HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 21382 Parcel 24 Geotech Investigation (Jan.10,1991)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
Lot 24 of Parcel Map 21382
Johnson + Johnson Business Park
Temecula, California
January 10, 1991
Prepared For:
BALLATORE CONSTRUCTION
27315 Jefferson Avenue, Suite J239
TemecuJa, California 92390
By:
Schaefer Dixon Associates, Inc.
1940 Orange Tree Lane
Redlands, California 92374
(714) 793-2691
J.N. 1R228A
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I I
I
I
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
Engineers. Geologists &
Environmental Specialists
1940 Orange Tree Lane
Redlands, California 92373
Fax 714 792-1704
714793-2691
S h f D" Associates
c 8e er Ixon
lR228A
January 10, 1991
Ballatore Construction
27315 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 1239
Temecula, California 92390
Attention: Mr. Jack Ballatore
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Report
Lot 24 of Parcel Map 21382
Johnson + Johnson Business Park
Temecula, California
Gentlemen:
Schaefer Dixon Associates, Inc. (SDA) is pleased to present the attached Geotechnical
Investigation Report for the subject project. The investigation was generally performed in
accordance with our proposal dated November 13, 1990, and your written authorization
thereof.
The attached report presents our findings. conclusions and recommendations pertaining to
the construction of the proposed project. Our recommendations include cut/fill transition
mitigation, foundation and setback recommendations, and preliminary pavement designs.
In addition, grading results for Lot 24 are included herein.
SDA appreciates the opportunity to be of continued service. Should any questions arise
regarding this report, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact
one of the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHAEFER DIX<?~~.ES, INC.
';;..J.' -:c-:..<
/ '. 4/'. !1/~'5.;~ /~'?\~")'.'~'-
pV'~:,~~.\
liiJl;e:~IO C 41'1:lQ'~'~~)
1'1"1 \,. "t. I'. II
Wil~iam G. .Tut\~r, R.c.E. 43740_~}i
Seruor Engmeel"iZ\ Exp..3..:.1.!:!]/ 'J
I:~cl~ ii!Vi\. <j;;~~
.:J'J"~~~/
WGT/DMW:mlf ~~7
t1~
Dean M. White, G.E. 2134
Associate/Manager of Engineering
1--
Orange County Los Angeles Inland Empke Temecula
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
Ballatore Construction
January 10, 1991
lR228A
Enclosures:
Distribution:
Figure 1 - Location Map
Figure 2 - Plot Plan
Figure 3 - Lateral (Static) Earth Pressures
Appendix A - Field Investigation, Boring Logs
Appendix B - Laboratory Testing
Appendix C - Field Density Test Results For Lot 24
(4) Addressee
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
" Associates
Schaefer DIxon
Ballatore Construction
January 10, 1991
lR228A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 General ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Purpose/Scope of Work .................................................................................... 1
1.3 Background .......................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................. 1
3.0 INVESTIGATION AND TESTING ...................................................................... 2
3.1 Field Exploration ................................................................................................ 2
3.2 Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................. 2
4.0 GEOLOGY /SEISMICITY ....................................................................................... 2
4.1 General ................................................................................................................. 2
4.2 Site Seismicity (Estimated 100-year Probable Earthquake) ........................ 2
5.0 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 3
5.1 Subsurface Conditions ........................................................................................ 3
5.2 Results of Previous Grading ............................................................................. 3
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND PRELIMINARY
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 4
6.1 General ................................................................................................................. 4
6.2 Cut/Fill Transition Mitigation .......................................................................... 4
6.3 Placement of Compacted Fill ........................................................................... 4
6.4 Shrinkage/Bulking .............................................................................................. 5
6.5 Drainage ............................................................................................................... 5
6.6 Foundation Recommendations ........................................................................ 5
6.7 Concrete Slabs ..................................................................................................... 6
6.8 Lateral Earth Pressures ..................................................................................... 6
6.9 Pavement Design ................................................................................................ 6
6.10 Utility Trench Backfill ..................................................................................... 7
6.11 Construction Monitoring ................................................................................. 7
6.12 Sulfate Content ................................................................................................. 8
6.13 Seismicity ............................................................................................................ 8
6.14 Plan Review ......................................................................................................~ 8
7.0 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................... 8
8.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 9
A..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
Ballatore Construction
January 10, 1991
1 R228A
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation performed by Schaefer
Dixon Associates, Inc. (SDA) for Lot 24 of Parcel Map 21382, located within the Johnson
+ Johnson Business Park in Temecula, California. The approximate location of the subject
site is shown on the Location Map, Figure 1.
1.2 Purpose/Scope of Work
The purpose of this investigation was to provide site-specific geotechnical recommendations
with respect to the proposed development. Our main objectives included exploring
subsurface soil conditions, assessing pertinent geotechnical properties of on-site soils with
respect to known information obtained during grading, and providing geotechnical
recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed project. Specific concerns
to be addressed include differential settlement, the expansion of in-place soils, and adequate
bearing capacity for the proposed structure.
To accomplish these objectives, this investigation consisted of the following scope of work:
1. Investigate and log subsurface soils using two borings at depths of about 30 ft;
2. Perform Standard Penetration Tests in borings, obtain samples, and perform laboratory
tests to classify and determine pertinent geotechnical properties of on-site soils;
3. Present findings, results, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations (herein).
1.3 Background
The subject site was recently graded as part of the Johnson + Johnson Business Park (Core 2),
with grading control provided by SDA. Results of compaction tests are presented in Section
6.2 and Appendix C. A geotechnical investigation for the general area, including the subject
site, was previously performed and reported by SDA (June 7, 1989).
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development consists of a commercial structure with associated paved parking
and driveway areas. Based on the map provided by the Client, an irregular-shaped structure
is, planned along the northeasterly portion of Lot 24, with parking provided westerly and
northerly of the building. The westerly portion of Lot 24 consists of a 17:t ft high slope, and
a 13:t ft high slope exists on Lot 25 adjacent to the easterly boundary of Lot 24.
-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
Ballatore Construction
January 10, 1991
lR228A
3.0 INVESTIGATION AND TESTING
3.1 Field Exploration
Subsurface exploration of the subject site was performed on December 14, 1990. A total of
two test borings were drilled to depths of 29 ft using truck mounted hollow stem auger drilling
equipment. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Plot Plan, Figure 2.
Logs of soil conditions encountered in the test borings were recorded at the time of
e~ploration. Samples of the materials encountered were obtained at selected intervals during
drilling for laboratory testing. A description of the exploration program and the Boring Logs
are presented in Appendix A.
3;2 Laboratory Testing
Selected samples obtained during field exploration were tested in the laboratory for soil
classification and the determination of pertinent soil properties. A summary of laboratory
test procedures and results is presented in Appendix B.
4.0 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY
4.1 General
The subject lot as graded is underlain by Pauba Formation sediments and artificial fill. For
additional discussion of the regional and site geology and seismicity, please refer to the report
by SDA dated June 7, 1989. For convenience, the site seismicity portion of that report is
included herein. Please note that the subject Parcel 21382, as defined by the referenced
report, is not located within any liquefaction zone nor any Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
zone for fault rupture hazards as identified by the California Division of Mines and Geology.
Further, although additional fault information was obtained by SDA during the grading of
Parcel 21382, no known faults traverse the subject lot.
4;2 Site Seismicity (Estimated l00-year Probable Earthquake)
Earthquakes that might occur during an average 100-year time period at the site have been
estimated and are summarized in Table 1. The corresponding probabilities of exceedance
for the magnitudes listed are approximately 63 percent during an average 100-year period
(or 39 percent during 50 years).
-2-
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
Ballatore Construction
January 10, 1991
1R228A
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED loo.YEAR PROBABLE EARTHQUAKES
AND GROUND MOTION PARAMETERS
Distance 100.Year Horizontal
From Site Peak Probable Ground
Fault Zone (miles) Magnitude1 Acceleration2
San Andreas 34 7.3 0.09g
San Jacinto 19 7.0 O.13g
Whittier-Elsinore <1 6.3 0.41g
1 Wesnousky (1986), Carson and Matti (1986), and Slemmons (1982).
2 Joyner and Boore (1981), mean values.
Table 1 indicates that the Whittier-Elsinore fault zone is considered capable of the highest
ground motions at the site. The resultant design ground motions recommended for the site
are based on 6.3 magnitude events occurring on this fault zone near the site, generating peak
horizontal ground accelerations of about 0.41g. The ground accelerations were estimated
based on the 50 percent exceedance curves from Joyner and Boore (1981).
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Subsurface Conditions
Based on information obtained during this investigation, the site contains both cut and fill
areas. The greatest fill depth is about 15 ft in the southeasterly corner of the lot. Fill material
is derived from cuts in the surrounding Pauba Formation, which are generally comprised of
dense clayey sands with some gravels. The near-surface soils exhibit moderate strength
characteristics when used as compacted fill, and are expected to be low to medium in
el'pansion potential.
5;2 Results of Previous Grading
The grading of Lot 24 essentially occurred in April and May of 1990. Field density testing
was performed during this time using the Sand Cone Method (ASTM D 1556) or the Nuclear
Density Method (California Test 231). The maximum dry densities/optimum moisture
contents of the various fill soils were determined using the Five-Layer Method (Modified
Proctor, ASTM D 1557). Compaction test locations, and field and laboratory test results
are included in Appendix C.
-3-
"I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
Ballatore Construction
January 10, 1991
lR228A
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General
Based on the results of our investigations, we consider the proposed development to be
geotechnically compatible with existing site conditions, provided the recommendations of
this report are incorporated into the project design plans and specifications.
6;2 Cut/Fill Transition Mitigation
It is generally known that structures constructed over cut/fill interfaces can experience
detrimental differential settlement in and around the cut/fill transitions. Since the proposed
structure straddles a cut/fill interface, we recommend that the cut portion of Lot 24 be
overexcavated approximately 3 ft and replaced with approved compacted fill. Overexcavation
should include the entire area below the proposed structure and should extend a minimum
of 5 ft beyond the outer edge of proposed footings. The intent is to provide at least 1.5 ft of
reworked soil below the bottom of proposed footings.
Those areas exposed during overexcavation should be scarified and conditioned per
Section 6.3 below. However, it was noted during grading that some ripping in cut areas was
necessary, which may again be needed during the recommended overexcavation. If this is
indeed the case, it may be necessary to place a thin (about 4 in) layer of soil over scarified
rock, and then provide moisture and compaction as recommended above.
6;3 Placement of Compacted Fill
Prior to the placement of fill, exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 in, brought
to a moisture content near or slightly above optimum, and then compacted to a minimum
90 percent of the maximum dry density (as determined by ASTM D 1557). All fill placed at
the site should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the maximum dry density, based
on ASTM D 1557. Fill should be placed in loose uniform horizontal lifts of 6 to 8 in and
compacted by mechanical means.
Placement of fill should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant and tested for
compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field
density testing should conform to ASTM D 1556, D 2922 and/or D 2937. Tests should be
taken at about every 2 vertical ft and/or for every 1,000+ yd3 offill placed, or at a frequency
as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Actual test intervals may vary as field
conditions dictate. Fill found not to be in conformance with the grading recommendations
should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
-4-
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
Ballatore Construction
January 10, 1991
lR228A
6,4 Shrinkage/Bulking
Shrinkage or bulking due to removal and replacement of Pauba bedrock in the cut areas is
e1'pected to be negligible.
The above estimate is considered preliminary and may vary with depth of removal and field
conditions at the time of grading. Shrinkage and bulking figures are considered to be rough
estimates based on available geotechnical information, and should be confirmed in the field
during grading.
6,5 Drainage
Pad drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from structures to
approved drainage facilities. A minimum gradient of 2 percent should be maintained, and
drainage should be directed toward approved swales or protected drainage facilities.
Drainage patterns approved at the time of grading should be maintained throughout the life
of the structures.
6.6 Foundation Recommendations
The proposed structure may be supported on conventional spread footings founded on
compacted fill. Based on laboratory tests and our grading in the area, the soils for Lot 24
are expected to be low to medium in expansion potential. With this in mind, we provide the
following foundation recommendations:
a. The net allowable soil bearing pressure is 2600 Ib/ft2;
b. The minimum footing width is 15 in;
c. The minimum footing depth is 18 in, measured from the lowest adjacent grade;
d. An increase of 350 Ib/ft2 per additional ft of width is allowed;
e. An increase of 800 Ib/ft2 per additional ft of depth is allowed;
f. The maximum bearing pressure is 4000 Ib/ft2;
g. Minimum reinforcement should be #4 bars, two at top and two at bottom of the footing;
h. The friction coefficient (between bottom of footings and supporting soils) is 0.40;
i. In lieu of using the friction coefficient (h), the allowable lateral bearing pressure is
400 Ib/ft2 per ft of depth (to a maximum of 4000 Ib/ft2);
-5-
<\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
Ballatore Construction
January 10, 1991
1R228A
j. A combination of friction (h) and lateral bearing pressure (i) may by used in designing
lateral load resistance for short-term loads, provided the latter (i) is.reduced by 1/3;
k. Foundations should be set back a minimum distance of5 ft from the top of slope easterly
of the proposed structure.
6;7 Concrete Slabs
Concrete floor slabs should be supported on a properly compacted subgrade as recommended
in Section 6.3, Placement of Compacted Fill. The subgrade should be proof-rolled prior to
slab construction if the surface has been loosened by the passage of construction traffic. The
subgrade should be presoaked to 5 percentage points above optimum, or to 125 percent of
optimum, whichever is greater, to a depth of 1.5 ft.
If proposed floor coverings would be critically affected by moisture, a lO-mil plastic vapor
barrier below the slab is recommended. This sheeting should be covered with a minimum
2 in of sand.
It is recommended that slabs be at least 4 in thick (nominal), and contain minimum
reinforcement of 6 x 6-W 1.4 x W 1.4 W W F.
6,8 Lateral Earth Pressures
Based on laboratory test results and our experience with soils in the area, we recommend
lateral (static) earth pressures as shown in Figure 3. Determination of appropriate design
conditions (active or at-rest) depends on flexibility. If a rotation of more than 0.001 radian
(0.06 degrees) at the base is allowed, active pressure conditions apply; otherwise, at-rest
conditions govern. Walls subject to surcharge loads should be designed for an additional
uniform lateral pressure equal to 1/3 or 1/2 the anticipated surcharge pressure for
unrestrained or restrained walls, respectively.
6.9 Pavement Design
Our recommended preliminary pavement design is based on laboratory testing, such as
particle size and sand equivalent analyses, of the soils expected to exist at finished subgrade
in areas to be paved. Based on these results, we estimate that subgrade soils will have a
design R-Value of about 15. The Traffic Index is assumed in accordance with typical
engineering practice, and is based on the presumption that traffic will consist only of
automobiles, delivery trucks (2 axles) and a garbage truck (once a week).
-6-
\0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
Ballatore Construction
January 10, 1991
lR228A
Accordingly, we recommend the following preliminary pavement design, subject to further
evaluation and/or testing:
Parking and Driveway Areas
11.1. = 5.0
4 in Asphaltic Concrete
6 in Aggregate Base
The top 12 in of subgrade in areas to be paved should attain a minimum relative compaction
of 90 percent (per ASTM D 1557). This may necessitate the removal and proper
recompaction (per Section 6.3, herein) of this top 12 in for paved areas. Crushed Aggregate
Base (or equivalent) should be placed to achieve a minimum relative compaction of
95 percent (per ASTM D 1557).
6.10 Utility Trench Backfill
Backfill material should be placed to attain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent
(per ASTM D 1557). Compaction by mechanical means is preferred, and care should be
exercised to not damage utility lines. As an alternative, backfill may also be jetted provided
the backfill consists of sandy material with a Sand Equivalent greater than 30. Jetting in
trenches adjacent to footings, slabs, or slopes should be performed only under the specific
approval of the Geotechnical Engineer.
The walls of temporary construction trenches are expected to be stable when excavated nearly
vertical, with only minor sloughing, provided the total vertical depth does not exceed about
5 ft. Shoring of excavation walls or flattening of slopes may be required, if greater depths
are necessary. Trenches should be located so as not to impair the bearing capacity nor cause
settlement under foundations. As a guide, trenches subparallel to foundations should be
clear of a45-degree plane extending outward and downward from the edge ofthe foundations.
All work associated with trench shoring must conform to the State of California Safety Code.
6.11 Construction Monitoring
Geotechnical observations and testing should be provided on a continuous basis during any
grading recommended for the subject site to verify design assumptions and to confirm
conformance with the intent of our recommendations.
-7-
\\.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S h f . Associates
c ae er Dixon
BalJatore Construction
January 10, 1991
lR228A
6.12 Sulfate Content
Water soluble sulfate content of on-site soils are anticipated to be less than 0.2 percent. For
initial planning purposes, the use of Type II Portland cement is recommended. Sulfate tests
should be carried out on representative near-surface soils just prior to construction of
foundations. Final recommendations for cement type should be provided at that time.
6.13 Seismicity
The proposed structure should be designed to resist seismic forces in accordance with the
UBC Section 2312, for Zone 4.
6.14 Plan Review
As final grading and foundation plans are completed, they should be forwarded to the
Geotechnical Engineer for review for conformance with the recommendations herein.
7.0 LIMITATIONS
This investigation was performed by SDA using the degree of care and skill ordinarily
exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable engineers and geologists practicing in
this or similar localities. No other warranty, express or implied, is made to the conclusions
and professional advice included in this report.
As in most major projects, conditions revealed by excavation may be at variance with
preliminary findings of this investigation.
This report is issued with the understanding that is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are
brought to the attention of the regulatory agencies, if required.
Thefindings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions
of the property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes
or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or
appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of
knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially
by changes outside the control of SDA.
-8-
\Z,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
Ballatore Construction
January 10, 1991
lR228A
8.0 REFERENCES
Carson, J.e., and Matti, S.E., 1986, Liquefaction Susceptihility in the San Bernardino Valley
and Vicinity of Southern California: A Preliminal)' Evaluation, U.S. Geological Survey
Open File Report 86-562.
Joyner W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1981, Peak Horizontal Acceleration and Velocity from
Strong-Motion Records Including Records from the 1979 Imperial Vall~y. California
Earthquake, Bulletin Seismal, Soc. Am. 71:6, December, pp. 2011-2038.
Schaefer Dixon Associates, Inc., 1989, Report on Geotechnical Investigation. Assessment
District No. 155. Parcel Map 24085. 24086. 21029. and 21383. Rancho California,
Riverside County. California, for Johnson + Johnson, Inc. of Temecula, California,
June 7, Project No. 9R4332e.
Slemmons, D.B., 1982, Determination of Design Earthquake Magnitudes for Microzonation,
Proceedings of the Third International Earthquake Microzonation Conference, Vol. I
of III, pp. 119-130.
Wesnousky, S.G., 1986, Earthquakes. Ouaternal)' Faults. and Seismic Hazard in California,
Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 91, No. B12, November 10, pp. 12587-12631.
-9-
\?
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
SCALE: ] in. 2000 n
Location Map
21382, la124 .
P.M. Construction
Ballatore
Figure: 1
\4..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
seJe!:Jossy UOX!C JeJeell:JS
",
--,-:--~::::~.~~. . <:.._~~
--"j ...., ",
~~":'/,/' "
j
.'.
....
-:-.~~~
_Sh.' _~ ~ -:_<. ~
. ..~:>., /<--:. " . ...:..;-,.. .,' . ",'" .
'-.--*
I ,f::.l~p'
..
'.
""~ 1\>" \ r '!("'\#.003N OIl:! 1..
.~ ill '- \... ... ,/;."' "'_.' ,.
.. ".:--"::-:.. .,', '.~ ,_--..
'Ol..Nl '...:, :.'. /<5>~:'--._' -.! I.L\-. i'
:.!1 . 'Cl!."_/~:-/",' : __ ' / y.." -' . ( ".
;:-~l,
I . .
I !:
!.!
i'
I,
/
,/~:-."o::;l~ '"..S,u~.
i I (., ~, - - \..-:-...- ,,-7:,.o:_lf. .
('_Q' _. .'_ ,~." .u:. .,)
I .~, . .-,'. (' .,,, ,~,,~"~~' .
I ---' "'... ( ....'
. . . , ~ - - '- . - .
. ~ / I, ..''',
I .-.' .' I \ (, j .' 'I.r-.,
/ ;:::"'.'9:ti ... \ .,. .". .... n, ..'
; ,I' . / . .r' .
...j" .. ;'='''<;:''I~' I.. .. L"t ;5\:....
~l~:..-~:--~~/~z iY' J '\ (. /"::>~.~
. /--,~:~j"t:-...... '. ,/ i /', ./~':t
./ '3:J /' ,.' .-J--F-" i / /" A. -__~~--
J. c;'Lb .'</~.'- . ( / !:: .:.:..--- '--':-I~-l'
_ _." _,' , I ,/ . 1/' , .. .' - ~-~ 'Ill,
. .OH...../ / ..---.,.. . ;Y ,-', . . ., :,../
, APe". ""......... /,~ ' - '" .1i-
,/~~ -;OO'!sldr-~ -",_ .--=-(0,,/ /.. r:;:;----: "fJ;/
.. _ ._._~=_ . . )OP,~'2 -, .....
Ji.E
. "1.' ",,'.~'.,'=;=---C ~..<:::.
._ . _ ..,,""" .~., ~;r -,.. J '.' .. ~.'
';.-.k'. '<- -"j:.:"2.-:"\)' 'J'" i" l"::;~
-CJ .-<" '''.;;b-it'~?: c1~F#:
i/fl
"
,:..,;i ";
/.~/. '1" ~
- I" r . {
F""".'" ...: '.. - :..J1" r ",:.> .
- ;'~~~~:-2-~;li~~i!;?~~~, l
"
~
'::'.--
,
'..l..."3"'.Lno%.~c:oc:",: r-:J*~tl'~
%.e:. .. ..
_0.' ~:::.,' .~2 (';l
, '. ;--::
"., .
\f8<:<:IH :'ON J:Je!OJd
ueld lOld
~66~ uer :eJ!lO
UOn:mJlSUO:J 9JOlelleg
~Z 101 'ZBCIZ 'W'd
<: :emBI:!
-"G \
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
-,
Ht
H2
1
I-
78Hz
+ -I
33H,
ACTIVE CONDITION
Project No.: 1R228A
-,
Ht
-=-
H2
1
I-
8SH.
+- SOH 1
I
AT-REST CONDITION
Date: Jan 1991
Lateral Pressure Diagrams
P.M. 2t382, Lot 24
Figure: 3
'h
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S h f D" Associates
c ae er Ixon
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
80RING LOGS
\\.
I
I
, I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
Ballatore Construction
January 10, 1991
lR228A
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
BORING LOGS
Subsurface exploration of the subject site was performed on December 14, 1990 with an 8-in
diameter bit using truck mounted hollow stem auger drilling equipment. The materials
encountered were continuously logged by a staff engineer and visually classified in accordance
with standard methods (ASTM D 2487 & 2488). The Key to Logs and Boring Logs are
presented on Figures A-O through A-2.
Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in borings at selected depths in accordance
with ASTM D 1586. SPT samplers were driven 18 in, with the bottom 12 in of blow counts
shown in the Blow Count/Ft column. This procedure was also followed for driving a 2-1/2
in (O.D.) ring sampler to obtain relatively undisturbed samples. The rings were placed in
canisters and sealed to prevent moisture loss.
Bulk samples of auger cuttings were obtained from approximated depth intervals and placed
if1 polyethylene containers for laboratory testing.
The locations of the borings are approximated by pacing using existing features. Boring
locations are accurate only to the degree implied by the method used.
\~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Logged By:
location:
~
""
o
o
11.
,
m
3
o
....
OJ
Date Dri lied:
Drilling Contractor:
Boring Ground
Diam. (in): Elev. (ft):
Groundwater Elev. (ft):
~
I
Description
SAMPLE TYPES
California Riog Sampler
Standard Penetration Test
Bulk Sample
MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONS3
FAT CLAY
LEAN CLAY
SILT
POORLY GRADED SAND
WELL GRADED SAND
CLAYEY SAND
SILTY SAND
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL
WELL GRADED GRAVEL
CLAYEY GRAVEL
SILTY GRAVEL
RELATIVE
PROPORTIONS
Term Percent
Trace 1 - 10
Little 11 - 20
Some 21 - 35
And 35 - 50
1
Blows/Ft
0-2
2-4
4-8
8,16
16-32
Over 32
RELATIVE DENSITY
Sands, Gravels and
Non-Plastic Silts
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
CONSISTENC~
Clavs and Plastic Silts Strength
Very Soft 0 - 0.25
Soft 0.25 - 0.5
Firm 0.5 - 1
Stiff 1 - 2
Very Stiff 2 - 4
Hard Over 4
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
Method/Equipment:
Total
Depth (ft):
x
mv
L
J _
""""
mc
.~ m
0""
I:C
o
U
Boring NlIllber:
LEGEND
Drive Drop
Wt. (lbs) Dist. (in):
JI
""
.~
m~
Cl>-
m u
00.
v
JI
L
o
other Tests
..
l>-
-
L
..
0.
m
o
5
10
USC
CH
CL
ML
SP
SW
SC
SM
GP
GW .
GC -
GM
1
Blows/Ft
0-4
4-10
10 - 30
30.50
Over 50
All laboratory
tests (other than
moisture/density
results) arc listed
in this column.
CLASSIFICATIONS
Soils are classified
both visually and
through laboratory
testing, according
to the Unified Soil
Classification (USe)
system.
I
NOTES:
1. Blows/Pt = Number of blows of 140 tb hammer falling 30 in to drive a 2-in O.D. Split.Spoon Sampter (ASTM D 1586).
2. Strength = Unconfined Compressive Strength ([sf) detennined by laboratory testing or approximated by the Standard Penetration Test
(ASfM D 1586), Pockel Penetrometer, or visual obsetvation.
3. Note that a mixture of soils types will result in a mixture of the associated graphics as well.
I
15
20
25
Project No.: lR228A
I
I
Date: Jan 1991
Key to Logs
Figure
A-O
(Shee' 1 of 1)
\'\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Logged By:
, J. Sandoval
Location:
See Plot Plan
~
oJ
o
o
..
"-
.
.
o
...
m
30
oJ
...
.
.c
oJ
0.
.
C
5
89
22
10
.'.
".:
55 ,
"
,
15 "
,.
",:
49 "
,
20
25
50
Project No.: lR228A
I
I
30
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
Date Drilled:
Drilling Contractor:
Method/Equipment:
Hollon-stem
Trnck Mounted Au 'er
(ft): Total Drive
Oepth eft): Wt. (lbs)
29.0 140
Boring Number:
12-14-90
Bori "9
Diam. (in):
8
B-1
Tanto Drillin
Groundwater Elev.
g
l None Encountered
Ground
Elev. eft):
1125
Drop
Dist. (in):
30
Description
J1~
D!~ ~
L u.. 01......
., L
C In J...
ILl Q. "".f.J
...f UI C
U1:::t. .... m
j I 0+1
......., E:c.
L" 0
c~ u
other Tests
:II
..
."
.~
c...
. u
co.
~
:II
L
C
Clayey SAND, fine to coarse, greenish brown, a
tittle gravel
Sandy CLAY, low plasticity, fine to medium,
slightly moist, medium dense, micaceous,
some roots or organic matter
11 110 Remolded Shear
Particle Size
Alterberg Limits
Maximum Dcnsity/
Oplimum Moisture
Remolded Shear
Expansion Index
Sand Equivalent
Same
Clayey SAND, fine to medium, low plasticity,
grayish brown, slightly moist, dense
6 100 Consolidation
Same, brown, some fine to medium gravel
Sandy CLAY, low ptasticity, fine, light greenish
brown, slightly moist, very hard, micaceous
13 98
..n.............................................,.................................................
Clayey SAND, fine, low plasticity, light greenish
brown, slightly moist, dense, micaceous
Total Depth = 29 ft
No Groundwater Encountered
Hole Backfilled
NOTES: 1. See Key 10 Logs for sampling classifications and laboratory test methods.
2. 'The substrata descriptions above are generalized representations and based upon visual/manual c1assificalion of cUllings and/or samples obw.incd
during drilling. Predominant material types shown on the Jog may contain different materials, and the change from one predominant malerial1ype
to another could be different than indicated.
3. Desc~iptions ~n this log apply only at Ihe specific location at the lime of drilling and may not be representative of subsurface conditions <II other
locations or times.
Date: Jan 1991
Log of Boring
Figure
A-1 (Sheell of 1)
1P
I
I
Logged By:
J. Sandoval
Location:
I
See Plot Plan
~
I
..
10-
v
I
.
.r:
..
0.
m
c
I
I
5
I
10
I
I
15
I
20
I
I
25
I
I
30
..
a
a
o.
"-
.
3
a
...
UI
59
Date Drilled:
Drilling Contractor:
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
Tonto Drillin
Groundwater Elev.
i
I None Encountered
Method/Equipment:
Hollowstem
Truck l\1ollnted Au 'er
(ft): Total Drive
Depth (It): Wt. (lbs)
29.0 140
Date: Jan 1991
Boring Number:
B-2
Drop
Oist. (in):
30
JI
+J
.~
.~
Clo-
. U
co.
v
JI
c
C
Other Tests
28
74
42
70,
'.:
,.
\
".:
76
12,14-90
Boring
Diem. (in):
8
GroLUX:I
Elev. (It):
1126
Partide Size
17 95 Consolidation
16 107
16 111
I
NOTES: 1. See Key to Logs for sampling classifications and laboratory test methods.
2. 111e substrata descriptions above are generalized representations and based upon visual/manual classification of cUllings and/or samples obtained
during drilling. Predominant material types shown on the log may contain different materials, and the change from one predominant malcriallypc
to anolher could be different than indicated.
3. Dcsc!iptions ~n this log apply only at the specific location at the time of drilling and may 110t be represenlalive of subsurface conditions al other
locations or limes.
I
Project No.: lR228A
I
I
Description
J1~
O'I+J X
L lL Ill.....
., C
C III J..
W D. +J+J
... me
1lJ~ ....01
J I D+J
'''+J :E: C
co. 0
Cv 0
Clayey SAND, fine, light greenish brown, dry to
slightly moist
----------------------------------
Silty SAND, fme, noa-plastic, greenish brown,
slightly moist, dense
SAND, coarse, brown
Sandy ClAY, fine, low plasticity, greenish brown,
moist, very stiff
Same, ,hard
Same, micaceous
Clayey SAND, coarse, brown, moist, very dense
Same, fine sand with oxidation coloring, otherwise
greenish brown, moist
Total Depth = 29 ft
No Groundwater Encountered
Hole Backf1l1ed
Log of Boring
Figure
A-2
(Shee. 1 oFl)
7".\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S h f D" Associates
c ae er Ixon
APPENDIX 8
LA80RATORY TESTING
.,,;r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Associates
. Schaefer Dixon
Ballatore Construction
January 10, 1991
1R228A
APPENDIX 8
LA80RATORY TESTING
General
Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System.
Classification was supplemented by index tests, such as Particle Size Analyses, Atterberg
Limits, and Sand Equivalent determinations. Moisture content and densities were
determined for selected relatively undisturbed samples. These results are shown on the
Boring Logs, Appendix A.
Particle Size Analyses
Particle size analyses, consisting of mechanical analyses using sieves, were performed on
representative samples, in general accordance with ASTM D 422. Test results are shown
on Figure B-1.
Atterberg Limits
Atterberg Limits consisting of Liquid and Plastic Limits were determined on a selected
sample to supplement mechanical analyses. The laboratory standard used was ASTM
D 4318. This result is shown on Figure B-2.
Expansion
An expansion test was performed on a sample representative of the upper 10 ft of on-site
soils. The sample was remolded and tested under a surcharge of 144 Ib/ft2 in accordance
with UBC 29-2. This test result is presented below:
Location
Expansion Index
Expansion Potential
B-1 @ 3-6 ft
50
Low to Medium
Sand Equivalent
A sand equivalent test was performed on a representative sample to supplement visual
classifications and mechanical analyses. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D 2419.
The result is presented below:
Location
Sand Eouivalent
B-1 @ 3-6 ft
9
?>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
Ballatore Construction
January 10, 1991
1R228A
Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture
A maximum dry density/optimum moisture relationship was determined for a representative
sample of on-site soils. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D 1557 (Five-Layer
Method). This test result is presented below:
Location
Optimum
Moisture
(percent)
Maximum
Dry Density
(lb 1ft 3)
10.0
B-1 @ 3-5 ft
131.2
Direct Shear
Direct shear strength tests were performed on samples considered representative of on-site
soils. The specimens were remolded to approximately 90 percent of the maximum dry density,
then saturated and tested in accordance with ASTM D 3080. These test results are presented
on Figure B-3.
Consolidation
Consolidation tests were performed on undisturbed samples to determine compressibility
characteristics of on-site soils. The sample was saturated near the beginning of the test to
simulate possible adverse field conditions. These results are shown on Figures B-4 and B-5.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
H
(/)
(/)
<I
D.
....
Z
III
o
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
ORA VEL SAND
Coarse I Fine Coarse I MediLl11 I Fine FINES (SILT and CLAY)
U. S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
1" 1/2"
311 1~1/2" I 3/4" I 3/811
10
4
10
20
40
100
200
I I I Y"' I .......... I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I' ...... I I I I
I I I I I I ~ I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I ~ I I
I I I I I I I I ~ I I
I 1 I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I \ ~ I
I 1 I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I :\ I
I I 1 1 I I: I I \: I
I I 1 I I I I
I I I I I I I I \
I I I I I I' I I I
I I I I I I; I I ;\ I
,
I I I I I I I I 1 , I
I I I I I I I I I ,
I I I 1 I I I 1 I ,
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
,
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I 1 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I 1 I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
( I I I I I I I I I I
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
10
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
0.1
0.01
0.001
LOCATION DEPTH
DESCRIPTION
SANDY lEAN CLAY, low pLasticity, fine to medium
SILTY SAND, fine. non-plastic
CLASSIFICATION
CL
SM
Legend:
"
"
B-1
B-2
3.0
5.0
7,;;
Project No.: lR228A
Date: Jan 1991
Grain Size
Distribution
Figure
B-1
v
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
6
~
...
0.
~
~
CL CH /
/'
/'
/
;' /
. 7
0/ MH
- - V
C,!:.-ML .v ML
I
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1
5
4
x
OJ
o
z
...
>-
...
...
o
...
...
Ul
([
J
0.
3
2
90 00
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
SYMBOL
Legend: a
b
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
50
29
USC CLASS.
CL
SM
BORING
B-1
B-2
DEPTH
3.0
5.0
LL
32
NP
PL
16
NP
PI
16
NP
Project No.: lR228A
Atterberg Limits
Date: Jan 1991
Figure
B-2
7X>
I
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
0 2 3 4 5
Normal struss, ksr
COHES ION FRICTION
LOCATION DEPTH (ft) SAMPLE TYPE (pst) ANGLE (deg.)
Legend: <> 8-1 2.0 Sandy CLAY (Remolded, Peak) 735 31
lIE B-1 2.0 Sandy CLAY (Remolded, Residual) 200 34
0 8-1 4.0 Sandy CLAY (Remolded, Peak) 290 32
X B-1 4.0 Sandy CLAY (Remolded, Residual) 200 33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
?<-
m
.:<
5
<>
*'
l><l
<>
~
<>
1 Ijl
i
.,
DI
C
.
L
.,
Ul
L
.
.
1:
Ul
Date: Jan 1991
Direct Shear Test
Project No.: lR228A
I
I
Figure
B-3
~
I
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o.
.
.
.
[
0<
U
.~
,[
?-
m
...
~
....
'"
'\.
\
1\
r\
"-- ,
....... I'-.. ,
r-.. r-.~
I
n
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
E
.
"'
..
o
l<
7.
8.
z
o
H
I-
<I
o
H
...J
o
"'
z
o
u
9.
10.
0.1
100
10
LOAD - kips per square root
Sample:
Sa""le Type:
B-2 at 7.0 ft
Sandy CLAY
o SampLe at in-situ moisture content
<> Water added to sa!Tple
Project No.: lR228A
Date: Jan 1991
Consolidation Test
Figure:
8-4
17J
I
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
c
><
u
..
.c
....
m
....
E
.
Ul
...
o
x
"'"
,
1\1
I\.
.'\.
\
r\
\
\
"
"
4
z
o
H
....
([
o
H
.J
o
Ul
Z
o
o
2
0.1
100
10
LOAD - kips par square root
Sample: B-1 at 12.0 ft
Sample Type: Clayey SAND
o Sample at in-situ moisture content
<> \Jater added to salJ1lle
Date: Jan 1991
Consolidation Test
Project No.: lR228A
I
I
Figure:
8-5
~
I
I.
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS FOR LOT 24
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
7P
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
/
"
/' -:'t.-"~ .,_,.d~,...-".- .
......::--::'.'...:'" ..... ~:... ..~..~:. ~-
'3 .- ~ ~ ~;~.~>t,7
,
I'
.....'.
..
~..- .....-.. ...........-
","".j
~'l
"". ......
"'j~..
'...4 --
~.I'J
~~ ' '
'~~.
L
. ,
- ._/
.'
.' ~A'~J:1r.~- .~ '
. "~~' .,:-~_.: ..~
---'- -~~
........ .. . .' - . ........-
......
X
/
"-
"--..,
,
......-....
........,.
---"---
......."
"
.........-........-
.....~-..._--
!
.... ---....... ......-..
. ....,
~
.:,.......,<.. ."'.~~.~ .
~_...~...;,-. J..:-;-...... :... ..0',. ....."'..". .
. """ -'.,""-."'< . '''i" '~
,,,., J
. .
. J.
- 0,: 42.9 9/,../(
.'::)~
LOT 24 M'?!,-
,
SO'
I~ 0
I r::. ./
~I
, . )': -
... :.. '~'l Z% ~
2. I
._-,
Z% .. ~ ;.:~ I ~ I. .
~ . 327....l] ,,\
/ )!. __ 40~1~~7 . ~
. / ~-.:-- .ld /~O _
1./t;l ,.v/; ~~b~r~, " ~ J tr~~'-?;
. ,rr I
. .,.....
....--
_.~
7 f,:l:(:tS.:.. .
I po-'
,...'-,/
rr:.
.'
fl'
,~
,...,~
0'.
~
~/
'\~
RIO NEDO.
..."),..;-
" "'..
~.
,4I'V
-.,~~.-.-
-.-
-I.?,Y';'"'Q . 1 'r.-~;:>a.;j.~O''''/A
. '-.J, __ .. .' v'.u _, - "-' .... v ..
.:...y' '..
.:.~~-- ~
~ SCALE
Project No.: 1R228A
Date: Jan 1991
Compaction Test Locations
P.M. 21382, Lot 24
Ballatore Construction
Figure: C-1
'?\-
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Associates
Schaefer Dixon
Ballatore Construction
January 10, 1991
lR228A
APPENDIX C
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS FOR LOT 24
Maximum
Test Date Test Test Dry Moisture Relative Dry Optimum
No. Tested Del.tb Elev. Density Content Compaction Density Moisture Retest
(ft) (ft) (lb/fi3) (%) (%) (lb//t3) (%)
327 4-27-90 12 1113 107.4 13.0 90 119.2 13.5 -
328 4-27-90 11 1114 113.4 13.0 95 119.2 13.5 -
400 5-17-90 10 1115 111.2 11.0 88 125.8 12.0 400A
,4OOA 5,17-90 10 1115 124.1 13.0 93 134.0 13.4 ,
403 5-18-90 3 1125 102.9 10.1 82 126.0 11.3 -
404 5-18-90 3.5 1121 119.0 11.9 91 130.3 10.0 -
409 5,24-90 0 1128 114.1 11.7 90 126.5 11.5 -
414 5-25-90 0 1126 122.4 8.7 96 128.0 10.0 -
415 5-25-90 0 1125 114.6 8.6 90 128.0 10.0 -
y
r>"T;-r,iJ/il""f"T;-'T~~;.~:~9tF_~.,''" ':~'.,. ,,:<!~',;::,"';c.-.~ ".'f'''-'-', --'n"+!'_~'...-=i"_'_~3.."-;"~--.",7~';;~~":~~,--.--.....~",,",~,-:,"",,i-~-~~~;~.~~.
. ._, .- ~,.... - w~,. '''f
w.o. ~6D-E-.cC
DATE 7- 2." - '\ I
NAME f?-'/Vb;J...I.I'...s
HOURS l '1)
EL~~~Q~. 'TEST~.~ REPORT
.f~~~~'~~~~'.'.. 0"
-~~:..~" ~- ~.
CLIENT ''-iiI."" ~~::r:.#.J? T"P.A~ LOCATION
.c,SJ;JPT. J At' ~3A 1/", -I'r,..' CONTRACTOR f"Vv:7 -eje
cEQuttP:MENTo
':.~-
~
1........~...,..,.I"tl
~-
~
.'
.4. "k,",~. ., /" J ~ .' /1'/-,
.I'"'i'("'A ,,-~ ~t/./ /o/Y>', .A i / ~ '-.r
~ ~//..ffr. L ....q, '.1.,i? "..,~ .~-. v . I
..-"~,,:,::?:;_:.:~,:.-,,.;,~1;~.~::'...:~~:~.,':.;.::.'::'''''/. p-- IcO;--.-. :-..:~." - ,
',~--_.!,-,"'-"'- "'~- -- --- -----
..r?/- "Z.r '"'fe,'" /7__ '/'/ /f-7"./, A' 7".,.:,k> J...-:1-lh~'
./ ~ -" ~ /'./ ., -/
~ " /"/b---"" "//h A I /..;?;.-,/ _/.:~"'. /-.~,.- .A
/z.// /'...., ~p/ /'f-""'" /"./-:;:;2." ~/4~. .',_ ./~I-::....
,-r-I ":,,, /?" /.,-".-""." _ / C
./
I
., Test
No.
fI,..
. 're
,,',' ~,
Dry
Density
p. c.f.
Elev.
or
Depth
Location
B
9
I'D
/1
I'Ary,- sJl"A-i,;'v-,;,.,;" 5
" 0 '''^ ',.).110<
(2,0> .
/1<1' .
I <. ~ ....~~ ....
Ie, {/w(i'
/10,:;
/f.~. "5
11/.7
111-7"
.,
('rH/J" r
:5 I,ll<' """
'0
d"~.:/",;
"'"
~i7'
//1" 1/'/
//A0'J'! L - I/.'/-?' e
~~ /A:7' _/.;...c;:/y . .~.,"".r
/;,,';./.1./--<:.), .L
/<'
%
Relative
Compaction
9~- g
'15 V
<i 7- .0
9(..,. (I
Test
Type
Soil
Type,
A '
,
IV
,r;r
,"17' ,
,,-
../ .b k~/,,' ";:"<"
1
/;,(" L/ ,,-:-bf
/"
/.. - ~
/ L-/~/2.'
('. k:_- f'/
COMMENTS:
.
,.,",. .,----.. -- "...,,-..
".._~,_._~"_..w ____
----. "'--.- .
GeoSoiJ,s, Inc.
By: /I;Z--
Page ~ of
i~"'~~"-"'l!'"""'- ..~...~-~~.;~~~~~ n ~~n.. ,~~?' . .~'_,p~.~~ "'r.,,---.-, .. ...-,.c'''~';-'-'~_'' ~~_~ ~~., ~...'."':'" ~""'----"'''''-''-;~-..:-r''~:- ~. ~-_",,:.~_,_ '~',",,'_'
Ie
V
FIELDTE~.I'NG REPORT
w.o. Y'"hO - i? -,C~
DATE 7" ~<. -q I
NAME (i! .N '?:!,l I;':$"
HOUR'[:~ . ~
l.
CLIENT ...., J.. ~~IJ.q~~Clovp TRACT
SUPT. JIJi"/C ZI4/1i4okJ'f!...
-
LOCATION (10 "'^ P (" 1/ /:.a
CONTRACTOR ...
EQUIPMENT
LAf"'f r.o-/l,.) (.;" ""-
. Elev. Moisture Dry %
Test ~. or Content Density' . Relative Test Soil
" c.
,Cf> No. Location Depth % p.c.f. Compaction Type Type
.' I fll"Y; it!,r I"',A . 1,;.- . ?' ( .~ /07 .-) ( "'E7, 0 #' A
"Z... c/ ~ . ') '3.'1 If 5'1,,/ 'i ,. (( A/ A
3 - /1L If'?, P, '12.0 .A/ ;q,
. r:)
-......-.,.,."
U///. /Y>-7 /:1.&6 ....,.?~_-,.t _q.//L~%_'/ ,
.:U7.--Z:& - ~ ~~ p A;?Y ~ jrj:9/;"''''....r..' ~ .
/" -~ . ....... -,~ .01 ~~;;7 --' -""'/A/' A'. ,~A' l2: ~
( k..?:.^ ..~I:;~,J 3-:-, 0. /'-.,b 2. D -.: ~ '
~,...~ ~)a_~*:-;~/L^-~fl:.J'" ,,-x.,!,.1 w<'P~~
h1 r.;:Art.e<;a ~ )'I"J-E. JIV', ,~,t-/..// ~i;',..,/v.'r..p _ //V;
I'.<A'L<" A. ...)~ /2-<<. h /4/. J I~.....J/d A+
~ I
7 -
U/A-r/lI"- ~.LI 0,,-
4/) ~ / ,r.:::z<,
I"L (5 / ~, .
I
o
.../..-""" ;&.1 ~. ,
-_/
(Y/)
~L? /.//1;: "0~rl 7
c., 'f:.ri"Sfr..I1
./
-~
COMMENTS:
GeOSOi(St/1re,,
By:~J~-
Page of
""-"'--'--_':':'___''';''.';'':;:~~':-.C>'..'.__:-_''=;::''~"~'~~.'_::''_ :-~'_~~'.
"-- :-".j