The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP 03-29; LAUER RESIDENCE; GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION; 2004-01-30:I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HIGHLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECTNQ.: 2538SD3 PREPARED FOR MR. BILL LAUER 3677 STRAl'A DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY GEOTEK, INC. 1384 POINSETTIA A VENUE VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92081 ... 8505 RECEIVED MAR 3 .0 2004 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT JANUARY 30, 2004 I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A, Vista, CA 92081-8505 (760) 599-0509 FAX (760) 599-0593 K, INc. Mr. Bill Lauer 3677 Strata Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development Vacant Lot on Highland Drive Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Lauer: Geotechnical Environmental Materials January 30, 2004 Project No.: 2538SD3 As requested and authorized, GeoTek, Inc. -(GeoTek) has performed a geotechnical evaluation for the proposed residential development located along the west side of Highland Drive, City of Carlsbad, California. This report presents the results of our investigation, discussion of our findings, and provides geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and construction. In our opinion, the proposed development of the site appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations included herein are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. ( 4) Addressee G:\DATA\D300\2538SD3 Highland Drive-Lauer\2538SD3 Geo Rpt.doc ARIZONA CALIFORNIA S · on I. aiid, RCE 62375, Exp. 9/30/05 Senior Engineer NEVADA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Bill Lauer 3677 Strata Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development Vacant Lot on Highland Drive Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Lauer: January 30, 2004 Project No.: 2538SD3 As requested and authorized, GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek) has performed a geotechnical evaluation for the proposed residential development located along the west side of Highland Drive, City of Carlsbad, California. This report presents the results of our investigation, discussion of our findi°'gs, and provides geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and construction. In our opinion, the proposed development of the site appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations included herein are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to .call our office. Respectfully submitted, GeoTek, Inc. Jeffrey P. Blake, CEG 2248, Exp. 10/31/05 Project Manager (4) Addressee G:\DATA\D300\2538SD3 Highland Drive-Lauer\2538SD3 Geo Rpt.doc Simon I. Saiid, RCE 62375, Exp. 9/30/05 Senior Engineer I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .Mr. Bill Lauer Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development TABLE OF CONTENTS Project No.: 2538SD3 January 30, 2004 Pagei 1. IN"TENT ................ , ................................................................................................................................................ 1 2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES .............................................. , ........................................................... 1 3. SITE-DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 2 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................. 2 4. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ........................................................................... 2 4.1 FIELD EXPLORATION •..................•..... , .........................•.................................................................................. 2 4.2 LABORATORY TESTING ...................................................•............................................................................... 3 5. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................ 3 5.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 5.1.l Topsoil Soil ............... _ .................................. , ....................................................................................... 3 5.1.2 Terrace Deposits ........................................................... , ...................................................................... 3 5.2 SURFACE,ANI) GROUNDWATER ................•.........................•.......................................................................... 4 5 .3 FAUL TING AND SEISMICITY ...............................••...•... · ................................................................................... 4 5.4 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS ............................................................................................................................... 5 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 6 6.1 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 6 6.1.1 General Grading Guidelines ..................... , ......................................................................................... 6 6.2 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 7 6.2.1 Foundation Design Criteria ................................................... , ............................................................ 7 6.2.2 Foundation Set Backs .............. , ........................................................................................................... 8 6.2.3 Seismic Design Parameters._ ................................................................................................................ 9 6.3 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................... 9 6.3.1 General Design Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 9 6.3.2 Wall Baclifill and Drainage ..... -.......................................................................................................... 10 6.3.3 Restrained Retaining Walls ................................. , ............................................................................. 11 6:3.4 Soil Corrosivity ..................................... : ....... , ................................................................................... 11 6.4 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................... 11 7. Lll\flTATIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 12 8. SELECTED REFERENCES ..................... , ...................................................................................................... 13 ENCLOSURES Figure 1 -Site Location Map Figure 2 -Boring Location Plan Appendix A-Logs of Exploratory Boring Appendix B -Results of Laboratory Testing I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Bill Lauer Geotecbnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development 1. INTENT Project No.: 2538SD3 January 30, 2004 Page 1 It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and completion of the proposed development. Implementation of the advice presented in Section 6 of this report is intended to reduce risk associated with construction projects. The professional opinions and geotechnical advice contained in this report are not intended to imply total performance of the project or guarantee that unusual or variable conditions will not be discovered during or after construction. The scope of our evaluation is limited to the area explored, which is shown on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 2). This evaluation does not and should in no way be construed to encompass any areas beyond the specific area of the proposed construction as indicated to us by the client. Further, no evaluation of any existing site improvements is included. The scope is based on our understanding of the project and the client's needs, and geotechnical engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this region. 2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our study was to evaluate the general overall geotechnical conditions on the site as they relate to the proposed development. Services provided for this study consist of the following: >--Research and review of available geologic data and general information pertinent to the site. >--Field reconnaissance of the site to evaluate the general surface conditions. >--Site exploration consisting of the excavation, logging, and sampling of 6 exploratory borings within the area proposed for development. >--Laboratory testing on representative samples collected during the field investigation. >--Review and evaluation of site seismicity. >--Compilation of this geotechnical report, which summarizes our findings and foundation recommendations for the proposed development and associated site improvements. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Bill Lauer Geotecbnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development Project No.: 2538SD3 January 30, 2004 Page2 3. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is located along the west side of Highland Drive, south of Tamarack Avenue in Carlsbad, California. The property (APN#206-180-46) is a vacant lot encompassing approximately 18, 000 square feet. Further information regardiri.g site layout and existing features are provided on Figure 2. At the time of our investigation, vegetation was generally sparse to moderate and consisted of small plants, weeds, and scattered trees. Site topography is characterized by a gently sloping terrain to the southwest. Site elevations vary from approximately 141 msl in the eastern corner of the site to approximately 113 msl in the western comer of the site. 3.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Based on the information provided to us, it is our understanding that the proposed development of this site will consist of constructing a single-family residential structure and associated site improyements. The proposed residence will consist of a one or two-story wood frame residential structure with a vanishing edge pool and miscellaneous landscaping. Based oh the Site Plan for Coastal Development Pernrit (CDP 03-29), Lauer Residence by Pasco Engineering, indicate cut and fill grading of up to 9 feet in depth are anticipated. The site will be accessible via a new driveway off of Highland Drive. 4. ·FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 4.1 FIELD EXPLORATION Our subsurface investigation consisted of the excavation of 6 exploratory borings utilizing a truck mounted drill rig. The borings were excavated to· a maximum depth of 20 feet below existing site grades and were terminated due to encountering dep.se formation materials. The borings were located based primarily on site accessibility (see Figure 2). The borings were logged · and sampled by a geologist from our firm. Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed samples of the materials encountered were collected and transported to our laboratory for further testing. The logs of borings and additional information regarding field sampling and testing procedures are presented in Appendix A. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Bill Lauer Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development 4.2 LABORATORY TESTING Project No.: 25388D3 January 30, 2004 Page3 Laboratory testing was perfonned on selected disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples collected during the field investigation. The purpose of the laboratory testing was to confinn the field ,classification of the soil materials encountered and to evaluate their physical properties for use in the engineering design and analysis. The results of the laboratory-testing program along with a brief description and relevant infonnation regarding testing procedures are included in Appendix B. 5. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS 5.1 GENERAL A brief description of the earth materials encountered is presented in the following sections. A more detailed description of these materials is provided on the logs of exploratory borings included in Appendix A. The soil profile at this site generally consists of a relatively thin layer oftops0il underlain by sedimentary earth materials named Terrace Deposits. 5.1.1 Topsoil Soil As encountered, a layer of topsoil mantles the Terrace Deposits on this site. These materials extend to a maximum depth of one foot and generally consist of, brown, damp to moist, silty fine to coarse sand with scattered gravel and roots. 5.1.2 Terrace Deposits The Pleistocene-aged Terrace Deposits are the predominant bedrock materials underlying the · site. As encountered, these sedimentary bedrock materials consist primarily of red-brown, moist, dense, silty fine to medium sand. In Borings B-5 and B-6, the Terrace Deposits consist of red-brown, moist, sandy gravel at depth greater than 8 feet. The shear strength characteristics of these materials were estimated in accordance with the results of the laboratory direct shear testing on a representative sample collected during the field investigation. The results of the testing are presented in Table 5 .1.2 below: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Bill Lauer Geotecbnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development Project No.: 25388D3 January 30, 2004 Page4 TABLE 5.1.2 -RESULTS OF LABORATORY SHEAR TESTING (ASTM D3080) Shear Stremrth Dry Unit Soil Descriptic;m/ Friction Cohesion Weight Reference Source (Degrees) (pst) (pct) Boring B-3 at 2' 33.4 270 107 See Plate SH-1, Appendix B 5.2 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER No surface water or ponding was observed at time of the field investigation. All site drainage should be reviewed and designed by the project civil engineer. Groundwater was not encountered in our exploratory excavations. No natural groundwater condition is known to be present which would impact site development. However, groundwater or localized seepage can occur due to variations fu. rainfall, irrigation practices, and other factors not evident at the time of this investigation. 5.3 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY The site is in a seismically active region. No active or potentially active fault is known to exist at this site. The site is not $ituated within an Alquist-Prioio Earthquake Fault Zone (Special Studies Zone). The computer program EQFAULT, version 3.00 (Blake, 2000a) was used to determine the distance to known faults and estimate peak ground accelerations based on a deterministic analysis using attenuation relations by Campell & Bozorgnia (1997 rev). The Rose Canyon Fault located approximately 5.3 miles west of the site is considered to represent the highest risk to generate· ground shaking. A maximum earthquake event of magnitude 6.9 and an estimated peak site acceleration of 0 .43 g are postulated based on the analysis. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. BillLauer Geotecbnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development 5.4 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS Project No.: 2538SD3 January 30, 2004 Page5 Potential secondary seismic related hazards such as gro~d rupture due to faulting, liquefaction, dynamic settlement, seiche and, tsunami are considered low at this site. Although considered as a relatively low risk, the possibility of inundation due to a Tsunami event cannot be ruled out due to the proximity of the site to the coastal shoreline. However, many contributing factors influence the formation of a Tsunami, including offshore topography, fault systems, and shoreline configuration, which were not evaluated as a part of this study. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Bill Lauer Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development Project No.: 2538SD3 January 30, 2004 Page 6 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed development of the site appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction phases of development. 6.1 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS 6.1.1 General Grading Guidelines 6.1.1.1 Grading and earthwork should be perfonned irt accordance with the local grading ordinances, applicable provisions of the 2001 California Building Code (CBC), and our recommendations presented herein. · 6.1.1.2 Prior to site grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site to discuss earthwork considerations and compliance with the recommendations presented herein. At a minimum, the owner, grading contractor, civil engineer and geotechnical engineer should be in attendance. 6.1.1.3 The grading contractor should take all precautions deemed necessary during site gradihg to maintain adequate safety measures and working conditions. All applicable safety requirements of CAL.-OSHA should be met during construction. 6.1.1.4 Site preparation should start with the removal of deleterious materials and vegetation and disposed properly off site. 6.1.1.5 Temporary excavations within the onsite formational materials should be stable at lH: 1 V inclinations for short durations during construction, and where cuts do not exceed 10 feet in height. 6.1.1.6 The top 2 to 3 feet of surficial soils De osits are relatively dry and potentially compressible, thus they should be removed and recompacted eneat a se ement- s'errSitive structures. Depending on actual field conditions encountered dunng grading, locally deeper areas of removal may be necessary. The lateral extent of removal beyond the outside edge of all settlement-sensitive structures/foundations should be equivalent to that vertically removed. Similarly, all compacted fill should extend laterally from the outside edge of foundations to a distance equal to the depth of filling. I I I I I I I ·I I I I I I I I I I Mr.1,lill Lauer Geotecbnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development Project No.: 2538SD3 January 30, 2004 Page7 6.1.1. 7 Excavations i the on site materials within the depth explored of 20 feet should be generally accomplished with heavy-uty e · oVIn:g or excavating equipment. However, localized areas of highly cemented zones of Terrace Deposits may be encountered and require specified equipment (i.e. excavator with rock breaker mount or equivalent). 6.1.1.8 The on-site materials are considered suitable for reuse as compacted fill provided they are free from vegetation, roots, and cobbles and boulders greater than 6 inches in dia11,1eter. The earthwork contractor should ensure that all proposed excavated materials to be used for backfilling at this project are approved by the soils engineer. We recommend that oversize materials greater than 6 inches but less than 2 feet, be buried in fill areas greater than 7 feet below finish grade in accordance with proper rock fill procedures. 6.1 .1 .9 Any undercut areas should be brought to final grade elevations with fill compacted in layers no thicker than 8 inches compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density at near optimum moisture content, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557-00. Prior to receiving fill, the bottom of excavation should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches; moisture conditioned, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. 6.1.1.10 Where fill is being placed on slopes steeper than 5:1, the fill should be property · benched into the existing slopes and a sufficient size keyway shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the soils engineer. 6.1.1.11 Any foundations located in a transition cut-fill subgrade as a result of planned grading; the cut portion of the subgrade should be overexcavated a minimum of three {3) feet below finish grade (or minimum of 18 inches below bottom of footings) and replaced with low expansive compacted fills. 6.2 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 6.2.1 Foundation Design Criteria Based on the prevailing soil conditions, conventional spread and/or continuous footings founded are considered a suitable foundation system for the proposed structures. As such, we recommend that the foundations be designed based on the following criteria: 6.2.1.1 A net allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf), or a modulus of subgrade reaction of 250 pci may be used for design of footings founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below finish grade. A minimum base width of 15 inches for continuous footings and a minimum bearing area of 3 square feet (1.75 ft by 1.75 ft) for pad foundations should be u:;;ed. The bearing capacity value may be increased by 250 psf for each additional foot of width or depth to a maximum of I I I I I I I ·1· I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Bill Lauer Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development Project No.: 25388D3 January 30, 2004 Page 8 3,500 psf. Additionally; an increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads). 6.2; 1.2 Based on the above design criteria, the total settlement is expected to be less than 1 inch based on the proposed loading conditions. It is anticipated that the majority of the settlement will occur during construction. Differential settlement is expected to be less than one-half of the total settlement based on known conditions. 6.'.2..1.3 The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 200 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,000 psf for footings founded on compacted fill. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive :pressure component should be reduced by one-third. 6.2.1.4 Concrete slab-on-grade floor should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 steel bars placed at 18 inches on center, both ways. The slab reinforcement should be positioned at mid-height within the concrete slab. Where moisture condensation is undesirable, all slabs should be underlain with a minimum 6-mil polyvinyl chloride membrane, sandwiched between two layers of clean sand each being at least two inches thick (native soil may be acceptable). Care should be taken to adequately seal all seams and not puncture or tear the membrane. The sand should be proof rolled. Subgrade soils should be well wetted prior to placing concrete. 6.2.1.5 Control joints should be provided in all slabs to reduce the potential for cracking. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks but are not always effective. We recommend that control joints be placed in two directions spaced the numeric equivalent of two times the thickness of the slab in inches changed to feet (e.g. a 4 inch slab would have control joints at 8 feet centers). 6.2.2 Foundation Set Backs Where applicable, the following foundation setbacks should apply to all foundations. Any improvements not conforming to these setbacks may be subject to lateral movements and/or differential settlements: 6.2.2.1 The outside bottom edge of all footings should be set back a minimum ofH/3 (where H is the slope height) from the face of any descending slope. The setback should be at least 7 feet and need not exceed 20 feet. 6.2.2.2 The bottom of all footings for structures near retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1: l projection upward from the bottom inside edge of the wall stem. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Bill Lauer Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development ProjectNo.: 25388D3 January 30, 2004 Page 9 6.2.2.3 The bottom of any existing foundations for structures should be deepened so as to extend below a 1: 1 projection upward from the bottom of the nearest excavation, otherwise any additional loads induced by the existing foundations should be considered in the design of the shoring system or the underground retaining structure. 6.2.2.4 If the proposed swimming pool is within 7 feet of a slope, the pool sidewall should be designed assuming that the adjacent soil provides no lateral support. 6.2.3 Seismic Design Parameters Seismically resistant structural design in accordance with local building ordinances should be followed during the design of all structures. Building Codes have been developed to minimize structural damage. However, some level of damage as the result of ground shaking generated by nearby earthquakes is considered likely in this general area. For the purpose of seismic design a Type B seismic source 8.6 km from the site may be used. Shown in Table below are seismic design factors in keeping with the criteria presented in the 2001 CBC, Division IV & V, Chapter 16. TABLE 6.2.1-SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Soil Profile Parameters Type. Ca Cv Na Nv Seismic Source Type Source Table 16-J 16-Q 16-R 16-S 16-T 16-U . Value Sc 0.40 0.62 1.0 1.1 B 6.3 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 6.3.1 General Design Criteria Recommendations presented herein may apply to typical masonry or concrete vertical retaining walls to a maximum height of 10 feet. Additional review and recommendations should be requested for higher walls .. Retaining walls embedded a minimum of 18 inches into compacted fill or dense formational materials should be designed using a net allowable bearing capacity of2,500 psf. An increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads ( e.g. seismic and wind loads). The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 200 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 3,000 psf. A coefficient of I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Bill Lauer Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development Project No.: 25388D3 January 30, 2004 Page 10 friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal active pressure against the wall. The appropriate fluid unit weights are given in Table 6.5.1 below for specific slope gradients of retained materials. TABLE 6.3.1-ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURES Surface Slope of Retained Materials Equivalent Fluid Pressure ffi:V) (PCF) Level 32 2:1 45 The above equivalent fluid weights do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as expansive soil, vehicular traffic, structures, seismic conditions or adverse geologic conditions. 6.3.2 Wall Backfill all,d Drainage The onsite very low to medium expansiv_e soils are suitable for backfill provided they are screened of greater than 3-inch size gravels. Presence of other materials might necessitate revision to the parameters provided and modification of wall designs. The backfill materials should be placed in lifts no greater than 8-inches in thickness and compacted at 90% relative compaction in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557-00. Proper surface drainage needs to be provided and maintained. Retaining walls should be provided with an adequate pipe and gravel back drain system to prevent build up of hydrostatic pressures. Backdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated collector pipe embedded in a minimum of one cubic foot per lineal foot of 3/8 to one inch clean crushed rock or equivalent, wrapped in filter fabric. The drain system should be connected to a suitable outlet. A minimum of two outlets should be provided for each drain section. Walls from 2 to 4 feet in height may be drained using localized gravel packs behind weep holes at 10 feet maximum spacing ( e.g. approximately 1.5 cubic feet of gravel in a woven plastic bag). Weep holes should be provided or the head joints omitted in the first course of block extended above the ground surface. However, nuisance water may still collect in front ofwall. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Bill Lauer Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development 6.3.3 Restrained Retaining Walls Project No.: 2538SD3 January 30, 2004 Page 11 Retaining wall that will be restrained prior to placing backfill or walls that have male or reentrant comers should be designed for at-rest soil conditions using an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas having male or reentrant comers, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance equal to twice the height of the wall laterally from the comer. 6.3.4 Soil Corrosivity The soil resistivity at this site was tested in the laboratory" on a representative samples collected during the field investigation. The results of the testing are included in Appendix B. It is recommended that a corrosion engineer be consulted to provide recommendations for proper protection of buried metal pipes at this site. 6.4 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS We recommend that site grading, specifiyations, and foundation plans be reviewed by this office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this report. We also recommend that geotechnical representatives be present during site grading and foundation construction to check f<;>r proper implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. These representatives should perform at least the following duties: • Observe bottom of removals prior to fill plac~ment. • Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement, and collect soil samples for laboratory testing where necessary. • Observe the fill for uniformity during placement including utility trenches. Also, test the fill for field density and relative compaction. If requested, GeoTek will provide a construction observation and compaction report to comply with the requirements of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project. We recommend that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of construction so that necessary grading permits can be obtained. ' -· , ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Bill Lauer Geotecbnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development 7. LIMITATIONS Project No.: 2538SD3 January 30, 2004 Page 12 The materials observed on the project site appear to be representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during site construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal chang~s or other factors. GeoTek, Inc, assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by others. Since our recommendations are based upon the site conditions observed and encountered, and laboratory testing, our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions that are limited to th~ extent of the available data. Observations during construction are important to allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Bill Lauer Geotecbnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development 8. SELECTED REFERENCES Project No.: 2538SD3 January 30, 2004 Page 13 Afrouz, A., 1992, "Practical Handbook of Rock Mass Classifications Systems and Modes of Ground Failure", CRC Press, January 1992. ASTM, 200, "Soil ap.d Rock: American Society for Testing; and Materials," vol. 4.08 for ASTM test methods D- 420 to D-4914, 153 standards, 1,026 pages; and vol. 4.09 for ASTM test method D-4943 to highest number. Blake, T., 2000a, "EQFAULT, version 3.00", a Computer Program for Deterministic Estimation of Maximum Earthquake Event.and Peak Ground Acceleqition. Bowels, J., 1982, "Foundation Analysis and Design", McGraw-Hill, Third Edition. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2001 "California Building Code (CBC)," 3 volumes. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California/' Special Publication 117. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, Maps ofKnc;,wn Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions ofNevada: International Conference of Building Officials. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1996, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California. Open File Report 96-02, Plate 1, Oceanside, Sa!). Luis Rey, and San Marcos Quadrangles, and Plate 2, Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangles. GeoTek; Inc., In-house proprietary information. Ishihara, K., 1985, "Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes", Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, CA, Volume 1. Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1982, "Ground Motions And Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes," Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Seed, H.B., and Tokimatsu, k, Harder, L.F., and Chung, R.M., 1985, "Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations," Journal of the Geotecbilical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 111, no. GT12, pp.1425-1445. Youd, T. Leslie and Idriss, Izzrnat M., 1997, Proceeding of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Technical Report NCEER-97.,.0022. ------------------- BLLLAUER Proposed Single-Family Residence Lauer Residence Highland Drive Carlsbad, California GeoTek Project Number: 2538SD3 • Scale I inch :::::.. I 000 feet Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map ~ ~K,lNC. 1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A Vista. California 92083 -- ,17SCL8CYMDSCUf DnCU!ICVMOSltAF'CRT - EARDM'CRICa.JANTITIESDO»:lTltCU.OE EAffnrM:'IU(fenflCOl#Csm. I'< LEGEND B-6 ~ Qt ----- Approximate location of exploratory trenches Quaternary Ten-ace Deposits ----------- Janlt,i!X»150l,55 Note: :Site plan for Lauer Residence, Vacant Lot, Carlsbad, CA 92081, by Pasco engineering, dated 10/29/03. BILL LAUER Proposed Residential Development Lauer Residence Carlsbad, California PN: 2538SD3 January 2004 Figure 2 Boring Location Plan •.K, INC, 1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A Vista, California 92083 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIXA LOGS OF EXPl,ORATORY BORINGS {BORINGS Bl THROUGH B6) MR. BILL LAUER PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HIGJILAND DRIVE PROJECT No.: 25388D3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Bill Lauer Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development APPENDIXA January 30, 2004 Page A-1 LEGEND FOR FIELD SAMPLING AND TESTING PROCEDURES A -FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) The SPT is performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1586-99. The SPT sampler is typically driven into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The split-barrel sampler has an external diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter of 1-3/8 inches. The samples of earth materials collected in the sampler are typically classified in the field, bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for further testing. The Modified Split-Barrel Sampler (Ring) The Ring sampler is driven into the ground in accordanct: with ASTM Test Method D 3550-84. The sampler, with an external diameter of 3 .0 inches, is lined with I-inch long, t~in brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inch~s. The sampler is typically driven into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The samples are removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. Bulk 'Large' Samples Bulk samples are normally bags of representative earth materials over 20 pounds in weight collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. Bulk 'Small Plastic Bag' Samples Plastic bags samples are normally airtight and contain less than 5 pounds in weight of representative earth materials collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. These samples are primarily used for determining natural moisture content and classification indices. BIT-BORING/TRENCH LOG LEGEND The following abbreviations and symbols often appear in the classification and description of soil and rock on the logs of borings! SOILS uses f-c f-m GEOLOGIC B: Attitudes J: Attitudes C: Unified Soil Classification System Fine to coarse Fine to medium Bedding: strike/dip Joint: strike/dip Contact line Dashed line denotes uses material change Solid Line denotes unit / formational change Thick solid line denotes end of boring/trenches (Additional denotations and symbols are provided.on the logs of borings/trenches) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING CLIENT: Bill Lauer _ PROJECT NAME:------'H-"ig"'h;;;;la_nd;;;./;;,;La;;.;;u;,;;;er'----- DRILLER: __ .;:S:::::CO::;t!:,:'s:..::D:;;rl:::lllnc:;g,___ DRILL METHOD: _ _;_B"..;,H,;,,;;o"'lfo""w'""S;.;;te_m""A""u.,.g""er_ HAMMER: __ _;,14,:.:0:::lb:::si:,:3;::0l:.:.n _.__ PROJECT NO.: 2438SD3 LOCATION· See Site Plan s '[ SAMPLES ,5 it, a, ~ -.. Q,-" E E i5 t CJ) N.G. ELEVATION· ±138 0 feet BORING NO.: B-1 LOGGED BY: _____ ,;:LG:::,_ ___ _ OPERATOR: ____ ___;K.;,;,im"'b;;.;;a;;.,I ____ _ RIG TYPE: ___ ,::;ln""ge:crs:::o:::,ll,:.:R:::::an,:,::dc:,A,:,::3:::::00:,_ __ DATE· 1/22/04 Laboratorv Testina ~ ~-~ ~ " 0 l iii 11!:, (J)Z CJ) t) CJ) ::, :s: C: 1-------,,M-.-A""T=E=R=-:IA'"'L-=,D-::E,::S""c"'R"'IP"'T="'1o'"'N-,--,,A"'"N'""D,..,,C""O"'M"'M=E'"N:=T"'s------1 8 / B1-1 -·/ B1-2 29 50/5,5" . B.1-3 Topsoil SM Brown, moist, low, silty f-c SAND w/ gravel & roots Terrace-Deposits SM Light red-brown, dry, loose, silty fine SAND; trace roots @2': becomes damp to moist, ·silty f-m SAND SR ____ _,, .. 1----i----<f------------------------------1----.......... 1--+---------I . . - . -. -. - -- . 20 30 33 32 B1-4 50/i' · B1-5 32 40 36 8-1-6 33 B1-7A 50/6" B1-7 23 B1-8 SP Red-brown, damp to moist, dense, fine $AND; cemented -same -same -same @15.5': red-brown, moist, dense, f·m SAND; cemented @18;5': brown, moist, dense-f-m SAND; cemented =--1 26 20 -fil-' '-+--=2::.2 ... --+----l---+-----------------------1---1---i---------l -- --. -. - 25 • -- ----. -. Q ffi Sample type: C, ~ Lab testing: -HOLE TERMINATED AT 20 FEET- Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonite chips No groundwater encountered • ···Ring I SPT AL = Atterberg Limits SR= Sulfate/Resistivity Test IZI Small Bulk El = Expansion Index SH = Shear Test '2sl--Large Bulk-D SA = Sieve Analysis CO -:-Consolidation test No Recovery sz Water Table RV= R-Value Test MD = Maximum Density I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CLIENT: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO.: LOCATION· g ~ :5 Cl, Q) Cl - Q) C. E <11 Cl) -~ '--- -~ ~~:-1:~ -~ . 5• r-:f"" ~ii . ' -. .. ~ -. 10 • -. -. . 15 • - . . . 20 -. . . . 25 • . -. SAMPLES 30 40 36 50/6" 50/4.5" Q) ~ -Q) Cl, ,c EE <11:, en z B2-1 B2-2 B2-3 B2-4 BilrLauer Highland/Lauer 243BSD3 See Site Plan 0 ,, 1 GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING DRILLER: --'-_..:Sc::co:::!t:..:'s:..:D:::.rl::::lli;.:.;ng.___ DRILL'METHOD: _.::.B".,e.H.:,:o::.lfo::.:w:..S:::t:::em.:.:.:.:A=auga,::e::.r. _ HAMMER: ----'-----'-14.:.:0c:lbc::si.::.30::.:in"---- N G .. ELEVATION· ±135 5 feet BORING NO.: 8.,.2 LOGGED BY: _____ ..:L.::.G ____ _ OPERATOR: ____ __;K.;;;im=ba::.I ____ _ RIG TYPE: ___ ::,,:ln"'ge:;,;rs:..:o::.11 ;.,;;Ra:::n,:,::dc:_A;::;30,;;.;0;.._ __ DATE: 1/22/04 Laboratorv Testina ~ ~-fJ ffi ~ Cl) u Cl) :, !l: i: 1-----~M~A-. T=E=R-1A""'l-~D-E""s""'c""R""1=p=T-1o=N,.,..,,A,..,N~D~C""'o""'M,,,...M"'E=N=T=s,-----'----l 8 :5 0 SM Topsoil Brown, moist, loow, silty f-c SAND w/ gravel & roots SM Terrace Deposits Light red-brown, dry, loose, silty fine SAND; trace roots @2.5': red-brown, damp to moist, siltyf-m SAND SM-SP Red-brown, damp to moist, fine SAND trace silt ; cemented @7.5': red-brown, moist, dense, f-m SAND; cemented -HOLE TERMINATED AT 8 FEET· Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and:bentonite chips No groundwater encountered Practical refusal at 8 feet El 6.4 114 ffi ~S~a~m~p~l~e~ty~p~e~:=====·=-=.,=-~Ri;;;ng::::=,:1:,_·~-S:P,,;T~~[Z]:;;;;;;;:;;;S;;;m;;;a;,11 :Bu:lk~=~~;;;;;;~·=··L;;;a~rg:,:e;B;;:u:,lk=~D;;;;~·-:N:o~R:e~co:v;ery~=:SZ:,.:··:·W:a:te:r;Ta:b:le~==J f:ll AL = Atterberg Limits El = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R-Value Test _. Lab testing: SR= Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH= Shear Test CO.= Consolidation test MD = Maximum Density I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING CLIENT: Bill Lauer DRILLER: __ S;;;.;cc.;.ot""t's'""'D~n;..·m_,ng"---LOGGED BY: _____ ..;;;LG.:;_ ___ _ PROJECT NAME: ---'-_ _..:.;H::sig~hl=an.:.:d:..:iL::::;au::::e::..r ___ _ DRILL METHOD: a• Hollow Stem Auger HAMMER: ___ 1"-'4"-0l""bs;;;../3;..0_ln __ OPERATOR: ____ __;_;K;..im;;:.ba;:;;.I ___ _ RIG TYPE: -----'l""ng'"'e"'rs-'-'ol'"'"I R.;;;ac.cnd~A.;..:3..;.00;;._ __ PROJECT NO.: 2438SD3 LOCATION· See Site Plan NG ELEVATION· ±130 0 feet DATE· 1/22/04 s C. ~ 5 ~ C. Ql C. Cl E m rn - - :~. _:~ -. 5• . SAMPLES . .Sa <O .;; 3: 0 iii 14 15 ....... 14°' ..... Q) ~ -Ql c..c EE m::, rn z 83-1 18 83-2 15 I rn rn ~ ::, BORING NO.: B-3 ~~ ..'!!c ro., s"E 1------"'M'""A-=T=E=R-:-:IA,.,.L--:D=E=-=s=-=c=R=1p=T=1=0-:-:N--:A,-e-N=o-,c="'o=M=M~EN'""T=s=------I 8 Topsoil SM Brown, moist, low, silty f-c SAND w/ gravel & roots Terrace Deposits SM Light red-brown, dry, loose, siltyJ-m SAND; trace roots Laboratory Testina z. ·m c- Q) '13 0 C. 1:-- 0 I!? Ql ,5 0 @2 .. 5': Light orange-brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty f-m SAND; cemented 2.8 109 SH SP-SC .. R:ea~Erown, mo1s'f, .. oens·e·;·Meaium··sAl'Jl'.f;'trace clay; 1nfe·roeaaea-·wr·· .. gray fine sand : ~$1····1--'1""3~1-:,.,,...,+---+--------------------------l---4---1······-·· .. ···-------1 ,. 13 B3-3 • ~ 14 SP Gray, moist, medium-dense, fine SAND 10 - . 30 48 83-4 . SP-SClnterbeddect'red-brown f-m SANDw/clay & gray sTltyr-mSAND ___ ,__.......,1----ii--------..... 15 ?~ ;~ -l'~...:---1-....:2;;;3~+---+-----+--------------------------1---1--1---------' B3-5 SC Red-brown, moist, dense, clayey f-m SAND . . 20 • . . . . 25 --------. Q Sample type: z w C, w Lab testing: ..I -HOLE TERMINATED AT 16.5 FEET· Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonite chips No groundwater encountered • --Ring 1--SPT l2J SmalrBulk ~--Large Bulk D AL = Atterberg l:imlts El = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis SR = Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH = Shear Test CO = Consolidation test No Recovery sz ---Waler Table RV= R-Value Test MD = Maximum Density I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CLIENT: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO.: LOCATION· SAMPLES g ii 5 ~ C. ., ., C. Cl E "' "' - X • ~ 12 kc',': 17 .,~ - 5·:1·· -' -: ' - 28 27 29 ---- - B4-1 Bill Lauer _ Highland/Lauer 243BSD3 See ·Site Plan GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING DRILLER: ~--S_co_tt_'s_D_ril_lin~g~- DRILL METHOD: __ B"_H_o_llo_w_S_te_m_A_u~g~er_ HAMMER: ___ 1.;..·4'"-o~ibs"'"/3"-'0"'in'---- N.G. ELEVATION: ± 125 0 feet BORING NO.: B-4 LOGGED BY: LG -----------OPE RAT OR: _____ K;.:;i;.;.mcc;b a;;;.I ____ _ RIG TYPE: ___ .;..ln"-ge:c.rs=..:o"'ll-'--R""an"'d""A-"'3-'--00'---- DATE: 1/22/04 Laboratory Testina ~ "' c:c ., u E ., i-~ 16 § 3: 'E 1------,M:":"A""'r==e==R:::-IA-:-:L,-D==-e=s::-:c==R""'l::PT=1':::"o:":-N-:-A""'N=o--=c:-:oa-:-M:::-M';:E:::-Na=T::S------1 8 ~s Cl = 0 Topsoil SM Brown, moist, low, silty f-c SAND wf gravel & roots Terrace .Deposits SM Light red-brown, dry, loose, silty f-m SAND; trace roots MD B4·2 SM-SP 'Ii"ght brown, dry to damp, medium dense, fine··sANI'.nci'"slTty'fine SAND 2.3 B4-3 SP Red-brown, moist, very dense, fine SAND; cemented SP-SW Light red-brown 'to brown, moist, aense,f-m SAN!'.> grades· io t-c SAf-JEl; cemented 10 -~· 50/5" B4-4 . . 15 • . ------ 20 • - . . . 25 • . -. --- -HOLE TERMINATED AT 10.5-FEET- Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonjte chips No groundwater encountered Practical refusal at 10.5 feet ffi ~S:a~m;;;:p:le;;;;·~ty;;;p;;;e;;,:===·=====-_,;·R,;;;in,;;;g~==·==---.,;S:,;P_,;T=.,.:[Z];;;;;;;--=·,;;;Sin:;;a;;;ll;,,;B~u;;;lk==~~~~-=::La;;;r;;;ge:,;B;;;u;;;lk~~D;;;;;;~·=··;,;,No;;,;.;Re;;;c;;;o,:;ve;;;ry~=SZ:,,=-=·W~at;;;e~rT:,:a:;bl:=,e===l ~ Lab testing: AL = Atterberg Limits El= Expansion Ind~ SA = Sieve Analysis SR ;=_Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH= Shear Test CO= ConsolidatIon test RV= R-Value Test MD= Maximum Density l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CLIENT: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO.: LOCATION· SAMPLES §: ii .E ?': m L i <D -QI m j C. .a QI ti. EE C E "'::, 0 t/lZ "' li:i ti) - -/ B5-1 :I 20 26 B5-2 GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Bill Lauer DRILLER: ___ S_co_tt_'s_D_ri_llin_,g'--_ LOGGED BY: LG ------------Highland/Lauer DRILL METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Auger OPERATOR: Kimbal ------------2438SD3 HAMMER: , 140,lbs/30in --------RIG TYPE: ___ ,;;;ln"-ge:c.rs:.;o;;;.llccR"'an~d-'-A"'30cc0 __ _ See Site Plan NG ELEVATION· ± 118 0 feet DATE: 1/22/04 Laboratory Testina ~ L-BORING NO.: 8-5 ~]i 3: i: 1-------=M-=-A.,..T=E=R.,..IA'"'L,...,,,,D""E"'s'"'ce-=R'"'1=p=T'"'10,.,_ N.,...,,A°='N""o"""c=o-=-M"'M"""'E""N,:T,:S....---=--i 8 SM SM Topsoil Brown, moist, low, silty f-m SAND w/ gravel & roots Terrace Deposits Light red-brown; dry, loose, silty f-m $AND; trace roots & rootlets @2'; Light orange-brown, dry to damp, dense, silty fine SAND 2.9 110 5·~ ~t·"· 20 B5-3A -.:;:""-+=-"-="-'+---=-----1·@5': red-brown, moist, dense, silty f-m SAND;'-c_e_m_e-'-n-'te;..;d _____ ---1--+---------• 32 •i 50/2" B5-3 SP Red-brown, moist.dense, f-m tiAND trace clay ··Red~brown, damp, dense, s11fy"s'ii'nay·G'FVWE[;"li'ace··coooles;··difficulf'" • !re, 50/5" B5-4 GP-GM drilling . - 10 • -. . 15 -. . ---- 20 • -. . . . 25 ·, ---------- 0 Sample type: z Lil CJ Lil Lab testing: ..I -HOLE TERMINATED AT 8.5 FEET- Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonite chips No groundwater encountered Practical refusal.at 8.5 feet • -Ring ····SPT IZI--Small Bulk D -·No Recovery ~ ···Water Table AL = Atterberg Limits SR = Sulfate/Resistivity Test El = Expansion Index SH = Shear Test SA= Sieve Analysis RV= R-Value Test CO = Consolidation lest MD = Maximum Density I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING CLIENT: Bill Lauer DRILLER: __ ..;;S-'-co~tt...;'s_D-'-n""·Iu""ng.___ DRILL METHOD: _-'-B"_H-'o'-llo_w_S_t __ em---A ... ug"-e"""r._ PROJECT NAME: -----,..;H-""ig"'"h"""la_n--d/L_a_u..;.e'-r ___ _ PROJECT NO.: 243BSD3 LOCATION: . See Site Plan HAMMER: ____ __,14_D_lb_si_3_Dl_n __ N.G. ELEVATION: ± 1.19.0 feet SAMPLES 0 g a .c >, .s [ BORING NO.: -8-6 ,:: ' I-"' Q) en 0. a. j ~ i;; en Q) C. E ;: 111 u 0 E 0 en en 111 ffi ::, en MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS Topsoil SM Brown, moist, low, silty f~m SAND w/ gravel. & roots Terrace De(!osits -SM Light red-brown, dry, loose, silty f-m SAND; trace roots & rootlets -@2'; Light orange-brown, dry to damp, dense, silty fine SAND - ~ . 5. ...@.~:. red~brown, .. !!!.~-~!i .. 9.~!.}.~~1-s.!!~-6-!11 SAND; cemented .......... . SP Re -brown, moist, ense, -m AN trace clay -. -. LOGGED BY: ____ ____;;;L..;;..G ____ _ OPERATOR: ____ --'K_im_ba_l ____ _ RIG TYPE: ____ ln""ge_rs_o_ll _R_an_d_A_3_oo __ _ DATE: 1/22/04 Laboratorv TestinQ .... ~ :!' "in ~ .g?'E c::-a,'t; Q) ~~ 0 .8, £ i::' 0 0 u 0 Rea~brown, damp, dei'ise·;--sirty"s"a"ii"ilfG"RAVEC;·1rac·e--c61ib1e·s;··aifficiilr--· -~ 50/3'' 86-1 GP-GM drilling 10 • -HOLE TERMINATED AT 9.5 FEET- . Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonite chips . No groundwater encountered . Practical refusal at 9.5 feet on cobble -. - 15 • . . 20 • -. -. . 25 . . ---. Q Sample b!li?e: • 1---SPT lZl-small Bulk ~--Large Bulk D --No Recovery ~ z --Ring ---Water Table w (ll AL= Atterberg Limits El = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R-Value Test w Lab testing: -' SR,= Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH-= Shear Test CO = Consolidation test MD = Maximum Density I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIXB RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING MR. BILL LAUER PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HIGHLAND DRIVE PROJECT NO.: 25388D3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Bill Lauer Geotecbnical Evalu~tion Proposed Residential Development SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING Classification APPENDIXB January 30, 2004 PageB-1 Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM Test Method D2487). The soil classifications are shown on the logs of exploratory excavations in Appendix A. Moisture-Density -(In Situ Moisture and Unit Weight) The field moisture content and dry unit weight Were taken on ring samples (ASTM Test Method D2216). The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot. The field moisture content is determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. Results of these tests are presented on the logs of exploratory borings in Appendix A. Expansion Index Expan~;ion Index testing was performed on representative soil sample. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D4829. The Expansion Index (EI) test result is included herein. Sulfate Content Analysis to determine the water-soluble sulfate content was performed in accordance with California Test No. 417. The results of the testing are included herein (see Plate SL-1). Direct Shear Shear testing w~s performed in a direct shear machine of the strain-control type in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D3080. The rate of deformation is 0.05 inches per minute. The sample was sheared under varying confining loads in order to determine the coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion. The tests were performed on remolded samples. The shear test results are presented on Plate SH-1 included herein. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 140 130 120 -(.J 0. 110 Ji. "iii C Q) "C c:' 0 100 90 80 70 Project No.; 2538-SD3 Project: Highland Drive Location: B4-l @0-2' Elev./Depth: Remarks: MAXIMUM DENSITY CURVE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Description: Light Brown Medium to fine SAND Classifications - Nat. Moist. = Liquid Li'mit = %> No.4= % uses: AASHTO: Sp.G.= Plasticity Index = % < No.200 = TEST RESULTS Maximum dry density= 125 pcf Optim~m moisture = 7.5 % '\. ·, ' Test specification: -· I '\. ' \. ASTM D 1557-00 Procedure A Modified '\ r\. '\. i'\.. 'I r\. I'... '\. ' ' '\. '\ '\ "" I'\.. ''\. '!I. ' ' '\ "'" ' Date: 1/28/04 r,,.. '\. "'-'I'.. ' 100% SATURATION CURVES "'-' " FOR SPEC. GRAV. EQUAL TO: ' ' I'-. 2.8 ' r\. ' 2.7 ,_ ~ ~ 2.6 , .. I',.. ~ ... ,.. ' " ........ ' ......... -... , " '"'" '. I r--... ...... "r-.... I', ........ r--... ' I',,. r--... " ~I',.. I......,_ ......... " .......... " .......... I' ...... i-.. I""--. .......... ........ ... , ........ .... '1-...... ....... ,i-,.... ~ -l' ...._-,....._l',.. T"'--..L ....... .. --I-· ~---1----~ -· !·--- ' ' ' I I ! I ' ,----l I ! i_ __ : i I ' 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Water content, % Plate MD-1 --------------------·GeoTe~, Inc.--------------------' ------------------- A 8, C D E F G H J K Project Name: Highland Drive Project Number: 2538-8D3 Project Location: Ring ld ___ Ring Dia. " 4" Ring l_J.:_ DENSITY DETERMINATION Wei9ht of compacted sample & ring Weight of ring Net weight of sample Wet Density, lb I ft3 {C*Q.3016) Orv Densitv, lb I tt3 (D/1.F) SATURATION DETERMINATION Moisture Content, % {E*F) (E/167 .232) {1.-H) (62.4*1) (G/J)= L % Saturation Initial Moisture Wet Wgt 200.52 Dry Wgt 185.70 Tare 8.27 8.4% EXPANSION INDEX TEST (ASTM D4829) Tested/ Checked By: Date Tested: Sample Source: Sample Description: 778.45 READINGS 369.75 DATE TIME READING 408.7. 1/29/2004 8:27 0.161 123.3 1/29/2004 8:37 0.161 113.8 1/29/2004 8:38 0.16 1/29/2004 8:43 0.163 8.4 950.2 1/30/2004 7:24 , 0.164 0.68 KK Lab No 1152 1/29/2004 B2~1 @0-2' Reddish brown silty fine SAND Initial 10 min/Dry 1 miniWet 5 min/Wet Random Final 0.32 FINAL MOISTURE vve1gm or wet samp1e vve1gnt at dry sample 20.0 & tare & tare Tare % Moisture 47.6 200.52 185.7 8.27 8.4% EXPANSION INDEX= 2 _{@§_0% Sjl.TURJ\_TION) PLATE El -1 1· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -. n:rr,,-,. · -; u·i\lr;,.,·~- 1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A, Vista, CA 92083 (760) 599-0509 FAX (760) 599-0593 SOIL SULFATE TEST (California Test 417) Project Npme: Highland Drive _ Tested/ Checked By: DC Lab No 1152 -----''"-'----'---Project Number: 2538-SD 3 Date Tested: ---------Project Location: ---------,-Sam p I e Source: Sp mp I e Description: A 8 C D Turbidity of standard equal _to Turbidity of standard eqµal to Turbidity of standard equal to Turbidity of _standard equal to 0 1 2 3 Blank Sample Corrected Readina Readina Turbiditv mg$04 0.1 0.15 0.1 mgS04 0.23 8.74 8.5 mg$04 0.22 23.55 23.3 mgS04 0.38 57 56.6 E Sample size (ml) -before diluting to 100ml & adding regents F · IT!Q of S04 present ih sample (from calibration curve) lwater Soluble Sufate = 1/29/2004 81-2@ 1' Reddish brown silty medium to fine NTUs NTUs NTUs NTUs 0.007% Blank,,; 1.81 1-------1 w/ BaCI = 2.93 1------1 Actual = 1.12 . 5.8 0.13 Sample Graph 1 o 1.12 1 3 1.12 -----------'--,---------------------------------, -ti) :::) 1-z · - 1.5 1.0 0.1 '/ V / / . Calibration Curve - V V / -+-Callibratiqn -Test Sample 0.2 mg of$04 Plate SL-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DIRECT SHEAR TEST Project Name: ____ H-'ig:a..h_la_nd_D_r_iv_e __ _ Sample Source: 83-1 @ 2' ----=----Date Tested: 01/28/04 Project Number: ____ 2_5_38_-_SD_3 _____ _ -------- Soil Description: Light brown silty f-m SAND ----=::..------=------ 5.5 -· · · · · ···-----··---.. -· · · · .. · ________ .,,. ____ · · -· · ·-· · · -.. ,_, ........ · · · · · ·---·---· ---· · · · · · · ---...... ---, · · · 5 4.5 4 3.5 -.. · .. ·-·-· 3 2.5 · -· ·---·· · ... . ---... _ ... --· ...... -.. ·---,-----.... -·. .. . . . ___ ,,_ . ---· ··-· ...... --..... -·-· ....... ' . ' . ' 2 1.5 y = 0.66x -fl 0.27 0.5 o-t------+------i------i--------+-------+----- 0 0.5 Shear Strength: Test No. Load (ton 1 0.7 2 1.4 3 2.8 1.5 NORMAL STRESS (ksf) 2 <I>= 0 33.4 , C = 0.27 ksf Water Content Dry Density (%) (pcf) 2.9 107 2.9 :107 2.9 107 Notes: 1 -The soil specimen used in·the shear box.were "ring" samples collected during the field investigation. 2 -Shear strength calculated at residual load. 3 -The tests·were ran at a shear rate of0.05 in/min. 2.5 PLATE SH-1