HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 9833 Lot 30 Rough Grading (Mar.13,2003)
>T.~{E. Soils e@., Inc..
.
\i2. qa~
LOT .30
, ' ,
~hol1q: (909) 6i8-9669 . f1\;X:(909) i678C9769
3] 70$ Celltral Street, Suite A 0 Wildol1lar, CA 92595
E-mail: thesoilsco@aol.colII
RECEIVED
MAR 1 4 Z003
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
March 13,2003
Mr. Ray Iskander
32507 Corte Zar\Jgozo
Temecula, California, 92592
SUBJECT: RE~O~TOF ROUGH GRADING
PropOsed Single-Family Residence
Lot 30, Tract 9833, JededialJ Srnith Road
Temec11la, Riverside County, California
Work Order No. 548301.22
: Dear Mr. Iskander:
INTRODUCTION
IIn accordance with YOll1" a~thorization, T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. has prepared this Report of
I Ro~'gh Grading presenting the results of om observation and testing dming ro~gh grading at the
i s~bject site. Alt compaction test results are incl~ded in this report in Appendix B, Table I. The
!proposed single-family! residence was graded in accordance with the reqillrements of the City of
ITemec~la and the 1997, Uniform Bwlding Code (UBC).
i A 30-scale as-b~ilt grading plan, provided to ~ by you, was ~tilized to plot the location of all field
;den$ity tests cond~cted during the ro~ grading operations. A copy of the 30-scale, as-bwlt,
!grading plan "Index Sheet 03005" was ~tilized as a base map for om Density Test Location Map,
! Plate 1. Edmondson Cpnstruction performed the grading operations.
iACCOMPANYING ~S AND APPENDICES
!Figure 1 - Location Map, (2000 scale)
!Plate 1 - Density Test Ipcation Map, (30-Scale)
i Appendix A - Laboratory Re,suits
iAppendix B - Results of Compaction Tests
iT.H.E. Soils Co.. Inc.
W.O. 548301.22
\
---...'--
.'{:,_-:". _...J....,..-..-.._.--:::.~~:"~
.=". ....
:'\t
~,
.
.
Mr. Ray Iskander
March 13, 2003
Page 2
Proposed Development
, The proposed development calls for the construction of a single-family residence with associated
, driveway and landscape areas. It is om understanding the proposed residence will consist of a
, concrete sla~n~grade, wood-framed, stucco-sided structme with conventional footings.
: Site Description
The s~bject site is an irregular shaped parcel. The s~bject site is located along the north side of
,JededialJ Smith Road, west of Margarita, in the Temecula area of so~thwest Riverside County,
I Oalifornia The site is bordered on the north, east, and west by large parcel residential
,developments. The geographical relationships of the site and smrounding area are shown on om
: Site Location Map, Figure 1.
Topographically, the ~bject site is dominated by a northeast trending ridge separated by moderately
I incised drainage swales. Natmal gradients on the slopes vary from IO to 38%. Drainage on-site is
i accomplished by sheet flow generally to the east toward existing natural drainage charmel. Prior to
I grading, vegetation on the s~bject site consisted of a low growth of armnal weeds and grasses on the
I lower elevations of the s~bject site, and a moderate growth of chaparral on the ridges.
KEYWAY EXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION OBSERVATIONS & TESTING
I Prior to ro~ grading, the areas to be graded were cleared of vegetation, which was removed from
I the ~bject site. Ro~gh grading operations consisted of the excavation of keyways along the toe of
. all fill slopes. The keyways for the driveway and home area were founded a minim~ 3-ft. below
: the existing ground smface and a minim~ of2-ft. into dense unweathered sedimentary bedrock
, units. Each keyway was tilted at a minim~ inclination of 2% into the existing hillside. The
,exposed earth materials within each keyway were scarified a minim~ of l2-inches below the
; exposed smface, moistme conditioned to near optim~ moi~, and recompacted to 90% of the
,dry density, as determined by ASTM 1557.
: Benching was maintained into medi~ dense to dense sedimentary bedrock that was free of pores
~ & fme roots doong grading operations. All topsoiVcoll~vial soils were removed dOOilg benching
. operations and were ~tilized as fill materials. The materials ~ed for fill consisted of on-site dark
. brown silty sands (Unified Soil Classification-SM) derived from the on-site topsoiIlcoll~vial and
,sedimentary bedrock units. Fill placement and compaction was achieved ~tilizing a Caterpillar D-8
. bulldozer at the 'proposed home pad and associated driveway areas. Moisture conditioning was
accomplished ~tilizing a water truck. The fill was placed in 6 to 8-inch thick lifts and moistme
conditioned, as needed, to bring the material to near optim~ moisture content, and was then
:T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc.
W.O. 548301.22
Z-
...; ....
T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc.
11hunc: (909) 678-9669 FAX: '(909) 678-9769
.1 170.:; Central Street, Suite A . Wildolllar, CA 92595
ADAPTED FROM THE 1997. USGS, 7.5 MINUTE. PACHANGA. QUADRANGLE MAP
o
1000
1000
SCALE: FT.
SITE LOCA TION MAP
w.o. #
548301.22
MAR. 2003
Figure: 1
Date:
3000
4000
.3>
.
.
Mr. Ray Iskander
March 13, 2003
Page 3
properly compacted by wheel rolling with the water truck. A minim~ degree of compaction of
90% was reqillred, as determined by ASTM 1557.
TESTING PROCEDURES
Field Density Testing
Field density testing was performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D2922 (n~clear
ga~ge). Areas failing to meet the rninim~ compaction req~irements were reworked and retested
until the specified degree of compaction was achieved. The elevations and the results of the field
density tests are presented in Appendix B, Results of Compaction Tests, Table I. The approximate
locations of the tests are shown on the Density Test Location Map, Plate 1.
Maxim~ Density Determinations
Maxim~ Density/Optim~ Moistme determinations were performed in the laboratory on
representative samples of the on-site soils ~ed in the fill operations. The tests were performed in
accordance with ASTM 01557, Test Method A. The test results, which were ~tilized in
determining the degree of compaction achieved dming fill placement, are presented in Appendix A,
Table I.
Expansion Index Testing
Expansion index testing was performed on a representative sample of the ~pper 3-ft of earth
materials exposed at the pad smace. Test results yielded an expansion index of 19, which indicates
that the on-site soils exhibit very low expansion potential (0-20). Test results are presented in
Appendix A, Table II.
Soluble S~lfate Content
A representative sample of the ~pper 3- ft. of the earth materials exposed on the pad smface has
been obtained tor testing. It is anticipated that, from a corrosivity standpoint, Type II Portland
Cement can be ~ed for construction. However, d~e to the time constraints of this report, the
res~lts of the sol~ble s~lfate content analysis will be iss~ed as an addend~ to this report. E.S.
Babcock & Sons, Inc. laboratories of Riverside, California will be performing the laboratory
testing.
T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc.
W.O. 548301.22
"
~m
:;IN
6 (Jl rr:3\
o \!!!J
, 0
-00
)>
O@
[Tl
I
~.-~~-----
~V,
.......IN
tOm
..J:>
'-'
/,./'
,r)>
0-0
0-0
;:;:JJ
_0
OX)
. " ,,/ ,_' . . z ~ I"
--............./' ~~_.O;:;L-
,........ //"'" . ___'.. .. Tim
'-......./. ^
.,' . m "-
-<
~
)>
.~
.
- .---..------------.
/'
- _.-- .--...----.---.
.,/
/'
:-=~~~_<;:z:~:,. ~,
'--. . . / /'
" .;>. . ......
./9" ..'
/
/
/
"
rr3\
\5!Y
~m
:;IN
to-..J
o
o
---->.
\\
(
\
,..->
, ..->
J?
o
~m
:;c..~
tOtO
o
o
~
CO
.
o
---->.
~m
:;~
<D
o
<S)
(~
\
.->
.->
u'
o
@
\
"
~m
:;.p..
to(Jl
o
o
~m
:;.p..
to.p..
o
"
=:-0)
=:0>
lNO
o-..J
(Jl
mm
-..J
o
......1
o
..->
..->
, ~ ~
~m~~
~~ \!::/.
\
~
c.- ~ m
\J ~8
~8
___ ~m
\"7 ~9
-:s:-.d
_~_' l () 0
~m
::::0
r)>
g-o
)>-0
-I:JJ
_0
OX
z~
o~
Tim
^
m
-<
:E
)>
-<
..::.r-
o
'~~;Y' ~ -
~~.
, i
I I
i
.....
" I\:l
--
::::m
.p..lN
.tOlN
o
o
@
......m
~.
.p..N
to CO
o
o
~\
---"
@
,.
LN
CO
~
@
::::m
.j:>N
to.p..
o
9/
""&
IL ::::~
~ m .p...p..
.p..o CO
-..J to
N 0
o
::::m
.p..w
m
(Jl
o
/
..->
vi
J?
-'~m
:;N
-..JO
lfi
o
::::m
lN~
-..J
to
o
=::rn
.p..Q;
-~
IN
o
It
@ :e
0
~
0 -I
. €I m
l!:
10 m m
"" 0 ~
"II ~ C
:>l !; ~8
0
)( ...
~ '" )> r-Cl=:
-
N ~ffiom~ :-l
..
0-100 ill
g ;o21~C/l::! !"l
<,:_0;;:0 00
~ c m)>."QZ 0 i
0 !i ;o:I:-Ir--I ~
z [!I !:!!C/l~~Cl
0 ol!: ." Ii
." ~ m::jo)>-I 0
8 0:I:-Il!:5 ~
ii: .. g~~~~ ~ .
"II '" ~~~~g
~ '"
...
-! 2
~ o ..._Z
)> ~l!: r'l
-! r- z~
m "II :;; 0
III
-! S o m
;0
m Z
I~ :;
.
-
.-i.
DZ~
3D-SCALE
.~
.
.
Mr. Ray Iskander
March 13,2003
Page 4
Slope Construction
em and fill slopes constructed at a 2: I (horizontal:vertical) slope to a maxinJum height of 30-ft are
anticipated to be both smficially and grossly stable. Fill and c~t slopes located on the s~bject site
were constructed at a 2: I (horizontal: vertical) slope ratio to a maxinJum height of approximately
12-ft. and 30-ft., respectively. Fill slopes were constructed to approxinJate finish grade elevations
and were then s~bsequentIy track walked with the dozer to achieve the reqWred +90% relative
compaction.
<J:~t-to-Fill Transition
1be cm-to-fiIl transition was located inside the proposed ho~ footprint, as staked and represented
by the contractor. Therefore, the entire bwlding pad was overexcavated a minimum of 3-ft below
the finish grade elevation and 5-ft beyond the bwlding footprint, as represented by the grading
contractor. In addition, if the ho~e footprint is altered or relocated, T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. should
review the proposed location and additional recommendations will be made at that tinJe.
Seismic Parameters
Soil liq~efaction is the loss of soil strength d~e to increased pore water pressures ca~ by a
significant ground shaking (seismic) event. Liq~efaction typically consists of the re-arrangement of
the soil particles into a denser condition re~lting, in this case, in localized areas of settlement, sand
boils, and flow. failures. Areas underlain by loose to medium dense cohesionIess soils, where
groundwater is within 30 to 40 feet of the ~ace, are particularly s~ceptible when ~bject to
ground accelerations s~ch as those d~e to earthqwke motion. The liq~efaction potential is generally
considered greatest in satmated, loose, poorly graded fme sands with a mean grain size (050) in the
range of 0.075 to 0.2mm.
Procedures o~tIined in two p~blications, 1) The Gwdelines for Evalootion and Mitigation of
Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117: Department of Conservation, Division of
Mines and Geology (1997); and 2) Recommendations for Implementation of DMG Special
P~blication 117: Gilldelines of Analyzing and Mitigation, Liquefaction Hazards in California:
So~ern California Earthqwke Center University of So~ern California (1997), provide for a
"screening study" in lie~ of a complete liq~efaction analysis. It is om opinion that, d~e to the dense
sedimentary bedrock underlying the s~bject site and the depth to groundwater of at least 100-ft
(Rancho California Water District, 1984), liq~efaction and other shallow groundwater related
hazards are not anticipated, and further analysis appears to be unwarranted at this time. Based on
the above information, the liq~efaction potential is anticipated to be negligible.
T.H.E. Soils Co.. Inc.
W.O. 548301.22
~
~.
.
.
Mr; Ray lskander
March 13,2003
Page 5
Ground ruptme dming a seismic event normally OCCillS along pre-existing faults. D~e to the
absence of known faults (Kennedy, 1977) within the site bounds, breaking of the ground dming a
seismic event is ~nIikely.
Any proposed structmes will be founded in medi~ dense to dense compacted fill overlying dense
sedimentary bedrock. The settlement potential, under seismic loading conditions for these on-site
materials, in om opinion, is low.
1be site is located in a region of generally high seismicity, as is all of so~thern California.
Doong its design life, the site is expected to experience strong ground motions from earthqwkes
on regional and/or local ca~tive faults. The northeast corner, approximately l45-ft, of the s~bject
site is located within a State of California Fault R~pture Hazard Zone established for the Elsinore
Fault zone (Hart, 2000). The closest known active fault is the Elsinore Fault Zone (Temec~la
Branch) located. approximately 1,200 feet so~thwest of the s~bject site.
1997 UBC Seismic Factors specific to the s~bject site are as follows:
The site is located within 2.0-kilometers of the Elsinore fault (Temec~la) zone (leBO,
1998).
The Elsinore fault (Temecula) is reported as a Type B fault (lCBO, 1998; and 1997 UBC
Table 16-U) in the vicinity of the s~bject site.
The site is within Seismic Zone 4 (1997 UBC Figure 16-2, Table 16-1).
The soil profile for the site is Sc (1997 UBC Table 16-1).
The near somce acceleration (Na) and velocity (Nv) with respect to the s~bject site are 1.3
and 1.6, respectively (1997 UBC Tables l6-S and 16-T).
The site seismic coefficients of acceleration (Ca) and velocity (Cv) are 0.40Na and O.56Nv,
respectively (1997 UBC Tables 16-Q and 16-R).
Based on the above val~es, the coefficient of acceleration (Ca) is 0.52 and a coefficient of
velocity (Cv) is 0.90 for the s~bject site.
T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc.
W.O. 548301.22
"\
~- .
.
.
Mr. Ray Iskander
March 13, 2003
Page 6
RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundation Design
It is anticipated that the foundation elements should be founded entirely in compacted fill materials.
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. should perform a footing inspection, prior to placement of
reinforcement, to ins~ the proposed footing excavations are in conformance with the job
specifications.
The strucMal engineer sho~ld design all footings and concrete slabs in accordance with the
allowable foundation pressmes and lateral bearing pressmes presented for Class 3 soils on Table
IS-I-A of the 1997 Uniform B~ilding Code (UBC). The allowable foundation and lateral
pressmes shall not exceed the values set forth in Table IS-I-A for Class 3 soils unless data to
s~bstantiate the use of higher val~es are s~bmitted.
Where the site is prepared as recommended, the proposed structmes may bear on contin~o~ and
isolated footings. The footings should have a mininmm width of 12-inches, and be placed at least
12-inches below the lowest final adjacent grade for one-story ho~es, with a minim~ width of 12-
inches, and be placed at least 18-inches below the lowest final adjacent grade for two-story ho~s.
Footings may be designed for a maxim~ safe soil bearing press~ for Class 3 soils as per Table
IS-I-A of the 1997 UBC for dead pl~ live loads.
Concrete slabs, in moistme sensitive areas, should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a
minim~ of six mil polyvinyl chloride membrane with all laps sealed. A 2-inch layer of clean sand
should be placed above the moistme barrier. The 2-inches of clean sand is recommended to protect
the visq~een moistme barrier and aid in the c~ng of the concrete.
The structural engineer should design footings in accordance with the anticipated loads, the soil
, pammeters given in this report, and the existing soil conditions.
Footings sho~ld be set back from the top of all c~t or fill slopes a horizontal distance eq~ to at
least Y, the vertical slope height with a minim~ setback of at least 5- ft.
Total settlements under static loads of footings s~pported on in-place bedrock materials and
sized for the allowable bearing pressmes are not expected to exceed abo~t 1/2 to 3/4 of I inch.
Differential settlements under dynamic loads of footings s~pported on properly compacted fill
materials and sized for the allowable bearing press~res are not expected to exceed 1/4-inches for
a span of 40-ft. These settlements are expected to occm primarily d~ng construction. Soil
, engineering paranJeters for imported soil may vary.
T.H. E. Soils Co.. Inc.
W.O. 548301.22
9>
, .
.
.
Mr. Ray Iskander
March 13, 2003
Page 7
Surface Drainage
Smface drainage should be directed away from foundations of bwldings or appooenant structmes.
All drainage should be directed toward streets or approved permanent drainage devices. Where
landscaping and planters are proposed adjacent to foundations, s~bsmface drains should be
provided to prevent ponding or saturation of foundations by landscape water.
Construction Monitoring
0bservation and testing, by T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. is essential to verify compliance with
recommendations and to confirm that the geotechnical conditions encountered are consistent with
the recommendations of this report. T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. should cond~ct construction
monitoring following excavation of footings for foundations; d~ring any additional fill
placement; and during ~tility trench backfill operations.
LIMITATIONS
This report is iss~ed with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his
representative, to ens~ that the information and recommendations contained herein are bro~ght to
the attention of the project architect and engineer. The project architect or engineer should
incorporate s~ch information and recommendations into the plans, and take the necessary steps to
see that the contractor and s~bcontractors carry o~t ~ch recommendations in the field.
This firm does 'not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the
contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for other than om own personnel on the site.
Therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify
the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. This firm
did not provide any s~eying services at the ~bject site and does not represent that the bwlding
locations, conto~, elevations, or slopes are acc~tely depicted on the plans.
The findings of this report are valid as of the report date. However, changes in the conditions of a
property can occm with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works
of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards
may occm, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge.
Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes o~tside
om control. Therefore, this report is s~bject to review and revision as changed conditions are
identified.
T.H.E. Soils Co.. Inc.
W.O. 548301.22
ct..
.
.
Mr. Ray Iskander
March 13, 2003
Page 8
SUMMARY
O~r description .of ro~gh grading operations, as well as observations and testing services, are limited
to those precise grading operations performed between February 13, and March I I, 2003. The
concl~ions and recommendations contained herein have been based ~pon om observation and
testing, as noted. It is om opinion the work performed in the areas denoted has been accomplished
in accordance with the job specifications and the reqillrements of the regulating agencies. No
concl~ions or warranties are made for the areas not tested or observed. This report is based on
information obtained dming ro~gl1 grading. No warranty as to the c=nt conditions can be made.
This report should be considered s~bject to review by the controlling authorities.
This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If yo~ have any q~estions, please call.
Very truly yo~,
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
P~~V
JRHlITR/JPF:jek
'.H.E. Soils Co.. Inc.
W.O. 548301.22
\t>
.
T.H.E. Soils Co.. Inc.
APPENDIX A
Laboratory Test Res~lts
.
,9
W.O. 548301.22
\\
.
.
,
TABLE I
Maximum Density/Optim~m Moismre
%
Description LbslFf Moismre
1 Lt. Brown Silty Sand 126.1 11.8
2 Grayish Lt. Brown Sandy Silt 105.9 15.6
3 Brown Clayey Silty Sand 116.6 15.3
4 Clayey Silty Sand w/Rocks 125.7 10.0
TABLE II
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL
Pad SlIIface 0 to 3-ft 19 Very Low
T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc.
W.O. 548301.22
.
T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc.
APPENDIX B
Results of Compaction Tests
.
W.O. 548301.22
\2..
.
.
TABLE I
RESULTS OF COMPACTION
Job No.:548301.22
Iskander Residence
Lot 30 of Tract 9833
DATE:3/12/03
Test Test Elev/ Moistme Unit Dry ReI. Soil Location
,No. Date Depth Content Density Compo Type
(ft.) (%) (PCF) (%)
I
1 2/20/03 1113.0 9.8 110.2 87N-NO 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1
2 2/20/03 1115.0 12.2 11 1.8 89N-NO I SEE PLATE I OF 1
3 2/20/03 1121.0 12.6 113.8 90N-NO 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1
4 2/21/03 1115.0 9.9 113.1 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF I
5 2/21/03 1117.0 11.3 117.6 93N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1
6 2/21/03 1119.0 10.9 115.7 92N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1
7 2/21/03 1123.0 9.9 113.4 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1
8 2/21/03 1122.0 12.1 116.9 93N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1
9 2/21/03 1124.0 9.7 117.7 93N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF I
10 2/21/03 1126.0 9.5 112.9 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1
11 3/3/03 1128.0 10.0 115.3 91N I SEE PLATE 1 OF I
12 3/3/03 1130.0 10.3 116.0 92N 1 SEE PLATE I OF I
13 3/4/03 1132.0 11.9 114.9 91N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1
14 3/4/03 1134.0 16.7 103.9 98N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF I
15 3/4/03 1136.0 10.9 114.9 91N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1
16 3/4/03 1138.0 15.1 102.7 97N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1
17 3/4/03 1140.0 12.5 116.0 92N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1
18 3/4/03 1142.0 9.5 118.9 94N I SEE PLATE I OF 1
19 3/4/03 1144.0 14.7 110.4 95N 3 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1
20 3/4/03 1146.0 10.0 114.0 90N I SEE PLATE I OF 1
21 3/5/03 1124.0 10.1 113.1 90N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1
22 3/5/03 1134.0 9.6 113.6 90N I SEE PLATE I OF 1
23 3/5/03 1138.0 9.5 113.5 90N 1 SEE PLATE I OF I
24 3/5/03 FO 16.9 112.7 97N 3 SEE PLATE I OF I
25 3/5/03 1148.0 16.2 11 1.9 96N 3 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1
26 3/5/03 1149.0 IO.9 116.7 93N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1
27 3/5/03 FO 9.8 123.5 98N 1 SEE PLATE I OF 1
28 3/1 1/03 1147.0 10.5 121.2 96N I SEE PLATE I OF I
29 3/1 1/03 FO 9.1 116.5 92N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF I
30 3/1 1/03 FO 9.9 117.0 93N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1
31 3/11/03 FO 10.1 113.4 90N 1 SEE PLATE I OF 1
32 3/1 1/03 FO 10.5 113.9 90N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1
SEE PLANS FOR DETAILS
SC.Sand Cone ASTM 01556-64; DC-Drive Cylinder ASTM 02937-71; N-Nuclear ASTM D3017-93. and 02922-91; NO-Nalural Oround + 4-
850/0= Passing Test; ...Test Failed, See Retest \u
".. ..
.
.
TABLE I
RESULTS OF COMPACTION
Job No.:548301.22
Iskander Residence
Lot 30 of Tract 9833
DATE:3/I2/03
Test Test Elev/ Moistme Unit Dry ReI. Soil Location
No. Date Depth Content Density Compo Type
(ft.) (%) (PCF) (%)
I
33 3/11/03 FG 10.9 114.5 91N 1 SEE PLATE I OF I
SEE PLANS FOR DETAILS
SC-Sand Cone ASTM DI556-64; DC-Drivc Cylinder ASTM D2937-71; N-Nuclear ASTM D3017-93, and D2922-9I; NG-Natural Ground +
850/0=1' Passing Test; **-Tcst Failed, See Retest '1\