1998-5613 G
---------
~/6-~-
Category
56 /3 f1
Name
Street Address
I
þ/-Ç;PI
Serial #
Description
y~"r4,.,('", ,
Plan cI<. #
Year
. .. .-.d.__....
- .,.. . . ." ..-. o...._.__..~..":._~~.~...;.~...:.:..~_..._.._...~..:.../--~~/
I , ,.
...- ...
K&S ENGINEERING
Planning Engineering Surveying
HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS
FOR
WILDFLOWER ESTATES LOT 31
IN
CITY OF ENCINITAS
\ .
i
IN 9829
June 25, 1998
(10
.
f\QJ.7\ S( f:>.r \ ~).
Dl/ý/t f
7801 Mission Center Court, Suite 200.San Diego, California 92108. (619)296-5565 . Fax (619)296-5564
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.HYDROLOGY DESIGN MODELS
2.HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS .......................... APPENDIX A
3.TABLES AND CHARTS ................................ APPENDIX B
4 . HYDROLOGY MAPS ................................... APPENDIX C
- '- - -.- -, ~ ,-, .. - ',- - .. ",--
-,-~------..--- _.0-"- -------
.~
-~-~o_--,-------_._-.. - ,.. --- -.- - -.. --
. " ,
1.
HYDROLOGY DESIGN MODELS
A.
DESIGN METHODS
THE RATIONAL METHOD IS USED IN THIS HYDROLOGY STUDY; THE RATIONAL
FORMULA I S 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 (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.
~-..
-- : '.' -'-, .
- - ,- ,
-..
-------,------
,~--~-~---'----'---- --w-----
'.- '
" -. ,_. , .
, ,
-.s, " :'
APPEND IX A
(2. HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS)
---------"-~'r "-
"...
-..,.,.,:-'
-W.-.---.-.--.--- "--
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
RATION AL-HYDROLOGY
PROGRAM PACKAGE
Rational Hydrology Study
Date: 6-25-1998
*USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION*
Rational method hydrology program based on
San Diego County Flood Control Division
1985 Hydrology Manual
Stonn 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
P61P24 = 60,0 %
San Diego Hydrology Manual "C" Values Used
Runoff Coefficients by RATIONAL METHOD
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 ++++ 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 ++++ +++++ 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 ++++++ +
Process ûom Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2,000
*.. INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ..*.
! '
I
Decimal Fraction Soil Group A = .000
Decimal Fraction Soil Group B = ,000
Decimal Fraction Soil Group C = ,000
Decimal Fraction Soil Group D = 1.000
SINGLE F A.\UL Y runoff coefficient = ,5500
Initial Subarea Flow Dist. = 145.00
Highest Elevation = 206,00
Lowest Elevation = 205,00
Elevation Difference = 1.00
Time of concentration calculated by the Urban
Areas overland flow method (APP X-C) = 13.493 Min.
TC = [1.8'(1.1-C)*DIST Ai'lCE^.5)/(% SLOPE^(I/3)]
TC = [1.8*(1.1- ,5500)*( 145.00^,5)/( ,69^(1/3)])=
100,00 Year Rainfall Intensity(In./Hr.) = 3.750
Subarea(Acres) = ,18 Subarea RunofftCFS) = ,37
Total Area(Acres) = .18 Total RunofftCFS) = ,37
TC(MIN) = 13.49
13.493
++++++++++++++++++++11111111111111111+1111111+++++++111111111+++++1111111++
Process ûom Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 3,000
... PIPEFLOW TIME (USER SPECIFIED SIZE) *..
Upstream point elevation = 200.00
Downstream point elevation = 198,00
Flow length(Fl) = 20,00 Mannin~ N = ,013
No, of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow (CFS) =
Given pipe size (In.) = 4.00
Calculated Individual Pipe flow (CFS) = ,37
Nonnal flow depth in pipe = 2.27 (In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 3,96 (In,)
Velocity = 7,255 (Ft/S)
Travel time (Min.) = .05 TC(min.) = 13,54
.37
+++++1111111+++++++++++1111111111++++++++++++++1111111+++++++++++++++++++++
Process ûom Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 4.000
... INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ...
-- - .._~~~_.'~"'--'Y-------'----'---"'-"'--'~.--_.'--".----- ..".--.."..-
~:.,;,¡
;" ,:-= '
Decimal Fraction Soil Group A 3 .000
Decimal Fraction Soil Group B 3 .000
Decimal Fraction Soil Group C" .000
Decimal Fraction Soil Group D .. 1.000
SINGLE FAMILY runoff coefficient.. .'500
Initial Subarea Flow Dist. - 120.00
Highest Elevation .. 206,00
Lowest Elevation .. 20',00
Elevation Difference - 1.00
Time of concentration calculated by the Urban
Areas overland flow method (APP X-C)" 11.524 Min.
TC" [1.8*(1.1-C)*DlSTANCE^,5)1(% SLOPE"(II3)]
TC" [1.8*(1.1- .5500)*( 120.00^.5)1( .83"(1/3)])-
100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity(ln.lHr,) = 4,151
Subarea(Acres).. ,19 Subarea Runofl{CFS)" .43
Total Area(Acres)" ,19 Total Runofl{CFS)" .43
TC(MIN)" 11.52
11.524
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'I!!IIIIIII'III!I!IIII!!IIIIIII!IIIIIIIIIIIIIII!III!II
Process «om Point/Station 4.000 to Point/Station 5,000
*.. PIPE FLOW TIME (USER SPECIFIED SIZE) ***
Upstream point elevation" 200,00
Downstream point elevation .. 186,00
Flow length(Ft) = 45.00 Mannings N = .013
No, of pipes" 1 Required pipe flow (CFS)" .43
Given pipe size (In.)'' 4.00
Calculated Individual Pipe flow (CFS) .. .43
Nonnal flow depth in pipe" 1.78 (In.)
Flow top width inside pipe .. 3,98 (In.)
Velocity.. 11.549 (Ft/S)
Travel time (Min.) = .06 TC(DÚn.)" 11.59
End of computations.. .
TOTAL STUDY AREA(ACRES) =
.37
.
-.
---- ---------"'---- ,. ------.,_--._-'0-"'-_--'--
--.-----.,-,.,--,,---.,u,o-,.,- .
. ..'
..",
"
.
t
- ¡
. I
I
f
I
. t
.
(3.
. ~-----,--"'._-----"-_'_--'
,0> '.. . .. .',',
..,-,.,,-,'
APPENDIX B
TABLES AND CHARTS)
.. ". ....,...",.-----,..--,.,.---..----..-----. .."..-- ,
,.' --.."'- -'."-'~""--
~ ~.
(,
".
'~
:"
, J
'" I
,'" 1
1
I
I
î
I
1
¡
1
I
;
I
I
i
i
,
451
.
30'
IS'
,338
-.
,-'-
-~
45'
" .
P,.paf.'" lor
u.s. DEPARntl::Nl1' OF COMMERCE
"ATIOICAI. OCltA"IC AltO Al':'¡O16I'IIEMIC AO)l"U~TRAT'O"
~"ICIAL ITUDIEI aurA~C". OffiCI' 01' II' UNOLOGY' "ATIU:iAI. Wa::ATUIfR SEfCVlC£
, 30' -
....
.... '
.
).
,
1118
l!å .
II (,"
'1 ~i .
)01
1 r¡ .
11 fl8
liS'
)0'
w
I.'
~
-~,
"
I',
33-
t
.'-
.' ..
45'
--...-, --...- - P";.~""" .
u.s. DEPARl1tEN~r OF CO:\tMERCE
"ATlO!fAL OCEANIC AltD AT, OSPIIEHrC Ao...r:USTRAnON
.,...eJ,\L STUDIES 8RA!fat, ornCE or II UROLOGY. NATIONAL WEATtlER SERVICE
30'
...
-4
.
:a-
.
....
1181
451
1178
'15 .
liE
301
IS'
30'
1St
.
r
I
-- ..té'
nl\"n,",^ 1 "'I:.~&un ...,..,."...,n~
Jnnunry.l087
1000
800
t-
W
W
U.
Z
-
W 600
0
Z
c(
t-
en
-
0 400
.J
W
>
c(
a:
t-
O
Z 200
c(
.J
a:
W
>
0
77
,~
08 ~
.
Figure 816.6A
Overland Time of
Concentration Curves
-f,:-
~
()
Q:'
If
~ II)-~
-""....
~ J
4-
0-
...,
'"
t
J it - --
-
J
II) I
J- ~ Cl,¡JIO
'....~ 01- lO
.... . ,..., "":¡.
'oJ ::~
o'
-
en
w
t-
::)
~
~
80 Z
..i '
!
W ~
>
c(
a:
60 t-
U.
0
W
~
-
t-
40 0
Z
c(
.J
a:
w
>
20 0
if
rJ
II
I
1'1
0
o. , 0
v~¡ o~~
0;. 0
~ A""
16
, ,.
"'./I '
, II
O.
II
7
~
~.e
.ß.J.
~
,/
1/
.....
,;'
¡".o
.9.,S
.5
-
....
....
0
T. - 1.8(1.1-C) (L) 1/2
0 - [5(10.0.)]1/3
/
/-
_._~"¡ .. C;c.. ..'.'..
"""', --, -"'~
Where:
C = Runoff Coefficient
L = Overland Travel
Distance in feet
5 = Slope in ft.lft.
: To == Tima¡ In minutes
.
.
.
~-~",~~-_._-.,,_._._----'-'_.-.----~----_.~ '-,- -~- --- - -----' .--
,-" 0 - .
.:~_.._------- K '0""'" . J "" "'," , """,r _l1.L....,.,J.ltULLL. lID
INTENSITY-DURATION DESIGN CH^RT
" I
~',
'i::
c.'
;: ....
"
,'.
...
I
~
..
,.
~
t
.
"
0#0
~
M
)
I
: .
.
~
'.'
-
'...
I~-I."-I'
_II
..'
~ I-I~-.-I.I H~
~
[l111
....
.. -- .
"
~
"
c: t:.
. -
-
"'
6.0 ~
5.50.
5. 0 .::J~\....
4,5 -
4.0 ;;. .
3.5 90 ,
f1)
3.0 ~ .
Directions for ^pplication:
1) From precipitation naps determine 6 hr. a
24 hr* amounts for the selected frequenc,
These maps are printed in the County Hydr
Manual (10. 50 ~nd 100 yr. maps included
Design and Procedure Manual).
2) Adjust 6 hr. precipitation (if necessary~
tha tit is wi th1 It the range of 45t to 65'
the 24 hr. precipitation. ("ot ~rpl;cab1
to Desert)
en
I
õ=
C
"'1
"'0
"'1
f1)
n
-"
"C
-'.
3) Pl~t 6 hr. precipitation on the r1Dht'~i(
of the chart. '
4) Draw a line through the point parallel ~
plotted lines.
5) This line is the intensity-duration curv
the location being analyzed.
Application Form:
0) Selected Frequency
1) P6. in., P248
yr.
*
, P6 8 -
P24
in.
2) Adjusted *P68
3) tc 8 min.
4) I 8 in/hr.
*Hot Applicable to Desert Region
APPEND IX X
T" .. , A
TABLE 2
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD)
DEVELOPED AREAS (URBAN>,
Coefficien~..f
Soi I Group (1)
land Use
A B C D
Res i dent i a I:
Single Family .40 .45 .50 .55
Multi-UnitS .45 .50 .60 .70
Mob i 1 e homes .45 .50 .55 .65
Rural (lotS greater than 1/2 acre) .30 .35 .40 .45
Corrrnerci al (2) .70 .75 .80 .85
80% Impervious
Industrial (2) .80 .85 .90 .95
90"¡' Impervi ous
NOTES:
(I)Soil Group m~~s are available at the offices of the Department of Public Works.
{2)Where actual conditions deviate si9n;fican~IY from the tabulated impervious-
ness values of 8~¡' or 90%, the values given for coefficient C, may be revised
by multiplying 8~¡' or 90% by the ratio of actual imperviousness to the
tabulated 'imperviousness. However, In no case sha11 the final coefficient
be less than '0.50. For example: Consider commercial property on D soi I ,group,
Actual tmpervious~ess
. SOO¡.
Tabulated imperviousness. 8ook
Revised C . 50 x 0.85 . 0.53
80
IV-A-9
~-'
"
APPENDIX IX-B
,Rev. 5/81
..
\
t .
-. "~." ,
-. ,
"';, :,<,::L:- -
------'--..--- -.- ..,_w "------~------~--"--- --.---------------.----
- -- -- - - --
- .. -:"1.-,:;
- h
- .-
; ,
Average Values of Roughness Coefficient (Manning's n)
Type of Waterway
Roughness
Coefficient (nt
1.
Closed Conduits (1)
Steel (not lined)
Cast Iron
Aluminum
Corrugated Metal
Corrugated Metal
Corrugated Metal
Corrugated l-fetal
Concrete RCP
Clay (sewer)
Asbestos Cement~ Pv~
Dr~in Tile (terra cotta)
Cast-in-place Pipe
Reinforced Concrete Box
(not lined)
(2) (smooth asphalt quarterlining)
(2) (smooth asphalt half lining)
(smooth asphalt full lining)
2.
Open Channels (1)
a.
Unlined
Clay Loam
Sand
b.
Revetted
Gravel
Rock
Pipe' and Wire
Sacked Concrete
c. Lined.
Codfrete (poured)
Air\ Blown Mortar (3)
Asphaltic Concrete or Bituminous Plant Mix
d.
Veg~tated (5)
Grass lined, maintained
Gra~s and Weeds
Grass liried with concrete low flow channel
3.
Pavement and Gu~ters (1)
I
Concrete
Bituminous (plant-mixed)
~'..
':. '.
-,' '.
. . ~ '..
. ( ,.: -,~,";~i;ì.,~~
:>-. ~, , , ,
I
t I
..
"i: " ~,
- "',- ,-- - ,-
0.015
0.015
.021
0.024 .
0.021
0.018
0.012
0.012
0.013
0.011
0.015
0.015
0.014
0.023
0.020
0.030
O.O~O
0.025
0.025
0.014
0.016
0.018
- .035
.045
, .032
0.015
0.016
APPE.~DIX XV! ,\
I
I
I
c'
- --~.; ...,,"-
'.' ,- ,
---"'-'--"'.--.-'----"" --------"-"-'---'.-'--------------" ,.-.-- ----_u
~ . - .
, -
, -, ,
HANDBOOK OF
I j
~
Table 7-14. Values of K' (or Circular (,hnnnt'ls in 1h(' Formula.
I
, h'
Q = - d~'JS".:
It
.
;
D - depth of watt'r
d .. diauwwr of channcl
.07 I .08
DI
d ¡ .00
_1__.
.01
.03
.04
.05
.06
.09
\
.0 .00007'.00031 .00074'.00138,.00222.00328.00455 .OOftO4'.OO77:"
.1 .OOoft7.0118 .0142 .Olfi7 .OIH5 .0225 .0257 .02Ul .0327 .03fift
,.2 .O.tOõ .0448 ;0492 .0537 .058.~ .0034 .0086 .0738 .07H3 .O84U
.3 .0907 .09ft6 .1027 .108U .1153 .1218 .1284 .1352 ,1420 .HUO
.4 .1561 .1633 .1705 .177U .1854 .1920 .2005 .2082 .2160 .2238
~
-"':-~1.
.. ':'(0 .
o.
!
~
---- ,
.'
, -
- ,
.. '."'.J.-,.-i .
.5 .232
.6 .311
.7 ,388
.8 .45$
.9 .494
1.0 .463
"
.02
,.--"
.239
,319
.395
.458
.496
.247 .25.'>
.327 ,.335
.402 .40H
.463 1.468
.497 .498
,2ft3
.343
.416
.473
.498
.271
.350
.422
.477
.498
.279 .287
.358 .3fiõ
.429 .435
.481 .485
.496'.'. .494
.295
.373
.441
..&88
.489
.
I
.
.
.
.
.303
.380
.447
.491
.483
-,--~-----------------------.--------------------_.-..-.-.-.' -----,---,---,- -- ..". - -
- .-
"'- :--
¡'--, -- :' ,,/
- ,:...:.-",
, ""-' -",
,.-
..: ,- - -
APPENDIX C
( 4 .
HYDROLOGY MAP)
-_._------~-~-------~~--~---' ---- "-,-------,-
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACT"ON
ENGINEER lNG, INC.
November 30, 1998
Project No, CE-5600
Al Mayo
c/o Wildflower Estates & Association
2450 White Rd,
Irvine, CA 92614
Subject:
Report of Certification of Compacted Fill Ground
Proposed Single Family Dwelling
Lot #31 of Wildflower Estates
Olivenhain, 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 November 3, 1998 through
November 20, 1998.
Briefly, our findings reveal filled ground has been compacted to a minimum of ninety percent
(90%), Therefore, we recommend construction continue as scheduled.
SCOPE
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 provided by K & S Engineering of San Diego, California.
Grading operations were performed by Greg Whillock of Vista, California,
Reference is made to our previously submitted report entitled, "Preliminary Soils Investigation",
dated July 21, 1998.
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 single family 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'" (760)480-1116 FAX (760)741-6568
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
Project No, CE-5600
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
Representative soils 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 MoisturelMaximum Density (ASTM D-1557)
2, Expansion Potential Test (FHA Standard)
SOIL CONDITIONS
Native soils encountered were silty-clays, gravely-clays and clayey-sands, Fill soils were
imported and generated from on-site excavation,
The building site contained a transition from cut to fill. However, cut areas located within 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 5 feet beyond the 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, and should not
be placed in structural fill, It may be placed in non-structural fill designated and supervised by
North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INe.
Although the building pad was capped with 1 foot of non-expansive imported soil, underlying
soils within 48 inches of finish grade are moderate to high in expansive potential. Therefore,
special foundation recommendations outlined in our Preliminary Soils Report will be required to
reduce the probability of structural damage occurring from expansive soils.
The key was approximately 20 feet wide, a minimum of 4 feet in depth, and inclined into the
slope, During earthwork construction, native areas to receive fill were scarified, watered, and
compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90%) of maximum density, 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
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
Project No, CE-5600
Page 3
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
the ninety percent (90%) were reworked until proper compaction was achieved,
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Continuous inspection was not requested to verify fill soils are placed in accordance with current
standard practices regarding grading operations and earthwork construction, Therefore, as
economically 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 ice plant) 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). In our opinion, soil liquefaction at the site is unlikely to occur due to the
following on-site soils conditions:
A). Groundwater was not encountered at the time of grading.
B). Loose compressible topsoils were removed to finn native ground and
recompacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90%) of maximum dry density,
C), The dense nature of the fonnation underlying the site,
D), On-site soils possess relatively high cohesion characteristics,
4). Continuous footings having a minimum width of 12 inches and founded a
minimum of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade, will have an estimated
allowable bearing value of 1000 pounds per square foot.
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.
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
Project No, CE-5600
Page 4
6). Plumbing trenches should be backfilled with a non-expansive soil having a
swell of less than two percent (2%) and a minimum sand equivalent of 3O,
Backfill soils should be inspected and compacted to a minimum of ninety percent
(90% ),
7), Unless requested, recommendations for future improvements (additions,
pools, recreation slabs, additional grading, etc.) Were not included in this report,
Prior to construction, we should be contacted to update conditions and provide
additional recommendations.
8). Completion of grading operations was left at rough grade, Therefore, we
recommend a Landscape Architect be contacted to provide finish grade and
drainage recommendations, Drainage recommendations should include a two
percent (2%) minimum fall away from all foundation zones.
9). Expansive soils conditions observed during grading operations will require
special recommendations to reduce structural damage occurring from excessive
subgrade and foundation movement. Therefore, all foundations should be
constructed in accordance with "Recommendation 6B2. Of our Preliminary Soils
Investigation dated July 21, 1998
Prior to pouring of concrete, North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INe. should be
contacted to inspect foundation recommendations for compliance to those set forth.
During placement of concrete North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INe. and/or a
qualified concrete inspector should be present to document construction of foundations,
UNCERTAINTY AND LIMITATIONS
In the event foundation excavation and steel placement inspection is required and/or requested,
an additional cost of $170,00 will be invoiced to perfonn the field inspection and prepare a
"Final Confonnance Letter", If foundations are constructed in more than one phase, $120,00 for
each additional inspection will be invoiced,
It is the responsibility of the owner and/or his representative to carry our 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 unfeasible. Therefore, damage as a result of earthquake is probable
and we assume no liability.
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
Project No, CE-5600
Page 5
We assume the on-site safety of our personnel only. We cannot assume liability of personnel
other than our own, It is the responsibility 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.
If you have any 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:paj
cc: (3) submitted
NORTH COClNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL TESTING
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
LOT NO.31 OF WILDFLOWER ESTATES
OLIVENHAIN, CA
~
'8
~
\0'
!
~
on
~
/
/ "'"w
TEST LOCA TION SKETCH
PROJECT No. CE-5600
PLA TE No. ONE
~
APPROX. SCALE (f;þ
1" = 40 I
~
I
... 01
-"'"
~1
~
~I
I
g¡
~ I
¡ I '
~I ~
I N
I
I
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
Test # Date Horizontal Vertical Field Moisture Dry Density Soil Percent of
Location Location % Dry Wt. LB Cu, Ft. Type Compaction
1 11/03/98 See 186.0 17.4 109,3 I 96,1
2 Plate 188,0 16,2 109.7 I 96.4
3 11/04/98 One 189,0 17.4 104.2 I 91.6
4 " " 191.0 16.4 104,0 I 91.4
5 11/09/98 193.0 19,1 106,1 I 93,3
6 " 195,0 17,3 105,7 ,I 92,9
7 " " 194,0 19,3 107,7 I 94,7
8 11/10/98 " 197.0 18,6 108.5 I 95.4
9 " " 199.0 16.4 107,7 I 94,7
10 " " 194,0 18.8 106,3 I 93,5
11 " 196.0 16,0 108,2 I 95,1
12 " " 194.0 17,2 106.0 I 93,2
13 11/10/98 201.0 17.4 108,8 I 95,7
14 " " 196,0 16,1 110,3 I 97,0
15 11/12/98 197,0 21.6 102.8 I 90.4
16 " " 199,0 17,7 106,0 I 93,2
17 " 199.0 18,2 106.4 I 93,5
18 " " 201.0 15.6 107,7 I 94.7
19 11/13/98 200.0 18,2 105,2 II 91.6
20 " 202.0 17,5 103,6 II 90,2
21 " 201.0 19,1 105.7 II 92,0
22 203,0 18,6 109,0 III 91.7
23 11/17/98 204,0 18,7 109.4 III 92,0
24 " 204,0 19.4 109,1 III 91.8
25 " " 205,0 21.1 107.9 III 90,8
26 " " 205,0 19,7 107,1 III 90,1
27 11/20/98 206,0 RFG 12,2 113.0 IV 93,3
28 " " 206.0 RFG 11.7 114.3 IV 94.4
REMARKS:
RFG = Rough Finish Grade
PROJECT NO. CE-5600
PLATE NO. TWO
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL DESCRIPTION :rYfE MAX. DRY DENSITY OPT. MOISTURE
(LB. CD. FT) (%DRYWT)
Brown Red Silty-Clay I 113,7 16.4
Y ellow-Rust-Beige
Gravelly-Clay II 114.8 16.3
Orange Tan Clayey-Sand ill 118.8 14.7
Tan Silty-Sand
(Import) IV 121.0 11.1
EXP ANSlQN POTENTIAL
SAMPLE NO. I II III
CONDITION Remold 90% Remold 90% Remold 90%
INITIAL MOISTURE (%) 16.4 16.3 14.4
AIR DRY MOISTURE (%) 10.6 11.8 11.3
FINAL MOISTURE (%) 33.6 30.3 25,8
DRY DENSITY (PCF) 102.3 103,3 106,0
LOAD (PSF) 150 150 150
SWELL (%) 13.6 10.6 06,8
EXPANSION INDEX 136 106 68
PROJECT NO. CE-5600
PLATE NO. THREE