HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 21383 Geotech Report RoughGrading_Lots89-90(Nov.21,1996)
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~.. ~ ~ ~~ ~ -+'"1:,
, I " I !
-<.o;l-,!-",",l"~II~~_~.....~..~-_._.--- ~~.. =-==-
~~~~~ !"
~
G .. Soli Engineering' Testing' Construct1on Materials Testing. LaoormOlY Testing .
En EN Corporation . EnvlronmentolSJteAssessments. HozordousMate"olsSite Cleonup .
Environmental and Geotechnical Engineering Network Corporation . Speclollnspecflons . Geology. Englneeling Geology .
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING
PCLfD'f-I/ Lots 89-90 of Tract 21383
and Erosion Repair on Lot 86
Winchester Road, City of Temecula,
Riverside County, Califomia
Project Number: T1107-C
Prepared for:
Westside City I Associates, LLC
41975 Winchester Road
Temecula, Califomia 92590
IDs AngeIas Office Orange County OffIce
Post OffiCe Box 1497 2615 Orange Avenue
Lancaster, CA 93534 Santa NYJ. CA 92707
(605)940-1200 I Fax: 940-1202 Corporate Office (714} 546-4051 1 Fax: 546-4052
41607 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 1 . TemecuJa . California 92590 . (909) 676-3095 . Fax: (909) 676-3294
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Westside City I Associates, LLC
Project No. T1107-C
Section Number And Title
PAGE
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................ 1
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ..... ......... ................................................ ..................... ............. ..... ........... ...... 2
2.1 Location................ ....... ........ ....................... ................................. ...... ............. ....... ....... ......... 2
2.2 Topography and Surface Conditions .................................................................................... 2
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK ......................................................................................................................... 2
3.1 Time of Grading..................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 Equipment................. ............... ................... .......... ......... ..... ..... .................. .......... .................2
3.3 Grading Operations. ............ ........ ...... ............... ............... ............... ........... ..... ....................... 2
3.3.1 Parcel 86 Erosion Repair ............................................................................................. 3
4.0 TESTING ...... ... ......... ............. .......... ... ... ...................................... ..... ...... ....... .......... ................ 3
4.1 Field Testing ..........................................................................................................................3
4.2 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................................4
4.2.1 Moisture-Density Relationship Test......................................................................... 4
4.2.2 Expansion Index Test.............................................................................................. 4
5.0
5
EARTH MATERIALS
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................ ................ ..........5
6.1 Foundation Design Recommendations ....................................................................................... 5
6.1.1 General....................................................................................................... ............5
6.1.2 Foundation Size .......................................................................................................5
6.1.3 Depth of Embedment...............................................................................................5
6.1.4 Bearing Capacity ..................................................................................................... 6
6.1.5 Settlement................................................................................................................ 6
6.1.6 Lateral Capacity .......................................................................................................6
6.2 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations .............................................................................................. 7
6.2.1 Interior Slabs ............................................................................................................ 7
6.2.2 Exterior Slabs.. ............... .............. .......... ............. ..... ............................. ................... 8
6.3 General .............. ................................. ............. ...... ...... .......... ............................................... 8
7.0
.................................................................................................................................9
CLOSURE
APPENDIX:
FIELD TEST RESULTS
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.~.. ~ '-.+&
, , J , ,
~~,~~.."""",~-=-==--
. . Soli Engineering' Testing. Construction Materials Testing. laboratory Testing .
EnGEN Corporation . En~ronmentol "e Assessments. Hazardous Mate"ols "e Cleanup.
Environmental and Geotechnical Engineering Network Corporation . Speclollnspecflons . Geology' Englneeling Geology .
November 21, 1996
, Mr. Max Harrison
, Westside City Associates I, LLC
41975 Winchester Road
. T emecula, California 92590
(909) 693-1430
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING
Lots 88-90 and Erosion Repair on Lot 86
Winchester Road, City ofTemecula
Riverside County, Califomia
Project Number: T1107-C
Reference:
1.
Schaefer Dixon Associates, Inc., January 7, 1992, Geotechnical Mass
Grading Report No. 2, Parcel Map No. 21383 (Core 1, Phase II), City of Temecula,
Riverside County, Califomia; AT405B.
2. HLC, September 30, 1996, Precise Grading and Erosion Control Plan, Lots 88-90,
Tract 21383, City of Temecula, Riverside County, Califomia; Project Number:
LD96.149GR
. Dear Mr. Harrison:
. According to your request and signed authorization, EnGEN Corporation has performed field
observations, sampling, and in-place density testing during the rough grading operations for the referenced
'site. Submitted, herein, are the results of the findings and the supporting field and laboratory data.
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The grading of reference consisted of preparing a commercial building pad and associated parking
lot. The referenced site was graded to the elevations as shown on the reference No. 2 plan.
Los Angeles OffIce OICnge COunty Offlce
Post Offlce Box 1497 2615 Orange Avenue
lancostm CA 93534 santa Ana. CA 92707
(805) 940-1200 / Fax: 940-1202 Corporate Office (714) 546-4051/ Fax: 546-4052
41607 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 1 . Temecula . California 92590 . (909) 676-3095 . Fax: (909) 676-3294
\.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Westslde City I Associates, LLC
Project No. T1107-C
November 96
Page 2
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Location: The subject property is located on the North side of Winchester Road west of Diaz Road,
in the city of Temecula, Riverside County, Califomia, as shown on the Vicinity Map presented in the
Appendix.
2.2 TOPoQraphv and Surface Conditions: The project site has been previously graded (refer to
Reference 1). Topography of the site was relatively flat, consisting of three (3) parcels split into two
levels, vacant of any man-made structures. The adjacent filii cut slopes contain vegetation such as
small trees, grass and weeds.
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK
3.1 Time of Gradinq: Grading operations were conducted from October 14 through November 21,
1996.
3.2 Equipment: The grading operations for the building pad and parking lot were performed by
American Contracting, Inc. through the use of one (1) Caterpillar D9H track mounted dozer, one
(1) Caterpillar D6H track-mounted dozer, two (2) Terex TS-24 scrapers, (1) 2000 gallon water truck
and one (1) Caterpillar 12G motorgrader.
3.3 GradinQOperations: Grading within the commercial pad consisted of a cuV fill operation.
Clearing of grasses and weeds was performed prior to scarifying to a depth of 12-inches, moisture
conditioning to within 2.0 percent of optimum moisture, processing, and compacting to a minimum of
90 percent relative compaction. Fill material was generated from cuts in the westem portion of the lot
to bring the eastem and north em portions of the site to finish grade elevation. Fill was placed in lens
thicknesses of 4 to 6-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
EnGEN Corporation
1---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Wests Ide City I Associates, LLC
Project No. T11 07-C
November 96
Page 3
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 by others and should be
verified by the Project Civil Engineer
3.3.1 Parcel 86 Erosion Repair: A previously excavated and subsequently eroded drainage channel
was backfilled and compacted to original pad grade elevation. Approximate dimensions of the
drainage were 350 feet x 12 feet to depths ranging from 4-feet to 16-feet below adjacent finish pad
grade. The exposed bottom was excavated to remove loose material, slopewash, etc. and was
observed as being found in bedrock. Fill was placed in the same manner as stated in Section 3.3 of
this report and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction.
3.4 Cut/Fill Transition: Overexcavation was performed to a depth of 3.0 feet beneath finish pad
elevation and to a distance of five 5.0 feet outside of the proposed structure perimeter within the cut
portion of the pad. Fill was placed in the same manner as stated in Section 3.3 of this report and
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. The approximate limits of
overexcavation performed are delineated on the attached plan.
4.0 TESTING
4.1 Field Testin~: Field observations and in-place density testing were performed on a part-time as-
needed basis during the grading operations. Where tests indicate failing results, the soils were
reprocessed until at least 90 percent relative compaction was achieved in the fill areas, except in the
erosion repair area where 95 percent relative compaction was required. Test locations were
randomly selected in the areas receiving fill and were recorded using approximate locations and
elevations as could be determined in the field. Field in-place density and moisture content testing
EnGEN Corporation
':?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
Wests ide City I Associates, LLC
Project No. T1107-C
November 96
Page 4
were performed during the placement of the fill materials during the rough grading operations in
general accordance with the following ASTM test procedures:
Test Method for Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate in Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow
Depths) - ASTM D2922-81 (1990).
Test Method for Water Content of Soil and Rock in Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow
Depth) - ASTM 03017-88.
The test results indicate that soils were compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.
At least 95 percent relative compaction was verified in the erosion repair area on Lot 86. Test results
are presented in Exhibit I in Appendix I. The locations of the in-place density tests are presented on
the Rough Grading Report Site Plan in the Appendix.
4.2 Laboratory TestinQ: The following laboratory tests were performed as part of our services during
the rough grading of the subject site. The test results are presented in the Appendix.
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 D1557-91 procedures. The test results are presented in the
Summary of Optimum Moisture Content I Maximum Dry Density Relationship Test Results.
4.2.2 Expansion Index Testinq: A soil sample was obtained for expansion potential testing from the
building pad area upon completion of rough grading of the subject lot. The expansion test procedure
utilized was the Uniform Building Code Test Designation Standard 29-2. The material tested
consisted of silty fine to coarse sand w/minor amounts of clay, which had an Expansion Index of 26
and a low expansion potential in accordance with Table 29-C of the Uniform Building Code. As a
result, no special construction is required for expansive soils purposes. The results are presented in
the Summary of Expansion Index Results in the Appendix.
EnGEN Corporation
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
! I
I
I
I
I
Wests ide City I Associates, LLC
Project No. T1107-C
November 96
Page 5
5.0 EARTH MATERIALS
The natural earth materials encountered on-site generally consisted of slightly clayey silty sands. No
imported soils were used on the site during the grading process.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Foundation Desion Recommendations:
6.1.1 General: 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 on geotechnical
characteristics and a low expansion potential for the supporting soils and should not preclude more
restrictive structural requirements. The Structural Engineer for the project should detennine the actual
footing width and depth to resist design vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces.
6.1.2 Foundation Size: Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches. Continuous
footings should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of two (2) NO.4 steel reinforcing bars
located near the top and two (2) No.4 steel reinforcing bars 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 doorway entrances.
6.1.3 Depth of Embedment: Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill should
extend to a minimum depth of 18-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for the one (1) story
structure. The foundations should be founded in properly compacted fill.
EnGEN Corporation
'5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Westside City I Associates, LLC
Project No. T1107-C
November 96
Page 6
6.1.4 BearinQ Capacity: Provided the recommendations for site earthwork, 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 2000 psf for continuous footings and 2000 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.
6.1.5 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-inch or a differential settlement of 0.25-inch in properly
compacted fill.
6.1.6 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 - 200 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
Compacted FiII- 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,
EnGEN Corporation
(p
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Westside City I Associates, LLC
Project No. T1107-C
November 96
Page 7
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.
6.2 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 low
expansion potential for the supporting material as determined by Table 29-C 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.
6.2.1 Interior Slabs: Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 5.0-inches in thickness
and be underlain by a minimum of 2.0 inch of clean coarse sand or other approved granular material
placed on properly prepared subgrade.. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of #3 reinforcing
bars placed 24-inches on 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 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 2.0-inch minimum layer of clean, moist (not
saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures.
1
EnGEN Corporation
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Westside City I Associates, LLC
Project No. T11 07-C
November 96
Page 8
6.2.2 Exterior Slabs: All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks, etc., with the
exception of PCC pavement) should be a minimum of 4.0-inches in thickness and be underlain by a
minimum of 12.0-inches of soil that has been properly prepared. 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 D1557-91 procedures immediately before placing aggregate base material or placing the
concrete.
6.3 General: Based on the observations and tests performed during grading, the subject site in the
areas noted has been completed in accordance with the project plans and specifications, the Grading
Code of the City of Temecula. The graded site in the areas noted as rough graded is determined to
be adequate for the support of a typical commercial structure and appurtenant facilities. 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, overexcavation of the cut portion of the transition area, and 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 presaturation, or other earthwork 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
EnGEN Corporation
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
Westside City I Associates, LLC
Project No. T1107-C
October 1996
Page 9
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.
Respectfully submitted,
EnGEN Corporation
9=G'~ ~
Field Supervisor
JDG/OB:sh
Distribution:
(4) Addressee
File: TomlENGEN/D/Reporu/tl107c/Westside City Assoc.
c..
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Wests ide City I Associates, LLC
Project No. T11 07-C
APPENDIX
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(Summary of Field In-Place Density Test Results)
EnGEN Corporation
\0
I Wests ide City I Associates, LLC
Project No. T1107-C
I
I SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
I TESTTEST DEPTH or SOIL MAX. MOISTURE DRY RELATIVE IREQUIRED
NO. DATE TEST LOCATION ELEV. TYPE DENSITY CONTENT DENSITY COMPACTION
I (1996) (FT.) (PCF) ('Yo) (PCF) ('Yo) ('Yo)
I 1 10-14 Parcel 89 1038' 1 129.1 10.2 112.1 86.8 NA
Bottom test in
Native Formation
I 2 10-14 Parcel 90 1043' 129.1 9.9 122.1 86.0 NA
Middle in
I Native Formation
3 10-15 NE Par. 90 1042' 6B 125.4 8.9 114.4 91.2 90
I 4 10-16 SW Par. 90 1037' 2A 129.7 11.3 118.4 91.3 90
5 10-16 Par. 89/90 1037' 2A 12 8.5 117.3 90.4 90
Middle
I 6 10-16 Par. 90 NE 1039' 1A 129.1 9.9 116.9 90.5 90
7 10-17 Parcel 89 1046' 1A 129.1 9.9 119.9 92.9 90
SE Comer
I 8 10-17 Par. 89 Mid. 1045' 1A 129.1 10.9 117.8 91.2 90
9 10-17 Par. 90 Mid. 1207' 2A 125.6 13.0 115.6 92.0 90
I (Slope)
10 10-17 Par. 89 NW 1045' 4 122.7 12.5 109.3 99.0 90
11 10-17 Par. 90 SE 1045' 6B 125.4 12.8 118.0 94.0 90
I 12 10-17 Parcel 89 1046' 6B 125.4 10.6 118.4 94.4 90
West Mid.
I 13 10-18 Par.89 Mid 1047' 1A 129.1 12.1 120.7 93.4 90
I 14 10-18 Par. 90 Mid 1048' 1A 129.1 11.2 119.7 92.6 90
15 10-18 Par. 90 SW 1048' 1A 129.1 8.9 119.3 92.3 90
16 10-18 Par. 89 NW 1047' 1A 129.1 9.2 120.2 93.2 90
I 17 10-18 Par. 89 SW 1048' 1A 129.1 10.8 118.5 91.7 90
18 10-18 Par. 90 NE 1049' 1A 129.1 10.7 121.9 94.4 90
19 10-21 Parcel 86 1055' 6B 125.4 9.6 116.3 92.7 95
I Mouth of
Rivulet
20 10-21 Retest #19 1055' 6B 125.4 9.9 118.8 94.7 95
I 21 10-21 Parcel 86 1060' 6B 125.4 8.2 119.0 95.0 95
Mouth to
Channel
I 22 10-22 Parcel 86 1-62' 6B 125.4 13.8 115.8 92.4 95
I EnGEN Corporation \\
I Westside City I Associates, LLC
Project No. T1107-C
I (14.15 Slope)
I 23 10-22 Retest #22 1062' 6B 125.4 10.1 121.6 97.0 95
24 10-22 Parcel 86 1063' 6B 125.4 9.9 120.9 96.4 95
(14' Slope)
I 25 10-22 Parcel 86 1064' 6B 125.4 8.7 120.1 95.8 95
(15' Slope)
26 10-22 Parcel 90 1040' 6B 125.4 10.7 114.0 90.9 90
I East Slope
27 10-22 Parcel 90 1039' 6B 125.4 8.0 116.0 92.5 90
SE Slope
I 28 10-22 Parcel 86 1065' 6 127.6 10.2 121.6 95.3 95
29 10-23 Parcel 86 1067' 6B 125.4 10.0 122.0 97.3 95
30 10-23 Parcel 86 1069' 6B 125.4 9.8 120.1 95.8 95
I 31 10-24 Parcel 88 S 1051'(FG) 1A 129.1 9.3 125.0 96.7 90
32 10-24 Parcel 89 Ctr 1051'(FG) 1A 129.1 8.5 118.2 91.5 90
33 10-24 East Driveway 1050' 1A 129.1 11.7 118.5 91.7 90
I 34 10-24 Parcel 89 NW 1045' 1A 129.1 10.7 120.2 93.0 90
35 11-22 So. Comer 1049' 1A 129.1 9.8 120.6 93.4 90
36 11-21 So. Comer 1051'(FG) 1A 129.1 10.9 121.4 94.0 90
I
I (S.G.): Indicates Subgrade
(F.G.) : Indicates Finish Grade
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I \ 'Z--
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Wests/de City I Associates, LLC
Project No. T1107-C
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
(Summary of Optimum Moisture Content I Maximum
Dry Density Relationship Test Results)
(Summary of Expansion Index Test Results)
EnGEN Corporation
\S>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Westside City I Associates, LLC
Project No. T1107-C
SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT I
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS
ASTM D1557-91
SOIL MAXIMUM OPTIMUM
TYPE SOIL DESCRIPTION, (USCS Svmbol) DRY DENSITY MOISTURE CONTENT
(PCF) (%)
1A Brown Silty Sand 129.1 9.7
2A Tan Silty Sand 129.7 9.3
EnGEN Corporation
\l\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
(FT)
1.5
Westside City I Associates, LLC
Project No. T1107-C
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
(UBC 29-2)
SURCHARGE
(PSF)
144
DRY
DENSITY
(PCF)
117.0
MOISTURE CONDITION EXPANSION
BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST INDEX
(%) (%)
7.7
15.5
28
EnGEN Corporation
\-b
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DRAWINGS
(Rough Grading Report Site Plan)
Westside City I Associates, LLC
Project No. T1107-C
EnGEN Corporation
\(.,
/