HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 9833-3 Lot 23 Geotechnical Report
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1,-"""",<,
#'1'''''<<
".
~
""!~GEN
""''''lllliit>!~:-_
COrRoration
. Soil EngineeringandConwltingServices- EngineerlngGeology-CompactionTesling
-Inspections- COllSlruc\ionMalerialsTeslillg-laboraloI'1Testinll. PeH;lllationTeslifIQ
-Geology. Waler ResourceSludies . Phasel&IIEnvironmentalSiteAssessrneots
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Lot 23 of Tract 9833-3
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
LD 98-163GR
Project Number: T1721-C
November 24, 1999
Prepared for:
Santiago Estates, LLC
41965 Winchester Road
Temecula, California 92590
jf-J.sp, ~
~ ,
.' \ - - - \
"",' -.'
I'
.' / " J ~ / _
I __ \ _ _ _ \ 'I.'
"' - ~,'-
"I _'':'' .
I'
?"",~,,,,,,,,.._......
" ' ~. \ '_ '~~:,_,:~~;,,,~~,~~,,,::~~~~'-";~,-.t,t'0~':~.;:-:>f:-:L
_.JllretiilWlfEiitjji;- ~tiil ~ Q:;j ~~; ~ie'f,':,~,;#. r;,~y ~"~ ~> l~'
___....II.__.......liiIi;..a.Iil';I;."~iI%lt"'.~.>..,."j;;i;.,.'".. t t,>.,;,.,. r"_
-----c!..----------..~:tj~)i.9:~~}r~~:i29'i~'::~1~. ;..-
,-~I~~~{,1N~~~~~?~~ '
, -
,
III
IJ
,
,
,
,
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Santiago Estates, LLC
Project No: T1721-C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE
PAGE
1.0 SITe/PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ......................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION...... ... .............. ........ .......... ........ ... ..... ............ ........ ..... ............... .........1
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION. ... ...... ..... ..... ..... ......... .......... ....... ................... .......... .... ........ .........1
1.3 SITE DESCRIPTION... ...... ...... .... ...... ....... ....... .... ............ .... ............ .... .... .... ........... ... ...... .....1
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ,.............................................................................................................2
2.1 TIME OF GRADING..... .c...... ........,.. ......... ...... ..... ........ .... .... ...... ...... .... ....... ..... ....... ... ...........2
2,1 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT ......................................................................................,...2
2.2 GRADING OPERATIONS.... ... .... ...... ...... ... ....... .... ........ .... ... ....... ...... .... .... ... ......:.... .......... .....2
3.0 TESTING ...............,...........................................................................................................3
3.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES ............................................................................................3
3.1.1 LABORATORY TESTING.............................................. .................................3
3.1.2 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST ....................................................3
3.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST... ... .... ... ......... ....... .... .... .......... ..... ...... ..... .... .... ....... ........ ... ........ ...3
4,0 EARTH MATERIALS ...........................................................................................................3
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................3
5.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................3
5.2 FOUNDATION SIZE.............................................................................................................4
5.3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT. ... .......... ...... ........ ...... ..... ..... ... .... ................. .... ........... ... ...............4
5.4 BEARING CAPACiTY........... ...... .... ... ........... ..... ..... ..... .... .... ...... ..... ..... .... ........ ... ... .... ...... .....4
5.5 SETTLEMENT ......... ........ ... ........... ... ............ ..... ... ......... .... ...... .......... ....... ........... .... ........ ...4
5.6 LATERAL CAPACiTY.......,.... ............. ..... ........ .... .... ........ .... ....... ......... .... .... ................ .........5
5.7 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................ 5
5.8 INTERIOR SLABS.................................. .......... ............................ .............. .........................6
5.9 EXTERIOR SLABS............. ........... ................... .................... ........ .................. ........ ..... ........6
5.10 GENERAL .................................................................................................................6
6.0 CLOSURE ......................................................................................................................... 7
ApPENDIX
TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
']..
I I .,. , .
I ~GEN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Corporation
-Soil EngineeringandConsutlingServices. Engineering GeolllllY. COt1'4lactionTeslirlg
-lnspeclions-ConslruclionMaletialsTesting-laboraloryTesting. PercolalionTesling
. Geology-WaterResoorceStudies . Phasel&1I Environmental Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
November 24, 1999
Santiago Estates, LLC
41965 Winchester Road
Temecula, California 92590
(909) 693-1430 / FAX (909) 693-1429
Attention:
ML Max Harrison
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Lot 23 of Tract 9833-3
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
LD 98-163GR
Project Number: T1721-C
Reference:
Robert Dentino, R.C.E., Rough Grading Plan, Lot 23 of Tract 9833-3, plans
dated January 22, 1999,
1,
Dear Mr. Harrison:
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 2,25 acres, located northwest of the intersection
of Jedediah Smith Road and Calle De Velardo, in the City of Temecula, County of
Riverside, California,
1.2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Prior to grading operations, topography and surface conditions of the site were gently to
moderately sloping with surface drainage to the south drainage channel at a gradient of
less than ten (10) percent
1.3
SITE DESCRIPTION
It is understood that the SUbject site is to be developed with a single family residence
slab-on-grade concrete floors.
with
'/ "'- ",1_'
/ \ - - ~ \"
- ~,' - /
"/ ..... /,/ '
I,. ,___
I
/ " ,~ -
, /' ,- -- \
" .
\ - \ -
- - I _~ _
1'- . \
I'
'~ ,
" ,
-- \ ,"
" - "- - ,- '-
\ . , . , ::.....>.""','1-~;;:'.?t-"f;". ?>,:t. ~'...-: '__ . ' ~,_
" , -- :::-...L"......'" ;:::-,.'__;i-...~iZ~::'.~~~',:~:' ~::'~:. ;,:: :;:,~,': :~. ;':': ~:: ,,:: .<:. '" __.
...JlltiUSltBiIf.H.tih&Jf.ti~ti;~iriv;:$'-t.:;; :f::r~ f;,.t::' ::-" ::::::> ,;, -,,:,~,- -.,;,: ,-/r: Ii
__.._..._II'l..__._..~5ta:~R~b< ~....l"",,_.,.,,;,~r;;<HF h; t'"' ",.;"<,;,,, ,. ~." c;.
-----_....__.._----_...""'-~"'._-_......,-..,_.",..."..,,""-.~""<,._'_. --..~-~
- 0IDi ;:;(~O~r~a:3f,9~. .~ -"
x:J71!i)'S46-,40S2, ' .
'"" -:;""-1fSf<: ~i"", ~-~,
, -
, . -
. -
,
" ,
, .'
~ --- i
:...-":: "
" -- i
~ -- I
._~---_..~.,I...
III
..
11
LI
II
II
,
III
i'
11
11
III
-
,
.,
-
,
,
,
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.2
Santiago Estates, LLC
Project No: T1721-C
November 1999
Page 2
SCOPE OF WORK
TIME OF GRADING
This report represents geotechnical observations and testing during the construction
operations from February 2, 1999 through June 24, 1999.
CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT
The grading operations were performed by Southwestern Construction through the use
of one (1) Cat. D6 track-mounted dozer, one (1) Cat. 613C self-loading scraper, one (1)
Cat. 12G motor-grader, and one (1) water truck.
GRADING OPERATIONS
Grading within the subject site consisted of an overexcavation and replacement and
imported fill placement operation. Grasses and weeds were removed prior to fill placement.
Fill material was generated during the overexcavation of the site, and from importation.
Removal of alluvium, slopewash, undocumented fill etc., was performed to a depth of 12-
feet below original elevation at the southern toe of the slope below where remnants of
sandbags and visqueen were uncovered. Overexcavation followed the topography,
becoming more shallow to the northern end where it reached a minimum depth of 3-feet
below original elevation. Over-excavated earth material was stockpiled and later used as
fill. Bottoms were observed, probed and found to be into competent soil by a
representative of this firm. Keying and benching into competent soil was observed during
the grading operations. 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 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 area was not graded to the elevations noted on the Grading Plan. Based
on the staking performed in the field during grading operations, the pad elevation is
approximately three (3) vertical feet below proposed elevations. 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 A..
LI
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Santiago Estates, LLC
Project No: T1721-C
November 1999
Page 3
3.0 TESTING
3.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES
Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed in general accordance
with ASTM-D-2922-81 (90) and ASTM-D-3017-88 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 placed and
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.
3.1.1 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.
3.1.2 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 D1557-91 procedures. The test results are presented in the Appendix (Summary of
Optimum Moisture Content I Maximum Dry Density Relationship Test Results).
3.2 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 silty
sand and sand, which has an Expansion Index of O. This soil is classified as having a very
low expansion potential. The results are presented in the Summary of Expansion Index
Results in the Appendix of this report.
4.0 EARTH MATERIALS
The natural earth materials encountered on-site, generally consisted of brown, silty sand
and tan sand. The imported earth materials consisted of brown silty sand.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional 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
EnGEN Corporation 1i
-
-
III
II
LI
,
,
III
~ III
I,
,
11
LI
11
III
LI
II
LI
LI
5.2
5.3
5.4
Santiago Estates, LLC
Project No: T1721-C
November 1999
Page 4
on geotechnical characteristics and a very low expansion potential for the supporting soils
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.
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 rninimize 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.
DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT
Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill should extend to a
minimum depth of 12-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for the structure. The
foundations should be founded in properly compacted fill with a minimum of 24-inches of
compacted fill below the bottom of the footings.
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
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.
5.5
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 0.5-inches or a differential settlement of
0.25-inches in properly compacted fill.
EnGEN Corporation ~
I
I
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
I
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
5,6
5.7
Santiago Estates, LLC
Project No: T1721-C
November 1999
Page 5
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 have safety factors of at least
2.0 incorporated into them 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 5.0 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 water/cement ratio) of
the concrete and/or 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.
EnGEN Corporation 1
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
I
I
,
J
Santiago Estates, LLC
Project No: T1721-C
November 1999
Page 6
5,8 INTERIOR SLABS
Interior concrete slab-on-grade may be a minimum of 4-inches in actual thickness and be
underlain by a properly prepared subgrade. Slab reinforcement may consist of 6 gauge
wire mesh (in sheets), supported on cement blocks for proper placement.
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.
5.9 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
procedures immediately before placing aggregate base material or placing the concrete.
5.10 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 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
EnGEN Corporation to
LI
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Santiago Estates, LLC
Project No: T1721-C
November 1999
Page 7
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.
6.0
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.
Respectfully submitted,
EnGEN Corporation
., ~ D~,.cyl4l-
, field Operations Manager
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
JDG/OB:ch
~..,o";:',~
'Y\,"\()r!:~VtOp~
- ~ /~~?'(.~~
1/",~v~\j\\N BIT4~~ <',;~"
_.w. ~ I'k \~e\\
/:;,:' C::i '1-' \~~:"",\
f(;:~ <:> <<'Ii,
\\f,j No. 162 ) ~J.1
- -.".f
\* ..~ J.~
~. (!: 'v/ ','
~ ~/"' ..
\<J/:/:O"f~W\\\C>': "
"~C{g~j~~J;/
Distribution: (4) Addressee
FILE: EnGEN/Reporting/CIT1381C1 Santiago Estates, LLC, Rough Grading Report
EnGEN Corporation q,
t
I,
.,
.,
,
.,
.,
.,
,
.,
.,
.,
,
,
,
I
II
,
I
APPENDIX:
FIELD TEST RESULTS
Santiago Estates, LLC
Project No: T1721-C
Appendix Page 1
EnGEN Corp~ratioD \0
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Santiago Estates, LLC
Project No: T1721-C
Appendix Page 2
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(Summary of Field In-Place Density Test Results)
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
(s. G. = Subgrade / F. G. = Finish Grade)
Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
Test
No. Date Test Locations Elevation Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
(1999) (FT) (PCF) ('!o) (PCF) ('!o) ('!o)
A 02-05 Undisturbed Bottom Upper 1077' Al 128.1 7.4 105.3 N/A N/A
8 02-05 Undisturbed Bottom Middle 1068.5' Al 128.1 7.1 104.5 N/A N/A
C 02-05 Undisturbed Bottom Lower 1062.5 Al 128.1 13.4 109.3 N/A N/A
D 02-06 Undisturbed Bottom Upper 1076' Al 128.1 8.2 121.4 N/A N/A
E 02-06 Undisturbed Bottom Middle 1070' Al 128.1 6.6 111.6 N/A N/A
F 02-06 Undisturbed Bottom Lower 1064' Al 128.1 12.3 120.3 N/A N/A
G 02-07 Undisturbed Bottom Lower 1059' Al 128.1 8.8 107.7 N/A N/A
H 02-07 Undisturbed Bottom Lower 1063' Al 128.1 11.2 112.8 N/A N/A
1 02-09 Toe 1060' A1 128.1 8.7 116.5 90.9% 90.0%
2 02-09 Toe 1062' A1 128.1 7.9 120.5 94.1% 90.0%
3 02-10 Toe 1064' Al 128.1 10.1 120.6 94.1% 90.0%
4 02-10 Toe 1064' Al 128.1 9.0 120.0 93.7% 90.0%
5 02-10 Fill Slope 1067' A1 128.1 9.8 122.3 95.5% 90.0%
6 02-10 Fill Slope 1066' Al 128.1 11.0 121.8 95.1% 90.0%
7 02-10 Fill Slope 1069' A1 128.1 8.8 118.5 92.5% 90.0%
8 02-10 Fill Slope 1070' Al 128.1 9.5 122.6 95.7% 90.0%
9 02-11 Fill Slope 1072' Al 128.1 9.2 118.5 92.5% 90.0%
10 02-11 Fill Slope 1072' A1 128.1 8.4 122.0 95.2% 90.0%
11 02-11 Fill Slope 1074' Al 128.1 9.2 117.9 92.0% 90.0%
12 02-12 Fill Siope 1074' Al 128.1 9.8 120.0 93.7% 90.0%
13 02-12 Fill Slope 1075' A1 128.1 9.1 122.3 95.5% 90.0%
14 02-12 Fill Slope 1075' A1 128.1 9.8 122.3 95.5% 90.0%
15 02-12 Fill Slope 1075' Al 128.1 9.3 120.3 93.9% 90.0%
16 02-12 Fill Slope 1075' A1 128.1 9.3 118.9 92.8% 90.0%
17 05-27 Fill 1077' A4 129.4 10.8 116.5 90.0% 90.0%
18 05-27 Fill 1077' A4 129.4 6.2 116.6 90.1% 90.0%
19 05-28 Bottom Qverexcavation 1078' A4 129.4 7.8 118.7 91.7% 90.0%
20 05-28 Overexcavation 1079' A4 129.4 8.3 116.6 90.1% 90.0%
21 05-28 West 1080' A4 129.4 9.1 118.0 91.2% 90.0%
22 05-28 East 1081' A4 129.4 8.5 116.5 90.0% 90.0%
23 06-21 Pad Area 1082' A4 129.4 9.9 116.7 '90.2% 90.0%
24 06-21 Pad Area 1083' A4 129.4 10.1 117.8 91.0% 90.0%
EnGEN Corporation \\
,
II
.,
LI
LI
LI
III
III
III
LI
III
II
III
II
LI
III
III
&I
,
Santiago Estates, LLC
Project No: T1721-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 Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
Test Date Test Locations Elevation Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
No. (1999) (FT) (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%)
25 06-22 Pad Area 1085' A5 129.1 10.7 118.8 92.0% 90.0%
26 06-22 Pad Area 1086' A5 129.1 9.9 117.9 91.3% 90.0%
27 06-24 House Pad S.G. A1 128.1 4.9 125.2 97.7% 90.0%
28 06-24 House Pad S.G. A1 128.1 5.4 124.8 97.4% 90.0%
EnGEN Corporation \"2...
,
III
LI
11
11
LI
.,
LI
III
,
LI
LI
LI
11
LI
LI
LI
LI
,
Santiago Estates, LLC
Project No: T1721-C
Appendix Page 4
SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS
ASTM 01557-91
Maximum Optimum
Soil Description (USCS Symbol) Soil Type Dry Density Moisture
(PCF) Content (%)
Silty Sand, Brown (SM) A1 128.1 9.1
Sand, Tan (SP) A2 115.1 13.9
Silty Sand, Brown (SM) A3 131.1 8.0
Silty Sand, Brown (SM) A4 129.4 8.2
Silty Sand, Brown (SM) A5 129.1 8.7
EnGEN Corporation \.:?
,
,
.,
.,
,
,
.,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Santiago Estates, LLC
Project No: T1721-C
Appendix Page 5
APPENDIX:
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation V\