HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 9833 Lot 2-5 Geotechnical Report & Compaction Results (2)
I
I
1
,~
~r' :~ .r-". G
d2'~li,j0,i:~ EN COf{~oration
-Soil Engineering and Consulting Services . EngineeringGeology. Compaction Testing
-Inspections. Construction Materials Testing . LaboraloryTesling- PercolalionTesting
-Geology.WalerAesourceStudies . Phase I & II EnviromllfJntal Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
1
I
1
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Goyal and Gupta Residences
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 959-010-001 and 959-010-004
Lots 2 and 5 of Tract 9833
Jedediah Smith Road and Calle de Velardo
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T3065-C
1
1
1
March 17. 2005
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Prepared for:
I
Paul Gupta
41636 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, California 92590
I>
::1,
;;;;:;;1""
~.
/ " ,-
, -"-:---:. :-'[:-~'~-'~' ..' .'-
- ,_ - \ " I ~ ,_ \ ~" , ,
, , ~ " '~ ,~ _,: ~J ~: ~,~ _- ~ 1_' " : ~) :.~ -
, -
~~.--_.
, "
- -
,
.. ,
, ,
.
,
, .-
- -
.. ,
.: .I
E lerp,!s.. Cirde'N rt , S.Vite 1, ]'emoo"la, CA 9~.590' phone:.l9091 ~96-2230' fax: (909) 296-2237
I E 2Ei1S:Orange A e] ue,Saill{Ana. CA 9~101 . phone: 11W 546-4051 . fax: (7"4) 546:405.~ .
B_~ITE: www.enel/corp.com.E-MAll:engencorp@engencorp.com- _ " - .'.- -,-
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr, Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-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.....,................,..........,..............................................,..................2
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 ...........,................,..........,...........................,......,...........3
3.0 SLOPE STABILITY ............................................................................................................. 3
3.1 FILL SLOPES ..................................,.......,..,............,...,...............,..,....,............,...,....3
3,2 CUT SLOPES ",. ", ". ,.. "...,..,.. ...,.,.. ,.. ". ", .". .... ,.. ",. ".. ". ..... ,.,..". .'., ,... ",.. "'.. ,... ". "".,3
4,0 TESTING,............,..,."...................,.............,......",...............,........................................... 4
4.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES ................,..............................,..................,...............,4
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 ..,..,.,........,.........,.............,....,...... ......,... .,.,. ,. ........,...,.........,...,........... 5
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,.,......... .........,.,...... ....................,.,...., ......... .,....... 5
6.1 GENERAL ............. '..... ..................... ...,...,.......... ...,............... ........,......... ........ .... ....5
7,0 CLOSURE,.......................,....."......,..""..,......,..,.".,....,.......,.....,.......,...,..".......,...,........... 5
APPENDIX:
TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
1---
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/l
, ~~:I,
i'~'...'I'~:',",
~t
~
I
..)'.....:L......:j~......~;",..""""E';::~GEN
UL~~?t;"~'._..;r-~_
-SOil Engineering and Consulling Services -Engineering Geology . CompaclionTesling
Cornoratl.On elnspectiorn-ConslruclionMalerialsTesting-laboratoryTesling-PercolationTesting
.l-':. . Geology.WalerResourceSludies . Phasel& II Environmental Site Assessmenls
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
March 17, 2005
Mr. Paul Gupta
41636 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula. California 92590
(951) 296-3397 I FAX (951) 296-3398
Attention:
Mr. Paul Gupta
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL REpORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Goyal and Gupta Residences
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 959-010-001 and 959-010-004
Lots 2 and 5 of Tract 9833
Jedediah Smith Road and Calle de Velardo
City of Temecula. County of Riverside, Califomia
Project Number: T3065-C
References: 1,
EnGEN Corporation Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Goyal and Gupta
Residence. Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 959-010-001 and 959-010-004. Lots
2 and 5 of Tract 9833, Jedediah Smith Road and Calle Velardo, City of
Temecula, County of Riverside. California, Project Number: T3065-GFS.
report dated January 28. 2004
2, Bratene Construction & Engineering. Precise Grading, Erosion and
Sediment Control Plans, Goyal and Gupta Residence, Lots 2 and 5 of Tract
Map No. 9833. Jedediah Smith Road, Temecula. California. plans dated
November 5. 2004.
Dear Mr. Gupta:
In accordance with 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 6.67 acres. located on the south side of
Jedediah Smith Road, south of the intersection of Jedediah Smith Road and Calle de
Velardo in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside. California.
: -
, ,
, -
" ,
'I' ~ __
~ \ - --
\ F""
, ,
\ '"'-
.r \ _ _ _ \ /
. '--
, ,
, '
, '
__ _ _ I ' _ _ i _
~~:~ :::~..::_~_;.:; _ 1__:, ~J~ :_1__'_ ~'--_--'-_! '-'~" _ .' _ __ ____' ____,__ _ _ ~-
. ,-:,..;::,..:.~Q~:..ii;i;:O.fflcE.41.~!T] E t~~p5ise Circle N rt , Suite 1; Iemeoula. CA 92590 "phone: (9091 296.2230' fax:.(9091296.2237
..:,. .. --ORANGE 'CbUNTY.O I E 2615.0range A e6ue, SanJa.Ana, CA 9,2107. . phQ!lO: (714! 546.4051 . fax: (7141546.4052
,- -,' ," .__.- _ ,,,8 SiTE: ~.en e1corp.c~~ . e-~AI:: engencorp@engehtorp.tom - _ __-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr, Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-C
March 2005
Page 2
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION
Prior to grading operations. topography and surface conditions of the site were gently and
moderately sloping with surface drainage to the north and south at gradients of
approximately 25 to 40 percent.
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
It is understood that the subject site is to be developed with two (2) single-family
residences with slab-an-grade concrete floors supported on conventional continuous and
pier footings. with associated driveway as well as hardscape and landscape improvements,
A tennis court will be constructed on Lot 2.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
2.1 TIME OF GRADING
This report represents geotechnical observations and testing during the construction
operations from August 6. 2004, through February 4. 2005,
2.2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT
The grading operations were performed by Lackey Grading through the use of one (1)
CAT 613 scraper. two (2) CAT D8 dozers. one (1) CAT D6 dozer, one (1) front-end loader.
one (1) backhoe, one (1) skip-loader. one (1) hand-operated vibratory compaction roller,
and one (1) water truck,
2.3 GRADING OPERATIONS
Grading within the subject site consisted of a cut/fill operation, Grasses and weeds were
removed prior to fill placement. Fill material was generated from the cut portions of the
site, and used to bring the fill portions of the pad and driveway areas to finish grade
elevation. Removal of alluvium, slopewash. etc,. was performed to a depth of 2 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 by a
representative of this firm.
Keying and benching into competent Pauba Formation bedrock was observed during the
grading operations, Overexcavation was performed in the cut and shallow portions of the
proposed structural footprints to a depth of 3-feet below finish grade elevation and to a
minimum distance of 5-feet outside the proposed structure. The exposed bottoms were
A..
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr, Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-C
March 2005
Page 3
scarified and moisture conditioned to a depth of 12-inches. then compacted to 90 percent.
Fill was placed in lens thicknesses of 6 to 8-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 areas were 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.
2.4 RETAINING WALL BACKFILL
Density testing of retaining wall backfill to date is included in this report, However. some
retaining wall backfill along the driveway still remains to be done, All retaining wall backfill
affecting the building pads has been completed and is reported herewith. A final report will
be prepared at the completion of the remainder of the retaining wall backfill.
3.0 SLOPE STABILITY
3.1 FILL SLOPES
The small cut slope at the top of the driveway entry to lot 2 was constructed as planned at
the slope ratio of 1: 1 , All other 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
the City of Temecula Grading Codes. The maximum height of fill slope covered in this
report is 29-feet.
3.2 CUT SLOPES
All cut slopes were constructed in substantial accordance with the plans at a slope ratio of
approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The cut slopes were surficially inspected by the
Project Geologist and consist of Pauba Formation bedrock. No adversely oriented joints or
-s
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr, Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-C
March 2005
Page 4
planes of weakness were observed during our inspection. It is our opinion that the cut
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, The maximum height of cut slope covered in this report is 29-feet.
4.0 TESTING
4.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES
Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed in general accordance
with ASTM D 2922-03 and ASTM D 3017-01 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.
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 1557-02 procedures,
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 was performed in
accordance with UBC 18-2. The material tested consisted of light-brown silty sand. which
has an Expansion Index of 0, This soil is classified as having a very low expansion
potential.
4.2.3 SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST
Based on this firm's familiarity with the soils used to construct the building pad. it is our
opinion that soluble sulfates are not a concern. and as a result, normal Type II cement can
be used in concrete making contact with the native soils.
~
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-C
March 2005
Page 5
5.0 EARTH MATERIALS
The natural earth materials encountered on-site generally consisted of light-brown to dark-
brown sand. with varying percentages of silt.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
No conditions were encountered which would cause a change in the previously provided
design and construction recommendations. As a result, design and construction should
adhere to the recommendations provided in the Referenced NO.1 "Feasibility Geotechnical
Study",
6.1 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. or as amended in the field based on conditions encountered, 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 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 pre-saturation. or other earthwork completed for the
development of the 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
1.
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Paul Gupta
Project Number: T3065-C
March 2005
Page 6
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.
Distribution: (4) Addressee
FILE: EnGEN/ReportinglCfT3065-C GoyaJ-Gupta, Rough Grading
EnGEN Corporation
e>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Goyal and Gupta Residence
Project Number; T3065-C
Appendix Page 1
APPENDIX:
TEST RESULTS
~
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
Goyal and Gupta Residence
Project Number: T3065-C
Appendix Page 2
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(Summary of Field In-Place Density Test Results)
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
I (S,G.) = Subgrade / (F,G,) = Finish Grade
lest
I Test Date Depth Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
No. (2004- Test Locations Elevation Soil Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
2005) (FT) (PCF) ('!o) (PCF) ('!o) ('!o)
I 1 08-06 Fill Slopes 1110 A1 127.6 11,9 117.9 92.4% 90,0%
2 08-06 Fill Slopes 1113 A1 127.6 11,3 118,6 92,9% 90,0%
I 3 08-06 Fill Slopes 1116 A1 127.6 12,7 117.2 91,8% 90,0%
4 08-09 Fill Slopes 1119 A1 127.6 10,2 118.2 92,6% 90,0%
5 08-09 Fill Slopes 1121 A1 127.6 9,7 117,6 92.2% 90,0%
I 6 08-09 Fill Slopes 1123 A1 127,6 12,1 120.0 94,0% 90,0%
7 08-09 Fill Slopes 1126 A1 127,6 10,6 118.1 92,6% 90,0%
I 8 08-09 Fill Slopes 1129 A1 127,6 9,9 116.9 91,6% 90,0%
9 08-10 Fill Slopes 1132 A1 127,6 11,1 118.7 93,0% 90,0%
10 08-10 Fill Slopes 1112 Ai 127,6 12.2 119.2 93,4% 90,0%
I 11 08-11 Fill Slopes 1115 Ai 127,6 10,9 119,6 93.7% 90,0%
12 08-11 Fill Slopes 1117 A1 127.6 10,0 118.4 92,8% 90,0%
I 13 08-11 Fill Slopes 1119 A1 127.6 11.2 118.2 92.6% 90.0%
14 08-11 Fill Slopes 1121 A1 127.6 9,5 119,0 93,3% 90,0%
15 08-12 Fill Slopes 1121 A1 127.6 12,2 117,8 92.3% 90.0%
I 16 08-12 Fill Slopes 1123 A1 127,6 9,9 120.2 94.2% 90,0%
17 08-12 Fill Slopes 1125 A1 127,6 10.2 119,5 93.7% 90,0%
I 18 08-13 Fill Slopes 1101 A1 127,6 10.2 118,9 93.2% 90,0%
19 08-13 Fill Slopes 1103 A1 127,6 11.2 119,3 93.5% 90,0%
20 08-16 Fill Slopes 1105 A1 127,6 9,3 120.2 94.2% 90,0%
I 21 08-16 Fill Slopes 1109 A1 127,6 10,5 119,3 93.5% 90,0%
22 08-16 Fill Slopes 1106 A1 127.6 11.2 121,1 94.9% 90,0%
I 23 08-16 Driveway 1103 A1 127,6 9,7 117,6 92,2% 90,0%
24 08-16 Driveway 1108 A1 127,6 10.3 118,2 92,6% 90,0%
I 25 08-17 Driveway 1112 A1 127,6 10.2 117,6 92.2% 90,0%
26 08-17 Fill Slope tennis 1155 A1 127,6 11.1 117.2 91.8% 90,0%
08-17 Fill Slope tennis 1159 A1 127,6 9,6 116,9 91,6% 90,0%
27
I 28 08-17 Fill Slope tennis 1150 A1 127,6 9,2 118,1 92,6% 90,0%
29 08-18 Fill Slope tennis 1160 A1 127,6 8.1 118,6 92,9% 90,0%
I 30 08-18 Fill Slope tennis 1164 A1 127,6 9,0 116,3 91,1% 90.0%
31 08-18 Fill Slope tennis 1166 A1 127,6 10,2 115,5 90,5% 90.0%
32 08-18 Fill Slope tennis 1168 A1 127,6 9.7 116,2 91.1% 90,0%
I 33 08-19 Fill Slope tennis 1170 A1 127,6 10.2 117.2 91,8% 90,0%
I
\0
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
Goyal and Gupta Residence
Project Number: T3065-C
Appendix Page 3
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(Summary of Field In-Place Density Test Results)
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
(S. G.) = Subgrade / (F, G,) = Finish Grade
Test Date
No, (2004-
2005)
Test Locations
Depth
Elevation Soil Type
(FT)
Max
Density
(PC F)
Moisture
Content
("!o)
Dry
Density
(PCF)
Relative
Compaction
("!o)
Required
Compaction
('!o)
34 08-19 Fill Slope tennis 1171 A1 127.6 11,3 115.1 90,2% 90,0%
35 08-19 Fill Slope tennis 1172 A1 127,6 12,1 116,0 90.9% 90,0%
36 08-19 Fill Slope tennis 1173 A1 127,6 9.4 115,7 90,7% 90,0%
37 10-14 Retaining Wall 1175 A1 127.6 11.2 116.7 91.5% 90,0%
38 10-14 Retaining Wall 1177 A1 127.6 10,7 118.2 92,6% 90,0%
I 39 10-14 Retaining Wall 1178 A1 127,6 8.4 115,3 90.4% 90.0%
40 10-14 Retaining Wall 1180 A1 127.6 9.4 116.2 91,1% 90,0%
I 41 01-18 Retaining Wall 1114 A1 127.6 10.4 120.3 94.3% 90,0%
42 01-18 Retaining Wall 1122 A1 127.6 10.2 119.4 93.6% 90,0%
43 01-18 Retaining Wall 1126 A1 127.6 11,0 121.2 95,0% 90.0%
I 44 01-18 Retaining Wall 1125 A1 127,6 11,7 120,7 94,6% 90,0%
45 01-18 Retaining Wall 1128 A1 127.6 10.3 120,0 94,0% 90,0%
I 46 01-19 Retaining Wall 1130 A1 127.6 9.1 115.2 90.3% 90,0%
47 01-19 Retaining Wall 1132 A1 127.6 8.9 116,1 91.0% 90,0%
48 01-20 Fill Slopes 1166 A1 127.6 9.1 117,1 91,8% 90,0%
I 49 01-20 Fill Slopes 1169 A1 127.6 10,3 118,2 92,6% 90,0%
50 01-20 . Fill Slopes 1168 A1 127.6 9,6 116.2 91.1% 90,0%
I 51 01-20 Retaining Wall 1126 A1 127.6 8,7 115.9 90.8% 90,0%
52 01-20 Retaining Wall 1126 A1 127,6 10,0 117,3 91,9% 90.0%
53 01-20 Retaining Wall 1128 A1 127,6 9,7 116,9 91,6% 90,0%
I 54 01-20 Retaining Wall 1129 A1 127.6 9,5 120.2 94.2% 90,0%
55 01-21 Fill Slopes 1171 A1 127.6 8,8 119.1 93.3% 90.0%
I 56 01-21 Fill Slopes 1174 A1 127.6 9.3 117.3 91,9% 90.0%
57 01-21 Fill Slopes 1176 A1 127,6 9.9 116,9 91,6% 90,0%
I 58 01-21 Fill Slopes 1165 A1 127,6 10.2 118,2 92,6% 90,0%
59 01-21 Fill Slopes 1166 A1 127.6 9,1 117.0 91.7% 90,0%
60 01-21 Fill Slopes 1136 A1 127.6 8.9 116.6 91.4% 90,0%
I 61 01-21 Fill Slopes 1137 A1 127.6 9,2 118.1 92.6% 90,0%
62 01-21 Retaining Wall 1131 A1 127.6 9,1 116.2 91,1% 90,0%
I 63 01-21 Retaining Wall 1132 A1 127.6 10.3 117,1 91,8% 90,0%
64 01-21 Retaining Wall 1134 A1 127.6 10.1 116,9 91,6% 90,0%
65 01-22 Fill Siopes 1139 A1 127,6 8.6 118,3 92,7% 90,0%
I 66 01-22 Fill Slopes 1140 A1 127,6 7,9 117,6 92.2% 90,0%
I
\\
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
Goyal and Gupta Residence
Project Number: T3065-C
Appendix Page 4
I (S, G.) = Subgrade / (F. G.) = Finish Grade
'''~.
I Test Date Depth Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
No. (2004- Test Locations Elevation Soil Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
2005) (FT) (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) ('10)
I 67 01-22 Fill Slopes 1143 Al 127.6 8,1 115.7 90,7% 90.0%
68 01-22 Fill Slopes 1144 A1 127.6 8.9 116,2 91.1% 90,0%
I 69 01-22 Fill Slopes 1169 Al 127,6 9,3 118,1 92,6% 90,0%
70 01-22 Fill Slopes 1170 Al 127.6 10,0 117.3 91.9% 90.0%
71 01-22 Fill Slopes 1176 Al 127,6 9.7 115.1 90,2% 90,0%
I 72 01-22 Fill Slopes 1178 Al 127.6 8,8 116,2 91.1% 90,0%
73 01-22 Fill Slopes 1146 Al 127.6 10,0 117,5 92.1% 90.0%
I 74 01-22 Fill Slopes 1148 A1 127,6 9.1 116.2 91.1% 90,0%
75 01-22 Fill Slopes 1150 Al 127,6 9,3 117,8 92,3% 90,0%
76 01-24 Retaining Wall 1180 A1 127,6 8,1 116,3 91.1% 90.0%
I 77 01-24 Retaining Wall 1170 Al 127.6 9.0 117.2 91,8% 90,0%
78 01-24 Retaining Wall 1181 Al 127,6 10.6 120,0 94.0% 90.0%
I 79 01-24 Fill Slopes 1152 Al 127.6 7,9 116,7 91.5% 90,0%
80 01-24 Fill Slopes 1153 Al 127.6 8.6 118,2 92,6% 90,0%
81 01-24 Fill Slopes 1156 A1 127,6 9.1 117,9 92.4% 90,0%
I 82 01-24 Fill Slopes 1176 Al 127,6 8,3 115.2 90.3% 90,0%
83 01-24 Fill Slopes 1172 Al 127.6 10,2 116.8 91,5% 90,0%
I 84 01-24 Fill Slopes 1174 Al 127,6 9.7 119.1 93,3% 90,0%
85 01-24 Fill Slopes 1175 Al 127,6 9,1 118.2 92.6% 90.0%
86 01-25 Fill Slopes 1158 Al 127.6 10.2 116,3 91.1% 90,0%
I 87 01-25 Fill Slopes 1160 Al 127.6 10.1 117.5 92,1% 90,0%
88 01-25 Fill Slopes 1162 A1 127,6 9.7 115.3 90.4% 90,0%
I 89 01-25 Fill Slopes 1177 Al 127,6 9,1 118,1 92.6% 90,0%
90 01-25 Fill Slopes 1178 Al 127,6 9.2 115.7 90,7% 90,0%
91 01-25 Fill Slopes 1180 Al 127.6 10.1 116.2 91.1% 90,0%
I 92 01-25 Fill Slopes 1164 A1 127.6 9,8 117.9 92.4% 90.0%
93 01-25 Fill Slopes 1165 A1 127,6 9.4 118.2 92.6% 90,0%
I 94 01-26 Retaining Wall 1182 Al 127,6 10,2 117.3 91,9% 90,0%
95 01-26 Fill Slopes 1180 Al 127.6 9.4 116.9 91.6% 90,0%
I 96 01-26 Fill Slopes 1166 Al 127.6 10.1 115,5 90,5% 90.0%
97 01-26 Fill Slopes 1167 Al 127,6 9.0 116,9 . 91.6% 90,0%
98 01-26 Fill Slopes 1169 Al 127,6 8.7 118,3 92,7% 90,0%
I 99 01-26 FiIi Slopes 1170 Al 127,6 9.2 120,1 94,1% 90,0%
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(Summary of Field In-Place Density Test Results)
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
I
\~
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
Goyal and Gupta Residence
Project Number: T3065-C
Appendix Page 5
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(Summary of Field In-Place Density Test Results)
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
(8 G) 8 b d / (F G) F.' h G d
= u gfa e = InlS fa e
..""
Test Date Depth Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
No, (2004- Test Locations Elevation Soil Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
2005) (FT) (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%)
100 01-26 Fill Slopes 1172 Al 127.6 10.3 117,6 92,2% 90,0%
101 01-26 Fill Slopes 1173 Al 127,6 7,9 118,1 92.6% 90,0%
102 01-26 Fill Slopes 1174 Al 127,6 10,1 119,6 93.7% 90,0%
103 01-26 Fill Slopes 1174 A1 127,6 9.2 118,1 92,6% 90,0%
104 01-27 Fill Slopes 1181 A2 127.2 10.2 116,7 91.7% 90,0%
I 105 01-27 Fill Slopes 1180 A2 127,2 8.1 115,9 91.1% 90.0%
106 01-27 Fill Pad 1181 A2 127,2 8,7 117.2 92,1% 90,0%
I 107 01-27 Fill Pad 1181 A2 127.2 9,1 118.0 92.8% 90,0%
108 01-31 Fill Parcel 1173 A2 127.2 10,6 116,2 91.4% 90,0%
109 01-31 Fill Parcel 1173 A2 127,2 10,9 118.1 92,8% 90,0%
I 110 02-01 Fill Slope tennis 1174 A2 127.2 10.1 115.7 91.0% 90.0%
111 02-01 Fill Slope tennis 1175 A2 127.2 9.9 116,1 91,3% 90,0%
I 112 02-01 Fill Parcel 1173 A2 127.2 10,6 116.8 91,8% 90,0%
113 02-01 Fill Parcel 1173 A2 127.2 11,1 117.3 92.2% 90,0%
114 02-03 Fill Pad 1181 A2 127.2 10.1 117.2 92.1% 90,0%
I 115 02-03 Parcel 5 FG A2 127,2 8.7 118.0 92,8% 90,0%
116 02-03 Parcel 5 FG A2 127.2 10,2 115,2 90,6% 90,0%
I 117 02-03 Parcel 5 FG A2 127.2 9,1 116,1 91.3% 90,0%
118 02-03 Parcel 5 FG A2 127.2 8.9 117.8 92,6% 90,0%
119 02-04, Parcel 2 FG A2 127.2 8.4 115.7 91.0% 90,0%
I 120 02-04 Parcel 2 FG A2 127.2 9,2 114,9 90,3% 90,0%
121 02-04 Parcel 2 FG A2 127,2 10,0 117.2 92,1% 90,0%
I 122 02-04 Parcel 2 FG A2 127.2 9,5 118,6 93.2% . 90,0%
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
Goyal Gupta Residence
Project Number: T3065.C
Appendix Page 6
SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557-02
Maximum Optimum
Soil Description (USeS Symbol) Soil Type Dry Density Moisture
(PCF) Content (%)
Silty Sand Dark Brown (SM) A1 127,6 9.9
Silty Sand Light Brown (SM) A2 127,2 9,4
Sand Light Brown (SP) A3 115,9 8.1
Sand Brown (SP) A4 117,0 14.1
Y\-
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Goyal and Gupta Residence
Project Number: T3065-C
Appendix Page 7
APPENDIX:
DRAWINGS
y6
EnGEN Corporation