HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3883 Lot 331 Geotechnical Rpt & Compaction Test Results
I
, /'
~,.- /
L h< ---j ~:;:l--~:EnGEN COfl~oration
'\
RECEIVED
. Soil Engineering an Consulting Servicesl't1J/ibifiJerir9GeQgy ~ar34tion leslil1\l
. Inspections. Const clion Materials Teslifflm&ra~YTMngt. VercolatlOn Tesllng
-Geology.Wal ResourccSludies . Phase I & II Environmental Site AssesSlTlf!nts
1
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEO E~l3~ A\~Rt!lIE~T
1
I
1
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Rehm Residence
Lot 331 otTract 3883
Calle Torcida
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2235-C
I
I
March 7, 2001
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
Prepared for:
1
Barry & Debbie Rehm
29653 Via Mondo
" Temecula, California 92592
\
1 c-
A'-
CI-'
/
\ /
1';1
Pll_
--
-
/" ~ / '- "" F / " ~,I _ / .... '/... , J I ~" _ /", ,I _'" _ ~ /
" _ _ _ \ ' " \ _ \ -' 'r \ _ _ __ \ ' /' , _ _ _ \ \ .... " ' i __ \. _ ._ _ \...- '- F " _ _ _ \...." / I "
/ ,~_-; -" /, \~_-; \, : ~ ~'/ \~--: ~ -. ~ ~~--I :':: \ /~ ,~--:~~~ ~- ~_.~)-~t~/~-~-~"~-=-;~/_~~~
~ ~ I I ',I I " f .-..I___...,-....f-.-..L _-'....... \ ,~J -,-,:-.-=-- It'
______-<..__-' : ~::--'I' Ii ,; 11 .,. ,;
___, Cd~ __Ai:.EgF.E!C!,~*07 E terprise<o)Wie,N rt "S_U~\~~l,:[emecula, CA92590-'Phone:'(~~.,9)~Q:2230 daX~(g()9) 296'223-7, - --
~-ORANGE COUNTY 0 I ~26150}angeA ete, Santa Ana, CA 92707 . phone: (714) 546-4051' fax: (714) 546',405, 2
B SITE: www.ene.fcorp.com . E-MAIL: engencorp@~mgencorp..~(jm-- ---.-
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
Barry & Debbie Rehm
Project Number: T2235-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 "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' """"".", """"" "''''''"", ..",1
1 ,3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION"""."".". '"'' """ """"" """., ,,,,,.,, """""" "" ,2
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ,.................................."....,.."""."............................,,,,,..........""......"..2
2,1 TIME OF GRADING "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' """".""""""",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2
2,2 CONTRACTOR AND EOUIPMENT..""""" """"",,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ""."""""".""",,,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 EARTH MATERIALS ... ... ......... ... ....... ... .....".".. ....... .......... ...................... .... ........................4
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS"".""""""."."...........".".""""........".".""........,,4
5,1 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.4
5,2 FOUNDATION SIZE ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''','''''''''''''''''' ".,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.4
5,3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ".",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,4
5,4 BEARING CAPACITY, "'" "" """" """'" '" """"'" ,., '" ."", "'" '" '" "" ..""" """"" ",., .,.,,5
5,5 SETTLEMENT, '''''''''''' '" "'''''''''' '" '''''' '" '''''''' ,,,.,, '"'' """'" """ '"'' "'" '"'' '"'' '"'''' '"'' 5
5,6 LATERAL CAPACITY."".". ,,,,,.,,.,,.,,.,, '" ,,,.,,.,,,,,, ".". ". "."" '"'' '" ,. ." ."" '"'''' '"'' '" 5
5,7 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS" """"'" '''''''' '''''' ,,,,,,.,,,,, '" '"'''' '" '"'''' '"'' '"'' ,6
5,8 INTERIOR SLABS" '"'' '"'' ":",.,, '"'' '" ""","'" '"'' '''''' '" '" '" '" ". '"'' '''''''' """""" '" "" ,6
5,9 EXTERIOR SLABS,,,,,,,, ""'" '" """" '" """ ,,, "." '" ".",,, "" """'" ",""'" '"'' '" '" """ '" ",,6
5,10 GENERAL ,,,.,, '"'' '" "" '"'' '" '"'' """.""." """ '"'' """" ,,," '"'' '" ,,,,,,,. """" '" "" 7
6.0 CLOSURE ...... ....... .... ............ .......... ... ......... ... ...,... ,.. ,........ ... ............. .... ............. ........ .......7
ApPENDIX
TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation \
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
/:---
/ /
~:I ~~,,~"'
~;I
~i
"\
r-'
/
/--......-\
11 : ' E--GEN
__ ',-] '~v-- -
dLIE: ";..ll' .U"
>-,..,
Cornoration
-Soil Engine€ringand Consulting Services e EngineeringGeology. Compaction Testing
-Inspections . ConslruclionMaterials Tesling -laboraloryTesting-PercolationTesting
-Geology. Water Resource Studies .Phasel&IIEnvironmentaISiteAssessmenls
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
March 7, 2001
Barry & Debbie Rehm
29653 Via Mondo
Temecula, California 92592
(909) 695-0222
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
Rehm Residence
Lot 331 of Tract 3883
Calle Torcida
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2235-C
References:
EnGEN Corporation, Limited Geotechnical Study, Proposed Single Family
Residence, Lot 331 of Tract 3883, City of Temecula, County of Riverside,
California, Project Number: T2235-LGS, report dated December 27, 2000,
Amir H. Fallahi, Precise Grading Plan, Lot 331 of Tract No, 3883, plans
dated January 22, 2001,
1,
2,
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Rehm:
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 2,5 acres, located south of the intersection of
Via Norte and Calle Torcida Road in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California,
1.2
SITE DESCRIPTION
Prior to grading operations, topography and surface conditions of the site were gently
sloping with surface drainage to the south at a gradient of less than 10 percent.
'\
I'
/ / "- "' / -.. _, / " ~ ~ j _.... _ / / " ~ ~ I _" _ F / .... ,,~I _' _
",-~-\ \--_.\,.r"-~!~ \/"~'"',---\/'-
, -_.:~~ -~~ _~_' ': '~=~ ~'--:..;..:.~ ~;: ~': ,:) li:...>---,--,-~.,;-~::L.::-o: >'
:! H I' II ,
E terprise~iJ;<;je,N rt ."~uj)e~1._Temecula; CA'92590"'phone~ (~Q~),2~~2230 '!llx_',l9119}'296'2237-,' --~'
I E 2615 'Or'10ge A e ue, Santa Ana, CA 92707 'phone, (714) 546-=-4051 ,fax: (714) 546,4052 2.-
B-SITE:-wWW~en e corp.com- .E~MAIL: engencOrp@eilgentdi'p.cdtrf'''''--'''---'- -
/ " ~, I" , / "
" ., _. - - \ I " \ _ _ _ \./
" - ~ " -
\ ~ \ \ /
-" -- I ,_ " -" --/ I
~ : I { ~! / \' I I \ { _,l,
_.-4"""'_.1 ' ,...............--11"
, COR ATE DEElCU 1'60
-~, ;'. --'-----'" " ~-- ~
'~--ORANGE COUNTY 0
~. ~ ._-----~
1
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
BarlV & Debbie Rehm
Project Number: T2235-C
March 2001
Page 2
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
It is understood that the subject site is to be developed with a one or two story single family
residence with slab-on-grade concrete floors supported on conventional continuous and
pier footings, The remainder of the site will consist of hardscape and landscape
improvements,
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
2.1 TIME OF GRADING
This report represents geotechnical observations and testing during the construction
operations from February 15, 2001 through February 23, 2001,
2.2 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT
The grading operations were performed by Kiene Construction through the use of one (1)
CAT D8 dozer, one (1) J,D, 450E dozer with slopeboard, one (1) CAT 14G motorgrader,
and one (1) water truck,
2.3 GRADING OPERATIONS
Grading within the subject site consisted of a cuUfill and import fill operation, Grasses and
weeds were removed prior to fill placement. Fill material was generated from off-site
sources and the northern cut portions of the site, and used to bring the southern fill slope
and pad portions of the site to finish grade elevation, Removal of alluvium, slopewash,
etc" was performed to a depth of 3 to 4-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 by a representative of this firm, Keying and benching
into competent bedrock was observed during the grading operations, Over-excavation was
performed in the cut portion of the building pad 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 12-inches then compacted to 90
percent. Fill was placed in lens thicknesses of 6 to 8-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, through the use of a water truck, The pad area was generally graded
to the elevations noted on the 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.
EnGEN Corporation ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
Barry & Debbie Rehm
Project Number: T2235-C
March 2001
Page 3
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 (by
station numbers when applicable) were determined from review of the referenced gradin9
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 / 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 dark
brown silty sand with percentages of clay, which has an Expansion Index of 37, This soil is
classified as having a 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 testin9 from the building pad areas upon
completion of grading of the subject site, The concentration of soluble sulfate was
determined in general accordance with California Test Method 417 procedures, The test
results indicate a low percentage of water soluble sulfates (0% 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),
EnGEN Corporation ~
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
Barry & Debbie Rehm
Project Number: T2235-C
March 2001
Page 4
4.0 EARTH MATERIALS
The natural earth materials encountered on-site generally consisted of brown silty sand,
The imported materials encountered generally consisted of tan to dark brown silty sands
with various percentages of clay,
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional column footings and
continuous wall footings founded upon properly compacted fill, The recommendations
presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and construction are based
on geotechnical characteristics and a low expansion potential for the supporting soils and
should not preclude more restrictive structural requirements, The Structural Engineer for
the project should determine the actual footing width and depth to resist design vertical,
horizontal, and uplift forces,
The following seismic design parameters apply:
Type of Fault: Type B Fault
Closest Distance to Active Fault: Less than 2 Km
Soil Profile Type: SD
5.2 FOUNDATION SIZE
Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches, Continuous footings
should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of one (1) No, 4 steel reinforcing bar
located near the top and one (1) No, 4 steel reinforcing bar located near the bottom of the
footings to minimize the effects of slight differential movements which may occur due to
rninor variations in the engineering characteristics or seasonal moisture change in the
supporting soils, Column footings should have a minimum width of 18-inches by 18-inches
and be suitably reinforced, based on structural requirements, A grade beam, founded at
the same depths and reinforced the same as the adjacent footings, should be provided
across garage door openings and other doorway entrances,
5.3 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT
Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill should extend to a
minimum depth of 18-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for the structure (12-inches
EnGEN Corporation S-
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
Barry & Debbie Rehm
Project Number: T2235-C
March 2001
Page 5
for single story), The foundations should be founded in properly compacted fill with a
minimum of 24-inches of compacted fill below the bottom of the footings,
5.4 BEARING CAPACITY
Provided the recommendations for site earth work, minimum footing width, and minimum
depth of embedment for footings are incorporated into the project design and construction,
the allowable bearing value for design of continuous and column footings for the total dead
plus frequently-applied live loads is 1,500 psf for continuous footings and 1,500 psf for
column footings in properly compacted fill material. The allowable bearing value has a
factor of safety of at least 3,0 and may be increased by 33,3 percent for short durations of
live and/or dynamic loading such as wind or seismic forces,
5.5 SETTLEMENT
Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values for continuous and
column footings, respectively, and the maximum assumed wall and column loads are not
expected to exceed a maximum settlement of 0,5-inches or a differential settlement of
0,25-inches in properly compacted fill,
5.6 LATERAL CAPACITY
Additional foundation design parameters based on compacted fill for resistance to static
lateral forces, are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure(Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Compacted Fill - 150 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
Compacted Fill - 0,30
Lateral load resistance may be developed by a combination of friction acting on the base of
foundations and slabs and passive earth pressure developed on the sides of the footings
and stern walls below grade when in contact with undisturbed, properly, compacted fill
material. The above values are allowable design values and may be used in combination
without reduction in evaluating the resistance to lateral loads, The allowable values may
be increased by 33,3 percent for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading, such as
wind or seismic forces, For the calculation of passive earth resistance, the upper 1,0-foot
of material should be neglected unless confined by a concrete slab or pavement. The
maximum recommended allowable passive pressure is 5,0 times the recommended design
value,
EnGEN Corporation "
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Barry & Debbie Rehm
Project Number: T2235-C
March 2001
Page 6
5.7 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations for concrete slabs, both interior and exterior, excluding PCC
pavement, are based upon the anticipated building usage and upon a low expansion
potential for the supporting material as determined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code, Concrete slabs should be designed to minimize cracking as a result of shrinkage.
Joints (isolation, contraction, and construction) should be placed in accordance with the
American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines, Special precautions should be taken during
placement and curing of all concrete slabs, Excessive slump (high water/cement ratio) of
the concrete and/or improper curin9 procedures used during either hot or cold weather
conditions could result in excessive shrinkage, cracking, or curling in the slabs, It is
recommended that all concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be performed in
accordance with ACI recommendations and procedures,
5.8 INTERIOR SLABS
Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4-inches nominal in thickness and
be underlain by a minimum of 2-inches of clean coarse sand or other approved granular
material placed on properly prepared subgrade, Minimum slab reinforcement should
consist of #3 reinforcin9 bars placed 24-inches on the center in both directions or a suitable
equivalent.
The reinforcing should be placed at mid-depth in the slab, The concrete section and/or
reinforcing steel should be increased appropriately for anticipated excessive or
concentrated floor loads, In areas where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated
over the slab, we recommend the use of a polyethylene vapor barrier with a minimum of
6,0 mil in thickness be placed beneath the slab, The moisture barrier should be overlapped
or sealed at splices and covered by a 1,0-inch minimum layer of clean, moist (not
saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures,
5.9 EXTERIOR SLABS
All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks, etc" with the
exception of PCC pavement) should be a minimum of 4-inches nominal in thickness,
Reinforcing in the slabs and the use of a compacted sand or gravel base beneath the slabs
should be according to the current local standards, Subgrade soils should be moisture
conditioned to at least optimum moisture content to a depth of 6,Q-inches and proof
EnGEN Corporation 1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Barry & Debbie Rehm
Project Number: T2235-C
March 2001
Page 7
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D-1557-91
procedures immediately before placing aggregate base material or placing the concrete,
5.10 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 Referenced No,
1 report, 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.
6.0 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 ~
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
Barry & Debbie Rehm
Project Number: T2235-C
March 2001
Page 8
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,
EnGEN corpo~/
J,.~ff "I(
Supervising Technician
SRW/OB:rr
Distribution: (4) Addressee
FILE: EnGENfReportingfT2235-C Barry & Debbie Rehm, Rough Grading
EnGEN Corporation ~
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
Barry and Debbie Rehm
Project Number: T2235-C
Appendix Page 1
APPENDIX:
TEST RESULTS
EnGEN Corporation \()
I
I
Barry and Debbie Rehm
Project Number: T2235-C
Appendix Page 2
I - -
Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required
Test
I Date Test Locations Elevation Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction
No. (2000) (FT) (PCF) (%) (PCF) (%) (%)
1 02-15 SE Fill Slope 1191,5 A1 132,3 12,3 115,6 87.4% 90,0%
I 2 02-15 SE Fill Slope 1189 A1 132,3 15,2 113,9 86,1% 90,0%
3 02-15 Retest #2 1189 A1 132,3 9,1 116,7 88,2% 90,0%
I 4 02-15 Retest #1 1191,5 A1 132,3 11,3 115,5 87,3% 90,0%
5 02-15 SW FiiI Slope 1189 A1 132,3 11,2 119,1 90,0% 90,0%
I 6 02-16 Retest #3 1187 A1 132,3 9,9 121,7 92,0% 90,0%
7 02-16 Retest #4 1189 A1 132,3 12,5 119,7 90,5% 90,0%
8 02-16 SW FiiI Slope 1193 A1 132,3 10,7 120,8 91,3% 90,0%
I 9 02-16 SW FiiI Slope 1195 A1 132,3 11,9 119,1 90,0% 90,0%
10 02-16 SE Fill Slope 1189 A1 132,3 11,5 119,5 90,3% 90,0%
I 11 02-16 SW Fill Slope 1197 A1 132,3 9,1 119,7 90,5% 90,0%
12 02-17 SE Fill Slope 1191 A2 128,3 14.4 116,6 90,9% 90,0%
13 02-17 sw Fill Slope 1194 A1 132,3 13,1 120,3 90,9% 90,0%
I 14 02-19 Area of Overexcavation 1195 A3 125,3 8,9 112,9 90,1% 90,0%
15 02-19 Area of Overexcavation 1195 A3 125,3 10,2 113,1 90,3% 90,0%
I 16 02-21 Pad Area 1196,5 A4 126,3 9,7 113,8 90,1% 90,0%
17 02-21 South of Garage 1196,5 A4 126,3 12,9 117,5 93,0% 90,0%
18 02-21 Garage 1197,5 A4 126,3 12,0 114,1 90,3% 90,0%
I 19 02-23 Pad Area F,G, A2 128,3 9,5 118,2 92,1% 90,0%
20 02-23 Pad Area F,G, A2 128,3 10,1 117,9 91,9% 90,0%
I 21 02-23 Garage F,G, A2 128,3 11,3 116,5 90,8% 90,0%
FIELD TEST RESULTS
(Surnrnary of Field In-Place Density Test Results)
(Nuclear Gauge Test Method)
(5 G) - 5ubgrade / (F G) - Finish Grade
1
1
1
1
1
I
EnGEN Corporation \\
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
Barry and Debbie Rehm
Project Number: T2235-C
Appendix Page 3
SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS
ASTM 01557-91
Maximum Optimum
Soil Description (USeS Symbol) Soil Type Dry Density Moisture
(PCF) Content (%)
Silty Sand, Brown (SM) A1 132,3 7,9
Silty Sand, Tan (SM) A2 128,3 8,5
Silty Sand with Clay, Dark Brown (SM) A3 125,3 11,9
Silty Sand with Clay, Dark Brown (SM) A4 126,3 11,1
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
UBC 18-2
Dry Moisture Moisture
Soil Condition Condition Expansion
Depth (FT) Density
Type (pcf) Before Test After Test Index
(%) (%)
E1 -1 112,2 10,2% 18,8% 37
SUMMARY OF SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
Soil Location % By Weight
Type
E1 Building Pad Area 0
EnGEN Corporation \ z..
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
Barry and Debbie Rehm
Project Number: T2235-C
Appendix Page 4
APPENDIX:
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation \3