HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 00-20; FOX MILLER PROPERTY; INTERIM REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING; 2006-04-24INTERIM REPORT OF TESTING
AND OBSERVATION SERVICES
DURING SITE GRADING
VENTANA REAL
LOT 2- BUILDING PADS A AND B
LOT 3-BUILDING PAD C
TRACT CT-00-20
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
VENTANA REAL MASTER, LLC -
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 24, 2006
PROJECT NO. 07238-42-04
I GEOCON
INCORPORATED
I GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS MA
Project No. 07238-42-04
April 24, 2006
Ventana Real Master, LLC
1525 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Jeff Brusseau
Subject: VENTANA REAL
LOT 2— BUILDING PADS A AND B, AND LOT 3—BUILDING PAD C
TRACT CT-00-20
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
INTERIM REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION
SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request, we have prepared this interim report of grading to verify that
grading for Lot 2 - Building Pads A and B and Lot 3 - Building Pad C has been performed in
substantial conformance with the project soils report, and that fill soils have been properly placed and
compacted. Our services were provided during the period of January 26, 2006 through. April 20,
2006. Upon completion of grading, we will prepare and submit a final report of compaction testing
and observation services, including an "As-Graded" Geologic Map for Lot 2 and Lot 3 of Tract
CT-00-20 (Ventana Real). The scope of our services included the following:
Observing the grading operation, including removal and/or processing of loose topsoil and
undercutting the cut portion of cut-fill transition building pads.
-
Performing in-place density tests on fill placed and compacted at the site.
Preparing this interim report of grading.
GENERAL
The grading contractor for the project was WR Connelly Incorporated. The project plans are entitled
Grading, Plans For: Fox - Miller Property, prepared by O'Day Consultants, with City of Carlsbad
Engineer signature date of December 19, 2005 and Grading Plans for: Fox - Miller Property, red
line set with pad and basin grading revision, prepared by O'Day Consultants with City of Carlsbad
Engineer signature date of December 19, 2005. The project soils reports are entitled Update
Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad Tract CT-00-20, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon
Incorporated, and Executive Summary, Ventana Real, Lots 2 and 3 of Carlsbad Tract CT-00-20,
6960 Flanders Drive U San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone (858) 558-6900 • Fox (858) 558-6159
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Li
I
I
I
Li
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated April 22, 2004 and October 12, 2004,
I respectively.
I . References to elevations and locations herein were based on surveyors' or grade-checkers' stakes in
the field and/or interpolation from the referenced grading plans. Geocon Incorporated does not
provide surveying services and, therefore, has no opinion regarding the accuracy of the as-graded
I elevations or surface geometry with respect to the approved grading plans or proper surface drainage.
I GRADING
Grading for Lot 2 and Lot 3 was performed as a part of mass grading for the Fox Miller project. Mass
I grading began with removal of brush and vegetation from the area to be graded. Topsoil was removed
to firm, natural ground. Finish grades for the building pads were completed as fill soils were placed
and compacted to design subgrade pad elevations. The cut-fill transitions at finish grade of the I buildings pads were undercut (overexcavated) a minimum of 3 feet below the bottom of footings and
replaced with properly compacted fill soil.
Prior to placing fill, the exposed ground surface was scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted.
In general, oversize materials (greater than 2 feet in size) were incorporated into the fill and kept at
least 10 feet below subgrade on the pads. Rock greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension was
placed at least 5 feet below pad grade. On-site soil fill material generally consists of silty clay with
silt and fine sand.
During the grading operation, compaction procedures were observed and in-place density tests were
performed to evaluate the dry density of fill material. In-place density tests were performed in general
conformance with ASTM Test Method D 2922-01 (nuclear). Results of in-place dry density and
moisture content tests are summarized on Table I. In place dry density and moisture content tests
shown on Table I include only those tests taken on Lots 2 and 3. As such, the tests are not in
sequential order. In general, in-place density test results indicate fill soils have a dry density of at
least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density at the locations tested.
Laboratory tests were performed on samples of material used for fill to evaluate moisture-density
relationships (optimum moisture content and maximum dry density, ASTM D 1557-02). The results
of the laboratory tests are shown on Table II.
Finish Grade Soil Conditions
Observations and test results indicate silty clay soils were placed within the upper approximately 6 to
9 feet of finish grade on Lots 2 and 3. In place field density tests yielded relative compaction equal to
or greater than 90 percent of maximum dry density and moisture contents near optimum.
I
Project No. 07238-42-04 - 2 - April 24, 2006
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
L]
I
All expansion index (UBC 29-2) test results collected during mass grading of Tract CT-00-20 yielded
index results less than 90. Samples have been collected from each building pad (A, B, and C) and are
being tested for expansion index. It is anticipated, based on all index test results to date, that the
building pad samples will yield results less than 90. The expansion index test results for each of the
subject building pads will be reported in the final report of compaction and observation services.
It should be noted that although rocks larger than 6 inches in diameter were not intentionally placed
in the upper 3 feet of pad grade, some rock up to approximately 1 foot in dimension might exist.
Additionally, the presence of rock, even though smaller than 6 inches, should be taken into
consideration when contemplating the type of equipment to utilize for future trenching and fine-grade
landscape operations.
SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading were found to be similar to those
described in the project geotechnical reports. Compacted soils were placed in areas of fill. Fill depth
varied between 9 and 51 feet and 6 to 19 feet across Lot 2 - Building Pad A and Lot 3 - Building
Pad C, respectively. The depth of fill below Lot 2 - Building Pad B was approximately 9 feet.
Sedimentary rocks of the Point Loma Formation were exposed at the base of excavations during
grading and underlie fill soil placed within the building pads. The Point Loma Formation consists of
dense to very dense massive to thinly laminated clayey siltstone with sporadic interbeds of fine
sandstone. Overexcavation of cut areas resulted in a minimum of 3 feet of compacted fill below
footing depths.
No soil or geologic conditions were observed during grading that would preclude the continued
development of the property as planned.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1 1.0 General
1.1 Based on observations and test results, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the
soil engineering and engineering geologic aspects of grading to which this report
pertains have been performed in substantial conformance with the recommendations
of the previously referenced approved geotechnical report. Soil and geologic conditions
encountered during grading that differ from those anticipated by the project soil report are
not uncommon. Where such conditions required a significant modification to the
recommendations of the project soil report, they have been described herein.
I
I
Project No. 07238-42-04 - 3 - April 24, 2006
I
U
I
I
I
LI
I
I
I
I
I
Li
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 Future Grading
2.1 Any additional grading performed at the site should be accomplished in conjunction with
our observation and compaction testing services. Geocon Incorporated should review
I grading plans for any future grading prior to finalizing. All trench backfill should be
compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density
I near to slightly above optimum moisture content. This office should be notified at least 48
hours prior to commencing additional grading or backfill operations.
I 3.0 Foundations
3.1 The foundation recommendations that follow are for two-or three story concrete tilt-up I structures and/or steel framed with exterior glass facing. The recommendations assume a
moderate expansion index which will be confirmed with laboratory testing.
3.2 Conventional continuous and/or isolated spread footings are suitable for support of the
I buildings proposed for the pads. Continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide and
have .a minimum embedment depth (below lowest adjacent grade) of 18 inches. Isolated
spread footings should be at least 2 feet wide and extend 18 inches below lowest adjacent
I grade. Because of fill differential thickness, footings (continuous and spread) for Lot 2 -
Building Pad A should have a minimum embedment depth of 24 inches.
H-I 3.3
I
Continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of four No. 4 steel reinforcing
bars, two placed near the top of the footing and two near the bottom. Reinforcement for
Lot 2 - Building Pad A should consist of four No. 5 steel reinforcing bars. The project
structural engineer should design reinforcement for spread footings.
3.4 Foundations proportioned as recommended above may be designed for an allowable soil
I bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds-per square foot (psf) dead plus live load. This bearing
pressure may be increased by 300 psf and 500 psf for each additional foot of foundation
width and depth, respectively, up to a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of
I 4,000 psf. The allowable soil bearing recommendations presented above are for dead plus
live loads only and may be increased by one third when considering transient loads such as
those due to wind or seismic forces.
3.5 The use of isolated footings that are located beyond the perimeter of the building and
I support structural elements connected to the building is not recommended for Lot 2 -
Building Pad A. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be
connected to the building foundation system with grade beams.
I
Project No. 07238-42-04 - 4 - April 24, 2006
I
3.5 Concrete slabs-on-grade should have a minimum thickness of 5 inches and be reinforced
I with No. 3 bars spaced 18 inches on center in both directions. If building concrete slabs
will be subjected to heavy loading from forklifts, mechanical equipment, or storage of
I supplies, consideration should be given to increasing slab thickness. The structural
engineer should be contacted to provide concrete slab-on-grade recommendations to
accommodate loading requirements.
I 3.6 Concrete slabs-on-grade should be underlain by at least 4 inches of clean sand. Where
I moisture sensitive floor coverings or slab moisture is objectionable, a visqueen moisture
barrier should be placed in the middle of the sand blanket. If a structural section is required
beneath the slab to support forklift loading or to support cranes for lifting of tilt-up panels,
I Class 2 aggregate base should be used in lieu of clean sand beneath the slab.
I . 3.7 The use of interior stiffening beams and connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the
slab thickness should be considered at Lot 2 - Building Pad A for structural slab design. In
I addition, consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs that exceed 5 feet in
width to the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur.
3.8 No special subgrade presaturation is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; the
exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be sprinkled as necessary, however, to
maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
3.9 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for slabs to crack
I 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
I herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still
exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of
-. concrete-shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their I occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper
concrete placement and curing, and the placement of crack-control joints at periodic
I intervals, particularly where re-entrant slab corners occur
1 4.0 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads
4.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be
I designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of
35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2.0
to 1.0 (horizontal: vertical), an active soil pressure of 50 pcf is recommended. These soil
I pressures assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1
plane extending upward from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index of less
I
Project No. 07238-42-04 - 5 - April 24, 2006
I
I
than 50. We recommend samples of stockpiled material to be used as retaining wall
I backfill be tested prior to placement to determine its suitability for use as wall backfill.
I 4.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H at the top of the
wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure
of 7H psf (where H equals the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet) I should be added to the above active soil pressure.
I 4.3 All retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the
buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project
architect. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes, etc.) is I not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely impact the
property adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly
I compacted granular (Expansion Index less than 50) backfill material with no hydrostatic
forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are
I anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be
contacted for additional recommendations.
1 4.4 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of 1 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 90. The proximity of the
foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) could impact the
allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where I such a condition is anticipated.
I 4.5 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 fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure I assumes a horizontal surface extending away from the base of the wall at least 5 feet or
three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper
I 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 0.4 may be used for
I 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.
4.6 The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event walls
I higher than 8 feet or other types of walls (such as crib-type walls) are planned, Geocon
Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
I
Project No. 07238-42-04 - 6 - April 24, 2006 I
5.0 Drainage
5.1 Adequate drainage provisions are critical to future performance of the project. Under no
circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The building pads
should be properly finish-graded after buildings and other improvements are in place so
that drainage water is directed away from foundations, pavements, concrete slabs, and
slope tops to controlled drainage devices.
LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply only to our work with respect to
grading and represent conditions at the date of our observations between January 26, 2006 and
April 20, 2006. Any subsequent grading should be done in conjunction with our observation and
testing services. As used herein, the term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of
the work with which we agreed to be involved. Our services did not include the evaluation or
identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials. Our conclusions and
opinions as to whether the work essentially complies with the job specifications are based on our
observations, experience and test results. Subsurface conditions, and the accuracy of tests used to
measure such conditions, can vary greatly at any time. We make no warranty, express or implied,
except that our services were performed in accordance with engineering principles generally accepted
at this time and location.
I We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to the site by others, the
uncontrolled action of water, or the failure of others to properly repair damages caused by the
uncontrolled action of water. The findings and recommendations of this report may be invalidated
I wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and
should not be relied upon after a period of three years from the date of this report.
I 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,
Li
I
I
[1
I
I
Li
I
I
me NO. 1191 -4
IL cERI'RED * ENGINEERIN
\OF Addressee
Meracon Corporation
Attention: Mr. Scott L. Merry
I GEOCON INCORPORATED
gG'F.Rzonca
I
Rod ne Mikes
GE 2553
I
I
Project No. 07238-42-04 - 7 - April 24, 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Elev. Plus Field Field Field Reqd.
or 3/4 Adj. Adj. Dry Moist. Rd. Rel.
Depth Curve Rock MDD OMC Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp.
Test No. Date Location t) No. (%) (pci) (%) (pci) (%) (%) (%)
87 02/13/06 Lot 2; Joint Driveway 242 3 0 109.7 16.3 99.6 17.5 91 90
88 02/13/06 Lot 3; Joint Driveway 229 3 0 109.7 16.3 100.1 17.1 91 90
89 02/13/06 Lot 3 220 3 0 109.7 16.3 98.8 19.4 90 90
90 02/13/06 Lot 211 3 0 109.7 16.3 98.9 18.6 90 90
SZ 91 02/13/06 Lot 3 2 3 0 109.7 16.3 100.7 17.3 92 90
92 02/13/06 Lot 3; Joint Driveway 245 3 0 109.7 16.3 99.7 18.4 91 90
93 02/13/06 Lot 2; Joint Driveway 237 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.0 19.6 92 90
SZ 94 02/13/06 Lot 3 220 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.5 19.2 93 90
SZ 95 02/13/06 Lot 3 252 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.0 19.9 91 90
96 02/13/06 Lot 2; Joint Driveway 247 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.2 21.1 92 90
125 02/16/06 Lot 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
250 3 0 109.7 16.3 100.4 18.9 92 90
126 02/16/06 Lot 238 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.7 19.3 91 90
127 02/16/06 Lot I 216 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.7 20.4 92 90
130 02/17/06 Lot 238 4 0 106.2 19.8 95.4 19.8 90 90
131 02/17/06 Lot 2 229 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.2 20.9 92 -90
SZ 134 02/17/06 Lot 221 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.7 21.0 92 90
135 02/17/06 Lot 2 254 4 0 106.2 19.8 99.8 20.5 94 90
141 02/21/06 Lot 251 1 0 111.8 16.9 100.7 21.2 90 90
142 02/21/06 Lot 241 1 0 111.8 16.9 101.3 18.9 91 90
143 02/21/06 Lot 2 232 1. 0 111.8 16.9 100.4 21.0
146 02/21/06 Lot 3; Joint Driveway 229 1 0 111.8 16.9 101.2 19.2 91 90
148 02/21/06 Lot 2 250 4 0 106.2 19.8 95.2 20.2 90 90
149 02/21/06 Lot 243 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.4 21.8 91 90
176 02/24/06 Lot 267 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.5 19.5 93 90
177 02/24/06 Lot -2 260 1 0 111.8 16.9 102.1 16.6 91 90
178 02/24/06 Lot 2 255 4 0 106.2 19.8 95.3 19.9 90 90
179 02/24/06 Lot 232 1 0 111.8 16.9 100.6 17.2 90 90
182 02/27/06 Lot 2 245 3 0 109.7 16.3 100.9 19.5 92 90
184 02/27/06 Lot 237 3 0 109.7 16.3 100.8 19.2 92 90
187 02/27/06 Lot 264 3 0 109.7 16.3 102.1 21.4 93 90
191 03/02/06 Lot
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
255 3 0 109.7 16.3 101.6 21.5 93 90
Project No. 07238-42-03 April 24, 2006
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Elev. Pius Field Field Field Reqd.
or 3/4 Adj. Adj. Dry Moist. Re!. Re!.
Depth Curve Rock MDD OMC Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp.
Test No. Date Location (ft) No. (q) (pcD (%) (pcO (%) (%) (%)
192 03/02/06 Lot 261 3 0 109.7 16.3 99.5 20.1 91 90
193 03/02/06 Lot 2 268 3 0 109.7 16.3 99.7 21.4 91 90
194 03/02/06 Lot 271 3 0 109.7 16.3 101.1 20.9 92 90
195 03/02/06 Lot 276 3 0 109.7 16.3 100.8 19.6 92 90
196 03/02/06 Lot 3 240 4 0 106.2 19.8 95.6 22.9 90 90
199 03/03/06 Lot 2 256 5 0 113.7 15.9 105.3 18.1 93 90
200 03/03/06 Lot 2 253 4 0 106.2 19.8 95.2 20.9 90 90
201 03/03/06 Lot 2 254 4 0 106.2 19.8 95.6 21.7 90 90
205 03/03/06 Lot 258 I 0 111.8 16.9 100.8 20.3 90 90
206 03/06/06 Lot 273 3 0 109.7 16.3 100.4 18.4 92 90
207 03/06/06 Lot 2 270 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.3 21.7 92 90
208 03/06/06 Lot I 267 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.8 20.2 91 90
209 03/06/06 Lot 2 263 4 0 106.2 19.8 99.5 20.8 94 90
210 03/06/06 Lot 2 283 4 0 106.2 19.8 95.4 20.0 90 90
211 03/06/06 Lot -2 253 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.0 22.3 91 90
212 03/06/06 Lot 268 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.1 22.0 92 90
213 03/06/06 Lot 265 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.7 19.9 91 90
214 03/06/06 Lot 2 269 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.6 20.2 92 90
215 03/06/06 Lot 274 5 0 113.7 15.9 105.7 19.7 93 90
216 03/08/06 Lot 3; Joint Driveway 245 5 0 113.7 15.9 108.2 19.6 95 90
217 03/08/06 Lot 250 5 0 113.7 15.9 104.1 17.9 92 90
218 03/08/06 Lot 260 4 0 106.2 19.8 99.3 21.3 94 90
219 03/08/06 Lot 2 276 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.1 19.9 90 90
220 03/08/06 Lot 270 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.7 21.3 92 90
221 03/08/06 Lot -2 264 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.0 20.0 92 90 ---------------
22203/08/06 Lot 277 5 0 113.7 15.9 107.3 16.8 94 90
223 03/08/06 Lot 272 3 0 109.7 16.3 103.1 17.6 94 90
224 03/08/06 Lot 268 3 0 1.09.7 16.3 101.5 16.8 93 90
225 03/08/06 Lot 268 3 0 109.7 16.3 100.1 17.3 91 90
226 03/08/06 Lot 2 281 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.0 21.6 92 90
227 03/08/06 Lot
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
272 3 0 109.7 16.3 100.3 18.9 91 90
Project No. 07238-42-03 April 24, 2006
Mae - MM - U. U. - - U., .U.• - ,- U. - - - U.
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Elev. Plus Field Field Field Req'd.
or 3/4" Adj. Adj. Dry Moist. Rcl. Rel.
Depth Curve Rock MDD OMC Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp.
Test No.
-
Date Location (ft) No. (%) (pci) (%) (pcI) (%) (%) (%)
228 03/08/06 Lot 2 268 3 0 109.7 16.3 99.1 19.7 90 90
229 03/08/06 Lot 2 282 3 0 109.7 16.3 103.5 19.6 94 90
231 03/09/06 Lot 268 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.6 19.5 93 90
232 03/09/06 Lot 2 267 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.8 20.3 91 90
239 03/09/06 Lot-2 250 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.1 19.9 91 90
240 03/09/06 Lot 260 I 0 111.8 16.9 104.1 20.8 93 90
241 03/15/06 Lot 3 251 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.5 21.6 91 90
242 03/15/06 Lot 257 5 0 113.7 15.9 103.0 22.5 91 90
243 03/15/06 Lot 265 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.3 21.3 92 90
244 03/15/06 Lot 2; Joint Driveway 267 3 0 109.7 16.3 101.7 . 21.3 93 90
245 03/15/06 Lot 3 248 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.0 22.1 90 90
246 03/15/06 Lot 261 4 0 106.2 19.8 99.9 19.9 94 90
247 03/15/06 Lot 3 254 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.8 21.3 91 90
248 03/15/06 Lot 3 247 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.3 22.8 93 90
249 03/15/06 Lot 267 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.1 21.0 92 90
250 03/16/06 Lot 2 261 4 0 106.2 19.8 95.5 19.6 90 90
251 03/16/06 Lot 258 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.6 21.6 93 90
SZ 252 03/16/06 Lot 254 3 0 109.7 16.3 100.2 20.2 91 90
253 03/16/06 Lot 2 270 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.2 20.0 92 90
254 03/16/06 Lot -3 264 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.1 20.9 91 90
255 03/16/06 Lot 257 5 0 113.7 15.9 103.2 17.7 91 90
256 03116/06 Lot 2; Joint Driveway 276 5 0 113.7 15.9 103.6 18.9 91 90
257 03/16/06 Lot 266 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.9 20.8, 92 90
258 03/17/06 Lot 3 271 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.7 21.0 93 90
259 03/17/06 Lot 2; Joint Driveway 266 4 0 106.2 19.8 95.5 19.7 90 90
260 03/17/06 Lot 3 253 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.0 19.8 91 90
261 03/17/06 Lot 270 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.2 19.9 91 90
262 03/17/06 Lot 266 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.7 20.7 92 90
263 03/17/06 Lot 262 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.3 21.1 91 90
264 03/17/06 Lot -3 268 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.5 21.0 92 90
SZ 265 03/17/06 Lot 2 259 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.5 19.9 93 90
Project No. 07238-42-03 April 24, 2006
- - - - - - .- - - - - - - - - - - - - TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Elev. Plus Field Field Field Reqd.
or 3/4 Adj. Adj. Dry Moist. Rd. Rel.
Depth Curve Rock MDD OMC Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp.
Test No. Date Location t) No. (%) (pci) (%) (pci)
SZ 266 03/22/06 Lot 3 250 4 0 106.2 19.8 95.8 20.0 90 90
SZ 267 03/23/06 Lot 3 252 5 0 113.7 15.9 104.3 16.3 92 90
268 03/23/06 Lot 3 255 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.6 21.0 91 90
SZ 269 03/23/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 294 4 0 106.2 19.8 99.8 21.6 94 90
270 03/23/06 Lot -3 258 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.0 21.2 90 90
271 03/24/06 Lot 3; Joint Driveway 280 3 0 109.7 16.3 101.1 19.6 92 90
272 03/24/06 Lot 2; Joint Driveway 275 4 0 106.2 19.8 95.4 22.8 90 90
273 03/24/06 Lot 3 261 4 0 106.2 19.8 99.7 19.5 94 90
274 03/27/06 Lot 262 3. 0 109.7 16.3 100.1 18.8 91 90
SZ 275 03/27/06 Lot 3; Stability Fill 286 4 0 106.2 19.8 99.6 23.0 94 90
SZ 281 03/27/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 306 4 0 106.2 19.8 95.2 21.3 90 90
SZ 282 03/27/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 306 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.6 21.6 91 90
SZ 283 03/27/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 305 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.9 20.5 93 90
284 03/28/06 Lot 3; Building COX 264 4 0 106.2 19.8 99.1 20.1 93 90
285 03/28/06 Lot 3; Building C OX 263 4 0 106.2 19.8 95.9 19.9 90 99 ..
286 03/28/06 Lot 3; Building C OX 264 4 0 106.2 19.8 100.2 20.3 94 90
287 03/28/06 Lot 3; Joint Driveway 282 4 0 106.2 19.8 95.8 21.6 90 90
288 03/28/06 Lot 3; Joint Driveway 279 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.3 20.3 92 90
289 03/30/06 Lot 3; Joint Driveway 290 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.6 22.9 92 90
290 03/30/06 Lot 3; Joint Driveway 288 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.9 21.8. 93 90
291 03/30/06 Lot 3; Joint Driveway 282 4 0 106.2 19.8 95.6 22.6 90 90
292 03/30/06 Lot 3; Joint Driveway 297 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.4 19.7 92 90
SZ 293 03/31/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 300 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.0 20.0 90 90
294 03/31/06 Lot 3; Building C OX 267 3 0 109.7 16.3 101.6 17.8 93 90
295 03/31/06 Lot 3; Building C OX 266 3 0 109.7 16.3 101.0 22.1 92 90
296 03/31/06 Lot 3; Building C OX -- ...4 0 106.2 19.8 98.2 23.6 92 90
297 03/31/06 Lot 3; Building C OX 267 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.7 21.8 91 90
298 04/03/06 Lot 276 4 0 106.2 19.8 95.2 20.2 90 90
299 04/03/06 Lot 276 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.1 21.4 90 90
300 04/03/06 Lot2 278 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.6 19.7 9290
SZ 301 04/03/06 Lot 257 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.3 20.0 91 90
Project No. 07238-42-03 April 24, 2006
- - - - - - - - - - .- - - - - -I - - - TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Elev. Plus Field Field Field Reqd.
or 3/4 Adj. Adj. Dry Moist. Re!. Re!.
Depth Curve Rock MDD OMC Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp.
Test No. Date Location No. (%) (pci) (%) (pci) (%) (%) (%)
SZ 305 04/04/06 Lot 2 261 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.5 22.5 91 90
307 04/04/06 Lot 262 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.3 22.6 92 90
ST 311 04/11/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 302 4 0 106.2 19.8 99.0 19.1 93 90
ST 312 04/11/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 303 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.0 18.8 92 90
ST 313 04/11/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 298 4 0 106.2 19.8 100.2 19.1 94 90
314 04/12/06 Lot 2; Bldg B OX 277 3 0 1ó9.716.3 100.2 22.1 91 90
315 04/12/06 Lot 2; Bldg BOX 277 3 0 109.7 16.3 101.0 19.8 92 90
316 04/12/06 Lot 2; Bldg B OX 279 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.6 21.2 92 90
317 04/12/06 Lot 2; Bldg B OX 279 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.8 22.3 93 90
318 04/13/06 Lot2;BldgBOX 280 3 0 109.7 16.3 101.0 21.9 92 90
FG 319 04/13/06 Lot 3; Bldg C OX 269 3 0 109.7 16.3 100.6 18.3 92 90
FG 320 04/14/06 Lot 3; Bldg C OX 269 3 0 109.7 16.3 102.4 19.7 93 90
FG 321 04/14/06 Lot 3; Bldg COX 269 3 0 109.7 16.3 102.9 17.2 94 90
FG 322 04/14/06 Lot 3; Bldg C OX 269 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.8 20.0 92 90
FG 323 04/14/06 Lot 3; Bldg C OX 269 4 0 106.2 19.8 99.0 17.3 9390
324 04/14/06 Lot 2; Bldg B OX 279 4 0 106.2 19.8 100.8 22.0 95 90
325 04/14/06 Lot 2; Bldg B OX 282 5 0 113.7 15.9 104.2 18.5 92 90
326 04/14/06 Lot 2; Bldg B OX 282 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.0 21.1 92 90
327 04/14/06 Lot 2; Bldg A OX 278 4 0 106.2 19.8 95.7 22.6 90 90
328 04/17/06 Lot 2; Bldg A OX 281 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.3 21.0 92 90
329 04/17/06 Lot 2; Bldg A 281 3 0 109.7 16.3 100.5 21.2 92 90
330 04/17/06 Lot 2; Bldg A 281 3 0 109.7 16.3 100.8 20.1 92 90
331 04/18/06 Lot 2; Bldg A OX 277 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.3 22.6 93 90
332 04/18/06 Lot 2; Bldg A 282 3 0 109.7 16.3 100.7 19.9 92 90
333 04/18/06 Lot 2; Bldg A OX 283 3 0 109.7 16.3 100.2 20.1 91 90
335 04/19/06 Lot 270 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.8 21.9 92 90
336 04/19/06 Lot 272 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.9 22.3 93 90
337 04/19/06 Lot 2 269 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.4 19.4 91 90
338 04/19/06 Lot 2 274 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.4 20.4 91 90
339 04/19/06 Lot -2 273 5 0 113.7 15.9 106.6 18.6 94 90
340 04/19/06 Lot 272 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.2 21.0 92 90
Project No. 07238-42-03 April 24, 2006
- - - - - on - '- - - - - - no - - we NO -
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Elev. Plus Field Field Field Reqd.
or 3/4" Adj. Adj. Dry Moist. Rd. Re!.
Depth Curve Rock MDD OMC Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp.
Test No. Date Location ('t) No. (%) (pcI) (%) (pci) (%) (%) (%)
FG 341 04/20/06 Lot 2; Bldg A
FG 342 04/20/06 Lot 2; Bldg A
FG 343 04/20/06 Lot 2; Bldg A
FG 344 04/20/06 Lot 2; Bldg A
FG 345 04/20/06 Lot 2; Bldg A
346 04/20/06 Lot 2
347 04/20/06 Lot 2
348 04/20/06 Lot 2
349 04/20/06 Lot 2
FG 350 04/20/06 Lot 2; Bldg B
FG 351 04/20/06 Lot 2; Bldg B
FG 352 04/20/06 Lot 2; Bldg B
FG 353 04/20/06 Lot 2; Bldg B
FG 354 04/20/06 Lot 2; Bldg B
283 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.7 19.5 93 90
283 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.2 19.8 92 90
283 4 0 106.2 19.8 99.6 23.3 94 90
283 3 0 109.7 16.3 102.5 17.1 93 90
283 3 0 109.7 16.3 101.2 20.0 92 90
273 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.2 21.4 92 90
273 3 0 109.7 16.3 99.3 20.8 91 90
274 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.5 21.6 91 90
273 4 0 106.2 19.8 98.3 21.3 93 90
284 4 0 106.2 19.8 97.9 21.7 92 90
284 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.3 19.3 91 90
284 4 0 106.2 19.8 99.3 19.9 94 90
284 4 0 106.2 19.8 96.3 20.8 91 90
I 284 3 0 109.7 16.3 102.2 19.7 93 90
Project No. 07238-42-03 April 24, 2006
on
TABLE I
EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMS
- TEST SUFFIX
A, B, C,. . . : Retest of previous density test failure, following moisture conditioning and/or recompaction.
- STRIKE-OUT
Fill in area of density test failure was removed and replaced with properly compacted fill soil.
- PREFIX CODE DESIGNATION FOR TEST NUMBERS
FG - FINISH GRADE ST - SLOPE TEST
SZ - SLOPE ZONE
- CURVE NO.
Corresponds to curve numbers listed in the summary of laboratory maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content test results table for selected fill soil samples encountered during testing and observation.
- ROCK CORRECTION
For density tests with rock percentage greater than zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content were adjusted for rock content. For tests with rock content equal to zero, laboratory
maximum dry density and optimum moisture content values are unadjusted.
-TYPE OF TEST
SC: Sand Cone Test (ASTM D1556)
NU: Nuclear Density Test (ASTM D2922)
OT: Other
- ELEVATION/DEPTH
Test elevations/depths have been rounded to the nearest whole foot.
Project No. 07238-42-03 April 24, 2006
— — — - — — -I — s- — — — — mom. — — — —
TABLE I
EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMS
-TEST SUFFIX
A, B, C,. . . : Retest of previous density test failure, following moisture conditioning and/or recompaction.
- STRIKE-OUT
Fill in area of density test failure was removed and replaced with properly compacted fill soil.
- PREFIX CODE DESIGNATION FOR TEST NUMBERS
FG - FINISH GRADE ST - SLOPE TEST
SZ - SLOPE ZONE
- CURVE NO.
Corresponds to curve numbers listed in the summary of laboratory maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content test results table for selected fill soil samples encountered during testing and observation.
- ROCK CORRECTION
For density tests with rock percentage greater than zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content were adjusted for rock content. For tests with rock content equal to zero, laboratory
maximum dry density and optimum moisture content values are unadjusted.
- TYPE OF TEST
SC: Sand Cone Test (ASTM D1556)
NU: Nuclear Density Test (ASTM D2922)
OT: Other
- ELEVATION/DEPTH
Test elevations/depths have been rounded to the nearest whole foot.
Project No. 07238-42-03 April 24, 2006
I
I
TABLE II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND
OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTMD1557
Sample Description Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture
No. Density (pcf) Content (% dry wt.)
1 Dark brown, Sandy CLAY, trace silt 111.8 16.9
2 Dark gray, Silty CLAY 113.0 16.0
3 Olive, Silty CLAY 109.7 16.3
4 Brown, fine, Sandy CLAY 106.2 19.8
5 Yellowish brown, fine to coarse, Sandy 113.7 15.9 CLAY, trace gravel
I
TABLE III
I
SUMMARY OF AS-GRADED BUILDING PAD CONDITIONS
VENTANA REAL LOT 2 BUILDING PADS A AND B AND LOT 3 BUILDING PAD C
Approx Approx. Approx. -
Depth of Max. Depth of Fill Lot No./Pad Pad Condition Remarks Undercut Depth of Differential
(feet) Fill (feet) (feet)
Lot 2/Pad A Transition Lot Undercut due to 9 51 43 cut/fill transition
Lot 2/Pad B Transition Lot Undercut due to 9 9 0 cut/fill transition
Lot 3/Pad C Transition Lot Undercut due to 6 19 13 cut/fill transition
I
I
I
I,
I
I
Project No. 07238-42-04 April 24, 2006
I
I
1
I