HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3883 Lot 314 Geotechnical Rpt & Compaction Test Results
I ,F'-C\ L ''-. /'
.1 ~~1r~GEN
CorQoration
-Soil EngineeringandConsultingServices- EngineeringGeology-CompactionTesting
-Inspections- COn5tructionMaterialsTesting. Laboratory Testing . Percolation Testing
. Geology. Water Resource Studies . Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 __ --~\ ,
/;; . >- , "
- j
~-
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING AND RETAINING WALL BACKFILL OPERATIONS
Geyer Residence
Assessor's Parcel Number: 919-210-013
Lot 314 of Tract 3883
40570 Calle Fiesta
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2356-C
April 25, 2002
RECEIVED
JUN 2 0 2002
CITY OF TEMECU' A
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Prepared for:
Mr. & Mrs. Jim Geyer
40188 Starling Street
--~Temecula, California 92591
~.., ~
I.... / " / ' I" / 1"-
.' \ _ \ __ I... " \ _' _~ _~ \ -/ J "",'" _.... _ _ \ I / _ " , _.... _~ _~ \ - __ " , _' _' _.' \ -" :- ~ / / '. _' ._ _. \ / ......: _' \ - __ :: '
/ '--- I ' .... \ ~~ ..~_-; \ /~ ,~_-; '" - \' -/ ,'~ - ~/ \~--;~~~~_:,J--lt~~--~';"-=-lr~=-/~~->--
-; : 'I ~!, -' I ___--.,:.....1- ---:........ ,.___ ~~~11 :l i[
~-'--_-' : ~"",,,.,r'./ ,,"_.' __n." ..... ':-'",,;">:--ll.'.',." .... '. ".l!'..,.... Ii II
~~'-"dqQ,g..",&T]~El%~60 E~Il(~~~;.;N rt .~~~~.~.J~\\jllli'9i.o-ce-'~i~9();"On"'Jt~12.s~~230,..J~:J909)-296'2231 ...
ORANGE COUNTY 0 I I' 26150'8ngo A 0 UO, S..n.t~t-n~;CA9n07.p~Oho: (7)4)546'4051 . f~x: (714) 546-4052
_.~-: -:-~-;-;-;:- B SffE:-~;en e 6o~p.c~~-.E~MA1L~~engencorp@engOenc6rp-;-c6m-'-----'- - .- ~~--=..::..
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mr. & Mrs. Jim Geyer
Project Number: T2356-C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE
PAGE
1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION......................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ..........................................................................................................1
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION .............................. .............................. ........... ................1
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................... ........... ...............2
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ..............................................................................................................2
2.1 TIME OF GRADING ............ ............................... ............................. .............................2
2.2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT .............................. .................... ............ .......2
2.3 GRADING OPERATIONS......... ............................. .................................2
2.4 RETAINING WALL BACKFILL OPERATIONS ................................... .............. .........3
3.0 SLOPE ST ABILITY ..................................................... ........ ..... ........ ...... ... ... ....... ... .......... ....3
3.1 FILL SLOPES.......................... ................ ...... ....................... ..............................................3
32 CUT SLOPES.............. ......................................................... ............................................3
4.0 TESTING ................. ......... ... ... ................... ........ ..... ........ .......... ............ ......... ... ... ........ ......3
4.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES ....................................................... ....................................3
4.2 LABORATORY TESTING ....... ....................................................... ............. ................. ......4
4.2.1 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST .... ............. ............... ..........4
4.2.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST ......................... .................... ..............................4
4.2.3 SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST ............................................................................4
5.0 EARTH MATERIALS ............... ........................................... ........ ..... ... ...... ... ..................... ...4
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. ................. ....... ......4
6.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................4
6.2 FOUNDATION SiZE........ ........... ... ... ... ..... ... ... ....... ............................. ......... .............. ...........5
6.3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT ........................................................ ................. ..........................5
6.4 BEARING CAPACITY ....................................................... ............... ............................5
6.5 SETTLEMENT .............................................................. ..................... .......................... ....6
6.6 LATERAL CAPACiTy........................................ ... .......... .................................. ....................6
6.7 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS..................................... ................. ........................6
6.8 INTERIOR SLABS .................. ...... ........ ........ ... .................... ............. ...................................7
6.9 EXTERIOR SLABS .......... ......................................................... ............... .................7
6.10 GENERAL ............................... ........ ...................................................................... 7
7.0 CLOSURE .................................................................. ..... ................... ... .......... ........... ... ....8
ApPENDIX
TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
\
I "FV\, '1, /"
1 ~~BGEN Cornoratl" on :~~~~~i~:;i~go~~u~~~~U~~~r~~T~S~i:gE~g~::~~~~~~~~~g..Cp~=~::~~~~::~~
~ ,.,....".._ .t-: -GeoIDlly.WaterResourceStudies . Phasel& II Environmental Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 ~-
r-:
, /
/[
April 25, 2002
Mr. & Mrs. Jim Geyer
40188 Starling Street
Temecula, California 92591
(909) 587-2634 I FAX (909) 676-7240
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING AND RETAINING WALL BACKFILL OPERATIONS
Geyer Residence
Assessor's Parcel Number: 919-210-013
Lot 314 of Tract 3883
40570 Calle Fiesta
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2356~C
References:
1.
EnGEN Corporation, Limited Geotechnical Study, Proposed Single Family
Residence, Tract 3883, Lot 314, Calle Fiesta, City of Temecula, County of
Riverside, California, Project Number: T2356-LGS, report dated September 12,
2001.
2.
JP Group Civil Engineering, Precise Grading Plan, Lot 314 of Tract 3883,
Sheet 2 of 3, plans dated March 4, 2002.
Dear Mr, Geyer:
According to your request and signed authorization, EnGEN Corporation has performed field
observations, sampling, and in-place density testing at the above referenced site. Submitted, herein,
are the test results and the supporting field and laboratory data.
1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The subject site consists of approximately one acre, located southeast of the intersection of
Calle Fiesta and Via Norte, in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California.
1.2
SITE DESCRIPTION
Prior to grading oper.ations, topography and surface conditions of the site were moderately
/ sloping, with surface draina;;-e to the southeast at a gradient of less than30 percent.
. . ~ .
-,
,
/.... /.... ,. /.... I" _ / " ~ ~ I _' "/" ,~ _ / / " ," I "_ ~ / " 'J / " _ /...., ,/ _'" _ . , I
"' \_ _.. \.... ,_ __. \ __ I," \_ __ \ 'i" ,_ __ \ '- ~ / '" \_ __ \ '-- ~ i / ,_ _ \,..."'- I ~ ,_ .__ \.... ,-' I.-
\ '_'~'_-I ....: ~~\~__-I \ .... _~ ~~\~_-; \ /" - \ '/\~--i " ,,\ '_\~_-:~.;'_~_:)-;r'-;:'~-:"~-=-;r~~~~-:--~'
, / I ~ I, ,! I I \ I ~_ I, -"____...,;:.....1- .:.....:-..." __.' ..-...:........-,.':,..,...,..-.lr-:-; - . Ii -' 11
7"--......~___7':"' \_ _,~-::-"77~-ll:_,'_::___lr::..,_,-'-_"c>tn--: ,-.:._._,::_,' ':ll :::. _, ,", ,',_ ,:H' "_, II
-J,.:"" :C~~,,~~iP~~6i! E i~m,~~ik'N rt ,-,~uile*.J:#:>l!f'~I"~A""92~90c.-!i>h6,,,,~gpl~~,m(jiA~x-,,-(9Q91296'2237c ,-;. "07
!:J.I1..~~~E.:COUN~~ 1~2?J50rangeA e ue, S~nl.a",na,S",~~7Q?ph9ne'(7H).546.4Q51.J"~: PHI 546-4Q52 Z.
B ~SlTE:'www,en e corp~co':Tl";'.~~1:Al[:'~ngen~~rp@engenc6-rp:ciini-;"'--'--'---'-~----. --- . ~-- --- ~.
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mr. & Mrs. Jim Geyer
Project Number: T2356-C
April 2002
Page 2
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Per the referenced precise grading plan for the project site, it is understood that the subject
site is to be developed with a two-story single family residence with slab-on-grade concrete
floors supported on conventional continuous and pier footings, surrounded by retaining
walls, parking and landscape areas.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
2.1 TIME OF GRADING
This report represents geotechnical observations. and testing during the construction
operations from March 5, 2002 through April 4, 2002.
2.2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT
The grading and retaining wall backfill operations "'iere performed by Titan Engineering
,
through the use of two (2) track-mounted dozers, one (1) trackhoe, several dump trucks,
one (1) vibratory compactor, and one (1) water truck.
2.3 GRADING OPERATIONS
Grading within the subject site consisted of a cut/fill operation and imported fill placement
operation. Grasses and weeds were removed prior to fill placement. Fill material was
generated from the northwestern portions of the site, and used to bring the southeastern
portions of the site to finish grade elevation. Removal of alluvium, slopewash, etc., was
performed to a depth of up to 4-feet below original elevation. Overexcavated earth material
was stockpiled and later used as fill. Bottoms were Observed, probed and found to be into
competent Pauba Formation bedrock by a representative of this firm. Keying and benching
into competent bedrock was observed during the grading operations. Overexcavation was
performed in the cut portion of the building pad to a depth of 4.0-feet below finish grade
elevation and to a distance of 5-feet outside the proposed structure. The exposed bottoms
were scarified and moisture conditioned to a depth of 12-inches then compacted to 90
percent. Fill was placed in lens thicknesses of 2 to 4-inches, thoroughly moisture
conditioned to near optimum moisture content, then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent
relative compaction. Moisture conditioning of the on-site soils was performed during the
compaction process. through the use of a water truck. The pad area was generally graded
to the elevations noted on the Grading Plan. However, the actual pad location,
dimensions. elevations, slope locations and inclinations, etc. were surveyed and staked by
others and should be verified by the Project Civil Engineer.
EnGEN Corporation .3>>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Jim Geyer
Project Number: 12356-C
April 2002
Page 3
2.4 RETAINING WALL BACKFILL OPERATIONS
Following grading and fill placement operations, Vendura type retaining walls were
constructed on the lower (eastern) portions of the site. Prior to backfill placement, a back
drain was installed and verified by a representative of this firm. Backfill material was
placed in lens thicknesses of 2 to 4-inches, thoroughly moisture conditioned to near
optimum moisture content, then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative
compaction. A representative of this firm verified placement of posi-dura and geogrid
reinforcement during the backfill operations.
3.0 SLOPE STABILITY
3.1 FILL SLOPES
All design fill slopes were constructed in substantial accordance with the plans at a slope
ratio of approximately 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical). It is our opinion that the fill slopes as
constructed 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. The maximum height of fill slope covered in this report is forty (40) feet.
3.2 CUT SLOPES
Cut slopes of any significance were not observed during our grading observations on the
subject site.
4.0 TESTING
4.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES
Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed in general accordance
with ASTM D 2922-96 and ASTM D 3017-96 procedures for determining in-place density
and moisture content, respectively, using nuclear gauge equipment. Relative compaction
test results were within the 90 percent required for all material tested, which is an indication
that the remainder of the fill placed has been properly compacted. Test results are
presented in the Appendix of this report. Fill depths and test locations were determined
from review of the referenced grading plans.
EnGEN Corporation 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Jim Geyer
Project Number: T2356-C
April 2002
Page 4
4.2 LABORATORY TESTING
The following laboratory tests were performed as part of our services during the grading of
the subject site. The test results are presented in the Appendix of this report.
4.2.1 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
Maximum dry density - optimum moisture content relationship tests were conducted on
samples of the materials used as fill. The tests were performed in general accordance with
ASTM D 1557-91 (1998) procedures. The test results are presented in the Appendix
(Summary of Optimum Moisture Content/Maximum Dry Densi.lY Relationship Test Results).
4.2.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST
A soil sample was obtained for expansion potential testing from the building pad area upon
completion of rough grading of the subject site. The expansion test procedure utilized was
the Uniform Building Code'Test Designation 18-2. The material tested consisted of brown
to light brown silty sand with minor amounts of clay which has an Expansion Index of 17.
This soil is classified as having a very low expansion potential. The results are presented
in the Appendix (Summary of Expansion Index Test Results).
4.2.3 SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST
Soil samples were obtained for soluble sulfate testing from the building pad areas upon
completion of grading of the subject site. The concentration of soluble sulfate was
determined in general accordance with California Test Method 417 procedures. The test
results indicate a low percentage of water-soluble sulfates (0.0220% by weight), as a result
no sulfate resistant concretes are necessary. The test results are presented in the
Appendix (Summary of Soluble Sulfate Test Results).
5.0 EARTH MATERIALS
The natural earth materials encountered on-site generally consisted of brown silty sand
with minor amounts of clay. The imported material tested on-site and observed at the
borrow site consisted of light brown silty sand with minor amounts of clay.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conllentional column footings and
continuous wall footings founded upon properly compacted fill. The recommendations
presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and construction are based
on geotechnical characteristics and a very low expansion potential for the supporting soils
EnGEN Corporation S'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Jim Geyer
Project Number: T2356-C
April 2002
Page 5
and should not preclude more restrictive structural requirements. The Structural Engineer
for the project should determine the actual footing width and depth to resist design vertical,
horizontal, and uplift forces based on the following results of inspection and material
testing:
The following seismic design parameters apply:
Type of Fault: Type B Fault
Closest Distance to Active Fault: 3.5 Km
Soil Profile Type: So
6.2 FOUNDATION SIZE
Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches. Continuous footings
should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of one (1) NO.4 steel reinforcing bar
located near the top and one (1) NO.4 steel 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 garage door openings and other doorway entrances.
6.3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT
Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill should extend to a
minimum depth of 12-inches for single-story structures and 18-inches below lowest
adjacent finish grade for two-story structures. The foundations should be founded in
properly compacted fill with a minimum of 24-inches of compacted fill below the bottom of
the footings.
6.4 BEARING 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 1,500 psf for continuous footings and 1,500 psf for
column footings in properly compacted fill material. The allowable bearing value has a
EnGEN Corporation tD'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Jim Geyer
Project Number: T2356-C
April 2002
Page 6
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.
6.5 SETTLEMENT
Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values for continuous and
column footings, respectively, and the maximum assumed wall and column loads are not
expected to exceed a maximum settlement of D.5-inch or a differential settlement of 0.25-
inch in properly compacted fill.
6.6 LATERAL CAPACITY
Additional foundation design parameters based on compacted fill for resistance to static
lateral forces, are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Compacted Fill- 150 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 and/or dynamic loading, such as
wind or seismic forces. For the calculation of passive earth resistance, the upper 1.0-foot
of material should be neglected unless confined by a concrete slab or pavement. The
maximum recommended allowable passive pressure is 5.D times the recommended design
value.
6.7 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 18-1-8 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 water/cement ratio) of
the concrete and/or improper curing procedures used during either hot or cold weather
EnGEN Corporation 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Jim Geyer
Project Number: T2356-C
April 2002
Page 7
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 in accordance with Section 5.1 of
this report.
6.8 INTERIOR SLABS
Interior concrete slab-on-grade may be a minimum of 4-inches nominal in thickness and be
underlain by a properly prepared subgrade. Slab reinforcement may consist of 10 gauge
wire mesh (in sheets).
The reinforcing should be placed at mid-depth in the slab. The concrete section and/or
reinforcing steel should be increased appropriately for anticipated excessive or
concentrated floor loads. In areas where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated
over the slab, we recommend the use of a polyethylene vapor barrier with a minimum of
6.0 mil in thickness be placed beneath the slab. The moisture barrier should be overlapped
or sealed at splices and covered by a 1.0-inch minimum layer of clean, moist (not
saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures.
6.9 EXTERIOR SLABS
All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks, etc., with the
exception of PCC pavement) should be a minimum of 4-inches nominal in thickness.
Reinforcing in the slabs and the use of a compacted sand or gravel base beneath the slabs
should be according to the current local standards. Subgrade soils should be moisture
conditioned to at least optimum moisture content to a depth of 6.0-inches and proof
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM 0 1557-91
(1998) procedures immediately before placing the concrete.
6.10 GENERAL
Based on the observations and tests performed during grading, the subject site, in the
areas noted as test locations, has been completed in accordance with the Referenced No.
1 Report, the project plans and the Grading Code of the City of Temecula. The graded
site, in the areas noted as graded, is determined to be adequate for the support of a typical
residential development. Any subsequent grading for development of the subject property
should be performed under engineering observation and testing performed by EnGEN
Corporation. Subsequent grading includes, but is not limited to, any additional fill
EnGEN Corporation 8.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Jim Geyer
Project Number: T2356-C
April 2002
Page 8
placement and excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition,
EnGEN Corporation should observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be
made prior to installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel so as to verify and/or
modify, if necessary, the conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations of
overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement
subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other earth work
completed for the development of subject site should be performed by EnGEN
Corporation. If any of the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions
are not performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the safety and performance of the
development is limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by
EnGEN Corporation.
7.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described above.
It mayor may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes. The findings
and recommendations expressed in this report are based on field and laboratory testing
performed during the rough grading operation and on generally accepted engineering
practices and principles. No further warranties are implied or expressed beyond the direct
representations of this report.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services. If you should have any questions
regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience.
Geotechnical Representative
Respectfully submitted,
I EnGEN Corporation
I ~A.rn~~
I
I
I
I
I
JDG/OB:hh
Distribution:
(4) Addressee
FILE: EnGEN/Reporting/C1T2356-C Geyer, Rough Grading
EnGEN Corporation <1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Jim Geyer
Project Number: T2356-C
Appendix Page 1
APPENDIX:
TEST RESULTS
EnGEN Corporation \c)
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Jim Geyer
Project Number: T2356-C
Appendix Page 2
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(Summary of Field In-Place Density Test Results)
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
(5. G.) = 5ubgrade / (F. G.) = Finish Grade
I Test Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
No. Date Test Locations Elevation Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
(2002) (FT) (PC F) (%) (PCF) (%) (%)
I 1 03-06 Lower Keyway Fill 148 A1 128.6 10.9 119.7 93.1% 90.0%
2 03-06 Lower Keyway Fill 149 A1 128.6 9.6 117.1 91.1% 90.0%
I 3 03-06 Lower Keyway Fill 150 A1 128.6 11.3 118.5 92.1% 90.0%
4 03-07 East Keyway Fill 153 A1 128.6 11.0 117.0 91.0% 90.0%
5 03-07 East Keyway Fill 155 A1 128.6 9.9 116.4 90.5% 90.0%
I 6 03-08 East Keyway Fill 158 A1 128.6 11.7 116.9 90.9% 90.0%
7 03-11 East Fill Slope 160 A1 128.6 9.7 118.0 91.8% 90.0%
I 8 03-11 East Fill Slope 162 A1 128.6 10.6 115.9 90.1% 90.0%
9 03-12 East Fill Slope 160 A1 128.13 9.2 117.1 91.1% : 90.0%
10 03-12 Lower Keyway (South) 154 A1 128.6 9.8 116.5 90.6% 90.0%
I 11 03-12 South Fill Slope 156 A1 128.6 9.0 116.9 90.9% 90.0%
12 03-13 East Fill 164 A1 128.6 9.0 116.7 90.7% 90.0%
I 13 03-13 East Fill 166 A1 128.6 10.6 117.9 91.7% 90.0%
14 03-13 East Fill 168 A1 128.6 9.7 116.3 90.4% 90.0%
15 03-14 South Fill 170 A2 121.5 10.7 111.4 91.7% 90.0%
I 16 03-14 SE Fill 172 A2 121.5 11.2 112.7 92.8% 90.0%
17 03-14 SE Fill 174 A2 121.5 10.9 110.7 91.1% 90.0%
I 18 03-14 South Fill 176 A2 121.5 11.7 109.7 90.3% 90.0%
19 03-15 South Fill 178 A2 121.5 11.0 112.7 92.8% . 90.0%
20 03-15 SE Fill 180 A2 121.5 11.7 115.0 94.7% 90.0%
I 21 03-15 South Fill 182 A2 121.5 10.2 112.0 92.2% 90.0%
22 03-18 House Pad Fill 182 A3 130.7 9.5 118.8 90.9% 90.0%
I 23 03-18 House Pad Fill 183 A3 130.7 9.2 117.9 90.2% . 90.0%
24 03-19 House Pad 184 A3 130.7 8.6 118.7 90.8% . 90.0%
25 03-19 House Pad 185 A3 130.7 8.4 119.5 91.4% 90.0%
I 26 03-20 House Pad 186 A3 130.7 9.2 117.2 89.7% 90.0%
27 03-20 House Pad F.G. A3 130.7 9.6 118.3 90.5% 90.0%
I 28 03-20 Slope Face F.G. A3 130.7 9.0 119.8 91.7% 90.0%
29 03-20 Retest #26 186 A3 130.7 8.1 118.0 90.3% 90.0%
30 03-27 Lower Wall +2 A3 130.7 9.6 117.6 90.0% 90.0%
I 31 03-27 Retest #30 +2 A3 130.7 9.1 118.5 90.7% 90.0%
32 03-29 Retaining Wall +4 A3 130.7 7.2 118.6 90.7% 90.0%
I 33 03-29 Retaining Wall +4 A3 130.7 8.9 118.3 90.5% 90.0%
I
EnGEN Corpomtion \1
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Jim Geyer
Project Number: T2356-C
Appendix Page 3
I (5. G.) = Subgrade / (F. G.) = Finish Grade
Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
I Test Date Test Locations Elevation Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
No. (2002) (FT) Type (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%)
I 34 04-01 Wall SF Lower Wall +6 A1 128.6 10.1 113.9 88.6% 90.0%
35 04-01 Retest #34 +6 A1 128.6 9.6 116.9 90.9% 90.0%
36 04-01 Wall SF Lower Wall +6 A1 128.6 8.9 116.5 90.6% 90.0%
I 37 04-02 Wall SF (Slope) +8 A1 128.6 10.5 116.8 90.8% 90.0%
38 04-02 Wall SF (Slope) +2 A1 128.6 9.1 117.4 91.3% 90.0%
I 39 04-03 Wall SF (N) -2 A1 128.6 11.1 116.6 90.7% 90.0%
40 04-03 Wall SF (S) +2 A1 128.6 10.3 117.3 91.2% 90.0%
41 04-03 Slope (S) -1 A1 128.6 9.5 117.9 91.7% 90.0%
I 42 04-04 Wall SF (Upper) : +2 A1 128.6 8.4 113.9 88.6% 90.0%
04-04 Wall SF (Upper) +2 A1 128.6 8.5 116.5 90.6% 90.0%
43
I 44 04-04 Retest #42 +2 A1 128.6 8.2 121.0 94.1% 90.0%
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(Summary of Field In-Place Density Test Results)
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EnGEN Corporation ,,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Jim Geyer
Project Number: T2356-C
Appendix Page 4
SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557-91 (1998)
Soil Description (USCS Symbol) Soil Type Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture
Density (PCF) Content (%)
Brown Silty Sand (SM) A1 128.6 9.3
Light Brown Silty Sand (SM) A2 * 121.5 12.7
Brown Silty Sand (SM) A3 *' 130.7' 9.6
* Indicates imported material from Church site.
** Indicates imported material from KHOV site.
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
UBC 18-2
Dry Moisture Moisture
Condition Condition Expansion
Soil Type Depth (FT) Density Before Test After Test Index
(pct) (%) (%)
E-1 1.5 118.2 8.8% 15.5% 17
SUMMARY OF SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
Location Soil Type % By Weight
Building Pad E-1 0.0220
\'0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Jim Geyer
Project Number: T2356-C
Appendix Page 5
APPENDIX:
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Curporation ~