HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Pacific Jeep Eagle Dealership; Soils Report; 1989-11-28-
AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT OF FINE
GRADING, PACIFIC JEEP EAGLE DEALERSHIP,
LOT 7 OF CARLSBAD TRACT 87-3,
CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA
-
-
- November 28, 1989
Project No. 8881329-02 -
-
-
Prepared For:
CHRYSLER REALTY CORPORATION
P. 0. Box 18377
Irvine, California 92713
-
5421 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE C, CARtSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 931-9953
FAX (619) 931-9326
November 28, 1989
Project No. 8881329-02 -
To: Chrysler Corporation
P. 0. Box 18377
Irvine, California 92713
..~
.-
-
Attention: Mr. Darryl A. Odum
Subject: As-Graded Geotechnical Report of Fine Grading, Pacific Jeep Eagle
Dealership, Lot 7 of Carlsbad Tract 87-3, Carlsbad, California
In accordance with your request, provided herein is our as-graded geotechnical
report of fine grading for the proposed Pacific Jeep Eagle car dealership on Car
Country Drive south of Cannon Road in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). This
report summarizes our observations, test results, the geotechnical conditions
encountered during fine grading of the site, and provides postgrade
recommendations for the proposed development.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to
contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Michael R. Stewart, CEG 1349 (Exp. 6/30/90)
Chief Engineering Geologist
Stan Helenschmidt, GE 2064 (Exp. 6/30/92)
Chief Engineer/Manager
MRS/SRH/bje
Distribution: (4) Addressee
(2) K. L. Wessel Construction Co.
Attention: Mr. Bryan Lusky
(2) City of Carlsbad, Engineering Department
Attention: Mr. Joe Federico
5421 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE C, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 931-9953
FAX (619) 931-9326
- 8881329-02
TABLE OF CONTENTS -
-
-
-.
-
-
-
-
-
-
.-
-
-
-
Section
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................
2.0 SUMMARY OF FINE GRADING OPERATIONS .................
2.1 Site Preparation and Removals .................
2.2 Fill Placement ........................
2.3 Fill Compaction ........................
2.4 Field and Laboratory Testing .................
3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ...................
3.1 Geologic Units ........................
3.2 Geologic Structure ......................
3.3 Faulting
3.4 Ground Water' : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
3.5 Expansion Potential ......................
3.6 Soluble Sulfate Content and Minimum Resistivity ........
4.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................
4.1 Summary of Conclusions ....................
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................
5.1 Foundation and Slab Design ..................
5.1.1 Footings ........................
5.1.2 Floor slabs
5.1.3 Foundation Setback : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
5.2 Lateral Earth Pressures and Resistance ............
5.3 Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage
5.4 Chemical Characteristics and Corrosion'Potential' : : : : : : :
5.5 Preliminary Pavement Design ..................
5.6 Surficial Slope Stability ...................
5.7 Trench Excavations and Backfill ................
5.8 Existing Storm Drain to be Removed ..............
5.9 Surface Drainage and Lot Maintenance .............
5.10 Construction Observation and Testing .............
Appendices
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Summary of Field Density Tests
Appendix C - Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
1
2
4
5
5
6
6
- i
8881329-02
Fiqures
Figure 1 - - Figure 2 -
- Plates
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED1
LIST OF TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Site Location Map
Retaining Wall Drainage'D%ii : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
11
12
Plate 1 - As-Graded Geotechnical and Density Test Location Map. . . . In Pocket
-
-
ii
-
- 8881329-02
1.0 INTRODUCTION -
-
-
In accordance with your request, provided herein is our as-graded geotechnical
report of fine grading operations for Lot 7 of Carlsbad Tract 87-3. Rough
grading of the subject site was originally performed during the Car Country
Carlsbad expansion (Kleinfelder 1988). Our geotechnical investigation of the
site (Leighton 1988) was performed to evaluate the rough graded conditions of
the site and to provide preliminary recommendations for site development. This
report summarizes our observations, test results, the geotechnical conditions
encountered during fine grading, and provides postgrade recommendations for the
proposed development.
The 20-scale grading plan prepared by Kahr and Associates dated June 19, 1989 was used as a base map to present the as-graded geotechnical conditions and
approximate locations of the field density tests taken during fine grading
(Plate 1). Fine grading of the site has essentially been completed.
- 1 -
-
- 8881329-02
2.0 SUMMARY OF FINE GRADING OPERATIONS
-
-
-.
-
-
Fine grading at the site was accomplished by K. L. Wessel Construction Company,
Inc. between October 30 and November 14, 1989. Grading operations consisted of
the construction of building pads and parking areas, excavation of a basement,
and placement of a storm drain in the formerly sheet-graded site. Grading
observation and testing of compacted fill soils were performed by representatives
of our firm during fine grading which included the backfill and compaction of
the storm drain trench. A section of storm drain pipe that was previously
installed is to be removed as part of the current site development. This pipe
has yet to be removed.
2.1 Site Preoaration and Removals
Prior to grading, the site was stripped of surface vegetation, debris, and
loose soil. Earthwork at the site consisted of minor cuts and fills on the
order of 2 feet or less. Areas to receive fill were scarified to a depth
of approximately 6 to 8 inches, moisture-conditioned where needed and
recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction as determined
by American Standards of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D1557-78.
2.2 Fill Placement
After processing the areas to receive fill, native soils were spread in
6- to E-inch loose lifts, moisture-conditioned as needed to obtain near-
optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction
of 90 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557-78). Areas
of fill in which field density tests or observations indicated inadequate
compaction and/ormoisture content, were reworked, recompacted and retested
until the fill reached 90 percent relative compaction and adequate moisture
content. A maximum of 3 feet of fill was placed within the subject site.
Native soils were also placed in 6- to E-inch thick, loose lifts, moisture-
conditioned, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction
in the storm drain trench.
2.3 Fill Compaction
Our observations and test results indicate that the fills placed during
fine grading of the site (including storm drain trench backfill) have been
uniformly compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry
density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557-78, in accordance with our
recommendations. Compaction of the building pads and parking areas was
achieved by wheel rolling and track walking with heavy-duty construction
equipment, and trench backfill compaction was achieved by backhoe sheepsfoot
roller.
-2-
-
8881329-02
,-
-
-
-
2.4 Field and Laboratorv Testinq
Field density tests were performed by nuclear gauge and sand cone methods
in general accordance with ASTM Test Methods 02922-78 and D1556-82,
respectively. The approximate locations of the field density tests are
shown on the As-Graded Geotechnical and Density Test Location Map (Plate
1). The results of the field density tests are presented in Appendix B.
Laboratory maximum dry density tests of the onsite soils were performed in
general accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557-78. Soluble sulfate content
and minimum resistivity and pH tests of the representative onsite soils were
performed during our geotechnical investigation (Leighton 1988) in
accordance with Caltrans Test 417 and Caltrans Test 643, respectively. The
results of these laboratory tests are presented in Appendix C. It should
be noted that the accuracy of density test results is dependent upon the
precision of the laboratory and field testing procedures as outlined by
ASTM.
-3-
-
- 8881329-02
3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS -
-~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.1 Geolooic Units
The geologic units observed during fine grading were essentially as
anticipated according to our geotechnical investigation (Leighton 1988).
The units encountered during fine grading included Pleistocene Terrace
Deposits and existing fill soils. The existing fill soils which cover the
majority of the site consisted of reworked terrace deposits (i.e., red-
brown to medium brown, medium dense, silty, fine- to medium-grained sands).
These fill soils were previously placed under the observation of others.
The terrace deposits which underlie the existing fill soils and are exposed
at grade along the east side of the site consisted of orange to red-brown,
medium dense, moist, silty sands. These deposits were massive and friable.
Native onsite soils were placed as structural fill (Map Symbol-Af) and are
shown on Plate 1.
3.2 Geolooic Structure
The geologic structure observed during fine grading indicates the terrace
deposits are generally massive with no apparent structure.
3.3 Faultinq
No evidence of faulting was encountered at the site during fine grading,
nor was any anticipated.
3.4 Ground Water
Ground water was not observed during fine grading operations.
3.5 Expansion Potential
Based on our professional experience with similar soils and observations
made during fine grading, the onsite soils at finish grade have a low to
very low expansion potential.
3.6 Soluble Sulfate Content and Minimum Resistivity
Soluble sulfate content, minimum resistivity, and pH tests were performed
on native onsite soils during our geotechnical investigation. The test
results indicate a negligible potential for sulfate attack and a low
corrosion potential for the soils on site.
- 4 -
-
- 8881329-02
4.0 CONCLUSIONS -
-
-
-
-.
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.1 Summarv of Conclusions
The geotechnical aspects of fine grading for the proposed Pacific Jeep Eagle
car dealership have been evaluated and treated during fine grading in
accordance with the recommendations of the preliminary geotechnical report,
field recommendations during the course of grading, and the requirements
of the City of Carlsbad. It is our opinion that the subject site is
suitable for its intended use provided the recommendations of this report
and our geotechnical investigation (Leighton 1988) are incorporated into
the design and construction.
The following is a summary of our conclusions:
- Vegetation, trash and debris were removed off site prior to fill
placement.
- The geotechnical properties of the onsite soils encountered during fine
grading were generally as anticipated.
- Fill soils were derived from onsite soils. All fill was placed and
compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with
the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications (Leighton 1988) and the
requirements of the City of Carlsbad.
- Removal of a section of existing storm drain pipe as indicated on the
project grading plans has yet to be performed.
l No evidence of faulting was observed during rough grading.
l No ground water was encountered.
l The expansion potential of the onsite soils ranges from very low to low.
l The soluble sulfate content of onsite soils is considered negligible,
ranging from 0.008 to 0.01 percent. The use of sulfate resistant
concrete should not be necessary for foundation design.
- The corrosion potential (as determined by minimum resistivity and pH
tests) of the onsite soils is considered low.
- 5 -
- 8881329-02
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.-
-
.-
-
5.1 Foundation and Slab Desiqn
Proposed structures for the subject site consist of a showroom/office
building and service building on the southern portion of the lot. The
remainder of the lot will primarily consist of asphaltic concrete-paved
parking (display and driveway areas). Building loads are assumed to be
typical for this type of relatively light construction. Foundation design
recommendations are based on the assumption that footings will support
relatively light wall or column loads. Field and laboratory test data
indicate that formational materials and compacted fill should provide
adequate support for the assumed building loads. Generally, we anticipate
that soils with a very low expansion potential will be present at pad grade.
5.1.1
5.1.2
Footinqs
The proposed one-story (or two-story) structures founded on soils
with a very low to low expansion potential may be supported by
conventional continuous or spread footings at a minimum depth of
12 inches (18 inches for two-story structures) below the lowest
adjacent finished grade. Continuous footings should have a minimum
width of 12 inches (15 inches for two-story structures) and be
reinforced at the top and bottom with a No. 4 rebar. Spread footings
should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and
have a minimum width of 24 inches. Interior bearing wall footings
may be founded a minimum of 12 inches below slab subgrade and should
be continuous.
At this depth, footings founded in natural or compacted fill soils
may be designed by using an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000
pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by one-third
for loads of short duration including wind or seismic forces.
Settlement for footings designed in accordance with the above
recommendations should be within tolerable limits for structures of
this type.
Floor Slabs
Floor slabs founded on soils with very low to low expansion potential
should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced with
a minimum of 6x6-10/10 welded wire mesh placed at midheight in the
slab. Care should be taken bv the contractor to insure that the
wire mesh is olaced at slab midheioht. Due to the inherent
difficulty in placing wire mesh at slab midheight, an alternate slab
reinforcement of No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center (each way) or
No. 4 rebars at 24 inches on center (each way) may be used. The
structural engineer should design crack control joints to reduce
shrinkage cracking. Nuisance cracking may be lessened by the
- 6 -
-
- 8881329-02
-
-
-
-
.-,
-
_..
-~
_-
-.
-
-
addition of fiber mesh in the concrete and careful control of
water/cement ratios. We recommend that a slip-sheet (or equivalent)
be utilized if grouted tile or other crack-sensitive flooring is
planned directly on the concrete slab. We also recommend that a
2-inch sand layer be placed below the slab to aid in concrete curing.
This 2-inch layer should have a minimum sand equivalent of 30 and
be underlain by a 6-mil Visqueen moisture barrier. The connection
between tilt-up walls (if designed) and the footings should be
designed by the structural engineer.
In addition, we recommend that the soils beneath the floor slab be
moisture-conditioned to near-optimum moisture content within 1 foot
of finish grade prior to moisture barrier and concrete placement.
5.1.3 Foundation Setback
We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of
slopes for all structural footings and settlement-sensitive
structures. This distance is measured from the outside edge of the
footing, horizontally, to the slope face (or to the face of retaining
wall) and should be a minimum of H/2, where H is the slope height
(in feet). The setback should not be less than 5 feet and need not
be greater than 10 feet. Please note that the soils within the
structural setback area possess poor lateral stability and
improvements (such as retaining walls, pools, sidewalks, fences,
etc.) constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral
movement and/or differential settlement.
5.2 Lateral Earth Pressures and Lateral Resistance
For design purposes, the following lateral earth pressure values for level
or sloping backfill are recommended for walls backfilled with onsite soils.
Conditions
Active
At-Rest
Passive
Eauivalent Fluid Weiaht (ocf)
Level
35 55 300
2:l Slooe
2: 150
(Sloping Down)
Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls should be designed for an active
equivalent pressure value provided above. In the design of walls restrained
from movement at the top (nonyielding), such as basement walls, the at-
rest pressures should be used. The above values assume nonexpansive
backfill and free-draining conditions. Should a sloping backfill other than
2:l (horizontal to vertical) be used, or a backfill loaded by an adjacent
surcharge load, the equivalent fluid pressure values provided above should
be evaluated on an individual-case basis bv the aeotechnical enaineer.
All retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage. k
- 7 -
-
- 8881329-02
-
-
-,
Typical drainage design is contained in Appendix D. Wall footings should
be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the
recommendations in Section 5.1. Wall backfill should be comoacted bv
mechanical methods to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM
Test Method D1557-78.
Lateral soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can
be obtained from the passive pressure value provided above. Further, for
sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the
concrete and soil interface. The passive value may be increased by one-
third when considering loads of short duration including wind or seismic
loads. The total lateral resistance may be taken as the sum of the
frictional and passive resistances provided that the passive portion does
not exceed two-thirds of the total resistance.
5.3 Retainino Wall Backfill and Drainase
Granular, nonexpansive material should be utilized for backfill adjacent
to the wall structure. Subdrainage should be provided behind retaining
walls as indicated in the typical detail shown on Figure 2. It is likely
that a sump system will be required for drainage of the basement walls.
5.4 Chemical Characteristics and Corrosion Potential
-
Parkino Areas
Assumed Traffic Index 4.0
R-Value 70
A.C. Pavement Thickness 3"
Class 2 Aggregate Base 4"
Portland Cement Concrete ----
Thickness
Truck
Drivewavs
6.0
70
6?'
____
Truck
Loadinq
6.0
70 ---_
____
7 "
The soluble sulfate content of the onsite soils tested (Appendix C) is
cons idered to have a negligible effect on ordinary concrete. Laboratory
test ing to evaluate the minimum resistivity and pH of the onsite soils was
also performed (Appendix C). Based on criteria set forth by the U.S. Navy
(NAVFAC DM-5), the onsite soils have a low corrosive potential (with regard
to steel).
5.5 Preliminarv Pavement Desiqn
The appropriate pavement design section depends primarily on the soil shear
strength, traffic load, and planned pavement life. Based on our R-value
testing (Appendix C) and the City of Carlsbad street design criteria, we
provide typical pavement sections based on varying traffic indices. The
appropriate traffic index should be evaluated by the project architect or
civil engineer.
-8-
8881329-02
-
-
-
-
For pavement areas subject to unusually heavy truck loadings (i.e., trash
trucks, delivery trucks, etc.), we recommend a full depth Portland Cement
Concrete (P.C.C.) section of 7 inches with appropriate crackcontrol joints.
We recommend that sections be as nearly square as possible. A 3,500 psi
mix may be utilized. The actual pavement design should also be in
accordance with the City of Carlsbad design criteria. Asphalt Concrete
(A.C.), Portland Cement Concrete (P.C.C.), and Class 2 aggregate base should
conform to and be placed in accordance with the latest revision of the
CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportationStandardSpecifications and American
Concrete Institute (ACI) codes. Prior to placing the pavement section, the
subgrade soil should have a relative compaction of at lest 90 percent to
a depth of 12 inches (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-78). Aggregate base
should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (based
on ASTM Test Method 01557-78) prior to placement of A.C. If pavement areas
are planned adjacent to landscaped areas, we recommend that the amount of
irrigation be kept to a minimum to reduce the possible adverse effects of
water on pavement subgrade. Concrete swales should be designed if the
asphalt concrete is utilized for drainage of surface waters.
5.6 Surficial Slooe Stability
Erosion, rilling, and/or surficial failure potential of fill slopes may be
reduced if the following measures are implemented after construction of the
slopes.
Fill slopes should be provided with appropriate surface drainage features
and landscaped with drought-tolerant, slope-stabilizing vegetation as soon
as possible after grading to reduce erosion potential. Berms should be
provided at the tops of fill slopes, and brow ditches should be provided
at the tops of cut slopes. Lot drainage should be directed such that
surface runoff on the slope faces is minimized. We recommend against the
exclusive use of sands in the slope faces as these materials are prone to
erosive rilling.
-
5.7 Trench Excavations and Backfill
Excavations of trenches in the onsite soils are not anticipated to be
difficult for conventional backhoes. The onsite soils may generally be
suitable as trench backfill provided they are screened of organic matter
and cobbles over 4 inches in diameter. Trench backfill should be compacted
in uniform lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness) by
mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM Test
Method D1557-78).
Temporary excavations with vertical side slopes within the onsite soils are
expected to be generally stable to a maximum height of 5 feet, provided they
are free of adverse geologic conditions. Excavations deeper than 5 feet
should be shored or sloped back to 1:l (horizontal to vertical) or flatter,
if construction workers are to enter such excavations. All excavations
should be constructed in accordance with OSHA requirements.
-9-
-
- 8881329-02
-
-
-
.-
5.8 Existina Storm Drain to be Removed
The existing storm drain which as shown on the project plans is to be
removed, should be removed as part of future construction at the site. All
backfill replaced in this trench should be observed and tested by Leighton
and Associates.
5.9 Surface Drainaoe and Lot Maintenance
Surface drainage should be controlled at all times. Positive surface
drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from the structures
and toward the street or other suitable collective drainage facilities.
Surface waters should not be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. Area
drains should be provided in landscape areas. We recommend positive
drainage away from slopes be provided and maintained so that surface water
on the slopes is minimized.
5.10 Construction Observation and Testinq
Construction observation and testing should be performed bythegeotechnical
consultant during future excavations, installation or removal of underground
utilities, and foundation or retaining wall construction at the site.
Additionally, footing excavations should be observed by the geotechnical
consultant prior to the placement of steel reinforcement and the pouring
of concrete. Foundation design plans should be reviewed by the geotechnical
consultant prior to excavation.
- 10 -
-
-
-
-.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
I -. ,,‘t,‘. \ \; : ! ‘. s,)
I i ,, B ‘5
I ;\ \?I., J
BASE MAP: Aerial-Foto Map Book, 1986-67, pages 7D and ED
Original by Aerial Graphics.
.-
CHRYSLER/CARLSBAD - CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
-
0 2000 4000 .A... .,. IV
scale , i feet
SITE LOCATION MAP
LEKWTON md ASSOCIATE: Project No. 8881329-02 ,*COmCO*ATEE
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SOIL SACKFILL. COMPACTED TO
SO PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION+
RETAININQ WALL -
WALL’ WATERPAOOFINQ
PER ARCHITECT’S
SPECIFICATIONS
FINISH QRADE
ZZ’ p FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE ( YIR A FI 14ON OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT) *
_ . ‘-- ~3/4’-l-ll2’ CLEAN GRAVEL-
L-L. 1z-z 1-z
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MTERIAL
U.S. Standard Sieve Size X Passinq
1 II 100 314” 90-100 3/R” 40-100 No. 4 Z-40.
No. a la-33 No. 30 S-15 No. 50 No. 200 ;::
Sand Equlvalent>75
;;
L-z
7
4’,(MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED
:=Z PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR
7:: 7:: EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS 7:: _-- ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED
MINIMUM 1 PERCENT QRADIENT
‘s- MIN.
TO SUITABLE OUTLET
Y COMPETENT ElEDRbCK OR MATERIAL
AS EVALUATED BY THE QEOTECHNICAL _
CONSULTANT
*BASED ON ASTM Dl SST
**IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
(SEE QRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF
314*-1-l/2’ QRAVEL. FILTER FABRIC MAY SE
DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL SHOULD SE COMPACTED TO 30
PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION l
N0.T TO SCALE
PROJECT NO. 8881329-02
RETAINING VV ALL
DRAINAGE DETAIL
CHRYSLERKARLSBAD
b. FIGURE 2
APPENDIX A
-
- 8881329-02
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
-
-
-
-
--
-
Chrysler Realty Corporation, Facility Design and Construction, 1986, Soil Testing
Borings and Analysis, dated October 1986.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1985, Uniform Building Code.
Kahr and Associates, 1989, Grading Plans for Lot 7, Carlsbad Tract 87-3, Map No. 12242, Scale 1"=20', dated June 19, 1989.
Kleinfelder, J.H., and Associates, 1988, Report of Testing and Observation During
Grading, Car Country Carlsbad Expansion, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 51-1380-01, dated August 4, 1988.
Lee and Sakahara Associates, AIA, 1988, Revised Site Plan, Pacific Jeep/Eagle - Carlsbad, California for Chrysler Realty Corp., Scale 1"=40', dated
August 17, 1988.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1988, Geotechnical Investigation, Lot 7 of
Carlsbad Tract87-3, Car Country Drive, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 8881329-01, dated September 26, 1988.
, Unpublished In-House Data
San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., 1988, Geotechnical Investigation, Portion of Lot "H", Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, Carlsbad, California, Job No. 05-7379-002-00-00, Lot No. 8-1092, dated January 9, 1988.
-
-
-.
-
- A-l
APPENDIX B
-
8881329-02 -
-
A. Test No.:
-
-
8. Test of:
-
APPENDIX 8
EXPLANATION OF SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
l# -Field Density Test by Nuclear Method (ASTM Test Method D2922-81)
l* -Field Density Test by Sand Cone Method (ASTM Test Method D1556-82)
CF - Compacted Fill
FG - Finish Grade
SD - Storm Drain
--
-
Note: Soil types and descriptions entitled Maximum Density Test Results are presented in Appendix C.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 8-l
-
- SMMARY OF FlELD DENSITY TESTS PAGE 1
PROJECT NUWER : 8881329-02
- PROJECT NAME : PACIFIC JEEP EAGLE - FINE GRADE CWPACTIDN TESTING
TEST TEST TEST TEST LOCATION SDlL ELEV OR DRY DENXPCF) IIOtSTURE(X) RELATIVE REMARKS
"0 DATE OF TYPE DEPTH FIELD "AK FIELD OPT CMIPAW ION
(FEET) co
l# 11/01/89 CF EAST SUlLOlNG 2 105.0 113.7 124.5 9.1 11.0 91. -
2s 11/01/89 CF EAST BUILDING 2 105.0 113.2 124.5 9.4 11.0 91.
3# 11/03/89 CF "EST WILDING 2 93.5 115.9 124.5 9.8 11.0 93.
4* 11109189 FG NORTHUEST PARKING AREA 2 97.0 115.1 124.5 9.4 11.0 92.
- 5' 11/09/89 FG NORTHEAST PARKING AREA 2 106.0 113.7 124.5 8.6 11.0 91.
6' 11/10/89 FG SWTNEAST PARKING AREA 2 107.0 112.6 124.5 97.0 11.0 w.
_-
-
-
_.
.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SuMnARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS PAGE 1
PROJECT NUNGER : 8881329-02
PROJECT NAM : PACIFIC JEEP EAGLE - STORM DRAlN TRENCH BACKFILL
TEST TEST TEST TEST LOCATIDN SOIL ELE" OR DRY OENXPCF) "OISTURE(X> RELATIM REMRYS
NO DATE OF TYPE DEPTH FIELD HAX FIELD OPT CCMPACTION
(FEET) w
Ol* 11/09/89 SO YEST BUrLDING
02* 11109189 SO NEST SUlLOlWG
03' 11109189 SD VEST SUlLOlHG
2 94.0 109.1 124.5 a.4 11.0
2 94.0 117.6 124.5 8.6 11.0
2 96.0 113.6 124.5 9.5 11.0
2 88.0 114.5 124.5 9.3 11.0
2 90.0 117.0 124.5 9.6 11.0
1 91.0 121.7 126.0 10.4 11.5
2 87.0 112.9 124.5 9.3 11.0
aa. RETESTED ON
TEST No 2
94. RETEST OF
TEST NO 1
91.
04' iifio/a9 so EAST SLOE
05* 11/10/89 SO EAST SlDE
D6* 11/14/89 SD EAST SIDE
D7' 11/14/89 SD SWTHEAST CORNER
92.
94.
97.
91.
APPENDIX C
-
8881329-02
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES
Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials were determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-78 (five layers).
The results of these tests are presented in the test data.
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by the California Materials Method No. 417.
Minimum ResistivitY: Minimum resistivity tests were performed on representative
samples in general accordance with Caltrans Test No. 643.
_.~
_-
,-
,-
,-
-
-
C-l
_.
-
-
-
SOIL TYPE OR
SAMPLE LOCATIOI
1
2
SOIL ,DESCRiPTiON
Light to medium red-brown, silty,
fine to medium sand
Red-brown, silty, fine to medium sand
TES.1 METHOD: ASTR TEST METHOD D1557-78
OPTkJM MAXMUM
MOISTURE (%I RY DENSITY bcf:
11.5
11.0
126.0
124.5
MAXIMUM.
DENSITY TEST RESULiS
Project No. ~BMX+D*
J-
L SAMPLE
LOCATIOI
L b-1, O’-5
B-2, O’-5 L
L
.rlINIMUM RESISTIVITY
(TEST STANDARD CALIF: 643~~ )
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Silty sand (pH = 6.9)
Silty sand (pH = 7.1)
MINIMUM RESISTIVITY
(OHMKM)
20,000
13,300
RiOJECT NO, 8881329-01
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC,
CORROSIVE
POTENTIAL
low
low
- FIGURE C-2
--
.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
.-
-
-
-
-.
--
SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
SAMPLE
B-1, O’-5’
B-2, O'-5'
DILUTION
1:l
1:l
READINQ PPM
80
100
X SULFATES POTENTIAL DEQREE
OF SULFATE ATTACK
0.008 Negligible
0.01 Negligible
SOLUBLE SULFATE
FIGURE C-3