HomeMy WebLinkAbout; The Hamptons; As-Graded Geotechnical Report Rough & Fine Grading; 2001-09-264
Leighton andAssociates, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
September 26,2001
ProjectNo. 040384-002
To: Greystone Homes, Inc.
5780 Fleet Street, Suite 300
Carlsbad, California 92009
Attention: Mr. Matt Howe
Subject: As-Graded Geotechnical Report of Rough and Fine Grading, The Hamptons, Carlsbad
Tract No. 89-13, Carlsbad, Califomia
In accordance with your request and authorization, we have performed geotechnical services during the
rough and fine grading operations for The Hamptons, a residential development located in Carlsbad,
Califomia. The accompany report summarizes our observations, field and laboratory test results and
geotechnical conditions encountered during the rough and fine grading of the site. As of the date of this
report, the grading operations for the development of the site are essentially complete.
If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to
be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
UiL^O.(^}i—
William D. OJson, RCE 45283
Senior Project Engineer
Wagner, CEG 1612
Director of Geology
Distribution: (8) Addressee
3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 • San Diego, CA 92123-4425
858,292.8030 • Fax 858.292.0771 " www.leightongeo.com
040384-002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 SITE LOCATION I
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
2.0 SUMMARY OF GRADING OPERATIONS 3
2.1 ROUGH AND FINE GRADING OPERATIONS 3
2.}. I Site Preparalion and Removals 3
2.1.2 Fill Placement 3
2.2 FIELD DENSITY TESTING 4
2.3 LABORATORY TESTING 4
2.4 GRADED SLOPES 4
3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC SUMMARY 5
3.1 AS-GRADED GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 5
3.2 GEOLOGIC UNITS 5
3.2.1 Undocumented Fill (Map Symbol - Afo) 5
3.2.2 Estuarine Alluvial Deposits (Map Symbol - Qale) 5
3.2.3 Topsoil/Colluvium (Unmapped) 6
3.2.4 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol - Tsa) 6
3.3 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE 6
3.4 LANDSLIDING AND SURFICIAL FAILURES 7
3.5 FAULTING 7
3.6 SURFACE AND GROUND WATER 7
3.7 EXPANSION POTENTIAL AND SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT TESTING OF FINISH GRADE SOILS 7
4.0 CONCLUSIONS 8
4.1 GENERAL 8
4.2 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 8
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 10
5.1 CONTROL OF SURFACE WATER AND DRAINAGE CONTROL 10
5.2 GRADED SLOPES 10
6.0 LIMITATIONS U
-1 -
Leighton
040384-002
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
FIGURE
FIGURE I - SITE LOCATION MAP - PAGE 2
PLATES
PLATES I AND 2 - AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL MAP - IN POCKET
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - REFERENCES
APPENDIX B - SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
APPENDIX C - LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND TEST RESULTS
-11 -
Leighton
040384-002
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with your request and authorization, we have performed geotechnical observation and testing
services during the rough and fme grading operations for The Hamptons (Carlsbad Tract 89-13) located in
Carlsbad, Califomia (Figure 1). This as-graded report summarizes our geotechnical observations, geologic
mapping, field and laboratory test results, and the geotechnical conditions encountered during the rough and
fine grading operations for the proposed development. In addition, this report provides conclusions and
recommendationsfor future site improvements. As of the date of this report, the rough and fme grading for
the site are essentially complete. Portions of this report were previously presented in As-graded Conditions
letters for Building Pad No. 2, Building Pads 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and Building Pad 4 (Leighton 2001b,
2001c, and 200 Id).
The 20-scale Plot Plans for the site, prepared by Hunsaker & Associates (H&A, 2001) were utilized as a
base map to present the as-graded geotechnical conditions and approximate locations of the field density
tests. The As-Graded Geotechnical Map (Plates 1 and 2) for the site is presented at the rear of the text.
LI Site Location
The project site consists of approximately 7.8 acres of land that is generally bounded by Park Drive
to the north, BayStone Drive to the east, Marina Drive to the west, and a portion of Aqua Hedionda
Lagoon to the south, in the City of Carlsbad, Califomia (Figure 1). Topographically, the site was
characterized by two relatively level terraces separated by a 5- to 10-foot high near vertical slope.
Ground surface elevations on the site vary from an elevation of approximately 20 feet mean sea
level (msl) in the northem portion of the site to an elevation of about 2 feet msl in the southwestern
comer of the site near the lagoon.
1.2 Proiect Description
Proposed development of the site consists of 42 residential units within eight two-story multi-unit
buildings with associated roads, parking areas, landscaped and hardscaped areas. Constmction of
the two-story buildings is anticipated to consist of lightweight steel or wood framing with wood
floor joints and sheeting. Maximum wall and column foundation loads for the stmctures are
estimated to be on the order of 3 kips per linear foot and 25 kips, respectively. Due to varying
subsurface conditions (i.e. depth to bedrock and the presence of estuarine deposits) driven piles will
be used to support the Buildings 1 through 4, and 8.
Fill slopes within the projecthave a maximum heights of approximately 5 feet or less.
-1-
Leighton
FORES]
FLORE:
VISTA
NOWLE
3TRATF
BASE HAP: Thomas Bros. GeoFinder for
Windows, San Dlego County, 1995, Page 1106 0 1000 2000 4000
1"=2,000'
Scale in Feet
The Hamptons
Carlsbad, California
SITE
LOCATION
MAP
Project No.
040384-002
Date
Sept. 2001 Figure No. 1
040384-002
2.0 SUMMARY OF GRADING OPERATIONS
2.1 Rough and Fine Grading Operations
The rough and fine grading operations at the site were performed between July and August 2001
and are essentially complete as of the date of this report. The grading operations were performed by
C.W. McGrath with geotechnical observation and testing services by Leighton and Associates, Inc.
Our field technician was on-site full time during the grading operations. The rough and fine grading
operafions performed on the site included: 1) removal of loose, desiccated, and potentially
compressible existing fill soils, topsoil/colluvium, and estuarine deposits within the limits of
grading; 2) overexcavation of the underlying bedrock; 3) the placement of approximately 6 to 10
feet of compacted fill soils, and 4) the excavation of cut materials.
2.1.1 Site Preparafion and Removals
Prior to grading, the areas of proposed development were stripped of surface vegetation and
debris and these materials were stockpiled away. Removals of unsuitable and potentially
compressible existing fill soils topsoil/colluvium and weathered estuarine deposits and
formational materials were made to the maximum extent possible or to competent material
within the limhs of grading. Removals were performed in accordance with the
recommendations of the project geotechnical report (Leighton, 2001a) and geotechnical
recommendations made during the course of grading. Areas to receive fill were scarified
from 6 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned as needed to obtain an optimum moisture content
and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (based on American Standard
of Testing and Materials [ASTM] Test Method Dl 557).
2.1.2 Fill Placement
After preparing the excavated areas, fill soil was generally spread in loose lifts, moisture
conditioned, as needed, to attain a near-optimum moisture content, and compacted to at
least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Method
D1557. Compaction was achieved by use of heavy-duty construction equipment. Areas of
fill in which field density tests were less than 90 percent relative compaction, the observed
soils exhibited non-uniformity, and/or showed inadequate moisture content, were reworked,
recompacted, and retested until a minimum 90 percent relative compaction and near-
optimum moisture content was achieved.
-3-
Leighton
040384-002
2.2 Field Densitv Testing
Field density tests were performed during the rough and fine grading operations in accordance with
the Nuclear-Gauge Method (ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017). The approximate test
locations are presented on the As-Graded Geotechnical Map (Plates 1 and 2). The results and
approximate locations of the field density tests performed are summarized in Appendix B. The
field testing performed was in general accordance with the applicable ASTM Standards, the current
standard of care in the industry, and the precision of the testing method itself Variations in relative
compaction should be expected from the resuhs documented herein.
2.3 Laboratorv Testing
Laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of representative on-site soils
were perfonned in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. Expansion potential and
soluble sulfate tests of representative finish grade soils were performed in accordance with ASTM
Test Method D4829 and Cal Test 417-B, respectively. The laboratory test resuhs are presented in
Appendix C.
2.4 Graded Slopes
Graded and natural slopes within the developed portion of the site are judged to possess a factor of
safety of 1.5 or greater, with respect to potential deep rotational failure (under normal
irrigation/precipitation pattems) provided the recommendationspresented in this report and in the
project geotechnical report (Leighton, 200ia) are incorporated into the post-construction phases of
site development.
-4-
Leighton
040384-002
3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC SUMMARY
3.1 As-Graded Geologic Conditions
The as-graded conditions encountered during the rough and fine grading of the development
were essentially as anticipated. A summary of the geologic conditions encountered including
geologic units, geologic structure and faulting is presented below. The as-graded geologic
conditions encountered during grading are presented on the As-Graded Geotechnicai Map (Plates
I and 2).
3.2 Geologic Units
The geologic units encountered during rough and fine grading operations included
undocumented artificial fill soils, topsoil/colluvium, estuarine alluvial deposits, and the Eocene-
aged Santiago Formation. The approximate limits of the geological units encountered during the
rough and fine grading operations are presented on the As-graded Geotechnical Map (Plates 1
and 2) and discussed below (youngest to oldest).
3.2.1 Undocumented Fill (Map Svmbol - Afo)
Varying amounts of undocumented artificial fill exist throughout the site, apparently as a
result of previous grading operations related to the development of the marina, access
roadways, and adjacent residential developments. Exploratory excavations and surface
mapping indicated that significant amounts of artificial fill were present within the
eastern portion and southwesteriy comer of the property (Leighton, 2001a). The artificial
fill thickness in the northwestern and centra! portions of the site varies from less than 1
foot to as much as about 5 feet. Where observed, the artificial fill materials consist of
mixtures of clay, silt, and sand and were found to be generally damp to very moist, soft
to firm and/or loose to medium dense, and mottled in color. Due to the undocumented
nature of these fill soils, the fills were completely removed to competent material within
the limits of grading.
3.2.2 Estuarine Alluvial Deposits (Map Svmbol - Gale)
Poorly consolidated estuarine alluvial deposits of Holocene-age were encountered in the
southwesterly and easterly portions of the site and are expected to exist beneath the
southerly margin of the site adjacent the Shoreline of the lagoon. These deposits consist
of thin to moderately thick, discontinuous layers and lenses of clayey sand, silty sand,
sand, sandy silt, sandy clay, and silty clay. The sandier portions of these materials were
found to be fine to medium grained and typically brown to light gray in color. The
clayey and silty materials generally consisted of various shades of dark gray, olive-
green, or dark brown. The consistency of these soils vary from loose to medium dense
and/or soft to firm, and vary from moist to saturated. Locally, the estuarine deposits were
observed to be porous and contained thin layers of shell layers. Interpretation of the
-5-
Leighton
040384-002
subsurface data suggests that these deposits may extend to depths of as much as 35 feet
beneath the existing ground surface (Eberhart & Stone, 1999). Removals of these
estuarine deposits were made to competent material or to within 2 to 3 feet ofthe ground
water table.
3.2.3 Topsoil/Colluvium (Unmapped)
Topsoil and colluvial soils (formed by in-place weathering of the bedrock) were
observed within northem portion of the site, where they appear to have been covered by
artificial fill or were previously buried by estuarine alluvial deposits. Generally, the
topsoil consists of fine- to medium-grained clayey sand which is typically gray-brown,
medium dense, moist to very moist, porous, and contains scattered blebs of calcium
carbonate. The thickness of the topsoil varied from 2 feet to 5 feet were removed to
competent materials within the limits of the site grading.
3.2.4 Santiago Formation (Map Svmbol - Tsa)
Based on our geologic mapping, the formational material on the site is the Eocene-aged
Santiago Formation. The Santiago Formation is a marine deposit that consists primarily
of fine to coarse grained, whitish gray to light yellow-brown, sandstone, interbedded
with minor thin to thick sihstone and claystone lenses. As encountered, the formational
material was found to be generally damp to saturated, dense to very dense, locally
fractured, friable, and weakly cemented. Some of the claystone interbeds are slicked and
sheared. The more coarse-grained portions of the sandstone are typically intemally
massive to poorly bedded and quartz-rich, while the finer-grained sandstone and siltstone
units are micaceous. Typically, the upper 1 to 4 feet of the bedrock was found to be
weathered and streaked with caliche.
3.3 Geologic Structure
The geologic structure of the bedrock beneath the site is characterized by relatively flat-lying
sediments that regionally dip at low angles toward the west. This regional trend has been
modified locally by cross-bedding, local warping, shearing, and deformation associated with
minor faulting. As encountered during the rough and fme grading operations, the formational
material is typically massive to poorly bedded.
-6-
Leighton
040384-002
3.4 Landsliding and Surficial Failures
Based on our review of the project geotechnical reports (Appendix A) and our geologic mapping
during the rough and fine grading operations, there was no indication of landslides or other
surficial failures within the subject property.
3.5 Fauhing
No evidence of active fauhing was observed or anticipated during the grading operations of the
site. As with all of Southem Califomia, the site could be subject to ground shaking should a
major earthquake occur on an active regional fault.
3.6 Surface and Ground Water
Ground water levels beneath the site are generally expected to be at depths of 8 feet or more
below existing site grades. Ground water elevations roughly correspond to the water level within
the lagoon and, as such, should be expected to rise and fall whh tidal fluctuafions, rainfall,
irrigation, and/or other factors. As on other sites with similar geologic conditions, ground water
seepage sometimes occurs in localized areas especially in or at the base of slopes, after the
completion of grading and establishment of site irrigation and landscaping. If seepage conditions
occur, recommendations to mitigate the seepage can be made on a case-by-case basis.
3.7 Expansion Potential and Soluble Sulfate Content Testing of Finish Grade Soils
Expansion potential and soluble sulfate content tests were performed on representative finish grade
soils on the building pads of Buildings 1 through 8. The test results indicate the finish grade soils on
the lots have a low to medium expansion potential (per UBC Table 18-I-B) and a negligible soluble
sulfate content (per UBC 1997, Table 19-A-4). The test results and procedures are presented in
Appendix C.
-7-
Leighton
040384-002
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 General
The rough and fine grading operations for The Hamptons (Carlsbad Tract 89-13) were performed
in general accordance with the project geotechnical report (Leighton, 2001a), project plan
specifications, geotechnical recommendafions made during the course of grading, and the City of
Carlsbad requirements. It is our professional opinion that the site is suitable for its intended use
provided the recommendations included herein and in the project geotechnical report are
incorporated into the design and constmction of the proposed residential structures and
associated improvements. The following is a summary of our conclusions concerning rough and
fine grading of the site.
4.2 Summarv of Conclusions
• Geotechnical conditions encountered during rough and fine grading were generally as
anticipated.
• Potentially compressible and/or desiccated undocumented artificial fill soils,
topsoil/colluvium, estuarine deposits, and weathered formational material were removed to
competent material or to within 2 to 3 feet of the ground water table within the limits of
grading. Building pads where saturated estuarine deposits were left-in-place include
Buildings 1 through 4 and 8. A pile and grade beam foundation system will be required for
the buildings. Beneath Building Pad Number 6, the potentially compressible estuarine
deposits were removed down to the competent formational material and replaced with
compacted fill soils. Therefore, Building Number 6 will not require a driven pile foundation
support system (i.e., the building pad is suitable for a post-tension foundation design) as
previously recommended (Leighton, 200 la).
Site preparation and removals were geotechnically observed.
No landslides or evidence of landsliding was observed on the site during the grading
operations.
Evidence of active fauhing was not encountered during grading at the site.
Evidence of perched ground water was observed during rough and fine grading operations
at the southem portion of the site near the estuarine deposits removal area
It is our opinion that the slopes of the project site have a factor of safety of 1.5 or greater,
with respect to potenfial surficial instability and deep rotational failure (under normal
irrigation/precipitationpattems) provided the recommendations presented in this report and in
the project geotechnical reports (Appendix A) are incorporated into the post-construction
phases of site development.
Leighton
040384-002
The representafive finish grade soils of the building pads of Buildings 1 through 8 were tested
and found to have a low to medium expansion potential (per Table 18-1-B of the 1997 UBC).
Fill soils, derived from onsite soils, were tested to have at least 90 percent relative compaction
(based on ASTM Test Method D1557) and a near-optimum moisture content in accordance
with the recommendations of the project geotechnical report (Leighton, 2001a) and the
requirements of the City of Carlsbad. A summary of the results of the field density tests is
presented in Appendix B.
The potential for soluble sulfate attack (on Type I/II cement) of the finish grade soils is
considered negligible based on U.B.C. Criteria (ICBO, Table 19-A-4, 1997). The soluble
sulfate content test results are included in Appendix C.
-9-
Leighton
040384-002
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations concerning the post grading and construction phases of site development for the project
have been presented in the Geotechnical Review of Precise Grading Plan and Recommendations for The
Hamptons, Carlsbad, dated March 14, 2001 (Leighton, 2001a). Since the rough and fine grading was
performed in general accordance whh the project geotechnical recommendations and the as-graded
conditions are essentially as anticipated, the recommendations presented in our project geotechnical report
are still considered applicable and should be followed during the post construction phases of site work.
Recommendations conceming future foundations systems and retaining walls presented in the geotechnical
report are also considered applicable. It should be noted that on Building Pad Number 6, the potentially
compressible estuarine deposits were removed down to the competent formational material and replaced
with compacted fill soils. Therefore, Building Number 6 will not require a driven pile foundation support
system (i.e., the building pad is suitable for a post-tension foundation design) as previously recommended
(Leighton,2001a).
5.1 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control
Surface drainage should be controlled at all times. The structures should have appropriate
drainage systems to collect roof runoff. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct
surface water away from the stmctures toward the street or suitable drainage facilities. Positive
drainage may be accomplished by providing a minimum 2 percent gradient from the structures.
Below grade planters should not be situated adjacent to structures or pavements unless
provisions for drainage such as catch basins and drains are made. In general, ponding of water
should be avoided adjacent to structures or pavements.
5.2 Graded Slopes
It is recommended that all graded slopes within the development be planted with drought-tolerant
ground cover vegetation as soon as practical to protect against erosion by reducing runoff velocity.
Deep-rooted vegetation should also be established to protect against surficial slumping.
Oversteepening of existing slopes should be avoided during future grading and/or constmction
unless supported by appropriately designed retaining structures. In addition, we recommend
manufactured cut and fill slopes within the site should be surveyed by the project civit engineerto
verify that slope inclinations are 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter.
-10-
Leighton
040384-002
6.0 LIMITATIONS
The presence of our field representative at the site was intended to provide the owner with professional
advice, opinions, and recommendations based on observations of the contractor's work. Although the
observations did not reveal obvious deficiencies or deviations from project specifications, we do not
guarantee the contractor's work, nor do our services relieve the contractor or his subcontractors of their
responsibility if defects are subsequentiy discovered in their work. Our responsibilitiesdid not include any
supervision or direction of the actual work procedures of the contractor, his personnel, or subcontractors.
The conclusions in this report are based on test results and observations of the grading and earthwork
procedures used and represent our engineering opinion as to the compliance of the results with the project
specifications.
-11-
Leighton
APPENDIX
A
040384-002
APPENDIXA
REFERENCES
Eberhart and Stone, 1999, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, The Hamptons, Tract No. 89-13,
Agua Hedionda Lagoon Area, Carlsbad, Califomia, W.O. 189300.22, dated June 2, 1999.
GeoSoils, Inc., 2000a, Due Diligence Review of Geotechnical Site Conditions, The Hamptons, Tentative
Tract Map, Number 89-13, City ofCarlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 2914-A2-
SC, dated August 3, 2000.
— 2000b, Supplemental Geotechnicai Evaluation, The Hamptons, Tentative Tract Map, Number
89-13, City ofCarlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 2914-A-Sc, dated August 31,
2000.
———, 2000c, Preliminary Pavement Design Report, Tentative Tract Map, Number 89-13, City of
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 2914-A2-SC, dated October 13, 2000.
Hunsaker and Associates, 2001, Plot Plans: Bayshore "The Hamptons", Slots 3 and 4, 20 Scale, dated
May 9, 2001.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2001a, Geotechnical Review of Precise Grading Plan and
Recommendations for The Hamptons, Carisbad, California, Project No. 040384-001, dated
March 14, 2001.
~— , 2001b, As-Graded Geotechnical Conditions of the Building Pad Number 2, The Hamptons,
Cartsbad, Califomia, Project No. 040384-002, dated August 8, 2001.
-, 2001c, As-Graded Geotechnical Conditions of the Building Pad Numbers 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8,
The Hamptons, Carlsbad, Califomia, Project No. 040384-002, dated August 23, 2001.
-, 200Id, As-Graded Conditions of Building Pad Number 4, The Hamptons, Carlsbad,
Califomia, ProjectNo. 040384-002, dated September 17, 2001.
Ninyo & Moore inc., 1989a, Geotechnical Feasibility Evaluation, 7.8 Acre Site, Park Drive, Carlsbad,
Califomia, ProjectNo. 010069-01, dated January 5, 1989.
— , 1989b, Geotechnical Investigafion, 7.8-Acre Site, Park Drive, Cartsbad, California, Project
No. 010069-02, dated May 1, 1989.
, 1990, Settlement Monitoring and Preloading of Undocumented Fill, The Hamptons Park
Drive, Cartsbad, California, ProjectNo. 010069-03, dated February 8, 1990.
United States Geologic Survey (USGS), 1975, San Luis Rey Quadrangle, Califomia - San Diego County
7.5 Minute Series.
A-l
APPENDIX
B
040384-002
APPENDIXB
EXPLANATION OF SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Test No. Test of Test No. l~est of
Prefix Test of Abbreviations Prefix Test of Abbreviations
(none) GRADING
Natural Ground NG (SG) SUBGRADE
Original Ground OG (AB) AGGREGATE BASE
Existing Fill EF (CB) CEMENT TREATED BASE
Compacted Fill CF (PB) PROCESSED BASE
Slope Face SF (AC) ASPHALT CONCRETE
Finish Grade FG
(S) SEWER Curb C
(SD) STORM DRAIN Gutter G
(AD) AREA DRAIN Curb and Gutter CG
(W) DOMESTIC WATER Cross Gutter XG
(RC) RECLAIMED WATER Street ST
(SB) SUBDRAIN Sidewalk SW
(G) GAS Driveway D
(E) ELECTRICAL Driveway Approach DA
(T) TELEPHONE Parking Lot PL
(J) JOINT UTILITY Electric Box Pad EB
(1) IRRIGATION
Bedding Material B
Shading Sand S
Main M
Lateral L
Crossing X
Manhole MH
Hydrant Lateral HL
Catch Basin CB
Riser R
Inlet I
(RW) RETAINING WALL (P) PRESATURATION
(CW) CRIB WALL
(SW) SEGMENTAL WALL Moisture Content M
(SF) STRUCT FOOTING
Footing Bottom F
Backflll B
Wall Cel! C
(IT) INTERIOR TRENCH
Plumbing Backfill P
Electrical Backfill E
N re
D3017.
S
15A
15B
"0"
represents sand cone tests that were performed in general accordance with most recent version of ASTM Test Method Dl 556.
represents first retest of Test No. 15
represents second retest of Test No. 15
in Test Elevation Column represents test was taken at the ground surface (e.g. finish grade or subgrade)
in Test Elevation Column represents test was taken one foot below the ground surface
B-l
CO H (0 LU H
H
CO
z
UJ
Q O
_l
LiJ
U.
U-
O
>-
<
(0
s at CE: on u > R 4-t a E "43 0 U
O "aJ
c
Q
C/3 f-
O
s
.2
«
o
01
H O
a> R H fi
41 O
H Z
O O H H H H CNm-^ — O — O — O'-IO-— 00 — (N — — (N — 0(NtN—'OO^O — OOtNCN
OOioOOOOOCjOOOOO
(Nc^'-^r^odoooooooo
oooooooooooooo
ooo(Nr4oooooocjoo
o
o
0^00^0r-0^^00
(-•i fn od r-i —' c>
-H'OOOCTitNO^'^'^ mcor^—lOt^oonnt^^O'n-^'-O'-;-^^
--'O'O^rnr'irnrnfNO-^tNrir-^tN
OO^nO"n"0"/1<v^*A></^^0^nv-^»n^/^w^^rl^O"/^OO^n'Jn>n<^
Mc^—iMr^r^Mr')r^r^r-ir'ic^r-i----r^(Nr')r^ir'ir^r-ir-ir-)C^fN(N(N(N--cN
TfO'n0^^n^t--;<^O^^n•^_oop>ncorJO<^n — t^om^oot^r-;Tfrnrn^oo
— — m 'rt-rt'r)>r)fn-rt-^-^^'r)mt^^'r)*n
OOO'TioOO'jnoO >/^o»n*'^»o'/^'0'o»/i»noo»<-iO"o
-^fncdodo^--'-dodo6o^O^--OO^t^
O O
o o o
T3 -a
KJ ra
o o
4-- 4-'
U5 W
O
+
m
C
o
B
o o >4n »<n + + o o
o «n o —
+ +
B B 55 ^
(N
TJ Id T3
» cd cd *w w ^VJ
UJ OH W m CL OH a.
rs fN
•a TD
O. OH
u
0 J2
•—'
0^ ad int -S CL
0 0 0
•a
ra CL
P" -4-1
OH OH W W
r-r-oooor-r-ootN
CLCLCUCLCLOHQ-O-I
OH CL
'o 'o
V <L> ,2i .i;
CLCLO'OHOHOHOHOH
UUUUUUUUUUUUUOOUOOCJUOUUUUOUUUUUO
ooooooooooooooooooo—--H — — — — ^^^^-H—i-H
rSfNC'irNr'IfOfnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnfnrnrnrnrn — —
— fNm'^'o^r-coCT>o — rsmm^'jnvor-cooso—' rNm'^'A\ot^ooiy\0—• ___H_-_-__„^^^.— — fsirNMr-irsrscNrsrNrsmfn
2„ r-l
o
OX) 1= ro
c
o
op '33
« c o
0)
E o X
E
<N X
O 0) ^
Tl- O CD O
CO >» Jfi
>- nj 1-o O OCD
a>
4>
n E 3
c o
u
O U U 4J
a> 0) 0) c
0)
H
0)
LU
I-
>-
(0
z
LU
O
Q
LU
LJ-
U.
O
<
CO
R E OS
5? t
3
o
R
e
Q 2
fi
— a
I/) H
4-1
o
e
o
H O
a> R
H fi
H Z
o o < o nn § o r-l (N fN o m fN r-l CO •—I m oo r^ o r-l cs n m •— o OS OS OS OS OS 0\ OS OS OS OS Os OS OS 0^ CO o\ OS 00 OS OS ON o\ OS OS OS OS OS OS Os OS
O o o O o o o O o o O o o O q q o q O o o O O o o q q o O O q o
O o o o o d d d d d d d d r-i d d r-i ri d d d r-i d d d d d d d r-i d
rn un OS fN oo rn r~-CO fN 00 OS 00 n o rs sq Os 00
r4 o —1 O '—' d d d m fN r-i cn vS <F, rn un "Tf d fN ri fN ri ri '
•"^
ri ri
»n in v-j un un un v> un U-) o o un q q V-) un q un v^ u-j u-l un un q un
(--^ x< m m i> m rn rn m
fN r-l r-l fN r-l fN (N (N r-t r-l fN r-l r-l r-l r-l fN fN rs (N rs rs n fN fN fN n
Cv fN fN m 00 rn m 0^ r-) r-l rn r^ OS OS _ _ 00 rn vo q rs OS q
vo CO un f-4 m r-i ^o m
•"^
u-i vo sd vd u-l od vd d vd
v-iv-iu-)V-)Viv^v^unu-^v-iununi/-i — viv-i — — "ounun — v^v-^v^v^u-lv^ln
v^v^ounviv-iw-iu-iunoi/^oooooooov^unov-io — — -^-^-^-^u-iq
Tto6odrnrnrnrnrnrnd--d--dr-iosOsd-^r4rioddrnvSw-iununv^unr^
O
00 +
m c o
3
o
U •o o o
CQ
o o o o un OS Vl
+ + + + + + fN m m un r-m m m m m m C a c c c
.9 .2 p o o .2 '*-> 't-l '5 ra B a ra ra uri on 55 Co 55
o — r- oo Os — —
'5 'S 'S 'H 'c
p :J :D D D
m rs r-l rs (N fN TD "3 -g Cd cd
OH CL CL
-a -a -o ra ra ra OH OH CL
UH U.
t: t: t: c 3 3 3 3 3
O O O O o o U O U (J u T3 •a •o TD T3 T3
O o o O O O
O o o O O O
^ J=
o o vo (J ji: o m XI
o
J=
o ra ra c3 ra ra ra •a -o u <i> ra u 0) « <u a> ra ra ra ra ra ffl ffl CL ffl ffl CL ffl ffl CL CL CL CL a
tl. tlH UH U. u. UH u. b. UH
u U U U U u u U U O O
10
CO
OH
o
— n m un vo
'S 'c 'c 'S '5 "5 OOOOOO
TJ-a-a-o-p-g-o-g-g rarararararararara
a.a«OHCLCLOHCLCLCL
U- UH
ooooooooooooooo^o^^^^^^^ooo^^^^^
rnfnrnrnrnrnfnrnrnrnrnrnvovovosOvovovor«.t-~.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo^ < < rNm'!tv^v^t~^ooc^o — nrnTfi/^vor-t--ooosoo—"rNm^v-ivor-ooovO — cnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnTf-^^'^^-'t'^'^'^'^'^u-iu-iununv-iu-iv-iu-iununw-iv^vo
rn ri -s 5s
V4
o
r^
<u
00
ra
<
O
CJ)
'53
c o +-<
Q.
E
(0
CM ^
O 0)
9 c
4 £
00 w CO >. O 0
5 6
0)
E
o X
0)
-o c
« >»
to c
oo
lis
3 n o z Z -J
*^
O O O
0) o o c
'2* '2* I-^
Q. Q. Q. O
h-
0)
LU
H
>-
CO
z
LU
O
O
LU
o
>-
<
(0
R E Oi
O
R
K
a 2
— a
t/3 H
tt
o
o
H Z
< so ^£5 Z u. O O H H c< ft: o m o CN o —1 oo n o _H o m n n o o fN ,—. rs rs n fN o OS OS OS OS Os 0\ oo Os OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS Os OS OS OS OS OS OS OS
o q q q o o o O o o q q q o o o O O O o o O O q q q o o O o o O
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
u-l u-^ Vl oo OS m rn q oo vo sq OS o r-l ^ 1 OS ^ J rn ri q vq CO oo rn . ,
r-i m m m OS ri ri ri "Tf m fN m r-i ri ri ri 'Tf VI rn r-i rn m r-i d ri m rsj m
v-l VI VI VI >n un VI VI V) un v^ VI VI VI VI VI V) un VI un Vl v^ VI VI VI VI VI VI VI un
r^ [-: r^ r^ r-'
fN fN n rs n n fN n n n rs n n n n rs fN n fN rs fN n r-l fN n n n r-1 n n fN
r-l r-l 1 r-vo OS f~-rs OS oq OS so fN Os m '^ , , rn OS m o o 'Tf OS oo m sq OS 00
u-i od vi vd 'Tf vi d un so od vd d vi so vi vd d d d r-' vi '^ vi
v-(Viunviunviviunviununv>viununv)unviununviunviunununvtunv)unvivi
q Vl q q q q q
Tf Tf un d m d d
qviqv-ifnmmmOOOviviooovqvqvqsqfNr-lfN
--'^v-iTrrnrnrnrn--^drnr-iriu-i'Tf'Tr"Tr"^Tr'*t--^l>t^
o o o o OS •Tf un un + + + + o rs fN n m m m m
3 a S 3
_o .2 o O
B "i B ra
55 on 55
a. CL
3 O
U •n o o
j= o ra u
ffl
t: -c
3 3 o o U U
O O
ra
-a o o
_ v ffl ffl
vo so VI V)
T3 -g -g "o ra ra ra ra
OH CL CL CL
U
o o
x: u ra
« ,
ffl 'a
^o
ra ra
VI vo oo
mmmm
o — rs m '^ Tf "Tf n fN
3 3 C C C 3 3 O O OOOOO
r-t^vovoviTfsounvovocoooooooun
•g-a-OTD-o-g-g-g-g-g-g-g
cdcdcQAAcdcdcdracdcdcd
TiJ 'O fd cd ^
a, CL o.
3 3 O O
VI v^
ra ra
CL ft.
-t-l
cn tL, tJH UH u-UH u. tHpLU-uiituOOOOUHU-u-u. u. u. UHOOOOOOO
f- 0 u U u U o (J U u u O U U U- UH u., U U U U U U U U U. U. UH UH UH UH UH
4-. ii o ooooo o ooooo o o o ^ 5 ^ ^ OOO
4> R o o o o o o ? o o o m "^ ^ -5^ ^ ^ ^ un vi vi Vl vo vo vo vo VO VO vB
H fi DO oo oc OO OS OS H fi oo oo oo oo 00 00 oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo 00 00 oo 00 00 oo OO oo oo oo oo oo oo OO OO OO
rs m Vl VO r-00 <
oo Os o — fN m '!*• u-l vo r- oo OS o — rs m "Tf VI ^ 00 OS o — rs
so so so vo vo SD so vo r-r- r- r-t-~- r- oo oo CO oo oo CO CO oo 00 00 Os Ov Os
3-m rs Tf M
O
m
a> DO
ro
CL
o o
(/I
<
3 ro
c o
£
'53
(A C o
CL E
01
CM X
O 0) 9 c 4 S 00 to >. CO
o
S C3
<D E o X
<D
•a £
« >>
OO
0) .. .2 -Q <i> "S
EES
3 (Q O
O U U ^ 0} <u o c
? ?
O. 0. Q. O
(0
(O
LU I-
z
LU
a
o
LU
O
<
.2 1. R E s: c u « a E o
a O
3 "3
R
.^^
S
Q 2
Si
tt •*.* o J
e o
'4-1 «
o
•U t-H
H O
.4-1 u
V R
H fi
S 6 H Z
0 1 n m n fN fN m n m 0 fN 0 n rs Os 0\ Os OS OS OS OS OS OS Ov OS Os OS OS OS OS OS OS
q 0 0 0 0 q q q 0 0 0 0 q 0 0 q q q
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
rn 00 ON ri q 00 "^ ri 'Tf sq q V-rs Tf OS sq r-l
m ri ri rn rn ri m m m ri r-i ' ' Tf ri r-i rn ri rn rn
Vl Vl Vl Vl VI VI u-l un un un un VI u-l u-l VI VI un un v>
t< r-: r^
fN fN n fN rs rs rs n fN n rs rs rs n n fN n rs r-I
tN Tf 00 ri VI r-OS vq Tf rs un cn 00 Tf 00 —.
vd vi vi vd od r^ sd vd od od u-i vi vi sd so
unviunviviv^v^viviunununviviviununu-iu-i
fNrstNunviv-iviununr-t^r-^r-;r-;r-;vqvqvqvq
t~-^r-^r-^TfTfTtTf-^TfTfTf^TtTt-Tfmmmm
vo fN n 00
fN
Ti-
rn
m m n m m 0
m
c^ rs 00 OS 0
fN fN rs rs m Tf Vl vo
-!_> t-> -t-l -t-> -»-• +j *j Uni 33333333 OOOOOOOO "s
0
3 3 3
DDD
'a 0 "c D 's
0
3 3 3
DDD un Vl Vl so so vo vo vo so Tf "^ Tt •rt Tf m m m m Pad TD ra CL
•a ra
OH CL CL
T3
ra
CL
ra
CL
TD ra
OH CL OH CL CL
-0 ra
CL
ra
OH
T3 ra
OH
•a
CL
T3 n CL CL CL FG ooooooao
UHtL.UHtUtLtLU-UH
a OOO
UH UH tL o. UH
a tL. UH tL.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
vd vo VO r-P-r-r-r-r-r-?i r-r-
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
m OS OS
Vl
OS so Os OS
00
Os OS OS 0 0 0 fN 0 m 0 0 Vl
0
vo 0 r-0 00
0
OS 0 0
Tf
^-
o
Tf
OJ
00
ra
ra
'o o t/1 c/l
< -a 3
3 O
.S
ap
'33
c
<1) E o X
o ro o
WJ 0) m
CO >, « >.
Q.
E
CSJ X
O 0)
00
O 0) 0
^ L- ro ^ o O 00
0)
E
3
Z
u u o ^ 0) 0 a> c
a. Q. Q-O
APPENDIX
C
040384-002
APPENDIX C
Laboratorv Testing Procedures and Test Results
Maximum Densitv Tests: Tlie maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials
were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. The results of these tests are presented in
the table below:
Sample
Number Sample Description Maximum Dry
Density (pcf)
Optimum Moisture
Content (%)
1 Artificial Fili - sandy clay-silty sand 123.0 12.0
2 Artificial Fill - sandy clay-silty sand 128.0 10.0
3 Clay - alluvial deposits 116.5 15.5
4 Pale brown silty, clayey sand 128.5 10.0
5 Pale yellowish brown silty, clayey sand 127.5 10.0
6 Brown clayey sand 127.0 9.5
7 Pale yellow silty sand 127.0 10.0
Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Expansion Index
Test ASTM D4829. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately 50 percent
saturation. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf
surcharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these
tests are presented in the table below:
Sample Number Sample
Location Soil Type Expansion
Index
Expansion
Potential
El Pad 2* Grayish brown silty clayey sand 61 Medium
E2 Pad 2 Medium brown silty clayey sand 39 Low
E3 Padl Medium brown silty ciayey sand 56 Medium
E4 Pad? Brown clayey sand 30 Low
E5 Pad 8 Brown clayey sand 37 Low
E6 Pad 5 Light brown clayey sand 35 Low
E7 Pad 6 Light brown clayey sand 45 Low
E8 Pad 4 Brown clayey sand 43 Low
E9 Pad 3 Yellow-brown clayey sand 45 Low
* Soil sample approximately 2 feet below finish grade.
C-1
040384-002
APPENDIX C (Continued)
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard
geochemical methods. The test results are presented in the table below:
Sample
Number
Sample
Location Sulfate Content % (ppm)
Potential Degree of Sulfate
Attack*
E2 Pad 2 0.03 Negligible
E3 Pad 1 0.02 Negligible
E4 Pad? 0.02 Negligible
E5 Pads 0.02 Negligible
E6 Pads 0.02 Negligible
E7 Pad 6 0.02 Negligible
E8 Pad 4 0.02 Negligible
E9 Pad 3 0.02 Negligible
* Based on the 1997 editionofthe Uniform BuildingCode, Table No. 19-A-4, prepared by the
Intemational Conference of Building Officials (ICBO, 1997).
C-2