HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical Lots 120, 78, 82 10/24/97. • ...
r .. .
t
GEOTECHNICAL,REPORT OF ROUGH
,GRADING;,. LOTS. 1': THROUGH 2O, 78 AND 82
(CONSTRUCTION, PHASE 2 & 3)
I-RACT 23064-3,,REDHA'WK DEVELOPMENT
COUNTY OF RIVERSI[E, CALIFORNIA
a
r.
F�
t }i}
oo
REDHAVV)C HOMEBUILDING PARTNERSHIP
11¢1 Jutland Avenuo, Suite 200
SanDiego, California 92177•
4
r
ry i
October 24, 1997 .
J,N 569-96
:=-
11f.,
f
e'
S
1
1
PETRA
COSTA MESA • SAN DIEGO • TEMECULA • LOS ANGELES
569-96
REDHAWK HOMEBUILDING PARTNERSHIP LTD
4141 Jutland Avenue, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92117
Attention: Mr. Barry Galgut
Subject: Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 1 through 20, 78 and 82
(Construction Phase 2 & 3), Tract 23064-3, Redhawk Development,
County of Riverside, California
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.
REGULATORY C_OMPLIANCE
All fills, cuts, overexcavations, 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 substantial conformance 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
accepted professional engineering practices and no further warranty is implied or
made.
' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL INC.
27620 Commerce Center Dr. Ste. 103
Temecula. CA 92590
' Tel: (909) 699-6193
Fax: (909) 699-6197
Petrate@ibm.net
2
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
REDHAWK HP, LTD
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development
October 24, 1997
J.N. 569-96
Page 24
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please
contact this office.
Respectfully submit
WMEfq
PETRA GE.
E4 1074 _
Stephen We s t� Sia
Principal Geob st ��• * Pri:
CEG 1074 VT7l ej�� RCE 36641
F
OF CAL%i
LAB/SWJ/SJ
Attachments: Table II - Summary of Field Density Tests
Plates 1 through 3 - Geotechnical Maps
No. 36641
t W. ;
Distribution: (4) Addressee
(2) County of Riverside Planning Department
Attention: Mr. Abdul Behnawa
It
3
I
1
1
REDHAWK HP, LTD October 24, 1997
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page 2
P—URPOSE OF GRADING
• The purpose of grading was to develop 88 level -graded pad areas within
Tract 23064-3. This included adjacent slopes and access streets for future
construction of single-family homes.
• Grading of Tract 23064-3 began on April 25, 1997, and was completed on June 16,
1997. Grades conform and the work was completed, to the guidelines of the
enclosed rough grading plans.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
GQneral
Geologic conditions exposed during the process of grading were frequently observed
and mapped by our geologic staff.
Geologic 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.
CM"IOpes
All cut slopes are considered grossly and surftcially stable and will remain so with
normal conditions and maintenance.
I it
1
I
REDHAWK HP, LTD October 24, 1997
Tract 23064-3Bedhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page 3
' S_OILS-ENGINEERING
Preparation_of Existing_Gcound
' • 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 varied
from 2 to 17 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.
r1
L
1
1
1
EM -Placement
• Fill consisted of blended onsite materials having the below -mentioned soil
classifications (see Table I). Fill materials were placed in lifts of approximately 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 67 feet.
• Fill placed against temporary backcuts and on natural slope surfaces having a
gradient steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical [h:v]) was 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.
• Field density tests were performed using nuclear gauge method (ASTM D2922-91)
and sand cone method (ASTM D1556). Test results are shown on Table II
W
5
' REDHAWK HP, LTD October 24, 1997
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
' Page 4
' (attached). The approximate locations of the field density tests are shown on the
accompanying geotechnical map.
' • 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 vertical feet or
tapproximately 1,000 cubic yards of fill.
• 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
Optimum
which maximum density value to employ for a given density test. Frequent one -
point checks were performed to supplement visual classifications.
Mq�sture
Density xr�
„No
Laboratory Testing
'
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
1
presents the pertinent test values.
8.0
TABLE
1
f. _31la
Sample
Optimum
Maximum Dry'
t So�1 Type `_
Mq�sture
Density xr�
„No
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
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
REDHAWK HP, LTD
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development
October 24, 1997
J.N. 569-96
Page 5
Sample
�'
Op timum
Max►mum Dry,
No
Soil Type '-' ,1
Mmsti re
Densi ty `,
1
8
Tan, fine to coarse SAND
10.0
126.0
9
Light tan, grey, fine to medium
10.0
124.0
SAND
10
Tan, fine to Sandy SILT mix
10.0
127.0
11
Tan, fine to coarse SILT, trace of
10.0
130.0
Grave
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.
W
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
REDHAWK HP, LTD
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development
TABLE III
October 24, 1997
J.N. 569-96
Page 6
Sample
Location
.� LA
} Representative
';' LLots "�
� e )
Expansion Index
b � s
1i tt 4 _
Expansron
`:Potential �, ,,
•� Sii
3
1-6
4
Very Low
9
7-11
11
Very Low
13
12-19
2
Very Low
21
20-26
4
Very Low
27
27-29
5
Very Low
31
30-31
28
Very Low
37
32-37
5
Very Low
42
38-43
2
Very Low
47
44-48
10
Very Low
51
49-52
4
Very Low
55
53-56
13
Very Low
59
57-62
6
Very Low
63
63-66
6
Very Low
67
67-69
4
Very Low
71
70-74
1
Very Low
75
75-79
0
Very Low
80
80-82
3
Very Low
108
106-109
1
Very Low
• Soluble sulfate contents were also determined for typical samples of soil existing
at grade. Table IV, below, presents the results.
7;e a;g 3 065717 �
it
E
REDHAWK HP, LTD
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development
TABLE IV
October 24, 1997
J.N. 569-96
Page 7
LDI-Summary
A summary of the cut, fill or transition condition of the subject lots and maximum
depths of fill is provided in Table V, below.
TABLE V
t1FJll/,TrinR' s H
-94,41.941 Lot,
To
Sulfate
Content..... . . —'
W
"
N
J
0
2
Fill
6
3
Fill
25
83
Fill
0.0144
5
Fill
90
6
0.0045
54
LDI-Summary
A summary of the cut, fill or transition condition of the subject lots and maximum
depths of fill is provided in Table V, below.
TABLE V
a
Nk -'N
Lot ",
t1FJll/,TrinR' s H
'-U
To
Cut
0
2
Fill
6
3
Fill
25
4
Fill
53
5
Fill
61
6
Fill
54
7
Fill
54
8
Fill
67
9
Fill
67
10
Fill
66
11
Fill
27
12
Cut
0
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CI
I
I
I
I
I
I
REDHAWK HP, LTD
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development
October 24, 1997
J.N. 569-96
Page 8
Lot No'
�7. t -4
Caffill/I ransi iow x! .. ....
T
(ft)
13
Fill
11
14
Fill
15
15
Fill
11
16
Cut
3
17
Cut
3
18
Cut
3
19
Cut
0
20
Cut
0
21
Transition
3
22
Fill
7
23
Fill
9
24
Fill
15
25
Fill
10
26
Fill
8
27
Fill
7
28
Fill
8
29
Fill
5
30
Transition
3
31
Cut
0
32
Cut
0
33
Cut
0
34
Cut
0
35
Cut
0
It
AP
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
REDHAWK HP, LTD
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development
October 24, 1997
J.N. 569-96
Page 9
Lot No :
Cut/FilUTrans►hon.
Max►mum Depth g ;
3 a of Fill x"
36
Cut
0'
37
Cut
0
38
Cut
0
39
Fill
5
40
Fill
7
41
Fill
8
42
Fill
8
43
Fill
12
44
Fill
15
45
Fill
15
46
Fill
17
47
Fill
20
48
Fill
22
49
Fill
22
50
Fill
19
51
Fill
16
52
Fill
13
53
Fill
4
54
Cut
0
55
Cut
0
56
Cut
0
57
Cut
0
58
Cut
0
1!
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
REDHAWK HP, LTD
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development
October 24, 1997
J.N. 569-96
Page 10
of No
Cut/F�IllTrausrtwu _
Maximum Depth 'a
',-of Fill
ft
59
Cut
0
60
Cut
0
61
Cut
0
62
Transition
3
63
Cut
0
64
Cut
0
65
Cut
0
66
Fill
6
67
Fill
8
68
Fill
11
69
Fill
16
70
Fill
18
71
Fill
18
72
Fill
15
73
Fill
8
74
Cut
2
75
Cut
0
76
Cut
0
77
Cut
0
78
Cut
0
79
Cut
0
80
Cut
0
81
Cut
0
r2
I
1
I
1
REDHAWK HP, LTD
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development
October 24, 1997
J.N. 569-96
Page 11
FOUNDATION -PARAMETERS
BQaring 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.
Settlement
Under the above bearing pressures, total settlements are expected to be less than 0.5
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.
11
Maximui Depth
L'ot No
1 �Cut/FdUTranstUon
E,
fty
82
Cut
0
83
Cut
7
101
Fill
7
106
Fill
13
107
Fill
7
108
Fill
8
109
Fill
14
FOUNDATION -PARAMETERS
BQaring 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.
Settlement
Under the above bearing pressures, total settlements are expected to be less than 0.5
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.
11
I
I
LI
11
1
11
REDHAWK HP, LTD October 24, 1997
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page 12
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. (Note: 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.)
ExpansiYT-S.oiLConsiderations
Soils underlying the subject lots exhibit a very low 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 for most lots. However,
additional slab thickness, footing sizes and reinforcement should be provided, as
required, by the project architect or structural engineer.
/V
I
1
11
I
REDHAWK HP, LTD
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development
October 24, 1997
J.N. 569-96
Page 13
• VeryLow xpansiont LotsLthrough22and-78AhmughM) -- The results of our
laboratory tests indicate that the onsite soils and bedrock materials exhibit a very
low expansion potential as classified in accordance with UBC Table 18 -I -B. For
this condition, it is recommended that footings and floors be constructed and
reinforced in accordance with the following minimum criteria. However,
additional slab thickness, footing sizes and reinforcement should be provided as
required by the project architect or structural engineer.
- Standard depth footings may be used with respect to building code
requirements for the planned construction (i.e., 12 inches deep for one-story
construction and 18 inches deep for two-story construction). Interior
continuous footings for 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 two No. 4 bars, one top and
one bottom.
- Interior isolated pad footings supporting raised floors should be a minimum of
24 inches square and founded at a minimum depths of 12 and 18 inches below
the lowest adjacent final grade for one- and two-story construction,
respectively. The pad footings should be reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced 18
inches on center, both ways, near the bottom of the footings.
- Exterior isolated pad footings intended for support of roof overhangs, such as
patio covers, 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 18 inches on center, both
ways, near the bottom of the footings.
Living area concrete floor slabs should be 4 inches thick and reinforced with
6 -inch by 6 -inch, No. 6 by No. 6 welded -wire mesh; or with No. 3 bars spaced
24 inches on center, both ways. All slab reinforcement should be supported on
concrete chairs or brick to ensure the desired placement near mid -depth.
- Living area concrete floors should be underlain with a moisture vapor barrier
consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane such as 6 -mil visqueen or
equivalent. At least 2 inches of clean sand should be placed over the
membrane to promote uniform curing of the concrete.
- Garage floor slabs should be 4 inches thick and 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-
/5.
'
REDHAWK HP, LTD October 24, 1997
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
'
Page 14
'
inch -minimum felt expansion joint materials and quartered with weakened
plane joints. 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 two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom.
Presaturation of the subgrade below slab areas will not be required. However,
prior to placing concrete the subgrade should be thoroughly moistened to
'
promote uniform curing of the concrete and mitigate the development of
shrinkage cracks.
1
Footing -Observations
by to
• All footing trenches should be observed the project geotechnical consultant
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 an any debris should be removed prior to placing
'
concrete. (Note: 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.)
Soluble SulfateAnalysis
'
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.
1
RETAiN1MG WAL PARAMETERS
'
The active earth pressure to be utilized for retaining wall design may be computed
as an equivalent fluid having a density of 35 pounds per cubic foot when the slope
'
of the backfill behind the wall is level and 52 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 53 pounds per cubic
it
/4
I
RFDHAWK HP, LTD
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development
October 24, 1997
J.N. 569-96
Page 15
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 may be 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 Mirafr 140N,
'
or equivalent. Solid outlet pipes should be connected to the sub -drains and routed to
areas suitable for discharge of accumulated water.
'
2.5 feet backfill,
For low -height walls retaining less than approximately of an
'
alternative drainage system consisting of weep -holes or open masonry joints may be
if be 3 inches
used in -lieu of a pipe and gravel sub -drain. Weep -holes, used, should
'
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.
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
REDHAWK HP, LTD October 24, 1997
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page 16
Waterpro-ofmg
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-'a11_BackU
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 orjetting of backfill materials should be avoided. A representative
from Petra should probe and test the backfills to ascertain adequate compaction.
Deepencd.Fo9tings
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
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/3 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.
U
I
C
C
F
F
II
REDHAWK HP, LTD October 24, 1997
Tract 23064-3lRedhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page 17
EXTERLOROOSLCRETE_ELAT WORK
Thicknrss_and-Expansion Joint pacing
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 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.
Edge-Beams_(Op.tional)
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.
I it
Lli
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
REDHAWK HP, LTD October 24, 1997
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page 18
Subgrade_P_ceparation
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.
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.
It
d0
REDHAWK HP, LTD October 24, 1997
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page 19
Reinforc_ement_and Positive_S.eparations
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 of 2 percent away from the walls
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 planter walls in a similar
manner as recommended for masonry block walls.
UTILITY_TRELYCHES
• Onsite soils are fine- to coarse-grained and will require mechanical effort to
achieve proper compaction. All backfill should be compacted to a minimum
NVU
a1
REDHAWK HP, LTD October 24, 1997
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
' Page 20
' 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
t 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.
'
SLOPE-LANDS-CAPINGAND MAIN'TEINANCE
' 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 plant 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 in the 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.
I to
tEUTURElII4PROV-ENMNTS
' 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.
' RERORTLMTATLONS
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.
a�
REDHAWK HP, LTD October 24, 1997
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
'
Page 21
'
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.
• 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.
tEUTURElII4PROV-ENMNTS
' 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.
' RERORTLMTATLONS
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.
a�
I
1
I
LJ
1
1
l
1
1
H
11
1
1
1
L
1
1
[1
1
REDHAWK HP, LTD
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development
October 24, 1997
J.N. 569-96
Page 22
POST --GRADING ORSERVATLONS_AND_TESTING
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.
• auilding_Construction
- Observe 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.
• Retaining_4V_a1LConstruction
- Observe all footing trenches when first excavated to ascertain depth and
competent soil -bearing conditions.
- 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- allsand-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.
ay
I
REDHAWK HP, LTD October 24, 1997
Tract 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
' Page 23
' Concrete-latw-ork_C9nstniction
Observe and test subgrade soils below all concrete flatwork areas to ascertain
' relative compaction, moisture content and moisture penetration.
• Utility -Trench -Backfill
' 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.
' AdditionaLConsiderations
' 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.
1
1
a�
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
REDHAWK HP, LTD
Tract 23064-2/Redhawk Development
October 24, 1997
J.N. 569-96
Page 26
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact this office. We
appreciate this opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
N£fi?
A _'Fy C"
o
Stephen W. Jensen
fz� y$ ��Z
o
Siamak Jafroudi, PhD
Principal Geologist
EG. 1074
Principal Engineer
CEG 1074
v
`+
RCE 36641 ✓' o eROr
LAB/SWJ/SJ/keb JP
9r� OF cA0
Attachments: Table II - Summ ensity Tests
Plates I through 4 - As -Graded Geotechnical Maps
Distribution: (4) Addressee
(2) County of Riverside Planning Department
Attention: Mr. Abdul Behnawa
4(
Exp—, 36641 I s
\\ p—, c
CAL
0
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. October 24, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page TII-1
TABLE II
Field -Density -Test -Results
Test Date
Test -
No.
Test
Type,..
z Lot No.
Location ' •
Elevation'-
Moisture ,
Content
Dry Density-
Relative
Compaction
Soil
Type
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
l
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
04/28/97
8
Sc
108
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
12.3
122.1
93
4
04/28/97
11
Sc
109
PROPERTY LINE
1193
10.5
123.0
94
4
04/29/97
12
Sc
107
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
95
9
04/29/97
16
Sc
99
1201
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. October 24, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page TII-2
TABLE II (Continued)
Test Date'
Test
Nor'
Test'-"
Type
Lot No
:.', , Location
..
Elevation
Moisture
Content
Dry Density '
Relative
'Compaction
-
Soil -
Type
04/30/97
19
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
DT
107
1199
8.9
119.3
95
8
04/30/97
22
DT
100
1203
10.3
126.8
97
13
04/30/97
23
SC
98
1205
12.1
120.0
93
2
05/61/97
24
SC
100
NE
1197
10.3
111.3
90
9
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
7
05/01/97
27
DT
84/85
PROPERTY LINE
1200
11.1
111.7
90
9
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
CORTE CARAVACH
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
DTDT
86
1205
11.1
114.6
91
3
05/05/97
37
DT
88
1218
9.9
117.3
93
3
* Failing Tests
1.>
VQ
= = M = = = = = M = = M = = = = = = =
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. October 24, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page TII-3
TABLE 11 (Continued)
Test Date
Test,;,
N0---
Test ;A,`
Lot No.'--::
7:
'
Location ... .
.
r=:�
W!,
Moista"re
;3�
Dry 6e
Relative'
6opactior
Soil
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
90
10
05/06/97
47
Sc
83
1204
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 UNE
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
117.6
91
12
05/07/97
56
DT
8
1147
11.
118.6
92
1 12
Failing Tests
U
-X*3
M M M M M= i ! == M== M
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. October 24, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page TII-4
TABLE II (Continued)
<'
fest Date
,Test ;
No.
Test
P e
yp
Lot, No. `
Location:
Elevation
:Moisture
Content'Dry'Density
'Relitive
Compaction
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
116.9
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
W
O
= = M = M M M M = M M M = M M = = = =
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. October 24, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page T11-5
TABLE 11 (Continued)
Test Datej:
No.
Type
Lot No.
EI
Elevation "
*t
;'Moisture
�lCo�-j
�kenV','
Dr y, Density
Relative -.'
Co�npactid-n
•Soih
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
ISLOPE
1151
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
1
1226
10.7
1 118.3
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
1 DT
7/8
PROPERTY LINE
1164
12.0
1 115.8
91
10
05/16/97
93
DT
9
SLOPE
1 1167
10.7
120.1
92
ll
05/19/97
94
SC
24
1 1223
11.9
126.0
1 94
8
Failing Tests
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. October 24, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page TII-6
TABLE II (Continued)
Test Date'.
Test.'
' No. ,
Test` `
Type=;
LotNo.:
Location
Elevation ';
Moisture ,
' Content '
DryrDens�ty
Relative.
.Compaction
Soil
Type
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
05/20/97
98
Sc
3
1156
12.3
122.6
96
1
05/20/97
99
Sc
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
1180
10.7
118.0
93
3
05/21/97
104
DT
111
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
D1'
70
1222
9.9
114.5
92
9
05/22/97
109
DT
24
1224
11.1
118.0
93
10
05/22/97
110
Sc
25
1226
10.7
118.8
91
11
05/22/97
111
Sc
3
1168
10.3
119.9
92
Il
05/22/97
112
Sc
111
1170
10.7
115.4
92
7
05/22/97
113
DT ,
8
1174
9.9
113.8
91
7
* Failing Tests
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. October 24, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page TII-7
TABLE II (Continued)
Test Date .
Test _
No i`
Test :
Type `;
,.
Lot No.: "
Location
Elevahon "..
Moisture
Content
Dry Density ;_
Relative
Compaction
Soil
Type
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
111
1170
9.5
121.5
93
11
05/23/97
117
Sc
111
1172
11.5
119.8
91
13
05/23/97
118
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
111
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
Il
05/29/97
130
DT
45
1227
11.5
116.7
92
10
05/29/97
131
DT
111
1179
11.1
120.3
92
13
05/29/97
132
DT
111
1180
11.9
116.6
90
12
* Failing Tests
= M = = = Ml = = M = 1=1 1=1 =
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. October 24, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page T11-8
TABLE 11 (Continued)
Failing Tests
Te,4,
Tegi,�'-
Type
-Ldcati6n-.
�Dry-Densely,,'6nippction
.. ....
1vei: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
1 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 1
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
1
1229
10.7
117.3
93
3
06/02/97
150
DT
3
1187
13.2
120.2
92
11
06102/97
151
DT
4
1189
12.4
122.1
94
11
Failing Tests
IM 1=1 M M M Ml M IM M IM =
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. October 24, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page TII-9
TABLE 11 (Continued)
Test WW
No.",
t6caiion-
ri
sture
icontent
MY
coiripactiofi,
%Y.
soil,
Type
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
06/03/97
155
DT
4
1187
10.0
118.6
92
12
06/03/97
156
DT
83
1203
1 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
DT
85
1213
11.5
1 117.2
90
2 1
06/03/97
161
DT
86
1218
11.1
115.4
91
3
06/05/97
162
DT
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
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
1194
7.9
1 115.0
91
3 1
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
170
Sc
44
1238
10.7
111.4
90
9
Failing Tests
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. October 24, 1997
TR 23064-3[Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page TII-10
TABLE If (Continued)
est
Test =-
Test -
Type
Ao
Lbcaow%��,,4
Moistore
oiy7Dens O'
P
Relative
0�'��Ctio-n
Soil `
Type
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 1
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
DT
112
1225
10.3
112.6
91
9
06/09/97
177
DT
1 112
1224
10.7
1 119.4
92
11
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
1 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
06/10/97
1 183
Sc
1 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
3
1191
11.5
1 117.5
93
3
06/10/97
188
Sc
5
1190
7.9
120.8
92
13
06/10/97
189
DT
7
1183
11.9
115.9
91
6
Failing Tests
1=1 M M M IM M M M M M M = IM Ml IM M Ml M
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. October 24, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page T11- I I
TABLE 11 (Continued)
Test Date,
.fc�stl,
&0.
ype
Lot
0 0.�
Location 1,6
Elevation �,�U
Aft)
Moisture :
ontent;
�� lkeladve'
:Compaction'
Soil
Type
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
DT
11
1237.5
10.3
118.5
91
11
06/11/97
195
DT
6
1236.1
11.5 1
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 1
06/12/97
200
N
2
SLOPE
1230
14.5
117.8
91
2
06/12/97
201
N
I I1
SLOPE
1232
11.3
1 119.3
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
1 1181
10,5
121.0
1 92
13
06/12/97
208
N
13 -�SLOPE
1 1185
11.0
122.0
1 93
13
Failing Tests
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. October 24, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page TII-12
TABLE II (Continued)
rest Date;
Test :r
No
Test
Type
Lot No.
a'
Loca_ tion
Elevation`'
Moisture
Content
%.t
Dry'Density-
a
Relative
"Compaction
^/o
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
12293
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
S
M = M = Ml = = = = = M = = = = M = M
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. October 24, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page Tll- 13
TABLE 11 (Continued)
ie,st,Date
Test
NO.'
Type
Lot No.'
�E 7F7
J-:Lo'c'ition
Elevation, 1-�Cont�nt
E
Relative
`Compaction
ompactio
Soil
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 1
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
1 25
1228.3
10.5
1 119.5
94
10
06/16/97
234
N
26
1230.9
11.8
120.2
95
10
07/18/97
235
N
to
Slope
1182
11.8
115.6
92
8
07/18/97
236
N
9
Slope
1186
10.8
117.7
93
8
07/18/97
237
N
10
1183
11.4
115.3
93
9 1
07/18/97
238
N
7
1187
11.9
116.8
93
8
07/18/97
239
N
8
1188
11.6
116.5
92
8
07/18/97
240
N
9
1185
13.3
116.2
94
9
07/21/97
241
N
9
1188
12.1
114.5
92
9
07/21/97
242
N
9
1189
10.4
117.0
93
8
07/21/97
243
N
7
SLOPE
1191
11.5
115.3
92
9 1
07/21197
244
N
11
1189
11.9
116.8
93
8
07/21/97
245
N
9
SLOPE
1190
13.5
115.9
92
8
07/21/97
246
N
10
SLOPE
1191
12.6
116.1
91
10
Failing Tests
= = = M = M = M M = = = M M = M M M M
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. October 24, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page TIl- 14
L
0
TABLE 11 (Continued)
I'
Test Date
Test' I
NO.
est
Type,,
Lot No-
z':Ile -7-
Location
klevati6n
MoistureSoil
Content
Dry Density
Compaction
-
07/22/97
247
N
6
1192
12.9
114.7
91
8
07/22/97
248
N
15
1194
14.0
114.4
92
9
07/22/97
249
N
13
1195
10.2
116.4
92
8
07/22/97
250
N
14
1196
12.8
116.8
93
8
07/22/97
251
N
8
SLOPE
1195
13.1
115.6
93
9
07/22/97
252
N
4
1195
13.8
117.1
93
8
07/22/97
253
N
10
1196
11.9
115.7
92
8
07/23/97
254
N
10
SLOPE
1196
11.3
117.5
93
8
07/23/97
255
N
9
1197
14.0
115.6
92
8
07/23/97
256
N
15
1196
10.9
116.2
- 92
8
07/23/97
257
N
13
1198
13.8
113.9
92
9
07/23/97
258
N
11
1197
12.6
115.7
93
9
259
260
261
08/06/97
262
N
2
1198
11.8
116.5
92
8
08/06/97
263
N
3
1198
10.9
1 116.6
93
8
08/06/97
264
N
4
1198
13.5
116.0
1
92
8
08/06/97
265
N
5
1198
11.6
115.2
91
Failing Tests
COLRICH DEVELOPMENT CORP. October 24, 1997
TR 23064-3/Redhawk Development J.N. 569-96
Page TII-15
TABLE II (Continued)
* Failing Tests
Test'`
' .Test',;'�MoisEure
Relative:
Soil
Test Dat, e;,!
No,.
Type
.Lot No;
`' - Location :.>
.' Elevahon
Content
Dr y Density
`-CompactionType
_
(ft),
08/06/97
266
N
6
1199
12.6
115.7
91
10
08/07/97
267
N
7
1199
11.6
115.4
92
8
08/07/97
268
N
8
1199
12.4
117.6
93
8
08/07/97
269
N
9
1199
10.9
118.0
91
11
08/07/97
270
N
10
1199
12.1
117.5
93
8
* Failing Tests