The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutParcel Map 13089 Rough Grading F - , .. , ~.... .!,,\l.Jlo. Soils Co., ~U!jlOne! (951) B94~2121FAX:!(95I}894-2l:n c 41548lEastlnan Drive, Unit G . Murrieta, CA 92562 . Inc. . ?M ~:S~~ ~':ll'-"l\ ptE , ~~OilS:cp(Q)aol.co. I .I~~U NOV 1 8 ZU04 CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT August 5, 2004 I: Mr. Larry Slusser Legacy Group 43232 Brookway Drive . Temecula, Califomiru 92592 ;~.c SUBJECT: REI'ORJ',IIOO<" ROUGH GRADING ProptfijcdSingle-Frumily Residences Pared" 1 Through 4 of Parcel Map 13089 NEC t)fPaue.a Road and Calle Cedral Temec;ula, Riverside County, Califomia ,Work Order No. 425302.22 Reference: T.H.E. S9ils Co., hIC., 2003 "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Four Separate .i:l.O-Acre Residential Parcels, Parcels I Through 4 of Parcel Map 13089, NEC ofPauba Road and Calle Cedral Temecula, Riverside County, Califomia," Work Order No. 425302.00, Dated December 9,2003. Dear Mr. Slusser: INTRODUCTION Inaccordarice with your request, we have prepared this "Report of Rough Grading" presenting the results of our obseIYation and testing during rough grading operations for the single-family residential pad: located at the above referenced site. All compaction test results are included in !Appendix B, :'Fable I of this report. Rough .grading operations were performed in accordarice with the requirements of the County of Riverside and the 2001 California Building Code (CBC). The 40-scale, "PreciSe Grading, Sediment and Erosion Control Plan" prepared for the subject site by 'Alan R Short ;of Laguna Hills, California was utilized during grading to locate our field density :tests. A reduced copy of the aforementioned plan was utilized as a base map for our Compaction Test Location Map !presented as Plate L Moss Equipment Rentals performed the grading !operations. IACCOMPANMINGMAPS AND APPENDICES .Location Map - Figure I Compaction Test Location Map (not-to-scale) - Plate I !Appendix A - Laboratory Test Results !Appendix B -Results: of Compaction Tests T.H.E. SOILS COMPANY. INC. W. O. No. 425302.22 \ '~':> ._~~~~~-"-~o="., "-~_.::'-'~C:-' ~=""" ~,---=oo-=;;~ --~ i . . 'Mr. Larry Slusser Legacy Group August 5, 2004 Page 2 Proposed Development The proposed development calls for the construction of four single-family residences with attached garages and associated driveway and landscape areas. It is our understanding the proposed residences will consist of wood-framed, stucco-sided structures with conventional footings. Site Description The subject property consists of an irregular-shaped, :!:5.0-acre parcel of land located in the city of Temecula in southwest Riverside County, California. The subject parcel is bound on the north by existing large parcel residential development and Calle Cerezo, on the west by existing large parcel residential development and Calle Cedral, to the east by vacant undeveloped land, and on the south by Pauba Road and single-family residential development The geographical relationships ofthe site and surrounding area are depicted on our Site Location Map, Figure 1. Topographically, Parcels 3 & 4 consist of gently sloping terrain with natural gradients ofless than 5 percent Topographically, Parcels 1 & 2 consist of low rolling terrain with natural gradients that V31Y from approximately 5 to 15 percent A slightly incised southwest trending drainage course is located on the southern portion of Parcel I and the westerly portion of Parcel 4. Overall relief on the subject site is approximately 32-ft. The subject site is in a relatively natural condition and had been recently plowed for weed abatement at the time of our field investigation. Vegetation consisted of a sparse low growth of annual weeds and grasses. Drainage on site is generally accomplished by sheetflow to the south-southwest GRADING PROCEDURES Prior to grading all vegetation was removed during clearing and grubbing operations and subsequently disposed of off-site. A keyway was established at the toe of all fill slopes (Lots 1-2) with the outside edge of the keyway being founded a minimum of 2-ft into dense sedimentary bedrock units. The keyway was tilted a minimum of 2 percent into the slope with dense sedimentary bedrock exposed that was free of pinpoint pores and fine roots exposed throughout the keyway. The bottom of the keyway was scarified a minimum of 12-inches below the exposed surface, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture, and recompacted to 90% of the dry density, as determined by ASTM D-1557. Any .topsoil/colluvial soils were completely removed during benching operations. Prior to fill placement all topsoil/colluvial soils were removed a minimum of 3-ft bgs (below ground surface) until medium dense to dense sedimentary bedrock was exposed that was free of pores and roots. Alluvial removals within the slightly incised drainage courses was accomplished and varied from 3.0 to 3.5-ft bgs (Lots 3-4). Any topsoil/colluvial soils were removed by benching during rough grading operations. T.H.E. SOILS COMPANY. INC. W. O. No. 425302.22 -z.. o o :/.. ~i, <---~ ./. ~..... _!\ ~ ~ ..~.J 1''' }.D TopoQ..... Copyrigll' C 1999 Dd.o... y.....~ ME 04096 So.... Data: USGS FIGURE 1 . . Mr. Larry Slusser Legacy Group August 5, 2004 Page 3 Fill generated during rough grading operations was moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture, placed and rccompacted to 90% of the dry density, as determined by ASTM D-1557. The materials used for fill consisted of onsite yellow brown silty sands (Unified Soil Classification-SM) derived from onsite alluvial soils, colluvial soils and sedimentary bedrock Fill placement and compaction was achieved utilizing a CAT 623 scraper and a CAT D8 dozer. Moisture conditioning was accomplished utilizing a water truck The fill was placed in 6 to 8-inch thick lifts. and moisture conditioned with the water truck, as needed, to bring the material to near optimum moisture content, and was then properly compacted by wheel-rolling with the CAT 623 scraper or by track-walking with the CAT D8 dozer. A minimum degree of compaction of 90% was required, as determined by ASTM 1557. Fill Placement Fill was placed in thin loose lifts approximately 6 to 8 inches thick, brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM DI557). Compaction was achieved by wheel-rolling with the CAT 623 scraper or by track-walking with the CAT D8 dozer. The maximum laboratory dry densities, as determined by ASTM D1557-91 Test Method A (Appendix A, Table I), was utilized as the standard for field compaction controL Fill Soils Soils utilized for compacted fill typically consisted of onsite yellow brown silty sands (Unified Soils Classification-SM), which were derived from the onsite colluvial soils and sedimentary bedrock materials. Test results are presented in Appendix A, Table I. CutlFill Transitions Rough grading operations at the site included overexcavation of the building pads to a minimum of 5-ft outside the building footprint to a minimum of 3-ft below fmish grade elevation as staked by the contractor. Therefore, eliminating the cut/fill transition within the proposed building footprint. TESTING PROCEDURES Field Density Testinl! Field density testing was performed in accordarice with ASTM Test Method D2922-91 (nuclear gauge). Areas failing to meet the minimum compaction requirements 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 Compaction Test Location Map, Plate 1. T.H.E. SOILS COMPANY. INC. W. O. No. 425302.22 A. . ff. . ~ ~ ~ ~ o ' 0 ~ ... II !i!'. ~ ..Q! . 0 u rJ) . ~ ~~ Ift~1 ~ ;5h~~~ . ~ ~Indl ~ Ii ~I~~ if ~ . . ~~ ~ p~~ II: ~ ~;:~ ~ ;I~. I~' w~lili :!;I !~ ;~Ii!~ ~I I g Iw . ,w~ ~ ~ ; I~ :Ji!~ .elii :;h :1 ~~~:~ :.' en .m! ~~ i~~1 I~~~ ~8 ~ffi~~~ i~ ~ I;~ Ii ~:I~<li;~~ ~Io :~il'! ;1 ~ ~I~ ~~~ ~I~~=~i~~~ I;: i~~ ~ I , 6 ~ ~~~ ~ ~ i! i " ~F2t e ~ i~~ ~~i gl!.~I~ il!i ~Ii ~u~l! I: ~ Ii: ~~~ ai~l~i :~i~~ Iii i~g>i i~ 23 .~~ ~wb ~ilw~1 i!l!!i I)' dlJ~ ~j ~ Iii ~;~ ~i~ejw !~!~a l~~ ~,~~~ i~ <8 e: € e: g g; g z :5 . a.. Ii l! >>ii~" :m!g en ;j;~5 ~ ~ i=! i~~~~ ~ III < ~~ . ,g ;!~~I illl~III:; liq ! I . o::ql-~d ~nl ~~n;dn q i ~ d ~; ~~Ii! !III~! i:i;;;~i;i ~11~!il~I~1 :I!ill ~ :ig:i !il!I~lllililfiilll~III~I~~i!!~;glll ~ !ili: j~~ji~j~lj!jll~~~~aj~~~~j~~~I~fi~~~Rj 10 / Y , / / ~ ~ ~ ; ~ I ! ! .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I @ i I % i! ~. N~ 1 z o 1ii h~ I.LI 'C\ (() z rr!1 ~ :) ,,~ If) n co 1 I t ~ t<'). " I o . 6 I rr v ~ ~ !z g ~ ~ o...J 0 () ~ ~~~ i- ~ :ega z Is "..... z W ~ ::> Q ~ ~ ~ofJ 4J t :czffi (I) : ~ .-s ~ .....~ffi :::;;;!! <r ~...J fiI -' ww':. a ~u~ .W .o:~9 ::E a..a..~ w f- ill iil If t... u .; -r~tl-~' - ~ ~ i 0 I ~ ;:!il!l ... ~d ", ",j ! f - .. ~ i ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ; .Id L.. D ~ '. . ~ 1 . -l. ~ ~ ~ ~ c . i; 1=1 pl I , a i z ~ ~ ~ "w Q :;; rJ) to,,:j '" 0;;; ~~ 1.1.~U 11. ;~""rJal!s ~ l...~d" .- ..I1~.=ii i -s.,. " "t "!I<s~g&, ~ldi":I' e ~ . "=. ~ 11 j'".wl." i ~~!I~;; ~ .. . a ! ! I ~ 1 j ! . . . Mr. Larry Slusser Legacy Group August 5, 2004 Page 4 Maximum Density Determinations Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture determinations were performed in the laboratory on representative samples of onsite soils used in the fill operations. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Dl557-91, Test Method A The test results, which were utilized in determining the degree of compaction achieved during fill placement, are presented in Appendix A, Table l RECOMMENDATIONS Exvansion Testinl! .,: Expansion index testing was performed on a representative sample of the upper 3-ft of the earth materials exposed at the pad surface. The test results yielded expansion indexes that varied from 0- 19, which indicates a very low expansion potential (0 to 20, Table l8-I-B, 2001 CBC). Test results are presented on Table n in Appendix A. Soluble Sulfate Content Based on our sulfate content testing, it is anticipated that, from a corrosivity standpoint, Type II Portland Cement should be used for construction. Laboratory analysis results varied from 28 (parts per million) to 54 ppm (parts per rniHion) of soluble sulfates in soil, which equates to a negligible sulfate exposure hazard (2001 CBC, Table 19-A-4). Sulfate content testing should be conducted on imported soils prior to their approval as structural fill material. Babcock & Sons Laboratory of Riverside, California performed the laboratory analysis. Test results are presented on Table m in Appendix A. Slove Construction We anticipate that all cut/fill slopes constructed at a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope ratio to a maximum height of 30-ft will be both grossly and surficially stable. Onsite cut and fill slopes were constructed at a 2: 1 (horizonta1:vertical) slope ratio to maximum heights of II and 12.5-ft, respectively. Fill slopes were constructed to near finish grade elevations and trackwalked with the bulldozer to achieve the desired percent compaction. Lateral Load Resistance The following parameters should be considered for lateral loads against permanent structures founded on fill materials compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Soil engineering parameters for imported soil may vary. T.H.E. SOILS COMPANY. INC. W. O. No. 425302.22 ~ . . . Mr. Larry Slusser Legacy Group August 5, 2004 Page 5 Equivalent Fluid Pressure for Level Backfill Active: 35 pcf Passive: 401 pcf Coefficient of friction (concrete on soil): 0.30 If passive earth pressure and friction are combined to provide required resistance to lateral forces, the value of the passive pressure should be reduced to two thirds of the above recommendations. These values may be increased by one third when considering short-terin loads such as wind or seismic forces. Allowable Safe Bearinl! Caoacity An allowable safe bearing capacity of I,SOO pounds per square foot (pst) may be used for design of continuous footings that maintain a minimum width of 12-inches and depth of 12-inches. The bearing value may be increased 500 psf for each additional foot of width and 750 psf for each additional foot of depth to a maximum of 2,SOO psf. The bearing value may be increased by one- third for seismic or other temporal)' loads. Total differential settlements under static loads of footings supported on properly compacted fill and/or in-place :bedrock materials and sized for the allowable bearing pressures are not expected to exceed about 1/2 to 3/4 of I inch. These settlements are expected to occur primarily during construction. Soil engineering parameters for imported soil may Val)'. Foundation Svstem Desil!n Foundation elements should be placed entirely either in engineered fill compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density or competent native materials, not both. For one-story structures, continuous spread footings should be a minimum of 12-inches wide and 12-inches below the lowest adjacent grade. For two-story structures, continuous spread footings should be a minimum of IS-inches wide and IS-inches below the lowest adjacent grade. As a minimum, all footings should have one No.4 reinforcing bar placed at the top and bottom of the footing. Concrete slabs, in moisture sensitive areas, should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of six mil polyvinyl chloride membrane with all laps sealed. A 2-inch layer of clean sand should be placed above the moisture barrier. The 2-inches of clean sand is recommended to protect the visqueen moisture barrier and aid in the curing of the concrete. The structural .engineer should design all footings and concrete slabs in accordarice with the anticipated loads and the soil parameters given. T.H.E. SOILS COMPANY. INC. W. O. No. 425302.22 \ . . Mr. Larry Slusser 1egacy Group August 5, 2004 Page 6 Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density, as determined by the ASTM 1557 test method. It is our opinion, that utility trench backfill consisting Of onsite or approved sandy soils can best be placed by mechanical compaction to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density. All trench excavations should be conducted in accordarice with Cal-OSHA standards, as a minimum. Fill materials should be placed in 6 to 8-inch lifts, brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum laboratory dry density, as determined by the ASTM 1557 test method. No rocks larger than 6-inches in diameter should be used as fill material. Rocks larger than6-inches should either be hauled off-site or crushed to a suitable dimension and used as fill material. Surface Drainal!:e Surface drainage should be directed away from foundations of buildings or appurtenant structures. All drainage should be directed toward streets or approved permanent drainage devices. Where landscaping and planters are proposed adjacent to foundations, subsurface drains should be provided to prevent ponding or saturation of foundations by landscape water. Construction Monitorinl!: Continuous observation and testing, by T.HE 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 conduct construction monitoring, at the following stages of construction: . Following excavation offootings for foundations. . During fill placement . During trench backfill operations. SUMMARY Our description of rough grading operations, as well as observations and testing services, were limited to those rough grading operations performed between June 7, 2004 and July 14,2004 and observed and tested by our field personnel. The conclusions and recommendations contained herein have been based upon our observation and testing as noted. It is our opinion, the work performed in the areas denoted has generally been accomplished in accordance with the job specifications and the requirements of the regulating agencies. No conclusions or warranties are made for the areas not tested or observed. This report is based on information obtained during rough grading. No warranty as ;to the current conditions can be made. This report should be considered subject to review by the controlling authorities. T.H.E. SOILS COMPANY. INC. W. O. No. 425302.22 co :. . . . Mr. Larry Slusser Legacy Group August 5, 2004 Page 7 LIMITATIONS This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the project architect and engineer. The project architect or engineer should incorporate such information' and recommendations into the plans, and take the necessary steps to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such 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 our 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 surveying services at the subject site and does not represent that the building locations, contours, elevations, or slopes are accurately depicted on the plans or represented on the map. The findings of this report are valid as of the report date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur 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 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 our controL Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are identified. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please calL Very truly yours, T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. (~ np.2:yY oject Geologist Jo emhart, RCE 23464 Civil Engineer, Expires 12-31-05 ~~~e- /-':Jliilies R Hamson / Project Manager JPF/JTRIJRH:jek T.H.E. SOILS COMPANY.INC. W. O. No. 425302.22 <\ T.H.E. SOILS COMPANY, INC. . APPENDIX A Laboratory Test Results . W. O. No. 425302.22 \0 . . TABLE I Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture D I I % I Type I Description LbslFf Moisture I Yellow Brown Silty Sand 125.9 10.7 On-Site 2 Yellow Brown Silty Sand 123.6 12.4 On-Site TABLE II EXPANSION INDEX TEST LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL Pad Surface (Lots 1-2) 0 Very Low Pad Surface (Lot 3) 19 Very Low Pad Surface (Lot 4) 10 Very Low TABLE m SULFATE ATTACK HAZARD TEST LOCATION SULFATE CONTENT (ppm) ATTACK HAZARD Pad Surface (Lots 1) 54 Negligible Pad Surface (Lot 2) 54 Negligible Pad Surface (Lot 3) 35 Negligible Pad Surface (Lot 4) 28 Negligible T.H.E. SOILS COMPANY. INC. W. O. No. 425302.22 \\ T.H.E. SOILS COMPANY. INC. . APPENDIX B Results of Compaction Tests . ., W. O. No. 425302.22 \v . . .1 Job No. 425302.22 TABLE I RESULTS OF COMPACTION LEGACY GROUP PARCEL 1-4 OF P.M. 13089. NEC OF PAUBA RD. AND CALLE CEDRAL TEMECULA CA DATE: 8/2/04 Test Test Elev / Moisture Unit Dry ReI. Soil Location No. Date Depth Content Density Compo Type (ft.) (%) (PCF) (%) . I I 6/24/04 1209.0 10.0 121.7 97N I SEE PLATE I OF 1 2 6/24/04 1211.0 8.9 12L2 96N I SEE PLATE I OF 1 3 6/24/04 1213.0 9.6 123.8 98N 1 . SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 4 6/24/04 1209.0 11.0 117.0 93N I SEE PLATE 1 OF I 5 6/24/04 1211.0 8.8 122.1 97N I SEE PLATE I OF 1 6 6/24/04 1213.0 8.0 122.7 97N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 7 6/24/04 1209.0 8.7 113.5 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 8 6/24/04 1211.0 8.7 123.7 98N 1 SEE PLATE I OF 1 9 6/24/04 1213.0 9.8 118.2 94N I SEE PLATE I OF 1 10 6/25/04 1226.0 8.7 119.7 95N I SEE PLATE I OF 1 11 6/25/04 1226.0 lOA 118.3 94N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 12 6/25/04 1226.0 9.6 122.5 97N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 13 6/25/04 1226.0 9.3 117.3 93N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 14 6/25/04 1226.0 8.7 115.5 92N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 15 6/25/04 1226.0 8.7 117.5 93N 1 SEE PLATE I OF 1 16 6/28/04 1222.0 10.2 120.2 96N 1 SEEPLATE I OF 1 17 6/28/04 1224.0 904 115.2 92N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 18 6/28/04 1225.0 10.6 125.3 98N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 19 6/28/04 1220.0 11.2 113.1 90N 1 SEEPLA TE I OF 1 20 6/28/04 1222.0 8.6 114.2 91N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 21 6/28/04 1224.0 10.2 118.3 94N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 22 6/30/04 1227. 0 12.6 11904 95N 1 SEEPLATE I OF! 23 6/30/04 1227.0 1204 119.9 95N 1 SEEPLATE 1 OF I 24 7/1/04 1207.0 11.6 116.1 92N 1 SEEPLATE 1 OFI 25 7/1/04 1209.0 10.6 12L2 96N 1 SEEPLA TE I OF I 26 7/1/04 1207.0 13.3 114.8 91N 1 SEEPLATE 1 OF! 27 7/1/04 1209.0 11.1 118.1 94N 1 SEEPLATE I OFI 28 7/1/04 1207.0 9.1 119.5 95N I SEE PLATE 1 OF I 29 7/1/04 1209.0 12.5 121.1 96N 1 SEEPLATE I OF I 30 7/1/04 1229.0 11.1 116.5 93N 1 SEBPLATE 1 OF 1 31 7/1/04 1229.0 9.3 118.7 94N I SEE PLATE I on 32 7/1/04 1227.0 9.9 120.1 95N 1 SEEPLATE I OFI SEE PLANS FOR DETAILS \!) SC-Sand Cone ASTM D 1556-64; DC-D,ive Cylinder ASTM D2937-71; N-Nuclear ASTM D3017-93. and D2922-91; NO-Natural Oround + . 85%= Passing Test; ".Test Failed, See Retest --'..oitr . . Job No. 425302.22 TABLE I RESULTS OF COMPACTION LEGACY GROUP PARCEL 1-4 OF P.M. 13089, NECOF PAUBA RD. AND CALLE CEDRAL TEMECULA CA DATE: 8/2/04 Test Test Elev / Moisture Unit Dry ReI. Soil Location No. Date Depth Content Density Compo Type (ft.) (%) (PCF) (%) I 33 7/1/04 1229.0 lOA 118.3 94N I SEE PLATE I OF I 34 7/2/04 1207.0 10.7 123.0 98N 1 SEE PLATE I OF 1 35 7/2/04 1209.0 10.5 122.8 98N 1 SEE PLATE I OF I 36 7/2/04 1207.0 904 11904 95N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1- 37 7/2/04 1209.0 9.8 12L1 96N 1 SEE PLATE I OF Ii 38 7/2/04 1207.0 10.6 11604 92N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 i 39 7/2/04 1209.0 9.9 118.7 94N 1 SEE PLATE I OF l' 40 7/12/04 FG 10.3 12004 96N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 41 7/12/04 FG 9.5 120.2 96N 1 SEE PLATE I OF I 42 7/12/04 FG 904 122.9 98N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 43 7/12/04 FG 9.0 120.6 96N 1 SEE PLATE I OF 1 44 7/12/04 FG 9.5 121.5 97N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 45 7/12/04 FG 10.5 121.9 97N 1 SEE PLATE I OF I 46 7/12/04 FG 8.7 120.5 96N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 47 7/12/04 FG 9.9 121.7 97N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 48 7/12/04 FG 8.9 12L2 96N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF I 49 7/14/04 FG 9.8 121.4 96N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF I 50 7/14/04 FG lOA 122.3 97N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 51 7/14/04 FG 9.7 119.8 95N 1 SEE PLATE I OF I 52 7/14/04 FG 10.0 119.5 95N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 53 7/14/04 FG 904 116.8 93N 1 SEE PLATE I OF I 54 7/14/04 FG lOA 120.1 95N I SEE PLATE 1 OF I 55 7/14/04 FG 10.0 118.6 94N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 56 7/14/04 FG 9.3 118.0 94N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 SEE PLANS FOR DETAILS SC-Sand Cone ASTM D1556-64; DC-Drive Cylinder ASTM D2937-71; N-Nuciear ASTM 03017-93, and D2922-91; NG-Natural Ground + 85%= Passing Test; **- Test Failed, See Retest \1\ ~