Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3883 Lot 495 Soil & Foundation . . /1) "'-/& 2,o1i-~- , '~l> ,-', ' /' . /.: ......v/__j " ~i' U {. ~/~- --'. ,<'/( . ,; -'-,- , , . 9i" I J '- -rn. ~~ L.oTAo.5'" ,. \'? ~1\ ,- 1-/// I SOIL AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOT 495, TRACT 3883, DEL'REY ROAD MEADOWVIEW AREA, TEMECULA, RIVERSIDE CO'UNTY ,c;.,. , FOR GMA CONSTRUCTION I I I I I PROJECT NO: 91-153 ~---- OCTOBER 10, 1991 \ Lakeshore Enainsopill'lft ::~....~ . I;"~i', .- " , ,.:,' 1,------ h,";'" II ......1... II ->'.: ~'. "" ,', -: .: I ;;. '-~' :....- '~ ;,- I: .. \.:'. ..... . . ."" , . ;.:~:.~Ir~n~~ Inc. Consulting Ci:--" :Engineerlng and Geologists " . October 10,1991 Projec~ NO:.91-153 Client: GMA Construction 28924 F:ront Street, Suite 105 Temecuia, California 92590 (714) 695-5322 'Attention: Ms. Camill e Apodaca SUbject: "" Soil and Foundation Investigation Proposed Singl~ Family Residence, Lot 495, Tract 3883, Del Rey Road, Meadowview A~ea, Temecula, Riverside County, California Gentlemen: INTRODUCTION This report presents the finding and conclusions pf a soils and foundation investigation for Lot 495, Tract 3883, Del Rey Road, Meadowview area, Temeeula, Riverside County, California. The purpose of this investigation was to (1) evaluate the foundation materials and subsurface conditions underlYing the site, 'and (2) provide, pertinent recommendations for the proposed development of the site. ' , :Thi5 investigation included the following SCOpe of work: ,1. Performed thre,e exploratory trenches within the proposed 'bUilding pad area, to d'eterminesubsurface conditions and provide 'Soil samPles for laboratory testing. ,2. Sampling and Laboratory testing of representative soil and bedrock samples to evaluate their engineering properties. Laboratory test results ,are presented in Appendixes. 3. Engineering analyses for founda~ion and necessary earthwork and the preparation of this report. 31582 Railroad Canyon Road · Canyon Lake, CA 92587 . (714) 244-2913 . FAX: (714) 244-2987 z. 'c~ . ....-. iI/Iii&i;:';;;'.~:cti:-''-;',;;-:;,:~;", .. . _..~,. - .-". < . ... '.~" ~..,~:-.~, ':" . "".f'..,...-",.. "', -,'" :"~':.~:~.'.,7< .~.: "; .:'i~~:-.i'~'~:i:~':".~. '?~'<~'~)+i~;~'~~~',~,;~~ ~j._: ::"> ::- <'.::'~' ;:!';:~\-::';,:~ -,~tf.? ::: -:-~~".-~'., ~..;-::~. , " . .' . . :"~"':-' ~ '.,,,........ ",. .,.... "-.-.-., ',<r<~;::'~'<-,'7:'>P'-~.' ~~/..;...-, ;':::;-_;;!:,"" ,.,..._~.:>>', ...,._.,,,,,,.. .~.:_.__ : ~ , . '. I.- II I I I I I I I . ~,,",; I - II II Ii ".-1 Ii .' I VICIN.lTY MAP ,sCl.lj"'''' e-~/ ~. ~ f .. CIf<fO c:,..Qf-IFo.e-v,..JQ ,e,q/'J .<A^"C""o V/S"r"", . VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE SITE LOCATION Lot 495, Tract 3883, Del Rey Road, Meadowview Area, Temecula, Riverside County, California , LAK:ESHOIRE Engineering' GMA Construction Client: Ms. Camille Apodaca Soil and Foundation Investigation, Proposed Single Family Residence ..3 ., . Project No: CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS 91-153 Date , 10-91 FIgure No: 1 -"-:"'-. ,,': .,.,_.,," ...-....:.: -""~"'~'; >>.~,:,:,,':-'. ~:~ -, <-:':.'--7"~~'<"'"~,,:::,.,,,~--,;.l"~ '~.. :'._"~""'W"'_~_"'..-.."" . . October 10, Project No: Page Two' 1991 91~153 PROPOS~D DEVELOPMENT It is our understanding that the proposed d~velopment will consist of the construction of a two story ,house of conventional design .Iith attached garage. In addition, a...retaining wall is proposed along the toe of cut slope at the northerly side of the house. SITE INVESTIGATION The site investigation consisted of visual reconnaisance and subsurface exploration. Descriptions of the field investigation, exploratory trench logs, and results of the test data are presented in Appendix A and B. Description of the site and conditions encountered are reviewed briefly, below: SURFACE CONDITIONS The sUbj,ect p:::-operty is located east, adjacer.r1: to the intersection of Buena Suerta and Del Rey Road, in the Meadowview a:::-ea of Temecula. The lot is pa:::-t of 11 larger development for residential sites. It is vacant and natural grcund cover exists of a freBb stubble of annual grasses. Completed homes are common in the area. However, lo':s are' vacant on all sides of this particular ~ot, The property is roughly trapezoidal. Elopes are moderate as shovm on the grading plan and are generally oriented toward the southwest. The overall condition of the prope:::-ty is clear and clean. The appearance is well kept. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS A total of 3 exploratory trenches were excavated to a maximum depth of 8 feet. The lot is underlain by a native series of materials, consisting ofa thin top layer of soils, followed by a thin layer of relatively coarse soil wash, which in turn,is underlain generally by finer and coarser fractures of the Fauba Formation. These native materials are generally moderately dense and slightly moist. Detailed descriptions of the materials encountered are presented in individual trench logs of Appendix A. ~ I' . '; I J I I I I , I I I . ..... ........ . 'October 10, :Project No: ;Page Three 1991 91-153 -" Our field density tests indicate that the sand~soils encountered iin trenches T-l through T-3 are damp and loose at the upper 3 to :4 feet becoming moderately dense at lower depths. The material ,is moderately well graded and of fine to medium sand sized. The,subgrade soils are coarse grain in nature and considered low in expansion potential. CONC~USIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Generally the results of this investigtion, indicate that the site will be suitable for the prOposed development, provided the conclusions and recomme~dations presented in this report are incorporated in the design considerations, project plans and specifications. GRADING AND EARTHWORK Site grading will be required to provide: (1) Suitable foundation conditions to sU~por~ the proposed structure, and (2) adequate E'urfe.ce g:::-adients' for control of water runoff. It is recommended that all requil-ed grading will be completed in accordance with app2icable portions of the attached Standard Grading Specifications (Appendix C-l) and thefo!lowing r,ecommendation, o :Based on our f:eld data, soils in the part of the lot where the bUilding site is pr6posed (see ~lot plari) are damp and low in dry density and in their present condition are not considered suitable for support of foundations. The upper 3 to 5 feet of surficial materials have to be excavated to expose more competent materials for structural support or placement of nejo,' fills. --i- :S " . '. .'.. :11 . I .. II II II , I . I I I . . October 10, Project ~o: Page Four 1991 91-153 o All structural fills constructed in areas of proposed bUilding pad and slopes should be densified to at least 90 percent ' relative compaction, by mechanical means only. The upper 8,to 12 inches of the sUbgrade exposed after stripPi~ and/or excavations should first be scarified, moisture conditioned as necessary and properly.compacted before placing new fill. ' , o Excavation of on-site materials should be readily accomplished ;with standard earthmoving or trenching equipment. The walls of "temporary construction excavations should stand nearly vertical, provided the total depth does not exceed 5 fee~, Shoring of --excavation walls or flattening of ratio may he required if greater excavation depths are necessary. All work associated with' trench shoring must conform to the state of California Safety Code. Native, soils may be utilized for tl-ench backfill. FlOoding of the trench backfill is not recommended and compaction should be ,accompl ished by mechanical means only. o Posi ti v,e surface gradients should be prc,v::'ded adjacent to the proposed ,structt:re so as to direct surface water runoff away from structur~l foundations and ~owards suitable discharge faCilities. ~ Maintenance of slope areas should be conducted in accordance with recommendations presented in Appendix (-2. Ponding of surface water should not be allowed ~nywhere on the property. o All grading and excavations should be performed under the observation of the conSUlting engineer or geologist to observe. that competent material has been e,,:posed prior to fi 11 placement. Sufficient notification prior to removal of e>:isting materials and, earthwork constr).lction is eSsential to make certain that the work will be adequately observed and tested. FOUNDATION DESIGN :The footings should be founded in fills engineered to acceptable !standards. Continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide 'and founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade, for one and two-story structures, respectively. The :footings may be designed for an allowable soils bearin~ pressure :of 1500 pounds per square foot. This bearing value may be ,increased by one-third when conSidering short duration seismic or wind loads. ~ " i. .. ,'" II :.~:'-' "L II ,', ~ ~~: '''~. II ~f,;,r,,; ....... . .' ~\-- " ,-~. '." ";' iW II "A'- II II .::. I I -- II I :.';r::-,'!',~,:, . . October 10,1991 Project No: 91-153 Page Five Based on our laboratory test data part of the near surface on-site materials are considered to be granular in nature ,and would exhibit low to moderate expansion potential. It is recommended. that footings be reinforced with.aminimum of one No. 4 bar top and one No. 4 bar at bottom of footiIig. Thestru-ctural engineer should review and deSign final footimg reinforcement based on;anticipated loading conditions and seismic deSigns should conform to requirements of groundshaking Zone 2 of the Riverside County Comprehensive General plan. LATERAL CAPACITY For design, resistance to lateral loads can be assumed to be provided by friction acting at the base of, foundations. A coefficient of friction of 0.30 maybe assumed with the dead load forces, 1l.n allowable, lateral passive earth pressure of 200 pounds per square foot per foot of depth may be used for the sides of footings poured against undisturbed or recompacted soil. The maximum allowable lateral passive pressure is 1500 pounds per square foot. The lateral bearing values indicated above are for the total of ,dead and frequently applied live loads. If normal code :requirements are used for seis~ic design, the values may be increased by one-third for short durations of ~o~ding which include the effect of \-Tind or seismic. forces. 4Jo FLOOR SLll.BS Concrete floor slabs may be directly supported on the properly prepared subgrade; preparation should include proof-rolling-just prior to construction to help proviq.e a firm unyeilding sUbgrade, 'If moisture migration through floor slabs is undesirable, for example where floor coverings are proposed. slabs should be underlain by a plastic vapor barrier of six mil thickness. The sheeting should be placed on subgrade, covered with at least two inches of sand to help prevent punctures and to aid in' the concrete cure, On the ba;is of laboratory test data, native subgrade materials are considered to be low in expansion potential. Slabs on grade should be 'minimum of4 inches in thickness and reinforced with a minimum of 6-inch by 6-inch, No. 10 by No. 10 welded wire mesh placed at ;slab medheight. The structural Engineer should review these recommendations, and design slab reinforcing based on 1 anticipated loading conditions. ~ ". -'>""'~'-"-'~"-'.'_.:.' ";;~ ,....,. ~';': ..._~.,-"~'-';;' ,-,:-,.:"~'~:. ':":":., ;'.-. ::,~.., -.' '-'T-_- ,-- ". . "_,':.~., ......-.)' .,...-.,:--~..- ", .,._ "_._f_n. _ .. ." . . October 10, Project No: Page Six .1991 91-153 It is also separately quartered. cold joint recommended that all concrete'slabs should be poured from the residence footings. The garage slab should be A positive separation should be maintained with a' material to permit relative movement~ RETAINING WALLS. 1.0) Where a free standing wall is proposed, a minimum equivalent fluid pressure for lateral soil loads of,30 pounds per cubic foot may be used for design provided the backfill is non-expansive and level. For sloping ascending backfill, the design parameters are as follows: SLOPE RATIO(H:V) 2:1 1.75:1 1. 5: 1 FLUID PRESSURE(P.C.F.) 43.0 50.0 55.0 ~f the wall is restrained against free movement (+1% of wall height) then the wal ( should be designed for lateral soil loads approaching 'the at rest condition. thus, for restrained conditions,the.values should.be increa,sed by 20 pounds per cubic foot for non-expansive granular backfill. ;':.0) An allowable bearing pressure of 1.500 lb5. per square foot may be used in the design for footing im,beddeda minimum of 12 ,inches below the lowest adjacent grade. A friction coefficient of 0.30 between concrete and natural or compacted soils and a passive bearing value of 200 lbs. per square foot per foot of depth may be employed to resist lateral loads. 3.0) A uniformly distributed horizontal load equal to one-half the ve,rtical surcharge load should be applied to the wall whenever a surcharge is within a horizontal distance of one-wall height. 4.0) All design pressures assume that sufficient drainage will be provided behind the walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures from surface water infiltration. Adequate drainage may be provided ,by means of a system of subdrains and/or weepholes with filter material installed behind the wallS. The filter ~ m,aterial should extend a minimum of 24 inches horizontally from the back of the wall. . . October 10, 1991 Project NO.91-153 P?,ge,Seven 5.0) Care should be such,that excessive equipment, taken when compacting the adjacent wa'lls, lateral loads are not produced by compaction ,~. .Q APPURTENANT STRUCTURES / Construction of any proposed appurtenant structures such as pools, spas, walls, ga~ebos, decks, etc., should be reviewed by the consulting eng:nee~ in order to verify geotechnical conditions. ' EXPANSIVE SOILS Our laboratory iest results (see Appendix B) indicate part of the existing fills a"e IOK to moderately expansive. Recommendations for foundations and s:~bs are contained in the paragraph above. Miscellaneous slabs such as sidewalls, patio slabs, etc., should be reinforced with a ~inimum of 6-inch by 6-inch, No. 10 by No. 10 welded wire mesh. As final grades are achieved, expansion conditions shoulc be re-evaluated, and additional ~ecommendations may be required at -I:hat--, time . ' DRl>.I N1>.GE Positivedrainage:;;hould be provided around the perimeter of all struc1:1.:.res to m:.nimize water infiltrating into the underlyi'ug ~oils~ Finishs~bgrade adjacent to exterior footings should be sloped down and away to facilitate surface drainage. All drainage should be rlirected offsiteto the street via non-erosive devices. Water should not be allowed to flow over the existing ,natl.:."al slopes. The homeowner should be made aware of the potential problems which may develop when drainage is altered through construction of retaining walls, swimming pools, or paved, walkways and patios. Ponded water, flows over the slope face, leaking irrigation systems, over-watering or other conditions which could lead to ground saturation must be avoirled. " CI. I I- , I . I I I I r I I I . . October 10, Project No: Page Eight 1991 91-153 FOOTING EXCAVATIONS ,All foundation excavations should be inspected and approved b'y ,the consulting Soils Engineer prior to placemeflt of forms, :reinforcement of concrete. Materials from footing excavations ,s,hould not ,be spread in pavement subgrades or slab-on-grade areas ~nless they are compacted and tested. ., UTILITY TRENCHES All utility trench backfill should be placed in accordance with the "On-Pad Uti I i ty Trench Backfi 11 Recommendations" provided in Appendix C-3. ' SLOPE STABILITY AND MAINTENANCE A revieF of the grading plan indicates that cut and fill slopes will be ~onstructed at the site. Fill slopes are proposed at 2:1 (H:V) to a maximum height of 10 feet and cut slope are at 1.5:1 (H:V) to a height of approximately 10 feet supported at the toe of slope by retaining walls. ~~e proposed fill slope should be considered stable ~s shown on tIle grading plan, provided the fill slope are place and compacted, urdel- engineering supervision. Due to the granular character of the exis~ing subgrade soils encountered il1 the exploratory t:-en=hes,the granular soils are very susceptible to surficial erosion. In this regard,wesuggestthat the designed cut slope be laid back to 1.75:1 (H:V). ''>! x; GENERAL INFORMATION The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice in the fields of 5011 and foundation engineering. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either express or implied. \0 !~. ill ' , , 'I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I '. ,. O,C-tober 10, :Project lifo: Page Nine 1991 91-153 The exploratory trenches excavated on-site were not backfilled with compacted soil, An effort should be ~ade during construc't:i:on to locate these trenches and properly compact and test the backfill. 1:f there is a s'..lbs'cantial lapse of time betweej;t the submission of our report and t~e start of work at the site, or :f conditions have changed due to natural causes or construction operations at or adjacen~ to ~he site, we urg~ that our report be reviewed to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendati,:)ns conSidering the changed ,':onditions and time lapsed. .' '",", , j,1'e urge that '~e be retained to review those portions of the plans ,a,nd speCifications that 'pertain to earthwork and fOUndations to :determine ;,rhether they are consistent with our recommendations. :In addition, weare available to observe construction, _ :particularly the compaction of structural ,bac.\<;.fill and preparation of footing foundations, and s~ch other field Dbservations as may be necessary. ' We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions concerning this report or require further information and services, please contact our office at your convenience. RespectfUlly SUbmitted, FY/ls H ", '. . '. APPENDIX A " , Of fIELD EXPLORJl.TION j i J I " , To 'evaluate the compaction characteristics of the fill mate2-ial, fie'ld density tests were performed. Alsc. representative bulk samples were obtained and shipped to the laboratory 'in POlythelene bags. ' , L i r J;: r: 'II,', T. I. Field exploration was perforrnedusing a backhoe. The soils were continuously logged by our field personnel and classified by visual examination in accordance with the Unified Sc.il Classification System. " f ,', 1: t I. I ~: i" , " r l! jj " :i; \2.. " II ~ I"::'; J: 'I ~. .;.". " - II ,,- II I I I I , I I I I TR'E N C HL 0 Native Contour N50E LoggedBy: 'F'.S. Date , 10-8-91 ' Equipment: bal"-khoe ' ,", ," " , nriI log II. repr8Nrtltlan of luii'unRe,toUlnd grollndwltarcondltlOtlI II ths IfmIlnd pace 01 excawtlon. W1lhth. /lUIIge dime or It.ny ou.t loCIIilon film may be ~MIUe1iJII chInlJll:lln COl'lClltlona. Trench Number T-3 .>< " :J ,.g cD t-Cl (6" underlain by coarser slope wash) graYish brown, graded, fine to medium grained, dry, ' --medium' dense ~ ' , 8M Silty SAND brownish, gray, fined grained; scattered 5 ebbles' sli htl 'moist medium dense. 8M Silty SAND -brownish gray~ coars~r, fine to medium . . .. P , ", '- " grained, more consistent. uniformly ,graded, slightly moist,me~um dense to dense. 10 Total depth of trench 8 feet. 15 No groundwater encountered. Trench backfilled. 20 Surface Elevation: Trench Orientation: Trench Dimensions: Groundwater Depth: Logged By: Date Equipment: Trench' Number 5 NSO e- t> 10 5L.Of'E~}f ~ SelL F'INE~ COARS"'~ - ." - ~. -. ~ - ..... -. ,. ...' . ~ . Cl .. 15 :5'<::AL.E / "..: to I 20 LAKEiSHORE Engineering CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGIST GMA Co~struction Fig: No. T-3. \3 PROJ: NO, 91-153 '. "a .RE'NCH LO" . - ' , I .Sunface Elevation: ,native contour Logged By: F.S. , Trench Trench'OrlentStlon: N40E bate 10-8-91' Number Trench Dimenslons:l1 i/2'x2 1/2'x6 1/ Equipment: backhoe' , " , , T-l moist at bottom Thllloo III fljlfllelUtlon of aublulf.ct.101 and ORlundwlter cond1ti:l~ It,the time trid place o1lXC1vaUon, Groundwater Depth: 'MtftthePlIIIQllclh'0I'1tIn)'othllflotltlontl:1ertmlYbeCOIJl8QlHlnlIaICha:nQelInCOndl1onl. SAMPLE ~~/ .;d/~ ,t.. #' ~ .>< ~ !~!:';: "~~.~. ~ :l ~ iIi ~~...<;S ~~"/ ~ !Xl r- - 8M SAND - browni~h gray, med. dense, dry, very fine grained t- -, "to fine grained , t- - SM Silty SAND - grayish brown/brown gray, medium coarse ,- - " , '.. -, - -wash 'graded..i. -medium ...REained, ,- ~ Silty SAND - brownish gray, graded, slightly moist at top , ,- - , to moist'at bottom, f~ne 'grained sand, mod, dense ,'- ,- "to dense, ,~ N'+6 'r-, - oJ r ---==- --....; 10- r. - ,- ~. ~ -' "::'~Il. - p-' - - -C- OAR.se WASH , . . , r- - .', . . . " \ .-;/ .~ t- - Total depth of trench 6 1/2' . '. .- UN/ "~M S/4Ti SAND " . 15- 1'~ 'tJlSfI !':H. No groundwater encountered. It:. '!:r/IN. - ,- - - Trench backfilled. - - - - -20- , Surface Elevation: native contour Logged By: F.S. Trench I Trench Orientation: N4~ , , Date 10-8-91 Number Trench Dimensions: 14 x2 1/2 x7 1/2 sl moist at base EqUipment: backhoe T-2 GrOUndwater Depth: ' I I SM SAND - dark ~ay, very fine _grained... dry, med. to dense. , - SM Silty SAND w/Clay - brownish gray, consistently graded, I - - ! slightly moist, medium to dense, scattered I i l pebbles. ' I - - -5- Silty SAND brwon gray/grayish brown, consistantly , - - graded, fine to medium grained, slighlty moist,__ I ,- ,- medium dense to dense. Nil-$' W , :;" IL, :1 r- - 10 ..;.... . - I 1"= - ~ - r- - E NJC..t Total 'depth of trench 7 1/2' -.' t- - ,fj , >>I~ . lJ ,511 C ~f'\Y . ) , I ' - - No' groundwater encountered. V' - - .. . '~15- I . LJN-'~ 3AM I~ uR;~~ rNb - - Trench backfilled. :cvt. - - - - I - - , -20- I ;LAKESHORE GMA Construction Fig. No. \'\ Engineering T-l &T-2 I " PROJ, NO, CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGIST, 91-153 , , . . .. I I ,I I I I I I I ~-....x::~;~(:;.~7:.:> ..:...:;......:. ,:.: .',_... . t.:.... '. ',..... ~,.,-." . ,'.-- ".....,"' ,., -- , ,.~ ...,. :"'. -- a ..' . . .. ...~.. . . . . PLOT PLAN KEY .....-<'<5.. ~~w \ ,/ \-i'., ////'\', ~><-/' I /'" '\ / ) I / ,,/' ,.- /' \ , --..... IT-31 r I I I I I I ' ' " LAKESHORE ~' ' Engiineering Approximate Location of Exploratory Trenches. , d" , \)\.0 I I I I ~~ I' 'l I ~ I -' I ---\ I ~,..::---r- I .;, ,~'" I I ..." ",/ I \" " \ .', I I I~ : 1 ~.--! I I ""- ,"l ,\1 '\)dl ~ A,'I- " .' / I '/ I ~.'oj~ / i jr/ I i /7: I I ~--.., - - f: ~... I -"... I v' ~. ""'....~ I I / "'o.~..... I ,,'J 1<116 PS;ll 1~4{;.t:1 1=E.I"Z~.5 .....2'..$'"$ ~E'o$"" / ), .' \ l.,'OI !J~ / . ~ \ - N.T.S. ','-, .; " GMA,Construction Client: Ms Camille ,Apodaca Soil and Foundation Investigation, Proposed Single Family Residence, Lot 495, Tr. 3883, Del Rey'Road, Meadowview Area, Temecula, Riverside County, California Project No: Date ' , 01';'1<;<1 '''-'01 \:) ~ " CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS Figure No: II I ~'I II, I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I .. .. "-. .. . . APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING MOISTURE DENSITY % "" Moisture-density information usually provid~s a gross indication of scil consistency and can delineate local variations at the '"':ime cf inve'stigation and provide a ccrrelation between soils found on this site. The dry unit weight and field moisture ~ontent were determined for selected samples, and the results are shown on the log of boring sheets. MAxrMUM'DENSITY-OPTIMUM MOISTURE TESTS A selected soil samplesweie tested in the laboratory to determine maximum dry density ar,d optimum, moisture content using the A.S.T.M. D1557-78 compaction test method. This test procedure uses 25 blows of a lC'-:po"nd hammer fa1'ling height of 18 inches on ea:::r. of :ive layers to a :~/30 cubic foot cylinder. The results of the tests are ~~esent~t below: Trench No. Soil Description MaXimum Dry Density Optimum Moisture , Content Depth ------------------------------------------------~--------------- !--1 O,..2Ft. Silty SAND wjtrace of c:ay 128.0 PCF 9.5% 'T-2 3-5 Ft. SAND vi/trace of silts 134.5 PCF 8.5% ,EXPANSION INDEX ,TEST A representative near surface soil sample was collected in the ,field and tested in th. laboratory in accordance with the 'A.S.C.E. Expansion Index Test Method as specified by U.B.C'. The ,degree of expansion potential is evaluated from measured soil volume changes obtained during soil moisture alterations. The :result of the test is presented below: \<P iTrench No. T-l Depth (feet) 0-2 Soil Description Silty SAND wjclays 'Expansion Index 24 Expansion Potential LOW "