Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 9833-3 Lot 15 Compaction Results Rough Grading I /'C' ~7::'''''. / 1 ~r'.'~~GEN ""'~""'."'" .. Cor~oration -SoilEllgine€ringandConsultingServices-EngineeringGeology. Compaction Testing elnspedions-ConstruclionMaterialsTesling-LaboratoryTeslingePercolalionTesting . Geology-WaterResourceStudies .Phasel&IIEnvironmentaISiteAssessments ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK 1 1 1 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS Pourshirazi Residence Assessor's Parcel Number: 945-160-003 Lot 15 of Tract 9833-3 Calle de Velardo City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California Project Number: T2549-C I. I 1 May 14, 2002 1 1 I I I RECEIVED NOV 06 20pl CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT I I Prepared for: I Mr. Homayoun Pourshirazi 43360 Corte Rialto Ternecula, California 95292 r" , " , .. -"""""""""""""'''''''''''"",~'''.,,,,--,- , ' , ' "," , .. ':1 ~" :::.: :i~I' ~:_:^ ~" ," . .. .. , , ~ _..L , ,. __ I ',' _/_~ _,~ I E l.Q(Rd~9;Clrcle. N rt ,$uit';l;~~mec~.Ia.CA 92590 "phona: (909i..2~!i-2230' fax::(909) 296.2237 -~.. .. .. .." ,.:.. .... : :....:..->. ': ,:.::._"-::':.."-' -:-..::: .".,~,~",~.!c .:'.-:':i.:'''' '(":':':-'.''''':'\::'.:.:: --.',,\..-,:,::,-:-,,< ':.:< ':--.: '.: '" .:..:. :. .' .::..:_: ..-' '. ,,'. -. .: .'. :.....:" .c. :....... "...: I ~ 2.615 :Orang.A e lie, SAif~A1ia;'CA 92.10T~ phone: 17I41,546-4051 ..fax: (714) 546-4052 B SITE: www.enec~~p.~~~_.;...E~~iATL:;~~ge~c~rp-@.engenc6rp.com -. I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I Mr. Homayoun Pourshirazi Project Number: T2549-C TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.0 3.1 32 4.0 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 6.0 PAGE SITEIPROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ......................................................................1 PROJECT LOCATION .............. ....1 ..1 ..2 SITE DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION SCOPE OF WORK ...................... ..................................................... ... ................................2 TIME OF GRADING... ........................ .................. .................................. ........... ....2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUiPMENT.................... .............. .................... ..........2 GRADING OPERATIONS .......................... ................................................2 TESTING........................................................................................................................ ...3 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES ...................... ............ .................... ............ ....:..........3 LABORATORY TESTING... .................................................. ............. .......3 3.2.1 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST ........... .............. .................3 3.2.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST .................. ................. ..................................3 3.2.3 SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST ................. ................... .................................3 EARTH MATERIALS ..... ... .......... ................................ ...... ........ ......... ... .... .... ....... ..... ... ........4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... ...... ..... .... ... ........ .... ... .... ............4 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .......,................................ ................................4 FOUNDATION SIZE ...... ................................. ................................ ...................................4 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT ...................................................... .............................. ........4 BEARING CAPACiTy................. .......................................... .................. ............................5. SETTLEMENT................. ... ...................... ... .............. ................ ......................................5 LATERAL CAPACiTy......,..,..,..,..................,................,.".,..........".,.............. ,.. ...................5 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS............................................ ...................................6 INTERIOR SLABS ........... .............................. ...................... .......... .................... ..........6 ........ ..6 ........................................................................................................7 EXTEHIOR SLABS .......................... GENERAL CLOSURE ... ... .... ... .......... ... ... ... ........................... ..... ... .............. ... ... .... .... .... ...... ..... ... .... ....7 ApPENDIX TEST RESULTS DRAWINGS 2-- EnGEN Corporation I /'\ I ~;IL"~~GEN I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I ?' ~.\ Cor~oration . Soil E~gineeringand Consulting Services . Engirl8eringGeology. Compaction Testing -Inspections. Construction Materials Testing . Laboratory Testing . Percolation Testing . Geology-WaterResourceStooies -Phase 1&11 Environmental Site Assessmenls ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK May 14, 2002 Mr. Homayoun Pourshirazi 43360 Corte Rialto Temecula, California 95292 (909) 693-4221 I FAX (909) 693-2543 Regarding: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS Pourshirazi Residence Assessor's Parcel Number: 945-160-003 Lot 15 of Tract 9833-3 Calle de Velardo City of Ternecula, County of Riverside, California Project Number: T2549-C References: W.C. Hobbs, Consulting Engineer, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Development of Lot 15 of Tract 9833-3, Calle De Vellardo, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Project No: 01055-1, report dated August 27, 2001. 1. 2. w.e. Hobbs, Civil Engineer, Proposed Grading Plan, Lot 15 of Tract 9833-3, Calle De Vellardo, City of Temecula, plans undated. Dear Mr. Pourshirazi: Pursuant to your request and signed authorization, EnGEN Corporation has performed field observations, sarnpling, 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 SITEIPROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The subject site consists of approximately 3.25 acres, located north of the intersection of Calle de Velardo and Jedediah Smith Road, in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California. 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION Prior to grading operations, topography and surface conditions of the site were gently sloping to moderately sloping, with surface drainage flowing to the western portion of the ~Jl~A~~~~ie LQf ~g:r~x~~ eJY_~Qg.e]gl, .::Y_'_:~_,~:. " , .., ' '_~ I _ -' . COIl.., _ATE 'OfFICE 41j;0 E r9rPris~ Circl~ N rt . Suit~ \, T~m~cula:.CA92590' phone: (909)296-2230' fax: (9091 296-2237 ORANGECQUNTYO IE 26150ronge A e ue, ~~m~..Ana'C",92707.phone:(714)c546-4051 . fax: 17141 546.4052 B SITE: wwW:en e corp.com . E-MAIL: engencorp@engendorp.com ,- -- \ / --. , 3> I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I Mr. Homayoun Pourshirazi Project Number: T2549-C May 2002 Page 2 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION It is understood that the subject site is to be developed with a single family residence as well as a separate detached garage type structure with slab-on-grade concrete floors supported on conventional continuous and pier footings, with associated driveway as well as landscape and hardscape improvernents. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK 2.1 TIME OF GRADING This report represents geotechnical observations and testing during the construction operations frorn March 28, 2002 through April 16, 2002. 2.2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT The grading operations were performed by P.D.Q. Equipment Rental through the use of one (1) CAT 623 scraper, one (1) CAT 04 dozer, one (1) CAT 08 dozer, one (1) CAT 12G motor grader, 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 rnaterial was generated from the proposed building pad portion of the site, and used to bring the southeastern fill slope portion of the site 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 a combination of bedrock and cornpetent soil by a representative of this firm. Keying and benching into competent bedrock in the fill areas was observed during the grading operations. Overexcavation was performed in the cut and shallow fill portions of the building pad and separate detached garage to a depth of 3 to 4-feet below finish grade elevation and to a minimum 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 a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density. Fill was placed in lens thicknesses of 6 to 8-inches, thoroughly moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, processed, then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density. 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 EnGEN Corporation , I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I Mr. Homayoun Pourshirazi Project Number: T2549-C May 2002 Page 3 pad location, dimensions, elevations, slope locations and inclinations, etc. were surveyed and staked by others and should be verified by the Project Civil Engineer. 3.0 TESTING 3.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 2922-96 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 frorn review of the referenced grading plans. 3.2 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. 3.2.1 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 (Surnrnary of Optimum Moisture Content/Maximum Dry Density Relationship Test Results). 3.2.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST A soil sample was obtained for expansion potential testing frorn the building pad area upon completion of rough grading of the subject site. The expansion test procedure utilized was the Uniforrn Building Code Test Designation 18..2. The material tested consisted of brown silty 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 Appendix (Summary of Expansion Index Test Results). 3.2.3 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 deterrnined in general accordance with California Test Method 417 procedures. The test results indicate a low percentage of water-soluble sulfates (0.0019% by weight), as a result EnGEN Corporation ~ I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I Mr. Homayoun Pourshirazi Project Number: T2549-C May 2002 Page 4 no sulfate resistant concretes are necessary. The test results are presented in the Appendix (Summary of Soluble Sulfate Test Results). 4.0 EARTH MATERIALS The natural earth materials encountered on-site generally 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 cornpacted 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 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. The following seismic design pararneters apply: Name of Fault: Elsinore Fault - Temecula Segment Type of Fault: Type B Fault Closest Distance to Active Fault: Less than 2 Km (0.5 Km) Soil Profile Type: SD 5.2 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 minimurn 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 acr.oss garage door openings and other doorway entrances. 5.3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill should extend to a minimurn depth of 12-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for single-story structures, EnGEN Corporation ~ I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 Mr. Homayoun Pourshirazi Project Number: T2549-C May 2002 Page 5 and 18-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for two-story structures. The foundations should be founded in properly cornpacted fill with a minimum of 18-inches of compacted fill below the bottorn of the footings. 5.4 BEARING CAPACITY Provided the recommendations for site earth work, rninimum footing width, and minimum depth of embedment for footings are incorporated into the project design and construction, the allowable bearing value for design of continuous and column footings for the total dead plus frequently-applied live loads is 2,000 psf for continuous footings and 2,000 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 rnaximum settlement of 0.5-inch or a differential settlement of 0.25- inch in properly compacted fill. 5.6 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 rnay be used in combination without reduction in evaluating the resistance to lateral loads. The allowable values rnay 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. EnGEN Corporation 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I Mr. Homayoun Pourshirazi Project Number: T2549-C May 2002 Page 6 5.7 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-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 recomrnendations and procedures. Slab-on-grade reinforcement and thickness should be provided by the Structural Engineer in accordance with Section 5.1 of this report. 5.8 INTERIOR SLABS Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4-inches in actual thickness and be underlain by a minimum of 1 to 2-inches of clean coarse sand or other approved granular material placed on properly prepared subgrade. Minimum slab reinforcernent should consist of NO.3 reinforcing bars placed 18-inches on the center in both directions or a suitable equivalent. 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 rninimurn of 6.0 mil in thickness be placed beneath the slab. The moisture barrier should be overlapped or sealed at splices and covered top and bottom 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 EnGEN Corporation ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Homayoun Pourshirazi Project Number: T2549-C May 2002 Page 7 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 D 1557-91 (1998) 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 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 forrns 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 placernent, 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. 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. EnGEN Corporation C\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Homayoun Pourshirazi Project Number: T2549-C May 2002 Page 8 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, ;Z~~,;"" Field Operatio ~ Ernest W. Roumelis Staff Geologist SRW/EWR/OB:hh Distribution: (4) Addressee FilE: EnGEN/Reporting/CfT2549-C Henry Pourshirazi, Rough Grading EnG EN Corporation \0 I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Homayoun Pourshirazi Project Number: T2549-C Appendix Page 1 APPENDIX: TEST RESULTS EnGEN Corporation \\. I I Mr. Homayoun Pourshirazi Project Number: T2549-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 Test De pth Max Moisture Dry Relative Required Test Soil I No. Date Test Locations Elevation Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction (2002) (FT) (PCF) ('!o) (PCF) ('!o) ('!oJ I A 03-28 S. Keyway Bottom 1152 Al 128.6 9.1 112.2 87.2% 85.0% 1 04-01 S. Keyway 1155 Al 128.6 10.1 119.5 92.9% 90.0% 2 04-01 S, Keyway 1155 Al 128.6 10.9 117.4 91.3% 90.0% I B 04-01 s. Keyvvay Bottom 1165 A1 128.6 7.4 111.2 86.5% 85.0% 3 04-01 S. Fill Slope 1157 A1 128.6 10.9 118.6 92.2% 90.0% I 4 04-01 S. Fill Slope 1160 Al 128,6 10.7 119.7 93.1% 90.0% 5 04-02 S. Fill Slope 1162 A1 128.6 11.3 116.6 90.7% 90.0% 6 04-02 S. Fill Slope 1163 Al 128.6 11.0 117.9 91.7% 90.0% I 7 0,4-03 S. Fill Slope 1165 A2 122.1 14.0 113.9 93.3% 90.0% 8 04-03 S. Fill Slope 1164 A2 122.1 12.7 113.7 93.1% 90.0% I 9 04-03 S. Fill Slope 1166 A2 122.1 10.9 112.6 92.2% 90.0% 10 04-03 s. Fill Slope 1167 A2 122.1 12,2 112.9 92.5% 90,0% 11 04-04 S. Fill Slope 1169 A2 122.1 9.4 112.1 91.8% 90.0% I 12 04-04 S. Fill Slope 1170 A2 122.1 9.4 112.8 92.4% 90.0% 13 04-04 S. Fill Slope 1172 A2 122.1 10.2 114.2 93,5% 90.0% I 14 04-04 S. Fill Slope 1174 A2 122.1 11.6 113.2 92.7% 90.0% 15 04-05 S. Fill Slope 1176 A2 122.1 10.9 110.9 90.8% 90,0% 16 04-05 S. Fill Slope 1178 A2 122.1 11,2 111.7 91.5% 90.0% I 17 04-08 N. Fill Slope 1173 Al 128.6 11.1 116.6 90.7% 90.0% 18 04-08 N. Fill Slope 1173 Al 128.6 10.7 117.0 91.0% 90.0% I 19 04-09 N. Fill Slope 1175 A2 122.1 6.7 116.1 95.1% 90.0% 20 04-09 N. Fill Slope 1177 A2 122.1 7.2 117.2 96.0% 90.0% 21 04-09 N. Fill Slope 11.79 A2 122.1 9.6 117.5 96.2% 90.0% I 22 04-10 Residential Pad 1180 A2 122.1 7,8 104.5 85.6% 90.0% 23 04-10 Residential Pad 1181 A2 122,1 8.4 107.2 87.8% 90.0% I 24 04-10 Retest #22 1180 A2 122.1 10.2 114.9 94.1% 90.0% 25 04-10 Retest #23 1181 A2 122.1 9.7 116.7 95.6% 90.0% 26 04-11 Residential Pad F.G. Al 128.6 6.8 120.6 93,8% 90.0% I 27 04-11 Residential Pad F.G. Al 128.6 7.2 124.2 96.6% 90.0% C 04-12 Detached Garage Pad Bottom 1178 A1 128.6 9.0 119.0 92.5% 90.0% I D 04-12 Residential Pad Bottom 1178 A1 128.6 6.6 113.6 88.3% 85.0% 28 04-15 Detached Garage Pad 1179 Al 128.6 9.9 118.6 92.2% 85.0% 29 04-15 Detached Garage Pad 1179 Al 128.6 10.2 120.0 93.3% 90.0% I, I EnGEN Corpor;\tinn '\Z-. I I Mr. Homayoun Pourshirazi Project Number: T2549-C Appendix Page 3 I (S. 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 30 04-16 Detached Garage Pad F.G. A1 128.6 8.5 119.4 92.8% 90.0% 31 04-16 Residential Pad F.G. A1 128.6 8.8 116.8 90.8% 90.0% 32 04-16 Residential Pad F.G. A2 122.1 7.2 112.7 92.3% 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 I I I I EnGEN Corpomtion \~ I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I Mr. Homayoun Pourshirazi Project Number: T2549-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 Content Density (PCF) (%) Silty Sand, Brown (SM) A1 128.6 9.5 Silty Sand, Brown (SM) A2 122.1 12.3 SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS UBC 18-2 . Moisture Moisture Dry Condition Condition Expansion Soil Type Depth (FT) Density Before Test After Test Index (pcf) (%j (%j E-1 -1 107.4 9.3% 18,2% 0 SUMMARY OF SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS Location .'- Soil Type % By Weight Pad Area E-1 0.0019 \t\ I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I Mr. Homayoun Pourshirazi Project Number: T2549-C Appendix Page 5 APPENDIX: DRAWINGS EnGEN Corporation \5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~c/ ". A\,.t/' \~:' '" ~ ~ '(; ~ , 30 , <1;' . .sPy , / , . / /' , . ~'71 // 2t , .' ./ ~ ,/ ,( , ", ',,/' / BASE MAP: Thomas Bros., Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, 2002, page979 EnGEN Corporation ~~~'~~~~~:' SITE LOCATION MAP PROJECT NAME: POURSHIRAZI RESIDENCE DATE: MAY 2002 SCALE: I" = 2400' PROJECT NUMBER: T2549-C FIGURE 1 N I -@- , Engineering Geology Special Inspection Material Testing Environmental Assessments \{{?