HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 9095 Parcel 3 Geotechnical Report
,I'
. · tt
-",
~~~EN
.
I
COrPoration
. Soil Engineering and Consulting Services-, Engineefing Geology. Compaction Testing
_lnspeclions_ConslructionMalerialsTesting_lallofatoryTesling_PefcolaliOflTesling
-Geology-waterResourceSludies . PI1aseI& II EnvironmenlalSileAssessmenls
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Teng Residence, Assessors Parcel Number: 922-200-003
Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 9095, East Vallejo Road
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
LD 99-025GR
Project Number: T1666-C
I
I
October 4, 1999
!I
il
II
~o\lE.~u\..~
~f'f' '~
Of
C\,\"i
'V ~-{
\'C.~'C:
?-'C.-J
n~\-<:
n ?~~;, 0"
,nn~ ~~ ~ (",,, ,'.
:. \":) j ,,0 'O~\9~~' ( ,'.. (:.
.... r ~l ~J .....\\~')~ ?~o~.:::. c C:.\ \;.>-
.....,... 'V . ~e~ "\"",,:\A:.. ~" ~t:... If'\..\-'
\.,\... (. iF> ,-, 0\\.......) .: ,.\...~
~o"'\ ~O; ~~G0'..~'J~Q 9-'
'At~.. e."\\O "c ?\;::,?o?>,J
\S ~ "ll \.. n'S r 'o'i' i>' '
t>-'. ,:'\ " 'P C'\
~ ~\.. '<" ~,. (,v '~~ s'-,
~ "\~~'C.~~~\. ~ n'i-\ S ':POtl
~ 01' rO'?,v \.f';~~~ ...\OtA ~\.(.:~~
.......?.o....l'-li'-'-\--i r;pp\-,..,,_C.c:~CP~
"'(01'r~ Or.Oo;.' I~';,~ N='-;\~1.\'\"
~ t~ ~ ,- ....- -{.l.....
'r -('.'v >eJ,"''\...... \0.....
c;\\.... ..,,,:,, ............
;;.0 OW,~v"~\' -
'1";"10'
'/...>-:-1
il
II
II
II
Prepared for:
II
II
Mr. Nathan Teng
32217 Corte Tomatlan
Temecula, California 92592
.
; ,
, ,
; ,
; ,
/ ~ '.-
-
" -
,
,--_,_ i
,. --- I
-- I
~ ' ~ . ,\ " .' ~ ,->-'-~;"::==~~~====:;;;;~;:=~~:
""....iilliI.ll.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii,
______..a....___.....___....._=M=i!illU...
-----------------..-----------...--- -.-,......-
::'f'" . .- --.....----
.' -, -~" :.. -;:: ..~- .;,,; ~~ ,-~
I'
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:.
il
!I
il
II
II
.
.
Mr. Nathan Teng
Project No: T1666.C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE
PAGE
1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ......................................................................1
1,1 PROJECT LOCATION ."'.................,...,...............,....................................... ,.. ..... ..,..............1
1,2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....,....,................................................,................,...........,............' 1
1,3 SITE DESCRIPTION,.. ........,....... ............ ...... ...., ..............,......................' ,.. ,.. ........, ........',.. ,2
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ..........................................................................................................~...2
2.1 TIME OF GRADING .."............,..,.............,....,..""..,......,........,.........,....,....,..,...............""...2
2.1 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT ..........,................"............,..,..,..................................",....,2
2.2 GRADING OPERATIONS",.",."",.",...."..".,.........",.""""""""".,"',..,""',.".".....,..,""',...,' ,2
3.0 TESTING ...........................................................................................................................3
3.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES ,..........,....,.......,....,...........,..,......,................,.......................3
3.1.1 LABORATORY TESTING.... ...... ..... .,. ...... .............. .............. ...........................3
3.1.2 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST,.......................,........,..................3
3,2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST .., "".."...',......,.........." ,.........,....,.. ,...',..".,.....,..,..".,.,' ".,.."", ,....,3
4.0 EARTH MATERIALS ...........................................................................................................3
:5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................4
'5,1 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .......,........................................,........................4
:5,2 FOUNDATION SIZE"..,."",..."",..""......."..."".....,.,...""...."".",..."."..,.,..""",.....,.,..,....",.4
:5,3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT...""."".".,.,...,........,.",.,.,."...,.,."..",..,...".".,."."..,..,....."..",...",.4
:5.4 BEARING CAPACITY "..."",.."...",..,....",...,..".,..,."...,..",.".".",...",..,.",..."",.,..""..,....."".4
: 5;5 SETTLEMENT ."".."".""",......"",.".....,...,.."."..,.,.."....".,."....,..."..,.....,.,..,..,.."..",.,.""...5
: 5;6 LA TERALCAPACITY ".......,.."..".."".,..,........,.."....."""...."."."',..".".,...."..,..,,.,........,...,.. ,5
: 5:7 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS, ,...'",."",..., .." ,.,."",.., "...,..,.., ,.,."., ,.,.', ,.,..'", ,...."...5
'5:8 INTERIOR SLABS .." ....................................., ..................... ............. ,......, ...... ,.........." ....... ,6
: 5,9 EXTERIOR SLABS,.., ................... .........................................,........ .....................,.. ....... ......6
'5',10 GENERAL ......",........."......,...............................,......."................,..,..,..........,...........6
16.0
CLOSURE ......................................................................................................................... 7
, ApPENDIX
'TEST RESULTS
. DRAWINGS
.
EnGEN Corporation z....
I' . i. , .
I~EN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
Coq~oration
. Soil Engineering and Consulting Services . EngineeringGlWlogy. Compaction Tesling
elnspections.ConslructionMalerialsTesling-l..abllfaloryTesling.PerOOlalionTesting
. Geology. Water Resource Studies . Phase I & n Environrmnlal Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
October 4, 1999
Mr. Nathan Teng
32217 Corte T ornatlan
Temecula, California 92592
(909) 303-1735 I FAX (909) 303-1735
/.....-Regar~ GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
'--~ :~ ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS"
Teng Residence, Assessors Parcel Number: 922-200-003
Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 9095, East Vallejo Road
City of T emecula, County of Riverside, California
LD 99-025GR
Project Number: T1666-C
References:
EnGEN Corporation, Limited Geotechnical Study, Proposed Single Family
Residence, Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 9095, East Vallejo Road, City of
Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Project Number: T1666-LGS,
report dated March 26, 1999.
Manning Engineering, Grading Plan, Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 9095, City of
Temecula, California, plan undated.
1.
2,
Dear Mr. Teng:
According to your request and signed authorization, EnGEN Corporation has performed field
observations, sampling, and in-place density testing at the above referenced site. Submitted, herein,
are the test results and the supporting field and laboratory data.
1.0
1.1
SITe/PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject site consists of approximately 6 acres, located at the terminus of East Vallejo
Road, in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California.
1.2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Prior to grading operations, topography and surface conditions of the site were moderately
sloping to steeply sloping.
, '
, " " I ~ r J
J ' _ I'" '~, I _' _ '
". '.' -;' ,-, ::' :_--~~~~;;'=~!!!~~~~=~~~~~~~,~~!
__llI!iI._...iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
_a__....__._____......._____....MM!IlIl'!l!'ll:t$OWM.
-----='!...--i-~'iil--...------------~=::=====~
~ \ - -
--/ "
, '
-'----_...~.:;..
II
I !I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11.3
,2;0
;2.1
;2:1
:2:2
.
.
Mr. Nathan Teng
Project No: T1666-C
October 1999
Page 2
SITE DESCRIPTION
It is understood that the subject site is to be developed with a single-family residence with
slab-on-grade concrete floors.
SCOPE OF WORK
TIME OF GRADING
This report represents geotechnical observations and testing during the construction
operations from September 13, 1999 through September 22, 1999,
CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT
The grading operations were performed by Blackmore Contracting through the use of
one (1) DaN track-mounted dozer, one (1) D6M track-mounted dozer, one (1) 623 self-
loading scraper, two (2) water trucks.
GRADING OPERATIONS
Grading.within the subject site consisted of a cut/fill operation. Grasses and weeds were
removed prior to fill placement. Fill material was generated from the northern portions of
the site, ,and used to bring the driveway, northwest pad "nd house pad portions of the site
to finish grade elevation, Removal of alluvium, slopewash, etc., was performed to a depths
ranging 'from 3 to 7-feet below original elevation. Over-excavated earth material was
stockpiled and later used as fill. Bottoms were observed, probed and found to be into
competent bedrock by a representative of this firm. Keying and benching into competent
bedrock was observed during the grading operations. Over-excavation was performed in
the cut portion of the building pad to a depth of 4.0-feet below finish grade elevation and to
a distance of 5.0-feet outside the proposed structure. The exposed bottoms were scarified
and moisture conditioned to a depth of 12-inches then cornpacted to 90 percent. 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 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 and staked by
others and should be verified by the Project Civil Engineer.
4
EnGEN Corporation
II
il
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
il
II
II
II
fl
il
:3;0
:3.1
:3~2
14;0
.
.
Mr. Nathan T eng
Project No; T1666-C
October 1999
Page 3
TESTING
FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES
Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed in general accordance
with ASTM-D-2922-81 (90) and ASTM-D-3017-88 procedures for determining in-place
density and !TIoisture content, respectively, using nuclear gauge equipment. Relative
compaction test results were within the 90 percent required for all material placed and
compacted. Test results are presented in the Appendix of this report. Fill depths and test
locations (by station numbers when applicable) were determined from review of the
referenced grading plans.
3.1.1 LASORA TORY TESTING
The following laboratory tests were performed as part of our services during the grading of
the subject site. The test results are presented in the Appendix of this report.
3.1.2 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
Maximum dry density - optimum moisture content relationship tests were conducted on
samples of the materials used as fill. The tests were performed in general accordance with
ASTM D1557-91 procedures. The test results are presented in the Appendix (Summary of
Optimum Moisture Content I Maximum Dry Density Relationship Test Results).
EXPANSION INDEX TEST
A soil sample was obtained for expansion potential testing from the building pad area upon
completion of rough grading of the subject site. The expansion test procedure utilized was
the Uniform Building Code Test Designation 18-2. The material tested consisted of sand
with varying amounts of silt and clay, which has an Expansion Index of 1. This soil is
classified as having a very low expansion potential. The results are presented in the
Summary of Expansion Index Results in the Appendix of this report,
EARTH MATERIALS
The natural earth materials encountered on-site. generally consisted of sand with silt and
clay,
~
EnGEN Corporation
.'
I
.
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.0
5.1
5.2
15.3
15.4
.
.
Mr. Nathan Teng
Project No: T1666-C
October 1999
Page 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional column footings and
continuous wall footings founded upon properly compacted fill. The recommendations
presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and construction are based
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,
borizontal. and uplift force"
FOUNDATION SIZE
ontinuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inche~. Continuous footings
should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of one J1) 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
supportil')g soils. Column footings should have a minimum width of 18-inches by 18-inches
and be suitably reinforced, based on structural requirements. A grade beam, founded at
-
the same depths and reinforced the same as the adjacent footings, should be provided
-
across garage door openings and other doorway entrances.
-
DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT
Exterior i and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill should extend to a
minimum depth of 12-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for the structure. The
foundations should be founded in properly compacted fill with a minimum of 24-inches of
compacted fill below the bottom of the footings,
BEARING CAPACITY
Provided the recommendations for site earth work, minimum footing width, and minimum
depth of!embedment for footings are incorporated into the project design and construction,
the allowable bearing value for design of continuous and column footings for the total dead
plus frequently-applied live loads is 1,500 psf for continuous footings and 1,500 psf for
column footings in properly compacted fill material. The allowable bearing value has a
factor of safety of at least 3,0 and may be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of
live and/or dynamic loading such as wind or seismic forces. "
EnGEN Corporation
,I'
:1
,.
il
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
Mr. Nathan Teng
Project No: T1666-C
October 1999
Page 5
I 5;5 SETTLEMENT
Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values for continuous and
column footings, respectively, and the maximum assumed wall and column loads are not
expected to exceed a maximum settlement of 0.5-inches or a differential settlement of
0.25-inches in properly compacted fill.
! 5:6".....-r:ATERAL CAPACITY ~
'-- ~itional 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 - 300 pet
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 ab~ve values are allowahlp. pesiqn values and hiiilve safety factors of at least
2,0 incorpnr"tp.rtjnto them and may be used in combination without reduction in evaluating
the resistance to lateral loads. The allowable values may be increased by 33.3 percent for
short durations of live and/or dynamic loading, such as wind or seismic forces, For the
calculation of passive earth resistance, the upper 1.0-foot of material should be neglected
unless confined by a concrete slab or pavement The maximum recommended allowable
passive pressure is 5.0 times the recommended design value,
i5.7 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 (ACt) guidelines, Special precautions should be taken during
placement and curing of all concrete slabs. Excessive slump (high water/cement ratio) of
1
EnGEN corpol'2tion
II'
II
II
II
II
il
il
II
II
'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
Mr. Nathan Teng
Project No; T1666-C
October 1999
Page 6
:5:8
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.
GNTERIOR SLABS ~
Interior concrete slab-on-grade may be a minimum of 4-inches in nominal thickness and be
underlain by a properly prepared subgrade. Slab ;;;inforcement may consist of 6 gauge
wire mesh (in sheets), supported on cement blocks for proper placement.
-
:5.9
The reinforcing should be placed at mid-depth in the slab. The concrete section and/or
reinforcing steel should be increased appropriately for anticipated excessive or
concentrated floor loads. In areas where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated
over the'slab, we recommend the use of a polyethylene vapor barrier with a minimum of
6.0 mil in thickness be placed beneath the slab. The moisture barrier should be overlapped
or sealed at splices and covered by a 1.0-inch minimum layer of clean, moist (not
saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures. If needed to
prevent punctures, the vapor barrier should be supported on at least 1.0-inch of clean
sand.
~TERIOR SLA;;)
All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks, etc., with the
exception of PCC pavement) should be a rT),inimum of 4-inches nominal in thi~kness.
~
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 01557-91
procedures imrnediately 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 has been completed in accordance with the Referenced No. 1 report, or as
amended in the field base on conditions encountered, the project plans, 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.
e>
EnGEN Corporation
.'
II
il
il
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
Mr. Nathan Teng
Project No: T1666-C
October 1999
Page 7
Any subsequent grading for development of the subject property should be performed
under engineering observation and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Subsequent
grading includes, but is not limited to, any additional fill placement and excavation of
temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN Corporation should
observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be made prior to installation of
concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel so as to verify and/or modify, if necessary, the
conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations of overexcavation cuts, fill
placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement subgrade and base
course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other earth work completed for the
development of subject site should be performed by EnGEN Corporation. If any of the
observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions are not performed by
EnGEN Corporation, liability for the safety and performance of the development is limited
to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by EnGEN Corporation.
6.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described above.
It mayor may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes, The findings
and recommendations expressed in this report are based on field and laboratory testing
performed during the rough grading operation and on generally accepted engineering
practices and principles. No further warranties are implied or expressed beyond the direct
representations of this report.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services. If you should have any questions
regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
EriGEN Corporation
~W~
Jason D. Gardner
Field Operations: Manager
JDG/OB:ch
Distribution: (4) Addressee
fiLE: EnGEN/Reporting/CIT1666C Teng, Nathan, Rough Grading
.' '. .
Mr. Nathan Teng
Project No: T1666-C
'. Appendix Page 1
APPENDIX
1 FIELD TEST RESULTS
(SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS)
(NUCLEAR GAUGE TEST METHOD)
I Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
Test Date Elev, Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
INO' (1999) Test Locations (FT) Type (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%j (%j
1 9~13 Driveway - Keyway 1110' 1 123.1 13.1 110.7 90.0 90
I~ 9~13 Driveway - Keyway 1112' 1 123.1 12.0 109.8 89.1 90
i 9~14 Driveway - Keyway 1118' 1 123.1 14.0 111.2 90.3 90
4 9:.14 Driveway - Keyway 1120' 1 123.1 15.7 110.3 90.0 90
I~ 9:.14 Driveway - Keyway 1117' 1 123.1 13.9 111.8 90.8 90
9:.14 Retest of #2 1112' 1 123.1 12.8 110.9 90.1 90
, I~ 9:.14 House Pad - Keyway 1132' 2 124.2 10.2 112.9 90.9 90
9:.14 House Pad - Keyway 1134' 2 124.2 10.4 113.6 91.5 90
9 9:.15 Driveway Fill 1121' 1 123.1 12.6 111.8 90.8 90
110 9+15 Driveway Fill 1122' 1 123.1 13.7 112.5 .91.4 90
11 9+15 House Pad - Fill 1136' 1 123.1 12.5 110.7 90.0 90
12 9+16 Driveway 1122' 2 124.2 10.1 113.1 91,1 90
113 9+16 Driveway 1125' 2 124.2 9.8 113.9 91.5 90
14 9+16 Driveway 1125' 2 124.2 10.6 114.2 91.9 90
115 9+16 House Pad 1138' 1 123.1 13.7 110.8 90.8 90
16 9+16 House Pad 1140' 2 124.2 10.5 114.0 91.8 90
17 9+16 Tennis Court/Keyway 1132' 2 124.2 9.6 115.0 92.6 90
118 9+16 Tennis Court/Keyway 1134' 2 124.2 10.2 112.3 90.4 90
19 9+17 Tennis Court 1136' 2 124.2 11.1 116.0 93.4 90
120 9+17 Tennis Court 1138' 2 124.2 11.7 114.1 91.9 90
21 9.;17 Tennis Court 1140' 2 124.2 11.9 113.7 91.5 90
22 9J17 Driveway 1128' 1 123.1 14.0 111.9 90.9 90
123 9,17 Driveway 1129' 1 . 123.1 13.2 113.0 91.8 90
24 9-17 Driveway 1127' 1 123.1 12.9 112.5 91.4 90
125 9-17 Driveway 1133' 2 124.2 10.7 114.9 92.5 90
26 9,;20 Driveway 1130' 2 124.2 12.6 115.0 92.6 90
27 9-20 Driveway 1131' 2 124.2 12.4 113.6 91.5 90
128 9-20 Driveway 1135' 2 124.2 13.1 114.7 92.4 90
29 9-20 Driveway 1137' 2 124.2 11.2 116.8 94.0 90
30 9-20 Driveway 1140' 1 123.1 12.5 113.0 91.8 90
131_ _ 9-20 Tennis Court 1142' 1 123.1 13.0 112.7 91.6 90
32 9-20 Tennis Court 1144' 1 123.1 14.8 113.9 92.5 90
133 . 9-20 House Pad 1142' 2 124.2 10.9 115.1 92.7 90
34 9-20 House Pad 1144' 2 124.2 11.5 113.5 91.4 90
1 EnGEN Corporation \0
II'
II
II
I
I est
No,
1135
36
1137
38
1.39
I~o
41
II:~
Ir4
1.45
46
It7
I 48
II
I.
.
Mr. Nathan Teng
Project No: T1666-C
Appendix Page 2
FIELD TEST RESULTS (CONTINUED)
(SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS)
(NUCLEAR GAUGE TEST METHOD)
Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
Date Test Locations Elev. Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
(1999) (FT) (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%)
9~21 House Pad 1146' 2 124.2 9.2 113.7 91.5 90
9~21 House Pad 1148' 2 124.2 10.0 114.5 92.2 90
9"21 House Pad 1151' 2 124.2 9.6 114.2 91.9 90
9~21 House Pad 1154' 2 124.2 9.8 115.6 93.1 90
9~22 Tennis Court Pad 1147' 2 124.2 9.3 119.0 95.8 90
9~22 Tennis Court Pad 1150' 2 124.2 10.7 116.1 93.5 90
9~22 Upper House Pad 1156' 2 124.2 9.0 115.6 93.1 90
9~22 Upper House Pad 1158' 2 124.2 9.8 116.9 94.1 90
9"22 Tennis Court 1152' 1 123.1 10.9 113.0 91.8 90
9~22 Lower House Pad 1156' 2 124.2 9.6 114.0 91.8 90
9"22 Lower House Pad 1158' 2 124.2 9.5 116.8 94.0 90
9~22 Lower House Pad 1161' 2 124.2 10.7 115.2 92.8 90
9"22 Lower House Pad F.G. 2 124.2 8.9 117.0 94.2 90
9~22 Upper House Pad F.G. 2 124.2 10.0 118.0 95.0 90
(F,G,) Indicates Finish Grade
II
II
II
II
!I
II
il
il
EnGEN Corporation 'i\
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'.
.
Mr. Nathan Teng
, Project No: T1666-C
Appendix Page 3
SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT I
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS
ASTM 01557-91
Soil Optimum
Maximum Moisture
Soil Description Dry Density Content
Type (USCS Symbol) (PCF) (%)
A1 Sand, Tan (SW) 123.1 10.2
A2 Silty Fine Sand, with Clay, Tan (SM) 124.2 10.1
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
Soil
Type
A2
Depth
(FT)
Dry Density
(PCF)
Moisture
Condition Before
Test (%)
10.2
Moisture
Condition After
Test (%)
Expansion
Index
16.0
1
1.5
111.9
7-'
EnGEN Corporation \
--
I. i. . "
II Mr. Nathan Teng
Project No: T1666-C
Appendix Page 4
I
II
II DRAWINGS
il
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I \~
EnGEN Corporation