Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAs Graded Report of Rough Grading Cinema Building Pad (1/27/99) t Leighton and Associates GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS - 1 1 AS-GRADED REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING CINEMA BUILDING PAD ' THE TEMECULA MALL TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 1 1 ' January 27, 1999 ' Project No. 11971000-010 1 1 ' Prepared For: FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC. 26489 Ynez Road, Suite C-262 - Temecula, California 92591-4655 1 41769 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE N . , -SUITE 102 TEMECULA, CA 92590-5626 ' (909 ) 676-0023 • FAX (909) 676-5123 ' Leighton and Associates GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS January 27, 1999 1 Project No. 1 1 97 1 000-0 1 0 ' To: Forest City Development California, Inc. 26489 Ynez Road, Suite C-262 ' Temecula, California 92591-4655 ' Attention: Mr. Guy Barcelona Subject: As-Graded Report of Rough Grading, Cinema Building Pad, The Promenade in ' Temecula, Temecula, California Introduction In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) has been ' performing field density testing, laboratory testing and geotechnical observation during rough-grading operations for the subject development. The Temecula Mall property is located south of Winchester Road and east of Ynez Road in the City of Temecula (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). This as-graded report ' summarizes our observations and field and laboratory test results for rough grading of proposed Cinema building pad as generally depicted on the reference grading plan prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, Inc., (RBF). This report contains a summary of our geotechnical observations, field and ' laboratory tests results, foundation and slab design recommendations for the cinema building based on the existing conditions as well as recommendations for future development. tList of Accompanying Fieures Plate and Appendices t Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - As-Graded Geotechnical and Density Test Location Map Figure 3 - Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Appendix A - References Appendix B - Summary of Field Density Tests Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results 1 41769 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE N . , SUITE 102 TEMECULA , CA 92590-5626 ' (909) 676-0023 • FAX (909 ) 676-5123 ' Grading Operations 11971000-010 Rough grading commenced September, 1998, and is generally complete as depicted on the referenced grading plans (RBF, 1998) as of the date of this report. The grading operations were performed by ' American Contracting Inc. under the observation and testing of Leighton. Our field technician and geologist were onsite on a full-time and as-needed basis, respectively during grading operations. Rough-grading operations included the removal of potentially compressible soils per the recommendations of the project geotechnical report (Leighton, 1997), the preparation of areas to receive fill and placement of fill. Fill soils placed within the building pad areas were derived from onsite sources. ' Site Preparation and Removals Removals including undocumented fill, topsoil and near surface compressible alluvium were made during ' grading to the limits depicted on the accompanying As-Graded Geotechnical and Density Test Location Map (Figure 2). Removal of the unsuitable and potentially compressible near surface alluvium was made in accordance with the recommendations of the project geotechnical report (Leighton, 1997) and field ' recommendations made during grading. The approved removal bottom elevation was determined by hand level techniques based on the contractor's grade stake elevations. The removal limits were confirmed by the project Land Surveyor. The approximate removal bottom elevations are depicted on the accompanying As- Graded Geotechnical and Density Test Map (Figure 2). The removal areas were scarified, moisture-conditioned, as needed, to obtain a near-optimum moisture ' content and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557-91. ' Fill Placement ' After processing the areas to receive fill, native soils were generally spread in 6- to 10-inch lifts, moisture conditioned as needed to achieve a near-optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557-91. Compaction was achieved by use of heavy-duty construction equipment. Areas of fill in which field ' density tests indicated less than desired, the soils exhibited non-uniformity, and/or showed an inadequate or excessive moisture content, were reworked, recompacted, and retested until the required relative compaction and the desired moisture content was achieved. Field Density Testing ' Field density and moisture content testing was performed using the Nuclear-Gauge Method (ASTM Test Methods D2922-96 and D3017-96, respectively). The approximate test locations are shown on ' the As-Graded Geotechnical and Density Test Location Map (Figure 2). The results of the field density tests for the Cinema pad area are summarized in Appendix B. Laboratory Testing ' Laboratory maximum dry density, expansion potential and sulfate content tests of representative onsite soils were performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557-91 and UBC Test Method - 2 - Jilt- 02i ' 11971000-010 18-2, respectively. -The laboratory test results and a description of the laboratory test procedures are ' presented in Appendix C. Engineering Geology ' The geologic units encountered during site grading are generally similar to those described in the project geotechnical investigation report (Leighton, 1997). The limits of the geologic units mapped ' during rough grading are indicated on the As-Graded Geotechnical and Field Density Test Location Map (Figure 2) and are described as follows: Compacted Fill Soils (Map Symbol - Af) - Fill soils placed and compacted under the observation and testing of Leighton. Fill soils consist of light brown to gray brown, silty, fine sand to fine to medium grained sand with some local clayey sand derived from onsite Pauba bedrock excavation. Alluvium (Mar) Symbol - Oal) - ' Alluvium deposits were encountered throughout the entire graded portion of the site, as anticipated. These materials generally consisted of gray brown to dark brown to medium gray, dry ' to moist, loose to medium dense, silty sand to poorly graded fine to medium grained sand to locally clayey sand/sandy clay. The upper approximately 5 feet of the near surface alluvium was removed in the graded areas depicted on plate I as recommended. ' Ground Water ' Ground water was not encountered during removals of surficial soils as anticipated. The existing relatively deep ground-water condition should not be a constraint to building construction or performance (Leighton, 1997). Faulting Based on our geologic observations during site grading, no faulting or indications of faulting were observed during this phase of grading. t Finish Grade Soils The Cinema building site was constructed with till soils consisting of granular native and import soils with a very low expansion potential. Representative sample of the soil was obtained for expansion testing during grading. Expansion test was performed on the sample and the result is presented in Appendix C. Based on our testing, the subject site has an overall very low potential for expansion (EI=4), and a negligible sulfate attack potential (soluble sulfate < 150 ppm). 3 1 ' Foundation and Slab Design 11971000-010 ' It is our understanding that the proposed building will utilize a combination of continuous perimeter footings and conventional interior isolated-spread footings for building support. The following table summarizes our foundation design parameters for light structures and assumes the foundation will be ' underlain by a minimum of 3 feet of properly compacted fill. Foundation Design Parameters* Isolated (Column) Continuous Footings Footin s ' Minimum Width - 24 inches 18 inches Minimum Depth - 18 inches 18 inches Allowable Bearing Capacity - 2500 psf 4000 psf Increase per Added Foot of Depth - 500 psf 500 psf ' Increase per Added Foot of Width - 200 psf 200 psf Maximum Allowable Bearing Capacity - 3500 psf 3000 psf Minimum Reinforcement - No. 5 Bars Qa 24" O.C. both One No. 5 Bar Top and ' was Bottom * Assumes a minimum of 3 feet of compacted fill below the footings. ' These foundation design parameters should be re-evaluated based on the actual loading condition and the allowable settlement. All reinforcement should be in accordance with the structural engineer's requirements. Interior column footings should be structurally isolated from floor slabs. The structure should also be designed for the anticipated settlement. ' All slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced at slab midheight with 6x6-10/10 welded-wire mesh or, preferably No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center (each way). Additional reinforcement and/or concrete thickness to accommodate specific loading conditions or anticipated settlement should be evaluated by the structural engineer based on a modulus of subgrade reaction of 300 lb/in'/in and the anticipated settlements outlined in the following section. We emphasize that it is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the slab reinforcement is placed at midheight of the slab. Slabs should be underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand (S.E. greater than 30)to aid in concrete curing, which is underlain by a 6-mil (or heavier) moisture barrier, which is, in turn, underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand to act as a capillary ' break. An alternate may consist of a 4-inch layer of clean sand (S.E. greater than 30) over a 10-mil moisture barrier placed on subgrade soils free of materials capable of puncturing the moisture barrier. All penetrations and laps in the moisture barrier should be appropriately sealed. A structural engineer should ' design the spacing of crack-control joints. Our experience indicates that use of reinforcement in slabs and foundations will generally reduce the potential for drying and shrinkage cracking. However, some cracking should be expected as the concrete cures. Minor cracking is considered normal; however, it is often ' aggravated by a high cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of placement, small nominal aggregate size and rapid moisture lose due to hot, dry, and/or windy weather conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and moisture fluctuations can also be expected. The use of low ' slump concrete (not exceeding 4 inches at the time of placement) can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking. 4 i �, 11971000-010 ' Moisture barriers can retard, but not eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slab. We recommend that the floor covering installer test the moisture vapor flux rate prior to attempting application of the flooring. 'Breathable" floor coverings should be considered if the vapor flux rates are high. A slip-sheet should be used if crack sensitive floor coverings are planned. 1 Moisture Conditionine The slab subgrade soils with Very Low expansion potential should be thoroughly moistened prior to sand and moisture barrier placement as previously recommended in the project geotechnical ' investigation report (Leighton, 1997a). The soils should be moistened to at least optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 6 inches below slab subgrade. - Anticipated Settlement Settlement of unremoved alluvial material and properly compacted fill soils can occur upon application of structural loads (elastic settlement), the majority of which typically occurs during and slightly after construction and upon saturation due to water infiltration (hydroconsolidation settlement) which may ' occur over a period of many years. The recommended allowable-bearing capacity is generally based on maximum differential (elastic) ' settlement of '/2 inch, which will occur upon application of structural loads. Actual settlements should be evaluated once wall and column loads are available. ' It should be recognized-that compacted fills and competent alluvium materials typically increase in moisture and settle (due to hydroconsolidation) during their lifetime. This occurs over a period of years even when adequate drainage is provided. We recommend that lightweight structures be designed for a total settlement of 1 inch and differential settlement of 1/2 inch in a horizontal distance of 30 feet (angular distortion of 1/720). Foundation and slab design should be in accordance with the minimum recommendations herein and consider the provided settlement values. ' Lateral Earth Pressures and Resistance Embedded structural walls or cantilever retaining walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures ' exerted on them. The magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can yield under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. - ' For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for was founded above the static ground water table and back-filled with very low to low expansion potential soils is provided below. ' Determination of which condition, active or at-rest is appropriate for design will depend on the flexibility of the wall. The effect of any surcharge (dead of live load) should be added to the following lateral earth ' �a 11971000-010 pressures. The sandier onsite and import soils may provide low expansive potential backfill material. All backfill soils should have an expansion potential of less than 50 (per UBC 181-I-B). 1 Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) ' Condition Level 2:1 Slope Active 35 55 ' At-Rest 55 65 Passive 350 200 Maximum of 3 ks ' All retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and waterproofing. Typical drainage design is illustrated in Figure 3. As an alternative, an approved drainage board system installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations may be used. All drains should be provided with an appropriate outlet. Wall backfill should be compacted by mechanical methods to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-96). Surcharges from adjacent structures, traffic, forklifts or other loads adjacent to retaining walls should be considered in the design. ' Wall footing designs should be in accordance with the previous foundation design recommendations and reinforced in accordance with structural considerations. Soil resistance developed against lateral ' structural movement can be obtained from the passive pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. These values may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration including wind or ' seismic loads. The total resistance may be taken as the sum of the frictional and passive resistance provided that the passive portion does not exceed two-thirds of the total resistance. ' Conclusion ' The subject site has been graded in general accordance with the recommendations of the project geotechnical report (Leighton, 1997) and our field recommendations. The subject site is considered suitable for commercial development provided the recommendations contained herein are implemented during design, building construction and future site development. ' Future Site Grading and Development We understand future site grading will be performed to accommodate a specific building configuration. ' The site has been graded and specific foundation recommendations are provided herein for the current as-graded conditions. Any change to the graded surface elevation (such as lowering pad elevations or extending footings ' deeper than 18 inches from the existing graded elevation) may require additional site remedial earthwork or a revision to the foundation design engineering criteria. Future site grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by Leighton. 1 6 Jilt- Ofti __ ' `_m ' 11971000-010 Work Remainine tAll future earthwork operations, including the following should be observed and/or tested by Leighton and Associates Inc. Review foundation plans. Site preparation prior to any additional fill placement. ' . Compaction of fill during fine-grading operations. ' . Foundation excavation. Slab subgrade moisture content. ' . Utility trench backfill compaction. ' Retaining wall drain placement and backfill compaction. Pavement subgrade placement and compaction. tPlacement and compaction of aggregate base material. ' If you have any questions regarding our report or to request additional copies, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. ' Respectfully submitted, QPOFESS/p ��QQ.�PN�AY 60`��G1 ' LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. No.2382 m s EXP.6-30-02 m F CA1.\FOP S Robert F. Riha, CEG 1921 (Exp. 02'� A�l � h a n-\ i njay Govil, Ph.D., PE, GE 2382(� ' Senior Project Geologist/Office Ma tf- L1q No. 1921 ' for Project Engineer I CERTIFIED RFR/SG/dlm ? ENGINEERING tGEOLOGIST Distribution: (2) Addressee err, CA ' (2) Forest City Developmen[; Attention: Mr. Steve-Schafenacker (2) Perkowitz + Ruth Architects; Attention: Deborah Loayza (2) Near-Cal Corp.; Attention: Mr. Dwight Johnson ' ®�® 1 nC OP F .c' Gq TF h00 m a C� EQUI eF �� J G. C/)�� yP PROJECT SITE /13 c . /ry ° 1y� Off/ �O y cl AVEN BASE MAP: Thomas Bros. GeoFinder for Window, Riverside County, 1995, Page 958 0 2000 4000 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET S ITE PROJECT No. Pro nrenude .t(ull m 7emeeulu 971000-010 _ Temeculu. LOCATION DATE _ MAP 1127199 FIGURE No. I 160969 °) L — UI/,IT GF OVEREXCA ATIO� \'J N N -p a . _. 642 LEGEND 1206 u4y _ ` \___ h'�, `� • Approximate Location r ) 1177of Field Density Test 1 • >�f 5 \ Q _-.�- " ,S Approximate Remedial 12010 Its ' -=al7Z ; © Removal Bottom Elevations 1 - - - • I W' l�4 �_ IIs7 • 171�3 W Af Artificial Fill 2� o O Qal Alluvium, circled where buried I o O I tSt l `� O�J•�Q �O Q 2�. �\\ I .. ' x zw Its 62 I ItqI i � ^ I fs. eA �+ —J oo � LIMIT'QF OVER EXCAVATION o nv K O �—_ -- ° Pik— G'*SO -.. C) - - Modified From: RBF, Sheets 9&10 of 14 AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL & DENSITY TEST MAP . Project No. 11971000-010 ��nl Scale 1"=40' LEI I� Dratted By DLM Cinema Pad, The Promenade Engr./Geol. SG/RFR 89 Temecula California v Date 1/27/99 Figurigi No- 2 No. 2 SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO ' 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION* — — -------- RETAINING WALL 07 o _ o B' MIN. o WALL — --WATERPROOFING FILTER FABRIC I OVERLAP ENVELOPE PER ARCHITECT'S _- o 0 o (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED SPECIFICATIONS I EQUIVALENT) ** ' a 0 0 > — 1' MIN. 3/4'-1.1/2' CLEAN GRAVEL** FINISH GRADE 0 ° 0 � f(IICr�-cam === � 4' (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS ORIENTED DOWN A9 DEPICTED MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET ' WALL FOOTING n -iCu— U 3' MIN. NOT TO SCALE COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL SPE'�:F:C .GINS OR CAL?Z4�yS CONSULTANT CLASS ? ?r?r1E.=.3L_ �ATc=iAL U.S. Stancarc Sieve Size D,SS'f14 *BASED ON ASTM D1557 _ 1 100 * * IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL - 90-:00 (SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF 3/ -_70 3/4'—i-t/2' GRAVEL. FILTER FABRIC MAY BE �q_,:0 DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE ?J0. 3 13 - MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 90 SD - PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION o. =3 _ NOTE:CCMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN NO. 200 3__ OR J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNA, V-= TO GRAVE'_ OR Sanc _cu'va ,gn� > '_= CLASS 2.INSTALLATI0N SHOULD BE PERFORh1✓ IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. ' S alle t No. 11971000 010 RETAINING WALL n�n ' DRAINAGE DETAIL Engr./Geol- SG/RFR L-Jp Drafted By Date 1/27/99 1042 889 BJPRINT SOURCE 6 SUPPLY 75]6] Flgufe NO. 3 11971000-010 APPENDIX A ' References Robert Bein William Frost and Associates, 1998, Promenade Mall in Temecula, Parcel Map No. 28530, Rough Grading Plan, Sheets 9 and 10 of 14, dated June 25, 1998, revised October 1998. ' Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1997a, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Temecula Regional Center, South and East of Winchester and Ynez Roads, Temecula, ' California, dated April 9, 1997, Project No. 1 1 97 1000-00 1. 1997b, Amended Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations for Remedial Removals, Proposed Temecula Regional Center, Promenade Mall, South and East of Winchester and Ynez Roads, Temecula, California, dated August 22, 1997, Project No. 11971000-003. ' 1997c, As-Graded Report of Rough Grading, The Temecula Mall-Phase I, Southeast of Winchester and Ynez Roads, Temecula, California, dated December 5, ' 1997, Project No. 11971000-003. 1998, Response to Comments by GCI Associates, Inc., dated October 19, 1998, ' Temecula Edwards Theatre, Temecula, California, Project No. 1 197 1 000-0 12, dated December 2, 1998. 1 1 ®tea 1 ' APPENDIX B 11971000-010 ' Explanation of Summary of Field Density Tests ' Test No. -Test of Test No. Test of Prefix Test of Abbreviations Prefix Test of Abbreviations (none) GRADING ' Natural Ground NO (SG) SUBGRADE Original Ground OG (AB) AGGREGATE BASE Existing Fill EF (CB) PROCESSED BASE ' Compacted Fill CF (PH) ASPHALT CONCRETE Slope Face SF (AC) Fetish Grade FG (S) SEWER Curb C (SD) STORM DRAIN Gutter G (AD) AREA DRAIN Curb and Gutter CG (W) DOMESTIC WATER - Cross Gutter NG (RC) _RECLAIMED WATER Street gT (SB) SUBDRAIN - Sidewalk SW (G) GAS Driveway D (E) ELECTRICAL Driveway Approach DA (T) TELEPHONE Parking Lot PL ' (J) JOINT UTILITY Electric Box Pad EB (I) IRRIGATION Bedding Material B Shading Sand S Main Backfill M Lateral Backfill L Crossing ,y Manhole MH ' Ilydrant Lateral HL Catch Basin CB Riser R Invert I Check Valve CV ' Meter Box MB Junction Box JB (RW) RETAINING WALL (P) PRESATURATION ' (CW) CRIB WALL (LW) LOFFELLWALL Moisture Content M (SF) STRUCT FOOTING Footing Bottom F (IT) INTERIOR TRENCH Backfill B Wall Cell C Plumbing p Electrical E 1 N represents nuclear gauge tests that were performed in general accordance with most recent version of ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017 ' S represents sand cone tests that were performed in general accordance with most recent version ofASTM Test Method D 1556 15A represents first retest of Test No. 15 ' 15B represents second retest of Test No. 15 "0" in Test Elevation Column represents test was taken at the ground surface(e.g.finish grade or subgrade) ' "-I" in Test Elevation Column represents taken 1-foot below the ground surface Via 01/27/99 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS PROJECT NUMBER: 11-971000-10 NAME: MALL PHASE-]I TEST TEST TEST TEST ------------ LOCATION -------------- TEST SOIL DRY DENSITY(pcf) MOISTURE(%) REL(%) REMARKS NUMBER METH DATE OF ELEV(ft) TYPE FIELD MAX FIELD OPT COMP --------- ---- -------- ---- ------------------------------------ ---------- ---- ------------ ----------- ----- ---------- C 1163 N 10/14/98 CF BORROW PIT SE OF CINEMA 1059.0 27 118.4 131.0 10.0 9.0 90 90% REO'D C 1169 N 10/15/98 CF CINEMA PAD 1059.0 27 118.8 131.0 8.9 9.0 91 90% RED'D C 1170 N 10/15/98 CF CINEMA PAD 1060.0 28 116.0 124.5 10.2 9.5 93 90% RED'D C 1171 N 10/15/98 CF CINEMA PAD 1059.0 25 115.7 125.0 10.6 11.0 93 90% REO'D C 1172 N 10/15/98 CF CINEMA PAD 59.0 28 114.7 124.5 9.0 9.5 92 C 1173 N 10/15/98 CF CINEMA PAD 60.0 28 113.6 124.5 9.6 9.5 91 C 1174 N 10/15/98 CF BORROW PIT SE OF CINEMA 60.0 28 116.0 124.5 8.9 9.5 93 C 1176 N 10/16/98 CF CINEMA PAD 60.0 27 118.6 131.0 10.0 9.0 91 C 1177 N 10/16/98 CF CINEMA PAD 60.0 28 117.4 124.5 9.3 9.5 94 C 1178 N 10/16/98 CF CINEMA PAD 60.0 28 115.5 124.5 9.7 9.5 93 C 1179 N 10/16/98 CF CINEMA PAD 61.0 28 112.3 124.5 10.6 9.5 90 C 1181 N 10/16/98 CF CINEMA PAD 61.0 25 113.9 125.0 11.5 11.0 91 C 1184 N 10/19/98 CF CINEMA PAD 61.0 27 118.5 131.0 8.4 9.0 90 C 1187 N 10/19/98 CF CINEMA PAD 61.0 28 116.0 124.5 9.3 9.5 93 . C 1188 N 10/19/98 CF CINEMA PAD 61.0 28 114.2 124.5 9.5 9.5 92 C 1189 N 10/19/98 CF CINEMA PAD 62.0 28 115.0 124.5 10.1 9.5 92 C 1190 N 10/19/98 CF CINEMA PAD 61.0 27 120.1 131.0 8.8 . 9.0 92 C 1191 N 10/19/98 CF CINEMA PAD 62.0 27 118.0 131.0 9.4 9.0 90 C 1194 N 10/19/98 CF CINEMA PAD 62.0 28 116.3 124.5 9.0 9.5 93 C 1195 N 10/19/98 CF CINEMA PAD 63.0 28 114.0 124.5 9.3 9.5 92 C 1196 N 10/19/98 CF CINEMA PAD 62.0 27 119.0 131.0 10.2 9.0 91 C 1202 N 10/20/98 FG CINEMA PAD 0.0 28 115.1 124.5 8.9 9.5 92 C 1203 N 10/20/98 FG CINEMA PAD 0.0 28 112.9 124.5 9.3 9.5 91 C 1204 N 10/20/98 FG CINEMA PAD 0.0 27 118.0 131.0 9.2 9.0 90 C 1205 N 10/20/98 FG CINEMA PAD 0.0 25 116.9 125.0 10.6 11.0 94 C 1206 N 10/20/98 FG CINEMA PAD 0.0 28 114.1 124.5 9.8 9.5 92 11971000-010 APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Maximum Density Testing- The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. The results of these tests are presented in the table below: Sample Optimum Maximum Location Sample Description Moisture Dry Density Content (%) (pcf) 1 Brown, silty SAND/SILT 12.5 121.0 2 Brown, silty SAND 10.5 126.5 3 Light brown-white, fine to medium, silty SAND 11.0 125.0 4 Light brown, fine to medium, silty SAND 11.0 124.5 ' S Dark brown, clayey, fine SAND 13.5 119.5 6 Brown, slightly clayey, silty SAND 10.5 126.5 ' 7 Olive gray, clay to plastic SILT 24.0 99.4 8 Medium dark-brown, clayey, silty SAND 9.0 131.5 ' 9 Olive tan, silty, fine SAND 10.0 129.5 10 Olive gray-brown, silty, fine to medium SAND 8.0 133.5 11 Light to medium brown, silty SAND 12.5 121.0 12 Light to medium brown, coarse SAND 9.0 132.0 13 Olive tan, clayey SAND 12.0 122.5 ' 14 Light brown, silty SAND 9.5 126.0 15 Olive tan, silty, fine SAND 12.5 118.0 16 Dark brown, sandy SILT 10.0 128.0 17 Dark brown, sandy SILT 11.0 125.0 18 Olive tan, silty, clayey SAND 10.0 130.0 19 Red-brown, clayey SAND 8.5 131.5 20 Brown, fine, silty SAND 11.2 124.0 21 Medium brown, silty, fine SAND 12.5 126.0 ' 22 Red-brown to light brown, silty, fine SAND 12.5 124.5 23 Medium dark-brown, clayey SAND 11.5 127.5 ' 24 Olive tan, silty, fine SAND 11.5 126.5 25 Medium brown, silty, fine SAND 11.0 125.0 26 Olive-brown, silty, fine SILT 13.0 132.5 ' 27 Olive-brown, silty, fine to medium SAND 9.0 131.0 28 Olive-brown, silty, fine SAND 9.5 124.5 ' 29 Olive-brown, sandy SILT with some clay 13.5 116.5 ' C-1 Laborator� 11971000-010Testing Procedures (Cont'd.) ' Expansion Index Tests- The expansion potential of selected materials was-evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 29-2. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation or approximately ' 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge :and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the table below: ' Compacted - Sample Dry Expansion Expansion Sulfate Location Sample Description Content Density Index Potential ( c PPM FMallFR -brfown to olive-brown, silty SAND; oreo clay l 15.2 47 Low < 150 _ C2