HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3883 Geotechnical Rpt & Compaction Test Results
I / .' "
I ~,rbn~~GEN
CO!".Qoration
-SoiIEngineeringandConsullingServices. EnllineerlngGeology.CompadionTesting
-Inspections- ConslructionMalerialsTeslir.g- LaboratoryTesling-PercolalionTesting
. Geology. Water Resource Studies . Phase I &IIEnvironmental Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Escatel Residence
Lot 136 ofTract 3883, Via De La Mesa
City ofTemecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2047-C
I
I
September 6, 2000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Prepared for:
I
Mr. Oscar Escatel
41271 Via Aguila
Temecula, California 92591
,
,
/
/
- /" I "- _ ' / "- "" I " _ \ ~ / ... ,,1 _.... _ "/
"'1.- \___ \/"" /" ,___ \/'" __ ,___ \...."
~ ' "- \ ~\'.:2:__:_~~~~~?E~~~~:_~';~~~
lllillllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
lMi.m....Illl__II!...._..._llt_..__.Ia~!I!l;l~P1il!9iiMW~@1'4otiiWl'~fl
------......---- --_...._---------=_.=_..-....._---~,
--- ."""~'"""" """~...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Oscar Escatel
Project Number: T2047-C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE PAGE
1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION .............................................................1
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION. ..................................... .................................................... .......1
1.2 SITE DESCRiPTION.................................................................................................. 2
1.3 PROJECT DESCRiPTION............................................................................................ 2
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK. ... ... .......................................................................................................2
2.1 TIME OF GRADING ...................................................................................................2
2.2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUiPMENT................................................................................. 2
2.3 GRADING OPERATIONS ...................... .......... ......... ..... ... ...... ...... .... ............ ...............2
3.0 TESTING ................................................................................................................... ........3
3.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES...................................................................................3
3.2 LABORATORY TESTING............................,................................................................ 3
3.2.1 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST....................................................3
3.2.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST .............................................................................3
3.2.3 SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST............................................................................3
4.0 SLOPE STABILITY Ev ALUA TION..........................................................................................4
5.0 EARTH MATERIALS ............................................................................................... ........ ....5
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................6
6.1 GENERAL ....... ....... ........ ............................ ...... ...... ...... ............ ....................... ..... ... 6
7.0 CLOSURE ............. .................................... ................ ........................................................6
ApPENDIX
TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
\
EnGEN Corporation
I ~,
/ ' "
~r".'I~"."~c '''.'GEN
I ..,.,_ . .
I """."":'. ~:":' :.~'="~ .'. "
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CO!".Qoration
. Soil Engineering and ConsuttingServices . EngineeringGeology.CompactionTesting
.lnspections-ConSlruClionMaterialsTesling-LaboraloryTesling-PercolalionTesting
-Geology.WaterResourccStudies . Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
September 6, 2000
Mr. Oscar Escatel
41271 Via Aguila
Temecula, California
(909) 676-5662
92591
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Escatel Residence
Lot 136 of Tract 3883, Via De La Mesa
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2047-C
References:
1.
EnGEN Corporation, Limited Geotechnical Study, Proposed Single Family
Residence, Lot 136 of Tract 3883, City of Temecula, County of Riverside,
California, Project Number: T2047-LGS, report dated April 26, 2000.
Manning Engineering, Grading Plan, Lot 136 ofTR 3883, plans undated.
Manning Engineering, As-Built Grading Plan, Lot 136 of TR 3883, plans
undated.
2.
3.
Dear Mr. Escatel:
According to your request and signed authorization, EnGEN Corporation has performed field
observations, sampling, and in-place density testing at the above referenced site. Submitted, herein,
are the test results and the supporting field and laboratory data.
1.0
1.1
SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject site consists of approximately 1.5 acres, located south of the terminus of Via
de La Mesa, in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California.
\
./
/
/
, , I
/ '-.. .,..,. -
1.- \_ __ \
,,- .,. "- -
\ \ / I
~ :: :...:"'::" I
- ' / '- "" ~ I _' _ ~ / "- .,., I _" _ ,. / " ,_ _" _ / /
'j ~ : ,'~ ,~~ -; :~~j,,~~~~~~~~~~:=~~~~;~~~~
- llill.!IIIIIIIII!III1!IIi..lIIiillll!.l!I.II!l!liliIJi~Ull!l!lllIliiIlllIliIlll.1II1
.......Ill...__.._.i#Sl.uiil!JIi;li_m_.M;m~>>g~i!lSml&\...w;.
...----........-....- ---------...---------..,.,
I ~ ~:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Oscar Escatel
Project Number: T2047-C
September 2000
Page 2
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION
Prior to grading operations, topography and surface conditions of the site were gently to
moderately sloping with surface drainage to the south at a gradient of less than 20 percent.
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
It is understood that the subject site is to be developed with a single family residence with
slab-on-grade concrete floors supported on conventional continuous and pier footings,
surrounded by parking and landscape areas.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
2.1 TIME OF GRADING
This report represents geotechnical observations and testing during the construction
operations frorn June 20, 2000 through July 11, 2000.
2.2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT
The grading operations were performed by P.D.Q. Equipment through the use of one (1)
Cat D8 dozer, one (1) CAT 12G motor grader, one (1) water truck, and one (1) fire hose.
2.3 GRADING OPERATIONS
Grading was performed without the benefit of engineered staking or a finalized grading
plan. Grading within the subject site consisted of a cut/fill operation in the driveway area,
and an over-excavation and replacement operation in the house pad area. Grasses and
weeds were removed prior to fill placement. Fill material was generated from the pad area
portions of the site, and used to bring the driveway portions of the site to finish grade
elevation. Removal of alluvium, slopewash, etc., was performed to a depth of 3-feet below
original elevation. Over-excavated earth material was stockpiled and later used as fill.
Bottoms were observed, probed and found to be into competent bedrock and alluvium by a
representative of this firm. The alluvium left in place was found to have a moisture content
of 5.5%, and a relative compaction of 90.2%. Keying into competent bedrock and soil was
observed during the grading operations. Over-excavation was performed in the cut portion
of the house pad area to a depth of 3-feet below finish grade elevation and to a distance of
5-feet outside the proposed structure. The exposed bottoms were scarified and moisture
conditioned to a depth of 6 to 12-inches then compacted to 90 percent. Fill was placed in
lens thicknesses of 6 to a-inches, thoroughly moisture conditioned to near optimum
moisture content, then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.
Moisture conditioning of the on-site soils was performed during the compaction process,
EnGEN Corporation 3.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Oscar Escatel
Project Number: T2047-C
September 2000
Page 3
through the use of a water truck and fire hose. The pad area was generally graded to the
elevations noted on the Referenced NO.3 Grading Plan. However, the actual pad location,
dimensions, elevations, slope locations and inclinations, etc. were surveyed and staked by
others and should be verified by the Project Civil Engineer.
3.0 TESTING
3.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES
Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed in general accordance
with ASTM-D-2922-81 (90) and ASTM-D-3017-88 procedures for determining in-place
density and moisture content, respectively, using nuclear gauge equipment. Relative
compaction test results were within the 90 percent required for all material tested, which is
an indication that the remainder of the fill placed has been properly compacted. Test
results are presented in the Appendix of this report. Fill depths and test locations were
determined from review of the Referenced No. 2 grading plans, and then correlated with
the Referenced NO.3 grading plans.
3.2 LABORATORY TESTING
The following laboratory tests were performed as part of our services during the grading of
the subject site. The test results are presented in the Appendix of this report.
3.2.1 Moisture-Density Relationship Test
Maximum dry density - optimum moisture content relationship tests were conducted on
samples of the materials used as fill. The tests were performed in general accordance with
ASTM D1557-91 procedures. The test results are presented in the Appendix (Summary of
Optimum Moisture Content I Maximum Dry Density Relationship Test Results).
3.2.2 Expansion Index Test
A soil sample was obtained for expansion potential testing from the building pad area upon
completion of rough grading of the subject site. The expansion test procedure utilized was
the Uniform Building Code Test Designation 18-2. The material tested consisted of silty
sand, which has an Expansion Index of 5. This soil is classified as having a very low
expansion potential. The results are presented in the Appendix (Summary of Expansion
Index Test Results).
3.2.3 Soluble Sulfate Test
Soil samples were obtained for soluble sulfate testing from the building pad areas upon
completion of grading of the subject site. The concentration of soluble sulfate was
EnGEN Corporation ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Oscar Escatel
Project Number: T2047-C
September 2000
Page 4
determined in general accordance with California Test Method 417 procedures. The test
results indicate a negligible percentage of water soluble sulfates ( 0.0018% by weight), as a
result no sulfate resistant concretes are necessary. The test results are presented in the
Appendix (Summary of Soluble Sulfate Test Results).
4.0 SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION
Gross stability analyses were performed for the 45 feet high fill slope. The slope ratio will
be no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The slope evaluated is based on the cross
section A-A' located on the referenced plans. The slope was evaluated for gross stability
under static and pseudostatic (seismic) conditions. In addition, surficial stability analyses
was perforrned assuming that the upper three (3) feet of the slope face is saturated. The
analyses was based on the maximum shear strength parameters obtained from shearing
remolded samples obtained on site. The strength parameters used in the analyses are as
follows:
Phi Angle Cohesion
Material Description (degrees) (pst)
Engineered Fill 44.0 50
The computer program used to compute the safety factors for the gross slope stability under
static and pseudostatic (seismic) conditions was the SB Slope by Von Gunten Engineering
Software, Inc. This program follows the limiting equilibrium circular surface method as
described by A.w. Bishop called the "Simplified Bishop Methods of Slices." The following
tables present the calculated minimum factors of safety for the analysis conducted. The
calculations for the analysis are presented in the Appendix.
Summary of Safety Factors for Gross Stability
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Section (Seismic) (Static)
Analyzed
A-A' 1.53 2.25
Summary of Safety Factors for Surficial Stability
Material Type Factor of Safety
Engineered Fill 1.58
EnGEN Corporation =>-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.1
5.0
Mr. Oscar Escatel
Project Number: T2047-C
September 2000
Page 5
NOTE: The seismic coefficient used is not equivalent to the peak horizontal ground
acceleration value (Page 28, CDMG Special Publication 117, 1997). A value of 0.15 (Rogers,
1992) is used for a recommended pseudo-static factor of safety of 1.1 (Page 29, CDMG
Special Publication 117, 1997).
SLOPE MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Although the design and construction of slopes are planned to create slopes that possess
stability against mass rotational failure, surficial slumping, creep, and pop-outs, and other
factors are beyond the control of the project Geotechnical Consultant. The following
recommendations are presented for slope protection and maintenance:
. Surface water should not be allowed to flow over the slopes other than incidental
rainfall. No alteration of pad gradients should be allowed that will prevent pad and roof
run-off from being expediently directed to approved disposal areas away from the tops
of slopes.
. Top of slope berms should be constructed and compacted as part of finish grading and
should be maintained by the resident and/or the property owner. The recommended
drainage patterns should be established at the time of finish grading and maintained
throughout the life of the structures.
. Concentrated surface waters entering the property from off-site sources should be
collected and directed to a permanent drainage system away from the tops of slopes.
. Residents and/or the property owner are responsible for the maintenance and cleaning
of all interceptor ditches, drainage terraces, downdrains and any other drainage devices
that have been installed to promote slope stability.
. All graded slopes should be planted with appropriate erosion resistant vegetation as
soon as possible to prevent further erosion. It is recommended that slopes be planted
with ground cover, shrubs and trees that possess deep, dense root structures that
require a minimum of irrigation. It should be the responsibility of the landscape architect
to provide such plants initially and of the resident to maintain such planting. Alteration
of the planting scheme is at the resident's and/or property owner's risk.
. If automatic sprinkler systems are installed on the slopes, the use should be adjusted to
account for natural rainfall.
. The resident and/or the owner should maintain a program for the elimination of
burrowing animals. This should be an on-going program to protect slope stability.
EARTH MATERIALS
The natural earth materials encountered on-site generally consisted of brown silty sand.
EnGEN Corporation ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Oscar Escatel
Project Number: T2047-C
September 2000
Page 6
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
No conditions were encountered which would cause a change in the previously provided
design and construction recommendations. As a result, design and construction should
adhere to the recommendations provided in the Referenced No. 1 Limited Geotechnical
Study.
6.1 GENERAL
Based on the observations and tests performed during grading, the subject site, in the
areas noted as test locations, has been completed in accordance with the Geotechnical
Study, or as amended in the field based on conditions encountered, the project plans and
the Grading Code of the City of Temecula. The graded site, in the areas noted as graded,
is determined to be adequate for the support of a typical residential development. Any
subsequent grading for development of the subject property should be performed under
engineering observation and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Subsequent
grading includes, but is not limited to, any additional fill placement and excavation of
temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN Corporation should
observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be made prior to installation of
concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel so as to verify and/or modify, if necessary, the
conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations of overexcavation cuts, fill
placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement subgrade and base
course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other earth work completed for the
development of subject site should be performed by EnGEN Corporation. If any of the
observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions are not performed by
EnGEN Corporation, liability for the safety and performance of the development is limited
to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by EnGEN Corporation.
7.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described above.
It mayor may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes. The findings
and recommendations expressed in this report are based on field and laboratory testing
performed during the rough grading operation and on generally accepted engineering
practices and principles. No further warranties are implied or expressed beyond the direct
representations of this report.
EnGEN Corporation 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Oscar Escatel
Project Number: T2047-C
September 2000
Page 7
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services. If you should have any questions
regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
:;;;::w.:.
Thomas Dewey, CEG
Senior Engineering Geologis
Expires 11-30-01
co~ ~1tt~:~
Staff Geologist
TD/OB/CM:rr
Distribution: (4) Addressee
FILE: EnGEN/Reporting/T2047-C Oscar Escatel, Rough Grading
EnGEN Corporation g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Oscar EscateJ
Project Number: T2047-C
Appendix Page 1
APPENDIX:
TEST RESULTS
EnGEN Corporation CV
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Oscar Escatel
Project Number: T2047-C
Appendix Page 2
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(Summary of Field In-Place Density Test Results)
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
(5. G.) = Subgrade / (F. G.) = Finish Grade
Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
Test Date Test Locations Elevation Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
No. (1999) (FT) (PCF) (%j (PCF) (%j (%)
1 06-21 Driveway Fill 1170 Al 130.6 13.5 110.9 84.9% 90.0%
2 06-21 Driveway Fill 1173 Al 130.6 12.7 108.6 83.2% 90.0%
3 06-21 Retest #1 1170 Al 130.6 9.5 118.5 90.7% 90.0%
4 06-21 Retest #2 1173 A1 130.6 9.7 118.2 90.5% 90.0%
5 06-22 Driveway Fill 1175 A2 129.2 8.0 117.0 90.6% 90.0%
6 06-22 Driveway Fill 1177 A2 129.2 7.9 116.9 90.5% 90.0%
7 06-22 Driveway Fill 1179 A2 129.2 8.8 123.9 95.9% 90.0%
8 06-22 Driveway Fill 1179 A2 129.2 8.3 124.7 96.5% 90.0%
9 06-23 Driveway 1187 A2 129.2 8.5 117.8 91.2% 90.0%
10 06-23 Driveway 1187 A2 129.2 8.5 121.2 93.8% 90.0%
11 06-23 Driveway 1177.5 A2 129.2 8.0 118.8 92.0% 90.0%
12 06-23 Driveway 1182 A2 129.2 8.8 117.9 91.3% 90.0%
13 06-23 Pad Fill Slope 1155 A2 129.2 7.2 119.5 92.5% 90.0%
14 06-23 Pad Fill Slope 1153 A2 129.2 11.6 116.3 90.0% 90.0%
15 06-27 Driveway 1170 A2 129.2 10.4 117.1 90.6% 90.0%
16 06-27 Driveway 1169 A2 129.2 8.4 121.8 94.3% 90.0%
17 06-28 SW Driveway Keyway 1157 A2 129.2 8.5 122.5 94.8% 90.0%
18 06-28 SW Driveway Keyway 1158 A2 129.2 8.8 116.6 90.2% 90.0%
19 06-29 Driveway 1179.5 A2 129.2 6.4 118.0 91.3% 90.0%
20 06-29 Driveway 1178 A2 129.2 9.4 119.9 92.8% 90.0%
21 06-29 Driveway 1171.5 A2 129.2 8.8 119.8 92.7% 90.0%
22 06-29 Driveway 1172.5 A2 129.2 7.7 118.2 91.5% 90.0%
23 06-29 Driveway 1174.5 A2 129.2 9.0 116.3 90.0% 90.0%
24 06-29 Driveway 1173 A2 129.2 8.2 117.8 91.2% 90.0%
25 06-29 Driveway 1171.5 A2 129.2 8.0 117.6 91.0% 90.0%
26 06-29 Driveway 1170 A2 129.2 8.1 116.3 90.0% 90.0%
27 07-03 Driveway 1172 A2 129.2 8.6 125.3 97.0% 90.0%
28 07-03 Driveway 1174 A2 129.2 9.2 123.2 95.4% 90.0%
29 07-05 Driveway 1149 A2 129.2 6.9 118.2 91.5% 90.0%
30 07-05 Drive1NaY 1152 A2 129.2 7.1 118.9 92.0% 90.0%
31 07-05 . Pad Area 1151 A2 129.2 10.2 113.2 87.6% 90.0%
32 07-05 . Pad Area 1151 A2 129.2 7.9 110.0 85.1% 90.0%
33 07-06 .Pad Area 1148 A2 129.2 8.5 114.5 88.6% 90.0%
*=Pad area subsequently overexcavated, tests negated
F.G.=Finished Grade
EnGEN Corporation \0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Oscar Escatel
Project Number: T2047-C
Appendix Page 3
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(Summary of Field In-Place Density Test Results)
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
(s. G.) = Subgrade / (F. G.) = Finish Grade
Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
Test Date Test Locations Elevation Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
No. (1999) (FT) (PCFj (%) (PCFj (%j (%j
34 07-06 .Pad Area 1149 A2 129.2 9.5 111.6 86.4% 90.0%
35 07-06 "Pad Area 1150 A2 129.2 7.8 118.2 91.5% 90.0%
36 07-06 .Pad Area 1149.5 A2 129.2 8.3 114.5 88.6% 90.0%
37 07-06 .Pad Area 1151 A2 129.2 10.6 116.9 90.5% 90.0%
A 07-10 Undisturbed Bottom Pad ox 1148 A2 129.2 5.5 116.5 90.2% NA
38 07-10 Pad ox 1149 A2 129.2 7.9 117.4 90.9% 90.0%
39 07-10 Pad ox 1150 A2 129.2 11.5 121.5 94.0% 90.0%
40 07-10 Pad ox 1151 A2 129.2 8.9 116.6 90.2% 90.0%
41 07-11 Pad ox 1150 A2 129.2 10.2 116.9 90.5% 90.0%
42 07-11 Pad ox 1150 A2 129.2 9.6 116.3 90.0% 90.0%
43 07-11 Pad ox 1149 A2 129.2 10.4 117.6 91.0% 90.0%
44 07-11 Pad ox 1149 A2 129.2 9.7 118.9 92.0% 90.0%
45 07-11 Pad F.G. A2 129.2 8.3 121.2 93.8% 90.0%
46 07-11 Pad F.G. A2 129.2 10.4 121.1 93.7% 90.0%
47 07-11 Pad F.G. A2 129.2 9.8 121.3 93.9% 90.0%
48 07-11 V ditch F.G. A2 129.2 10.3 119.0 92.1% 90.0%
49 07-22 Driveway F.G. A2 129.2 8.1 119.3 92.3% 90.0%
50 07-22 Driveway F.G. A2 129.2 8.7 120.9 93.6% 90.0%
51 07-22 Drivemy F.G. A2 129.2 7.8 119.4 92.4% 90.0%
52 07-22 NW Oriveway Fill Slope -1 A2 129.2 9.5 116.4 90.1% 90.0%
53 07-22 NW Driveway FiJI Slope -1 A2 129.2 9.1 117.6 91.0% 90.0%
54 07-22 NW Oriveway Fill Slope -1 A2 129.2 8.9 116.8 90.4% 90.0%
*=Pad area subsequently overexcavated, tests negated
F.G.=Finished Grade
EnGEN Corporation "'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Oscar Escatel
Project Numbe~ T2047-C
Appendix Page 4
SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS
ASTM 01557-91
Maximum Optimum
Soil Description (USCS Symbol) Soil Type Dry Density Moisture
(PCF) Content (%)
Silty Sand, Brown (SM) Ai 130.6 7.8
Silty Sand, Brown (SM) A2 129.2 9.3
Silty Sand, Brown (SM) A3 129.3 9.2
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
UBC 18-2
Dry Moisture Moisture
Condition Condition Expansion
Soil Type Depth (FT) Density Before Test After Test Index
(pcf) (%) (%)
E-1 -1 125.6 8.1% 13.4% 5
SUMMARY OF SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
Soil Type Area P.P.M. (Parts Per Million)
E-1 House Pad 18
EnGEN Corporation \ z-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6000
RESULTS
0 C. psf 0
<1>. deg 45. 6
~ TAN 4> 1.02
Ul
Q. 4000
(j)
(j)
W
'"
r-
(j)
,...;
W
'" 2000
::J
...J
H
<(
lL
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Normal Stress, psf
6000
SAMPLE NO. : 2 3
WATER CONTENT, % 10.2 10.2 10.2
5000 ...J DRY DENSITY. pef 116.3 116.3 116.3
<(
~ H SATURATION, % 66.4 66.4 66.4
r-
Ul H
Q. 4000 z VOID RATIO 0.401 0.401 0.401
H DIAMETER. in 2.42 2.42 2.42
Ul
Ul HEIGHT. in 1.00 1.00 1.00
"
~ 3000
~ WATER CONTENT. % 0.0 0.0 0.0
(j)
r- DRY DENSITY, pef 116.3 116.3 116.3
~ (j]
0 2000 w SATURATION. % 0.0 0.0 0.0
" r-
"' VOID RATIO 0.401 0.401 0.401
(j) r-
<( DIAMETER, in 2.42 2.42 2.42
1000 HEIGHT, in 1.00 1.00 1.00
NORMAL STRESS, psf 1000 2000 3000
0 FAILURE STRESS, psf 968 2083 3062
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 DISPLACEMENT. in 0.11 O. 11 0.13
Horiz. D i sp I. , in ULTIMATE STRESS, psf
DISPLACEMENT, in
S t ra i n rote. i n/mi n 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000
SAMPLE TYPE:
DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND, BROWN
CLIENT: ESCATEL
PROJECT:
SPECIFIC GRAVITY= 2.61
REMARKS: SAMPLE A-3
COLLECTED BY C.M. (7/10/00)
SAMPLE LOCATION: VIA DE LA MESA
CUT SLOPE
PROJ. NO.: T2047-C DATE:
DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT
EnGEN Corporation
Fig. No.
\'2.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Oscar Escatel
Project Number: T2047-C
Appendix Page 5
SUMMARY OF SLOPE
STABILITY ANALYSIS
EnGEN Corporation \~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
58-SLOPE
Simpl ified Bishop Slope Stabi I ity Analysis
PROJECT: OSCAR ESCATEL
LOCATION: PASEO DE LA MESA
FILE: T2047 -C COMPLETE SLOPE CROSS SECTION
CIRCLE X Y RADIUS FS
1 170.0 170.0 110.0 1 . 53 C[~/.f'" 'e)
230
210
190
170
Z
0
H
I- 150
<{
>
W
....J
W
130
110
-1
-2~
3~
4
90
70
50
30
20
60
100
40
BO
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE
120
5~6
140
160
lBO
Environmental and Geotechnical Engineering Network Corporation
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
58-SLOPE
Simplified Bishop Slope Stability Analysis
PROJECT: OSCAR ESCATEL
LOCATION: PASEO DE LA MESA
FILE: T2047 -C COMPLETE SLOPE CROSS SECTION
CIRCLE X Y RADIUS FS
1 170.0 170.0 110.0 2.25 Q:[<tn<)
230
210
190
170
z
o
H
f-
<{
>
W
-"
W
150
130
110
-1
2~
3~4
90
70
50
30
20
60
100
40
BO
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE
120
5~6
140
160
180
Environmental and Geotechnical Engineering Network Corporation
,(:.