HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical Rpt of Rough Grading 9/30/97-44
0
�l
REGLILATOR]LCOMPLIAXCE
' All fills, cuts, over excavations, removals and processing of original ground under the
purview of this report have been completed under the observation of, and with
' selective testing, by Petra and are found to be in compliance with the grading code of
the County of Riverside, California, and the recommendations of the geotechnical
' consultant. The completed work has been reviewed and is considered adequate for the
construction now planned.
' The following recommendations were prepared in conformance with generally
t accepted professional engineering practices and no further warranty is implied or
made.
1
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
7620 Commerce Centre Drive,
Suite 103
Temecula. CA 92590
Tel: (909) 699-6193
Fax: (909) 699-6197
2
PETRA
tCOSTA
MESA • NEWPORT BEACH
• SAN DIEGO • TEMECU
RECE�aversl'-
t
County.$ We
guild
0�-1997
September 30, 1997
569-96
OCj
t
RECE fiver We
c,i
'
REDHAWK HOMEBUILDING PARTNERSHIP LTD
4141 Jutland Avenue, Suite 200
Count,,
gulit{;ng
92117
7
San Diego, California
'
Attention: Mr. Barry Galgut
Subject: Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots
83 through 99, Phase I
of Tract 23064-3, Redhawk Development,
County of Riverside,
California
1
Submitted herewith is a summary of the inspection and testing services provided by
'
Petra Geotechnical, Inc. (Petra) during grading operations
within the subject tract.
Conclusions and recommendations relative to the suitability of the grading for the
proposed development are presented.
REGLILATOR]LCOMPLIAXCE
' All fills, cuts, over excavations, removals and processing of original ground under the
purview of this report have been completed under the observation of, and with
' selective testing, by Petra and are found to be in compliance with the grading code of
the County of Riverside, California, and the recommendations of the geotechnical
' consultant. The completed work has been reviewed and is considered adequate for the
construction now planned.
' The following recommendations were prepared in conformance with generally
t accepted professional engineering practices and no further warranty is implied or
made.
1
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
7620 Commerce Centre Drive,
Suite 103
Temecula. CA 92590
Tel: (909) 699-6193
Fax: (909) 699-6197
2
I
REDHAWK HP, LTD September 30, 1997
Tract 23064- /Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page 2
' PURPOSE OF GRA MG
• The purpose of grading was to develop 17 level -graded pad areas within Phase I
' of Tract 23064-3. This included adjacent slopes and access streets for future
construction of single-family homes.
• Grading of Phase I of Tract 23064-3 began on May 21, 1997, and was completed
on June 24, 1997. Grades conform to, and work is shown and was completed,
under the guidelines of the enclosed rough grading plans.
1
ENGINEERIN_GOEOLO_GY
General
Geologic conditions exposed during the process of grading were frequently observed
and mapped by our geologic staff.
GeQlogic—Units
Geologic conditions observed onsite are generally as anticipated and described in the
referenced preliminary geotechnical reports. The site is underlain at depth by the
Quaternary Pauba Formation. The Pauba Formation, as observed onsite, is a massive
to thick -bedded coarse to fine silty sandstone. Bedding orientation throughout the site
is generally horizontal, with minor dips, 0 to 5, in random orientations. No trace of
faulting or fault -related features were noted during geologic observation.
Cut -Slopes
All cut slopes are considered grossly and surficially stable and will remain so under
normal conditions and maintenance.
W
3
' REDHAWK HP, LTD September 30, 1997
Tract 23064- /Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
' Page 3
' S_4ILSJENGINEERIN-G
Pr_eparation_of_Existing-Gronnd
• All weeds, grasses and similar organic matter were stripped and removed from the
site prior to grading.
' • All loose, excessively wet and compressible topsoil, slopewash and colluvial
materials were removed to competent bedrock prior to placing fill. Depths vaned
from 3 to 14 feet.
• Areas to receive fill were scarified and bladed to a depth of 6 to 8 inches, watered
' and mixed, as required, to achieve optimum moisture conditions and were
compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent.
Fi1LPlacemeW
• Fill consisted of blended onsite materials having the below -mentioned soil
classifications (see Table I). Fill materials were placed in lifts restricted to 6 inches
in thickness, watered, as required, to achieve optimum moisture conditions and
were compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent.
• Maximum depth of fill is approximately 25 feet.
• Fill placed against temporary backcuts and on natural slope surfaces having a
gradient steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical [h:v]) were keyed and benched into
competent bedrock or compacted fill materials.
Slopes
To achieve adequate compaction to the finish surfaces, all fill slopes were overfilled
and back -rolled during construction at vertical intervals not exceeding approximately
4 to 5 feet and then trimmed back to competent inner cores.
FieldTesting
• Field density tests were performed using nuclear gage method (ASTM D2922-91)
and sand cone method (ASTM D1556). Test results are shown on Table II
(attached). The approximate locations of the field density tests are shown on the
accompanying geotechnical map.
It
FAA
I
' REDHAWK HP, LTD September 30, 1997
Tract 23064- /Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
' Page 4
' • The compacted fills were tested at the time of placement to ascertain that the
specified moisture content and relative compaction had been achieved. Field
density tests were taken at intervals of approximately 1 to 2 feet.
' • Field density tests were taken at sufficient intervals to determine that adequate
compaction was being achieved. Where tests indicated inadequate compaction, the
' areas were reworked and retested
• Visual classification of earth materials in the field was the basis for determining
' which maximum density value to employ for a given density test. Frequent one -
point checks were performed to supplement visual classifications.
1
C
Lahoratorysesting
The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each major
soil type were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557-91. Table I
presents the pertinent test values.
TABLE I
S mple
dr
E
Q Opt►mnm
Maximum,Dr .
No -
So►1 TypeTM * ,r r
Moisture
„ , Dens�}}•'
�Y'C
r
i i
1
Brown, Silty CLAY
8.0
128.0
2
Brown, Silty SAND
9.0
129.0
3
Tan to light brown Silty SAND
9.5
126.5
4
Reddish brown Silty SAND
8.5
131.0
5
Dark brown to black Silty CLAY
10.5
126.0
6
Reddish brown to brown Silty SAND
10.5
127.0
7
Brown Silty SAND
11.0
125.0
8
Tan, fine to coarse SAND
10.0
126.0
9
Light tan, grey, fine to medium
10.0
124.0
SAND
S
1
1
1
1
REDHAWK HP, LTD
Tract 23064- /Redhawk Development
September 30, 1997
J.N. 569-96
Page 5
Sample
i
Optimum ;
Maximum Dry:
No
SoType
M01sture t
,Density `
Locaon ti
r, Lots
,`
Potential `3,
t ";'tt.
MY,:
10
Tan, fine to Sandy Silty mix
10.0
127.0
11
Tan, fine to coarse SILT, trace of
10.0
130.0
84
Grave
9
Very Low
12
Reddish brown SAND to light
8.0
129.0
SAND
13
Red brown SAND
7.5
131.0
14 (CC)
Silty SAND
10.0
132.0
15 (C)
SAND with Silt
10.5
126.0
16 (FF)
Silty SAND
9.0
130.0
17 (00)
SAND with Silt
10.0
128.0
18 (P)
Silty SAND
8.0
134.0
19(S)
SAND
12.0
117.0
20 (B)
Silty SAND with Clay
15.0
117.0
21 (U)
Silty SAND
9.0
132.0
Expansion Index tests were performed on representative samples of soil existing
within the building areas in accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard
Test No. 18-1. Test results are presented on Table III.
TABLE III
M
=Representative
Sample
Ezpans►on Index.'
w Expansion
Locaon ti
r, Lots
,`
Potential `3,
t ";'tt.
r
=Lot -No
k
84
83-86
9
Very Low
87
87-89
4
Very Low
M
1
1
1
1
i
1
i
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
REDHAWK HP, LTD
Tract 23064- /Redhawk Development
September 30, 1997
J.N. 569-96
Page 6
Sample
'Represen`tati`ve'
lExpans,onrIndex °
Expansion g -,
Locat►on(Lot No
Lots ;�,
4
AtLocation
Potenttal P
x
,
,
�� L
Lig �. re i4
if ,xr 4 e't
Oof
O Y
90
90-92
2
Very Low
93
93 -95
4
Very Low
96
96-99
14
Very Low
• Soluble sulfate contents were also determined for typical samples of soil existing
at grade. Table IV, below, presents the results.
TABLE IV
Lot-S-ummary
A summary of the cut -fill transition lots onsite with the maximum depth of fill is
provided in Table V, below.
TABLE V
'
'
Locat►on(Lot No
41i_ Maximum ,
4
Sulfate Content p '€
x
L`ot No
P}
L
Depth a l
Oof
O Y
Fella
���
90
.USft `....Gv.........�
83
0.0045
83
84
Fill
12
0.0144
Lot-S-ummary
A summary of the cut -fill transition lots onsite with the maximum depth of fill is
provided in Table V, below.
TABLE V
7
41i_ Maximum ,
R
,mss
L`ot No
Cat/F�II/Trans►f�ony n= s�
Depth a l
Oof
Fella
���
.USft `....Gv.........�
83
Cut
7
84
Fill
12
85
Fill
22
86
Fill
13
7
I
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
REDHAWK HP, LTD
Tract 23064- /Redhawk Development
September 30, 1997
J.N. 569-96
Page 7
Hearing Values
An allowable value of 1,500 pounds per square foot, including both dead and live
loads, may be utilized for the design of 24 -inch -square pad footings and 12 -inch -wide
continuous footings founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches into compacted fill or
approved natural ground. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each
additional foot of depth to a maximum value of 2,500 pounds per square foot.
Recommended allowable soil bearing capacities include both dead and live loads and
may be increased by one-third for short -duration wind and seismic forces.
g
S 4
Maxunum �
l
i s oI
S t 4?3 I S
N$t5
P
ti
No
FL� IY TransS dg� n 1o
�
pt.h..
D}�
.4,y%ikf j
e iN F i
s
o Fdl i
i
: ti
i 4
87
Fill
9
88
Fill
8
80
Cut
0
90
Cut
0
91
Cut
0
92
Fill
7
93
Fill
10
94
Transition
11
95
Transition
9
96
Transition
12
97
Transition
7
98
Transition
15
99
Transition
9
Hearing Values
An allowable value of 1,500 pounds per square foot, including both dead and live
loads, may be utilized for the design of 24 -inch -square pad footings and 12 -inch -wide
continuous footings founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches into compacted fill or
approved natural ground. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each
additional foot of depth to a maximum value of 2,500 pounds per square foot.
Recommended allowable soil bearing capacities include both dead and live loads and
may be increased by one-third for short -duration wind and seismic forces.
g
I
1
I
REDHAWK HP, LTD September 30, 1997
Tract 23064- /Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page 8
Settlement
Under the above bearing pressures, total settlements are expected to be less than 0.75
inch, and differential settlements less than 0.25 inch over a span of approximately 30
feet. The majority of this settlement should occur during building construction as
loads are applied.
Lateral -Resistance
A passive earth pressure of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth to a maximum
value of 2,500 pounds per square foot may be used to determine lateral bearing for
building and retaining wall footings located at least 10 feet from the top of any
adjacent descending slope. Where retaining wall footings are to be constructed on or
within 10 feet from the top of a descending slope, a passive earth pressure of 1,500
pounds per square foot should be used to determine the lateral building resistance. A
coefficient of friction of 0.35 times the dead load forces may also be used between
concrete and the supporting soils to determine lateral sliding resistance for all building
and retaining wall footings. An increase of one-third of the above values may be used
when designing for short -duration wind and seismic forces.
Footings
All footing trenches should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant to
ascertain that they have been excavated into competent bearing soils. These
observations should be performed prior to placement of forms or reinforcement. The
excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square. All loose, sloughed or
moisture -softened materials and any debris should be removed prior to placing
concrete. (NQte: Excavated soils derived from footing and utility trenches should not
be placed in slab -on -grade areas unless they are compacted to at least 90 percent of
maximum dry density.)
M
I
REDHAWK HP, LTD September 30, 1997
Tract 23064- /Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page 9
Expansive_Soil_Considerations
Soils underlying the subject lots exhibit a medium expansion potential as classified in
accordance with UBC Table 18 -I -B. Standard footing depths of 12 inches for a one-
story and 18 inches for a two-story structure may be utilized. However, additional slab
thickness, footing sizes and reinforcement should be provided, as required, by the
project architect or structural engineer.
Medium Expansion (Lot Nos._83_and_99) -- Results of our laboratory expansion
index tests indicate onsite soils exhibit a medium expansion potential, as classified
in accordance with UBC Table No. 18 -I -B. Based on subsurface soil stratigraphy,
a weighted plasticity index of 21 was determined for the building site in accordance
with UBC Section 1815.
The minimum design and construction details presented below are based on the
above soil conditions and are recommended to mitigate the effects of moderately
expansive soils. These recommendations are minimum recommendations and have
been developed based on the previous experience of this firm on projects with
similar soil conditions. Construction performed in accordance with these
recommendations has been found to minimize, but not positively prevent, post -
construction movement cracking and other effects of expansive earth materials.
Since the site is underlain by soil materials that exhibit a medium expansion
potential, the project structural engineer should design the floor slabs and
foundations in accordance with Section 1815 of the 1994 UBC. Based on this
design, thicker floor slabs, larger footing sizes and/or additional reinforcement may
be required by the project structural engineer and should govern the design if more
restrictive than the minimum recommendations provided below.
- Eo_otings
Exterior building footings may be founded at the minimum depths
indicated in the UBC Table 18 -I -D (i.e., 12 -inch -minimum depth for one-
story construction and 18 -inch -minimum depth for two-story construction).
All interior continuous footings for both one- and two-story construction
may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest
adjacent final grade. All continuous footings should be reinforced with a
minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom.
W
/0
I
' REDHAWK HP, LTD September 30, 1997
Tract 23064- /Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page 10
2. Exterior isolated pad footings intended for support of roof overhangs, such
as patio covers and similar construction, should be a minimum of 24 inches
square and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest
' adjacent final grade. The pad footings should be reinforced with No. 4 bars
spaced a maximum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. The
pad footings should be reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18
' inches on centers, both ways, near the bottoms of the footings.
building Floor -Slabs
' 1. Based on an effective plasticity index of 21 for the upper 15 feet of the
foundation materials and considering the medium expansion potential for
' the subgrade soils, a minimum slab thickness of 4 inches and reinforcement
consisting of No. 3 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both
ways, is recommended for living -area concrete floor slabs. All slab
' reinforcement should be supported on concrete chairs or brick to ensure the
desired placement near the middle of the slabs.
' 2. A moisture vapor barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane, such
as 6 -mil visqueen or equivalent, should be placed below all living -area
concrete floor slabs. All laps in the membrane should be sealed and a
' minimum of 2 inches of clean sand should be placed over the membrane to
promote uniform curing of the concrete.
' 3. Garage floor slabs should have a minimum slab thickness of 4 inches and
should be reinforced in a similar manner as living -area floor slabs. Garage
floor slabs should also be poured separately from adjacent wall footings
' with a positive separation maintained with 3/8 inch minimum felt
expansion joint materials and quartered with weakened plane joints.
' 4. A 12 -inch -wide grade beam founded at the same depth as adjacent footings
should be provided across garage entrances. The grade beam should be
reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom.
5. Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below all living area and
garage floor slabs should be presoaked to achieve a moisture content that
is 4 percent or greater above optimum moisture content. This moisture
content should penetrate to a minimum depth of 12 inches into the subgrade
' soils. Presaturation of the subgrade soils will promote uniform curing of
the concrete and minimize the development of shrinkage cracks.
�f'
LI
I
1
REDHAWK HP, LTD September 30, 1997
Tract 23064- /Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page 11
Soluble_Sunte-nalysis
Results of the laboratory tests performed in accordance with California Test Method
No. 417 indicate onsite soils contain water soluble sulfates of less than 0.10 percent.
Therefore, according to UBC Table 19-A-3, a negligible exposure to sulfate can be
expected for concrete placed in contact with the onsite soils. Therefore, Type II
cement or equivalent may be used for concrete.
>TAINING WALL -PARAMETERS
The active earth pressure to be utilized for retaining wall design may be computed
as an equivalent fluid having a density of 40 pounds per cubic foot when the slope
of the backfill behind the wall is level and 68 pounds per cubic foot when the
backfill slopes are at 2:1 (h:v). Retaining walls that are restrained at the top, an at -
rest earth pressure equivalent to a fluid having density of 60 ponds per cubic foot
for level backfill. All retaining walls should be provided with weep holes and/or
pipe and gravel sub -drains.
A passive earth pressure of 300 pounds per square foot per foot of depth to a
maximum earth pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be used for lateral
resistance.
• An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.4 maybe used
with the dead load forces.
Drainage -
Perforated pipe and gravel sub -drains should be installed behind all retaining walls to
prevent entrapment of water in the backfill. Perforated pipe should consist of 4 -inch -
minimum -diameter PVC Schedule 40 or ABS SDR -35, with perforations lain down.
The pipe should be encased in a 1 -foot -wide column of 0.75 inch to 1.5 inches open -
graded gravel extending above the wall footing to a height equal to two-thirds of the
wall height, or a minimum height of 1.5 feet above the footing, whichever is greater.
The gravel should be completely wrapped in filter fabric consisting of Mirafi 140N,
1A
L
I
I
[1
1
I
1
REDHAWK HP, LTD September 30, 1997
Tract 23064- /Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page 12
or equivalent. Solid outlet pipes should be connected to the sub -drains and routed to
areas suitable for discharge of accumulated water.
For low -height walls retaining less than approximately 2.5 feet of backfill, an
alternative drainage system consisting of weep -holes or open masonry joints may be
used in -lieu of a pipe and gravel sub -drain. Weep -holes, if used, should be 3 inches
minimum diameter and provided at maximum intervals of 6 feet along the walls. Open
vertical masonry joints should be provided at 32 -inch -minimum intervals. One cubic
foot of gravel should be placed behind the weep -holes or masonry joints. The gravel
should be wrapped in filter fabric to prevent infiltration of fines and subsequent
clogging of the gravel. Filter fabric should consist of Mirafi 140N, or equivalent.
Waterpraolmg
Consideration should be given to coating the outside portions of retaining walls with
an approved waterproofing compound or covered with a similar material to inhibit
infiltration of moisture through walls.
Retaining
All retaining wall backfill should be placed in 6- to 8 -inch -thick maximum horizontal
lifts, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve near -optimum moisture conditions
and then mechanically compacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90
percent. Flooding or jetting of backfill materials should be avoided. A representative
from Petra should probe and test the backfills to ascertain adequate compaction.
Dcepv=d Footings
Where building or retaining wall footings are proposed near the tops of descending
slopes or near the toe of the ascending slope, these footings should be deepened such
that a minimum horizontal distance of 7 feet exists between the outside bottom edge
of the footing and the face of the adjacent slope. This horizontal distance is for
/3
I
I
[1
1
REDHAWK HP, LTD September 30, 1997
Tract 23064- /Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page 13
compacted fill slopes and cut slopes less than 14 feet high exposing dense native soils
or competent bedrock. Where footings are proposed near the tops of descending
slopes, or near the toe of an ascending slope with slope height greater than 14 feet,
footings should be deepened such that a minimum horizontal distance of H/2 feet (H=
Height of slope) is maintained between the outside bottom edge of the footing and the
face of the adjacent slope to a maximum of 10 feet and 15 feet near the top of the
descending slope and near the toe of the ascending slope, respectively.
EXTERIOR-C—ONCRETE_FLAT-WORK
Thickness_andExpansionJoint-Spacing
To reduce the potential for excessive and unsightly cracking related to the effects of
expansive soils, walkways and patio -type slabs should be at least 4 inches thick and
provided with weakened plane joints or expansion joints every 6 feet or less. Sub -
slabs to be covered with decorative pavers should also be at least 4 inches thick and
provided with weakened plane joints or expansion joints every 6 feet or less. Concrete
driveway slabs should also be at least 5 inches thick and provided with weakened
plane joints or expansion joints every 10 feet or less.
Reinforcement
Consideration should be given to reinforcing all concrete patio -type slabs, driveways
and sidewalks greater than 5 feet in width with 6 -inch by 6 -inch No.6 by NO.6 welded
wire fabric, or with No.3 bars spaced 24 inches on centers, both ways. The
reinforcement should be positioned near the middle of the slabs by means of concrete
chairs or brick.
/V
I
REDHAWK HP, LTD September 30, 1997
Tract 23064- /Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page 14
Edge-Reams-fttional)
Where the outer edges of concrete patios and driveways are to be bordered by
landscaping, consideration should be given to the use of edge beams (thickened edges)
to prevent excessive water infiltration and accumulation beneath the slabs. Edge
' beams, if used, should be 6 to 8 inches below the tops of the finish surfaces and be
reinforced with a minimum of two No.4 bars, one top and one bottom. Edge beams
' are not mandatory; however, their inclusion in flatwork construction adjacent to
landscaped areas will significantly reduce the potential for vertical and horizontal
movements and subsequent cracking of the flatwork related to the effects of high uplift
forces that can develop in expansive soils.
Sultgradepreparation
'
As a further measure to minimize cracking and/or shifting of concrete flatwork, the
subgrade soils below concrete flatwork areas should be compacted to a minimum
'
relative compaction of 90 percent and then thoroughly moistened prior to placing
concrete. The moisture content of the soils should be 5 percent or greater above
'
optimum moisture content and penetrate to a depth of approximately 12 inches into the
subgrade. Flooding or ponding of the subgrade is not considered feasible to achieve
the above moisture conditions since this method would likely require construction of
numerous earth berms to contain the water. Therefore, moisture conditioning should
be achieved with sprinklers or light spray applied to the subgrade over a period of
several days just prior to placing concrete. A Petra representative should observe and
verify the density and moisture content of the soils and the depth of moisture prior to
pouring concrete.
1
1
15
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
REDHAWK HP, LTD September 30, 1997
Tract 23064- /Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page 15
Footing -Embedment
Footings for masonry block walls should be constructed in a similar manner as
recommended for retaining wall footings. That is, to mitigate potential adverse effects
of creep that will develop on the cut -and -fill slopes with the passage of time. Footings
for masonry block walls proposed near the tops of descending slopes, should be
founded at a depth that will provide a minimum horizontal setback of 7 feet between
the outside bottom edges of the footings and the slope face. Where masonry block
walls are proposed at distances of 7 feet and greater from the tops of descending
slopes, the footings may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest
adjacent final grade; however, a minimum embedment of 18 inches may be preferable
to provide at least 6 inches of cover over the footings.
Reinforcement_and-Positiye-Separations
All masonry block wall footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4
bars, one top and one bottom. In order to mitigate the potential for unsightly cracking,
positive separations should also be provided in the garden walls at the horizontal
spacings of approximately 20 to 25 feet and at each corner. These separations should
be provided in the blocks only and not extended through the footing. The footing
should be pored monolithically with continuous rebars to serve as an effective "grade
beam" below the wall.
Area drains should be extended into all planter areas that are located within 5 feet of
building walls and foundations, retaining walls and garden walls to minimize excessive
infiltration of water into the adjacent foundation soils. The surface of the ground in
these areas should be sloped at a minimum gradient oft percent away from the walls
3
U ,6
I
REDHAWK HP, LTD September 30, 1997
Tract 23064- /Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page 16
' and foundations. Drip -irrigation systems are also recommended to prevent over
watering and subsequent saturation of the adjacent foundation soils.
Low -height planter walls should be supported by continuous concrete footings founded
at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade; however, a
' minimum embedment of 18 inches may be preferable to allow for 6 inches of cover
over the footings. The footings should be reinforced with No. 4 bars, one top and one
' bottom. Positive separations should also be provided in the planar walls in a similar
manner as recommended for masonry block walls.
1 UTILITY TRENCIIES
• Onsite soils are fine- to coarse-grained and will require mechanical effort to
' achieve proper compaction. All backfill should be compacted to a minimum
relative compaction of 90 percent. Trench backfill materials should be placed in
12- to 18 -inch -maximum horizontal lifts, watered or air-dried as necessary to
achieve near -optimum moisture conditions and then mechanically compacted in-
place with a hydra -hammer, pneumatic tamper or similar equipment to a minimum
relative compaction of 90 percent. A Petra representative should be notified at the
' appropriate times to ascertain the relative compaction of the backfill.
• As an alternative for interior trenches under slabs, imported clean sand having a
' sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into
place. Inspection, probing and, if deemed necessary, testing should be performed.
' Exterior and interior trenches paralleling building footings should not be located
within a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected downwards from the outside bottom edge of the
adjacent footing. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the adjacent footing
should be. deepened or backfilled with sand -cement slurry.
POST -CONSTRUCTION AND LONG-TERM
EFFECTS OF_EXPANSLYE_S-OILS
' The preceding recommendations for design of foundations and floor slabs for the
residence and other site improvements are provided to mitigate distress related to
W
r?
I
' REDHAWK HP, LTD September 30, 1997
Tract 23064- /Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
' Page 17
' effects of moderately expansive soils. However, our experience has shown that over
long time periods, expansive soils can and do result in some differential movement of
' structures built on them. Consequently, a certain amount of cracking and/or horizontal
and vertical displacement can generally be anticipated.
' SLO E LAND$CAPDLG-AND_MAINTENANCE
' All cut -and -fill slopes should be provided with the proposed drainage facilities and
landscaping as soon as practical upon completion of rough grading to minimize the
' potential for erosion, raveling or slumping. Additional recommendations with respect
to slope landscaping and maintenance are presented below to mitigate surficial
' instability.
• The landscaping for all cut -and -fill slopes should consist of a deep-rooted, drought -
resistant and maintenance -free plan species. A landscape architect should be
consulted to determine the most suitable ground cover for both cut -and -fill slopes.
' If landscaping cannot be provided within a reasonable period of time, jute matting
or equivalent, or a spray -on product designed to seal slope surfaces should be
considered as a temporary measure to inhibit surface erosion.
' Irrigation systems should be installed on slopes exceeding a height of 10 feet and
a watering program then implemented which maintains a uniform near -optimum
' moisture condition int he soils. Over watering and subsequent saturation of the
slope soils should be avoided. On the other hand, allowing the soils to dry out is
also detrimental to slope performance.
• Irrigation systems should be constructed at the surface only. Construction of
sprinkler lines in trenches should not be allowed without prior approval from this
firm.
• During construction of the proposed drainage facilities, care must be taken to avoid
' placement of loose soil on the slope surfaces.
• A permanent slope maintenance program should be initiated. Proper slope
maintenance must include the care of drainage and erosion control provisions,
rodent control and timely repair of leaking irrigation systems.
'
REDHAWK HP, LTD September 30, 1997
Tract 23064- /Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
'
Page 18
Provided the above recommendations are followed with respect to slope drainage,
'
maintenance and landscaping, the cut -and -fill slopes are expected to be surficially
stable and to remain so under normal conditions.
'
E_UTURE-IMPRO-VEMENTS
'
Should any new structures or improvements be proposed at any time in the future,
other than those shown on the enclosed grading plan, Petra should be notified so that
'
we may provide design recommendations to mitigate movement and/or tilting of the
structures related to the effects of expansive earth materials.
'
' REPORT LINUTATIGNS
This report has been prepared consistent with that level of care being provided by other
' professionals providing similar services at the same locale and in the same time period.
The contents of this report are professional opinions and as such are not to be
' considered a guaranty or warranty.
' This report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named
or described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other
' parties or other purposes.
' Petra should be notified at the appropriate times in order that we may provide the
following observation and testing services during the various phases of post -grading
construction.
'Building -Construction
Observe footing trenches when first excavated to ascertain depth and competent
' soil bearing conditions.
I
' REDHAWK HP, LTD September 30, 1997
Tract 23064- /Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
' Page 19
' Reobserve all footing trenches, if necessary, if trenches are found to be
excavated to inadequate depth and/or are found to contain significant slough,
saturated or compressible soils.
•
Retaining_Wall-Constmction
' Observe all footing trenches when first excavated to ascertain depth and
competent soil -bearing conditions.
' Observe and test placement of any fill to be placed above or beyond the grades
shown on the grading plan.
- Reobserve all footings trenches, if necessary, if trenches are found to be
'
excavated to inadequate depth and/or are found to contain significant slough,
saturated or compressible soils.
- Observe and ascertain proper installation of subdrainage systems prior to
placing wall backfill.
'
- Observe and test placement of all wall backfill.
'
Masonry Garden -Walls -and -Planter -Walls
- Observe all footing trenches when first excavated to ascertain depth and
'
competent soil bearing conditions.
- Reobserve all footing trenches, if necessary, if trenches are found to be
'
excavated to inadequate depth and/or are found to contain significant slough,
saturated or compressible soils.
'
Concrete Flatwork ('on mction
'
Observe and test subgrade soils below all concrete flatwork areas to ascertain
relative compaction, moisture content and moisture penetration.
• Ublity TrenchBackfill
- Observe and test placement of all utility trench backfill.
'
Regrading
' Observe and test placement of any fill to be placed above or beyond the grades
shown on the grading plan.
I
1
1
1
CJ
r
1
1
11
REDHAWK HP, LTD September 30, 1997
Tract 23064- /Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page 20
Additional -Considerations
The project soils engineer should be notified prior to fill placement regarding the site
or backfilling of trenches after rough grading has been completed. Additionally, Petra
should be notified to conduct footing excavation observation, under slab -trench
compaction testing and testing of driveways, drive approaches, city sidewalks and
utility hookups.
This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for the project.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions regarding
this report, please contact this office.
Respectfully submitted,
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Lisa A . Battiato
Staff Geoloeist I
Step en ens `4Q�EN ��'✓
Prin ipal eologi EOL 1074
CE 1074 u+
LAB/SJ/SWJ/keb
ne rnt EU��
Attachments: Table II -
Plate 1 - (
/��-
Siamak Jafroudi, PhD
Principal Eng' y `
RCE 3664VI-1?0�
Density Tests
Map (in pocket)
No. 36641
a
OF CpUty
Distribution: (2) Addressee
(4) Riverside County Planning Department/Engineering Department
Attention: Mr. Abdul Behnawa
= M = M M = = = = M = = = = = = = = M
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. September 30, 1997
TR 23064-3/Red6awk Development J.N. 569-96
Page Tll- I
TABLE 11
Field -Density -Test -Results
Test Date
Type
L
Location
Mots
Maximum
-,-6y,�-De'n S
-ity,
(pcf)
Ielative
'C o !n p4ction
Ty
04/25/97
1
Sc
105
KEY
1187
5.8
115.4
95
10
04/25/97
2
Sc
105
KEY
1189
10.3
116.3
95
10
04/25/97
3
Sc
104
KEY
1181
11.1
126.0
96
4
04/25/97
4
Sc
104
BOTTOM
1179
8.7
118.2
96
10
04/28/97
5
Sc
104
1192
6.4
121.4
95
1
04/28/97
6
DT
106
1190
8.9
120.3
95
3
04/28/97
7
Sc
108
1193
9.1
120.3
95
3
04/21/97
1
SC
101
1195
10.5
121.0
95
10
04/28/97
9
DT
109
TOE
1176
12.1
128.2
98
11
04/28/97
10
DT
109
TOE
1183
1 12.3
122.1
93
4 1
04/28/97
11
Sc
109
PROPERTY UNE
1193
10.5
123.0
94
4
04/29/97
12
Sc
107
1
1196
6.8
125.1
97
12
04/29/97
13
Sc
105
1194
9.5
121.5
94
12
04/29/97
14
DT
104
1198
9.7
118.4
95
9
04/29/97
15
DT
103
1197
8.3
117.5
195
9
04/29/97
16
Sc
99
1261
10.3
118.2,
91
12
04/29/97
17
Sc
104
1202
11.5
121.0
93
12
04/29/97
18
Sc
105
1202
9.9
123.7
96
12
Failing Tests
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. September 30, 1997
TR 23064-3[Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page T11-2
TABLE 11 (Continued)
T
Loc
M
N millstpu Content t e n t
;Maximuw,:,�5
_y,;"Com
D r yjpj _t
ncfY4
r -Rela&6,
action
Type
04/30/9719
Sc
102
1202
10.7
118.3
93
6
04/30/97
20
Sc
101
1201
11.5
122.4
94
11
04/30/97
21
E22
DT
107
1199
8.9
119.3
95
8
04/30/97
DT
100
1203
10.3
126.8
97
13
04/30/97
23
Sc
98
1205
12.1
120.0
93
2
05/01/97
24
Sc
100
NE
1197 1
10.3
111.3
90
--L�
05/01/97
25
Sc
83
1198
11.9
113.9
91
7
05/01/97
26
DT
84
1109
11.5
113.3
91
05/01/97
27
DT
84/11
PROPERTY LINE
1200
11.1
111.7
90
05/01/97
28
DT
93
1219
11.5
117.2
91
2
05/01/97
29
Sc
96
1209
11.9
114.5
92
7
05/01/97
30
Sc
9
1213
11.5
113.7
91
7
05/02/97
31
Sc
CORTECARAVACH
1222
11.9
119.9
93
11
05/02/97
32
Sc
88
1222
12.3
120.7
93
11
05/02/97
33
DT
87
1223
11.1
115.4
92
8
05/02/97
34
Sc
99
1205
8.7
114.9
93
9
05/02/97
35
Sc
95
1217
11.5
118.1
91
11
05/02/97
36
JDTDT
86
1205
11.1
114.6
91
3
05/05/97
1 37
1 DT
88
1218
9.9
117.3
'93
3
Failing Tests
U
kA
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. September 30, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page T11-3
TABLE 11 (Continued)
Test Date
No.,�
Type `.Lot
; No
Location
..ElevM
i�'k,
Moisture Content
cx'y
.,Makifn,UM,0,:;J"'�,-Relative
Dry-4])6s'fty�-
C
Pf)
i-_!oRip4ctioq!,]:'
/A
oil
Type
05/05/97
38
Sc,
94
1220
9.5
115.7
93
7
05/05/97
39
Sc
86
1213
11.5
114.0
92
9
05/05/97
40
DT
108
SLOPE
1191
11.1
119.2
94
6
05/05/97
41
DT
109
1196
9.5
115.0
93
9
05/05/97
42
DT
108
1198
11.1
117.1
93
3
05/06/97
43
Sc
9
1135
7.9
115.0
91
3
05/06/97
44
Sc
8
1139
10.7
111.6
91
9
05/06/97
45
DT
109
1193
9.1
113.4
92
10
05/06/97
46
DT
109
1194
11.9
117.2
1 90
10
05/06/97
47
Sc
83
1204
1 11.1
114.9
90
5
05/06/97
48
Sc
85
1215
10.7
113.8
91
3
05/06/97
49
DT
109
1195
12.3
115.7
91
2
05/07/97
50
DT
9
L1142
10.7
116.9
91
2
05/07/97
51
DT
9/10
PROPERTY LINE
1145
11.9
121.3
94
12
05/07/97
52
DT
109
SLOPE
1197
11.1
113.4
90
10
05/07/97
53
Sc
103
FG
1202.5
9.7
116.6
93
8
05/07/97
54
Sc
102
FG
1202.5
11.1
118.0
93
3
05/07/97
55
DT
109
1197.5
9.9
1 117.6
91
12
05/07/97
56
DT
8
1
1 1147
11.
1 118.6
92
12
Failing Tests
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. September 30, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page TH-4
TABLE II (Continued)
TestDate:
Test
No
Test
Type
_;;
''Lot No
y
Locahoa'
G
Elevatio"n
; Opnmum ',?
Moisture Conten[
Maz�mum
Dry 1)ensdy
Relative,_
i Com act�ou
Soil':
, Type
05/08/97
57
Sc
8/9
PROPERTY LINE
1149
10.7
116.4
92
3
05/08/97
58
Sc
7/8
PROPERTY LINE
1152
9.9
114.7
92
7
05/08/97
59
DT
109
1199
10.7
115.0
92
7
05/08/97
60
Sc
71
1210
11.9
118.6
94
3
05/08/97
61
SC
24
1216
12.3
115.3
91
10
05/09/97
62
DT
8
SLOPE
1154
9.9
117.2
92
6
05/09/97
63
Sc
104
FG
1203
11.5
121.1
92
13
05/09/97
64
Sc
105
FG
1203
12.0
120.3
92
13
05/09/97
65
DT
9
SLOPE
1156
10.3
118.8
94
6
05/12/97
66
DT
6
SLOPE
1137
9.9
111.1
90
9
05/12/97
67
DT
5
SLOPE
1139
11.1
116.6
94
9
05/12/97
68
DT
5
SLOPE
1141
10.3
113.6
92
7
05/12/97
69
Sc
26
1224
11.5
115.5
92
7
05/12/97
70
Sc
69
1219
12.4
116.9
92
6
05/13/97
71
Sc
6
SLOPE
1145
12.0
116.9
94
9
05/13/97
72
Sc
8
SLOPE
1162
10.7
1.16.9
93
7
05/13/97
73
DT
9
SLOPE
1165
11.1
115.8
94
7
05/13/97
74
DT
8
SLOPE
1167
9.9
114.8
91
5
05/13/97
75
DT
6
SLOPE
1149
11.1
116.7
94
9
* Failing Tests
M M M M M M M M M ! M M M M M M M M M
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. September 30, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page TII-5
TABLE II (Continued)
Test Date
No �t":
Type ;
LoY No
! Location
.....L,_-
_Elevation
Moisture Content
: Dryr Density
_ Com action
Type
05/13/97
76
Sc
106
FG
1202.5
10.3
115.0
91
6
05/13/97
77
Sc
108
FG
1201.5
12.4
119.1
92
2
05/14/97
78
DT
PEPPER @ REDHAWK
1160
11.5
117.9
92
10
05/14/97
79
SC
4
JSLOPE
1153
12.4
116.5
90
2
05/14/97
80
Sc
8
SLOPE
1169
11.5
116.8
93
7
05/14/97
81
DT
5
1153
9.5
114.4
92
9
05/14/97
82
DT
9
1170
10.7
118.3
94
8
05/15/97
83
Sc
4
1157
12.4
120.7
94
2
05/15/97
84
Sc
6/7
PROPERTY LINE
1160
12.4
117.0
91 _
12
05/15/97
85
DT
70
1210
10.3
114.5
91
8
05/15/97
86
DT
25
1226
10.7
118.3
94
5
05/15/97
87
Sc
87
FG
1223.5
9.1
113.0
91
9
05/15/97
88
DT
71
FG
1203
12.0
119.1
94
6
05/16/97
89
Sc
71
1214
9.9
113.0
91
9
05/16/97
90
Sc
70
1217
11.1
114.0
92
9
05/16/97
91
DT
5
1161
11.5
118.1
92
12
05/16/97
92
DT
7/8
PROPERTY LINE
1164
12.0
115.8
91
10
05/16/97
93
DT
9
SLOPE
1167
10.7
120.1
92
11
05/19/97
94
Sc
24
1223
11.9
126.0
94
8
* Failing Tests
M M M M M = = M = = M =
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. September 30, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page TII-6
TABLE 11 (Continued)
�T
L
Elevation,
(ft
qistYFOC,OMOC.�
Compaction
05/19/97
95
Sc
25
1225
11.1
124.0
93
9
05/19/97
96
Sc
26
1227
10.3
124.0
92
9
05/19/20
97
Sc
27
1128
10.7
112.2
90
9 1
05/20/97
98
Sc
3
1156
12.3
122.6
96
1
05/20/97
99
Sc j
4
1164
11.5
120.1
94
1
05/20/97
100
Sc
7
1159
11.1
116.8
92
10
05/20/97
101
Sc
8
1157
10.3
116.5
92
10
05/20/97
102
Sc
6
1165
11.5
124.0
95
11
05/21/97
103
Sc
110
1
1180
10-7
118.0
93
3
05/21/97
104
DT
ill
1163
10.7
117.5
91
2
05/21/97
105
Sc
4
1166
11.9
116.7
90
12
05/21/97
106
Sc
71
1220
10.7
111.6
90
9
05/21/97
107
Sc
24
1220
11.5
116.6
94
9
05/22/97
108
DT
70
1222
9.9
114.5
92
9
05/22/97
109
DT
24
1224
11.1
118.0
93
to
05/22/97
110
Sc
25
1226
10.7
118.8
91
11
05/22/97
Ill
Sc
3
1168
10.3
1 119.9
92
11
05/22/97
112
Sc
ill
1170
10.7
115.4
92
7
05/22/97
113
DT
8
1174
9.9
113.8
91
7
Failing Tests
-ZI
M M M M Ml M M M M M M M M M = M M M
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. September 30, 1997
TR 23064-3[Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page TII-7
TABLE 11 (Continued)
`
Test D e,
Test=
Test
Lot No
......�So
ocafiowJ
sture,
n,
action
05/23/97
114
Sc
69
1228
11.9
119.6
94
10
05/23/97
115
Sc
25
1228
10.3
119.7
91
13
-----------
05/23/97
116
Sc
ill
1170
9.5
121.5
93
11
05/23/97
117
Sc
ill
1172
11.5
119.8
91
13
05/23/97
118 1
Sc
71
1224
13.2
120.1
93
2
05/27/97
119
Sc
4
1173
12.8
119.1
93
1
05/27/97
120
Sc
6
1175
11.1
124.6
95
13
05/27/97
121
Sc
9
1175
12.4
121.8
94
2
05/27/97
122
Sc
66
1229
11.9
125.1
96
13
05/27/97
123
Sc
67
1228
12.4
121.4
93
13
05/28/97
124
Sc
Ill
1176
11.9
120.3
92
13
05/28/97
125
Sc
4
1175
11.1
121.5
93
13
05/28/97
126
DT
51
1224
10.7
117.0
91
12
05/28/97
127
DT
115
1225
11.1
114.7
91
10
05/28/97
128
DT
5
SLOPE
1177
J10.3
119.2
91
13
05/29/97
129
Sc
43
1225
12.3
122.6
94
11
05/29/97
1 130
1 DT
45
1 1227
1 11.5
116.7
92
10
05/29/97
131
DT
Ill
1179
1 11.1
120.3
92
13
05/29/97
132
DT
Ill
1180
1 11.9
116.6
90
12
Failing Tests
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. September 30, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page TII-8
TABLE II (Continued)
Test Date
jest
No. ''
Test
Type=;
Lot No_
Location
Elevalmn
Ct
;`Optimum:'
Moisture Content
Maximum
Dry Density,
Relative
Compaction
Soil =+
Type
05/29/97
133
Sc
45/46
PROPERTY LINE
1228
11.1
122.7
95
12
05/30/97
134
Sc
111
1177
15.3
125.7
96
4
05/30/97
135
Sc
5
1179
6.4
126.9
97
13
05/30/97
136
DT
44
1224
7.9
122.9
94
13
05/30/97
137
DT
48
1220
8.7
119.7
91
13
05/30/97
138
Sc
4
1181
9.9
119.8
92
4
05/31/97
139
Sc
43
1226
11.9
115.3
93
9
05/31/97
140
Sc
3
1183
11.1
118.5
91
11
05/31/97
141
DT
5
1185
11.1
114.8
91
8
05/31/97
142
Sc
46
1228
11.5
117.5
91
12
05/31/97
143
Sc
47
1231
10.7
118.6
92
12
06/02/97
144
Sc
45
1233
11.9
115.8
90
2
06/02/97
145
Sc
47
1234
7.1
116.6
90
2
06/02/97
146
DT
4
1186
9.9
118.4
92
2
06/02/97
147
SC
70
1229.5
11.9
115.6
91
3
06/02/97
148
SC
69
1229.3
10.0
111.1
90
9
06/02/97
149
SC
68
1229
10.7
117.3
93
3
06/02/97
150
DT
3
1187
13.2
120.2
92
11
06/02/97
151
DT
4
1189
12.4
1 122.1
94
11
* Failing Tests
E
A
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP.
TR 23064-3[Redhawk Development
TABLE 11 (Continued)
M IM M M
September 30, 1997
J.N. 569-96
Page TII-9
TestDate
Test
No
Test
Type
s
liot No'
`
t
Aca ion
Eiev a
° ��"Ophmum'
Maximum
Dry Density
Relahye
,;onipacioT'y'pe
Soil, ,„
!'�
06/03/97
152
DT
85
1202
9.2
115.5
90
06/03/97
153
DT
84
1206
9.1
117.3
91
:12:]
06/03/97
154
DT
3
1185
8.0
19.9
93
12 1
06/03/97
155
DT
4
1187
10.0
118.6
92
12
06/03/97
156
DT
83
1203
9.7
120.0
93
12
06/03/97
157
DT
83
1204
8.9
121.3
94
12
06/03/97
158
DT
52
1232
11.5
113.3
91
9
06/03/97
159
DT
49
1233
11.1
111.7
90
9
06/03/97
160
LIT
85
1213
11.5
117.2
90
2
06/03/97
161
DT
86
1218
11.1
115.4
91
3
06/05/97
162
LIT
4
1191
8.7
114.9
91
3
06/05/97
163
DT
6
1193
11.1
114.6
90
3
06/05/97
164
DT
51
1234
1 9.5
115.7
91
3
06/05/97
165
Sc
48
1236
11.5
114.0
90
3
06/05/97
166
Sc
3
1192
9.5
115.0
91
3
06/05/97
167
Sc
5
1
1194
7.9
115.0
91
3
06/06/97
168
Sc
41
1235
10.3
124.5
96
11
06/06/97
169
Sc
42
1236
11.5
115.9
91
3_
06/06/97
1 170
Sc
44
1 1238
1 10.7
111.4
90
9
Failing Tests
M M M M M M M M M = M M M
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. September 30, 1997
TR 23064-3[Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page TII-10
TABLE 11 (Continued)
Test Date,
K',-,Tesi -Test
'No.
r
Lot, No,
Location
7y oca low,
�1 levp!iqot
(ft) P
antmt
Moisture c'
7:�JPX
0)
1 Dry Density
lati,
` 'oTPRC
YP
06/06/97
171
DT
39
1235
11.9
124.7
96
11
06/06/97
172
DT
40
1234
11.1
114.8
93
9
06/06/97
173
Sc
46
1238
8.3
112.9
91
9
06/06/97
174
DT
115
1232
9.9
124.0
95
11
06/06/97
175
Sc
48
1238
9.5
114.0
90
3
06/09/97
176
1 DT
112
1225
10.3
112.6
91
9
06/09/97
177
DT
112
1224
10.7
119.4
92
11 1
06/09/97
178
Sc
25
1228
10.3
119.7
92
11
06/09/97
179
DT
26
1231
11.9
117.2
90
11
06/09/97
180
Sc
27
1232
11.5
115.9
92
3
06/09/97
181
DT
28
1236
9,1
115.3
91
3
06/09/97
182
Sc
29
1238
10.7
116.3
91
6 1
06/10/97
183
Sc
53
1235
7.9
124.3
96
11
06/10/97
184
DT
40
1236
11.9
116.4
92
6
06/10/97
185
DT
39
1237
9.9
121.4
93
11
06/10/97
186
DT
3
1292
9.1
116.9
92
6
06/10/97
187
DT
1 3
1191
11.5_
117.5
93
3
06/10/97
188
Sc
5
1190
7.9
1 120.8
92
13
06/10/97
189
DT
7
1183
11.9
1 115.9
91
6
Failing Tests
M M M M M M M M M M = M M M M = = M M
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. September 30, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page TII- 11
TABLE 11 (Continued)
--I
Test iiTo.Type-
5� Test-
j
'TA
-Iv
,
jocafion-
Elevation
sture Content i
jx
i
Dry"Density "`Compaction.,Type
(0/.1
06/10/97
190
DT
8
1180
9.9
114.9
91
3
06/11/97
191
Sc
9
1179
9.5
124.0
95
13
06/11/97
192
Sc
10
1180
10.5
122.0
94
13 1
06/11/97
193
Sc
13
1184
10.7
124.5
95
13
06/11/97
194
UT
11
1237.5
1 10.3
118.5
91
11
06/11/97
195
DT
6
1236.1
11.5
115.7
91
6
06/11/97
196
DT
5
1237.3
9.5
118.5
92
5
06/11/97
197
Sc
10
1235.9
11.1
118.3
94
10
06/12/97
198
N
13
SLOPE
1226
9.1
121.0
92
13
06/12/97
199
N
13
SLOPE
1228
8.5
122.0
92
13
06/12/97
200
N
2
SLOPE
1230
1 14.5
117.8
91
2
06/12/97
201
N
it
SLOPE
1232
11.3
119.3
92
11
06/12/97
202
N
13
SLOPE
1234
13.5
120.0
91
13
06/12/97
203
N
12
SLOPE
1233
11.7
116.8
91
12
06/12/97
204
N
13
SLOPE
1192
13.4
120.6
92
13
06/12/97
205
N
10
1191
10.8
114.3
91
10
06/12/97
206
N
12
SLOPE
1186
12.2
116.9
91
12
06/12/97
207
N
13
1181
10.5
121.0
92
13
06/12/97
208
N
13
SLOPE
1185
11.0
122.0
93
13
Failing Tests
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP.
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development
TABLE II (Continued)
September 30, 1997
J.N. 569-96
Page TII-12
Test Date
Test-
No
`
Test
Type
Lot No ;;
Locahonz
Elevation
Optimum
Moisture Conten[
Maximum f,
Dry, Density ;
Relative
Compaction
Soil- --
Type
06/12/97
209
N
13
SLOPE
1195
11.6
120.2
92
13
06/12/97
210
N
11
1204.5
13.0
119.4
92
11
06/13/97
211
N
11
1215.6
11.3
120.7
93
11
06/13/97
212
N
11
1219.5
11.8
126.3
97
11
06/13/97
213
N
3
1223.5
13.8
115.8
91
3
06/13/97
214
N
3
1226.4
13.6
116.9
92
3
06/13/97
215
N
7
1218.5
14.0
115.2
91
7
06/13/97
216
N
7
1214.5
10.7
116.5
92
7
06/13/97
217
N
98
1213
13.5
117.0
03
7
06%13/97
218
N
99
1209
11.4
121.2
93
11
06/13/97
219
N
93
1228
12.9
119.5
92
11
06/13/97
220
N
93
1225
12.4
120.8
94
2
06/13/97
221
N
95
1222
12.5
122.4
95
2
06/16/97
222
N
67
1228.7
14.0
115.7
92
5
06/16/97
223
N
68
1229
12.6
117.7
93
5
06/16/97
224
N
69
1229.3
10.3
121.5
93
11
06/16/97
225
N
70
1229.7
12.3
117.0
90
2
06/16/97
226
N
71
1229.9
14.3
116.0
91
10
06/16/97
227
N
72
1230.3
13.9
118.0
93
5
* Failing Tests
I
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. September 30, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page TII-13
TABLE II (Continued)
* Failing Tests
�t
Test
Test
bpt�mum,'
Maximum
Relative
Soil
Test Date
No ?
Type
Lot No
Location, '
E►eva(�an
Moisture Content
Dry Density ;
Compaction
Type
.
;
06/16/97
228
N
73
1230.6
12.6
116.3
91
10
06/16/97
229
N
21
1230.6
11.4
118.9
92
2
06/16/97
230
N
22
1230.6
10.1
123.1
94
13
06/16/97
231
N
23
1230.5
10.6
122.5
94
13
06/16/97
232
N
24
1231.2
13.5
117.0
92
10
06/16/97
233
N
25
1228.3
10.5
119.5
94
10
06/16/97
234
N
26
1230.9
11.8
120.2
95
10
* Failing Tests
�t