1995-4220 G
Street Address
ð l (ç;5
I
¡¡SO as
Serial #
Category
L{J~()
~
I
Description
Name
Year
Plan ck. #
recdescy
.
E
K&$ ENGINEERING
Planning Engineering SurveYing
"9""
,/
" I .' I
~ (,.:c;,
HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS
FOR
WILDFLOWER LOT
IN
. '. 't\\\
i',.., . \
, \,~\\ \,.\ \ \, "
,\ \J v \ \: '
I '. \ ~' \j \.--)
'.' \'n \,-:1
3°\, \:J.\'~ \1 \~~-' \~~~.r-
\\) f~~ ~ ~ ._~\ \C'¿.::¡
,) r.. ~1'í:;:. -f" r-.5
~\~~ ~ ~N\ \
G\Ñ\::.€ ~ t:.~c, .
t:.~ C'\'Í 0
CITY OF ENCINITAS
IN 9518
February 27, 1995
"'."""",-:. .-~,f" '.'
....".~\k'~'\.'('1
,," r;!'f'V" h.""J OA1
I~'~\ 'Y-1(
I .'-1."~Y¡j""~~' S. S ~~,
I:::; ~~ tt~ . :::-".
Ie". '-',.. ,
, :¡ ( '.,..
\~"".' f.""o ,1,~.,:".. \"
0:: ,-
, " :. ,
~ é~
~~
il'XP A E
7801 Mission Center Court, Suite 200 . San Diego. California 92108 . (619) 296-5565 . Fax (619) 296-5564
TABLE OF CONTENTS
l.
2.
SITE DESCRIPTION
HYDROLOGY DESIGN MODELS
3.
HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS .......................... APPENDIX A
4.
5.
HYDROLOGY MAPS ................................... APPENDIX B
TABLES AND CHARTS ................................ APPENDIX C
1.
SITE DESCRIPTION
THE SITE CONSISTS OF STEEP ROLLING TERRAIN. WATER SHEET FLOWS
SOUTHERLY TOWARD THE SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE.
THE OFF SITE DRAINAGE IS INTERCEPTED AND CONTAINED BY THE STREET
CURB THEN DIRECTED ALONG THE CURB WESTERLY INTO A CONCRETE SPILLWAY
WHERE RUNOFF WILL BE DISSIPATED BY RIP RAP.
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 I S AS FOLLOWS:
To= [1. 8 (l.l-C) (L) .5] / (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
RATIONAL-HYDROLOGY
PROGRAM PACKAGE
Rational Hydrology Study Date: 2-27-1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMA TION*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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(lnches) = 2.700
24 Hour Precipitation(lnches) = 4.500
Adjusted 6 Hour Precipitation (Inches) = 2.700
P6/P24 = 60.0 %
Specified Constant Runoff Coefficient = .650
Runoff Coefficients by RATIONAL METHOD
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111+++++++111111++++1111111
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. = 140.00
Highest Elevation = 278.00
Lowest Elevation = 256.00
Elevation Difference = 22.00
Time of concentration calculated by the Urban
Areas overland flow method (APP X-C) = 3.826 Min.
TC = [1.8*(1.1-C)*DISTANCE^.5)/(% SLOPE^(1/3)]
TC = [1.8*(1.1- .6500)*( I40.00^.5)/( I5.71^(1/3)])=
100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity(In./Hr.) = 8.454
Subarea(Acres) = .07 Subarea Runoff(CFS) = .38
Total Area(Acres) = .07 Total Runoff(CFS) = .38
TC(MIN) = 3.83
3.826
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111+++++++111111111+11111111
Process from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 3.000
... PIPEFLOW TIME (USER SPECIFIED SIZE) ...
Upstream point elevation = 256.00
Downstream point elevation = 244.40
Flow length(Ft.) = 132.00 Mannings N = .015
No. of pipes = I Required pipe flow (CFS) =
Given pipe size (In.) = 24.00
Calculated Individual Pipe flow (CFS) =
Normal flow depth in pipe = 1.39 (In.) /
Flow top width inside pipe = 11.23 (In.)
Velocity = 5.240 (Ft/S)
Travel time (Min.) = .42 TC(min.) = 4,25
.38
.38
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111+++111111++++11111111111111
Process from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 3.000
*** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ***
100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity(In./Hr.) = 7.905
USER specified constant "c" for entire area = .6500
Subarea(Acres) = .32 Subarea Runoff(CFS) = 1.64
Total Area(Acres) = .39 Total Runoff(CFS) = 2.03
TC(MIN) = 4.25
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111++++1111111111111
Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 4.000
... INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ...
USER specified constant "C" for entire area = .6500
Initial Subarea Flow Dist. = ISO.OO
Highest Elevation = 27S.00
Lowest Elevation = 252.00
Elevation Difference = 26.00
Time of concentration calculated by the Urban
Areas overland flow method (APP X-C) = 4.462 Min.
TC = [1.S.(1.I-C).DISTANCE^.5)/(% SLOPE^(1/3)]
TC = [1.S.(1.1- .6500).( ISO.00^.5)/( I4.44^(l/3)])=
100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity(In./Hr.) = 7.656
Subarea(Acres) = .10 Subarea Runoff(CFS) = .50
Total Area(Acres) = .10 Total Runoff(CFS) = .50
TC(MIN) = 4.46
4.462
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111+++1111111111111111
Process from Point/Station 4.000 to Point/Station 5.000
... PIPEFLOW TIME (USER SPECIFIED SIZE) ...
Upstream point elevation = 252.00
Downstream point elevation = 222.00
Flow Iength(Ft.) = 230.00 Mannings N = .015
No. of pipes = I Required pipe flow (CFS) =
Given pipe size (In.) = 24.00
Calculated Individual Pipe flow (CFS) =
Normal flow depth in pipe = 1.43 (In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 11.38 (In.)
Velocity = 6.501 (Ft/S)
Travel time (Min.) = .59 TC(min.) = 5.05
.50
.50
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111+++++++111111111
Process from Point/Station 4.000 to Point/Station 5.000
... SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ...
100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity(In./Hr.) = 7.067
USER specified constant "c" for entire area = .6500
Subarea(Acres) = .60 Subarea Runoff(CFS) = 2.76 /
Total Area(Acres) = .70 Total Runoff(CFS) = 3.25 ..
TC(MIN) = 5.05
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111+111111111+++++++
Process from Point/Station 6.000 to Point/Station 7.000
..* INITIAL AREA EVALUATION *..
USER specified constant "C" for entire area = .6500
Initial Subarea Flow Dist. = 30.00
Highest Elevation = 258.00
Lowest Elevation = 242.00
Elevation Difference = 16.00
Time of concentration calculated by the Urban
Areas overland flow method (APP X-C) = 1.179 Min.
TC = [1.8*(1.1-C)*DISTANCE^.5)/(% SLOPE^(l/3)]
TC = [1.8*(1.1- .6500)*( 30.00^.5)/( 53.33^(l/3)])=
100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity(In./Hr.) = 18,067
Subarea(Acres) = .01 Subarea RuDoff(CFS) = .12
Total Area(Acres) = .01 Total Runoff(CFS) = .12
TC(MIN) = 1.18
1.179
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111+++++++11111111111111
Process from Point/Station 7.000 to Point/Station 8.000
... TRAPEZOIDAL/RECT. CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ...
Upstream point elevation = 242.00
Downstream point elevation = 241.20
Channel length thru subarea(Feet) = 135.00
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 (Ft.) = .50
FIow(Q) thru subårea(CFS) = .12
Upstream point elevation = 242.00
Downstream point elevation = 241.20
Flow Iength(Ft.) = 135.00
Travel time (Min.) = 4.99 TC(min.) = 6.17
Depth of flow = .05 (Ft.)
Average Velocity = .45 (Ft.lSec.)
Channel flow top width = 10.21 (Ft.)
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111++++++++++++++++111111
Process from Point/Station 7.000 to Point/Station 8.000
... SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ...
100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity(In./Hr.) = 6.210
USER specified constant "C" for entire area = .6500
Subarea(Acres) = .33 Subarea Runoff(CFS) = 1.33
Total Area(Acres) = .34 Total Runoff(CFS) = 1.45
TC(MIN) = 6.17
11111111111111111111111111111111111+++11111111111111111111+111111111111++++
Process from Point/Station 6.000 to Point/Station 7.000
*.. INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ..*
USER specified constant "C" for entire area = .6500
Initial Subarea Flow Dist. = 30.00
Highest Elevation = 25S.00
Lowest Elevation = 242.00
Elevation Difference = 16.00
Time of concentration calculated by the Urban
Areas overland flow method (APP X-C) = 1.179 Min.
TC = [1.S*(I.1-C)*DISTANCE^.5)/(% SLOPE^(l/3)]
TC = [1.S*(1.1- .6500)*( 30.00^.5)/( 53.33^(1/3)])=
100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity(In./Hr.) = IS.067
Subarea(Acres) = .01 Subarea Runoff(CFS) = .12
Total Area(Acres) = .01 Total Runoff(CFS) = .12
TC(MIN) = I.IS
1.179
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111+++++++1111111111
Process from Point/Station 7.000 to Point/Station 9.000
... TRAPEZOIDAL/RECT. CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ...
Upstream point elevation = 242.00
Downstream point elevation = 241.20
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 (Ft.) = .50
FIow(Q) thru subarea(CFS) = .12
Upstream point elevation = 242.00
Downstream point elevation = 241.20
Flow Iength(Ft.) = 140.00
Travel time (Min.) = 5.25 TC(min.) = 6.43
Depth of flow = .05 (Ft.)
Average Velocity = .44 (Ft./Sec.)
Channel flow top width = 10.28 (Ft.)
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111+++1111111111111111
Process from Point/Station 7.000 to Point/Station 9.000
... SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ...
100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity(In./Hr.) = 6.051
USER specified constant "C" for entire area = .6500
Subarea(Acres) = .26 Subarea Runoff(CFS) = 1.02
Total Area(Acres) = .27 Total Runoff(CFS) = 1.14
TC(MIN) = 6.43
End of computations.. ,
TOTAL STUDY AREA(ACRES) =
1.70
APPENDIX B
( 4.
HYDROLOGY MAP)
,
,
-+-
I
---1---
I
,
,
,
~ N
:r .::r M
tV -
f- N
- II (I
A :r
3 ~!:b
o9l
~J-l
I
t-, ,-
-~
'~ 2¥:'j
n'LJ I '-..:, . -J
-,,-
..---__.__r
-'
'_I
)( (
\
,', \
" \
X It> , '----
,'-.."". ..
. )(',,'
". .C' i
'. " I
I
,
-'
,
~--~
~
,
I
(5.
APPENDIX C
TABLES AND CHARTS)
JNTENSITY,..DUMTION DESIGN CHART
-1~tLU:llh", I.
......
-......
en
U1 ,2
-~..~..o..o.o.
.0-0-0.0+.0.0.
;J:>
.."
.."
m
Z
a
H
><
~ ,I
~ 10
--,- '-0- 0-0- "'0-
.o-~~.o.o.oo-
15
20
4
5
6
2
30
3
40 50 1
Mi,.",tr'l::
Hnlfrc:,
. .
. .
Directions for Application:
1) From precipitation Plaps determine 6 hr. and
24 hr. amounts for the selected frequency.
These maps are printed in the County Hydrolo9Y
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 ùrr1icab1e
to Desert)
3) Plot 6 hr. precipitation on the rioht 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:
0) Selected Frequency
1) P6 = in., P24=
yr.
*
, P6 =
P24
in.
%*
2) Adjusted *P6=
3) t = min.
c
4) I = in/hr.
*Not Applicable to Desert Region
RevisNl l/P,r::,
^flflr~mTY YT ^
. .
Courrry OF SAN DIEGO
DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION &
FLOOD CONTROL
33°
;:0
(t)
<
.....
tJ
(t)
p..
......
.........
co
(Jl
451
. .
I
151 !
Prepn+,d by
U.S. DEPARTMEN1[' OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ^T~ OSPIIEHIC ADMINISTRATION
SPECIAL STUDIES BRANCH, OFFICE OF II DROLOGY. NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE
;Þ
'l:
'l:
[T]
Z
0
......
><
><
H
I
[T]
1181
1~5 I
1151
301
30'
151
" 6°
IS'
, .,,~
'",,""c--" ..,
. .
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
OEPARTl'IENT OF SANITATION &
FLOOO CONTROL
115
30'
15'
33"
;J:J
<1>
<
1-"
V>
<1>
Po
,.....
"-
co
U1
45'
-.
"--:<-
,-.-
-
u.s. DEPARTrlIENlr OF COMMERCE
Prcpa~'<1 by
NATIONAL OCEA:'iIC AND Ar,\OSPIIE~¡C AUMINISTHATION
SPECIAL STUDIES BJ¡A="CII, OFFICE 0... ¡I'¡OROLOGY, NATIONAL WEATIIER SEr~YICE
;po
'"CI
'"CI
rr1
Z
CJ
>-t
;.<
;.<
>-t
I
~
3D.
}
11 /¡u
1170
I r; I
II () U
III; I
I I ~; ,
1r.'
JO'
lnl
nnv;,-.,.l lIRe,
^ppnmT\' \'T -II
\ .
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
Todd's Enterprises
c/o Al Mayo & Roy Oakley
1772 Kettering
Irvine, CA 92714
April 24, 1996
Project No. CE-5087
Subject:
Report of Certification of Compaèted Fill Ground
Proposed Single Family Dwelling
Lot #30, Wildflower Estates
Encinitas, California
Gentlemen:
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 December 1,
1995 through April 22, 1996.
Briefly, our findings reveal filled ground has been compacted to a
minimum of ninety percent (90%). Therefore, we recommend
construction continue as scheduled.
s.GQN
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 Engineering, dated January 3,
1995.
Grading operations
California.
performed
by
Greg
Whilock
of
Vista,
were
Reference is made to our previously subrni tted report entitled,
"Preliminary Soils Investigation", dated October 25, 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".
Grading operations were performed in order to create a level
building pad to accommodate the proposed dwelling. Should the
finished pad be altered in any way, we should be contacted to
provide additional recommendations.
. P.O. BOX 302002 . ESCONDIDO. CA 92030
(619) 480-1116
.
NORTH COUNlY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
April 24. 1996
Project No. CE-5087
Page 2
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
Representati ve 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 (UBC 29-C)
3. Direct Shear (ASTM D-3080)
~
Native soils encountered were clayey-sands, gravelly-clays, and
clays. Fill soils were imported and generated from the on-site
excavation.
Expansive soils were observed during grading. However, the
building pad was capped with a minimum of 48 inches of non-
expansive imported soils. Therefore, foundation recommendation 6B
of our preliminary soils report dated October 25, 1994 may be
utilized.
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 were 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 with
ASTM D-1556 or D-2922 at the approximate horizontal 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 relative compaction of
less than ninety percent (90%) were reworked until proper
compaction was achieved.
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUS~
April 24, 1996
Project No. CE-5087
Page 3
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 with 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.
4) 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.
5) All foundations should be constructed in accordance
with Recommendation 6B of our preliminary soils report
dated October 25, 1994.
6) Plumbing trenches should be backfilled with a non-
expansive 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 recommen-
dations. Drainage recommendations should include concrete
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
April 24, 1996
Project No. CE-5087
Page 4
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 and/or designed with sealed
bottoms with drains.
8) Unless requested, recommendations for future
improvements (additions, pools, recreational slabs,
addi tional grading, etc.) were not included in this
report. Prior to construction, we should be contacted to
update condition and provide additional recommendations.
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.
ŒNCERTAIN~TATIONS
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.
NORTH CO<JNlY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
April 24, 1996
Project No. CE-5087
Page 5
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely
appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
North County
COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC.
~~
Ronald K. Adams
President
RKA:kla
cc: (3)
(2)
submitted
filed
..'
NORTH COUNlY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL TESTING &. INSPECTION SERVICES
32
49
33
39 4:3 3/
52 30
47 4/ 34
TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
Lot #30 of Wildflower Estates
Encinitas, California
/
46
50 38
51 53
37
Pad Elevation = 243.~J
I
54 /
I
I
25
45
44
36
3.5
42
43
/8
26
22
15
/4
)
ROJECT NO. CE-5087
/7
IJ
/2
7
6
PLATE NO.
2/
II
ONE
~
(t;J)
~
Approx. Scale
1" = 35'
\
~
\
\
\
\
,
\
?O \
~ i
3 ¡
/
2
/
I
30' Fill
@ 2:1
NORTH COUNlY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS
TEST# DAn HORZ. VERT. FIELD DRY DENSITY S.QlL. PERCENT
I&C...... I&C.... MOIST LB. /CU.FT. TYEK CQJ:œACJ~.lill!
1 12/05/95 See 212.0 16.3 105.8 II 93.6
2 00 Plate 213.0 15.7 103.4 II 91.5
3 One 212.5 17.2 102.7 II 90.9
4 214.5 14.8 105.5 II 93.4
5 216.5 16.0 104.9 II 92.8
6 218.0 18.7 103.5 II 91.6
7 219.0 20.2 105.0 II 92.9
8 217.0 18.9 107.6 II 95.2
10 12/06/95 220.0 16.8 107.4 III 91.8
11 222.0 17.2 114.2 III 97.6
12 221. 0 18.3 110.6 III 94.5
13 223.0 17.2 111. 7 III 95.5
14 12/07 /95 230.0 17.5 111. 1 III 95.0
15 00 232.0 16.8 113.3 III 96.8
16 225.0 17.7 112.0 III 95.7
17 227.0 15.8 114.3 IV 96.1
18 226.0 16.7 110.9 IV 93.2
19 228.0 17.4 111. 7 IV 93.9
20 224.0 16.3 112.6 III 96.2
21 225.0 16.7 113.4 III 96.9
22 234.0 18.3 107.9 IV 90.7
23 229.0 17.2 109. 1 IV 91.7
24 230.0 16. 1 108.5 IV 91.2
25 227.0 17.6 108.0 IV 90.8
26 12/08/95 236.0 15.2 107.4 IV 90.3
27 237.0 16.4 107.7 IV 90.5
28 232.0 14.6 112.2 IV 94.3
29 234.0 15.7 113.6 IV 95.5
30 230.0 17.3 114.4 IV 96.1
31 232.0 16.2 111. 7 IV 93.9
32 12/11/95 238.0 16.8 107.7 IV 90.5
33 236.0 14.3 115.1 IV 96.7
34 234.0 17.2 112.4 IV 94.5
35 238.0 16.4 113.0 IV 95.0
36 238.0 13.9 114.7 IV 96.4
37 12/12/95 236.0 15.6 113.2 IV 95.1
38 238.0 13.7 111. 4 IV 93.6
39 03/02/96 239.0 09.8 114.7 V 92.1
40 00 239.0 10.5 115.2 V 92.5
PROJECT NO. CE-5087
PLATE NO. TWO (page 1)
. .
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
TABULATION OF TEST RESU~
TEST# DATE HORZ. VERT. ElELD DRY DENSITY SQ.IL PERCENT
LQG..... ~ MQIST. LB./CU.E:L TYEE Gill'1£AC.T1.QN
41 03/02/96 See 239.0 08.7 113.5 V 91.2
42 04/12/96 Plate 239.0 08.4 121.7 VI 96.2
43 " One 241. 0 09.7 119.6 VI 94.5
44 " 240.0 10.2 119.9 VI 94.8
45 241. 0 10. 1 123.5 VI 97.6
46 04/15/96 239.0 09.0 122.4 VI 96.8
47 241. 0 10.7 120.7 V 96.9
48 239.0 09.3 118.2 V 94.9
49 241. 0 09.0 115.6 V 92.8
50 240.0 11. 3 . 121. 7 VI 96.2
51 242.0 11. 7 116.7 V 93.7
52 04/22/96 243.0RFG 09.6 120.7 VI 95.4
53 243.0RFG 08.3 122.5 VI 96.8
54 243.0RFG 07.7 124.2 VI 98.2
REMARKS:
RFG = Rough Finish Grade
PROJECT NO. CE-5087
PLATE NO. TWO (page 2)
. .
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
TABULATION OF TEST RESUL~S
OPTIMUM MOISTURE/MAXIMUM DENSITY
SOIL DESCRIPTION T.Y.EE. MAX. DRY DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE
Clb/cu. ft.) (% dry wt)
Red Brown Clay I 110.4 17.3
Medium Brown Sandy-
Gravelly-Clay II 113.0 19. 1
Orange Brown Silty
Gravelly Clay III 117.0 16.0
Orange Brown
Gravelly Clay IV 119.0 16.4
Brown Silty
Sand (Import) V 124.5 11. 0
Light Brown Silty-
Sand (Import) VI 126.5 10.0
EXPANSION POTENTIAL
SAMPLE NO. I II V
CONDITION Remold 90% Remold 90% Remold 90%
INITIAL MOISTURE (%) 16.9 19. 1 10.4
AIR DRY MOISTURE (%) 14.4 15.2 3.6
FINAL MOISTURE (%) 36.6 26.7 16.4
FINAL DRY DENSITY (pef) 99.3 101.7 112. 1
LOAD (psf) 150 150 150
SWELL (%) 16.4 4.7 1.7
EXPANSION INDEX 164 47 17
SAMPLE NO.
CONDITION
ANGLE INTERNAL FRICTION
COHESION INTERCEPT (PCF)
DIRECT SHEAR
II
IV
Remold 90%
26
300
Remold 90%
25
300
PROJECT NO. CE-5087
PLATE NO. THREE