HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 00-13; TABATA PROPERTY; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2002-08-14i I I
II Ii.I
11kh mill I
GEOCON
IN,CORPO.RA'TED
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS V
Project No 06947-52-01
August 14, 2002
Lucas & Mercier Development
630 Alta Vista Drive, Suite 203 . ... . .
Vista, California 92084 . . . .
Attention Mr. Mike Lake
Subject: CANTERINA LOTS. 140 THROUGH 148
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA . . •' ' : ,:
GEOJECHNICAL INVESTIGATION.
Gentlemen: . . . . ". . .
In accordance with your authorization we have prepared this geotechnica1 investigation for the
subject property. The accompanying report presents conclusions and recommendations pertaining to
the geotechi-iical aspects of the proposed development of the site. Providea that the recommendations
containedin this update report are followed, the-site is considered" suitable for construction and
support of the proposed structures and improvements as presently 'Planned. .
Should 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,
GEOCON INCORPORATED . . . . •. P;..'..
0)
Troy K Rei'r1 r Shawn Weedon // John Hoobs
Senior Staff Geologist RCE 61803 / CEG 1524
TKRSWJ}{dlj E
OFESS,0 . \. O (6/del) Addressee JOHV HOOBS
1V0, 1524
LL
1-02
AU
6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego California 92121-2974 U Telephone (858) 5586900 U Fax (858) 5586159
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I PURPOSE AND SCOPE I
2 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
4.
3 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 2
3.1 ' General: .................................................... ........................... ................... ...................................
3.2 PrevioüslyPlaced Fiii'(Qpf).... ..................... .. ...................................................................... ....2
3.3 Lindavista Fol-mation (QIn) ..............................................................'......................................2
3.4 Santiago Formation (not mapped) .....................................................:.......................................2
GROUNDWATER............................................. ...............................................................................3
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS, .............. ............................. ........................ . .............................................. 3
5.1 Faulting...................................................................................................................................
.5.2 Seismicity - DeterministicAna1ysis ..................................... .................................................. 3
5.3 Liquefaction ................................ .............................................................. .............................. 4
5.4 Landslides ................................... ............................................................................................. 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..... t .................................. I ....................................... 5
6.1 General .................................................... ................... .................................... ,1.........................5
6.2 . 'Sojiand Excavation Characteristics, ............................................................................................5
6.3 Corrosive Potential .............................................................. ............. ........................................... 5
6.4 Slope Stability ..................................... .................................................................................... 6
6.5 Seismic Design Criteria ......................................................... ............................................. ....... 7
6.6 Foundation Recommendations...................................................................7
6.7 Exterior Concrete Flatwork .................................................................................':.................ii
6.8 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads ...................... . ...................... .......................................... 11
6.9 Drainage 'and' Maintenance ................................................................':..................................12.,
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
TABLES
Table I, Summary of Soil Profile Type, Canterina Lots 140 through 148
Table II, Summary of Recommended Foundation'Category, Canteritia Lots 140 through 148
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure l, Vicinity Map .
Figure 2, Geologic 'Map '. .
Figure 3,' Retaining Wall Drainage Detail
APPENDIX A
FIELDINVESTIGATION' . ..
Figures A-1—A-9, Logs of Trenches andBorings
APPENDIX B
Table B-I, Suthmary of Laboratory' Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results
Thble 'Bil, Summary of Laboratory Direct Shear Test Results
'Table B-ill, Summary' of Laboratory Expansion,Index Test Results
Table B-IV, Summary of LaboratôIy Water-Soluble Sulfate Test' Results
Table B-V, Summary of Laboratory Moisture Test Results
Figure B-i, Consolidation Curve
LIST OF REFERENCES . .
. . . . . . . .
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
I PURPOSEANDSCOPE
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for the 9 single-family lots located in
''A' '' . " " .....
the Aviara Phase III development fo located in Carlsbad Cali The purpose of this report is to
present our findings and our conclusions and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of
developing the property as presently proposed This report did not include slope stability analyses of
the existing cut, fill, and native slopes.
The scope of the study included a site reconnaissance and the excavation of 8 small-diameter
exploratory borings A detailed discussion of the field investigation and logs of the exploratory
borings are presented in Appendix A Laboratory tests were performed on soil samples obtained from
the exploratory, borings to evaluate pertinent physical properties Appendix B presents a summary of
the laboratory test results. In addition, the following reports and plans were rë'ieWed: .'
As-Graded Geotechnical Report Aviara Phase' III, .: Carlsbad, California, prepared by
Geotechnics Incorporated, dated June 25, 4958. 998
Grading Plans For. Carlsbad T,act 92-3, Unit 7: Planning Area 22. prepared by P&D
Technologies, dated August 28,1996.
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site consists of"9 finish-graded lots located southwestof the intersection of Poinsettia Lane and
Ambrosia Road in the city. of Carlsbad, California (see Vicinity Map, 'Figure, 1). Canterina Lots 140
through 148 was previously graded during mass grading operations for the '.overall Aviara Phase III
development. During grading operations canyon fills were created with.. .a maximum fill depth of
roughly 40 feet. Cut and fill slopes were designed at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter
with a maximum height on the order of 20 feet and 50 feet, respectively. Geotechnical engineering
services associated-with the mass grading operations were provided by Geotechnics Incorporated as
described in the previously referenced grading report dated June, 25, 1998.,
The .site consists '-of nine, single-family, residential pads proposed for typical 'one- and two-story,
wood-frame, and stucco homes It is understood that no additional grading is required In addition,
the existing improved roadways will be partially constructed by others and completed by Lucas and
Mercier. ..• ' ' ' ' '
The above locations and descriptions are based on a site reconnaissance and review of the referenced
grading plans If final development plans differ significantly from those described herein, Geocon
Incorporated should be contacted for review and possible revisions to this report. '
Prdject No. 697-5201 ' " - 1
,
'' , August 14, 2002'
3 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
3.1 General
The site is underlain with compacted fill soils placed during previous grading operations and
formational materials of the Tertiary-age Santiago Formation And Quaternary aged Lindavista
Formation as reported in the referenced report prepared by Geotechnics Incorporated, dated June 25,
1998 The formational portion of Lots 140 through 148 was overexcavated half the maximum fill
thickness for each lot, with a maximum undercut depth of 10 feet, according to the above referenced
report However, based on our study, Lot 140 shows 0 to 1 foot of overexcavation within the cut
portion of the lot The previously placed fill soils and geologic formations present at the site are
discussed below, in order of increasing age
3.2 ' Previously Plaçèd Fill' (Qpf)
Previously 'placed cothpactei fill soils are present within the deep canyon fills and as granular, cap
across the' building pads'; The fills soils' can be described as mediurit dense to dense, moist, silty 'to
clayey, fine to medium sand Based on laboratory test results, the upper 3 feet of fill possesses a very
low (less than 20) Expansion Index, In addition, the laboratory test results indicate the upper-.1 foot of
the fill is dry to damp and will require moisture condiiioning.
3.3 Lindavista Formation (Qln).
The Quáterñary-aged Lindavista Formation was encountered underlying the previously compacted
fill and along the cut slope located west of Cabela Place. Sediments generally associated, with this
formation consist of cobble-gravel-sand mixtures with locally cemented oes.'Thesojis encountered'
during the study are very dense, damp to moist, poorly graded, fine to.medim.sand. The 'Liñdavista
Formation typically exhibits adequate shear strength and low, ,expansive potential in either, an
undisturbed or properly compacted condition.
3A Santiago Formation (not mapped)
The Eocene-aged Santiago Formation unconformably Underlies 'the Lindavista Formation below an
elevation of roughly 320 feet above Mean Sea Level as stated in the previously referenced report.
This unit was not encountered during our study. The Santiago Formation generally consists of dense,
massive, white to light greenish-gray silty, fine to coarse sandstone and hard, greenish-gray to brown
claystone and siltstone
Project No 06047-52-01 2 August 14 2002
4. GROUNDWATER
Groundwater is not anticipated to impact proposed development However, localized seepage might
occur due to perched water conditions, particularly following periods of heavy precipitation or.
irrigation.
5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
51 Faulting
A review of geologic literature indicates that there are no known active or potentially active faults at
the site However, several minor faults were mapped by Geotechnics Incorporated in the Santiago
Formation that displa'.ed offsets ranging from a few inches to a few feet, but they did not .appear to
offset the Lindavista Formation and have been classified as inactisce These faults were not located in
the area of the subject lots The Rose €anyon Fault, located approximately 5 miles west, is the closest
known active fault The California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) defines an active fault as
a fault showing evidence for activity vithin the' last .11,000 years. The. CDMG has included portions
of the Rose'Canyon Fault within an AlquistPrioio.Earthquake Fault Zone. This site is not located
within such a zone.
5.2 Seismicity - Deterministic Analysis S
Earthquakes that might occur on the Rose Canyon Fault oi other faults within the southern California
and northern Baja California area are potential generators of significant ground motion at the site
The computer program EQFAULT (Blake, 2000)'.,,was utilized to deterthine the distance of known
active faults to the site Within a search radius of 62 miles (100 kilometers), 16 active faults were
identified. The. iesults'of the seismicity analyses indicate that the,.Rose Canyon Fault is the dominant
source of potential gt6und motion at the site. Eathquakes on the Rose Canyon Fault 'having a
"maximum credible earthquake magnitude" of 69, represent the greatest potential for seismic ground.
shaking 'within 'the . property. The estimated "maxithuth 'credible earthquake site acceleration".
0,
expected at the site was, calculated to be approximately 9.33 g. Presented in Table 5.2 are the
,earthquake events .and site accelerations for. the faults considered most likely to subject the site to '
ground shaking. The seismic risk at the site is not considered significantly greater than that of the
surrounding developments or the Carlsbad area in general.
OWO •
Project No 06947-52-01 3 August 14 2002
Fault Name
Distance From Site
(miles)
Maximum Credible
Magnitude
Maximum Credible
Site Acceleration (g)
Rose Canyon 5.5 6.9 0 33
Newport Inglewood 9 -.6.9 .0.2.5
Coronado Bank 21 7.4 0.16
Elsinore -*Julian 24 7.1 -0. 12'
Elsinore-Temecula 24 6.8 . ... 0.10
5.3 Liquefaction
Liquefaction typically occurs when a site is located in a zone with seismic activity, onsite soils are
cohesionless, groundwater is encountered within 50 feet of the surface, and soil relative densities are
less than about 70 percent If all four previous criteria are met, a seismic event could result in a rapid
pore water pressure increase from the earthquake-generated ground accelerations Due to the dense
nature of the on site materials and the absence of a permanent groundwater table within the upper
50 feet in the development areas, the potential for liquefaction, is considered very low.
5.4 , Landslides
Landslides were found and: mitigated during sitedevélopment of the' overall Aviara Phase III 6roject,
however, none are known to exist on the subject"propert' or at a location that would impact the
proposed development
Project No 06947-52-01 4 August 14 2002
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General
6.1.1 No soil or geologic conditions were encountered that would preclude the development of
the property as presently p1anne4, provided the,'-iendatons of this report are
followed Based on our findings and a review of the soils report and plans for the project, it
is our opinion that the fill soil has been placed and compacted in substantial conformance
With the project geotechnical report
6.1.2 The site is underlain by previously placed compacted fill soils and formational materials of
the Santiago Formation and Lindavista Formation The previously placed fill and the
formational units are suitable for support of the planned development as stated in the
previously referenced report dated June 25, 1998. However, prior to excavating footing
trenches within the subject lots, we recommend that the upper approximately 1 foot of fill
be scarified, misture conditioned, and recompacted due to surficial: drying of the existing
fill soils. .
6.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics .
6.2.1 Based on a review oLthe soils report prepared by Geotechnics Incorporated and our
experience in the area, the compacted fills can generally be excavated with moderate to
heavy effort using conventional heavy-duty excavation equirnent. Excavations planned
within the Lindavista Formation could be difffcult with possible refusal if any cemented
zones are encountered.
6.2.2 The majority of the on site material is anticipated to possess a 'low' to 'very low
expansion potential as defined by the Uniform uildingCode 1997 (UBC) Table 18-I-B.
6.3 Corrosive Potential . . .
6.3. 1 Laboratory tests were performed on samples of soil present at finish grade to determine the
percentage of water-soluble sulfate Results from the tests are presented in Table B IV and
indicate that the on-site materials at the locations tested possess "negligible to "moderate
sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by UBC Table 19-A-4. Table 6.3 presents
a summary of concrete requirements set forth by UBC Table 1,9-A-4.
f..
Sulfate: Water-Soluble.
. Cement
' Maximum Water Minimum
-..
Exposure Sulfate Percent Type
.. to Cement Ratio Compressive
byWeight by-Weight Strength_(psi)
Negligible 0_00_010 - --
Moderate 0_10-0_20 II 0_50 4000
Severe 0_20-2_00 V 045 4500
Very Severe >200 V 4500
6 3 2 Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering Therefore, if
improvements that could be susceptible to corrosion are planned, it is recommended that
further evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed
6.4 Slope Stability
6.4.1 It is understood that additional slopes are not planned for the proposed development If
grading plans differ from the geologic map and slopes greater than .'5.; feet in height are
plànned,Geocon Ihcorporated should be cbnsulted to provide, slope stability analyses;
6-42 It recomj-nended that if additional cut slope excavations are planned, they should be
observed during grading by an engineering geologist to verify that soil and geologic
conditions do not differ significantly from those anticipated
6.4.3 If additional fill slopes are planned they should either, be overbuilt a minimum of 3 feet
and cut back to final grade or, as 'a minimum, 'backrolled with a sheepØoot compactor'at
maximum 4-foot high intervals and track-walked upon completion so that a dozer track
covers the entire slope at least twice to achieve the required compaction
6.4.4 All slopes should be planted, drained and properly maintained to reduce erosion Slope
planting should generally consist of drought tolerant plants having a variable root depth
Slope watering should be kept to a minimum to just support the plant growth
Project No 66947-52-01 6 ' August 14 2002
.','. ,::,:,.;.. .......... ,.. ';..'. ... ..
6.5 . Seismic Design Criteria ,.; ' '•
6.5.1 Table 6.5 summarizes seismic design parameters obtained from the 1997 Uniform Building
Code (UBC) Table 1.64 for two different Soil Profile Types, S.c and SD, that are prevalent
on this project A summary of the Soil Profile Type for each building pad is provided on
Table I The corresponding parameters listed in Table 6.5 should be used for seismic
design The values listed are for the Rose Canyon Fault, which is identified as a Type B
fault and is more dominant than the nearest Tpe.A'fdvIt due to its proximity, to the site. ..
TABLE 6 5
SEISMIC DESI.PA METERS
Parameter 'Soil Type Sc ' ' . Soil TYPe.SD ' UBC Reference
Seimic Zone Factor , 0.4 . 0.4 Table 164
Seismic Coeffiient, Ca 0.40 ,. . 0.44 'Table 16.Q
Seismic Coefficient, C,, .0:59: ", ' 0.67 ' Tabl&16-R
Near-Source Factor, Na i:o .. ' 1.0 ', . ,. 'STable 16-S.
Near Source Factor, N,,
',
1.0 :, 1.0 ' ' ' ., Table 16-T
Seismic Sódrce , B ' B Table 16-U, 71
6.6 , Foundation Recommendations
6.6.1 , The following foundation recommendations are for 'the proposed single-family 'residential
structures The foundation recommendations have been separated into three categories
based on the expansion potential and total and differential fill thickness The recommended
minimum, foundation and interior concrete 'slab -design criteria for each Category'is'
presented in Table 6.6.1.
6.6.2 Foundations for either Category I, II, or HI may'be designed for an allo'able 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 due to wind or seismic forces
6-6-3 The use of isolated footings, which are located beyond the perimeter of the building and
support structural elements connected to the building'is not recomn-iended for Category III. '
Wbere this condition cannot be avoided,'the isolated footings should be connected to the
building foundation system with grade beams
Project No. 06947-52-01 7
,',
: , August' 14, 2002 . '
Fro
6.6.4 For Foundation Category III, consideration should be given to using interior stifening
beams and connecting isolated footings arid/or increasing the slab thickness In addition,
consideration should be given to connecting patio sIbs, which exceed 5 feet in width, to
the building foundation to reduce the potential for ftiture separation to occur.
6.6.5 No special subgrade presaturation is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete, however,
the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be sprinkled, 'as necéssary, to
maintain a moist condition as would: be expected in any such concrete placement.
TABLE' 6.6.1
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONSBYCArEGORY
Minimum " Foundation Footing Depth ' Continuous Footing ' Interior Slab
Category (inches)' Reinforcement.. Reinforcement
• 12 Two No. 4 bars, one top and' 6 x' 6 - 10/ to welded wire
one bottom mesh. atslá mid-poiht,
Four No. 4 bars, 'o top and No. 3 barst 24 inches on • 18 two bottom . . .. center, both directions
24 Four No. bars, two top and bars. at No. 3 ba at 18 inches on
two bottom center, both directifls
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 Ill: . Fill thickness exceeds 50 feet, or variation in fill thickness exceeds 20 feet, or
Expansion Index exceeds 90, but is less than 130.
. .
Notes:
' All footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches.
Footing depth measured from lowest adjaãènt subgrade.. .
All interior living, area concrete slabs should be at least four inches thick for Categories Land fi
and 5 inches thick for Category III. • .. ..
A1L.interior concrete slabs should be underlain by at least 4 inches (3 incheg for a 5 inch slab)
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 th at'least 2 inches of the
,cleai sand recommended in No. 4 above. . •
I: • --' Project No. 06947520l . , - 8- August l42OO2 ••
6 6.6 Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3 1
(horizontal vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are recommendd
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 b'e at
least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope, regardless of slope height
Swimming pools located within 7 fet 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 recotimendations may be required, and Geocon Incorporated should be
contacted for a review of scific site conditions. It should be noted that difficult
excavation with very heav' effort should be anticipated during swimming pool'
construction operations that encounter formational material.
Although other improvements, whichare relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete
flatwork or masonry walls, may experience some distress if located near the top of
a slope, 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 causing extensive distress. ,GeoOon Incorporated should be
consulted for specific recommendations.
6.6.7 . 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 deign and design criteria of the
Post-Tensioning Institute (1997 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
Project No. 06947-52-01 -9- August 14,2002
design should incorporate the geotechrncal parameters presented on the following table
entitled Post-Tensioned Foundation System Design Parameters for the particular
Foundation Category designated
TABLE .6:6.2 '." I ••.
POST-TENSIONED FOUND'ATION'SYSTEMbESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute (PT!) "
Design 'Parameters
' Foundation. category
. 1. .
.Thornthyaite Index.'
5
-20 . -20 -20
Clay Type - Montrnorillonite 5 .. . Yes : . . Yes Yes
Clay Portion (Maximum) ,. 30% . 50% ' . 70%
Depth to Constant Soil Suction . 7.0.ft. . .7.0 ft. ., 7.0 ft.
5 Soil Suction . S , 3.6 ft. 3.6Th . 3.6 ft
6., MoistureVelocity . .0.7 in./mo.. 0.7 in/mo. 0.7 in./mo.
.7: Edge Lift-Moisture Variation Distance ' 216 ft.' 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft.
8. Edge Lift 5 0.41 in. 0.78 in. 1. 15 in..
'9. Center Lift Moisture VariationDistance 5.3 ft. ' ' 53 ft. 5.3 ft.
10. Center Lift " 2.12 in. . . 3.21 in. 4.74 in.,
, 6.6:8 The 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 , S
S UBC Section 1816, it is recommended that interior'tiffener beams be'used for Foundation'
'S Categories II and III. The depth of.th.e'perimeter found ation should be at least 12 inches for
S 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
Sr exceeds 90 but is less than 130, the perimeter footing depth should be at least 24 inches.
S
Geocon Incorporated should be 'consulted to provide additiOnal design parameters as
required by the structural engineer.
6.6.9 ..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
varying thicknesses, However,' ,even with the incorporation ,of the ,recommendations
presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabsôn-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 concre'te, proper
concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of cracks control joints at periodic'"
S " intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.
Project No. 06947-52-01 1 7 10 -
,
August 14, 2002 , '
6 7 Exterior Concrete Flatwork
6.7.1 All exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be a minimum of
4 inches thick Slab panels should be reinforced 'ith 6x6-W2'9/W2.9 (6x6-6/6) welded
wire mesh to reduce the potential for cracking In addition, all concrete flatwork should be
provided with crack control Joints to reduce and/or control shrinkage, cracking Crack
control spacing should be determined by the project 11
structural engineer based upon the slab
thickness and intended usage Criteria of the Amencan Concrete Institute (ACI) should be
taken into consideration when establishing crack control spacing
6.8 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads
6.8.1 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 1,
an active soil pressure of 40 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures assume that the
backfill matenals 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. . S
6.8.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.00111 (where H equals
the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet) at the top of the wall Where
walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 7H psf
should be added to the above active soil pressure.
6.8.3 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) is not recommended
where the seepage could be a nuisance or Otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent
to the base of the wall The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular
(El less than 50) free draining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed
surcharge lOad. Figure 3 presents a typical retaining wall drainage detail. If conditions
different than those described are anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired,
Geocon Incorporated shOuld be contacted for:additional recommendations..
6.8.4 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of one foot may, be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet
below the base of the wall has an Expansion Index of less than 50. The proximity of the
Project No. 06947-52-01 11 - S August 14, 2002
. :•
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:
.6.18.5 For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid
density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly
compacted granular fiiF soils or undisturbed natural soils The allowable passive pressure
assumes a horizontal surface extending away from the base of the wall at least 5 feet or
three times the height of the surface geierating the passive pressure, whichever is greater.
The upper. 12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be
included in the design for lateral resistance..An allowable friction coefficient of '0.40 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. 'S
6.8.6: The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry, retaining walls having a maximum height of 10 feet In the event that
walls higher than 10 feet or other types of walls are planned, such as crib-type walls,
Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additionalrecommendatioñs.
6.9 . Drainage and Maintenáhce ...
S
6.9.1 Adequate drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion
and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent
to footings or behind retaining walls The site should be graded and maintained such that
surface drainage is directed away from structures and the top of slopes into swales or other
controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed into conduits. S
which carry runoff away from the proposed structure..
6.9.2 ' All underground utilities should be leak free. Utility, and irrigation lines should be checked
periodically for leaks for early detection of water infiltration and detected leaks should be •'
S
• repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate
the soil. • • •
PtojeCt No. 06947-52-01 5 -12-' August 14, 2002 •••
S
#4 #4 #4
of
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon
the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the
investigation If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction,
or if the proposdd construction will differ from that anticipated herein Geocon Incorporated
should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given The evaluation or
identification of the potential presence of hazardous materials was...not part of the scOe of
services provided by Geocon Incorporated. '
2 This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, to ensure that the information and ecommendations contained herein are
brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the
plans, and 'the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out
such recommendations in the field. . . ..
3. The findings of this, report.. are valid as of the present date: However, changes in the
conditions of a property can occur with the passage oLtime whether they are due to natural
processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties In addition, changes in
applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the
broadening of knowledge. Acordingly, the findings of this repOrt my be invalidated 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. . .
Project No 06947-5 2 01 August 14 2002
Building Pad Numbers Soil Profile Type
140thr0ugh 144 Sc
145through 148 SD'
Lot Numbers Recommended Foundation Category
•: 140 • • •
•
141 through 144 II
145 through 148 III
IC-
IGHT
cosmos
CT
COP
:It ;01'.4 .4 ..
RU 1OV
-
I
p
IT
SPAR
DRev N -
ALMAS / 4' !4Uflhi) IIIE4 DR 04 Hf liNDA I GADIdALL CT /
.1!ORNSTOR RD ---MARIPOSA \ -
f7jA - UM TRE I VERBENA CT G £ - '' E-. '- cr PHLOX 4 RE PER CT LIX X&RBg S
-. _• .... U CT POIVSETrIA U 3 ANNE ' -
45 REArnA i9j PARK
6 NERINEWV
'
..
RD s
4' 6ORIVE
RULLDFWEJ B G_ —U----- col 'SErTfA
S BEACON UNION ICUIXAM ABELIA AR
CT
EAHORSE 4 .
22iSIA LIQ4THOUSt S I T E I
'- CAJ4LHOQE LAS ' VII -HAD DOC tR4ER Cl
MEL4, RD -?°! NTSET
V b SEE'A7 '
ORIOLE. UPO 4'j
I MERIDIAN WY 4,40 2 BURTON CT
Qs
\.øDRH
0 j -
PD GINU " 3 HALSINOCT
-
- ROSe-4 RUDDER AV
-- 4, A---14
P.s RD
'.. .CONDSPTL.
dfLIA Pt- f FS
.'- •. 1~4 cs - OR
SCR' 4 co4rf
DI IX
0 p
PA 0
4'
GS/t.41;0 UP I 2,7:"- "'t
GArE
ri
DT-.- N IARA
ç
4VOth ,.AV0151, 'FOXGLOVE W AVIA RA ' - Sst- 4 CT
5 0/IL tS4q oH GOLF 'ZEAl Ct 4_f
-
1N TEfttA
-
COURSE
FOUR 02 SEASONS . .,.. . . .. .•. 47 ,.
BEGONIA CT - - RESORT C. I t1ALLOucr
IRIS CT
CT 4. H . *G4rE '' : -;r-7
WR. NGDIRDRD%NE/EpN7
ERL CT (:r
NGc
rl S4
BANTA
- — r -1 tc CRI.' 1 DR PON cr
2 3 0000EQIED -$ 84Tru1TOS I
I •- I H..
SOURCE: 2002 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION GRANTED BY THOMAS BORTHERS MAPS. •.
ThIS MAP IS COPYRIGHT BY THOMAS BROS. MAPS. IT IS UNLAWFUL TO COPY
OR REPRODUCE ALL OR'AMY'PART THEREOF, WHETHER FOR PERSONAL USE OR
RESALE. WrTNOLJT PERMISSION.
.GE.e;c'oN
. ;'INCORPORATED
GEOTEHNICAL ONSULTANTS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 9212l - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
TRJAML I . DS}(/E0000
- E/GBOEOI/PtATE/GVKMP.DWGIIIXA
IN
NO SCALE
VICINITY-MAP -
-. CANTERINA LOTS 140'-,-1 48
CARLSBAD,' CALIFORNIA -
DATE -08-14-202
J
PROJECT NO. 06947-52-01 FIG. 1
GROUND
12" MIN. , SURFACE
COMPACTED
BACKFILL
RETAINING___ WALL
________ • 0 .0 . 0 •e //// /
0 0.
.. o o' • o
,
,//4 / 3/4" CRUSHED
GRAVEL
O 0 0 o0 o 2/3H /'H MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC 0 .0. / /• / OR EQUIVALENT
, :o I ° 4" DIA: PERFORATED
ABS OR ADS PIPE
NOTE:
l.... PREFABRICATED DRAINAGE PANELS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT
MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF PLACING GRAVEL
2 DRAIN SHOULD BE UNIFORMLY SLOPED AT 05% OR GREATER TO GRAVITY
OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING'
'• ' ' . ' ' ' ' ' ' NO SCALE
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
CON . 0 INCORPORATED:
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS.
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974
PHONE 619 558-6900 FAX 619 558;6159
TKR/RSS .
.
DSK/G000D
CANTERINA LOTS 140-148'
CARLSBAD, CAL1ORNIA.
DATE p8-14-2002
'
P ROJECT NO. 06947-52-01 FIG.3
RWOID1A
APPENDIX A.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was performed on July 25, 2002, and consisted of a site recoririaissande and
the excavation of 8 small diameter exploratory borings The borings were excavated to depths
ranging from 4.5 to 41 feet below the existing ground surface using a CME 55 truck-mounted drill rig
equipped with 6-inch-diameter hollow-stem augers Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by
driving a 3-inch, 0 D, split-tube sampler into the "undisturbed' soil mass The sampler was
equipped with 1-inch by 23/8-inch brass sampler rings to facilitate removal and testing Bulk samples
were also obtained
Samples were obtained during our subsurface exploration in the borings using a Modified California
sampler. The sampler is composed of steel andis driven to obtain relatively undisturbed samples The
Modified California sampler has an inside diameter of 2 5 inches and an outside diameter of 3 inches
Up to 18 rings are placed inside the sampler that are 2 4 in in diameter and 1 inch in height
Relatively undisturbed ring samples at appropriate intervals were retained in moisture tight containers
and transported to the laboratory for testing
The samplers were driven 18 inches into the bottom of the excavations with the use of an automatic
hamrner.with the use of Arods. The sampler is connected the A rods and driven into the bottomM
the excavation using a 140-pound hammer with a 30-inch drop
Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches the sampler is driven The penetfation resistance shown
on the boring logs are shown in terms of blows per foot The values indicated on the boring logs are
the sum of the last 12 inches of the sampler if driven 18 inches If the sampler was not driven for
18 inches, an approximate value is calculated in term of blows per foot or the final 6-inch interval is
reported These values are not to be taken as N values, adjustments have not been apphe4
The soil conditions encountered in the borings were visually examined, classified, and logged in
general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (AST'I) practice for
Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure 1).--2844). Logs of the borings are
presented on Figures A-i through A-9 The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions encountered
and the depth at which samples were obtained The approximate locations of the borings are shown
on the Geologic Map, Figure 2
Project No 06§47-5 M1 August 14 2002
. :.• •• -• ... •.'••.• ••. •.•
,VV
2ROJECT NO. 06947-52-01
V
• BORING B 1
DEPTH
MPLE
0 <rSOIL
.
V.
•
I
FEET
SA
NO ELEV. (MSL) 356 DATE COMPLETED 7/25/02
EQUIPMENT 01VII-55
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 BI1
FILL
V 'dense Medium to dense, moist,ilight o moderate . . . .. '• -. 2 BI 2 brown Clayey SAND 47 105 5 89
•
-V : V
V. .• -
V.
'B1-3 V SC . 46
.2//V V - 8. . ..•.
H... ••V
10
.
B14 43 ilLS 11.2
12 27., V . -'-.7
- /•- . . V •.
14
. V
-. .1. . SM LINDAVISTA FORMATION .. V
---ail 5 -i_-i Very dense moist light to moderate brown Silty -
• \ SAND . 1
BORING TERMINATED AT 15.5 FEET
Figure A-i, ij of Boring B 1 cL140
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 11 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE CHUNK SAMPLE WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF •SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. ••, V
ROJECT NO.' 06947-52-01
BORING B 2
DEPTH
SAMPLE CLASS
SOIL
FEET o.
: H Q (USCS) " ELEV. (MSL) 357 DATE COMPLETED 7/25/02
0
: ,,,.
'EQUIPMENT CME-55' .. LLJ w'
Qr 2:3 U
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0
- B2-11
FILL
B2-2 SC/SM bené nioist, mottled light and moderate: brown and '. 43 :115:6 8.5
2 B24 19. yellowish gray Silty and Clayey SAND
•
'
__.
.
- Predominantly light and moderate Clayey SAND
- -
B2-3 > . . ' . 38 6 .. . -
-
•
8 - . '' •. -
-10- B2-4 /',. ' ' . . . 'V 45 113.3 10.2
- .
12
14
16-.
B2-5
H//
. ... ' : 41
,
• .,. ..
• /:
- 20 ,- B2-6
//-
. - .
. .' 38, 115.2 13.4
-22-
-
.
-.
. .
-'24.-
-
' B2-7'
-26-
. . . . . - 53
-. -. .
-28- ' . . . . - . :' .
- -•. .. . . . . . •.
.1!gure A-2, Log of -Boring B 2'
I SAMPLESYMBOLS 0.,... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ,. IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I'... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE.
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREO& APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE"INDICATED.' IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE' REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. '
•: .:
.ROJECT NO.. 06947-52-01 :
BORING B 2
v o w
DEPTH SOIL. . ..: f . •;. 2 SAMPLE:
NO. CLASS ELEV(MSL) 357 .. DATECOMPLETED .7/25IO2 FEET H (USCS) . . 0
CD EQUIPMENT CME-55
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- B2-8 30
,/. FILL .
0
0
-49
Dnsè, moist, light moderate a.ri'd pale brown, Clayey
-
-/7 2f
0
•• . 0
0• - Sc
.34 . ,-// . .. 0.
•• •• 0•.f .
• 0 0
-Gt&velly, 1 foot thick
36.
B2-9 . . . . . . . - .
0
. ••..• 0 •
48 - .120.2 9.2
./
/ ' . .
0 ••. 0.0•
-
38
- - SP-SM . LDAWSTA 'FORTION 0 .0.: . •
B2-I0 flj . Very dense, moist, grayish:and dark yellowish orange, 16/11' • 0 - •_0 - • flñë to,thedium SAND; withiIt 0 •
0 0 BORING-TERMINATED AT 41 FEET
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR SAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE Y . ..WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
• •. 0 • DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE SURFACE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.. •
0 • •
BORING B3 . ) -
DEPTH .501L
N SAPLE = z CLASS .: ELEV. (MSL) 357 DATE COMPLETED 7/25/02 cn '
FEET . 0:(USCS) 0 0 .. . .0 HLU
EQUIPMENT CME-55 W co
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 B31
FL . . .
Medium dense, moist, light to moderate brown, Silty
2 B3 2 SM SAND 24 103.5 7.4
-
B3-3 t.. . . . - 30
• . _•1 -Mottled -yellowish gray . .
.
. -
6 - 1 :1 . .
•0
-
-
- B34 . . . . .. . - 38 114:2 12. 0•
. . -8 -.
- - . LI?DAVISTA FORMATION
. 1•. SM Dense, moist, yellowish gray to tight gray, Silty
10 -
B3-5
0•
:t. JLL
SAND .
. . . 0 . . 45
..• \_-Light__to moderate brown
-_ _ ___
. . BORING TERMINATED AT 11 FEET • S . . .
S . •0
Figure A-4, Log of Boring B 3
?ROJECT NO. 06947-52-01
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE •• ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE:' THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT. THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTEDTd BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
• . S • .
0 •
S
Nx
. . ,. : 1.
R0JECT No: 06947-52-01
. . B9fflNGB4
•. :ow. DEPTH .• : a. a SOIL . • . ,• •• ':•• .,. SAMPLE..
No.r Z CLASS . . . . ... . ELEV. (MSL.) 356 DATE COMPLETED 7/25/02
LL.
FEET . (USGS) . . . •. . •.,•in . Uj H.
EQUIPMENT CME 55
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 B41
- .. ••. . . FILL . . .. Medium dense, moist, mottled'liglit bro'n an
2 B4-2 SM yellowish gray Silty SAND
31 115.8 98
B43 - LNDAVISTA FORMATION' ::.. •. - S
6 SP SM Dense moist light to moderate brown poorly graded
fine to medium SAND, with silt .
B4-4 .. . - .••• . .94/11" -8 - -- .
BORING TERMINATED AT 8 FEET
•
Figure A-5, Log of Boring B 4 CL140
Z El [AMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL El STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I D) DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBE
. DISTURBED DR BAG SAMPLE CHUNKS-SAMPLE WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
;NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLYAT.THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
-OJECTNO 069475201
BORING B S z ,-
DEPTH SAMPLE SOI ••
., S., ' .:'
NO = CLASS ELEV (MSL) 354 DATE COMPLETED 7/25/02 cr w :FEET H.D . . •...', HW.
Lo EQUIPMENT CME-55
'' .0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
9 B5-1
. . . . FILL. . I I SM Medium dense moist mottled yellowish gray, light
2
B5 2 1. brown and moderate brown Silty SAND
38 117 2 9.4
4-
• B5-3
.
LIfDAVISTA FORMATION 5 50/6
SM Ve dense, fhoist, light tomôderatbrow, Silty
. -
6 - I•'I SAND
B54 73/10
8
-
BORING TERMINATED AT 8 FEET •. • .
5
FMPLE SYMBOLS El SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
10 ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE CHUNK. SAMPLE WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SIJRSURFACF' CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION ANDAT THE
"OJECTNO 069475201
LO BORING B 6
0, C SOIL 0 " •" H H" -
DEPTH j • •.•. .I-u_•w .• SA
No.
MPLE
ELEV (MSL) 352 DATE COMPLETED 7/25/02 FEET
EQUIPMENT CME-55
S . 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
B61 X. LINDA VISTA FORMATION
- 1.. I 'SM Dense, moist, light to medium' btown, Silty SAND
2 - B62
'I
1 , ' • ' -
50/6 1159 85
B63 50'6
BORING TERM'INATED"AT 4.5 FEET'. •
NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AN
D
A
T
T
H
E
DATE 1 INDICATED. IT NOT' WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDTIdNS AT OTHERLOCATIONS AND TIMES.
ROiECTNO. • O69 -0l
BORING B 7 1. .LU .
DEPTH SAMPLE
01 SOIL <C ..
IN :.. 'NO ' CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 353 . . DATE'COMPLETED ' 7125/02' wj FEET (USCS) .. . . .LJ
CD EQUIPMENT CME-55, . .
0 Li
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 T B74 . . . . .
- .••1. . . FILL. • • ' I . Dense, moist, light to moderate brown, Silty SAND •,
• B7-2 : SM . S 63 117.2 9.0
4B73 58
J . LINDA VISTA FORMATION •, . . . - . .6 - I. SM Dense moist light to medium brown Silty SAND
- B74 :I .H ' . . . . 5O/.5' 8'-
- BORING TERMINATED AT 8 FEET •'
Figure A-8, Log of Boring B 7 ci. 140
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL LI STANDARD PENETRATIONTEST I DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE CHUNK SAMPLE WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NUF: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPEcIFiiOH.ING.QR TRENCH LOCATION, AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES
DJECT NO. 0694752-01 .
BORING B 8 > - -
DEPTH SOIL- SAMPLE .I N k..Ir zU_ = CLASS ELEV. (MSL.). 352 .: DATEOMPLEFED 7/25/O2 cn FEET (USCS)
EQUIPMENT CME-55
IL U
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION '- 0 -i---
LINDA VISTA FORMATION I Very dense moist light to moderate brown Silty
2 B8-2 SM SAND
50/6 1,03 .5 7.0
5016
.BORINd TERMINATED AT 4.5 FEET
0 SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBbLS
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE.. ... WATER TABLE OR'SEEPAGE
'NOTE; THE LOG OF, SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC .BORINGOR TRENCH LOCATION. AND A
T
T
H
E
DATE INDICATED IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIM
E
S
APPENDIX ..
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures Selected sampls were
tested for compaction characteristics (maximum dry density and optimum moisture content), shear
strength, expansion and consolidation characteristics, in place density and moisture content, water-
soluble sulfate content and near surface moisture content.,The results of the laboratory tests are
summarized in Tables B-I through B-V, and Figure B-1 B-L. The in-place density and moisture content of
the ring samples tested are presented on the boringlogs, Appendix A. ..
TABLE B-I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXiMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTMD..1557-OO
Sample Description 1.
No.
Maximum Dy Optimum Moisture
. . . . Density(pcf). Content (% dry wt.)
B2-1 Reddish brown, Clayey, fine to medium 128 9 9 1 SAND, with silt
Sample Dry Density Moisture Content Unit Cohesion Angle of Shear
No (pci) (%) (psi) Resistance (degrees)
B2-1 1162 88 325 35
Sample Moisture Content Dry Density Expansion
Before Test (%) After Test (%) No (pci) Index
B1-1 97 184 1110 0
137-1 10.1 19.7 169'.6 6
Sample No Water-Soluble Sulfate (%) . Sulfate Exposure
BI-I 0.115 Moderate
ff7-I 0.030 Negligible
TABLEB-V
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY: MOISTLJRF TFST RFSI II TS
Sample No Location Elevation Moisture Content (%)
Mi -Lot 140° 351 4.2
M72 Lot 142 353 4.1
M-3 Lo144 ° 354° 3.7
M.4 Lot 146 356 3.5
M-5 Lot 147 356 28
-4
-2
C
cc
• 0 H
-j • 0 0,
.0 C-)
w C-)
8
10
12 0
--I_i
APPLIED. PRESSURE (ksf)
126.6
Initial Water Content (%) 113 ••• ••
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 1'16itiai Satrati'on(;%) . 96. 9 • .
J Sample Saturated at (kst) 2.0
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
CANTERINA LOTS 140-148
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
CL148 Figure B-1
. ••i.•••• ..