The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About; May Dept Store Co; Soils Report; 1969-05-26- RECEIVED - MAY 27 1969 - CITY OF CARLSBAD Building Department - - - - - - - - - - - - - - INSPECTION OF FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS, AND INSPECTION AND TESTING OF COMPACTED BACKFILL PROPOSED DEPARTMENT STORE AND MAINTENANCE BUILDING PLAZA CAMINO REAL SHOPPING CENTER CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FOR THE MAY DEPARTMENT STORES COMPANY (OUR JOB NO. B-68004-C) - CcJNSULTlNG FOUNDATlON ENGINEERS m 711 NORTH AL”AR.4W STREET 0 LOS ANGELES, C*LIFORNIA 90026 17 TELEPHONE 386.3920 -~ LEROY CRANDALL - AND ASSOCIATES - May 26, 1969 - - - Plaza Camino Real The May Department Stores Company 801 South Broadway Los Angeles, California 90014 Gentlemen: (Our Job No. B-68004-C) - - - _-~ - - - - - Inspection of Foundation Excavations, and Inspection and Testing of Compacted Backfill Proposed Department Store and Maintenance Building Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center Carlsbad, California for the May Department Stores Company SCOPE This report confirms our inspection and approval of the excava- tions fqr spread footings installed to support the proposed Department Store and Maintenance Building at the subject site; included are the re- sults of our inspection and testing of the compacted soils placed as back- fill for the project. The locations of the proposed structures'are shown, with relation to the project coordinates, on the attached Plot Plan. The inspection work was performed during the period of March through December, 1968. We previously performed a foundation investigation of the site, and submitted our recommendations in a report dated August 12, 1966 (our Job No. A-66035); supplementary reports have been issued from time to time as additional recommendations have been required. We also performed inspection L. kRcJY CRANDALL. c. E. RUSSELL c. WEBER. c. E. SEYMOUR s. CH,“. c, Ed FREDRlCK A. BARNES J. Do KIRKGARD. c. E, Pi A. MALJIAN. c. E. LEOPOLD HIRSCHFELDT JAMES M. MCWEE. c. E, ROBERT CHIERUZZI, c. Ed JAMES L. “AN BEYEREN, 7. F. Plaza Camino Real Page 2 May 26, 1969 (Our Job No. B-68004-C) and testing of the compacted fill placed at the site and presented the results in a report dated January 12, 1967 (our Job No. B-66165); the results of our inspection of the grading for Phase II of the project were presented in a report dated April 29, 1968 (our Job No. B-68004). INSPECTION OF FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS _ - - - - - - - In our foundation investigation report we stated that if the re- quired fill materials at the site were properly compacted, the proposed Department Store and Maintenance Building could be supported on conventional spread footings established in the properly compacted fill. Accordingly, upon completion of the general site grading, excava- tions for footings to support the proposed structures were constructed. Our field representatives checked all excavations to verify that the soils were properly compacted fill soils capable of supporting at least the design pressure. All excavations were cleaned of any loose materials prior to final approval. Based on the results of our inspection, the soil conditions for the footing excavations were satisfactory. The properly compacted soils are capable of providing adequate foundation support for the proposed Depart- ment Store and Maintenance Building. INSPECTION AND TESTING OF COMPACTED BACKFILL - After completion of the foundations and building walls below grade, - compacted soils were placed as backfill around and over foundations, in utility - - - - - - .- - - - Plaza Camino Real Page 3 May 26, 1969 (Our Job No. B-68004-C) trenches, against perimeter walls below grade, and around various appurtenant interior installations. The specifications required that all backfill materials be placed in loose lifts not exceeding eight inches in thickness, brought to optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557-66T method of compaction, modified to use three layers instead of five. During the required filling, mainly the on-site soils, consisting primarily of silty sand and sand with gravel, were used; crushed rock was also utilized in some backfill areas. Compaction tests were performed on the soils used for backfilling, to establish the maximum dry densities. The tests were performed in accordance with the specified method of compac- tion which utilizes a l/30-cubic-foot mold in which each of three layers of soil is.compacted by 25 blows of a ten-pound hammer falling 18 inches. The results of the compaction tests were utilized in establishing the degree of compaction achieved during the placing of the backfill. After the areas to receive backfill were first cleared of any construction debris and loose soils, the required backfill materials were placed in loose lifts not exceeding eight inches in thickness, brought to approximately optimum moisture content, and oompacted. To establish the degree of compaction achieved, field density tests were taken as the back- filling progressed. Where a test indicated less than 90% compaction, the sotls were reworked to the satisfaction of our field representative and - - - - - - - - - - - .-~ Plaza Camino Real May 26, 1969 Page 4 (Our JOB No. ~-68004-C) approved without further testing. In addition to testing the general backfilling, our field representative tested the compacted subgrade of the proposed structures. Wet areas were encountered in the subgrade of the Department Store; the areas were subsequently overexcavated and re- placed with crushed rock. The results of all field density tests are presented in the attached Table of Test Results; the locations of the tests for the Department Store are shown on the Plot Plan. Tests Nos. 88, 89, and PO, which were taken in the Maintenance Building in the south- western portion of the site, are not shown on the Plot Plan. Based on our observations of the methods employed and the test results, the back- fill soils were placed in accordance with the specifications and to our satisfaction. Yours very truly, LeROY CRANDALL AND ASSOCIATES Russell C. Weber RW-Rq/lg Attachments (22) (6 copies submitted) CC: c2) Shuirman, Rogoway & Associates c22) Carlsbad Dept. of Bldg. & Safety - - - - - - .-. ?! Y > : - I- P :- I - , TEST ELEVATION & (FEET) MOISTURE DRY MAXIMUM CONTENT DENSITY DENSITY (% OF DRS WT.) (LBS./CU.FT.) (LBS./CU.FT.) PERCENT COX?ACTION 1 2 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 25% 14.2 6.5 7.0 6.8 6.8 7.6 5.6 5.4 12.7 13.6 111 120 93 113 118 96 111 118 94 113 118 96 109 118 92 111 118 94 113 118 96 112 118 35 114 124 92 115 124 93 11. 26 15.6 112, 124 90 12 24 13.0 112 120 93 13 26 11.2 111 120 93 14 27 8.6 109 120 91 15 27 6.5 113 118 96 16 27 7.6 114 124 92 17 27 8.2 114 124 92 18 27 9.1 112 124 90 19 27 9.8 112 120 93 20 27 6.5 108 118 92 21 27 10.1 118 124 95 22 27 9.5 118 124 95 23 27 11.6 115 124 93 24 26% 7.6 108 120 90 25 26 7.1 120 124 97 26 26 7.0 117 124 94 27 27 6.5 115 124 93 28 27 9.8 112 124 90 .29 27 6.2 111 120 93 30 27 6.5 113 118 96 31 27 7.6 112 118 95 32 27 6.5 116 118 98 33 27 8.0 110 120 92 34 27 7.2 111 120 93 35 23 5.4 106 118 90 36 24 7.6 107 118 91 37 25% 5.6 110 118 93 38 27 5.4 109 118 92 39 23 5.4 110 120 92 40 25 6.2 112 120 93 41 26 5.8 110 120 92 42 25 6.5 111 120 93 43 24 7.6 114 124 92 TABLE ----- OF TEST RESULTS -- -_-- ------- - - - - - - Page 2 TEST NO. ELEVATION (FEET) MOISTURE DRY CONTENT DENSITY MAXIMUM DENSITY PERCENT (% OF DRY h!.) (LBS./CU.FT.) (LBS./CU.FT.) COMl'kTION 44 26 a.0 111 124 90 45 23% 7.9 111 124 90 46 25 7.6 112 124 90 47 26% 8.1 111 124 90 48 25 5.4 109 118 92, 49 27 7.6 115 124 93 50 25 6.5 110 120 92 51 26% 6.0 113 120 94 52 27 6.8 114 120 95 53 29% 8.7 119 124 96 54 28 9.0 101 I,18 86" 55 30 8.6 107 118 91 56 31 11.2 112 124 90 57 32 10.6 115 124 93 58 32 11.7 114 124 92 59 30 12.1 114 124 92 60 32 10.4 111 124 90 61 30 9.2 99 118 84* 62 32 10.6 109 118 92 63 34 7.6 114 124 92 64 33% 8.3 114 124 92 65 32 11.7 118 124 95 66, 32% 10.0 123 124 99 67 35 10.6 118 124 95 68 34 12.1 114 124 92 69 34 10.9 119 124 96 70 36 9.8 116 124 94 71 34 6.9 106 118 90 72 35 11.0 109 118 92 73 35 8.9 104 118 88" 74 36 9.0 108 118 92 75 37 7.6 110 118 93 76 365 1.6 107 118 91 77 36 8.0 107 118 91 78 37% 9.2 109 118 92 79 39 8.8 108 118 92 80 38 9.8 114 124 92 81 40 6.5 110 118 93 82 41 7.6 110 118 93 83 40 7.2 106 118 98 84 40% 9.8 119 124 96 85 40 7.6 110 118 93 86 42 8.7 114 124 92 87 43 8.3 115 124 93 ' - - _- - - - - - - Page 3 MOISTURE DRY HAXINUM TEST ELEVATION CONTENT DENSITY DENSITY PERCENT & (FEET) (% OF DRY tn.) (LBS./CU.FT.) (LBS./CU.PT) COWACTION 88 43 11.0 112 124 90 89 43 10.1 112 124 90 90 42 11.4 114 124 92 NOTES: Elevations refer to job datum. * Indicates area reworked and approved without further testing. -. -