HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 99-09; Village N Rancho Carrillo; FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING; 1998-11-031 ' !
J i i
3
QCOffl
RjB Q R jAJT
N
FINAL REPORT OF TESTING
AND OBSERVATION SERVICES
DURING SITE GRADING
VILLAGE N
RANCHO CARRILLO
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
CONTINENTAL RANCH INC.
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
NOVEMBER 1998
Project No. 05845-12-01C
Novembers, 1998
Continental Ranch Inc.
12636 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, California 92130
Attention: Mr. Dave Lother
Subject: VILLAGE N
RANCHO CARRILLO
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION
SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING
Gentlemen:1
"*t In accordance with your request and, our proposal dated December 6, 1996 , we have provided
A compaction testing and observation services during the grading of the subject site. Our services
«• were performed during the period of October 23, 1997 through January 29, 1998 The scope of our
«j services included the following:
^ • Observing the grading operation, including the removal and/or processing of loose topsoils,
t colluvium, and alluvium deposits.
"™ • Construction of a buttress fill along the southern boundary
H • Performing in-place density tests in fill placed and compacted at the site.
• Performing laboratory tests to aid in evaluating the compaction, expansion, and shear
strength characteristics of various soil conditions encountered and/or used for fill.
• Providing on-site geologic consultation services to verify that grading was performed in
substantial conformance with the recommendations of preliminary project geotechnical
reports.
• Preparing an "As-Graded" Geologic Map.
• Preparing this final report of grading.
GENERAL
The grading contractor for the project was Sukut Construction, Incorporated. The project mass
grading plans were prepared by Rick Engineering Company and are entitled Grading Plans for
i<••
i
i
Rancho Carrillo, Sheets 14, 15, and 51, with the City of Carlsbad approval dated November 14,
1996. The project soils report are entitled:
• Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Villages N, O, Q, R, T, and U, Rancho Carrillo,
Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated February 16, 1993.
• Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Stability Analyses, Village N, Rancho
Carrillo, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated September 25, 1997.
References to elevations and locations herein were based on surveyor's or grade checker's stakes in
the field and/or interpolation from the referenced Grading Plans. Geocon Incorporated did not
provide surveying services and, therefore, has no opinion regarding the accuracy of the as-graded
elevations or surface geometry with respect to the approved grading plans or proper surface
drainage.
GRADING
Sheet grading began with the removal of brush and vegetation from the area to be graded. In
addition to the vegetation, topsoils, colluvium, and alluvial deposits were removed to firm natural
ground. In general, surficial deposits were removed and the excavations were observed by an
engineering geologist to verify that unsuitable soils had been removed and dense formational soils
were exposed.
A buttress fill was constructed for the proposed cut slope along the southern property boundary, as
recommended in the referenced supplemental report. Due to the close proximity of the existing
structures, the key for the buttress was excavated in approximately 100 to 200 feet segments, while
maintaining a backcut inclination of 1:1 (horizontal:vertical). A heel drain with associated
prefabricated panel drains was then installed in the backcut.
Prior to placing fill, the exposed ground surface was scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted.
Fill soils derived from on-site excavations and the surrounding areas were then placed and
compacted in layers until the design elevations were attained. In general, the fill materials consist of
grayish brown silty sand to greenish brown sandy clay.
Due to the presence of large patches of expansive clayey soils within the upper pad (southeastern
portion of the site) this area was under cut approximately 3 feet and replaced with less expansive,
uniform soils.
....During the grading operation, compaction procedures were observed and in-place density tests were
performed to evaluate the relative compaction of the fill material. The in-place density tests were
Project No. 05845-12-01C ~- Novembers, 1998
: performed in general conformance with ASTM Test Method D-1556-82 (sand cone) or D-2922-81
(nuclear). The results of the in-place dry density and moisture content tests are summarized on
Table I. In general, the in-place density test results indicate that the fill soil has a relative
• compaction of at least 90 percent at the locations tested. The approximate locations of the in-place
•"» density tests are shown on the As-graded Geologic Maps, Figures 1 though 3. It should be noted that
«| since the grading of Village N was performed in conjunction with the grading for Villages O, Ql,
~* and Q2, the field density test numbers are not in sequential order.
4
J Laboratory tests were performed on samples of material used for fill to evaluate moisture-density
relationships, optimum moisture content and maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557-91), shear
*s strength and expansion characteristics. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in
- Tables II through IV.
4
— Slopes
i
In general, the cut and fill slopes have planned inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter, with
maximum height of approximately 7 and 44 feet, respectively. The fill slopes were either over-filled
and cut back or were track-walked with a bulldozer during grading. The cut slope along the south
property margin was buttressed due to the presence of a bedding plane shear zone (Buttress No. 5). A
J stability fill was also constructed for the east facing slope along Melrose Drive due to the presence of
* dark gray siltstones and claystones that were determined to be unsuitable for landscaping. This
. stability fill was constructed during the grading of Melrose Drive and is included in the final grading
^ report of Melrose Drive, dated March 11, 1998. All slopes should be planted, drained, and
*" maintained to reduce erosion. Slope irrigation should be kept to a minimum to just support the
*pj vegetative cover. Surface drainage should not be allowed to flow over the top of the slope.
-w **
•* Subdrains
"** A heel drain associated with the buttress fill, located along the south property margin, flows to the
"I open space to the west of the site. Another heel drain was installed during construction of the
«. stability fill along Melrose Drive. This drain flows to the south and connects to the storm drain
—} system. These heel drains were "as built" for location and elevation by Rick Engineering Company
and are shown on the attached as-graded geologic maps.
m
Finish Grade Soil Conditions
*»| The site is sheet-graded into three large pads, with understanding that the site will be fine-graded in
_ future to receive multifamily structures. During grading operations, the upper pad (southeastern
Project No. 05845-12-01C -3- November 3, 1998
portion of the site) was undercut approximately 3 feet due to the presence of large scattered lenses of
highly expansive claystones. The excavation was then filled with less expansive soils. Based on
"". laboratory test results, the prevailing soil conditions within approximately the upper 3 feet of rough
m pad grade have an Expansion Index of 78 to 124 (Table IV), and are classified as having a "medium"
«• to "high" expansion potential as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 18-I-B.
« Table V presents a summary of the indicated Expansion Indices of prevailing subgrade soil
conditions for each pad. It should be noted that although rocks or concretions larger than 12 inches
: were not intentionally placed within the upper 3 feet of pad grade, some may exist at random
locations.
'•3 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
mr The soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading were found to be similar to those
•^ described in the project geotechnical report. In general, the compacted fill soils are underlain by
t formational soils of the Del Mar Formation. An adverse geologic condition caused by presence of a
|| bedding plane shear zone within the proposed cut slope, located along the southern boundary, was
*"* mitigated by construction of a drained buttress fill. These high angled faults with a generally north-
"m south trend were mapped during the grading operations. These faults are considered
m interformational and inactive, and, thus, have no adverse impact on the development.
* The enclosed As-Graded Geologic Maps (Figures 1 through 3 ) depicts the general geologic
I conditions observed. These maps also show the original topography prior to the start of grading. A
• geologic cross section is presented on Figure 4. No soil or geologic conditions were observed during
"**" grading which would preclude the continued development of the property as planned.
c~.»
" CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.0. General
» 1.1. Based on observations and test results, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the
«£ grading, which is the subject of this report, has been performed in substantial conformance
t with the recommendations of the previously referenced project soil report. Soil and
• geologic conditions encountered during grading which differ from those anticipated by the
"-• project soil report are not uncommon. Where such conditions required a significant
•» modification to the recommendations of the project soil report, they have been described
~* herein.
Project No. 05845-12-01C - 4 - November 3, 1998
1.2. The site is currently sheet-graded and soils with medium to high expansion potential exist
at finished grade. It is understood that the site will be fine graded to receive multifamily
residential structures, with associated driveways and parking areas.
2.0. Future Grading
2.1. Any additional grading performed at the site should be accomplished in conjunction with
our observation and compaction testing services. All trench backfill in excess of one-foot
thick should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. This office should be
notified at least 48 hours prior to commencing additional grading or backfill operations.
y
* 3.0. Foundations
i
i
i
sai
3.1. The recommendations presented herein are provided as general guidelines for planning
future development. Final project-specific foundation design recommendations should be
determined once fine grading is complete and structure layout has been finalized.
3.2. The foundation recommendations that follow are for one- or two-story residential
structures and are separated into categories dependent on the thickness and geometry of
the underlying fill soils as well as the Expansion Index of the prevailing subgrade soils of
a particular building pad (or lot). The recommended minimum foundation and interior
concrete slab design criteria for each Category is presented on the following page
(Table 3.1).
3.3. Foundations for either Category I, II, or III may be designed for an allowable soil bearing
pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) (dead plus live load). This bearing pressure
may be increased by one-third for transient loads such as wind or seismic forces.
3.4. The use of isolated footings which are located beyond the perimeter of the building
and support structural elements connected to the building is not recommended for
Category III. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be con-
nected to the building foundation system with grade beams.
3.5. For Foundation Category III, the structural slab design should consider using interior
stiffening beams and connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the slab thickness. In
addition, consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs, which exceed 5 feet in
width, to the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur.
Project No. 05845-12-01C -5- November 3, 1998
TABLE 3.1.
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY
•i
~4
i
Foundation
Category
I
II
III
Minimum
Footing Depth
(inches)
12
18
24
Continuous Footing
Reinforcement
One No. 4 bar top and bottom
Two No. 4 bars top and
bottom
Two No. 5 bars top and
bottom
Interior Slab
Reinforcement
6x6- 10/10 welded wire
mesh at slab mid-point
No. 3 bars at 24 inches on
center, both directions
No. 3 bars at 1 8 inches on
center, both directions
CATEGORY CRITERIA
Category I: Maximum fill thickness is less than 20 feet and Expansion Index is less than or
equal to 50.
Category II: Maximum fill thickness is less than 50 feet and Expansion Index is less than or
equal to 90, or variation in fill thickness is between 10 feet and 20 feet.
Category III: Fill thickness exceeds 50 feet, or variation in fill thickness exceeds 20 feet, or
Expansion Index exceeds 90, but is less than 130 .
Notes:
1. All footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches.
2. Footing depth is measured from lowest adjacent subgrade.
3. All interior living area concrete slabs should be at least 4 inches thick for Categories I and II and
5 inches thick for Category III.
4. All interior concrete slabs should be underlain by at least 4 inches (3 inches for Category III) of
clean sand or crushed rock.
5. All slabs expected to receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture-
sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor barrier covered with at least 2 inches of the
clean sand recommended in No. 4 above.
-I
3.6. No special subgrade presaturation is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete, however,
the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be sprinkled, as necessary, to
maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
3.7. For building pads with finish grade soils possessing an Expansion Index between 50 and
90, it is recommended that all exterior concrete flatwork with a least dimension exceeding
8 feet be reinforced with 6x6-6/6 welded wire mesh. The reinforcement for exterior
concrete flatwork for building pads with Expansion Index between 90 and 130, should
consist of No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, both directions.
Project No. 05845-12-01C -6-NovemberS, 1998
i
i
i
i
w-*^
1J
3.8. All concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints at a maximum spacing
of 12 feet.
3.9. All subgrade soils should be properly moisture conditioned prior to concrete placement.
Where drying has occurred, reconditioning of surficial soils will be required.
3.10. For lots with Expansion Index between 90 and 130 the edge of the exterior concrete
flatwork should be thickened (shovel footing), to reduce the potential for moisture
migration underneath the slab.
• Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper
than 3:1 (horizontahvertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are
recommended due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur.
• For fill slopes less than 20 feet high, building footings should be deepened such
that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the
face of the slope.
• Where the height of the fill slope exceeds 20 feet, the minimum horizontal
distance should be increased to H/3 (where H equals the vertical distance from the
top of the slope to the toe) but need not exceed 40 feet. For composite (fill over
cut) slopes, H equals the vertical distance from the top of the slope to the bottom
of the fill portion of the slope. An acceptable alternative to deepening the footings
would be the use of a post-tensioned slab and foundation system or increased
footing and slab reinforcement. Specific design parameters or recommendations
for either of these alternatives can be provided once the building location and fill
slope geometry have been determined.
• For cut slopes in dense formational materials, or fill slopes inclined at 3:1 (hori-
zontal: vertical) or flatter, the bottom outside edge of building footings should be at
least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope, regardless of slope height.
«~ • Swimming pools located within 7 feet of the top of cut or fill slopes are not
recommended. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, it is recommended that
*"* the portion of the swimming pool wall within 7 feet of the slope face be designed
«••! assuming that the adjacent soil provides no lateral support. This recommendation
*"* applies to fill slopes up to 30 feet in height, and cut slopes regardless of height.
"** For swimming pools located near the top of fill slopes greater than 30 feet in
«•; height, additional recommendations may be required and Geocon Incorporated
: should be contacted for a review of specific site conditions.
»***
M; 3.11. Although other improvements which are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete
flatwork or masonry walls may experience some distress if located near the top of a slope,
I it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible, however, to
&| incorporate design measures which would permit some lateral soil movement without
Project No. 05845-12-01C -7- November 3, 1998
causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for specific
recommendations.
3.12. As an alternative to the foundation recommendations for each category, consideration
should be given to the use of post-tensioned concrete slab and foundation systems for the
support of the proposed structures. The post-tensioned systems should be designed by a
structural engineer experienced in post-tensioned slab design and design criteria of the
Post-Tensioning Institute (UBC Section 1816). Although this procedure was developed
for expansive soils, it is understood that it can also be used to reduce the potential for
foundation distress due to differential fill settlement. The post-tensioned design should
incorporate the geotechnical parameters presented on the following table entitled Post-
Tensioned Foundation System Design Parameters for the particular Foundation Category
designated.
4
i
i
TABLE 3.2.
POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI)
Design Parameters
1 . Thornthwaite Index
2. Clay Type - Montmorillonite
3. Clay Portion (Maximum)
4. Depth to Constant Soil Suction
5. Soil Suction
6. Moisture Velocity
7. Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance
8. Edge Lift
9. Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance
10. Center Lift
Foundation Category
I
-20
Yes
30%
7.0ft.
3.6ft.
0.7 in./mo.
2.6ft.
0.41 in.
5.3ft.
2.12 in.
II
-20
Yes
50%
7.0ft.
3.6ft.
0.7 in./mo.
2.6ft.
0.78 in.
5.3ft.
3.21 in.
Ill
-20
Yes
70%
7.0ft.
3.6ft.
0.7 in./mo.
2.6ft.
1.15 in.
5.3ft.
4.74 in.
3.13. UBC Section 1816 uses interior stiffener beams in its structural design procedures. If the
structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than UBC
Section 1816, it is recommended that interior stiffener beams be used for Foundation
Categories II and III. The depth of the perimeter foundation should be at least 12 inches
for Foundation Category I. Where the Expansion Index for a particular building pad
exceeds 50 but is less than 91, the perimeter footing depth should be at least 18 inches; and
where it exceeds 90 but is less than 130, the perimeter footing depth should be at least 24
Project No. 05845-12-01C Novembers, 1998
inches. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters
as required by the structural engineer.
™j^3.14. The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
*" slabs due to expansive soils (if present), differential settlement of deep fills or fills of
*«l varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations
^ presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions
* may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of
concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their
occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper
;.-.; concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic
"• intervals, in particular, where re-entry slab corners occur.
1
w*»
i
WW*
i
an*
i
u
4.0. Retaining Walls And Lateral Loads
4.1. Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be
designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of
30 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2.0
to 1.0, an active soil pressure of 40 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures assume that
the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending
upward from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index of less than 50. For those
lots with finish grade soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 and/or where
backfill materials do not conform to the above criteria, Geocon Incorporated should be
consulted for additional recommendations.
4.2. Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H at the top of the
wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform
pressure of 7H psf (where H equals the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in
feet) should be added to the above active soil pressure
4.3. All retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the
buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project
architect. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes, etc.) is
not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely impact
the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a
properly compacted granular (Expansion Index less than 50) backfill material with no
hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described
Project No. 05845- 12-0 1C -9- November 3, 1998
are anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be
contacted for additional recommendations.
"* 4.4. In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of 12-inches may be
*• designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Special foundation depth and
— reinforcement may be necessary depending on the expansive characteristics of the
prevailing foundation soils. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper
? than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, Geocon
Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is anticipated.
— 4.5. For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid
•m density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly
m compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure
"** assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet or three times the surface generating
» the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material not protected
i by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. An
*™ allowable friction coefficient of 0.4 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and
** concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth
„, pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads.
t
4.6. The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that
walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls are planned, such as crib-type walls,
Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
~* 5.0. Slope Maintenance
5.1. Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) may, under conditions which are both
difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope instability.
*"| The instability is typically limited to the outer three feet of a portion of the slope and
•«• usually does not directly impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the
M, slope. The occurrence of surficial instability is more prevalent on fill slopes and is
generally preceded by a period of heavy rainfall, excessive irrigation, or the migration of
subsurface seepage. The disturbance and/or loosening of the surficial soils, as might result
from root growth, soil expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may
**" also be a significant contributing factor to surficial instability. It is, therefore,
"*! recommended that, to the maximum extent practical: (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils
m be either removed or properly recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be periodically
Project No. 05845-12-01C -10- Novembers, 1998
1
i
*m
i
i
inspected and maintained to eliminate leaks and excessive irrigation, and (c) surface drains
on and adjacent to slopes be periodically maintained to preclude ponding or erosion.
Although the incorporation of the above recommendations should reduce the potential for
surficial slope instability, it will not eliminate the possibility, and, therefore, it may be
necessary to rebuild or repair a portion of the project's slopes in the future.
6.0. Drainage
6.1. Adequate drainage provisions are imperative. Under no circumstances should water be
allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The building pads should be properly finish graded
after the buildings and other improvements are in place so that drainage water is directed
away from foundations, pavements, concrete slabs, and slope tops to controlled drainage
devices.
7.0. Plan Review
7.1. Geocon Incorporated should be provided the opportunity to review the finish grading plans
and site development plans prior to finalizing. At that time, the foundation design
recommendations can be updated considering the building sizes and locations as related to
the underlying soil conditions.
> LIMITATIONS
m^ The conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply only to our work with respect to
t grading, and represent conditions at the date of our final observation January 28, 1998. Any
^- subsequent grading should be done in conjunction with our observation and testing services. As
used herein, the term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of the work with
**" which we agreed to be involved. Our services did not include the evaluation or identification of the
— potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials. Our conclusions and opinions as to whether
M) the work essentially complies with the job specifications are based on our observations, experience,
and test results. Subsurface conditions, and the accuracy of tests used to measure such conditions,
can vary greatly at any time. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, except that our services
were performed in accordance with engineering principles generally accepted at this time and
location.
<••
««• We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to the site by others, by the
M| uncontrolled action of water, or by the failure of others to properly repair damages caused by the
_Si* uncontrolled action of water. The findings and recommendations of this report may be invalidated
Project No. 05845-12-01C - 11 - November 3, 1998
I
awm
1
/mmi
i
i
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.
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the
undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCONINCO,
RCE 22527
AS:DFL:slt
(6/del) Addressee
(1) Rick Engineering Company
Attention: Mr. Craig Kahlen
CEFTOREDENGINEERING
GEOLOGIST
08/31/99/Afc
CEG 1778
Project No. 05845-12-01C -12-November 3, 1998
;. JL «.» • : L, i fci,, * '..I , i ..,!„ i t.|, i i i i., i , i
Project No. 05845-12-01G (G)TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Test
No.
1763
1764
1764A
1765
1766
1767
1824
1824A
1825
1825A
1827
1828
1829
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
Date
10/23/97
10/23/97
10/23/97
10/23/97
10/23/97
10/23/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/30/97
10/30/97
10/30/97
10/30/97
10/30/97
10/31/97
10/31/97
10/31/97
Test Location
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
Elev.
or
Depth
(ft)
410
435
435
414
418
421
439
439
441
441
446
428
444
435
441
449
445
448
451
442
447
439
452
452
Curve
No.
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
34
28
28
28
34
34
34
34
34
Plus
3/4"
Rock
(%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max.
Dry
Dens .
(pcf)
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
115.2
109.0
109.0
109.0
115.2
115.2
115.2
115.2
115.2
Opt.
Moist.
Cont.
(%)
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
13.4
16.0
16.0
16.0
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
Field
Dry
Dens .
(pcf)
98.1
93.8
100.2
100.6
103.3
101.2
96.7
102.3
95.4
100.1
102.8
103.5
102.9
101.1
102.3
107.0
99.5
98.6
101.5
106.4
105.7
107.3
106.3
101.4
Field
Moist.
Cont.
(%)
19.6
17.9
16.4
18.3
16.5
18.0
17.5
16.6
20.7
19.2
17.6
15.5
19.0
18.9
20.5
15.0
17.7
17.9
20.0
15.0
14.1
16.5
16.6
11.7
Field
Rel.
Comp .
(%)
90
86
92
92
95
93
89
94
88
92
94
95
94
93
94
93
91
90
93
92
92
93
92
88
Req'd
Rel.
Comp .
(%)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms
1 II 1 Mr*.
Project No. 05845-12-01C (G)TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Test
No.
1841A
1842
1843
1844
1847
1848
1849
1850
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2009A
Date
10/31/97
10/31/97
10/31/97
10/31/97
11/04/97
11/04/97
11/04/97
11/04/97
11/04/97
11/04/97
11/05/97
11/05/97
11/05/97
11/05/97
11/05/97
11/05/97
11/05/97
11/06/97
11/06/97
11/06/97
11/06/97
11/07/97
11/07/97
11/07/97
Test Location
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
Elev.
or
Depth
(ft)
452
449
455
454
475
479
482
477
480
483
489
481
491
495
487
494
498
482
500
489
497
484
489
489
Curve
No.
34
34
28
28
40
40
28
40
28
40
40
40
40
28
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Plus
3/4"
Rock
(%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max.
Dry
Dens .
(pcf)
115.2
115.2
109.0
109.0
114.2
114.2
109.0
114.2
109.0
114.2
114.2
114.2
114.2
109.0
114.2
114.2
114.2
114.2
114.2
114.2
114.2
114.2
114.2
114.2
Opt.
Moist.
Cont.
(%)
13.4
13.4
16.0
16.0
15.6
15.6
16.0
15.6
16.0
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
16.0
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
Field
Dry
Dens .
(pcf)
104.1
105.2
102.0
100.0
105.4
104.1
99.8
104.9
100.6
105.7
107.2
106.0
104.7
98.4
107.3
103.3
105.0
105.6
109.4
108.7
103.0
104.8
99.5
104.3
Field
Moist.
Cont.
(%)
15.9
17.0
20.6
22.0
17.7
18.5
21.5
16.6
20.2
17.0
17.4
16.8
18.2
21.0
18.6
19.7
16.5
17.8
18.5
16.2
19.8
18.6
24.3
19.2
Field
Rel.
Comp.
(%)
90
91
94
92
92
91
92
92
92
93
94
93
92
90
94
90
92
92
96
95
90
92
87
91
Req'd
Rel.
Comp .
(%)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms
i: I.JL ' cJL *» »I. i
Project No. 05845-12-01C (G)TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Test
No.
ST
ST
ST
FG
FG
FG
FG
2010
2011
2012
2013
2021
2022
2023
2024
2048
2049
2050
2151
2152
2153
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
Date
11/07/97
11/07/97
11/07/97
11/07/97
11/17/97
11/17/97
11/17/97
11/17/97
11/25/97
11/25/97
11/25/97
11/25/97
11/25/97
11/25/97
12/10/97
12/11/97
12/11/97
12/11/97
12/11/97
12/11/97
12/13/97
12/13/97
12/13/97
12/13/97
Elev.
or
Depth
Test Location (ft)
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
VILLAGE N
502
491
497
503
502
506
502
507
477
473
474
491
485
496
441
447
453
458
461
452
475
477
480
477
Curve
No.
40
17
19
17
40
40
40
40
17
17
17
40
40
40
3
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
Plus
3/4"
Rock
(%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max.
Dry
Dens .
(pcf)
114.2
112.2
112.8
112.2
114.2
114.2
114.2
114.2
112.2
112.2
112.2
114.2
114.2
114.2
116.4
114.2
114.2
114.2
114.2
114.2
112.2
112.2
112.2
112.2
Opt.
Moist
Cont.
(%)
15.6
15.5
17.2
15.5
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.6
15.6
15.6
13.6
16.3
16.3
16.3
16.3
16.3
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
Field
. Dry
Dens .
(pcf)
103.1
101.6
101.5
102.4
105.8
108.6
110.5
108.2
101.0
104.7
102.0
104.6
103.5
105.9
108.2
104.5
103.6
106.5
105.7
103.4
106.2
105.4
104.9
107.3
Field
Moist.
Cont.
(%)
20.7
20.5
22.7
20.0.
19.2
17.5
16.4
16.8
16.6
14.3
16.1
19.7
17.0
16.8
15.5
18.1
20.1
18.5
17.3
19.8
14.8
15.6
17.3
15.7
Field Req'd
. Rel. Rel.
Comp . Comp .
(%) (%)
90
91
90
91
93
95
97
95
90
93
91
92
91
93
93
92
91
93
93
91
95
94
93
96
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90 '
90
90
90
90
90
90
Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms
lei.ol,
Project No. 05845-12-01C (G)TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Test
No.
ST 2240
ST 2240A
ST 2241
ST 2241A
Date
12/23/97
01/28/98
12/23/97
01/28/98
Te:
VILLAGE
VILLAGE
VILLAGE
VILLAGE
3t Location
N
N
N
N
Elev.
or
Depth
(ft)
457
457
441
441
Curve
No.
40
40
40
40
Plus
3/4"
Rock
(%)
0
0
0
0
Max.
Dry
Dens .
(pcf)
114.2
114.2
114.2
114.2
Opt.
Moist.
Cont.
(%)
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
Field
Dry
Dens .
(pcf)
91.7
103.2
97.4
104.1
Field
Moist.
Cont.
(%)
19.4
20.0
20.2
18.9
Field
Rel.
Comp.
(%)
80
90
85
91
Req'd
Rel.
Comp.
(%)
90
90
90
90
ST 2356 01/28/98 VILLAGE N 448 40 0 114.2
Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms
15.6 105.3 18.1 92 90
.L 't-i 'mi. '«. '
Project No. 05845-12-01C (G)
I ' '!. 'call ''*JL '•«, '*&i i i l 1 1 I i
EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMS
- TEST SUFFIX
A, B, C,...: Retest of previous density test failure, following moisture conditioning
and/or recompaction.
R: Fill in area of density test failure was removed and replaced with
properly compacted fill soil.
- PREFIX CODE DESIGNATION FOR TEST NUMBERS
AD -
B -
CG -
CW -
DW -
FG -
IT -
- CURVE NO.
Area Drain
Base Test
Curb & Gutter
Crib Wall
Driveway
Finish Grade
Irrigation Trench
JT - Joint Trench
MT - Moisture Test
RW - Retaining Wall
SD - Storm Drain
SG - Subgrade
SL - Sewer Lateral
SM - Sewer Main
ST - Slope Test
SW - Sidewalk
SZ - Slope Zone
UT - Utility Trench
WB - Wall Backfill
WL - Water Lateral
WM - Water Main
Corresponds to curve numbers listed in Table II, representing the laboratory
maximum dry density/optimum moisture content data for selected fill soil samples
encountered during testing and observation.
- ROCK CORRECTION
For density tests with rock percentage greater than zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content were adjusted for rock content. For tests with rock content equal to zero, laboratory
maximum dry density and optimum moisture content values listed are then unadjusted values.
- TYPE OF TEST
SC: Sand Cone Test
NU: Nuclear Density Test
DC: Drive Cylinder Test
- ELEVATION/DEPTH
Test elevations/depths have been rounded to the nearest whole foot.
i
i
i
TABLE II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557-91
Sample
No.
3
16
17
19
28
29
34
40
Description
Light brown to brown, Sandy CLAY, trace
silt
Olive, Silty, fine to coarse SAND
Light olive-brown, Silty, fine to coarse
SAND
Olive, fine to medium, Sandy CLAY, with
little silt
Light brown, Silty CLAY
Yellow-tan, Silty, fine SAND
Yellow-olive-tan, fine to medium, Silty
SAND, with trace clay
Rust-brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND
Maximum Dry
Density (pcf)
116.4
114.2
112.2
112.8
109.0
112.4
115.2
114.2
Optimum Moisture
Content (% dry wt.)
13.6
16.3
15.5
17.2
16.0
13.0
13.4
15.6
TABLE 111
SUMMARY OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Sample No.
3
16
17
19
28
29
40
Dry Density
(pcf)
104.4
103.5
101.2
101.2
96.5
100.0
102.9
Moisture Content
(%)
13.6
16.3
15.5
17.2
16.0
13.0
15.4
Unit Cohesion
(psf)
450
740
290
255
500
390
650
Angle of Shear
Resistance (degrees)
16
23
36
30
20
29
32
Note: Samples were remolded to 90 percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture content.
Project No. 05845-12-01C Novembers, 1998
TABLE IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
1
<•»
i
mm
i
i
Sample No.
3
16
17
19
28
29
40
N-A
N-B
N-C
N-D
N-E
N-F
N-G
N-H
N-I
Moisture Content
Before Test (%)
10.7
12.4
12.1
14.2
14.3
9.0
10.2
11.2
10.4
12.2
12.2
10.9
12.4
13.7
11.6
11.9
After Test (%)
28.5
34.7
26.1
35.8
36.6
23.7
25.2
33.2
34.5
31.7
30.9
30.0
31.9
32.1
29.2
29.7
Dry
Density
(pcf)
105.4
101.1
102.4
96.3
97.3
113.3
108.9
105.1
108.6
104.1
103.6
108.0
101.1
97.7
102.8
103.3
Expansion Index
107
87
23
62
108
13
17
78
89
124
101
83
86
86
73
85
TABLE V
SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE EXPANSION
INDEX TEST RESULTS FOR EACH PAD
Location
Upper Pad, NW (fill)
Upper Pad, SE (fill)
Lower Pad, W (fill)
Middle Pad, S (cut)
Middle Pad, N (cut)
Middle Pad, S Center (cut)
Middle Pad, W (cut)
Lower Pad, N (cut)
Lower Pad, Center (fill)
Sample No.
N-A
N-B
N-C
N-D
N-E
N-F
N-G
N-H
N-I
Expansion Index
78
89
124
101
83
86
86
73
85
UBC Classification
Medium
Medium
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Project No. 05845-12-01C Novembers, 1998