HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 97-01; BELLA LAGO; AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT; 1996-11-07.....,.. ,.
• '
i
l!.l•
I
1
I . . ,
'
I
I
;I
....J
I
I
...:.
~eo4technics
Incorporated
•
AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Aviara Planning Area 28
Carlsbad, California
prepared for
Aviara Land Associates
2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206
Carlsbad, California 92009
by
GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED
Project No. 0073-013-00
Doc. #6-0697
November 7, 1996
9951 Business Park Ave., Ste. B • San Diego California • 92131
Phone (619) 536-1000 • Fax (619) 536-8311
Principals:
Anthony F. Belfast
Michael P. lmbriglio
W. Lee Vanderhurst
J
I
l •
7 . .J
l
I
I
J
. .
1 .J
I
i
~eo,echnics
Incorporated ---
November 7, 1996
Aviara Land Associates
2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206
Carlsbad, California 92009
Attention: Mr. Curt Noland
SUBJECT: AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Aviara Planning Area 28
Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
Principals:
Anthony F. Belfast
Michael P. Imbriglio
W. Lee Vanderhurst
Project No. 0073-013-00
Doc. #6-0697
In accordance with your request, we have prepared this report summarizing the results of the
geotechnical observation and testing services performed during the fine grading of Aviara
Planning Area 28. This report and the associated geotechnical services were performed in
accordance with the provisions of our Proposal Number 6-208, dated October 1, 1996, and with
the Consulting Agreement, Contract No. 96029, provided by Aviara Land Associates.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide professional services. If you have any questions or
comments regarding this report or the services provided, please do not hesitate to contact us .
Respectfully submitted,
W. Lee Vanderhurst, C.E.G.
Principal
9951 Business Park Ave., Ste. B • San Diego California • 92131
Phone (619) 536-1000 • Fax (619) 536-8311
J . ,
j
I
I
I
I
~
, 1
I ...J
I
I
-~1 . I .J
q; •
AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Aviara Planning Area 28
Carlsbad, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
4.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5.0 GRADING OPERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5. 1 Preparation of Existing Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.2 Fill Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.3 Transitions Between Bedrock and Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.4 Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1 Laboratory Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2 Fill Compaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.3 Slope Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.4 Subsequent Grading or Backfill Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.5 Site Drainage ......... -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.6 Foundation Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.0 LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
APPENDICES
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A
LABORATORY TESTING ....................................... Appendix B
FIELD TEST RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix C
Geotechnics Incorporated
1 i
7
I
,.,
J
1
1
J
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Aviara Planning Area 28
Carlsbad, California
This report summarizes the results of the geotechnical observation and testing services performed
during the fine grading of Aviara Planning Area (PA) 28. The purpose of the observation and
testing services was to evaluate the conformance of the earthwork construction with the project
plans and specifications. The earthwork construction entailed fine grading of the site to create
63 single-family lots and street subgrades. The conclusions and recommendations contained
herein are based on our observations and testing performed between October 4, 1996 and
November 7, 1996.
2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
Field personnel were provided for this project to observe the grading of the site, to sample on-site
materials for laboratory analysis, and to conduct field density testing. The observation and testing
assists us in developing professional opinions regarding the earthwork. Our services did not
include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents.
Our services included the following:
•
•
Laboratory testing to determine pertinent engineering characteristics of the soil. The
results are summarized in Appendix 8.
Observation of the geologic conditions exposed during excavation and grading of the site .
Geologic mapping is compiled on the As-Graded Geotechnical Maps, Plates 1 and 2.
• Observation and testing of fill placement during the site grading. Test results are
summarized in Appendix C.
Preparation of this report which summarizes our findings, opinions and recommendations.
1
u.:i 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
--'
' i
....J
PA 28 is a residential neighborhood within Phase 2 of the Aviara master planned community.
The site includes 64 single-family lots situated in a broad valley just north of Batiquitos Lagoon.
Access is provided from Batiquitos Drive via Shorebird Lane and Pelican Street. The site is
bounded by Batiquitos Drive on the north, Batiquitos Lagoon on the south, and open space to the
east and west.
Geotechnics Incoq>0rated
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:,:
t. j
-f.
Aviara Land Associates
November 7, 1996
Project No. 0073-013-00
Doc. #6-0697
Page 2
The site was previously graded as part of the Aviara Phase II development. Rough grading of
the site produced a relatively flat, rough graded lot with descending slopes to Batiquitos Lagoon
and ascending slopes to the open space to the west. Compaction testing of rough grading was
reported by ICG Incorporated (1993) and Geotechnics Incorporated (1996). A list of previous
geotechnical reports is presented in Appendix A.
4.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The subject site is situated in the coastal plain section of the Peninsular Range Province. The
coastal plain consists of subdued landforms underlain by typically by Cenozoic sedimentary
formations mantled by younger surficial deposits.
The subject site was underlain by Eocene-age sandstone, designated the Torrey Sandstone,
covered by variable amounts of colluvium and alluvium. Alluvium and colluvium deposits were
removed during the rough grading of the site to the formational material or to wet alluvium where
removals were limited by groundwater (!CG Incorporated, 1993, Geotechnics Incorporated, 1996).
Fill, derived from excavations at or adjacent to the site, was placed during rough grading to fill
the valley. The construction of house pads during the fine grading resulted in each of the lots
being underlain by fill if varying depths. The Torrey Sandstone was exposed in the slopes the
western portion of the site and the eastern half of lot 32.
Groundwater seepage was not observed during fine grading operations. Perched groundwater
or seepage may become present in time in either the fill or bedrock materials, due to increased
irrigation, rainfall, changes in surface drainage, or subsequent grading and improvements.
5.0 GRADING OPERATIONS
The earthwork consisted of re-grading of the existing rough-graded site pad to produce 64 house
pads and rough street subgrades. The fine grading was performed by Astleford Construction,
Incorporated. The site grades are shown on the grading plans by P. & D. Technologies (1996).
Copies of these plans serve as a base map for our attached As-Graded Geotechnical Maps,
Plates 1 and 2.
Grading was performed using typical cut and fill grading techniques with heavy earth-moving
equipment. Site grading began with the scarification of areas that were to receive fill. Excavation
Geotechnics Incorporated
1 . •
I
7 J
I
I
I
I
I
l
'1 J
I
I
i .
.
'
-'
Aviara Land Associates
November 7, 1996
Project No. 0073-013-00
Doc. #6-0697
Page 3
of the cut areas, and areas to be overexcavated for cut/fill transitions, were then made with the
resulting material generated being placed as compacted fill.
5.1 Preparation of Existing Ground
The site was cleared of surface obstructions and stripped of vegetation. Prior to placing
fill, existing weathered fill soils were scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches, moisture
conditioned and compacted.
5.2 Fill Placement
Fill soils for site grading were typically placed in 6-to 8-inch lifts, brought to approximate
optimum moisture content and compacted. The equipment used for compaction consisted
of bulldozers, rubber-tired compactors, blades, water trucks, and scrapers.
5.3 Transitions Between Bedrock and Fill
Transitions between bedrock and fill were present in one location at the site. In instances
where cut/fill transitions crossed building pads, the cut portion of the pad was
overexcavated and replaced with compacted fill to finish grade. The depth of the
overexcavation removals varied. Specifically, portions of Lots 64 and 55 were
overexcavated to a depth of approximately 3 feet, and portions of Lots 54, 62, and 63
were overexcavated approximately 5 feet deep. The transition between fill and sandstone
was not moved in Lot 32.
5.4 Slopes
The slopes along the perimeter of the site were mostly constructed during the rough
grading (ICG Incorporated, 1993, Geotechnics Incorporated, 1996). The smaller slopes,
up to 4-1/2 feet in height, that separate the lots were constructed during the fine grading.
In general, the slopes were constructed in accordance with the project plans and
specifications at a slope ratio of 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical).
Geotechnics Incorporated
7
....,
J
I
7 J
l
I
I
I
I
'l
_j
I
I
l i ..l
Aviara Land Associates
November 7, 1996
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Project No. 0073-013-00
Doc. #6-0697
Page 4
In our opinion, grading and compaction was performed in general accordance with the intent of
the project geotechnical recommendations, and with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad.
The conclusions and recommendations contained herein are based on our observations and
testing performed between October 4 and November 7, 1996. No representations are made as
to the quality and extent of materials not observed.
6.1 Laboratory Testing
The various materials used as fill are tabulated in Table 1 of Appendix 8, "Laboratory Test
Results". Fill materials used during grading were derived from on-site sources and
consisted of sand (SP) and silty sand (SM). Brief descriptions of the soil types used are
included in Table 1. The maximum densities and optimum moistures of the soils were
determined in the laboratory by ASTM method D1557-91, (Modified Proctor).
6.2 Fill Compaction
In-place moisture and density tests were made in accordance with ASTM D2922-91 and
D3017-88 (Nuclear Gauge Method). The results of these tests are tabulated in Appendix
C, "Field Density Test Results". The locations and elevations indicated for the tests
presented in Appendix C, and on the As-Graded Geotechnical Maps, are based on field
survey stakes and estimates from the grading plan topography, and should only be
considered rough estimates. The estimated locations and elevations should not be utilized
for the purpose of preparing cross sections showing test locations, or in any case, for the
purpose of after-the-fact evaluating of the sequence of fill placement.
Based upon our observations and testing, it is our professional opinion that fill soils were
placed in substantial accordance with the compaction criteria of 90 percent of the
maximum density (ASTM D1557-91).
6.3 Slope Stability
Fill and cut slopes were constructed as discussed in Section 4.4, to approximate heights
of up to 4-1 /2 feet. Pre-existing 2: 1 slopes of greater height bound the project. Slope
stability was previously evaluated based on the referenced geotechnical investigation (ICG
Geotechnics Incorporated
';if
i
J
I
n • t
'.;J
j
I
I
I
I
I
, ....
l
_J
' I
Aviara Land Associates
November 7, 1996
Project No. 0073-013-00
Doc. #6-0697
Page 5
Incorporated, 1990b, Geotechnics lncoporated, 1996) and site observations of conditions
exposed during grading.
In general, slopes were found to be stable with regard to deep-seated failure with a factor
of safety of at least 1.5. Slope analysis was based on our best estimate of the prevailing
geologic conditions, groundwater conditions and soil strength characteristics. It should be
realized that site conditions can be complex and variable due to changes in stratigraphy,
geologic structure, and changes in groundwater. It is possible that conditions can differ
from those anticipated in our analysis. In addition, cuts or retaining walls constructed at
the toe of slopes could decrease slope stability. Any changes to constructed slope
heights, ratios, retaining walls, or addition of surcharge should be evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant.
Man-made and natural slopes will weather over time as a result of wetting and drying,
biologic forces and gravity. As a result, the outer two to three feet of slope face may
undergo minor down-slope creep over the years. While it is not possible to completely
eliminate this effect, it can be minimized by establishing deep-rooted vegetation on the
slope, maintaining the drainage patterns established during construction, and by rodent
control. We recommend vegetation which is adapted to semi-arid climates, therefore
requiring minimal irrigation.
6.4 Subsequent Grading or Backfill Operations
Prior to the commencement of additional grading operations on-site, including backfilling
of trenches and retaining walls, the Soils Engineer should be notified at least two working
days in advance in order to schedule appropriate observation and testing services as
needed.
6.5 Site Drainage
Foundation and slab performance depends greatly on how well the runoff waters drain
from the site. This is true both during construction and over the entire life of the structure.
The ground surface around structures should be graded so that water flows rapidly away
from the structures without ponding. The surface gradient needed to achieve this depends
on the prevailing landscape. In general, we recommend that pavement and lawn areas
within five feet of buildings slope away at gradients of at least two percent. Densely
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
J
I
I
I
I I
J
I I
I
Aviara Land Associates
November 7, 1996
Project No. 0073-013-00
Doc. #6-0697
Page 6
vegetated areas should have minimum gradients of at least five percent away from
buildings in the first five feet. Densely vegetated areas are considered those in which the
planting type and spacing is such that the flow of water is impeded.
Planters should be built so that water from them will not seep into the foundation, slab,
or pavement areas. Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum necessary to sustain
landscaping plants. Should excessive irrigation, water line breaks, or unusually high
rainfall occur, saturated zones or "perched" groundwater may develop in fill soils.
6.6 Foundation Recommendations
Foundation recommendations should be made based on appropriate laboratory testing of
finish pad soil conditions. Recommendations for foundation design criteria were not within
the scope of our work.
7.0 LIMITATIONS
Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar
circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities.
No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice
included in this report.
The samples taken and used for testing, the observations made and the in-place field testing
performed are believed representative of the entire project; however, soil and geologic conditions
can vary significantly between tested or observed locations.
As in most major projects, conditions revealed by excavation may be at variance with preliminary
findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by Geotechnics Incorporated
and designs adjusted as required or alternate designs recommended.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought
to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and
the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such
recommendations in the field.
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
,.....
~ J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7 . i ;.J
Aviara Land Associates
November 7, 1996
Project No. 0073-013-00
Doc. #6-0697
Page 7
This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the
contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for other than our own personnel on the
site; therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should
notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions
of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or
the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate
standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge.
Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside
our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a
period of three years.
* * *
GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED
Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. C 40333
Principal
..
i I: L •,
n,,-~~"> J .,.,.._,~.,., !
I
~---·
Geotechnics Incorporated
W. Lee Vanderhurst, C.E.G. 1125
Principal
]
1 t
J
I
j
·7 l .J
I
I
I
I
J
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1996, Proposal for Geotechnical Services, Testing and Observation
During Fine Grading, Aviara Planning Area 28, Carlsbad, California; Proposal No. 6-208,
dated October 1.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1996, As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Aviara Phase 2, Carlsbad,
California, Project No. 0073-005-00, Doc. #6-0367, dated August 6.
ICG Inc., 1990a, As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Aviara Units A through E, Carlsbad, California;
Volumes 1 and 2, Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10, Log No. 0-1094, dated January 14.
ICG Inc., 1990b, Geotechnical Investigation, Phase II Aviara, Carlsbad, California; Job No. 04-
3179-012-00-00, Log No. 0-1090, dated September 18.
ICG Inc., 1993, Interim As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Phase II Aviara, Carlsbad, California;
Volumes I and II, Job No. 02-3179-012-00-00, Log No. 2-1343, dated February 4.
P & D Technologies, 1994, Grading and Erosion Plans for Carlsbad Tract 90-35; Project No. PE
2.91.49, 2 sheets, dated May 17.
Geotechnics Incorporated
l
J
I
~ .. l .•
7 J
i
J
I
I
I '
·1 J
I
I
' 1 J
APPENDIX 8
LABORATORY TESTING
Selected representative samples of soils encountered were tested using test methods of the
American Society for Testing and Materials, or other generally accepted standards. A brief
description of the tests performed follows:
Classification: Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System.
Visual classification was supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples and clas-
sification in accordance with ASTM D2487.
Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture: The maximum density and optimum moisture for
representative soil samples were determined by using test method ASTM D1557-91, modified
Proctor. The test results are summarized in Figure 8-1.
Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected soils was characterized by using the test
method U8C 29-2. The test results are presented in Figure 8-2.
Geoteclmics lncoll)Orated
J
I '
7 .J
1 '.
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1 I
1 uii
Sample
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
TABLE 1
MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
ASTM D1557-91
Description Dry
Density
(pct)
Reddish brown fine to medium silty SAND (SM) 128.0
Brown silty fine SAND (SM) 121.5
Brown silty to clayey SAND (SM) 123.0
Brown silty sand with clay fragments (SM) 122.0
Yellowish graym silty fine sand (SM) 114.5
Light gray brown, silty sand (SM) 113.0
Moisture
Content
(%)
8.5
9.5
8.0
10.0
15.0
12.0
Geotechnics Maximum Density
Aviara PA 28
Aviara Land Associates
Project No. 0073-013-00
Doc. # 6-0697
Figure B-1 Incorporated
]
I
7 .u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
APPENDIX C
FIELD TEST RESULTS
Elevations and locations of field tests were determined by hand level and pacing relative to field
staking done by others. The precision of the field density test and the maximum dry density test
is not exact and variations should be expected. For example, the American Society for Testing
and Materials has recently researched the precision of ASTM Method No. D1557 and found the
accuracy of the maximum dry density to be plus or minus 4 percent of the mean value and the
optimum moisture content to be accurate to plus or minus 15 percent of the mean value; the
Society specifically states the "acceptable range of test results expressed as a percent of mean
value" is the range stated above. In effect, an indicated relative compaction of 90 percent has
an acceptable range of 86.6 to 92.8 percent based on the maximum dry density determination.
The precision of the field density test ASTM D1556 has not yet been determined by the American
Society for Testing and Materials; however, it must be recognized that it also is subject to
variations in accuracy.
7 J
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
!,
J.
• ........ Geotechnics
Incorporated
Test Test Elevation Location/ Soil
No. Date [ft] Station Type
1 10/7/96 56 7 3
2 10/10/96 58 7 4
3 10/10/96 63 6 4
4 10/10/96 64 6 4
5 10/10/96 65 5 4
6 10/10/96 66 4 4
7 10/10/96 65 3 4
8 10/11/96 64 2 4
9 10/11/96 59 1 4
10 10/11/96 59 8 4
11 10/11/96 57 9 4
12 10/14/96 61 44 3
13 10/14/96 61 38 4
14 10/15/96 68 4 4
15 10/15/96 67 3 4
16 10/15/96 65 2 4
17 10/15/96 54 36 5
18 10/15/96 60 1 4
19 10/16/96 67 5 4
20 10/16/96 65 6 4
21 10/16/96 69 60 6
22 10/16/96 60 7 4
23 10/16/96 60 8 4
24 10/17/96 74 63 6
25 10/17/96 62 44 1
26 10/17/96 60 43 1
27 10/17/96 59 42 1
28 10/17/96 70 61 6
29 10/17/96 60 45 4
30 10/17/96 60 46 4
31 10/18/96 73 95 6
32 10/18/96 60 47 2
33 10/18/96 59 41 4
34 10/18/96 59 40 4
35 10/18/96 60 39 6
36 10/18/96 60 59 6
37 10/18/96 48 58 5
38 10/21/96 63 38 4
39 10/21/96 60 37 4
40 10/21/96 56 36 4
41 10/21/96 51 35 4
42 10/22/96 45 55 4
43 10/22/96 48 54 4
44 10/22/96 76 63 6
45 10/22/96 76 62 6
46 10/22/96 74 61 6
47 10/23/96 70 60 6
48 10/23/96 50 58 5
DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project No. 0073-013-00
Planning Area 28 Document No. 6-0697
Aviara Land Associates FIGURE C-1
Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest
Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number
[pct] [%] [pct] [%] [%]
123.0 11.5 116.7 95 90
122.0 14.4 114.4 94 90
122.0 14.3 113.4 93 90
122.0 14.1 112.8 92 90
122.0 15.6 111.2 91 90
122.0 14.0 114.2 94 90
122.0 14.8 111.1 91 90
122.0 14.5 112.3 92 90
122.0 15.6 113.0 93 90
122.0 15.1 110.3 90 90
122.0 14.2 112.7 92 90
123.0 7.9 112.6 92 90
122.0 13.0 114.7 94 90
122.0 12.1 116.6 96 90
122.0 15.5 114.8 94 90
122.0 13.9 114.0 93 90
114.5 14.5 107.7 94 90
122.0 12.2 115.5 95 90
122.0 12.3 117.9 97 90
122.0 14.7 114.3 94 90
116.0 14.0 110.7 95 90
122.0 11.1 112.7 92 90
122.0 13.5 112.2 92 90
116.0 15.8 107.0 92 90
128.0 12.6 117.3 92 90
128.0 10.4 115.8 90 90
128.0 9.3 120.6 94 90
116.0 15.6 104.7 90 90
·122.0 10.5 119.4 98 90
122.0 12.7 115.5 95 90
116.0 16.5 106.1 91 90
121.5 9.5 109.9 90 90
122.0 12.5 112.5 92 90
122.0 14.6 117.9 97 90
116.0 17.7 107.1 92 90
116.0 12.1 110.8 96 90
114.5 13.8 103.8 91 90
122.0 9.8 116.5 95 90
122.0 9.3 115.3 95 90
122.0 11.6 110.9 91 90
122.0 10.4 114.4 94 90
122.0 11.9 112.1 92 90
122.0 9.6 112.0 92 90
116.0 12.1 107.0 92 90
116.0 13.0 105.7 91 90
116.0 12.6 107.8 93 90
116.0 9.5 109.9 95 90
114.5 13.2 103.2 90 90
:;., q•
j. , -
'f DENSITY TEST RES UL TS Project No. 0073-013-00 ! ~ Geotechnics
Incorporated Planning Area 28 Document No. 6-0697
Aviara Land Associates FIGURE C-2
7
.J Test Test Elevation Location/ Soil Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest
No. Date [ft] Station Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number
I [pcf] (%] [pcf] (%] (%]
49 10/23/96 62 59 1 128.0 9.9 119.2 93 90
~ 50 10/23/96 43 57 1 128.0 10.4 121.1 95 90
51 10/23/96 40 56 1 128.0 12.2 120.3 94 90
52 10/24/96 39 17 1 128.0 8.4 117.7 92 90
7 53 10/24/96 38 18 1 128.0 10.4 121.7 95 90
I 54 10/24/96 57 31 3 123.0 9.4 119.4 97 90 J 55 10/24/96 57 28 4 122.0 10.0 111.0 91 90
56 10/24/96 40 29 4 122.0 10.4 116.3 95 90
I 57 10/25/96 54 30 4 122.0 13.5 117.9 97 90
58 10/25/96 66 49 4 122.0 11.1 109.9 90 90
59 10/25/96 65 49 4 122.0 11.7 110.8 91 90
I 60 10/25/96 63 50 4 122.0 10.6 110.3 90 90
61 10/28/96 40 22 4 122.0 9.1 111.5 91 90
62 10/28/96 46 23 4 122.0 11.9 113.1 93 90
63 10/28/96 61 51 4 122.0 8.0 115.4 95 90 I 64 10/28/96 58 52 4 122.0 7.6 116.9 96 90
65 10/28/96 54 53 4 122.0 11.8 112.8 92 90
66 10/29/96 50 54 4 122.0 10.1 118.6 97 90
I 67 10/29/96 47 55 4 122.0 8.7 115.0 94 90
68 10/29/96 39 16 1 128.0 9.3 118.6 93 90
69 10/29/96 38 15 1 128.0 8.5 118.8 93 90
I 70 10/29/96 -2 see map 1 128.0 10.8 120.7 94 90
71 10/29/96 -2 see map 4 122.0 11.0 112.3 92 90
72 10/30/96 61 48 1 128.0 7.0 123.2 96 90
73 11/4/96 64 26 3 123.0 9.8 121.7 99 90
I 74 11/4/96 63 25 3 123.0 9.1 114.7 93 90
75 11/5/96 62 32 4 122.0 9.6 110.6 91 90
76 11/5/96 59 27 4 122.0 13.9 115.1 94.3 90 ,., 77 11/5/96 37 19 4 122.0 7.9 110.7 90.7 90
J 78 11/5/96 54 24 4 122.0 14.7 111.7 91.6 90
79 11/5/96 48 23 4 122.0 12.0 113.2 92.8 90
80 11/6/96 89 9 4 122.0 9.1 113.5 93.0 90 I 81 11/6/96 42 22 4 122.0 10.9 113.4 93.0 90
82 11/6/96 37 21 4 122.0 12.3 111.2 91.1 90
83 11/6196 37 20 4 122.0 11.5 118.3 97.0 90
I 84 11/6/96 53 10 6 116.0 12.4 108.5 93.5 90
85 1117196 40 11 4 122.0 12.2 116.8 95.7 90
86 1117196 37 14 4 122.0 13.1 114.4 93.8 90
'l 87 11/7/96 39 13 4 122.0 11.3 117.5 96.3 90
t 88 1117196 37 12 4 122.0 10.1 117.5 96.3 90
-..l 89 1117196 -2 see map 4 122.0 8.3 111.1 91.1 90
90 1117/96 -2 see map 4 122.0 9.2 114.3 93.7 90
91 1117/96 -2 see map 4 122.0 10.9 120.4 98.7 90 J ....
:!l"? ·.~ ;; ~~