Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 01-08; NORTHPOINTE WEST; REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING;CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEERING REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING LINCOLN NORTHPOINTE, CT 98-07 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: LEGACY PARTNERS 30 EXECUTIVE PARK, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614 PREPARED BY: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 4925 MERCURY STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 4925 Mercury Street • San Diego, CA 92111 • 858-496-9760 • FAX 858-496-9758 CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING September 24,2001 Caritas Development Company CWE 201.615.1 5600 Avenida Encinas, Suite 100 Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: John C. White, President SUBJECT: UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, NORTH POINTE WEST, CORTE DE LA PINA AND EL CAMINO REAL, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA. References: 1) Geotechnical Investigation for Hughes Project, Carlsbad, Califomia, by Robert Prater Associates, datedM'uxzh. 27,1997. 2) Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation for Lincoln Northpointe, Carlsbad, Califomia, by Robert Prater Associates, ^/o/?;/December 2,1997. 3) Report of Grading Observations and Testing. Lincoln Northpointe, Carlsbad Tract 98-07, El Camino Real, Carlsbad, Califomia, ty Christian Wheeler Engineering, datedUiyK), 1999. Ladies and Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, this report has been prepared to update the above referenced geotechnical reports to refiect the proposed development of Lots 9,10,11 and 12 of Carlsbad Tract 98-07. These lots were originally part ofthe Lincoln Northpointe development, located west of El Camino Real and south of Palomar Airport Road, in Carlsbad, California. We understand that the four lots are going to be re-subdivided into eight lots, and that a tilt-up concrete building with associated parking and driveways, will be constructed on each new lot. As indicated on a site plan provided for our use and prepared by Smith Consulting Architects, the buildings will vaty from about 13,300 to 21,200 square feet in area with mezzanine floors varj'ing from 3,400 to 4,800 square feet in area. Conventional continuous and spread footings and on-grade concrete floor slabs are expected to be utilized for the buildings. Grading is anticipated to consist of cuts and fills of less than about 4925 Mercury Street -f San Diego, CA 92111 -f 858-496-9760 • FAX 858-496-9758 CWE 201.615.1 September 24, 2001 Page No. 2 five feet from existing grades, except on Lot 12 where an existing retention/desilting basin is located. This feature is about ten feet deep at the south end. The four subject lots were sheet graded in 1999, •with the mass grading testing and observation services provided by Christian Wheeler Engineering (see Reference 3 above). A paved road exists along die west side of the four lots. Lots 9 through 12 presendy contain a transition line between cut and fill soils that was not undercut during die mass grading operation. The attached Plate No. 1 shows the approximate location of this cut/fill transition line. As previously stated, there is an approximately 10-foot-deep retention basin on Lot 12 that was constructed during the mass grading. This feature is about 40 feet wide at the bottom and about 220 feet long. Storm drain pipes enter and exit this basin. This feature wiU need to be cleaned out of all vegetation and saturated soils, and be filled in for die proposed development. Three odier storm drains were constructed just after the mass grading operation. These storm drains are located on Lots 9,10 and 11. They begin on die east side of the paved road and empty into die creek tiiat follows die westerly property line. In general, the prevailing soils consist of sUty sands and clayey sands. The fill materials were well compacted and are certified to support the type of stractures proposed. However, there is some relatively minor erosion damage and some decompaction of the upper approximately one foot of soil diat will require some remedial grading during the precise grading operation. The soils are predominately low to moderately expansive and have relatively high strengtii parameters. In addition, die cut portion of cut/fill transition building pads will be required to be undercut by at least diree feet in order to provide a uniform material on which to support die proposed buildings. The undercut area will need to be sloped at least two percent towards die fill area of die lot. Provided the near-surface disturbed and decompacted soils are recompacted, the cut portion ofthe building pad is undercut, and die existing detention basin is cleaned out and properly filled in, it is our opinion diat die proposed lots will be suitable to support die eight proposed stractures. It is further our opinion that the foundation recommendations presented in die above referenced mass grading report are valid and can be used for the proposed development. Ifyou have any questions after reviewing diis update report, please do not hesitate to contact oiu office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectively Submitted, CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING Charles H. Christian, RGE #215 c: (6) Submitted Truck ir access from El Camino Real -EXISTING >ESILTING BASIN ©MBOdlOnii D SITE AHEA [GROSS)- BUILOING AREA: COVERAGE: FJ\A: PARKING ITOTALI: PARKING lAOA): PARKING [COMPACT): LUNCH PATIO REQUIREO: LUNCH PATIO PROVIDEO: (SMSOdlOirag 1 SITE AREA IGROSSl: BUILOING AREA: COVERAGE: F.Afl.: PARKING irOTALh PARKING (ADA!: PARKING (COMPACT): LUNCH PATIO REQUIRED: LUNCH PATIO PROVIDEO: 1.4 ac (59.800 s.fj SITE AREA (GROSS)- 20.100 s.(. BUILOING AREA: 26.9% .336 70 13.48 / tOOOl 3 II VANI 16 122.9%) 1206 S.I. 1250 s.(. 2.1 ac 193.000 s.f.| 13.300 s.1. 10.6X .143 44 13.30 / 1000) 2 ll VANI II 125.0%) 798 S.f. 600 S.l. COVERAGE: F.AH.- PARKING (TOTAL): PARKING (AOAl: PARKING ICOMPACTI: LUNCH PATIO REQUIRED: 1272 s.f. LUNCH PATIO PROVIOED: 1280 S.l. 1.3 ac (58,500 s.I.l 21.200 s.(. 29.4 X .362 72 (3.40 / 10001 3 (1 VAN) 17 (23.6X) SITE AREA (GROSS): BUILDING AREA: COVERAGE: F.A.R.: PARKING (TOTALI: PARKING (ADA): PARKING (COMPACTI: LUNCH PATIO REQUIRED: LUNCH PATIO PROVIDED- 2.4 ac (106.400 s.d 16.300 S.I. 13.4% .172 60 (3.28 / 3 (1 VAN) 15 (25.5%) 1098 S.I. 1100 S.f. 1000) NOTK: I. AlLNETANDGROSSAREASAREESnMATESONLYAND SHOUD BE VERIFIED AS PAD AREAS ARE MORE WBX DHTNED. 13 ac (57.400 s.l.) 20.900 S.L 28.0X .364 72 (3.44 / 10001 3 (1 VAN) 18 (25.0'/.l 1254 S.I. 1260 S.I. ZONE: SITE AREA (GROSS): SITE AREA (NET): BUILDING AREA: COVERAGE ITO GROSS): F.A.a (TO GROSS): PARKING: PARKING (COMPACTI: P-M • 1.0 ac MIN. LOT. MAX. 50% COVEROGE ! 14.6 ac. (637,000 s.l.) t 9.7 ac. 1422.000 s.1.1 t 146,800 s.f. 17.9% J30 498 (3.39 / 10001 115 (24.2X1 SITE AREA (GROSS): BUILOING AREA: COVERAGE: PARKING (TOTAL): PARKING (ADA): PARKING (COMPACT): LUNCH PATIO REQUIREO: LUNCH PATIO PROVIOED: SITE AREA (GROSS): BUILOING AREA: COVERAGE: F.A.Rj PARKING ITOTAL): PARKING (AOAl: PARKING (COMPACTI: LUNCH PATIO REQUIRED: LUNCH PATIO PROVIOED: '•S ac (84.000 s.I.l 17.800 S.L 15.8% .211 59 13.31 / 3 (1 VANI n (20.3X1 1068 s.1 1070 s.f. 10001 SITE AREA (GROSSl: BUILOING AREA: COVERAGE: F.A.R.: PARKING (TOTALI: PARKING (ADA): PARKING (COMPACTI: LUNCH PATIO REQUIRED: LUNCH PATIO PROVIDED: 17 ac (74.5 0 0 s.I.l 20.800 s.l. 22.5X .279 73 13.51 / 3 |1 VANI 18 (24.7X1 1248 S.f. 1260 S.(. 10001 CARLTAS COMPANIES Preliminary Site Plan NORTH POrNTE WEST SITE AREA (GROSSl: BUILOING AREA: COVERAGE: F.A.R.: PARKING (TOTALI: PARKING (ADA): PARKING (COMPACT)- LUNCH PATIO REQUIRED- LUNCH PATIO PROVDEO- 2.4 ac (103,100 s.l.) 14.400 s.l. 10.0% .140 48 (3.33 / 1000) 2 [1 VANI 12 (25.0%) 864 S.L 880 S l. Job #: 00300 SCALE.- (• . 40' - 0" RaM 02/14/01 SmithCorisyftmgArchitects 12220 El C.minoRo.ll Suito 200 San Di.-go. CA 02130 (30y| 793..1777 Plate No. 1 CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING May 26,1999 Legacy Partners CWE198.064.il 30 Executive Park, Suite 100 Inane, California 92614 ATTENTION: Matt Adams SUBJECT: REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING, LINCOLN NORTHPOINE, CARLSBAD TRACT 98-07, EL CAMINO REAL, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA. Reference: 1) "Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation for Lincoln Northpointe, Carlsbad, Califomia," Robert Prater Associates, dafe^/December 2,1997. 2) "Geotechnical Investigation for Hughes Project, Carlsbad, CaUfomia," by Robert Prater Associates, cfefet/March 27,1997. Ladies/Gentlemen, In accordance with your request and the requirements of Section 1701.5.13 of the Uniform Building Code, Christian Wheeler Engineering has prepared this report to summarize our observations of the earthwork operations and present the results of density tests performed in the compacted fiUs placed during the precise grading operation. Our observation and testing services were provided during the period of October 26 through December 15,1999. INTRODTICTTOM AND PROJFCT DESCRTPTION SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site addressed by this report is a roughly rectangular shaped, approximately 50 acre parcel located in Carlsbad, CaHfomia. The site is bounded by El Camino Real 4925 Mercury Street ^ San Diego, CA 92111 4 858-496-9760 • FAX 858-496-9758 CWE 198.064.11 May 26,1999 on un con the east, developed light industrial properties on the soudi and west, and a golf practice range on the north. The site had been previously developed widi a manufacturing facility, and associated driveway, parking and utility improvements. The westerly approximately one-third of the parcel was developed. The developed easterly portion of the site had been graded to a nearly level figuration at the approximate elevation of El Camino Real. The westery undeveloped portion of the site was in an undisturbed condition and sloped gently to moderately to a weU defmed natiiral drainage channel along the westerly site boundary. The site was sparsely vegetated with die exception of die westerly drainage channel, which was heavHy vegetated widi mature eucalyptus trees and indigenous shrubs. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION: It is our understanding diat die subject site is to be developed by die construction of twelve office buildings of concrete tilt-up constiruction, widi seven of die buildings to be constmcted initially and die remaining five at a later date. We anticipate tiiat die proposed structures have conventional shallow foundations and on-grade concrete floors. PLAN REFERENCE: In order to augment our understanding of die designed configuration oftiie project, our firm was provided widi an undated grading plan for die site prepared by O'Day Consultants of Carlsbad, CaHfomia, bearing a date of April 13,1998. Hie plan has been modified by our firm to show significant geotechnical aspects of die eartiiwork and die approximate locations of our field tests, and is reproduced as Plate No. 1 of tiiis report. SCOPE OF SERVICE Services provided by Christian Wheeler Engineering, Inc. during die course of die eartiiwork consisted ofthe foUowing: • Periodic observation of die earthworking operations; • Performance of in-place density tests in the fills placed; . Providing field recommendations to address elements of die work not specifically addressed in the referenced reports; • Performance of laboratory maximum density and optimum moisture detenninations on die soils encountered in the earthwork; and, • Preparation of this report. CWE 198.064.il May 26,1999 3 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING GRADING CONTRACTOR: The earthwork addressed by tiiis report was performed by Pahla Corporation of Vista, contractor's Hcense No. 475879. The primary equipment utiHzed by die contractor in the work consisted of: (2) Caterpillar 657 scrapers; (4) CaterpiUar 637 scrapers; (1) Caterpillar D9L crawler dozer; (1) CaterpiUar D6D crawley: dozer; (1) CaterpUlar 824 wheel dozer w/beegee attachment; (1) 5X5 sheepsfoot roUer; (1) CaterpUlar 631 tractor drawn water tanker; and (1) CaterpUlar MOH motorgrader. SITE PREPARATION DEMOLITION: Prior to earthwork operations, tiie existing buUdings, parking and driveway areas, and site-spedfic utiHties were demoHshed. Deleterious materials generated by the demoHtion operations were removed firom tiie site, except as is noted in die 'Oversized Material' section of tiiis report. Asphaltic and Portiand cement concrete was pulverized and stockpUed onsite for future use in the proposed parking and driveway area structural pavement sections. ALLUVIUM REMOVAL: Removals of potentiaUy compressible aUuvial/coUuvial deposits were performed prior to the placement of fiU. These removals extended to maximum depdis on the order of 15 feet below the original ground contours along die west property boundary. The excavations were at their deepest at the west and soudi sides of Lot 12, and became less deep as tihiey progressed north along die west side of Lots 9,10, and 11. The potentiaUy compressible surficial deposits were taken down to contact with the underlying formational mudstone or sandstone. The removals were necessary in order to reduce the potential for settlements that could occur if the soUs were left in place. KEYWAYS: In order to lessen die potential for down-slope movement of die engineered fills, keyways were constructed alon the toe portions of the proposed slopes at the northem, southem, and westem site perimeters, and at die west side of Lots 7 and 8. The keyways were cut into die competent formational material to widdis on die order of 15 to 20 feet, and were sloped back into CWE 198.064.il May 26,1999 die hiUside at and approximate 2 percent gradient. The keyways extended approximately two feet into the formational material. SUBDRAIN: During die excavation of die keyway along the nortii and west sides of Lot 5, it was found diat die formational soUs were in a satiirated condition. It is speculated diat die sahiration was die result of die migration of irrigation water originating from die adjacent property to die nordi. In order to aUeviate die potential for die development of hydrostatic pressure in die proposed fiUs diat could contrivute to faUures of die slopes, a subdrain was instaUed at die toe of die keyway. The subdrain consisted of a 6-inch perforated pipe set in a matrix of open-graded gravel and wrappejl widi a geotextile filter fabric. The drain was configured to discharge from die toe area of die west facing slope of Lot 5. OVERSIZED MATERIAL: A significant quantity of concrete rubble was encountered dunng die excavations made between Lots 5 and 7. The rubble was apparentiy remaining from the foundations of die buUdings and associated improvements diat had previously occupied die site and had not been completely removed during die demoHtion operations. The oversized materials were removed and placed in deep fiU areas of Lot 9. The concrete fragments were individuaUy placed and maintained at least 15 feet below die proposed finish grade elevation. EXISTING SEWER: An existing sewer Hne extended in an east/west direction dirough Lot 9. The backfiU of die trench located to die west of an existing manhole in Lot 9 was found to be in a loose condition and was remomed and recompacted The drench backfiU to die east of die manhole was found to be in a compacted condition and was left in place. PAD UNDERCUTS: On lots in which a cut/fiU transition Hne extended dirough die proposed buUding area, and die location of die proposed buUdings was known, die cut portions of die buUding area were undercut and replaced widi compacted fiU. TTiese operations were performed in order to provide a uniform soU condition beneadi die foundations. The undercuts extended to at least diree feet below die finish grade elevations of die respective pads, and horizontaUy to at least five feet beyond die perimeter of die proposed buUdings. The transition undercuts were not performed on lots 5, 9,10,11 and 12 because die ultimate position of buUdings on diese lots was not known at die time the earthwork was performed. FOUNDATION UNDERCUTS: During the eartiiwork performed on Lots 7 and 8, highly expansive existing fiUs were encountered widiin die foundation zones in die westerly portions of die CWE198.064.il May 26,1999 proposed buUdings. The expansive soUs were removed to at least duree feet below die bottom of die proposed footings, and horizontaUy at least five feet each way of the footings. Due to the design for deepened footings in die loading dock areas of die buUdings, the removals extended to maximum depdis on die order of twelve feet below finished grade in tiie loading dock areas. SELECT GRADING: Highly expansive soUs were encountered at finish grade elevation in Lot No. 1. In order to lessen die potential for distress to the proposed stnictures diat could occur as a result of heaving of the expansive soUs, die soUs were removed firom die upper four feet of die buUding area. Because die removal of die expansive soUs resulted in a cut/fiU transition in die , buUding area, die cut portion was fiirtiier undercut to at least tiiree feet below finish grade, as described in die Tad Undercut' paragraph, above. The undercut areas were replaced widi non- detrimetaUy expansive soUs obtained firom cuts in odier areas of die site. FILL PLACEMENT: The fiUs placed on die site were comprised of soUs obtained firom die onsite cuts and removals, consisting primarily of sUty fine sands, and to a lesser extent, clayey fine sands. The fiU soUs were typicaUy at or above optimum moisture content as diey were excavated, however, in instances where die soUs were below optimum moistiire content, diey were watered to at least optimum levels. Deleterious materials were removed from die fiUs by hand as die fiUs were placed. FUl soUs containing rocks up to typicaUy twelve inches in greatest dimension were pennitted in die deeper areas of die fiUs; widiin die uppemiost two feet of die fiUs, rocks greater dian six inches in greatest dimension were not pennitted The soUs were placed in diin Hfts and compacted in place by means of wheel roUing widi heavy construction equipment. FILL SLOPES: Perimeter fiU slopes along die soudi, west and nortii boundaries were constnicted at die designed gradients and compacted in vertical intervals on die order of four to five feet widi a sheepsfoot roUer as die height of die fiUs increased The slope faces were fiirther densified by track waUdng widi a crawler dozer after die fiUs were completed Portions of die existing fiU slope at die interior of die site, west of Lots 7 and 8, had to be extended The extension of die slope was achieved by die excavation of a keyway, as previously described, and die placement and compaction of fiUs in horizontal Hfts. The face of die slope was over-buUt by approximately five feet, dien cut back to the designed contours. CWE 198.064.11 May 26,1999 FTELD AND LABORATORYTESTING FIELD TESTS: Field tests to measure die relative compaction of die fiUs were conducted in accordance widi ASTM Test Designation D 2922-91; "Standard Test Metiiods for Density of SoU and SoU-Aggregate in Place by Nuclear Methods." The locations of tiie field tests were selected by our technician in areas discerned to exhibit relative compaction that was generaUy representative of that attained in die fUl. The results and approximate locations of die field tests are presented on die attached plates. LABORATORY TESTS: The maximum dry density and optimum moistiire content of die predominate soUs encountered in die eartiiwork were performed in our laboratory by ASTM Test Designation D 1557-91; 'Test Mediod for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of SoU Using Modified Effort". The tests were conducted in accordance with die methodology prescribed for the grain-size distribution of the soUs tested. The results of diese tests are presented on the attached Plate No. 9. CONCLUSIONS GENERAL: It is the opinion of Christian Wheeler Engineering diat tiie eartiiwork addressed by this report has been performed substantiaUy in accordance with die recommendations presented in tiie referenced geotechnical reports, the City of Carlsbad grading ordinance and the Uniform BuUding Code. This opinion is based upon our observations of the earthwork operations, die results of die density tests taken in tiie field, and die maximum density tests performed in our laboratory. It is our fiirther opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed construction. Our recommendations for tiie minimum design of foundations for die proposed structures are presented below in the "Foundations" section of this report REMAINING WORK: As of the date of this report, additional work is ongoing for tiie backfiUing of UtUity trenches and the preparation of the subgrade and base courses in areas to be paved. Our firm is continuing in our testing program on a periodic basis. Reports summarizing the tests performed on the site improvements wiU be submitted upon dieir completion. CWE 198.064.11 May 26,1999 FOinSTDATTON RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL: It is our opinion diat die proposed structures may be supported by conventional continuous and spread footings. Specific detaUs for die design of die foundations should be provided by die stiructiiral engineer for die project; however, die foundations should incorporate tiie minimum recommendations presented in the foUowing paragraphs. EXPANSION CHARACTERISTICS: The soUs present widiin die zone of influence of die proposed foundations were visuaUy classified as being non-detrimentaUy expansive. The recommendations presented herein reflect this condition. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS: Conventional continuous and spread footings supporting die proposed structiires should be founded at least 18 inches below die lowest adjacent finished grade. Continuous footings should have a minimum widtii of - inches. Horizontal dimensions of isolated footings should be at least 24 inches by 24 inches. BEARING CAPACITY: Conventional footijigs widi tiie above recommended niinimum dimensions may be designed for and aUowable soU bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot This value may be increased by one-tiiird for combinations of temporary loads such as diose due to wind or seismic loads. FOOTING REINFORCING: Based on the as-graded soU conditions, we recommend tiiat the minimum reinforcing for continuous footings consist of at least two No. 4 bars positioned diree inches above die bottrom of die footing and two No. 4 bars positioned two inches below die top of the footing. LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE: Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction berween die bottom of die footing and tiie supporting soU, and by die passive pressure against die footing. The coefficient of fiiction between concrete and soU may be considered to be 0.35. The passive resistance may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot This assumes die footings are cast tight against undisttirbed soUs. If a combination of die passive pressure and friction is used, die firiction value should be reduced by one-tiiird CWE 198.064.11 May 26,1999 8 FOUNDATION OBSERVATION: In order to confirm that die footing excavations extend into a suitable bearing sttrattim and to verify diat die footing dimensions and reinforcing steel schedules are in accordance widi the minimum recommendations provided by die geotechnical engineer. Christian Wheeler Engineering should be contacted to observe the excavations in advance of stiructural inspections diat may be conducted or required by die BuUding Official. LIMITATIONS The descriptions, conclusions and opinions presented in diis report pertain only to die work performed on die subject site during die period firom October 26 to December 15,1998. As Hmited by the scope of die services which we agreed to perform die conclusions and opinions presented herein are based upon our observations of die work and die results of our laboratory and field tests. Our services were performed in accordance widi die cunentiy accepted standard of practice in die region in which die eartiiwork was performed, and in such a manner as to provide a reasonable measure of die compUance of die described work widi appHcable codes and specifications. Witii tiie submittral of diis report, no warranty, express or impHed, is given or intended widi respect to die services performed by our firm, and OLur performance of diose services should not be constirued to reHeve the grading contiractor of his responsibUity to perform his work to die standards required by the appHcable buUding codes and project specifications. Christian Wheeler Engineering sincerely appreciates die opporttmity to provide professional sentice on this project. Ifyou should have any questions after reviewing diis report, please do not hesitate to contact our firm. RespectfiiUy submitted, CHRISnAN WHEELER ENGINEERING Charles H. Christian, RG.E. 00215 CWE 198.064 Januar)', 1999 Plate 2 JOB NAME: LincoHi Northpointe JOB NUMBER: 198.064 Test Elevation Moisture Dry Density Soil Max. Density Relative No. Date Location or Depth % Ib/ft^ Type lb/ft' Compaction 1 27-Oct See Plot 214 19.6 96.2 4 104.6 92.0% 2 27-Oct See Plot 216 18.8 96 4 104.6 91.8% 3 27-Oct See Plot 216 15.5 106 2 118 89.8% 4 27-Oct See Plot 219 14.2 105.4 2 118 89.3% 5 27-Oct See Plot 223 19.2 98.4 4 104.6 94.1% 6 27-Oct See Plot 223 21 99 4 104.6 94.6% 7 28-Oct See Plot 231 20.9 90.7 4 104.6 86.7% 8 28-Oct Retest #7 231 19 94.4 4 104.6 90.2% 9 28-Oct See Plot 227 22.8 90.1 4 104.6 86.1% 10 28-Oct Retest #9 227 20.3 100.8 4 104.6 96.4% 11 28-Oct See Plot 233 20.3 100.8 4 104.6 96.4% 12 29-Oct See Plot 235 15.8 101.8 4 104.6 97.3% 13 29-Oct See Plot 235 16.6 94.1 4 104.6 90.0% 14 29-Oct See Plot 236 17.3 94.8 4 104.6 90.6% 15 29-Oct See Plot 225 21.9 94.4 4 104.6 90.2% 16 29-Oct See Plot 237 22.3 96.8 4 104.6 92.5% 17 29-Oct See Plot 239 21.4 97.7 4 104.6 93.4% 18 30-Oct See Plot 241 17.7 102.3 4 104.6 97.8% 19 30-Oct See Plot 237 18.3 100.5 4 104.6 96.1% 20 30-Oct See Plot 238.5 18.7 102.5 4 104.6 98.0% 21 30-Oct See Plot 232.3 17.3 97.6 4 104.6 93.3% 22 30-Oct See Plot 232.3 20 96.5 4 104.6 92.3% 23 2-Nov See Plot 240 19.1 98.6 4 104.6 94.3% 24 2-Nov See Plot 240.5 20 97.8 4 104.6 93.5% 25 2-Nov See Plot 241.5 18.6 96.4 4 104.6 92.2% 26 2-Nov See Plot 231 17.3 97.6 4 104.6 93.3% 27 2-Nov See Plot 232.3 20 96.5 4 104.6 92.3% 28 2-Nov See Plot 240 19.1 98.6 4 104.6 94.3% 29 2-Nov See Plot 240.5 20 97.8 4 104.6 93.5% 30 2-Nov See Plot 241.5 18.6 96.4 4 104.6 92.2% 31 2-Nov See Plot 248 18.5 90.4 4 104.6 86.4% 32 2-Nov See Plot 248 21.6 90.6 4 104.6 86.6% 33 2-Nov See Plot 247 24.5 94.5 4 104.6 90.3% 34 2-Nov See Plot 246.5 22.8 94.1 4 104.6 90.0% 35 3-Nov Retest #31 248 17.8 96.5 4 104.6 92.3% CWE 198.064 January, 1999 Plate 3 Test Elevation Moisture Dty Density Soil Max. Density Relative No. Date Location or Depth % lb/ft' Type lb/ft' Compaction 36 3-Nov Retest #32 248 13.1 101.9 4 104.6 97.4% 37 3-Nov See Plot 249 18.4 94.5 4 104.6 90.3% 38 3-Nov See Plot 250 21.6 98.3 4 104.6 94.0% 39 3-Nov See Plot 251.5 25.5 100.3 4 104.6 95.9% 40 3-Nov See Plot 253 19 100.7 4 104.6 96.3% 41 4-Nov See Plot 231.5 20.6 99.1 4 104.6 94.7% 42 4-Nov See Plot 235 19.4 100.4 4 104.6 96.0% 43 4-Nov See Plot 235 21.5 103.4 4 104.6 98.9% 44 4-Nov See Plot 234 14.5 103.7 4 104.6 , 99.1% 45 4-Nov See Plot 235.5 18.7 99.5 4 104.6 95.1% 46 4-Nov See Plot 234 21.6 102.4 4 104.6 97.9% 47 4-Nov See Plot 235 21.1 98.9 4 104.6 94.6% 48 4-Nov See Plot 233.5 20.8 96.1 4 104.6 91.9% 49 4-Nov See Plot 234.5 18.7 97.2 4 104.6 92.9% 50 4-Nov See Plot 234 20.4 101.5 4 104.6 97.0% 51 4-Nov See Plot 235.5 19.5 99.8 4 104.6 95.4% 52 4-Nov See Plot 234 18.9 97.7 4 104.6 93.4% 53 4-Nov See Plot 234 19.7 100.5 4 104.6 96.1% 54 4-Nov See Plot 235 20.2 98.5 4 104.6 94.2% 55 5-Nov See Plot 238 21.9 97.9 4 104.6 93.6% 56 5-Nov See Plot 237 20.4 96.6 4 104.6 92.4% 57 5-Nov See Plot 240.5 21.3 97.6 4 104.6 93.3% 58 5-Nov See Plot 241.5 21.8 100.5 4 104.6 96.1% 59 5-Nov See Plot 240.5 15.2 96.9 4 104.6 92.6% 60 5-Nov See Plot 241.5 15.1 98.6 4 104.6 94.3% 61 5-Nov See Plot 240 20.2 96.5 4 104.6 92.3% 62 5-Nov See Plot 241 16 96.4 4 104.6 92.2% 63 5-Nov See Plot 242.5 21.2 99.7 4 104.6 95.3% 64 5-Nov See Plot 243 20.2 96.5 4 104.6 92.3% 65 6-Nov See Plot 240.5 17.5 101.2 4 104.6 96.7% 66 6-Nov See Plot 242 13.6 107.1 5 118.3 90.5% 67 6-Nov See Plot 243.5 21.5 108 5 118.3 91.3% 68 6-Nov See Plot 244 21.2 98.9 4 104.6 94.6% 69 6-Nov See Plot 245.5 12.2 107.1 5 118.3 90.5% 70 6-Nov See Plot 246.5 10.3 108.3 5 118.3 91.5% 71 6-Nov See Plot 245.5 19 99.5 4 104.6 95.1% 72 6-Nov See Plot 246.5 21.2 96.2 4 104.6 92.0% 73 6-Nov See Plot 244 11.8 ~ ~ ~ ~ 74 6-Nov See Plot 245 21.5 101.3 4 104.6 96.8% 75 9-Nov See Plot 246 16.9 100.7 4 104.6 96.3% 76 9-Nov See Plot 249 16.1 100.5 4 104.6 96.1% 77 9-Nov See Plot 247 14.4 104.2 4 99.6 104.6% I CWE 198.064 January, 1999 Plate 4 Test Elevation Moisture Dry Density SoQ Max. Density Relative No. Date Location or Depth % Ib/ft^ Type Ib/ft^ Compaction 78 9-Nov See Plot 248 15.1 100.9 4 104.6 96.5% 79 9-Nov See Plot 249 16 89.1 4 104.6 85.2% 80 9-Nov See Plot 247 14.6 97.4 4 104.6 93.1% 81 9-Nov See Plot 259 13.9 97.4 4 104.6 93.1% 82 9-Nov See Plot 255 19.5 104.1 4 104.6 99.5% 83 9-Nov See Plot 248 18.8 95.8 4 104.6 91.6% 84 9-Nov Retest #79 249 14.2 93.9 4 104.6 90.0% 85 10-Nov See Plot 245 17.8 103.2 4 104.6 98.7% 86 10-Nov See Plot 250 20.9 86.7 4 104.6 82.9% 87 10-Nov See Plot 246 17.8 96 4 104.6 91.8% 88 10-Nov See Plot 250.5 17.4 104.4 7 113.8 91.7% 89 10-Nov See Plot 250 13.9 106.1 7 113.8 93.2% 90 10-Nov See Plot 249 18.2 109.7 7 113.8 96.4% 91 10-Nov See Plot 258 14.5 109.1 7 113.8 95.9% 92 10-Nov See Plot 245.5 19.2 105.1 7 113.8 92.4% 93 10-Nov See Plot 244.5 14.6 102.9 7 113.8 90.4% 94 11-Nov See Plot 244.5 22 103.5 7 113.8 90.9% 95 11-Nov See Plot 258 19.2 105.8 7 113.8 93.0% 96 12-Nov See Plot 244 14.4 106.7 1 118 90.4% 97 11-Nov Sewer BackfiU 268 17.3 100.6 4 104.6 96.2% 98 11-Nov See Plot 264 12.4 104.6 4 104.6 100.0% 99 12-Nov See Plot 264 16.9 105.1 3 116.7 90.1% 100 12-Nov See Plot 264 16.9 103.2 3 116.7 88.4% 101 12-Nov Retest #100 251 13.9 111.5 1 118 94.5% 102 12-Nov See Plot 248 20.4 105 3 116.7 90.0% 103 12-Nov See Plot 248 20.6 104.9 3 116.7 89.9% 104 13-Nov See Plot 246 20.7 104.8 7 113.8 92.1% 105 13-Nov See Plot 247 19 101.9 7 113.8 89.5% 106 13-Nov Retest #105 247.5 19.8 102.6 7 113.8 90.2% 107 13-Nov See Plot 249 20.7 99.7 4 104.6 95.3% 108 13-Nov See Plot 250.5 15 99.4 4 104.6 95.0% 109 13-Nov See Plot 246 17.9 105.4 7 113.8 92.6% 110 13-Nov See Plot 247 20.3 103 7 113.8 90.5% 111 13-Nov See Plot 254 21.8 100.5 4 104.6 96.1% 112 13-Nov See Plot 256 16.1 103.6 7 113.8 91.0% 113 13-Nov See Plot 260 16.6 101.8 4 104.6 97.3% 114 13-Nov See Plot 260.5 15.6 102.6 4 104.6 98.1% 115 16-Nov See Plot 255.5 15 101.3 4 104.6 96.8% 116 16-Nov See Plot 256 15.6 106.4 7 113.8 93.5% 117 16-Nov See Plot 266 17.6 99.9 4 104.6 95.5% 118 16-Nov See Plot 248 16.6 105.3 7 113.8 92.5% 119 16-Nov See Plot 248 18.2 104.9 7 113.8 92.2% I ! CWE 198.064 January, 1999 Plate 5 Test Elevation Moismre Dry Density Soil Max. Density Relative No. Date Location or Depth % lb/ft' Type Ib/ft^ Compaction 120 16-Nov See Plot 254 16.7 102.8 7 113.8 90.3% 121 16-Nov See Plot 255 19.7 98.9 4 104.6 94.6% 122 16-Nov See Plot 257 18.6 103.2 7 113.8 90.7% 123 16-Nov See Plot 261 17.6 101.8 4 104.6 97.3% 124 16-Nov See Plot 262 15.8 106.6 7 113.8 93.7% 125 16-Nov See Plot 267 20 103.5 7 113.8 90.9% 126 16-Nov See Plot 268 19.3 101.6 1 104.6 97.1% 127 17-Nov See Plot 268 21.2 98.9 4 104.6 94.6% 128 17-Nov See Plot 266 19.4 96 4 104.6 91.8% 129 17-Nov See Plot 264 211.1 100.2 4 104.6 95.8% 130 17-Nov See Plot 266 20.6 98.1 4 104.6 93.8% 131 17-Nov See Plot 264 17.9 99.5 4 104.6 95.1% 132 17-Nov SeePlot 267 18.6 100.1 4 104.6 95.7% 133 17-Nov See Plot 270 17.9 99.8 4 104.6 95.4% 134 17-Nov See Plot 260 20.3 98.8 4 104.6 94.5% 135 17-Nov See Plot 262 18 96.4 4 104.6 92.2% 136 17-Nov See Plot 266 17.1 95.4 4 104.6 91.2% 137 17-Nov See Plot 286 21.6 94 4 104.6 89.9% 138 17-Nov See Plot 285 17.2 99.2 4 104.6 94.8% 139 17-Nov See Plot 267 18.3 97.1 4 104.6 92.8% 140 17-Nov SeePlot 270 18.7 97 4 104.6 92.7% 141 17-Nov See Plot 290.5 16.3 106.5 7 113.8 93.6% 142 17-Nov See Plot 291 17 106 7 113.8 93.1% 143 17-Nov SeePlot 292 16.6 107.9 7 113.8 94.8% 144 17-Nov SeePlot 292 16.4 103.7 7 113.8 91.1% 145 17-Nov See Plot 293 18.2 104.6 7 113.8 91.9% 146 17-Nov See Plot 293 17 106.8 7 113.8 93.8% 147 17-Nov See Plot 288 16.2 107.7 7 113.8 94.6% 148 17-Nov See Plot 288 16.8 104.1 7 113.8 91.5% 149 19-Nov See Plot 288.5 14.9 105.3 7 113.8 92.5% 150 19-Nov See Plot 289 16.7 106.1 7 113.8 93.2% 151 19-Nov See Plot 286 13.8 102.6 7 113.8 90.2% 152 19-Nov SeePlot 289 14.4 104.5 7 113.8 91.8% 153 19-Nov See Plot 271 14.1 105.2 7 113.8 92.4% 154 19-Nov See Plot 271.5 15.7 106 7 113.8 93.1% 155 19-Nov SeePlot 270 14.8 104.5 7 113.8 91.8% 156 19-Nov See Plot 270 16 107.1 7 113.8 94.1% 157 20-Nov See Plot 288 13 102.8 7 113.8 90.3% 158 20-Nov SeePlot 289 12.6 103.7 7 113.8 91.1% 159 20-Nov SeePlot 275 12.7 110.1 7 113.8 96.7% 160 20-Nov See Plot 273 13.5 107.1 7 113.8 94.1% 161 20-Nov See Plot 276 14.5 106.3 7 113.8 93.4% ! I S CWE 198.064 January, 1999 Plate 6 Test Elevation Moismre Dry Density Soil Max. Density Relative No. Date Location or Depth % lb/ft' Type Ib/ft' Compaction 162 20-Nov See Plot 274 22 94.2 4 104.6 90.1% 163 20-Nov See Plot 280 14.4 107.1 7 113.8 94.1% 164 23-Nov See Plot 293.7 15.6 104.7 7 113.8 92.0% 165 23-Nov See Plot 293.7 16 106.5 7 113.8 93.6% 166 23-Nov See Plot 290.2 16.3 104.3 7 113.8 91.7% 167 23-Nov See Plot 290.2 15.2 107.1 7 113.8 94.1% 168 23-Nov See Plot 284 16.9 103.8 7 113.8 91.2% 169 23-Nov See Plot 280 17.1 105 7 113.8 92.3% 170 23-Nov See Plot 270 16.9 102.8 7 113.8 90.3% 171 24-Nov See Plot 254.5 13.4 102.7 7 113.8 90.2% 172 24-Nov See Plot 288 17.8 105.6 7 113.8 92.8% 173 24-Nov See Plot 288 17.7 102.3 7 113.8 89.9% 174 24-Nov See Plot 289.5 17.6 99 7 113.8 87.0% 175 24-Nov See Plot 289.5 14.4 97.5 7 113.8 85.7% 176 25-Nov See Plot 289 16 102.3 7 113.8 89.9% 177 25-Nov See Plot 289 16.5 101 7 113.8 88.8% 178 25-Nov See Plot 289 17.7 102.3 7 113.8 89.9% 179 25-Nov See Plot 289.5 16 102.6 7 113.8 90.2% 180 25-Nov See Plot 289.5 17.3 103.5 7 113.8 90.9% 181 25-Nov See Plot 280 14.1 103.4 7 113.8 90.9% 182 25-Nov SeePlot 280.5 16.6 106.7 7 113.8 93.8% 183 25-Nov See Plot 263 18.8 102.5 7 113.8 90.1% 184 25-Nov See Plot 264 15.1 107.9 7 113.8 94.8% 185 25-Nov See Plot 261 16.5 107 7 113.8 94.0% 186 25-Nov See Plot 262 13 109.5 7 113.8 96.2% 187 25-Nov See Plot 263 12.8 104.6 7 113.8 91.9% 188 25-Nov See Plot 263.5 14.9 103.7 7 113.8 91.1% 189 30-Nov Lot 9 266 17.9 107.2 7 113.8 94.2% 190 30-Nov Lot 9 264 17.1 100.5 7 113.8 88.3% 191 30-Nov Lot 9 262 16.9 99.6 7 113.8 87.5% 192 30-Nov LotlO 260 16.4 94.5 7 113.8 83.0% 193 30-Nov Retest #190 264 17 104.2 7 113.8 91.6% 194 30-Nov Retest #191 262 16.7 106 7 113.8 93.1% 195 30-Nov Retest #192 260 16.2 103.8 7 113.8 91.2% 196 30-Nov Lot 5 284 13.6 102.9 7 113.8 90.4% 197 30-Nov Lot 5 288 13 103.5 7 113.8 90.9% 198 30-Nov Lot 5 286 17.3 106 7 113.8 93.1% 199 30-Nov Lot 5 288.5 14.6 108.2 7 113.8 95.1% 200 30-Nov Lot 5 282 13.7 108.5 7 113.8 95.3% 201 1-Dec Lot 8 258 16.9 105.5 7 113.8 92.7% 202 1-Dec Lot 8 260 17.6 104.7 7 113.8 92.0% 203 1-Dec Lot 8 262 16.1 107.3 7 113.8 94.3% I I I CWE 198.064 Januar)', 1999 Plate 7 Test Elevation Moismre Dry Density Soil Max. Density Relative No. Date Location or Depth % lb/ft' Type lb/ft' Compaction 204 1-Dec Lots 262 16.1 107.3 7 113.8 94.3% 205 1-Dec Lot 7 268 16.6 108 7 113.8 94.9% 206 1-Dec Lot 7 260 17.2 105.6 7 113.8 92.8% 207 1-Dec See Plot 255 19.9 99.2 7 113.8 87.2% 208 3-Dec See Plot 256 15.3 101.2 7 113.8 88.9% 209 3-Dec See Plot 255 14.4 102.3 7 113.8 89.9% 210 3-Dec Retest #207 255 17.7 102.9 7 113.8 90.4% 211 3-Dec Lot 12 257 23.6 96 7 113.8 84.4% 212 3-Dec Lot 12 255 23.2 96.8 7 113.8 85.1% 213 3-Dec Retest #211 255 17.1 102.6 7 113.8 90.2% 214 3-Dec Retest #212 255 16.6 103.6 7 113.8 91.0% 215 3-Dec Lot 12 256 13.6 103.4 7 113.8 90.9% 216 3-Dec Lotll 256 13.3 106.5 7 113.8 93.6% 217 3-Dec Lotll 255 15 108.1 7 113.8 95.0% 218 4-Dec Lot 12 256 17.7 103.5 7 113.8 90.9% 219 4-Dec Lot 12 256 18.9 105.2 7 113.8 92.4% 220 4-Dec Lotll 257 16.6 106.7 7 113.8 93.8% 221 5-Dec Lot 5 274 17.4 98 4 104.6 93.7% 222 5-Dec Lot 5 281.5 20.2 93.3 4 104.6 89.2% 223 5-Dec Retest #222 281.5 19.1 101.6 4 104.6 97.1% 224 5-Dec Lotll 253 21.3 98.1 4 104.6 93.8% 225 5-Dec Lot 5 281 18.6 99.8 4 104.6 95.4% 226 5-Dec Lot 5 281.5 19.2 97.6 4 104.6 93.3% 227 5-Dec Lot 5 278 17.8 102.6 4 104.6 98.1% 228 7-Dec See Plot 280 15.3 101.5 4 104.6 97.0% 229 7-Dec See Plot 280.5 16.7 102.7 4 104.6 98.2% 230 7-Dec See Plot 277 17.1 99.7 4 104.6 95.3% 231 7-Dec See Plot 277 16 104.8 7 113.8 92.1% 232 7-Dec See Plot 278 14.6 100.4 4 104.6 96.0% 233 7-Dec See Plot 278 17.6 98.9 4 104.6 94.6% 234 7-Dec See Plot 276 10 104.1 7 113.8 91.5% 235 7-Dec See Plot 276.5 11.2 98.6 4 104.6 94.3% 236 7-Dec See Plot 270 12.6 99.4 4 104.6 95.0% 237 7-Dec See Plot 270 11.2 99.7 4 104.6 95.3% 238 8-Dec See Plot 282 15.7 94.9 4 104.6 90.7% 239 8-Dec See Plot 282 14.3 105.8 7 113.8 93.0% 240 8-Dec See Plot 282 15.2 102.5 7 113.8 90.1% 241 8-Dec Lot 7 283 16.2 103.1 7 113.8 90.6% 242 8-Dec Lot 8 282 16.8 105.1 7 113.8 92.4% 243 8-Dec Lot 8 284 18.7 99.1 7 113.8 87.1% 244 8-Dec Lots 283 17.6 93.6 7 113.8 82.2% 245 8-Dec Lot 8 283 16.1 99.2 7 113.8 87.2% CWE 198.064 January, 1999 Plate 8 Test Elevation Moismre Dry Density Soil Max. Density Relative No. Date Location or Depth % lb/ft' Type lb/ft' Compactic 246 8-Dec Retest #243 284 13.9 104.2 7 113.8 91.6% 247 8-Dec Retest #244,245 283 15.5 105.8 7 113.8 93.0% 248 9-Dec Lots 285 14.3 106.6 7 113.8 93.7% 249 9-Dec Lots 285 14.6 103.3 7 113.8 90.8% 250 9-Dec Lot 7 285 13.4 104.3 7 113.8 91.7% 251 9-Dec Lot 7 13.9 105.8 7 113.8 93.0% 252 9-Dec Lots 287 14.4 106.8 7 113.8 93.8% 253 9-Dec Lots 287 14.7 105.5 7 113.8 92.7% 254 10-Dec LotlO 256 20 100.6 3 116.6 86.3% 255 10-Dec LotlO 257 19.3 101.5 3 116.6 87.0% 256 10-Dec Lot 12 256 17.9 106 3 116.6 90.9% 257 10-Dec Lot 12 256 20.2 103.9 3 116.6 89.1% 258 10-Dec Lots 288 14.5 98.3 7 113.8 86.4% 259 10-Dec Lot 7 281 19.8 97.5 3 116.6 83.6% 260 11-Dec Retest #254 256 16.6 106.9 3 116.6 91.7% 261 11-Dec Retest #255 257 14.4 106.8 3 116.6 91.6% 262 11-Dec Retest #257 256 15.2 108.7 3 116.6 93.2% 263 11-Dec Retest #258 288 14 104.4 7 113.8 91.7% 264 11-Dec Retest #259 281 16.7 108.1 7 113.8 95.0% 265 14-Dec LotlO 262 18.3 104.7 7 113.8 92.0% 266 14-Dec LotlO 263 19 104 7 113.8 91.4% 267 14-Dec Lotll 258 15.5 106.8 7 113.8 93.8% 268 14-Dec Lotll 260 18.1 104.3 7 113.8 91.7% 269 14-Dec Lot 12 259 15.9 107.1 7 113.8 94.1% 270 14-Dec Lot 12 260 15.2 107.7 7 113.8 94.6% 271 15-Dec LotlO 265 14.1 108.2 7 113.8 95.1% 272 15-Dec LotlO 263 13.3 105.1 7 113.8 92.4% 273 15-Dec LotlO 262 14.7 106.2 7 113.8 93.3% 274 15-Dec Lotll 262 16.1 105.5 7 113.8 92.7% 275 15-Dec Lotll 259 17 107.8 7 113.8 94.7% 276 15-Dec Lotll 258 14.5 103.5 7 113.8 90.9% 277 16-Dec LotlO 264 19.8 106.4 7 113.8 93.5% 278 16-Dec Lotll 263 18.7 105.8 7 113.8 93.0% 279 18-Dec Lotll 260 11.8 106.8 7 113.8 93.8% 280 18-Dec Lotll 261 11.5 104.8 7 113.8 92.1% 281 18-Dec Lot 12 262 11.7 103.3 7 113.8 90.8% 282 18-Dec Lot 10 263 12.8 104.1 7 113.8 91.5% 283 18-Dec Lot 10 261 18 105.7 7 113.8 92.9% 284 22-Dec Lot 7 F.G. 16.6 106.6 7 113.8 93.7% 285 22-Dec Lot 7 F.G. 14.7 108.9 7 113.8 95.7% 286 22-Dec Lots F.G. 16.1 105 7 113.8 92.3% 287 22-Dec Lots F.G. 16.8 106.1 7 113.8 93.2% CWE 198.064 January, 1999 Plate 9 I i Test Elevation Moismre Dty Density Soil Max. Density Relative No. Date Location or Depth % lb/ft' Type lb/ft' Compactic 288 5-Jan WaUBkfl +3.0 16.8 104.2 7 113.8 91.6% 289 5-Jan WaUBkfl •f3.0 16.2 103.1 7 113.8 90.6% 290 5-Jan WaUBkfl -t-io.o 15.5 104.8 7 113.8 92.7% 291 8-Jan LotlO 255 14.6 103.2 7 113.8 90.7% 292 8-Jan Lot 9 260 15.5 104.1 7 113.8 91.5% 293 8-Jan LotlO 260 15 103.7 7 113.8 91.1% 294 8-Jan Lotll 250 13.7 105 7 113.8 92.3% 295 8-Jan Lot 12 243 14.9 103.1 7 113.8 90.6% 296 8-Jan Lot 12 258 15.7 102.9 7 113.8 90.4% 297 11-Jan LotlO 261 16.2 103.8 7 113.8 91.2% 298 11-Jan Lot 12 262 15.1 103 7 113.8 90.5%