Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutB9906933 - Soils13 r4 FEB 2 3 2002 LAWGIBB GROUP FINAL REPORT GEOTECHNICAL INSPECTION SERVICES EAST PARKING STRUCTURE HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN 301 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN Newport Beach, California February 22,2002 Project 70144-0-0057 LAW Crandall LAWGIBB Group Member A February 22, 2002 Mr. James Easley, Project Manager Facilities Design and Construction Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian One Hoag Drive/P.O. Box 6100 Newport Beach, California 92658-6100 Subject: Final Report of Geotechnical Inspection Services East Parking Structure Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian 301 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Hoag Project No. 1253.08 Law/Crandall Project 70144-0-0057 Dear Mr. Easley: SUMMARY We have completed geotechnical inspection services at the site of the subject project. This final report provides: • Verification of our observation and approval of the shoring installation at the subject site. • A formal record of our observation and testing of the compacted fill placed to grade the site. • Confirmation of our observation and approval of the foundation excavations. • A formal record of our observation and testing of the compacted asphalt paving placed in areas to be paved. The observation work was performed between June 23, 2000 and February 14, 2002. The location of the site is shown in relation to adjacent streets on the attached Plot Plan. We performed a geotechnical investigation of the site and submitted our recommendations in a report dated September 10, 1999 (our Job No. 70131-9-0330.0002). A Division of LAW Engineering and Environmental Services. Inc. 200 Citadel Drive • Los Angeles, CA 90040-1554 323-889-5300 • Fax: 323-721-6700 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian - Geotechnical Inspection Services Febniaiy 22, 2002 Law/Crandall Project 70144-0-0057 This final report is limited to the earthwork performed through February 14, 2002, the date of our last observation and/or testing of the soil -related and asphalt paving work for the project. Based on our observations, we are satisfied that the shoring system was installed in general accordance with the shoring plans and project requirements. The fill and asphalt paving, at the locations and elevations we tested, were compacted to at least the specified degree of compaction. Also, the foundation excavations extended into satisfactory soils. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical engineers practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional opinions included in this report. The scope of our services did not include surveying or the responsibility for job safety. The soil -related and asphalt paving work was performed to the limits and at the locations indicated by stakes and hubs set by others. 4' OBSERVATION OF SHORING Prior to mass excavation to the lower building level, shoring was installed around the perimeter of the site where there was not sufficient space for sloped embankments. The shoring consisted of soldier piles tied back with friction anchors. The soldier piles were installed at the design locations indicated on shoring drawing prepared by Cefali and Associates, Inc. Our field technician observed the drilling of the soldier pile excavations to verify that the soils were consistent with those encountered during our previous investigation of the site. He also measured the soldier pile shafts to confirm that they were excavated to at least design dimensions. INSTALLATION OF TIE -BACK ANCHORS After installation of the soldier piles and excavation to the first bench, the tie -back anchors were installed at the design locations and elevations indicated on the shoring plan. The shafts for the tie- back anchors were observed for soil conditions and excavation to design dimensions. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian - Geotechnical Inspection Services February 22, 2002 Lax; Crandall Project 70144-0-0057 ANCHOR TESTING Following installation of the tie -back anchors and curing of the concrete, each anchor was tested to 150% or to 200% of the design load, in accordance with the project plans. Selected anchors were tested to 200% to meet the criteria for 30-minute and 24-hour anchor load testing. After testing and approval, each anchor was locked -off near the design load and mass excavation continued until the final excavation level for parking structure construction was reached. The data for the soldier pile and anchor installation and subsequent anchor testing are retained in our files should further reference be required. OBSERVATION AND TESTING OF COMPACTED FILL This section describes our observation and testing of compacted fill placed as part of the project earthwork. LOCATIONS The earthwork for the project consisted of placing compacted fill to grade the site and provide support for floor slab, as well as subgrade support for adjacent walks and slabs, roadways and driveways, curbs and gutters, and for parking lot paving. The grading work included placing compacted soils as backfill against walls below grade, around footings, around the electric vault, around the catch basin, around the elevator pit, and in trenches for water, storm drain, sewer, fire protection sprinkler, and electrical line installations. Also, base course was placed and compacted in parking lot, driveway, and roadway paving areas. SOIL TYPES The soils used for the required filling consisted of on -site silty sand with clay, well graded sand, silty sand, and itnported crushed miscellaneous base material. Pea gravel was also placed and consolidated as backfill behind the exterior walls of the parking structure. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian - Geotechnical Inspection Services February 13, 2002 Law/Crandall Project 70144-0-D057 INSTALLATION OF TIE -BACK ANCHORS After installation of the soldier piles and excavation to the first bench, the tie -back anchors were installed at the design locations and elevations indicated on the shoring plan. The shafts for the tie- back anchors were observed for soil conditions and excavation to design dimensions. ANCHOR TESTING Following installation of the tie -back anchors and curing of the concrete, each anchor was tested to 150% or to 200% of the design load, in accordance with the project plans. Selected anchors were tested to 200% to meet the criteria for 30-minute and 24-hour anchor load testing. After testing and approval each anchor was locked -off near the design load and mass excavation continued until the final excavation level for parking structure construction was reached. The data for the soldier pile and anchor installation and subsequent anchor testing are retained in our files should further reference be required. OBSERVATION AND TESTING OF COMPACTED FILL This section describes our observation and testing of compacted fill placed as part of the project earthwork. LOCATIONS The earthwork for the project consisted of placing compacted fill to grade the site and provide support for floor slab, as well as subgrade support for adjacent walks and slabs, roadways and driveways, curbs and gutters, and for parking lot paving. The grading work included placing compacted soils as backfill against walls below grade, around footings, around the electric vault, around the catch basin, around the elevator pit, and in trenches for water, storm drain, sewer, fire protection sprinkler, and electrical line installations. Also, base course was placed and compacted in parking lot, driveway, and roadway paving areas. 3 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian - Geotechnica! Inspection Services Fehrua y 22, 2002 Law/Crandall Project 70144-0-0057 COMPACTION SPECIFICATIONS The specifications required that the fill and backfill be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557-91 (equivalent to UBC 70-1) method of compaction. In accordance with Instruction Bulletin No. 333 dated October 10, 2001 by Taylor and Associates, the upper four feet of backfill in planter areas adjacent to the north retaining wall were to be compacted to at least 80% of the maximum dry density. The base course was to be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum density. Compaction tests were performed on representative samples of the soils to establish the maximum dry densities. The tests were performed in general accordance with the specified ASTM Designation D1557-91 (equivalent to UBC 70-1) method of compaction, which uses a 1/30-cubic-foot mold in which each of five layers of soil is compacted by 25 blows of a 10-pound hammer falling 18 inches. The results of the compaction tests were used in establishing the degree of compaction achieved during the placement of the fill. The soil type, maximum dry density, and optimum moisture content of the fill are given in the attached Table 1, Soil Classification and Compaction Data. PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OF FILL After installation of shoring, the site was stripped and cleared, existing fill and disturbed natural soils were excavated from the parking structure area to the desired level for construction. Next, the exposed natural soils were scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to near -optimum moisture content, and rolled with heavy compaction equipment. In the parking lot and hardscape areas, the uppermost subgrade soils were reworked. Where soft and wet soils were encountered during grading, these soils were excavated and replaced with pea gravel, and consolidated. The required fill materials were then placed in loose lifts approximately 8 inches in thickness, brought to near -optimum moisture content. The loose lifts were compacted using a loader, a hand -guided impact compactor, a sheepsfoot roller, a vibratory plate compactor, and a wheel compactor attached to a backhoe. 4 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian - Georechnical Inspection Services February 22, 2002 Law/Crandall Project 70144-0-0057 Areas to receive backfill were first cleared of construction debris and loose soils; the required backfill soils were then placed in loose lifts approximately 8 to 18 inches in thickness, brought to near - optimum moisture content. The soils were compacted using a vibratory sheepsfoot roller, a vibratory plate compactor, and hand -guided impact compactors. FIELD DENSITY TESTING Sand -cone field density tests were performed to establish the degree of compaction achieved during the placement of the fill. The tests were performed in general accordance with the ASTM Designation D1556 (equivalent to UBC 70-2) for sand -cone field density testing. Where a test indicated less than the required compaction, the soils were reworked and retested until at least the specified degree of compaction resulted. The results of the field density tests are presented in the attached table, Test Results; the approximate locations of the tests are shown on the Plot Plan, except Test 328. This test was performed on an off -site electric trench backfill located on Hoag Drive, west of James Irvine Surgery Center. As requested, our field technician also observed installation of a subdrain system at the base of the parking structure perimeter walls and the north retaining walls. The subdrain system consisted of perforated pipes surrounded with crushed rock and geo-fabric filter. OBSERVATION OF FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS The following foundation design recommendations were presented in our geotechnical investigation report: Spread footings carried at least 1 foot into the stiff and dense natural soils, and at least 3 feet below the lowest adjacent floor level, may be designed to impose a net dead -plus -live load pressure of 6,000 pounds per square foot. A one-third increase in the bearing value may be used when considering wind or seismic loads.... Footings for minor structures (including retaining walls, free-standing walls, and elevator pit walls) established in properly compacted fill and/or the undisturbed natural soils, may be designed to impose a net dead -plus -live load pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot. Footings should extend at least 1 %z feet below the adjacent final grade or floor level. 5 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian - Geotechnical Inspection Services February 22, 2002 Law/Crandall Project 70144-0-0057 Excavations were made for spread footings to support the parking structure. Excavations were also made for retaining walls and planter walls. Our field technician observed and probed the footing excavations to confirm that the soils were undisturbed natural materials or properly compacted fills recommended for foundation support. After observations indicated satisfactory conditions, written notice of our approval was left at the job site for the information of responsible parties. OBSERVATION AND TESTING OF ASPHALT PAVING As requested, our field technician observed the asphalt paving placed in the parking lot roadway, and driveway areas and performed ASTM Designation D2922-81 (equivalent to UBC 70-5) nuclear gage in -place density tests to establish the degree of compaction achieved. The asphalt paving was to be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum density. The asphalt concrete consisted of1/2-inch and %-inch aggregate using AR4000 asphalt cement. At the time of delivery, the temperature of the asphalt ranged from 290° to 310° Fahrenheit. Values of 147 and 151 pounds per cubic foot were used for the asphalt maximum density. The nuclear gage in -place density test results are given in the attached Table 2; the approximate locations of the tests are shown on the Plot Plan, except Tests 329 and 330. These tests were performed on the off -site asphalt patch placed along Hoag Drive, west of James Irvine Surgery Center. In providing professional geotechnical observations and testing services associated with the development of the project, we have employed accepted engineering and testing procedures. We also made a reasonable effort to evaluate that the soil -related work was carried out in general compliance with the project specifications, our recommendations, and the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, and is suitable for the intended use. Although our observation did not reveal obvious deficiencies, we do not guarantee the contractor's work, nor do the services performed by our firm 6 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian- Geotechnical Inspection Services Februmy 22, 2002 Law/Crandall Project 70144-11-0057 relieve the contractor of responsibility in the event of subsequently discovered defects in the contractor's work. Respectfully submitted, LAW/CRANDALL A Division of Law Engineering and Environmental Services. Inc. SI- by with permission fley c. so i e Manager Marshall Lew, Ph.D. Senior Principal Vice President G-I Project70144 proejct,2000-project100057100057rpt Attachments (3) (3 copies submitted) cc: (2) City of Newport Beach Building Department (1) The Keith Companies 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 (1/C Project 70144-0-0057) MISCELLANEOUS GRADING CERTIFICATE Project Address: 301 Newport Boulevard,_ Newport Beach, California Grading Permit No.: 2131 G-98 Owner: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian • Type of Project: Single Family Multi -family Non-residential • The following grading work was performed after the preparation of the Rough Grading Report and was not included as part of the Rough Grading Report: Trench backfill Retaining wall backfill Subgrade compaction Foundation for for hardscape retaining walls Other (describe) • Did you perform the required inspections and testing for each of the checked items? N/A Yes No • Specify the compaction test locations and results and the tested foundation bearing pressure (if applicable). See our final report dated February 22, 2002 for details. • I certify that the grading work was done in compliance with the Soils Report for this project and the work complies with City grading regulations. Geotechnical Engineer's Name Mrthall LEW, Pn.D. License No. 522 (exp 3/31/03) Address 200 Citadel Drive, IDS Ang California 90=-1554 Signature 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport B Table 1: Compaction Test Data Soil Type Optimum Moisture Maximum Dry Content (%) Density (pcf) Silty sand with clay 9.0 129 Silty sand 9.0 133 Well graded sand 15.5 110 Silty sand 9.0 129 Note: Test Method ASTM D1557-91 70144-0-0057-2n2i2oo2 Table 2: Field Density Test Results Moisture Dry Maximum Test Elevation Content Density Dry Density Percent Retest Number (ft.) (% of Dry Wt.) (Ibs/cu. ft.) (Ibs/cu. ft.) Compaction Number 1 66% 7.4 123 129 95 2 68 12.8 116 129 90 3 70 12.0 119 129 92 4 72% 10.2 121 129 94 5 74% 10.9 125 129 97 6 74% 10.1 122 129 95 7 73 9.3 120 129 93 8 74 9.8 121 129 94 9 75 9.7 125 129 97 10 74 8.7 124 133 93 11 74'% 7.8 124 133 93 12 75 8.9 125 133 94 13 74'% 8.8 125 133 94 14 76 6.4 122 133 92 15 75 8.7 129 133 97 16 75'% 6.4 123 133 92 17 76 10.0 128 133 96 18 74 9.2 129 133 97 19 75'% 8.2 126 133 95 20 76'% 8.1 132 133 99 21 73 8.7 130 133 98 22 74 8.0 123 133 92 23 75 7.9 120 133 90 24 75% 6.2 127 133 95 25 72% 10.5 110 133 83 A 26 26 72% 10.5 128 133 96 27 73% 10.3 120 133 90 28 72 7.4 114 133 86 A 35 29 72% 10.1 120 133 90 30 74% 9.6 124 133 93 31 77'% 8.6 126 133 95 32 76'% 8.9 123 133 92 33 71'% 14.0 105 110 95 34 75 9.5 122 133 92 35 72 8.6 123 133 92 36 78 CMB 150 154 97 AA 37 78 CMS 147 150 98 AA 38 78 CMB 154 156 99 AA 39 78% CMS 153 156 98 AA 40N 78 AC 142 147 97 AA 00057tb1/kz 2/22/2002 Pagel Table 2: Field Density Test Results Moisture Dry Maximum Test Elevation Content Density Dry Density Percent Retest Number (ft.) (% of Dry Wt.) (Ibs/cu. ft.) (Ibs/cu. ft.) Compaction Number 41N 78 AC 143 147 97 AA 42N 78 AC 148 147 101 A4 43N 78 AC 144 147 98 M 44N 78 AC 144 147 98 AA 45 76 11.6 121 133 91 46 69 10.9 114 129 88 A 47 47 69 10.8 116 129 90 48 72% 8.3 118 129 91 49 65 10.6 124 133 93 50 61 9.7 123 133 92 51 63 10.0 124 133 93 52 59% 14.3 105 110 95 53 60% 14.0 106 110 96 54 62 16.3 104 110 95 55 63 15.2 101 110 92 56 61 14.8 103 110 94 57 59% 13.9 106 110 96 58 59% 16.1 108 110 98 59 61 17.2 104 110 95 60 56% 10.9 116 129 90 61 55% 9.6 119 129 92 62 57 8.6 117 129 91 63 59 9.4 118 129 91 64 56 14.5 101 110 92 65 55'% 15.0 103 110 94 66 58 10.0 120 129 93 67 59 8.9 121 129 94 68 52 14.2 102 110 93 69 53% 11.0 116 129 90 70 60'/z 9.0 118 129 91 71 62 15.1 102 110 93 72 56 15.7 105 110 95 73 591,4 13.9 104 110 95 74 58 10.4 122 129 95 75 59% 10.7 120 129 93 76 61 9.5 124 129 96 77 55% 10.3 107 110 97 78 56 9.3 117 129 91 79 61 12.4 104 110 95 80 62 13.3 103 110 94 00057th0kz 2/22/2002 Page 2 Table 2: Field Density Test Results Moisture Dry Maximum Test Elevation Content Density Dry Density Percent Retest Number (ft.) (% of Dry Wt.) (Ibs/cu. ft.) (Ibs/cu. ft.) Compaction Number 81 64 13.1 106 110 96 82 58 12.4 103 110 94 83 61 14.5 104 110 95 84 59 10.6 119 129 92 85 61'/z 10.2 121 129 94 86 61 11.1 119 129 92 87 62% 13.1 120 129 93 88 55 10.1 120 129 93 89 54 11.0 118 129 91 90 60 9.5 119 129 92 91 58 9.3 116 129 90 92 6314 9.7 119 129 92 93 63% 8.7 118 129 91 94 6314 8.4 119 129 92 95 621A 8.3 117 129 91 96 6214 8.9 117 129 91 97 61 8.7 117 129 91 98 62 8.9 117 129 91 99 60 10.2 116 129 90 100 61 9.5 119 129 92 101 77 12.0 121 133 91 102 58 12.5 102 110 93 103 58 13.5 101 110 92 104 57 13.0 100 110 91 105 58 10.5 117 129 91 106 58 10.2 116 129 90 107 58 10.4 119 129 92 108 58 13.2 101 110 92 109 58 13.3 101 110 92 110 58 12.8 100 110 91 111 58 13.8 104 110 95 112 58 13.6 104 110 95 113 58 12.9 102 110 93 114 5714 9.3 118 129 91 115 58 10.8 116 129 90 116 58 11.0 117 129 91 117 60 11.1 120 129 93 118 631A 10.9 122 129 95 119 60'/ 9.8 118 129 91 120 621A 10.6 111 129 86 A 121 00057tb1&z 2/22/2002 Page 3 Table 2: Field Density Test Results Moisture Dry Maximum Test Elevation Content Density Dry Density Percent Retest Number (ft.) (% of Dry Wt.) (Ibs/cu. ft.) (lbs/cu. ft.) Compaction Number 121 62% 10.8 117 129 91 122 63% 11.3 118 129 91 123 64 11.1 125 129 97 124 66 10.5 122 129 95 125 65% 9.9 124 129 96 126 64 10.5 117 129 91 127 62 9.9 123 129 95 128 64 9.0 116 129 90 129 65 11.5 120 129 93 130 67 11.6 121 129 94 131 65% 10.4 121 129 94 132 66% 10.1 124 129 96 133 68 8.8 122 129 95 134 69 10.2 119 129 92 135 73^% 12.8 106 129 82 A 136 136 731,4 10.5 116 129 90 137 711,4 9.7 119 129 92 138 73 6.3 116 129 90 139 71 8.7 115 129 89 A 140 140 71 7.8 117 129 91 141 70'% 11.8 116 129 90 142 73% 11.7 118 129 91 143 67 11.0 121 129 94 144 71'/z 11.8 117 129 91 145 67 10.8 120 129 93 146 71% 11.3 117 129 91 147 74% 9.9 122 129 95 148 76 10.6 119 129 92 149 76 9.1 127 133 95 150 77% 11.7 122 133 92 151 72 10.1 124 133 93 152 78% 9.8 126 133 95 153 75% 10.3 122 129 95 154 75 9.8 119 129 92 155 73% 10.0 119 129 92 156 74 9.6 119 129 92 157 46 14.5 104 110 95 158 55 14.3 104 110 95 159 50 15.9 99 110 90 160 54% 15.7 101 110 92 00057t61/kz 2/22/2002 Page4 Table 2: Field Density Test Results Moisture Dry Maximum Test Elevation Content Density Dry Density Percent Retest Number (ft.) (% of Dry Wt.) (Ibs/cu. ft.) (Ibs/cu. ft.) Compaction Number 161 58 14.9 104 110 95 162 60 13.3 105 110 95 163 77 11.3 119 129 92 164 75% 10.8 122 129 95 165 68 14.4 103 110 94 166 61 15.5 102 110 93 167 74 6.3 116 129 90 168 77^/ 7.6 118 129 91 169 73 11.1 121 129 94 170 69% 10.2 116 129 90 171 71'/2 10.0 117 129 91 172 73'/z 10.0 119 129 92 173 75% 9.8 122 129 95 174 74 9.3 116 129 90 175 75'% 9.8 116 129 90 176 70 10.2 125 129 97 177 72 10.0 121 129 94 178 75 9.3 119 129 92 179 74 9.7 120 129 93 180 75^/ 9.5 119 129 92 181 71 11.1 117 129 91 182 73 10.1 116 129 90 183 73 10.5 116 129 90 184 75 10.8 118 129 91 185 72% 9.9 117 129 91 186 74% 10.2 118 129 91 187 73 10.3 124 129 96 188 75 10.0 121 129 94 189 74 10.5 122 129 95 190 76 9.6 121 129 94 191 78 9.6 117 129 91 192 80 9.4 117 129 91 193 78'% 9.1 118 129 91 194 80^% 8.9 119 129 92 195 78% 10.5 117 129 91 196 79'/ 10.4 116 129 90 197 71 ^% 9.2 120 129 93 198 73% 9.3 121 129 94 199 75% 9.1 119 129 92 200 75 9.0 118 129 91 n0057tb1/kz 2/22/2002 Page 5 Table 2: Field Density Test Results Moisture Dry Maximum Test Elevation Content Density Dry Density Percent Retest Number (ft.) (% of Dry Wt.) (Ibs/cu. ft.) (Ibs/cu. ft.) Compaction Number 201 66'% 8.1 117 129 91 202 72'% 9.7 116 129 90 203 7414 10.0 118 129 91 204 68% 9.5 119 129 92 205 74 10.8 118 129 91 206 74'% 11.1 120 129 93 207 79 8.5 118 129 91 208 78% 8.7 120 129 93 209 78 8.0 116 129 90 210 70 10.6 117 129 91 211 78'% 9.0 118 129 91 212 72 9.0 119 129 92 213 7414 10.0 118 129 91 214 75 9.9 119 129 92 215 7714 9.5 119 129 92 216 78'/ 9.8 117 129 91 217 74 10.2 121 129 94 218 76 9.6 120 129 93 219 76 9.5 119 129 92 220 72 10.5 120 129 93 221 75 10.2 118 129 91 222 79 9.5 119 129 92 223 80 9.7 118 129 91 224 75 8.7 122 129 95 225 80 8.7 117 129 91 226 79 8.5 117 129 91 227 7714 CMB 131 138 95 AA 228 7414 9.5 117 129 91 229 76 9.9 121 129 94 230 7714 9.0 118 129 91 231 7514 9.3 119 129 92 232 78 9.8 119 129 92 233 76'/% 10.2 122 129 95 234 79 CMB 138 141 98 AA 235 7814 CMB 140 143 98 AA 236 7914 CMB 130 137 95 AA 237 80 CMB 139 142 98 AA 238 79 CMB 140 143 98 AA 239 7914 CMB 134 138 97 AA 240 75 9.7 119 129 92 00057tb1/ z 2/22/2002 Page 6 Table 2: Field Density Test Results Moisture Dry Maximum Test Elevation Content Density Dry Density Percent Retest Number (ft.) (% of Dry Wt.) (Ibs/cu. ft.) (Ibs/cu. ft.) Compaction Number 241 74 9.9 120 129 93 242 77 9.5 119 129 92 243 78 CMB 144 147 98 AA 244 77% CMB 130 137 95 AA 245 78 11.1 119 129 92 246 74% CMB 133 137 97 AA 247 76% CMB 131 136 96 AA 248 76' CMB 132 137 96 AA 249 76% CMB 132 138 96 AA 250 76% CMB 135 141 96 AA 251 77 CMB 132 135 98 AA 252 52 10.3 118 129 91 253 56% 10.5 118 129 91 254N 79% AC 142 147 97 AA 255N 78% AC 139 147 95 AA 256N 781,4 AC 141 147 96 AA 257N 79% AC 140 147 95 AA 258N 79% AC 141 147 96 AA 259N 81 AC 139 147 95 AA 260N 80 AC 139 147 95 AA 261N 77 AC 139 147 95 AA 262N 78'% AC 142 147 97 AA 263N 78 AC 144 147 98 AA 264N 78 AC 142 147 97 AA 265N 79 AC 139 147 95 AA 266N 78 AC 139 147 95 AA 267N 79 AC 139 147 95 AA 268N 78% AC 142 147 97 AA 269N 76 AC 139 147 95 AA 270N 76 AC 143 147 97 AA 271N 76% AC 139 147 95 AA 272N 77 AC 140 147 95 AA 273N 75 AC 141 147 96 AA 274 56% 13.0 102 110 93 275 50 12.5 102 110 93 276 78% 9.8 121 129 94 277 77% 8.9 120 129 93 278 78 9.2 121 129 94 279 78% 8.7 119 129 92 280 79 7.0 116 129 90 00057tbl/kz J22/2002 Page 7 Table 2: Field Density Test Results Moisture Dry Maximum Test Elevation Content Density Dry Density Percent Retest Number (ft.) (% of Dry Wt.) (lbs/cu. ft.) (Ibs/cu. ft.) Compaction Number 321 65 9.0 118 129 91 322 67 10.7 121 129 94 323 69% 10.8 115 129 89 * 324 71% 10.4 112 129 87 * 325 75 10.3 109 129 84 * 326 65 11.1 109 129 84 * 327 58% 11.1 110 129 85 * 328 80 9.5 122 129 95 329N 79% AC 143 151 95 AA 330N 79% AC 143 151 95 AA 331 60'/z 9.5 116 129 90 332 62'% 11.1 116 129 90 * 333 64'% 9.9 116 129 90 * 334 57'% 10.5 119 129 92 335 59'% 11.1 124 129 96 336 62 11.6 119 129 92 337 64 11.0 119 129 92 338 61 % 10.9 119 129 92 339 66 11.4 120 129 93 340 68 10.0 116 129 90 341 70 10.2 116 129 90 342 72 9.9 121 129 94 343 74 9.1 126 129 98 344 63'% 10.3 121 129 94 345 65% 11.6 112 129 87 * 346 67% 10.4 113 129 88 * 347 55 11.1 116 129 90 348 501A 10.6 119 129 92 349 58'% 10.8 117 129 91 350 54 11-0 116 129 90 351 67'% 9.6 118 129 91 352 57% 9.0 117 129 91 353 59'% 9.0 116 129 90 354 61'% 8.9 116 129 90 355 63% 11.1 124 129 96 356 64'% 11.0 124 129 96 357 61% 10.5 117 129 91 00057!b1,xls/kz 2/22/02 Page 9 Table 2: Field Density Test Results Moisture Dry Maximum Test Elevation Content Density Dry Density Percent Retest Number (ft.) (% of Dry Wt.) (Ibs/cu. ft.) (Ibs/cu. ft.) Compaction Number 281 79 7.9 119 129 92 282 77% 9.0 119 129 92 283 79 9.2 116 129 90 284 78% 11.1 122 129 95 285 78 8.7 117 129 91 286 76% 9.0 119 129 92 287 78 9.3 117 129 91 288 80 9.3 116 129 90 289 77 7.0 116 129 90 290 75 8.9 116 129 90 291 49% 11.0 122 129 95 292 50% 10.9 121 129 94 293 51'/ 15.1 102 110 93 294 51% 11.0 116 129 90 295 52% 10.7 116 129 90 296 53'/% 9.1 116 129 90 297 54% 9.8 118 129 91 298 61 10.3 117 129 91 299 53 10.0 117 129 91 300 55'/z 11.1 116 129 90 301 56% 10.2 125 129 97 302 65 9.6 116 129 90 303 71 10.0 117 129 91 304 50% 9.0 122 129 95 305 52% 8.8 118 129 91 306 49% 9.5 122 129 95 307 51% 9.3 120 129 93 308 53% 9.6 120 129 93 309 55'% 10.8 119 129 92 310 57 11.0 124 129 96 311 59 10.5 120 129 93 312 58 11.1 114 129 88 * 313 60 10.0 115 129 89 * 314 73'/ 10.3 120 129 93 315 75% 10.1 122 129 95 316 61 7.5 116 129 90 317 63 7.7 117 129 91 318 65 11.1 109 129 84 * 319 67 11.0 113 129 88 * 320 63 9.3 121 129 94 00057t 1/kz 2/22/2002 Page 8 Table 2: Field Density Test Results Moisture Dry Maximum Test Elevation Content Density Dry Density Percent Retest Number (ft.) (% of Dry Wt.) (Ibs/cu. ft.) (Ibs/cu. ft.) Compaction Number 358 63 10.3 116 129 90 Notes: Elevations refer to job datum. A Indicates area reworked and retested. AA Indicates 95% compaction required. CMB Indicates crushed miscellaneous base material; wet density values used in calculations. AC Indicates asphalt concrete. N Indicates nuclear gage density test. * Indicates 80% compaction required. 00057tb1/kz 2/22/2002 Page 10 H0SPITA ...NAM VD.,ORAN PS. i*,, en ruin• diuw wou asiAV Snt 4G?IOG ewou'u LIST n.va pew c[ a'v OF i¢.M-s:• ve.r IOC/ .._:: •x.aKO rel.x cnzavic« suu te..-, I COSErcac aJo ru¢'-cxc. aimzmmacron- _ w �m 0 cc w 0 o m cr e W 2 4 IA, • SLa.Y3 'ws.. °`mIM fM0".`,...., (,.1t. :L- — .,..ram.. tGUAaitR1-WMtQ,Y Pam r: m c nark .._..— Pea Wan N� Ed,