HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 15-09; QUARRY CREEK PA R-4 EAST; FINAL SOILS REPORT; 2017-02-27FINAL REPORT OF TESTING
AND OBSERVATION SERVICES
PERFORMED DURING SITE GRADING
QUARRY CREEK R-4 EAST (LOTS 1 THROUGH 58)
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 27, 2017 PROJECT NO. 07135-42-05
Project No. 07135-42-05
February 27, 2017 Cornerstone Communities 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 600 San Diego, California 92121 Attention: Mr. Jack Robson Subject: FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION
SERVICES PERFORMED DURING SITE GRADING QUARRY CREEK R-4 EAST (LOTS 1 THROUGH 58) CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Robson:
In accordance with your request, we have performed compaction testing and observation services during
grading for Quarry Creek R-4 – East. We performed our services during the period of July 7, 2015,
through December 14, 2016. The scope of our services included the following:
• Observing removal excavations during remedial grading operations, performing field mapping, and providing geotechnical engineering consultation services;
• Observing the grading operations, including the removal and/or processing of topsoil, undocumented fill, alluvium, and undercutting cut lots and cut/fill transition lots.
• Observing and processing the upper surface of the previously compacted fill and the placement of compacted fill.
• Observing construction of a buttress fill located south of the project site.
• Performing in-place density tests in fill placed and compacted at the site.
• Performing laboratory tests to aid in evaluating compaction characteristics of various soil conditions encountered. We also performed laboratory testing on soil samples collected during grading activities and near finish grade to evaluate expansion characteristics, and where
applicable, water-soluble sulfate content.
• Preparing an as-graded geologic map.
• Preparing an interim report of grading for the model lots, dated October 10, 2016
• Preparing this final report of grading.
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL ■ ENVIRONMENTAL ■
6960 Flanders Drive ■ San Diego, California 92121-2974 ■ Telephone 858.558.6900 ■ Fax 858.558.6159
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 2 - February 27, 2017
The purpose of this report is to document that the grading of subject project has been performed in
substantial conformance with the recommendations of the project update geotechnical report.
GENERAL
The Quarry Creek project is located south of State Route 78 and west of College Boulevard in the city
of Carlsbad, California. Areas R-4 is located within the southwestern portion of the overall Quarry Creek
development (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). Area R-4 East consists of 56 lots designated for single-family
residential units.
LB3 Enterprises Incorporated performed the grading. Project Design Consultants prepared the grading
plans titled Mass Grading Plans for Quarry Creek, HDP 11-04, Drawing No. 484-5A, Carlsbad
California, with a City of Carlsbad approval date of June 4, 2015. The grading plans showed sheet
graded pads for R-4. However, grading was performed to the pad grades shown on SB&O, Incorporated
plans titled Tentative Tract Map and Planned Development Permit Site Plan for Quarry Creek Planning
Area R-4A (East), City of Carlsbad, California, dated July 26, 2016. Geocon Incorporated prepared the
project geotechnical report titled Update Geotechnical Investigation, Quarry Creek,
Carlsbad/Oceanside, California, dated February 24, 2015 (Project No. 07135-42-05) and Addendum to
Update Geotechnical Investigation, Quarry Creek, Carlsbad/Oceanside, California, dated March 17,
2015.
We used an AutoCAD file of the grading plans provided by SB&O as the base map to present as-graded
geology and the approximate locations of in-place density tests (Figures 2 and 3, map pocket). The map
depicts slopes, building pads, streets and, current and previous ground topography.
References to elevations and locations herein are based on surveyors’ or grade checkers’ stakes in the
field, elevation shots taken with a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit by the grading contractor,
and/or interpolation from the referenced grading plan. Geocon Incorporated does not provide surveying
services and, therefore, expresses no opinion regarding the accuracy of the as-graded elevations or
surface geometry with respect to the approved grading plans or proper surface drainage.
GRADING
Previous Grading
Portions of the Quarry Creek property have undergone many years of mining, crushing, and screening
to produce commercial aggregate products. The majority of previous mining activity occurred in the
eastern and southern portions of the overall Quarry Creek site. Mining resulted in undocumented fills
and some compacted fill across the former mined areas. Mining and subsequent remedial grading had
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 3 - February 27, 2017
occurred within the eastern portion of the R-4-East. The western portion was undeveloped prior to recent
grading operations.
Reclamation grading of the previously mined area commenced in July 2011 and was completed in
December 2012. During reclamation grading, undocumented fills were removed and replaced as
compacted fill. Drop structures, levees, and rock revetment slopes were constructed along and in Buena
Vista Creek drainage. Reclamation grading resulted in removal of undocumented fill and replacement
with compacted fill on the south side of Buena Vista Creek and majority of the areas north of the creek.
Reclamation grading resulted in large sheet-graded pads in the eastern portion of the site. During the
remedial grading operations adjacent to the creek, some saturated alluvium was left in place. This area
is beyond the proposed residential lots and should not impact future development. A summary of
observations and compaction tests performed during reclamation grading is contained in Geocon’s
report titled Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Quarry Creek,
Carlsbad, California, dated April 4, 2013.
Recent Grading
Grading within the western portion of the overall Quarry Creek project site began with removal of trash,
brush and vegetation from areas to be graded. The brush and deleterious materials were then exported
from the site. Within areas of planned grading, surficial deposits (i.e., undocumented fill, topsoil and
alluvium) were removed to competent Terrace Deposits and the Santiago Formation. The surface of
existing compacted fill and the formational materials was scarified, moisture conditioned, and
recompacted prior to receiving additional fill. Fill soils were then placed and compacted in layers until
design elevations were attained. Fills were placed in lifts no thicker than would allow for adequate
bonding and compaction. Grading generally resulted in an approximately three foot-thick soil cap that
generally consist of very low to medium expansive materials. In general, fill materials placed during
grading consist of clayey to silty sand.
A buttress fill was constructed for the north facing slope along the southern margin of the property. The
purpose of the buttress fill was to intercept a bedding plane shear zone that was encountered near the
toe of the slope. The shear key was approximately 30 feet wide and approximately 3 feet below the
bedding plane shear. A heal drain with associated panel drains where installed before backfilling the
buttress. The heel drain is connected to the storm drain box located near the eastern end of the buttress
fill.
Oversized rock (material > 6 inches) was placed at least three feet below design finish grade in graded
areas. Rock greater than 12 inches exists within the compacted fill placed during previous phases of
grading. Oversize rock was spread out within the compacted fill areas such that soil around the oversize
rock could be compacted by the grading equipment. Although particular attention was given to
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 4 - February 27, 2017
restricting oversize material placement to the criteria described above, some oversize chunks could be
present in the upper portions of the fill areas.
In several lots within the south central portion of the site, highly expansive clayey materials were
exposed at finish grade. This material was undercut and replaced with less expansive soils. The clay was
placed in the deeper portion of the fill.
During the grading operation, we observed compaction procedures and performed in-place density tests
to evaluate the dry density and moisture content of the fill material. We performed in-place density tests
in general conformance with ASTM D 6938, Standard Test Method for In-Place Density and Moisture
Content of Soil and Soil-Aggregate by Nuclear Methods. A summary of in-place density and moisture
content tests for the entire R-4 area (east and west) are presented on Table I. Other units within the
Quarry Creek development were graded concurrently with R-4-East. Therefore, the field density tests
shown on Table I are not in sequential order.
Where fill soil contained rock larger than ¾-inch, a correction was made to the laboratory maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content using methods suggested by AASHTO T224. The values of
maximum dry density and optimum moisture content presented on Table I reflect these corrections.
In general, in-place density test results indicate fill soils have a dry density of at least 90 percent of the
laboratory maximum dry density at or slightly above optimum moisture content at the locations tested.
The approximate locations of in-place density tests taken during grading specific to R-4-East are shown
on Figures 2 and 3.
We performed laboratory tests on samples of soil used for fill to evaluate moisture-density relationships,
optimum moisture content, and maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557), and shear strength
characteristics (AASHTO T-236). Additionally, we performed laboratory tests on soil samples collected
at various stages of grading and near finish grade (soil fill cap) to evaluate expansion potential (ASTM D
4829) and where applicable, water-soluble sulfate content (California Test No. 417). Results of the
laboratory tests are summarized on Tables II through IV.
Slopes
Cut and Fill slopes constructed during grading have an approximate inclination of 2:1
(horizontal:vertical) or flatter, with maximum height of approximately 40 feet. A buttress fill was
constructed for stabilizing the north-facing slope along the southern margin of the project site on the
south side of Marron Road. The shear key for the buttress is approximately 30 feet wide and constructed
3 to 5 feet below the lowest bedding plane shear zone. A heel drain with associated drainage panels were
installed in the backside of the shear key excavation.
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 5 - February 27, 2017
The outer approximately 15 feet of fill slopes were constructed with granular soil and were either over-
filled and cut back or were track-walked with a bulldozer during grading in substantial conformance
with the recommendations of the project geotechnical report. The project slopes have a calculated factor
of safety of at least 1.5 under static conditions with respect to both deep-seated failure and shallow
sloughing conditions.
All slopes should be planted, drained, and maintained to reduce erosion. Slope irrigation should be kept
to a minimum to just support the vegetative cover. Surface drainage should not be allowed to flow over
the tops of slopes.
Finish Grade Soil Conditions
Laboratory test results and field observations indicate that the prevailing soil conditions within the upper
approximately three feet of finish grade have an expansion potential (EI) of 90 or less and considered
as low to medium expansive as defined by ASTM D 4829. These soils are classified as expansive
(EI >20) as defined by 2013 California Building Code (CBC) Section 1803.5.3. Table 1 presents soil
classifications based on the expansion index per ASTM D 4829 and the CBC. Table III presents a
summary of expansion index test results for the prevailing subgrade soils at Quarry Creek, Area R-4-
East.
TABLE 1 SOIL CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX ASTM D 4829
Expansion Index (EI) ASTM Expansion Classification CBC Expansion Classification
0 – 20 Very Low Non-Expansive
21 – 50 Low
Expansive 51 – 90 Medium
91 – 130 High
Greater Than 130 Very High
We performed laboratory water-soluble sulfate testing on samples obtained for expansion testing to
assess whether the soil contains sulfate concentrations high enough to damage normal Portland cement
concrete. Results from the laboratory water-soluble sulfate content tests are presented in Table IV and
indicate that the on-site materials at the locations tested possess “Not Applicable” sulfate exposure and
“S0” sulfate exposure class to concrete structures as defined by 2013 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318-
08 Sections 4.2 and 4.3. Table 2 presents a summary of concrete requirements set forth by 2013 CBC
Section 1904 and ACI 318. The presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible
characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different concentrations.
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 6 - February 27, 2017
Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may
affect the concentration.
TABLE 2 REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SULFATE-CONTAINING SOLUTIONS
Sulfate Exposure Exposure Class
Water-Soluble Sulfate Percent by Weight
Cement Type
Maximum Water to Cement Ratio by Weight
Minimum Compressive Strength (psi)
Not
Applicable S0 0.00-0.10 -- -- 2,500
Moderate S1 0.10-0.20 II 0.50 4,000
Severe S2 0.20-2.00 V 0.45 4,500
Very Severe S3 > 2.00 V+Pozzolan or Slag 0.45 4,500
Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, if improvements
that could be susceptible to corrosion are planned, further evaluation by a corrosion engineer should be
performed.
SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
In general, the soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading were found to be similar to those
described in the referenced project geotechnical report. The site is underlain by compacted fill soils
(Qcf) overlying by Alluvium (Qal), Terrace Deposits (Qt) Santiago Formation (Ts) and the Salto
Intrusive bedrock (Jspi).
The as-graded geologic map (Figures 2 and 3) has been annotated to show a general representation of
the as-graded geologic conditions observed during grading. Geologic contacts should be considered
approximate.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.0 General
1.1 Based on observations and test results, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that grading,
which is the subject of this report, has been performed in substantial conformance with the
recommendations of the referenced project geotechnical reports. Soil and geologic conditions
encountered during grading that differ from those anticipated by the project geotechnical
reports are not uncommon. Where such conditions required a significant modification to the
recommendations of the project geotechnical reports, they have been described herein.
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 7 - February 27, 2017
1.2 No soil or geologic conditions were observed during grading that would preclude the
continued development of the property as planned. Based on laboratory test results and field
observations, it is our opinion that the fill soils placed during grading have been compacted
to at least 90 percent relative compaction.
1.3 References to fill thickness or capping of pads are approximate and may be affected by
subsequent fine grading to achieve proper surface drainage.
2.0 Future Grading
2.1 Any additional grading performed at the site should be accomplished in conjunction with our
observation and compaction testing services. Geocon Incorporated should review grading
plans for any future grading prior to finalizing. All trench and wall backfill should be
compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near
or to slightly above optimum moisture content. This office should be notified at least 48 hours
prior to commencing additional grading or backfill operations.
3.0 Seismic Design Criteria
3.1 We used the computer program U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the USGS. Table 3.1
summarizes site-specific seismic design criteria including spectral response accelerations in
accordance with 2013 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2012 International
Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-10), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613
Earthquake Loads. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. We evaluated the
Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.3.2 of the 2013 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of
ASCE 7-10. The values presented in Table 3.1 are for the risk-targeted maximum considered
earthquake (MCER). The site is characterized Site Class D based on the thickness of
compacted fill.
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 8 - February 27, 2017
TABLE 3.1 2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value 2013 CBC Reference
Site Class D Section 1613.3.2
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration – Class B (short), SS 1.067g Figure 1613.3.1(1)
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration – Class B (1 sec), S1 0.413g Figure 1613.3.1(2)
Site Coefficient, FA 1.073 Table 1613.3.3(1)
Site Coefficient, FV 1.587 Table 1613.3.3(2)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SMS 1.145g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-37)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SM1 0.656g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-38)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS 0.763g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-39)
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1 0.437g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-40)
3.2 Table 3.2 presents additional seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic Design
Categories D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-10 for the mapped maximum considered
geometric mean (MCEG).
TABLE 3.2 2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value ASCE 7-10 Reference
Mapped MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.407g Figure 22-7
Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.093 Table 11.8-1
Site Class Modified MCEG
Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.445g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1)
3.3 Conformance to the criteria presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 for seismic design does not
constitute any guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will
not occur in the event of a maximum level earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design is
to protect life and not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 9 - February 27, 2017
4.0 Foundation and Concrete Slab-On-Grade Recommendations
4.1 The foundation recommendations that follow are for one- to three-story residential structures
and are separated into categories dependent on the thickness and geometry of the underlying
fill soils as well as the expansion index of the prevailing subgrade soils of a particular building
pad (or lot). Table V presents the as-graded lot conditions and recommended foundation
categories for Quarry Creek R-4 East. Determination of fill thickness and geometry was based
on interpretation of field conditions and review of the project grading plan.
TABLE 4.1 FOUNDATION CATEGORY CRITERIA
Foundation Category Maximum Fill Thickness, T (feet) Differential Fill Thickness, D (feet) Expansion Index (EI)
I T<20 -- EI<50
II 20<T<50 10<D<20 50<EI<90
III T>50 D>20 90<EI<130
4.2 Table 4.2 presents minimum foundation and interior concrete slab design criteria for
conventional foundation systems.
TABLE 4.2 CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY
Foundation Category
Minimum Footing Embedment Depth (inches)
Continuous Footing Reinforcement Interior Slab Reinforcement
I 12 Two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom 6x6-10/10 welded wire mesh at slab mid-point
II 18 Four No. 4 bars, two top and two bottom No. 3 bars at 24 inches on center, both directions
III 24 Four No. 5 bars,
two top and two bottom
No. 3 bars at 18 inches
on center, both directions
4.3 The embedment depths presented in Table 4.2 should be measured from the lowest adjacent
pad grade for both interior and exterior footings. The conventional foundations should have a
minimum width of 12 inches and 24 inches for continuous and isolated footings, respectively.
Figure 4 presents a wall/column footing dimension detail.
4.4 The concrete slab-on-grade should be a minimum of 4 inches thick for Foundation Categories
I and II and 5 inches thick for Foundation Category III.
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 10 - February 27, 2017
4.5 Slabs that may receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or may be used to store moisture-
sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder. The vapor retarder design should be
consistent with the guidelines presented in the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI) Guide for
Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06). In
addition, the membrane should be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s
recommendations and ASTM requirements, and in a manner that prevents puncture. The project
architect or developer should specify the vapor retarder based on the type of floor covering that
will be installed and if the structure will possess a humidity controlled environment.
4.6 The project foundation engineer, architect, and/or developer should determine the thickness
of bedding sand below the slab. In general, 3 to 4 inches of sand bedding is typically used.
Geocon should be contacted to provide recommendations if the bedding sand is thicker than
6 inches.
4.7 The foundation design engineer should provide appropriate concrete mix design criteria and
curing measures to assure proper curing of the slab by reducing the potential for rapid moisture
loss and subsequent cracking and/or slab curl. The foundation design engineer should specify
the concrete mix design and proper curing methods on the foundation plan. It is critical that the
foundation contractor understands and follows the recommendations presented on the
foundation plan.
4.8 As an alternative to the conventional foundation recommendations, consideration should be
given to the use of post-tensioned concrete slab and foundation systems for the support of the
proposed structures. The 2013 CBC has updated the design requirements for post-tensioned
foundation systems. The post-tensioned systems should be designed by a structural engineer
experienced in post-tensioned slab design and design criteria of the Post-Tensioning Institute
(PTI), Third Edition, as required by the 2013 CBC (Section 1805.8). Although this procedure
was developed for expansive soil conditions, we understand it can also be used to reduce the
potential for foundation distress due to differential fill settlement. The post-tensioned design
should incorporate the geotechnical parameters presented in Table 4.3 for the particular
Foundation Category designated. The parameters presented in Table 4.3 are based on the
guidelines presented in the PTI, Third Edition design manual.
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 11 - February 27, 2017
TABLE 4.3 POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) Third Edition Design Parameters
Foundation Category
I II III
Thornthwaite Index -20 -20 -20
Equilibrium Suction 3.9 3.9 3.9
Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance, eM (feet) 5.3 5.1 4.9
Edge Lift, yM (inches) 0.61 1.10 1.58
Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, eM (feet) 9.0 9.0 9.0
Center Lift, yM (inches) 0.30 0.47 0.66
4.9 If the structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than the
2013 CBC:
• The criteria presented in Table 4.3 are still applicable.
• Interior stiffener beams should be used for Foundation Categories II and III.
• The width of the perimeter foundations should be at least 12 inches.
• The perimeter footing embedment depths should be at least 12 inches, 18 inches and 24 inches for foundation categories I, II, and III, respectively. The embedment depths should be measured from the lowest adjacent pad grade.
4.10 The foundations for the post-tensioned slabs should be embedded in accordance with the
recommendations of the structural engineer. If a post-tensioned mat foundation system is
planned, the slab should possess a thickened edge with a minimum width of 12 inches and
extend at least 6 inches below the clean sand or crushed rock layer.
4.11 Our experience indicates post-tensioned slabs are susceptible to excessive edge lift, regardless
of the underlying soil conditions. Placing reinforcing steel at the bottom of the perimeter
footings and the interior stiffener beams may mitigate this potential. Current PTI design
procedures primarily address the potential center lift of slabs but, because of the placement of
the reinforcing tendons in the top of the slab, the resulting eccentricity after tensioning reduces
the ability of the system to mitigate edge lift. The structural engineer should design the
foundation system to reduce the potential of edge lift occurring for the proposed structures.
4.12 During the construction of the post-tension foundation system, the concrete should be placed
monolithically. Under no circumstances should cold joints form between the footings/grade
beams and the slab during the construction of the post-tension foundation system.
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 12 - February 27, 2017
4.13 Category I, II, or III foundations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of
2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) (dead plus live load). This bearing pressure may be
increased by one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. The estimated
maximum total and differential settlement for the planned structures due to foundation loads
is 1- inch and ½-inch, respectively. Differential settlement is estimated to occur over a span
of 40 feet.
4.14 Isolated footings, including PT foundation systems where footings are not reinforced with PT
cables, should have the minimum embedment depth and width recommended for conventional
foundations (see Section 4.1 through 4.3) for a particular foundation category. The use of
isolated footings, which are located beyond the perimeter of the building and support
structural elements connected to the building, are not recommended for Category III. Where
this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be connected to the building
foundation system with grade beams.
4.15 For Foundation Category III, consideration should be given to using interior stiffening beams
and connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the slab thickness. In addition,
consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs, which exceed five feet in width, to
the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur.
4.16 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however, the
exposed foundation- and slab-subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, to
maintain a moist condition as would be appropriate in any such concrete placement.
4.17 Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1
(horizontal:vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are recommended due
to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur.
• For fill slopes less than 20 feet high or cut slopes regardless of height, footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope.
• For fill slopes greater than 20 feet high, foundations should be extended to a depth where the minimum horizontal distance is equal to H/3 (where H equals the vertical
distance from the top of the fill slope to the base of the fill soil) with a minimum of 7 feet but need not exceed 40 feet. The horizontal distance is measured from the outer, deepest edge of the footing to the face of the slope. A post-tensioned slab and
foundation system or mat foundation system can be used to help reduce potential foundation distress associated with slope creep and lateral fill extension. Specific design parameters or recommendations for either of these alternatives can be provided
once the building location and fill slope geometry have been determined.
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 13 - February 27, 2017
• If swimming pools are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for a review of specific site conditions.
• Swimming pools located within 7 feet of the top of cut or fill slopes are not recommended. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, the portion of the swimming pool wall within 7 feet of the slope face be designed assuming that the adjacent soil provides no lateral support. This recommendation applies to fill slopes up to 30 feet in height, and cut slopes regardless of height. For swimming pools located near the top of fill slopes greater than 30 feet in height, additional recommendations may be required and Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for a review of specific site conditions.
• Although other improvements that are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete flatwork or masonry walls, may experience some distress if located near the top of a slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible, however, to incorporate design measures that would permit some lateral soil movement without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for specific recommendations.
4.18 The exterior flatwork recommendations provided herein assumes that the near surface soils
are very low to medium (EI < 90). Exterior slabs not subjected to vehicular traffic should be
a minimum of four inches thick and reinforced with 6 x 6-6/6 welded wire mesh. The mesh
should be placed in the middle of the slab. Proper mesh positioning is critical to future
performance of the slabs. The contractor should take extra measures to provide proper mesh
placement. Prior to construction of slabs, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be
moisture conditioned at or slightly above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least
90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density per ASTM 1557.
4.19 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs
due to expansive soil (if present), differential settlement of existing soil or soil with varying
thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein,
foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit
some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage
cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. The occurrence may be reduced
and/or controlled by: (1) limiting the slump of the concrete, (2) proper concrete placement
and curing, and by (3) the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular,
where re-entrant slab corners occur.
4.20 Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required
by the structural engineer.
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 14 - February 27, 2017
5.0 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads
5.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed
for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of 35 pcf.
Where the backfill will be inclined at 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), an active soil pressure of 50 pcf
is recommended. These soil pressures assume that the backfill materials within an area
bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall possess an
Expansion Index of 50 or less. Expansive soil should not be used as backfill material behind
retaining walls.
5.2 Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of
8H psf (where H equals the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet) should be
added to the active soil pressure where the wall possesses a height of 8 feet or less and 12H
where the wall is greater than 8 feet. For retaining walls subject to vehicular loads within a
horizontal distance equal to two-thirds the wall height, a surcharge equivalent to two feet of
fill soil should be added (soil total unit weight 130 pcf).
5.3 Soil to be used as backfill should be stockpiled and samples obtained for laboratory testing to
evaluate its suitability for use as wall backfill. Modified lateral earth pressures will be required
if backfill soils do not meet the required expansion index. Standard wall designs, if used, are
based on a specific active lateral earth pressure and/or soil friction angle. On-site soils might
not meet the design values used for the standard wall design. Geocon Incorporated should be
consulted if standard wall designs will be used to assess the suitability of on-site soil for use
as wall backfill.
5.4 Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backfilled and loading is applied. The amount of
lateral deflection is dependent on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill, and loads
acting on the wall. The wall designer should provide appropriate lateral deflection quantities
for planned retaining walls structures, if applicable. These lateral values should be considered
when planning types of improvements above retaining wall structures.
5.5 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup
of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The use
of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not recommended where
the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base
of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular (EI <50) free-
draining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. A typical
retaining wall drainage detail is presented on Figure 5. If conditions different than those
described are expected, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should
be contacted for additional recommendations.
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 15 - February 27, 2017
5.6 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of 1-foot may be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet below the
base of the wall has an Expansion Index < 90. The recommended allowable soil bearing
pressures may be increased by 300 psf and 500 psf for each additional foot of foundation
width and depth, respectively, up to a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 4,000 psf.
The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the
allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where
such a condition is expected.
5.7 The structural engineer should determine the seismic design category for the project in
accordance with Section 1613 of the CBC. If the project possesses a seismic design category
of D, E, or F, retaining walls that support more than 6 feet of backfill should be designed with
seismic lateral pressure in accordance with Section 18.3.5.12 of the 2013 CBC. The seismic
load is dependent on the retained height where H is the height of the wall, in feet, and the
calculated loads result in pounds per square foot (psf) exerted at the base of the wall and zero
at the top of the wall. A seismic load of 21H should be used for design. We used the peak
ground acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects, PGAM, of 0.445 g calculated from
ASCE 7-10 Section 11.8.3 and applied a pseudo-static coefficient of 0.33.
5.8 For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid density
of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted
granular fill soils or undisturbed formation materials. The allowable passive pressure assumes
a horizontal surface extending away from the base of the wall at least 5 feet or three times the
surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material
not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral
resistance. Where walls are planned adjacent to and/or on descending slopes, a passive
pressure of 150 pcf should be used in design.
5.9 An allowable friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil
and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth
pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads.
5.10 The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete
or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of eight feet. In the event that walls
higher than eight feet or other types of walls (i.e., soil nail, MSE walls) are planned, Geocon
Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 16 - February 27, 2017
6.0 Slope Maintenance
6.1 Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical), under conditions that are both difficult
to prevent and predict, may be susceptible to near-surface slope instability. The instability is
typically limited to the outer 3 feet of a portion of the slope and usually does not directly
impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the slope. The occurrence of
surficial instability is more prevalent on fill slopes and is generally preceded by a period of
heavy rainfall, excessive irrigation, or the migration of subsurface seepage. The disturbance
and/or loosening of the surficial soils, as might result from root growth, soil expansion, or
excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may also be a significant contributing factor
to surficial instability. It is therefore recommended that, to the maximum extent
practical: (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils either be removed or properly recompacted,
(b) irrigation systems be periodically inspected and maintained to eliminate leaks and
excessive irrigation, and (c) surface drains on and adjacent to slopes be periodically
maintained to preclude ponding or erosion. It should be noted that although the incorporation
of the above recommendations should reduce the potential for surficial slope instability, it
will not eliminate the possibility, and, therefore, it may be necessary to rebuild or repair a
portion of the project’s slopes in the future.
7.0 Detention Basin and Bioswale Recommendations
7.1 Any permanent detention basins, bioswales and bio-remediation areas should be designed by
the project civil engineer and reviewed by Geocon Incorporated. Typically, bioswales consist
of a surface layer of vegetation underlain by clean sand. A subdrain should be provided
beneath the sand layer. Prior to discharging into the storm drain pipe, a seepage cutoff wall
should be constructed at the interface between the subdrain and storm drainpipe. The concrete
cut-off wall should extend at least 6-inches beyond the perimeter of the gravel-packed
subdrain system.
7.2 Distress may be caused to planned improvements and properties located hydrologically
downstream or adjacent to these devices. The distress depends on the amount of water to be
detained, its residence time, soil permeability, and other factors. We have not performed a
hydrogeology study at the site. Downstream and adjacent properties may be subjected to
seeps, springs, slope instability, raised groundwater, movement of foundations and slabs, or
other impacts as a result of water infiltration. Due to site soil and geologic conditions,
permanent bioswales and bio-remediation areas should be lined with an impermeable barrier,
such as a thick visqueen, to prevent water infiltration in to the underlying compacted fill.
Temporary detention basins in areas where improvements have not been constructed do not
need to be lined.
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 17 - February 27, 2017
7.3 The landscape architect should be consulted to provide the appropriate plant
recommendations. If drought resistant plants are not used, irrigation may be required.
8.0 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection
8.1 Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement,
erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond
adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is
directed away from structures in accordance with 2013 CBC 1803.3 or other applicable
standards. In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into
swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed
into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure.
8.2 In the case of basement walls or building walls retaining landscaping areas, a water-proofing
system should be used on the wall and joints, and a Miradrain drainage panel (or similar)
should be placed over the waterproofing. The project architect or civil engineer should
provide detailed specifications on the plans for all waterproofing and drainage.
8.3 Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked
periodically for leaks, and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil
movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of time.
8.4 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for
surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement’s subgrade and base course. We
recommend the use of drains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage
structures, or impervious above-grade planter boxes. In addition, where landscaping is
planned adjacent to the pavement, we recommend construction of a cutoff wall along the edge
of the pavement that extends at least six inches below the bottom of the base material.
LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply only to our work with respect to grading,
and represent conditions at the date of final observation on December 14, 2016. Any subsequent grading
should be done in conjunction with our observation and testing services. As used herein, the term
“observation” implies only that we observed the progress of the work with which we agreed to be
involved. Our services did not include the evaluation or identification of the potential presence of
hazardous or corrosive materials. Our conclusions and opinions as to whether the work essentially
complies with the job specifications are based on our observations, experience and test results.
Subsurface conditions, and the accuracy of tests used to measure such conditions, can vary greatly at
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 18 - February 27, 2017
any time. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, except that our services were performed in
accordance with engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location.
We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to the site by others, by the
uncontrolled action of water, or by the failure of others to properly repair damages caused by the
uncontrolled action of water. It is the responsibility of owner to ensure that the information and
recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the
project, are incorporated into the plans, and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor
and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. Recommendations that pertain to the
future maintenance and care for the property should be brought to the attention of future owners of the
property or portions thereof. The findings and recommendations of this report may be invalidated wholly
or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be
relied upon after a period of three years.
Should you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact
the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED Ali Sadr CEG 1778 Rodney C. Mikesell GE 2533
AS:RCM:dmc
(4/del) Addressee
'
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
29 07/13/15 R-4 E Lot 7 110.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 108.1 14.0 92 90
30 07/13/15 R-4 E Lot 5 110.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 106.8 17.5 90 90
31 07/13/15 R-4 E Lot 4 111.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 109.1 15.1 92 90
54 07/14/15 R-4 E Lot 1 114.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 101.7 17.5 82 90
54 A 07/14/15 R-4 E Lot 1 114.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.1 15.0 92 90
89 07/17/15 R-4 E Lot 2 South 112.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 115.4 10.4 90 90
90 07/17/15 R-4 E Lot 4 112.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 115.9 11.1 90 90
91 07/17/15 R-4 E Lot 5 113.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 117.1 9.9 91 90
92 07/17/15 R-4 E Lot 7 114.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 105.8 7.5 85 90
92 A 07/17/15 R-4 E Lot 7 114.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.1 12.0 90 90
93 07/17/15 R-4 E Lot 5 115.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 105.4 11.6 85 90
94 07/17/15 R-4 E Lot 4 116.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 119.0 15.4 96 90
95 07/21/15 R-4 E Lot 5 117.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.8 11.8 90 90
96 07/21/15 R-4 E Lot 7 116.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 108.2 13.4 92 90
97 07/21/15 R-4 E Lot 3 116.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 109.9 15.2 93 90
98 07/21/15 R-4 E Lot 2 South 117.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 114.8 13.2 90 90
99 07/21/15 R-4 E Lot 4 117.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 115.2 12.7 90 90
105 07/22/15 R-4 E Lot 43 96.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 109.6 13.1 93 90
106 07/22/15 R-4 Private Drive D 97.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 108.4 14.6 92 90
107 07/22/15 R-4 E Lot 13 98.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.8 11.8 90 90
108 07/22/15 R-4 100.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 106.7 15.5 90 90
109 07/22/15 R-4 E Lot 10 West 100.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 108.0 14.4 91 90
110 07/22/15 R-4 E Lot 42 110.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.7 12.8 91 90
111 07/29/15 R-4 104.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 109.1 13.9 92 90
112 07/29/15 R-4 E 106.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 106.2 16.2 90 90
113 07/29/15 R-4 E Lot 38 North 105.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.1 14.5 91 90
114 07/29/15 R-4 E Lot 33 103.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 108.5 13.0 92 90
115 07/29/15 R-4 E Lot 34 98.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 106.6 13.7 90 90
116 07/29/15 R-4 E Lot 13 105.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 106.6 14.2 90 90
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Test No.Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Curve
No.
Quarry Creek
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
07135-42-05
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
~GEOCON
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Test No.Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Curve
No.
Quarry Creek
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
07135-42-05
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
119 07/22/15 R-4 109.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.7 15.5 91 90
120 07/22/15 R-4 E Lot 48 109.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 106.9 13.8 91 90
121 07/22/15 R-4 108.0 3 0 114.0 15.4 102.4 19.0 90 90
122 07/22/15 R-4 E Lot 43 107.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 106.8 14.5 90 90
123 07/22/15 R-4 E Lot 42 107.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.2 13.7 91 90
124 07/22/15 R-4 E Lot 36 West 106.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 108.8 13.1 92 90
125 07/27/15 R-4 E Lot 34 100.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.8 15.0 91 90
126 07/27/15 R-4 E Lot 52 110.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 106.6 14.6 90 90
127 07/27/15 R-4 E Lot 53 112.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.8 11.8 90 90
128 07/27/15 R-4 E Lot 53 114.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.6 12.2 90 90
132 07/28/15 R-4 W Lot 43 119.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.1 10.8 91 90
133 07/28/15 R-4 N Lot 47 115.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.6 13.5 91 90
134 07/28/15 R-4 Lot 44 110.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 110.3 13.0 93 90
135 07/28/15 R-4 Lot 52 117.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 109.6 13.0 93 90
136 07/28/15 R-4 N Lot 45 113.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.8 12.9 91 90
137 07/28/15 R-4 Private Drive D 16+75 113.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.8 10.6 90 90
138 07/28/15 R-4 Private Drive D 16+00 113.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.2 11.6 90 90
139 07/28/15 R-4 Private Drive D 14+75 113.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 109.1 13.9 92 90
140 07/29/15 R-4 Private Drive D 112.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 109.7 13.3 93 90
141 07/29/15 R-4 E Lot 42 111.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 106.8 14.1 90 90
142 07/29/15 R-4 109.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 108.8 12.8 92 90
143 07/29/15 R-4 E Lot 43 114.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 109.6 13.4 93 90
144 07/29/15 R-4 113.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.2 13.5 91 90
145 07/29/15 R-4 E Lot 36 110.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 110.5 12.8 94 90
146 07/29/15 R-4 E Lot 42 114.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 108.3 13.0 92 90
147 07/29/15 R-4 E Lot 38 111.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 110.1 13.3 93 90
148 07/30/15 R-4 Private Drive C 12+35 112.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 108.4 13.5 92 90
149 07/30/15 R-4 Lot 35 107.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.9 12.2 90 90
150 07/30/15 R-4 Lot 33 106.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.2 11.5 90 90
~GEOCON
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Test No.Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Curve
No.
Quarry Creek
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
07135-42-05
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
151 07/30/15 R-4 Lot 33 106.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 108.3 13.3 92 90
152 07/30/15 R-4 Lot 51 117.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.8 12.1 91 90
153 07/30/15 R-4 Lot 51 116.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.5 11.8 90 90
154 07/30/15 R-4 Roca Way 114.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 109.5 13.1 93 90
165 08/31/15 R-4 Lot 48 117.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 108.0 9.8 87 90
165 A 08/31/15 R-4 Lot 48 117.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.6 11.4 92 90
166 08/31/15 R-4 Lot 49 118.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.4 8.0 89 90
166 A 08/31/15 R-4 Lot 47 118.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.9 12.2 91 90
167 08/31/15 R-4 Lot 15 120.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 114.4 6.7 89 90
167 A 08/31/15 R-4 Lot 15 120.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 115.1 10.5 90 90
168 08/31/15 R-4 W Lot 54 121.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 106.4 11.3 90 90
168 A 08/31/15 R-4 W Lot 54 121.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 110.5 13.0 94 90
169 08/31/15 R-4 N Lot 40 114.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.9 11.3 90 90
170 08/31/15 R-4 E Lot 36 West 112.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.7 14.2 91 90
171 08/31/15 R-4 Lot 35 111.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 109.3 13.9 93 90
172 08/31/15 R-4 Lot 35 112.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.8 13.0 91 90
173 08/31/15 R-4 Lot 36 115.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.2 12.2 92 90
174 08/04/15 R-4 Lot 33 114.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 115.3 10.4 90 90
175 08/04/15 R-4 Lot 39 116.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 116.0 10.5 91 90
176 08/04/15 R-4 Lot 41 118.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.4 13.0 91 90
177 08/04/15 R-4 Lot 42 117.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.2 12.9 90 90
178 08/04/15 R-4 122.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 109.4 13.1 93 90
179 08/04/15 R-4 E Lot 48 120.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.0 14.1 91 90
180 08/04/15 R-4 Private Drive D 119.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.5 12.9 91 90
181 08/04/15 R-4 Private Drive D 120.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 106.7 13.1 90 90
182 08/04/15 R-4 E Lot 49 121.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.7 14.6 91 90
183 08/05/15 R-4 122.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 108.5 13.8 92 90
194 08/06/15 R-4 E Lot 11 120.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.0 9.4 89 90
194 A 08/06/15 R-4 E Lot 11 120.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.6 10.9 90 90
~GEOCON
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Test No.Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Curve
No.
Quarry Creek
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
07135-42-05
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
195 08/06/15 R-4 E Lot 12 124.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 110.2 8.2 88 90
195 A 08/06/15 R-4 E Lot 12 124.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.8 11.3 90 90
198 08/06/15 R-4 W Lot 53 124.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 114.8 13.4 90 90
199 08/06/15 R-4 E Lot 53 123.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.0 11.0 90 90
200 08/06/15 R-4 E Lot 14 123.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.7 12.0 90 90
212 08/07/15 R-4 W Lot 31 103.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 101.3 18.6 90 90
219 08/10/15 R-4 W Lot 33 110.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 101.5 2.2 90 90
224 08/11/15 R-4 W Lot 45 115.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 105.9 15.4 94 90
225 08/11/15 R-4 113.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 109.4 15.5 93 90
250 08/14/15 R-4 W Lot 35 117.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 104.3 19.7 93 90
257 08/17/15 R-4 W Lot 34 118.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 106.8 13.9 90 90
258 08/17/15 R-4 W Lot 37 118.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.4 15.0 91 90
300 07/23/15 R-4 E Lot 47 107.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 108.9 13.5 92 90
301 07/23/15 R-4 E Lot 43 105.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.7 13.7 91 90
302 07/23/15 R-4 E Lot 42 104.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 110.5 13.2 94 90
303 07/23/15 R-4 103.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 110.1 13.7 93 90
304 07/23/15 R-4 102.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 111.1 13.0 94 90
305 07/23/15 R-4 E Lot 10 106.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 106.5 16.6 90 90
306 07/23/15 R-4 98.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 106.8 16.1 90 90
307 07/23/15 R-4 100.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.3 15.4 91 90
308 07/24/15 R-4 E Lot 12 102.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.7 14.3 91 90
309 07/24/15 R-4 E Lot 12 104.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 110.2 13.8 93 90
361 09/11/15 R-4 E Lot 35 116.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 110.1 12.9 93 90
362 09/14/15 R-4 W Lot 12 128.0 18 0 121.7 13.5 105.3 13.4 87 90
362 A 09/17/15 R-4 W Lot 13 128.0 18 0 121.7 13.5 110.9 14.0 91 90
395 09/17/15 R-4 W Lot 12 128.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 106.2 16.9 90 90
396 09/17/15 R-4 E Lot 27 122.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.0 10.9 90 90
397 09/17/15 R-4 E Lot 56 122.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.7 11.6 91 90
398 09/18/15 R-4 E Lot 58 119.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.3 11.4 90 90
~GEOCON
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Test No.Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Curve
No.
Quarry Creek
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
07135-42-05
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
399 09/18/15 R-4 E Lot 26 124.3 15 0 128.1 10.2 118.9 10.0 93 90
400 09/18/15 R-4 E Lot 27 123.2 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.6 11.0 90 90
401 09/18/15 R-4 E Lot 55 124.3 15 0 128.1 10.2 116.7 10.4 91 90
402 09/18/15 R-4 E Lot 55 123.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 115.2 10.2 90 90
403 09/18/15 R-4 E Lot 46 123.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 116.2 11.2 91 90
404 09/21/15 R-4 E Lot 37 117.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.5 10.8 93 90
405 09/21/15 R-4 E Lot 45 122.5 15 0 128.1 10.2 118.6 9.8 93 90
406 09/21/15 R-4 E Lot 44 120.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 119.9 13.1 94 90
407 09/21/15 R-4 E Lot 43 120.6 15 0 128.1 10.2 116.5 10.6 91 90
408 09/21/15 R-4 E Lot 42 120.6 15 0 128.1 10.2 116.8 10.7 91 90
409 09/21/15 R-4 E Lot 58 120.6 15 0 128.1 10.2 116.9 10.2 91 90
410 09/21/15 R-4 E Lot 41 120.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 119.4 11.7 93 90
412 09/22/15 R-4 W Lot 32 115.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 103.7 16.9 92 90
413 09/22/15 R-4 E Lot 37 117.6 15 0 128.1 10.2 116.7 10.2 91 90
414 09/22/15 R-4 E Lot 33 117.4 15 0 128.1 10.2 123.1 9.8 96 90
415 09/22/15 R-4 E Lot 35 117.4 15 0 128.1 10.2 123.8 10.4 97 90
416 07/23/15 R-4 W Lot 47 115.0 4 0 126.0 10.4 116.1 11.1 92 90
419 04/24/15 R-4 W Lot 46/47 PL 118.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 106.7 13.9 91 90
420 04/24/15 R-4 W Lot 48 119.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 106.0 15.7 91 90
421 04/25/15 R-4 W Lot 17 127.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 117.3 10.3 92 90
422 04/25/15 R-4 W Lot 16 128.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.3 10.8 90 90
423 04/25/15 R-4 W Lot 15 129.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.0 12.4 91 90
424 04/25/15 R-4 W Lot 14 129.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.9 11.5 91 90
425 04/25/15 R-4 W Lot 48 122.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 105.6 14.9 90 90
426 04/25/15 R-4 W Lot 24 123.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 105.0 15.0 90 90
427 04/26/15 R-4 W Lot 30 122.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 106.4 15.3 91 90
428 04/26/15 R-4 W Lot 33 122.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 106.2 15.1 91 90
458 10/12/15 R-4 W Lot 35 127.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 107.1 13.8 92 90
459 10/12/15 R-4 W Lot 38 125.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 108.5 14.1 93 90
~GEOCON
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Test No.Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Curve
No.
Quarry Creek
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
07135-42-05
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
460 10/12/15 R-4 W Lot 25 128.0 18 0 121.7 13.5 109.9 14.2 90 90
461 10/12/15 R-4 W Lot 20 128.0 18 0 121.7 13.5 110.3 13.4 91 90
462 10/13/15 R-4 E Lot 7 116.1 18 0 121.7 13.5 116.9 13.5 96 90
463 10/13/15 R-4 E Lot 8 118.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 119.4 10.3 93 90
464 10/13/15 R-4 E Lot 9 118.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 120.8 9.8 94 90
465 10/13/15 R-4 E Lot 10 118.4 15 0 128.1 10.2 118.6 9.8 93 90
466 10/13/15 R-4 E Lot 11 119.5 15 0 128.1 10.2 118.6 10.1 93 90
467 10/13/15 R-4 E Lot 6 114.8 18 0 121.7 13.5 114.6 12.8 94 90
468 10/13/15 R-4 E Lot 5 115.5 18 0 121.7 13.5 112.5 15.1 92 90
469 10/13/15 R-4 E Lot 5 130.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 109.8 13.7 94 90
470 10/13/15 R-4 W Lot 27 130.0 18 0 121.7 13.5 110.7 13.6 91 90
472 09/29/15 R-4 W Lot 28 130.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 106.2 17.3 91 90
473 09/29/15 R-4 W Lot 30 129.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 105.6 14.3 90 90
474 09/29/15 R-4 W Lot 32 128.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 105.8 16.2 91 90
479 09/30/15 R-4 W Lot 34 126.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 107.2 15.1 92 90
483 10/01/15 R-4 E Lot 17 125.0 18 0 121.7 13.5 109.9 13.3 90 90
484 10/01/15 R-4 E Lot 16 124.0 18 0 121.7 13.5 110.9 13.9 91 90
485 10/01/15 R-4 W Lot 28 130.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 108.5 14.2 93 90
486 10/01/15 R-4 W Lot 30/31 PL 128.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 108.8 14.0 93 90
487 10/01/15 R-4 W Lot 33 126.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 110.2 13.6 94 90
488 10/01/15 R-4 E Lot 39 115.6 15 0 128.1 10.2 116.1 10.3 91 90
489 10/01/15 R-4 E Lot 38 116.6 15 0 128.1 10.2 118.3 9.9 92 90
490 10/01/15 R-4 E Lot 34 116.9 15 0 128.1 10.2 119.3 9.8 93 90
491 10/01/15 R-4 E Lot 36 116.9 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.7 10.9 90 90
492 10/01/15 R-4 E Lot 40 117.8 15 0 128.1 10.2 118.3 10.3 92 90
493 10/02/15 R-4 E Lot 51 127.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.7 11.2 90 90
494 10/02/15 R-4 W Lot 12 129.5 15 0 128.1 10.2 106.7 9.9 83 90
495 10/02/15 R-4 W Lot 13 130.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 117.3 10.7 92 90
496 10/02/15 R-4 W Lot 14 130.5 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.3 10.8 92 90
~GEOCON
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Test No.Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Curve
No.
Quarry Creek
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
07135-42-05
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
497 10/02/15 R-4 W Lot 15 130.1 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.3 10.8 91 90
498 10/02/15 R-4 W Lot 16 128.8 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.5 11.0 90 90
499 10/02/15 R-4 W Lot 17 128.2 15 0 128.1 10.2 120.3 9.7 94 90
500 10/02/15 R-4 W Lot 36 126.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 107.7 14.3 92 90
501 10/06/15 R-4 E Lot 20 128.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.4 11.6 93 90
502 10/06/15 R-4 E Lot 21 127.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.3 10.9 91 90
503 10/06/15 R-4 E Lot 22 127.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.9 12.1 91 90
504 10/06/15 R-4 E Lot 23 126.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 114.8 12.8 90 90
508 10/07/15 R-4 W Lot 23 125.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.5 11.8 90 90
509 10/07/15 R-4 E Lot 51 128.1 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.8 11.1 91 90
510 10/07/15 R-4 Lot 52 128.1 15 0 128.1 10.2 116.9 10.0 91 90
511 10/07/15 R-4 E Lot 53 126.7 15 0 128.1 10.2 124.8 10.2 97 90
512 10/07/15 R-4 E Lot 54 126.7 15 0 128.1 10.2 121.5 11.5 95 90
513 10/08/15 R-4 E Lot 50 125.1 15 0 128.1 10.2 118.3 12.8 92 90
514 10/08/15 R-4 E Lot 49 123.8 15 0 128.1 10.2 119.8 9.8 94 90
515 10/08/15 R-4 E Lot 48 122.5 15 0 128.1 10.2 121.0 11.0 94 90
516 10/08/15 R-4 E Lot 47 123.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 120.2 11.3 94 90
517 10/09/15 R-4 E Lot 14 122.8 15 0 128.1 10.2 117.4 10.2 92 90
518 10/09/15 R-4 E Lot 13 121.7 15 0 128.1 10.2 117.0 10.4 91 90
519 10/09/15 R-4 E Lot 12 120.6 15 0 128.1 10.2 117.6 9.8 92 90
520 10/09/15 R-4 E Lot 16 125.2 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.5 11.2 91 90
521 10/09/15 R-4 E Lot 17 126.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.5 11.5 90 90
522 10/09/15 R-4 W Lot 22 128.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 106.5 13.0 90 90
523 10/09/15 R-4 W Lot 26 129.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.6 13.3 91 90
524 10/14/15 R-4 E Lot 2 116.6 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.8 10.9 90 90
525 10/14/15 R-4 E Lot 1 117.1 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.0 11.5 91 90
526 10/14/15 R-4 W Lot 27 131.4 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.9 11.3 90 90
527 10/14/15 R-4 W Lot 26 131.1 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.1 11.1 92 90
528 10/14/15 R-4 W Lot 25 130.7 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.1 12.1 93 90
~GEOCON
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Test No.Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Curve
No.
Quarry Creek
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
07135-42-05
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
529 10/14/15 R-4 W Lot 39 124.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 105.0 14.3 90 90
530 10/14/15 R-4 W Lot 24 130.3 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.9 11.8 92 90
531 10/14/15 R-4 W Lot 23 130.2 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.4 11.4 93 90
532 10/15/15 R-4 W Lot 22 130.2 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.7 11.1 91 90
533 10/15/15 R-4 W Lot 21 130.6 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.9 11.2 92 90
534 10/15/15 R-4 W Lot 20 130.9 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.7 10.7 91 90
535 10/15/15 R-4 W Lot 19 131.1 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.6 10.7 90 90
536 10/15/15 R-4 W Lot 18 130.4 24 0 116.7 13.9 111.1 14.5 95 90
537 10/16/15 R-4 E Lot 20 129.1 14 0 124.6 11.3 117.1 11.3 94 90
538 10/16/15 R-4 E Lot 21 128.4 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.6 10.9 90 90
539 10/16/15 R-4 E Lot 22 127.8 14 0 124.6 11.3 117.0 10.5 94 90
540 10/16/15 R-4 E Lot 23 127.1 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.8 11.1 91 90
541 10/16/15 R-4 W Lot 28 132.8 24 0 116.7 13.9 110.5 14.7 95 90
542 10/16/15 R-4 W Lot 29 132.3 24 0 116.7 13.9 105.4 13.9 90 90
543 10/16/15 R-4 W Lot 30 131.8 24 0 116.7 13.9 111.3 14.0 95 90
544 10/16/15 R-4 W Lot 31 131.2 24 0 116.7 13.9 107.3 14.1 92 90
545 10/16/15 R-4 W Lot 32 130.6 24 0 116.7 13.9 106.9 15.1 92 90
546 10/16/15 R-4 W Lot 44 122.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 110.8 13.7 95 90
547 10/16/15 R-4 W Lot 47 124.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 106.0 13.6 91 90
548 10/19/15 R-4 W Lot 36 128.2 24 0 116.7 13.9 112.7 13.9 97 90
549 10/19/15 R-4 W Lot 35 129.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 112.3 13.4 96 90
550 10/19/15 R-4 W Lot 34 129.5 24 0 116.7 13.9 112.9 13.9 97 90
551 10/19/15 R-4 W Lot 33 130.1 24 0 116.7 13.9 105.2 13.5 90 90
552 10/19/15 R-4 W Lot 45 125.0 18 0 121.7 13.5 109.8 13.4 90 90
553 10/20/15 R-4 W Lot 37 127.4 24 0 116.7 13.9 111.1 14.3 95 90
554 10/20/15 R-4 W Lot 38 126.1 24 0 116.7 13.9 110.1 13.5 94 90
555 10/20/15 R-4 W Lot 39 125.8 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.9 11.4 92 90
556 10/20/15 R-4 W Lot 40 125.2 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.7 10.9 94 90
557 10/21/15 R-4 W Lot 49 128.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 108.3 13.0 92 90
~GEOCON
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Test No.Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Curve
No.
Quarry Creek
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
07135-42-05
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
558 10/21/15 R-4 W Lot 43 127.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.1 10.9 91 90
559 10/23/15 R-4 W Lot 49 129.6 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.7 11.0 94 90
560 10/23/15 R-4 W Lot 48 129.3 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.2 11.9 91 90
563 10/27/15 R-4 W Lot 43 128.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 117.0 10.8 94 90
564 10/27/15 R-4 W Lot 44 128.3 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.0 10.9 90 90
565 10/27/15 R-4 W Lot 45 128.5 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.7 11.0 92 90
566 10/27/15 R-4 W Lot 46 128.8 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.1 10.8 90 90
567 10/27/15 R-4 W Lot 47 129.1 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.6 11.3 91 90
601 11/23/15 R-4 W Lot 52 127.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.9 10.9 90 90
622 11/13/15 R-4 W Lot 54 125.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 116.4 11.5 91 90
623 11/13/15 R-4 W Lot 51 124.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 115.5 10.6 90 90
624 11/18/15 R-4 W Lot 51 125.0 2 0 119.0 11.6 111.8 10.9 94 90
625 11/18/15 R-4 W Lot 53 124.0 2 0 119.0 11.6 111.5 14.0 94 90
818 09/14/16 R-4 E Lot 54 125.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.7 12.0 91 90
819 09/15/16 R-4 E Lot 51 126.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.9 11.3 91 90
820 09/15/16 R-4 E Lot 55 126.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.3 11.5 91 90
821 09/21/16 R-4 E Lot 53 125.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.3 12.8 92 90
822 09/21/16 R-4 E Lot 50 127.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.6 11.4 90 90
823 09/21/16 R-4 E Lot 52 127.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.6 13.7 91 90
824 09/22/16 R-4 E Lot 52 128.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.1 13.0 92 90
825 09/22/16 R-4 E Lot 55 128.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.9 13.4 92 90
826 09/26/16 R-4 E Lot 54 126.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.5 11.6 90 90
827 09/26/16 R-4 E Lot 56 127.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.1 11.9 90 90
FG 830 09/29/16 R-4 E Lot 20 129.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 118.4 11.7 95 90
FG 831 09/29/16 R-4 E Lot 21 129.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 120.2 12.1 96 90
FG 832 09/29/16 R-4 E Lot 43 120.8 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.2 11.5 93 90
FG 833 09/29/16 R-4 E Lot 44 121.4 14 0 124.6 11.3 118.2 10.9 95 90
FG 834 09/29/16 R-4 E Lot 46 122.5 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.1 13.4 92 90
FG 835 09/29/16 R-4 E Lot 47 121.4 14 0 124.6 11.3 120.6 11.7 97 90
~GEOCON
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Test No.Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Curve
No.
Quarry Creek
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
07135-42-05
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
FG 836 09/29/16 R-4 E Lot 48 121.3 14 0 124.6 11.3 118.5 11.2 95 90
FG 837 09/30/16 R-4 W Lot 22 127.8 14 0 124.6 11.3 119.4 11.4 96 90
FG 838 09/30/16 R-4 W Lot 23 127.1 14 0 124.6 11.3 117.3 12.2 94 90
FG 839 09/30/16 R-4 W Lot 24 126.4 14 0 124.6 11.3 120.9 11.5 97 90
FG 840 09/30/16 R-4 E Lot 55 127.8 14 0 124.6 11.3 118.1 12.4 95 90
FG 841 09/30/16 R-4 E Lot 56 127.1 14 0 124.6 11.3 118.4 12.1 95 90
FG 842 09/30/16 R-4 E Lot 57 126.4 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.1 10.9 92 90
FG 843 09/30/16 R-4 E Lot 47 121.9 14 0 124.6 11.3 117.2 11.8 94 90
FG 844 09/30/16 R-4 E Lot 58 124.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.8 12.6 91 90
FG 845 09/30/16 R-4 E Lot 49 123.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.3 14.0 93 90
FG 846 09/30/16 R-4 E Lot 50 123.5 14 0 124.6 11.3 119.3 11.4 96 90
FG 847 10/03/16 R-4 E Lot 51 123.8 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.8 12.7 94 90
FG 848 10/03/16 R-4 E Lot 52 123.2 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.8 14.1 91 90
FG 849 10/03/16 R-4 E Lot 53 124.5 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.0 11.8 92 90
FG 850 10/03/16 R-4 E Lot 54 125.8 14 0 124.6 11.3 119.2 11.4 96 90
FG 851 10/03/16 R-4 E Lot 36 115.5 14 0 124.6 11.3 118.1 12.3 95 90
FG 852 10/03/16 R-4 E Lot 37 118.4 14 0 124.6 11.3 118.4 12.8 95 90
FG 853 10/04/16 R-4 E Lot 38 119.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.2 12.4 93 90
FG 854 10/04/16 R-4 E Lot 39 119.6 14 0 124.6 11.3 117.8 12.0 95 90
FG 855 10/04/16 R-4 E Lot 40 120.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.3 12.6 93 90
FG 856 10/04/16 R-4 E Lot 41 119.4 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.1 11.9 92 90
FG 857 10/04/16 R-4 E Lot 42 118.8 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.8 11.5 94 90
858 10/05/16 R-4 E Lot 17 123.6 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.8 14.0 92 90
859 10/05/16 R-4 E Lot 17 125.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.8 13.6 91 90
860 10/07/16 R-4 E Lot 23 125.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.0 12.5 93 90
861 10/07/16 R-4 E Lot 23 126.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.1 13.1 92 90
FG 862 10/07/16 R-4 E Lot 19 128.4 14 0 124.6 11.3 118.6 12.9 95 90
FG 863 10/07/16 R-4 E Lot 18 127.6 14 0 124.6 11.3 117.3 13.4 94 90
FG 864 10/07/16 R-4 E Lot 17 126.6 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.7 13.6 94 90
~GEOCON
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Test No.Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Curve
No.
Quarry Creek
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
07135-42-05
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
FG 865 10/07/16 R-4 E Lot 16 125.4 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.1 12.4 92 90
FG 866 10/07/16 R-4 E Lot 15 124.2 14 0 124.6 11.3 118.8 12.5 95 90
FG 867 10/10/16 R-4 E Lot 14 123.5 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.2 11.9 93 90
FG 868 10/10/16 R-4 E Lot 13 121.9 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.0 12.1 93 90
FG 869 10/10/16 R-4 E Lot 12 120.8 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.8 12.4 91 90
FG 870 10/10/16 R-4 E Lot 11 119.7 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.0 13.0 92 90
FG 871 10/10/16 R-4 E Lot 10 118.7 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.7 12.7 94 90
FG 872 10/11/16 R-4 E Lot 9 117.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.1 13.5 92 90
FG 873 10/12/16 R-4 E Lot 8 117.2 14 0 124.6 11.3 118.8 11.4 95 90
FG 874 10/12/16 R-4 E Lot 7 116.5 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.2 11.7 93 90
FG 875 10/12/16 R-4 E Lot 6 115.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.8 13.1 93 90
FG 876 10/12/16 R-4 E Lot 5 115.7 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.6 12.6 90 90
884 10/14/16 R-4 E Lot 29 112.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.2 12.6 90 90
885 10/14/16 R-4 E Lot 28 113.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.3 12.4 92 90
886 10/14/16 R-4 E Lot 29 114.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.6 11.8 90 90
887 10/14/16 R-4 E Lot 30 115.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.6 12.0 91 90
889 10/14/16 R-4 E Lot 28 118.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.8 11.4 91 90
FG 893 10/17/16 R-4 E Lot 25 124.3 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.4 11.7 93 90
FG 894 10/17/16 R-4 E Lot 26 123.2 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.7 11.4 94 90
FG 895 10/17/16 R-4 E Lot 27 122.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.0 12.5 92 90
FG 896 10/17/16 R-4 E Lot 28 120.8 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.7 13.5 91 90
FG 897 10/17/16 R-4 E Lot 29 119.5 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.1 12.4 92 90
FG 898 10/17/16 R-4 E Lot 30 118.3 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.8 12.1 92 90
899 10/18/16 R-4 W Lot 18 127.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 118.6 11.9 95 90
900 10/18/16 R-4 W Lot 19 128.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.1 13.4 92 90
901 10/18/16 R-4 W Lot 20 129.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 120.4 10.8 97 90
902 10/18/16 R-4 W Lot 22 129.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 118.7 12.3 95 90
903 10/18/16 R-4 W Lot 23 128.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.1 11.7 91 90
904 10/19/16 R-4 W Lot 24 128.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 117.6 12.2 94 90
~GEOCON
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Test No.Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Curve
No.
Quarry Creek
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
07135-42-05
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
905 10/19/16 R-4 W Lot 25 128.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.8 11.9 92 90
906 10/19/16 R-4 W Lot 26 130.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 121.8 11.5 98 90
907 10/19/16 R-4 W Lot 27 129.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 117.8 11.6 95 90
908 10/19/16 R-4 Lot 21 129.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.3 13.1 93 90
FG 909 10/20/16 R-4 W Lot 27 131.4 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.8 11.4 94 90
FG 910 10/20/16 R-4 W Lot 26 131.1 14 0 124.6 11.3 121.0 11.7 97 90
FG 911 10/20/16 R-4 W Lot 25 130.7 14 0 124.6 11.3 117.6 11.4 94 90
FG 912 10/20/16 R-4 W Lot 24 130.5 14 0 124.6 11.3 120.4 12.7 97 90
FG 913 10/20/16 R-4 W Lot 23 130.2 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.9 12.1 93 90
FG 914 10/21/16 R-4 W Lot 22 130.2 14 0 124.6 11.3 119.5 13.1 96 90
FG 915 10/21/16 R-4 W Lot 21 130.4 14 0 124.6 11.3 120.0 12.6 96 90
FG 916 10/21/16 R-4 W Lot 20 130.4 14 0 124.6 11.3 121.0 11.8 97 90
FG 917 10/21/16 R-4 W Lot 19 130.4 14 0 124.6 11.3 118.5 13.3 95 90
FG 918 10/21/16 R-4 W Lot 18 130.4 14 0 124.6 11.3 119.2 12.3 96 90
921 10/24/16 R-4 W Lot 51 114.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.6 13.1 90 90
922 10/24/16 R-4 W Lot 53 118.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.0 13.9 92 90
923 10/24/16 R-4 W Lot 57 120.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 118.1 11.7 95 90
924 10/24/16 R-4 W Lot 50 121.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.2 12.2 93 90
FG 925 11/01/16 R-4 W Lot 31 131.2 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.7 11.4 93 90
FG 926 11/01/16 R-4 W Lot 32 130.6 14 0 124.6 11.3 119.6 11.0 96 90
FG 927 11/01/16 R-4 W Lot 33 130.1 14 0 124.6 11.3 120.5 11.6 97 90
FG 928 11/01/16 R-4 W Lot 34 129.5 14 0 124.6 11.3 117.5 11.3 94 90
FG 929 11/01/16 R-4 W Lot 35 129.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 119.4 11.2 96 90
930 12/05/16 R-4 W Lot 52 120.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.0 13.8 92 90
931 12/05/16 R-4 W Lot 54 123.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.8 14.4 91 90
932 12/05/16 R-4 W Lot 55 126.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.8 13.2 92 90
933 12/05/16 R-4 W Lot 17 127.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.5 13.6 92 90
934 12/06/16 R-4 W Lot 17 122.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.8 14.1 91 90
935 12/06/16 R-4 W Lot 17 125.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.3 13.9 91 90
~GEOCON
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Test No.Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Curve
No.
Quarry Creek
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
07135-42-05
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
936 12/06/16 R-4 W Lot 17 128.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.2 11.8 93 90
937 12/07/16 R-4 W Lot 42 125.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.8 11.4 92 90
938 12/07/16 R-4 W Lot 42 127.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.1 11.7 92 90
939 12/07/16 R-4 W Lot 56 125.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.8 12.7 91 90
940 12/07/16 R-4 W Lot 52 122.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.5 12.2 93 90
941 12/07/16 R-4 W Lot 51 117.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.5 14.3 90 90
SZ 942 12/08/16 R-4 E Lot 1 111.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.1 12.0 92 90
SZ 943 12/08/16 R-4 E Lot 1 114.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.9 12.1 92 90
SZ 944 12/08/16 R-4 E Lot 1 116.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.3 13.5 91 90
945 12/13/16 R-4 E Lot 1 115.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.0 12.8 92 90
946 12/13/16 R-4 E Lot 2 116.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 117.6 11.6 94 90
947 12/13/16 R-4 E Lot 3 116.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.8 13.2 92 90
948 12/13/16 R-4 E Lot 4 116.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.7 13.8 91 90
FG 949 12/14/16 R-4 E Lot 1 117.1 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.3 12.9 93 90
FG 950 12/14/16 R-4 E Lot 2 116.6 14 0 124.6 11.3 119.8 11.7 96 90
FG 951 12/14/16 R-4 E Lot 3 117.1 14 0 124.6 11.3 117.3 13.2 94 90
FG 952 12/14/16 R-4 E Lot 4 116.6 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.0 13.0 93 90
FG 953 12/14/16 R-4 W Lot 28 133.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.8 12.6 91 90
FG 954 12/14/16 R-4 W Lot 29 132.3 14 0 124.6 11.3 117.8 12.0 95 90
FG 955 12/14/16 R-4 W Lot 30 131.8 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.1 11.3 92 90
FG 956 12/14/16 R-4 W Lot 31 131.2 14 0 124.6 11.3 119.8 11.7 96 90
FG 957 12/14/16 R-4 W Lot 32 130.6 14 0 124.6 11.3 118.1 12.2 95 90
FG 958 12/14/16 R-4 W Lot 33 130.1 5 0 130.9 8.9 122.1 10.6 93 90
FG 959 12/14/16 R-4 W Lot 34 129.5 5 0 130.9 8.9 119.5 10.7 91 90
FG 960 12/14/16 R-4 W Lot 35 129.0 5 0 130.9 8.9 123.5 11.2 94 90
FG 961 12/14/16 R-4 W Lot 36 128.4 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.7 11.8 92 90
FG 962 12/14/16 R-4 W Lot 37 127.4 14 0 124.6 11.3 117.4 13.0 94 90
FG 963 12/14/16 R-4 W Lot 38 126.8 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.7 12.8 91 90
FG 964 12/15/16 R-4 W Lot 39 125.8 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.8 11.5 94 90
~GEOCON
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Test No.Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Curve
No.
Quarry Creek
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
07135-42-05
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
FG 965 12/15/16 R-4 W Lot 40 125.2 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.1 12.7 92 90
FG 966 12/15/16 R-4 W Lot 59 127.6 2 0 119.0 11.6 109.8 12.4 92 90
FG 967 12/15/16 R-4 W Lot 42 127.8 2 0 119.0 11.6 109.9 11.2 92 90
FG 968 12/15/16 R-4 W Lot 43 128.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 118.6 13.4 95 90
FG 969 12/15/16 R-4 W Lot 44 128.3 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.1 12.1 92 90
FG 970 12/15/16 R-4 W Lot 45 128.8 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.7 11.0 94 90
FG 971 12/15/16 R-4 W Lot 46 128.5 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.0 12.9 92 90
FG 972 12/15/16 R-4 W Lot 47 129.1 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.0 12.3 93 90
FG 973 12/15/16 R-4 W Lot 48 129.3 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.7 12.2 91 90
FG 974 12/15/16 R-4 W Lot 49 129.6 14 0 124.6 11.3 116.0 11.6 93 90
FG 975 01/16/17 R-4 W Lot 1 124.9 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.1 12.4 92 90
FG 976 01/16/17 R-4 W Lot 2 125.1 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.6 14.8 90 90
FG 977 01/16/17 R-4 W Lot 3 125.4 14 0 124.6 11.3 119.2 12.0 96 90
FG 978 01/16/17 R-4 W Lot 4 125.9 14 0 124.6 11.3 117.3 12.6 94 90
FG 979 01/16/17 R-4 W Lot 5 126.3 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.7 14.0 92 90
FG 980 01/16/17 R-4 W Lot 6 126.7 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.9 13.9 92 90
FG 981 01/16/17 R-4 W Lot 7 127.2 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.5 11.3 90 90
FG 982 01/16/17 R-4 W Lot 8 127.6 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.6 13.5 93 90
FG 983 01/17/17 R-4 W Lot 9 128.1 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.3 13.8 92 90
FG 984 01/17/17 R-4 W Lot 10 128.6 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.2 13.6 92 90
FG 985 01/17/17 R-4 W Lot 11 129.1 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.5 14.6 90 90
FG 986 01/17/17 R-4 W Lot 12 129.5 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.8 14.2 91 90
FG 987 01/17/17 R-4 W Lot 13 129.5 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.6 14.5 91 90
FG 988 01/17/17 R-4 W Lot 14 129.5 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.6 13.2 93 90
FG 989 01/17/17 R-4 W Lot 15 129.5 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.3 12.8 92 90
FG 990 01/17/17 R-4 W Lot 16 129.5 14 0 124.6 11.3 114.7 12.7 92 90
FG 991 01/17/17 R-4 W Lot 17 129.5 14 0 124.6 11.3 115.5 12.4 93 90
~GEOCON
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
186 08/05/15 R-10 88.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 104.5 19.6 93 90
187 08/05/15 R-10 80.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 102.3 18.8 91 90
188 08/05/15 R-10 74.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.5 15.0 91 90
191 08/05/15 R-10 90.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 102.9 20.3 91 90
192 08/05/15 R-10 82.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.9 11.3 90 90
193 08/05/15 R-10 78.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.6 12.3 90 90
201 08/06/15 R-10 90.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.3 12.6 91 90
202 08/06/15 R-10 86.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.6 13.0 90 90
203 08/06/15 R-10 84.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.0 12.5 91 90
204 08/07/15 R-10 92.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.9 11.1 90 90
207 08/07/15 R-10 99.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.7 11.7 91 90
208 08/07/15 R-10 96.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.2 11.5 90 90
209 08/07/15 R-10 93.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 102.5 15.4 91 90
210 08/07/15 R-10 101.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.4 15.3 91 90
213 08/07/15 R-10 93.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.1 12.5 90 90
217 08/10/15 R-10 102.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 103.5 15.9 92 90
218 08/10/15 R-10 100.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 108.1 14.0 92 90
222 08/10/15 R-10 105.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 104.1 16.7 92 90
223 08/10/15 R-10 103.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 103.7 15.8 92 90
228 08/11/15 R-10 108.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.3 16.7 91 90
SZ 229 08/11/15 R-10 108.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 102.2 15.9 91 90
SZ 230 08/11/15 R-10 110.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 103.4 15.6 92 90
SZ 231 08/11/15 R-10 111.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 109.8 15.5 93 90
SZ 232 08/11/15 R-10 112.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.7 14.9 91 90
SZ 233 08/11/15 R-10 113.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 102.4 16.4 91 90
234 08/11/15 R-10 113.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 101.9 18.5 90 90
252 08/14/15 R-10 113.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 109.1 18.5 92 90
SZ 260 08/17/15 R-10 117.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 117.2 9.9 91 90
269 08/20/15 R-10 121.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 109.8 13.2 93 90
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Quarry Creek 07135-42-05
Test No.Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Curve
No.
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
~GEOCON
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Quarry Creek 07135-42-05
Test No.Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Curve
No.
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
SZ 475 09/29/15 R-10 N Slope HOA Lot 118.0 18 0 121.7 13.5 109.9 13.1 90 90
ST 476 09/30/15 R-10 HOA Lot 118.0 18 0 121.7 13.5 110.0 12.9 90 90
ST 477 09/30/15 R-10 HOA Lot 110.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.9 12.2 90 90
ST 478 09/30/15 R-10 HOA Lot 110.0 18 0 121.7 13.5 110.2 14.4 91 90
~GEOCON
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
74 07/16/15 Marron Road 7+50 113.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.8 12.6 91 90
75 07/16/15 Marron Road 8+50 113.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.6 15.5 91 90
86 07/17/15 Marron Road 6+00 118.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 115.3 10.6 90 90
87 07/17/15 Marron Road 7+15 118.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 116.0 12.3 91 90
117 07/29/15 Marron Road 19+50 106.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.0 12.9 91 90
118 07/22/15 Marron Road 19+15 110.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 108.2 14.0 92 90
129 07/28/15 Marron Road 17+60 111.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 110.7 13.6 94 90
130 07/28/15 Marron Road 18+75 111.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 108.5 13.3 92 90
131 07/28/15 Marron Road 20+00 111.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 109.1 12.8 92 90
184 08/05/15 Marron Road 31+50 94.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 109.0 13.3 92 90
185 08/05/15 Marron Road 32+50 91.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 106.8 14.9 90 90
189 08/05/15 Marron Road 31+45 96.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 104.2 15.4 92 90
190 08/05/15 Marron Road 32+40 93.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 103.0 17.7 91 90
196 08/06/15 Marron Road 11+05 110.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 103.7 15.6 92 90
197 08/06/15 Marron Road 9+85 111.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 109.7 15.4 93 90
205 08/07/15 Marron Road 30+90 102.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.0 11.2 91 90
206 08/07/15 Marron Road 31+35 100.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.6 10.7 90 90
211 08/07/15 Marron Road 30+60 102.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 108.4 14.9 92 90
214 08/10/15 Marron Road 30+10 107.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.6 13.5 91 90
215 08/10/15 Marron Road 31+20 106.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 108.5 13.1 92 90
216 08/10/15 Marron Road 32+10 105.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 104.6 16.1 93 90
220 08/10/15 Marron Road 31+05 109.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 102.8 17.6 91 90
221 08/10/15 Marron Road 32+00 108.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 103.4 15.7 92 90
226 08/11/15 Marron Road 31+30 112.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 108.8 16.2 92 90
227 08/11/15 Marron Road 32+10 110.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.5 15.9 91 90
SZ 237 08/13/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 124.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 115.1 11.1 90 90
SZ 238 08/13/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 125.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 116.1 11.1 91 90
SZ 239 08/13/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 126.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 115.9 10.7 90 90
SZ 241 08/13/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 131.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 114.9 10.7 90 90
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Quarry Creek 07135-42-05
Test No.Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Curve
No.
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
~GEOCON
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Quarry Creek 07135-42-05
Test No.Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Curve
No.
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
SZ 242 08/13/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 129.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 118.6 11.3 93 90
SZ 243 08/13/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 128.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 116.3 10.5 91 90
SZ 244 08/13/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 133.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 115.0 12.3 90 90
SZ 245 08/14/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 140.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.0 13.4 90 90
SZ 246 08/14/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 138.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.6 12.5 90 90
SZ 247 08/14/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 136.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 113.1 11.7 91 90
SZ 248 08/14/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 140.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.6 14.4 90 90
SZ 249 08/14/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 140.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.0 15.0 90 90
251 08/14/15 Marron Road 32+65 115.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 108.6 16.6 92 90
253 08/17/15 Marron Road 31+50 118.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 102.0 21.5 91 90
254 08/17/15 Marron Road 32+00 118.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 13.4 17.8 12 90
255 08/17/15 Marron Road 32+50 117.0 17 0 112.7 15.5 101.9 18.1 90 90
259 08/17/15 Marron Road 33+30 119.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 107.9 15.1 91 90
SZ 261 08/19/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 133.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 115.6 13.0 90 90
SZ 262 08/19/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 130.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 119.9 11.1 94 90
SZ 263 08/19/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 137.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 116.6 10.3 91 90
SZ 264 08/19/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 135.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 117.9 9.9 92 90
SZ 265 08/19/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 132.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 117.2 12.3 91 90
SZ 266 08/19/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 142.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 118.3 11.9 92 90
SZ 267 08/19/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 141.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 115.3 11.3 90 90
SZ 268 08/19/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 139.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 114.9 10.1 90 90
270 08/20/15 Marron Road 30+50 120.0 13 0 118.1 13.3 110.1 13.9 93 90
SZ 393 09/16/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 160.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.6 11.6 90 90
SZ 394 09/16/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 161.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.3 10.8 90 90
411 09/21/15 Marron Road 29+60 113.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.0 13.3 90 90
417 07/23/15 Marron Road 29+65 121.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 105.4 15.5 90 90
418 07/23/15 Marron Road 30+80 120.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 107.0 16.9 92 90
429 04/28/15 Marron Road 29+00 126.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 106.8 14.3 92 90
430 04/28/15 Marron Road 29+60 124.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 107.2 14.0 92 90
~GEOCON
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Quarry Creek 07135-42-05
Test No.Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Curve
No.
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
471 09/28/15 Marron Road 30+25 123.0 24 0 116.7 13.9 16.7 14.5 14 90
SZ 480 09/30/15 S of Marron Road 28+40 135.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 112.3 12.2 90 90
ST 505 10/07/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 138.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 116.2 12.8 91 90
ST 506 10/07/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 146.0 15 0 128.1 10.2 115.0 12.5 90 90
ST 507 10/07/15 Buttress S of Marron Road 140.0 14 0 124.6 11.3 111.8 12.2 90 90
~GEOCON
TABLE 1
EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMS
AC Asphalt Concrete IT Irrigation Trench SL Sewer Lateral
AD Area Drain JT Joint Trench SM Sewer Main
B Base M Moisture Test SR Slope Repair
CG Curb/Gutter MSE Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall ST Slope Test
DW Driveway RG Regrade SW Sidewalk
ET Electrical Trench RWL Reclaimed Water Lateral SZ Slope Zone
ETB Exploratory Trench RWM Reclaimed Water Main UT Utility Trench
FB Footing Backfill SBT Subdrain Trench WB Wall Backfill
FG Finish Grade SD Storm Drain WL Water Lateral
GT Gas Trench SG Subgrade WM Water Main
A, B, C, …
R
>¾" ROCK - ROCK CORRECTION
The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content can be adjusted for in-place soil that possesses rock larger than ¾
inch. The curve no. is adjusted for the percentage of ¾ inch rock in accordance with ASTM D 4718 or Woodward Clyde guidelines.
TEST NO. PREFIX
TEST NO. RE.
Retest of previous density test failure following additional moisture conditioning or recompaction
Fill in area of density test was removed during construction operations
CURVE NO.
Corresponds to the curve numbers presented in the summary of the laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content test
results. The field representative selected the curve no. based on the laboratory test results and field observations
ELEVATION OR DEPTH
Corresponds to the elevation or the depth, in feet, of the in-place density/moisture content test. The value has been rounded to the
nearest whole foot
0 GEOCO
Project No. 07135-42-05 February 27, 2017
TABLE II SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1557
Sample No. Description Maximum Dry Density (pcf)
Optimum Moisture Content (% dry weight)
2 Dark olive-brown to gay. Sandy CLAY 119.0 11.6
3 Light olive, Clayey fine to medium SAND 114.0 15.4
4 Light brown to olive, Silty, fine to coarse SAND 126.0 10.4
5 Dark brown, Clayey, fine SAND 130.9 8.9
6 Dark grayish brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND with some gravel 135.4 7.7
8 Olive brown, Sandy GRAVEL 135.0 7.6
9 Light greenish brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND 125.2 11.1
10 Light yellowish brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND 116.1 15.5
12 Reddish brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND, with GRAVEL 130.8 9.5
13 Light greenish brown, Silty, Sandy CLAY, some gravel 118.1 13.3
14 Light gray, Silty fine to coarse SAND with little gravel 124.6 11.3
15 Light brown, Silty , fine to coarse SAND 128.1 10.2
17 Very dark brown to black Sandy CLAY 112.7 15.5
18 Dark brown Silty CLAY 121.7 13.5
23 Yellowish brown Clayey fine to coarse SAND 121.5 12.3
24 Dark yellowish brown, Clayey SILT 116.7 13.9
26 Gray, Sandy CLAY, trace gravel 118.1 14.1
27 Dark gray, Silty fine to coarse SAND 122.9 11.4
28 Light gray Silty, fine to medium SAND 124.0 11.1
31 Light grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND 121.0 13.1
Project No. 07135-42-05 February 27, 2017
TABLE III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D 4829
Sample No. Representative Lot Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf)
Expansion Index
ASTM Classification (per 2013 CBC) Before Test After Test
EI-11 28 through 32 9.1 17.3 112.9 29 Low
EI-12 26, 27, 46, 55 and 56 9.0 16.5 113.0 18 Very Low
EI-13 41 through 45 9.0 17.1 111.7 17 Very Low
EI-14 33 through 36 9.4 17.2 112.1 19 Very Low
EI-16 37 through 40, 58 9.1 17.7 112.3 24 Low
EI-17 18 and 19 10.5 22.7 108.5 79 Medium
EI-18 16 and 17 10.3 21.4 109.2 56 Medium
EI-19 20 through 23 9.6 17.4 111.9 32 Low
EI-20 51 through 54 9.4 18.8 111.9 47 Low
EI-21 47 through 50 8.7 15.9 116.1 19 Very Low
EI-22 12 through 15 9.0 16.4 114.1 21 Low
EI-23 8 through 11 8.5 18.2 115.5 33 Low
EI-24 5 through 7 9.7 18.9 112.0 44 Low
EI-25 1 through 4 10.3 19.3 109.9 70 Medium
EI-26 24 and 25 8.7 17.5 115.8 44 Low
Project No. 07135-42-05 February 27, 2017
TABLE IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417
Sample No. Representative Lot Water-Soluble Sulfate (%) Sulfate Exposure
EI-11 28 through 32 0.015 Not Applicable (S0)
EI-12 26, 27, 46, 55 and 56 0.003 Not Applicable (S0)
EI-13 41 through 45 0.002 Not Applicable (S0)
EI-14 33 through 36 0.011 Not Applicable (S0)
EI-16 37 through 40, 58 0.001 Not Applicable (S0)
EI-17 18 and 19 0.014 Not Applicable (S0)
EI-18 16 and 17 0.008 Not Applicable (S0)
EI-19 20 through 23 0.014 Not Applicable (S0)
EI-20 51 through 54 0.021 Not Applicable (S0)
EI-21 47 through 50 0.001 Not Applicable (S0)
EI-22 12 through 15 0.001 Not Applicable (S0)
EI-23 8 through 11 0.009 Not Applicable (S0)
EI-24 5 through 7 0.001 Not Applicable (S0)
EI-25 1 through 4 0.017 Not Applicable (S0)
EI-26 24 and 25 0.012 Not Applicable (S0)
Project No. 07135-42-05 February 27, 2017
TABLE V SUMMARY OF AS-GRADED BUILDING PAD CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDED FOUNDATION CATEGORY FOR QUARRY CREEK, R-4 EAST
Lot No. Pad Condition
Approximate Maximum Depth of Fill (feet)
Approximate Depth of Fill Differential (feet)
Expansion Index Recommended Foundation Category
1 Fill 40 3 70 II
2 Fill 40 8 70 II
3 Fill 37 5 70 II
4 Fill 40 8 70 II
5 Fill 39 11 44 II
6 Fill 38 4 44 II
7 Fill 35 4 44 II
8 Fill 35 2 33 II
9 Fill 27 12 33 II
10 Fill 27 14 33 II
11 Fill 29 1 33 II
12 Fill 30 9 21 II
13 Fill 30 5 21 II
14 Fill 25 11 21 II
15 Fill 17 10 21 II
16 Undercut due to Cut-Fill Transition 11 8 56 II
17 Undercut due to Cut-Fill Transition 4 1 56 II
18 Cut - - 79 II
19 Cut - - 79 II
20 Undercut due to Clay 3 1 32 I
21 Undercut due to Clay 3 1 32 I
22 Undercut due to Clay 3 1 32 I
23 Undercut due to Clay 3 1 32 I
24 Cut - - 44 I
25 Fill 10 6 44 I
26 Undercut due to Clay 3 1 18 I
27 Cut - - 18 I
28 Cut - - 29 I
TABLE V (Concluded) SUMMARY OF AS-GRADED BUILDING PAD CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDED FOUNDATION CATEGORY FOR QUARRY CREEK, R-4 EAST
Project No. 07135-42-05 February 27, 2017
Lot No. Pad Condition
Approximate Maximum Depth of Fill (feet)
Approximate Depth of Fill Differential (feet)
Expansion Index Recommended Foundation Category
29 Cut - - 29 I
30 Cut - - 29 I
31 Cut - - 29 I
32 Fill 29 20 29 III
33 Fill 31 20 19 III
34 Fill 30 12 19 II
35 Fill 29 12 19 II
36 Fill 35 9 19 II
37 Fill 33 8 24 II
38 Fill 29 21 24 III
39 Fill 7 6 24 I
40 Fill 8 5 24 I
41 Fill 24 16 17 II
42 Fill 27 10 17 II
43 Fill 30 5 17 II
44 Fill 25 21 17 III
45 Cut - - 17 I
46 Undercut due to
Cut-Fill Transition 8 5 18 I
47 Fill 20 15 19 II
48 Fill 28 11 19 II
49 Fill 24 10 19 II
50 Fill 16 2 19 I
51 Fill 14 3 47 I
52 Fill 20 7 47 II
53 Fill 20 8 47 II
54 Fill 20 8 47 II
55 Undercut due to Clay 3 - 18 I
56 Undercut due to Cut-Fill Transition 5 2 18 I
57 Fill 6 3 17 I
58 Fill 14 4 24 I