1994-4135 G
g { (Ó s
Street Address
I
Jfl( 3 Lf /
Category
Serial #
I1 { 3~
G7
I
Name
Description
Plan ck. #
Year
recdescv
-,e
E
K&S ENGINEERING
Planning Engineering SurveYing
~'
HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS
FOR
WILDFLOWER ESTATES LOT 23
(4135 G)
IN
CITY OF ENCINITAS
IN 9454
JAN. 5, 1995
œŒ@~U\VlŒ[QJ
JAN 1 3 1995
ENGINEERING SERVICES
CITY OF ENCINITAS
'-- I
7801 Mission Center Court, Suite 200 . San Diego, California 92108 . (619) 296-5565 . Fax (619) 296-5564
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
2.
SITE DESCRIPTION
HYDROLOGY DESIGN MODELS
3.
HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS .......................... APPENDIX A
4.
HYDROLOGY MAPS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B
5.
TABLES AND CHARTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. APPENDIX C
1.
SITE DESCRIPTION
THE SITE CONSISTS OF STEEP ROLLING TERRAIN.
SOUTHERLY TOWARD THE SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE.
WATER SHEET FLOWS
THE OFF SITE DRAINAGE IS INTERCEPTED AND CONTAINED BY THE STREET
CURB.
2.
HYDROLOGY DESIGN MODELS
A.
DESIGN METHODS
THE RATIONAL METHOD IS USED IN THIS HYDROLOGY STUDY; THE RATIONAL
FORMULA IS AS FOLLOWS:
Q = CIA, WHERE: Q= PEAK DISCHARGE IN CUBIC FEET/SECOND *
C = RUNOFF COEFFICIENT (DIMENSIONLESS)
I = RAINFALL INTENSITY IN INCHES/HOUR
A = TRIBUTARY DRAINAGE AREA IN ACRES
*1 ACRE INCHES/HOUR = 1.008 CUBIC FEET/SEC
THE OVERLAND FLOW METHOD IS ALSO USED IN THIS HYDROLOGY STUDY; THE
OVERLAND FLOW FORMULA IS AS FOLLOWS:
To=[1.8 (1.1-C) (L),S]/(S%)1/3
C = RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
L = OVERLAND TRAVEL DISTANCE IN FEET
S = SLOPE IN PERCENT
To= TIME IN MINUTES
B.
DESIGN CRITERIA
- FREQUENCY, 100 YEAR STORM.
- LAND USE PER SPECIFIC PLAN AND TENTATIVE MAP.
- RAIN FALL INTENSITY PER COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1993 HYDROLOGY
DESIGN MANUAL.
C.
REFERENCES
- COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1993, HYDROLOGY MANUAL.
- COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1992 REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWING.
- HAND BOOK OF HYDRAULICS BY BRATER & KING, SIXTH EDITION.
APPENDIX A
(3. HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS)
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
RAT ION A L - H Y D R 0 LOG Y
PROGRAM PACKAGE
Rational Hydrology Study
Date:
1- 5-1995
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rational method hydrology program based on
San Diego County Flood Control Division
1985 Hydrology Manual
Storm Event (Year) = 100.00
Map data precipitation entered:
6 HOUR, Precipitation (Inches) = 2.700
24 Hour Precipitation (Inches) = 4.500
Adjusted 6 Hour Precipitation (Inches) = 2.700
P6/P24 = 60.0 %
Specified Constant Runoff Coefficient = .650
Runoff Coefficients by RATIONAL METHOD
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000
*** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ***
USER specified constant "C" for entire area = .6500
Initial Subarea Flow Dist. = 65.00
Highest Elevation = 225.00
Lowest Elevation = 200.00
Elevation Difference = 25.00
Time of concentration calculated by the Urban
Areas overland flow method (APP X-C) = 1.935 Min.
TC = [1.8*(1.1-C)*DISTANCE^.5)/(% SLOPE^(1/3)]
TC = [1.8*(1.1- .6500)*( 65.00^.5)/( 38.46^(1/3)])=
100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity(In./Hr.) = 13.124
Subarea (Acres) = .02 Subarea Runoff(CFS) =
Total Area(Acres) = .02 Total Runoff(CFS) =
TC(MIN) = 1.93
1.935
.18
.18
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 3.000
*** TRAPEZOIDAL/RECT. CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ***
Upstream point elevation = 200.00
Downstream point elevation = 198.90
Channel length thru subarea(Feet) = 160.00
Channel base(Feet) = .00
Slope or "Z" of left channel bank = 100.000
Slope or "Z" of right channel bank = 100.000
Mannings "N" = .022 Maximum depth of channel
Flow(Q) thru subarea (CFS) = .18
Upstream point elevation = 200.00
Downstream point elevation = 198.90
Flow length(Ft.) = 160.00
Travel time (Min.) = 5.04 TC(min.) =
Depth of flow = .06 (Ft.)
Average Velocity = .53 (Ft./Sec.)
Channel flow top width = 11.63 (Ft.)
(Ft.) =
.50
6.97
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 3.000
*** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ***
100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity(In./Hr.) = 5.741
USER specified constant "C" for entire area = .6500
Subarea (Acres) = .31 Subarea Runoff(CFS) = 1.18
Total Area(Acres) = .34 Total Runoff(CFS) = 1.35
TC(MIN) = 6.97
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000
*** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ***
USER specified constant "C" for entire area = .6500
Initial Subarea Flow Dist. = 65.00
Highest Elevation = 225.00
Lowest Elevation = 200.00
Elevation Difference = 25.00
Time of concentration calculated by the Urban
Areas overland flow method (APP X-C) = 1.935 Min.
TC = [1.8*(1.1-C)*DISTANCE^.5)/(% SLOPE^(1/3)]
TC = [1.8*(1.1- .6500)*( 65.00^.5)/( 38.46^(1/3)])=
100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity(In./Hr.) = 13.124
Subarea (Acres) = .02 Subarea Runoff(CFS) =
Total Area(Acres) = .02 Total Runoff (CFS) =
TC(MIN) = 1.93
1.935
.17
.17
.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 4.000
*** TRAPEZOIDAL/RECT. CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ***
Upstream point elevation = 200.00
Downstream point elevation = 198.90
Channel length thru subarea(Feet) = 140.00
Channel base(Feet) = .00
Slope or "Z" of left channel bank = 100.000
Slope or "Z" of right channel bank = 100.000
Mannings "N" = .022 Maximum depth of channel
Flow(Q) thru subarea (CFS) = .17
Upstream point elevation = 200.00
Downstream point elevation = 198.90
Flow length(Ft.) = 140.00
Travel time (Min.) = 4.24 TC(min.) =
Depth of flow = .06 (Ft.)
Average Velocity = .55 (Ft./Sec.)
Channel flow top width = 11.14 (Ft.)
(Ft.) =
.50
6.18
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 4.000
*** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ***
100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity(In./Hr.) = 6.207
USER specified constant "C" for entire area = .6500
Subarea (Acres) = .52 Subarea Runoff(CFS) = 2.09
Total Area(Acres) = .54 Total Runoff(CFS) = 2.26
TC(MIN) = 6.18
End of computations.. ,
TOTAL STUDY AREA(ACRES) =
.87
***************************************************************************
****** CHANNEL FLOW CALCULATIONS ******
***************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
ECTANGULAR CHANNEL CALCULATIONS FOR SLOPE OF AREA "A"
****************************************************************************
CALCULATE DEPTH OF FLOW GIVEN:
Channel Slope = .500000 (Ft./Ft.) = 50.0000 %
Given Flow Rate = 1.35 Cubic Feet/Second
*** TRAPEZOIDAL/RECTANGULAR/V-SHAPE CHANNEL ***
Channel base(Feet) = 2.00
Slope or "Z" of left channel bank = .000
Slope or "z" of right channel bank = .000
Mannings "N" = .012 Maximum depth of channel
Depth of flow = .055 (Ft.)
Average Velocity = 12.23 (Ft./Sec.)
Channel flow top width = 2.00 (Ft.)
Flow(Q) thru channel (CFS) = 1.35
CRITICAL FLOW CALCULATIONS FOR CHANNEL NO.1:
Subchannel Critical Flow Top Width(Ft.) =
Subchannel Critical Flow Velocity(Ft./Sec.) =
Subchannel Critical Flow Area(Sq. Ft.) =
Froude Number Calculated = 1.000
Subchannel Critical Depth =
(Ft.) =
.80
2.00
2.792
.48
.242
***************************************************************************
****** CHANNEL FLOW CALCULATIONS ******
***************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
ECTANGULAR CHANNEL CALCULATIONS FOR SLOPE OF AREA "B"
****************************************************************************
CALCULATE DEPTH OF FLOW GIVEN:
Channel Slope = .500000 (Ft./Ft.) = 50.0000 %
Given Flow Rate = 2.26 Cubic Feet/Second
*** TRAPEZOIDAL/RECTANGULAR/V-SHAPE CHANNEL ***
Channel base(Feet) = 2.00
Slope or "Z" of left channel bank = .000
Slope or "Z" of right channel bank = .000
Mannings "N" = .012 Maximum depth of channel
Depth of flow = .076 (Ft.)
Average Velocity = 14.93 (Ft./Sec.)
Channel flow top width = 2.00 (Ft.)
Flow(Q) thru channel (CFS) = 2.26
CRITICAL FLOW CALCULATIONS FOR CHANNEL NO.1:
Subchannel Critical Flow Top Width(Ft.) =
Subchannel Critical Flow Velocity(Ft./Sec.) =
Subchannel Critical Flow Area (Sq. Ft.) =
Froude Number Calculated = 1.000
Subchannel Critical Depth =
(Ft.) =
.80
2.00
3.314
.68
.341
Q." C. L. I//"l.-
\ ~ I..
'Z. ,z.", ,..,. ~....,J ( 4-)!1 '
¡J ~ D rC> ~
APPENDIX B
(4.
HYDROLOGY MAP)
\
\
I
I
\
I
\
\
\
I
\
. \
\
, I
\ f
\ f .
\
---\r;;1\ r<I. .
~I
\~ t .
\\~ ~
ð'
\ j .
\~\, .
\;!í¡ t .
\~.
\..d
i~'I
\ Î.
\ j
\ I,
Æ:....
\L
\
\ ..
\ û .
\ ~
\
\ ~.
i .
\ ~
i .
\ ~
\ '
\
(5.
APPENDIX C
TABLES AND CHARTS)
URB/9A/ h'RE/'?S OJ/ERL/lNLJ TIME tJF FLtJW CURVES
//J/J ' "
¿) .
J..4.:.-, ~ '
i-++ ., .......:-,--t
rr-t-r....,. ,
, .'
!~".;...~
, '
~'
7/J
,-
, ,,'
, ,
, , ì
"'-J
- ,. ~
-- ....:.:
-'-,,~ 4fJ ~~
...- '
~
-.
~
....,
,'.,:
"
4.
I'
, !
, .
, , .
- '?¿' "'
- ~
.;:.
....
.~
~
.'~
.,....
#.81J
, .~,: :-. ~ ; +--=-:.
2tJ :,,'
~,
I '
, "
/0
.., . '
,,' I
,
, ' , ,I
. '~': I
" ,
-
i: , ,
-++ --"-,
! '
... ~-' .
" "
, ,
, I
'~, ,"" .,..iJ
, . :
Ex ample ..
C/ven : L ~.I1'9.1h 01' Row' .3tJtJ /r.
Slope = I a %
Coe/héÚ?//¡t 0/ Runol'l'. C,, SO
R~a.d: {}ý~r/Q'/7c/ /7ow/~ml! :/.7 ÃI//7u/~.s
I SAN D! EGO COUNTY
I
! DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT
¡
I APPROVED
\ hi
- \-~(I.\-G'ìlL}
, o~ [S \ Ii) 'il '/'J
I
SERVICES I
I
I
I
URBAN AREAS OVERLAND TIME
OF FLOW C:URV-::S
DE SIGN MANUAL
'./.. .'r/"'/"...'./1'd--¡:--~-:-"'-'-'-'
I'l. If /6 ?
DATE
API:JENDIX X - ~
rNTENSITY,..DUMTION DESIGN CHART
-O-H+'.,..
......
..........
~ .2
-...~-,..,.
;J>
'"CI
'"CI
tTJ
Z
0
H
><
x ,I
H
);. 10
Minutes
n,....I.J...
2
Hou rs
4
5
6
15
3
20
30
40 50 1
"I11III
Directions for Application:
l} From precipitation rlaps detennine 6 hr. and
24 hr. amounts for the selected frequency.
These maps are printed in the County Hydrol09Y
Manual {10, 50 and 100 yr. maps included in the
Design and Procedure Manual}.
2} Adjust 6 hr. precipitation {if necessary} so
that it is within the range of 45% to 65% of
the 24 hr. precipitation. (Not urr1icab1e
to Desert)
3} Plot 6 hr. precipitation on the right side
of the chart.
4} Draw a line through the point parallel to the
plotted lines.
5} This line is the intensity-duration curve for'
the location being analyzed.
Application Form:
O} Selected Frequency
1} P6 = in., P24=
yr.
*
, P6 =
"l52 4
in.
%*
2} Adjusted *P6=
3} t = min.
c
4} I = in/hr.
*Not Applicable to Desert Region
Revised 1/85 APPENDIX XI-A
;;0
(J)
<
......
(J¡
(J)
p.
t-'
.........
CO
VI
;Þ
'1:j
'1:j
m
Z
0
H
X
><
H
I
m
""I11III
COUIITY OF SAN DIEGO
DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION &
FLOOD CONTROL
45'
30' !
I
15' !
33°
45'
Prep" +,d by
v,s. DEPARTl\1EN!r OF CG:\1I\1ERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND AT~~OSPIIERIC ADMINISTRATION
SPECIAL STUDIES BRANCH. OFFICE OF IItDROLOGY. NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE
I J 8'
If 5 1
J 5 r
30'
15'
I J 6°
30'
Revised 1/85
APPENDIX XI-E
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
DEPARH1ENT OF SANITATION &
FLOD!) CONTROL
1~5 I
;;:::J
(!)
<
1-"
If¡
(!)
p.
......
----
co
U1
?
'"
'"
[T]
z
0
H
><
><
H
I
11 n°
""I11III
.
I,IJ I
1170
I r; I
II (,U
I ~ i I
I 'î I
WI
"01
Revised 1/85
APPENDIX XI-II
..
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
SFp 7
~~ 13, 1995
prõ1&ct No. CE-5114
Alan Mayo
1722 Kettering Street
Irvine, CA 92714
Subject:
Report of Certification of Compacted Fill Ground
Proposed Dwelling
Lot #23, Wildflower Estates
Encinitas, California
Dear Mr. Mayo:
In response to your request, the following report has been prepared
to indicate results of soil testing, observations and inspection of
earthwork construction at the subject site.
Testing and inspection services were performed from February 1,
1995 through March 9, 1995.
Briefly, our findings reveal filled ground has been compacted to a
minimum of ninety percent (90%). Therefore, we recommend
construction continue as scheduled.
~Q£E.
Our firm was retained to observe grading operations with regard to
current standard practices and to determine the degree of
compaction of placed fill,
Grading plans were prepared by K & S Engineer ing of San Diego,
California,
Grading operations
Excavating.
performed
by
Greg
Whilock
Grading
&
were
Reference is made to our previous ly submitted report entitled,
"Preliminary Soils Investigation", dated December 30, 1994.
Approximate locations and depth of filled ground and extent of
earthwork construction covered in this report are indicated on the
attached Plate No. One entitled, "Test Location Sketch",
P.O. BOX 302002 . ESCONDIDO, CA 92030
(619) 480-1116
to
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
March 13, 1995
Project No. CE-5114
Page 2
Grading operations were performed in order to create a level
building pad to accommodate the proposed dwelling and swimming
pool. Should the finished pad be altered in any way, we should be
contacted to provide additional recommendations.
The site was graded in accordance with recommendations set forth in
our previously submitted report.
The site was graded to approximately conform to project plans.
Actual pad size and elevation may differ. Finish grade operations
are to be completed at a later date,
LABORATORY TESTING
Representative soil samples were collected and returned to the
laboratory for testing. The following tests were performed and are
tabulated on the attached Plate No. Three.
1, Optimum Moisture/Maximum Density (ASTM D-1557)
2. Expansion Potential Test
3. Direct Shear Test
S~CillilllT.lQ.N.s-
Nati ve soils encountered were clayey-sands and gravelly-clays.
Fill soils were imported and generated from the on-site excavation.
The building site contained a transition from cut to fill.
However, cut areas located wi thin the building area were over
excavated a minimum of 4 feet and brought to grade with compacted
soil. Over excavation was carried a minimum of 10 feet beyond
exterior building perimeter. Hence, no consideration need be given
this characteristic.
Oversize material consisting of rock and boulders was left above
ground as landscape material. Oversize material is defined as rock
and boulders in excess of 12 inches in size. It should not be
placed in structural fills. It may be placed in nonstructural
fills designated and supervised by North County COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
Expansive soils were observed during grading. However, they were
capped with a minimum of 48 inches of nonexpansive, imported soils.
The non-expansive bearing cap was constructed in accordance Hith
the recommendations presented in our preliminary soils report.
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
March 13, 1995
ProJect No. CE-5114
Page 3
During earthwork construction, native areas to receive fill were
scarafied, watered and compacted to a minimum of ninety percent
(90%) of maximum density. The key was approximately 25 feet wide,
a minimum of 3 feet in depth and inclined into the slope,
Subsequent fill soils Here placed, watered and compacted in 6 inch
lifts. Benches were constructed in natural ground at intermediate
levels to properly support the fill. To determine the degree of
compaction, field density tests were performed in accordance Hith
ASTM D-1556 or D-2922 at the approximate horiz.ontal locations
designated on the attached Plate No, One entitled. "Test Location
Sketch" . A tabulation of test results and their vertical locations
are presented on the attached Plate No. Two entitled, "Tabulation
of Test Results". Fill soils found to have a relati ve compaction of
less than ninety percent (90%) were reworked until proper
compaction was achieved.
~lLAND CON~ß-
Continuous inspection was not requested to verify fill soils were
placed in accordance with current standard practices regarding
grading operations and earthwork construction. Therefore, as eco-
nomically feasible as possible, part-time inspection was provided.
Hence, the following recommendations are based on the assumption
that all areas tested are representative of the entire project,
1) Compacted fill and natural ground within the defined
building areas have adequate strength to safely support
the proposed loads.
2) Slopes may be considered stable with relation to deep
seated failure, provided they are properly maintained.
Slopes should be planted Hi th light groundcover (no
gorilla iceplant) indigenous to the area. Drainage should
be diverted away from the slopes to prevent water flowing
on the face of slope. This will reduce the probability of
failure as a result of erosion,
3) Continuous footings having a minimum width of 12 inches
and founded a minimum of 12 inches and 18 inches below lowest
adjacent grade for one and two story, respectively, will have
an estimated allowable bearing value of 2000 lbs, per square
foot,
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
March 13, 1995
Project No, CE-5114
Page 4
4) All foundations should be constructed in accordance
wi th recommendation" 6B. Foundations", of our preliminary
soils report, dated December 30, 1994,
5) Footings located on or adjacent to slopes should be founded
at a depth such that the horizontal distance from the bottom
outside face of footing to the face of the slope is a minimum
of 8 feet.
6) Plumbing trenches should be backfilled with a nonexpansive
soil having a swell of less than 2% and a minimum sand
equivalent of 30. Backfill soils should be inspected
and compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90%),
7) Completion of grading operations were left at rough grade.
Therefore, we recommend a landscape architect be contacted to
provide finish grade and drainage recommendations. Drainage
recommendations should include concrete sidewalks placed on
all sides of structure a minimum of 4 feet in width and have
a minimum fall of 2% away from foundation zone, To further
protect water penetration of the zone, rain gutters should be
installed to divert run-off. Landscape planter areas within
4 feet of the foundation should be avoided.
8) Unless requested, recommendations for future improvements
(additions, recreational slabs, additional grading, etc.) were
not included in this report. Prior to construction, we should
be contacted to update condition and provide additional
recommendations.
9) Prior to construction of the proposed pool, the pool con-
tractor should be contacted for concrete and reinforcement
design. It should be noted, the proposed pool Hill protrude
through the non-expansive cap and bear into on-site expansive
soils. Therefore, the pool should be designed with regard to
expansive soils.
Prior to pouring of concrete, North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING,
INC, should be contacted to inspect foundation recommendations for
compliance to those set forth.
During placement of concrete, North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING,
INC. and/or a qualified concrete inspector should be present to
document construction of foundations.
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
March 13, 1995
Project No. CE-5114
Page 5
Foundation recommendations presented in this report should be
considered minimal. Therefore, we recommend the project architect
and structural engineer review this report to assure recommen-
dations presented herein will be suitable with regard to the type
of construction planned.
I1~JLJ.JltiTATl(ll.£
In the event foundation excavation and steel placement inspection
is required and/or requested, an additional cost of $160.00 will be
invoiced to perform the field inspection and prepare a Final
Conformance Letter. If foundations are constructed in more than one
phase, $110.00 for each additional inspection will be invoiced.
It is the responsibility of the owner and/or his representative to
carry out recommendations set forth in this report.
San Diego County is located in a high-risk area with regard to
earthquake, Earthquake resistant projects are economically un-
feasible. Therefore, damage as a result of earthquake is probable
and we assume no liability.
We assume the on-site safety of our personnel. only. We cannot
assume liability of personnel other than our own. It is the re-
sponsibility of the owner and contractor to insure construction
operations are conducted in a safe manner and in conformance with
regulations governed by CAL-OSHA and/or local agencies.
Should yoU have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely
appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
19393
000713
North County
COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC.
~~
Ronald K. Adams
President
RKA:kla
cc: (3 )
(2 )
submitted
filed
NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL TESTING & INSPECTION SERVICES
TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN
RDPD5~D BUILD/ruG PAD ~ LOT 2.3 ~ W lill FLO\rJ~R ~STATE.5
IDLE T RIO¡;~ J EJ'J [IN ITA S) CA
APU LLnY ^" Oq 2.~ y&,
k- VI OLt¿ T
RIDEi1L~
15/ CUT
SLO p ~
ra 2 ',I
@~~
6ì!@
i~-j- (26)
~20/ @ -~@
e@
0
@
GD
(~
LOT 2-3
(9 @
@ @
@
(~
@)
Gì)@
'---
@
G
@
@@
@
@/
@
/'~ -
/SO}
\._",
@@
@ø@
@
"-
~¿y I FILL ~LOPE-
(à 2.,,\
I
ROJECT NO. C ["- 5 J J LJ
PLATE NO. 0 f\JE.
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
TABIJL AT-IOli _.QF~SLRE£ UL, T S.
TIiS.TJt MTE. ilQRL. :iElIT.~ l!"'-l.ELI2 DRLl21iliS.llY SillL £ERCKti'r
LQ.~ LQ~ MQIS.'r LB....1C.U.....EL.. T_YN Cill'œAcrLO.N
1 02/06/95 See 176.0 13.4 105.9 II 93,7
2 Plate 177.5 12.3 102.3 II 90,5
:3 One 178.5 15. 1 107.8 II 95.4
4 02/07 /95 184,0 15.2 116.0 III 98.3
5 186.0 18.4 105.4 II 93.3
6 180.5 17.7 104.3 II 92.3
7 182.5 15.4 112.7 III 95.5
8 181.5 17.4 113.3 III 96,0
9 1.83.0 17.7 105,3 II 93. 1
10 188.0 15.6 113,9 III 96.5
11 189.0 14.2 115.0 III 97.5
12 185.0 15.7 115.4 III 97.8
13 187.0 17.4 106.3 II 94. 1
14 188.0 13.8 107.8 II 95.4
15 02/08/~35 191. 0 17.0 113.7 III 96.4
16 " 193.0 19.5 1.05.9 II 93.7
17 194.0 17,9 115.7 III 98. 1
18 191. 0 17. 1 116.3 III 98.6
19 02/16/95 196.0 17.4 107. 1. III 90.8
20 " 19!5. 0 17.2 106.6 III 90.3
21 197.0 19.9 108.8 III 92.2
22 196.0 16.5 112.7 III 95.5
23 197.0 20.2 105.2 II 93. 1.
24 02/17/95 197.0 16.9 108.7 III 92. 1
25 199.0 1.6,8 110.4 III 93,6
26 197.0 19.2 107.7 III 91. .3
27 199.0 19.6 108.0 III 91.5
28 02/23/915 203.0 17,4 104.2 II 92,3
29 205.0 16,3 111.4 III 94.4
30 204.0 17. 1 115.2 III 97.6
31 201.0 15,9 116.6 III 98,8
32 203.0 16.8 115.8 III 98, 1
33 02 124 195 204.0 15,8 109.7 III 93,0
34 203.0 16.3 111. 6 III 94.6
:35 203.0 18.5 107.9 III 91. 4
36 204.0 15.8 112.0 III 94,9
37 03/01/95 205.0 08.9 103.7 IV 92.9
38 " 204.0 11. 0 102.2 IV 91.6
39 205.0 09,5 103,2 IV 92,5
40 204.0 10.0 104.5 IV 93.6
PROJECT NO. CE-5114
PLATE NO. TWO (page 1)
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
TAB!1L.AT.N~
:ŒSI1t DAT..K HQ~ Y.EJrL. ElEIJ2 DRLDlilllil.IT SQlL. EJlliCE N T
L.Oc.~ L.Q~ l1QlSJ.~ LJLL.c.U~ TYEE. G.OlœAC.T-IOH
41 03/01/9b r" 204,0 07.4 101.4 IV 90,9
iJee
42 " Plate 205.0 07.3 101.8 IV 91.2
43 03/02/95 One 20E1. 0 12. 1 102.4 IV 91.8
44 " " 206.0 10.6 108.3 IV 97.0
45 204.5 08.8 108.2 IV 97.0
46 206.0 07.0 101.7 IV 91. 1
47 205.5 09. 1 103,2 IV 92.5
48 03/09/95 206.0RFG 09.3 107.3 IV 96. 1
49 206.0RFG 09,2 104,3 IV 93.5
50 206.0RFG 08.3 105. 1 IV 94.2
REMARKS:
RFG = Rough Finish Grade
PROJECT NO. CE-5114
PI~A'l'E NO. TWO (page 2)
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
T.ABJlLAllQ
OPTIMUM MOISTURE/MAXIMUM DENSITY
SOIL DESCRIPTION IYE.E. MAX. DRY DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE
Clb/cu. ft.) (% dry wt)
Red Brown Silty'
Clay I 112.9 17,7
Yellow Brown Sandy
Gravelly-Clay II 113.0 19. 1
Orange Brown Silty
Gravelly Clay III 118. a 15.5
Light Gray-White
~~ i 1 ty- Sand (Import) IV 111.6 15.7
SAMPLE NO.,-
CONDITION
INITIAL MOISTURE (%)
AIR DRY MOISTURE (%)
FINAL MOISTURE (%)
FINAL DRY DENSITY (pef)
LOAD (psf)
SWELL (%)
EXPANSION INDEX
EXPANSION POTENTIAL
IV
Remold 90%
15.7
4.8
21.5
100,4
150
.000
Less than 5
DIRECT SHEAR
SAMPLE NO,
CONDITION
ANGLE INTERNAL FRICTION
COHESION INTERCEPT (PCF)
IV
Remold 90%
32
190
PROJECT NO. CE-5114
PLATE NO. THREE