial Defl.
(Inches) Read (in) Read (in) Read (In)
0 0.462 0 0.48 0 0.485 0
0.010 0.462 0 0.483 -0.003 0.486 -0.001
0.020 0.462 0 0.483 -0.003 0.487 -0.002
0.030 0.462 0 0.484 -0.004 0.488 -0.003
0.040 0.46 0.002 0.483 -0.003 0.488 -0.003
0.050 0.459 0.003 0.482 -0.002 0.488 -0.003
0.060 0.457 0.005 0.48 0 0.487 -0.002
0.070 0.456 0.006 0.478 0.002 0.486 -0.001
0.080 0.455 0.007 0.478 0.002 0.485 0
0.090 0.455 0.007 0.477 0.003 0.483 0.002
0.100 0.455 0.007 0.477 0.003 0.483 0.002
0.110 0.455 0.007 0.476 0.004 0.481 0.004
0.120 0.476 0.004 0.481 0.004
0.130 0.476 0.004 0.48 0.005
0.140 0.476 0.004 0.48 0.005
0.150 0.476 0 0.479 0
0.160 0.479 0.006
0.170
Total Displace.
Before Test 0.01 0.02 0.032
\~
3.000
2,500
2,000
--
<0
0-
r
I-
(9
Z
UJ 1,500
c:
?-
m
c: ill
i'il
:I:
m
1,000
500
o
o
500
1,000
1,500
2.000
..
'.
NORMAL PRESSURE, psI
.
Sample
Hummel
Sample Type
Remolded
Remolded
Depth/EI.
0.0
0.0
Primary/Residual Shear
Primary Shear
Residual Shear
N
~ .
~
i-
c
"
'"
~
<0
?
"
'-'
~
~
~
N
"
ili
~eSt
<r
15
U,
::>
,
Hummel
Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing
2,500
Y.,
115.2
115.2
Me%
9.5
9,5
C
198
240
GedSoils, Inc.
5741 Palmer Way
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Telephone: (760) 438-3155
Fax: (760) 931-0915
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Project: THAKKAR
Number: 2843-A-SC
Date: June 2002
Figure: C. 1
3,000
~
33
31
1J)
.
.
Appendix C
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specs.
~.
'ZA
.
.
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
These specifications present our recommendations for grading and earthwork.
No deviation fromlthese specifications should be permitted, unless where
specifically superseded in the geotechnical report of the project or by written
communications ~igned by the geotechnical consultant. Evaluation performed by
the consultant during the course of grading may result in subsequent
recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations of the geotechnical report.
1.0 General
1.1 The,geotechnical consultant is the owners or developers
representative on the project. For the purpose of these
specifications, observations by the geotechnical consultant include
observations by the soils engineer, geotechnical engineer,
engineering geologist, and those performed by persons employed
by, and responsible to the geotechnical consultant.
1.2 All clearing, site preparations, or earthwork performed on the
project shall be conducted and directed by the contractor under the
supervision of the geotechnical consultant.
I'
1.3 The contractor should be responsible for the safety of the project
and: the satisfactory completion of all grading. During grading, the
contractor should remain accessible.
'r
1.4 Prior to commencement of grading, the geotechnical consultant
shall be employed for the purpose of providing field, laboratory, and
office services for conformance with the recommendations of the
geotechnical report and these specifications, It will be necessary
that the geotechnical consultant provide adequate testing and
observations so that he may determine that the work was
accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the
contractor to assist the geotechnical consultant and keep him
apprised of work schedule and changes so that he may schedule
his personnel accordingly.
1.5 It should be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide
ad'iquate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in
accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinance,
these specifications, and the approved grading plans. If, in the
opi(lion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions,
such as questionable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate
cOl')1paction, adverse weather, etc. are resulting in a quality of work
less than required in these specifications, the geotechnical
--;".1/-
.
.
consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend
that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.
1.6 It is the contractor's responsibility to provide access to the
geotechnical consultant for the testing andlor grading observation
purposes. This may require excavation of the test pits andlor the
relocation of grading equipment.
1,7 A final report shall be issued by the geotechnical consultant
attesting to the contractor's conformance with these specifications.
.2.0 Site Preparation
2.1
2.2
2.3
"
'.
All v\,getation and deleterious material shall be disposed of off site.
Thislremoval shall be observed by geotechnical consultant and
concluded prior to fill placement.
Soil,1 alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the geotechnical
consultant as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills
shall be removed by the site or used in landscape areas as
determined by the geotechnical consultant. Any material
incorporated as a part of compacted fill must be approved by the
geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement.
After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, it shall be
sca~ified, disked, or bladed by the contractor until it is uniform and
free,from roots, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features
which may prevent uniform compaction.
The. scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum
moi~ture, mixed as required, and compacted as specified. If the
scarified zone is greater than 12 inches in depth, the excess shall
be removed and placed in lifts restricted to 6 inches.
Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be
observed, tested, and approved by the geotechnical consultant.
2.4 Any underground structures or cavities, such as cesspools,
cisterns, mining shaft, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or
others, are to be removed or treated in the manner prescribed by
thelgeotechnical consultant.
2.5 In cut fill transition lots and where cut lots are partially in soil,
colluvium, or unweathered bedrock materials, in order to provide
uniform bearing conditions, the bedrock portion of the lot, extending
1P
.
.
a mimimum of 5 feet outside of building line, shall be over-
excayated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with compacted fill.
3.0 Compacted Fills
3, 1 Mat~rials to be placed as fill shall be free of organic matter and
other deleterious substances, and shall be approved by the
geotechnical consultant. The soils of poor gradation, expansion, or
strength characteristic shall be placed in areas designated by the
geotechnical consultant or shall be mixed with other soils to serve
as satisfactory fill materials, as directed by the geotechnical
consultant.
3.2 Rock fragments less than 6 inches in diameter may be utilized in
the fill, provided:
a. They are not placed in concentrated pockets.
b, There is sufficient percentage of fine
grained materials to surround the rocks,
c, The distribution of rocks is supervised by
the geotechnical consultant.
3.3 Rocks greater than 6 inches in diameter shall be taken off site or
placed in accordance with the recommendation of the geotechnical
consultant in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal.
3.4 Materials that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise unsuitable,
should not be used in the compacted fill.
3.5
Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill
shal.1 be analyzed by the laboratory of the geotechnical consultant
to determine their physical properties. If any material other than
thatlpreviously tested is encountered during grading, the
appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the
geotechnical consultant as soon as possible.
'.
'.
3.6 Materials used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread,
watered, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6
inches in thickness, to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill shall
be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane unless otherwise
approved by the geotechnical consultant.
JA.
.
.
3.7 If the moisture content or relative compaction varies from that
required by the geotechnical consultant, the contractor shall rework
the fi.ll until it is approved by the geotechnical consultant.
3.8 Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum
density, in compliance with the testing method specified by the
controlling government agency or ASTM 1557-78, whichever
applies.
If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the
controlling governmental agency because of specific land use of
expansive soil condition, the area to receive fill compacted to less
than! 90 percent shall either be delineated on the grading plan or
appr,opriate reference made to the area in the geotechnical report.
3.9 All fill shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium,
alluvium, or creep materials, into sound bedrock or firm materials
where the slop receiving fill exceed a ratio of 5 horizontal to 1
vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of the
geotechnical consultant.
3.10 The Ikey for side hill fills shall be a minimum width of 15 feet within
bedrock or firm materials, unless otherwise specified in the soils
report.
3.11 Sub:drainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the
ordinance of the controlling government agency or with the
recommendations of the geotechnical consultant.
3.12 The,contractor will be required to obtain a relative compaction of 90
percent out of the finished slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and
'{ stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the
slope and cutting back to the compacted core, by direct compaction
of the slope and cutting back to compacted core, by direct
compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment, or by any
other procedure which produces the required compaction approved
by the geotechnical consultant.
3.13 All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by other
methods specified in the geotechnical report.
3.14 Fill-over-cut slope shall be properly keyed through topsoils,
colluvium, or creep materials into rock or firm materials, and the
transition shall be stripped of all soils prior to placing fill.
/'
P
.
.
4.0 Cut Slope
4.1 The geotechnical consultant shall inspect all cut slopes or vertical
inter)/als not exceeding 10 feet.
4.2 If any conditions not anticipated in the geotechnical report, such as
perched water, seepage, lenticular, or confined strata of potentially
adverse nature, unfavorably-inclined bedding, joints, or fault planes
encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by
the engineering geologist, and recommendations shall be made to
mitigate this problem.
4.3 Cut slopes that face in the same direction as prevailing drainage
shall be protected from slope wash by a non-erodible interceptor
swell placed at the top of the slope.
4.4 Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes
shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the
ordinance of controlling governmental agencies.
4.5 Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the
ordinances of controlling governmental agencies, or with the
recommendations of the geotechnical consultant or engineer
geologist.
5.0 Trench' Backfills
5.1 Trench excavations for utility pipes shall be backfilled under the
supervision of the geotechnical consultant.
{
5.2 After the utility pipe has been laid, the space under and around the
pipe shall be backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to
a dE;lpth of at least 1 foot over the top of the pipe. The sand backfill
shall be uniformly jetted into place before the controlled backfill is
placed over the sand.
5.3 The onsite materials, or other soils approved by the geotechnical
COilsultant, shall be water and mix as necessary prior to placement
in lifts over the sand backfill.
5.4 The controlled backfill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of
the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557-78
or the controlling governmental agency.
5.5 Fill density test and inspection of the backfill procedures shall be
made by the geotechnical consultant during backfilling to see that
tJp
.
.
proper moisture content and uniform compaction is being
maintained. The contractor shall provide test holes and exploratory
pits as required by the geotechnical consultant to enable sampling
and testing.
6.0 Gradino Control
6.1 Inspections of the fill placement shall be provided by the
geotechnical consultant during the progress of grading.
6.2 In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding
2 feet of fill height or every 500 cubic yards of fill placed. This
criterion will vary, depending on the soil condition and size of the
job. In any event, an adequate number of fill density tests shall be
made to verify that the compaction is being achieved.
6.3 Density tests should also be made on the surface material to
receive fills as required by the geotechnical consultant.
6.4 All c,leanup, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations,
subdrains, and rock disposals should be inspected and approved
by tlile geotechnical consultant prior to placing any fill. It shall be
the contractors responsibility to notify the geotechnical consultant
when such areas are ready for inspection.
7.0 Construction ,Consideration
7.1 Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by
the contractor during grading and prior to the completion and
construction of permanent drainage control.
':
7.2 Upon completion of grading and termination of inspectors by the
geotechnical consultant, no further filling or excavating, including
that necessary for footings, foundations, large tree wells, retaining
walls, or other features shall be performed without the approval of
the geotechnical consultant.
7.3 Care shall be taken by the contractor during final grading to
preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swells, or other
devices of permanent nature on or adjacent to the property,
v'\