HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 13-05; STATE STREET TOWNHOMES; GEOTECHNICAL REPORT OF POSTGRADING; 2018-04-06LGC
Geotechnical, Inc.
April 6, 2018
Ms. Wendy Lewis
T"ylor Morrison
I 00 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1450
Irvine, CA 926 I 8
Project No.: 13200-0 I
Subject: Geoteclmic"I Report of Postgr(l(/i11g for State Street Townlwmes, Tract 17501, 2521
through 2589 Stale Street, City of C"r/sbad, California
In accordance with your request and authorization, LGC Geotechnical, Inc. has provided geotechnical se1vices
during the postgrading operations for the State Street Townhomes, phases I through 6 of Tract 1750 I, located
in Carlsbad, California.
As of the date of this report, postgrading operations for the subject lost are essentially complete. This repm1 has
been provided to present the results of our observation and testing services during the onsite postgrading
operations for the subject portion of Tract 1750 I.
Should you have any questions regarding the content of this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
We appreciate this oppo11unity to be of service.
Sincerely,
LGC Geotec/mical, Inc.
Anl~~
Staff Geologist
ARN/TJL/aca
Tim Lawson, GE 2626, CEO 1821
Geotechnical Engineer/Geologist
Distribution: (4) Addressee (3 wet-signed copies for city submittal and I electronic copy)
·A 131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 ~ (949) 369-6141 ® www.lgcgeotechnical.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 POSTGRADING OPERATIONS ................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Storm Drain Trench Backfill ............................................................................................ 2
2.2 Sewer Trench Backfill ...................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Domestic Water Trench Backfill ...................................................................................... 2
2.4 Joint Utility Trench Backfill ............................................................................................. 3
2.5 Pavement Section .............................................................................................................. 3
2.6 Interior Plumbing Trench Backfill ................................................................................... .4
2.7 Free Standing Wall Footings ............................................................................................ 4
2.8 Sidewalk, Approach, and Driveway Subgrade ................................................................ .4
2.9 Field and Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................ 4
3.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 6
4.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................. ?
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS AND APPENDICES
Figures
Figure 1 -Site Location Map (Rear of Text)
Figure 2 -Field Density Test Location Map (Rear of Text)
Appendices
Appendix A -References
Appendix B -Explanation and Summary of Field Density Test Results
Appendix C -Laborat01y Testing Procedures and Test Results
Project No. 13200-01 Page i April 6, 2018
1.0 INTRODUCTION
LGC Geotechnical, Inc. has provided geotechnical services during the postgrading operations for the townhome
onsite improvements, 2521 through 2589 State Street, buildings 1 through 6 (units 1 -47) of Tract 17501, located in
Carlsbad, California (Figure 1 -Site Location Map). In general, postgrading operations for the onsite postgrading
included improvements within the limits of buildings 1 through 6 of Tract 17501 (Figure 2 -Field Density Test
Location Map).
This rep01t summarizes our geotechnical observations, field and laborat01y test results, and the geotechnical
conditions encountered during postg:rading operations for the subject tract.
Laborat01y test results are summarized in Appendix C. Field density test results are summarized m
AppendixB.
Project No. 13200-01 Page 1 April 6, 2018
2.0 POSTGRADING OPERATIONS
The postgrading operations were pe1formed from approximately February 2015 to April 2018.
Representatives from our firm performed periodic, on-call compaction testing and field observations at the request
of the project superintendent(s), during postgrading operations. Geotechnical services provided during
postgrading operations included:
• Lot reprocessing and rece1tification (where needed);
• Observation and testing of storm drain lateral backfill and compaction;
• Observation and testing of sewer mainline, lateral, house connection backfill and compaction;
• Observation and testing of domestic water mainline, lateral, and house connection backfill and
compaction;
• Observation and testing of joint utility mainline, crossing, and house connection backfill and
compaction;
• Observation and testing of sidewalk, curb, gutter, paver, and street sub grade compaction;
• Observation and testing retaining wall subgrade compaction;
• Observation and testing of street aggregate base placement and compaction;
• Observation and testing of street asphalt concrete placement and compaction;
• Observation and probing of interior plumbing trenches; and
• Observation and probing of retaining wall footings;
2.1 Storm Drain Trench Backfill
In general, storm drain laterals were bedded with crushed rock and shaded with clean sand to a depth
of approximately 1-foot above the top of pipe. The shading sand was subsequently flooded for
densification by the contractor. Backfill soils were then placed in loose lifts, moisture-conditioned as
needed, and compacted with heavy construction equipment. Offsite street and alley sections were
backfilled with slurry. Stonn drain trench backfill was periodically observed, probed, and tested for
in-place density and moisture content (American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM] Test Method
D6938). Where tested, results indicated that storm drain trench backfill was compacted in general
accordance with the project specifications. Field density test results are presented in Appendix B.
2.2 Sewer Trench Backfill
In general, sewer mainlines and laterals were bedded and shaded with crushed rock to a depth of
approximately 1-foot above the top of the pipe. Sewer house connections were bedded and shaded
with clean sand prior to densification by mechanical compaction. Per city requirements, no jetting
was pe1mitted. Backfill soils were then placed in loose lifts, moisture-conditioned as needed, and
compacted with heavy construction equipment. Sewer trench backfill was periodically observed,
probed, and tested for in-place density and moisture content (ASTM Test Method D6938). Where
tested, results indicate that sewer trench backfill was compacted in general accordance with the
project specifications. Field density test results are presented in Appendix B.
2.3 Domestic Water Trench Backfill
Project No. 13200-01 Page2 April 6, 2018
In general, domestic water mainlines, laterals, and house connections were bedded and shaded with
clean sand to a depth of approximately 1-foot above the top of the pipe by the contractor. Per City
requirements, no jetting was pe1mitted. Backfill soils were placed in loose lifts, moisture-conditioned
as needed, and compacted with heavy construction equipment. Domestic water trench backfill was
periodically observed, probed, and tested for in-place density and moisture content (ASTM Test
Method D693 8). Where tested, results indicated that domestic water trench backfill was compacted
in general accordance with the project specifications. Field density test results are presented in
AppendixB.
2.4 Joint Utility Trench Backfill
In general, joint utility mainlines and crossings were bedded and shaded with clean sand to a depth of
approximately 1-foot above the top of the pipe by the contractor. Per City requirements, no jetting
was permitted. Backfill soils were then placed in loose lifts, moisture-conditioned as needed, and
compacted with whackers and heavy construction equipment. Joint utility backfill was periodically
observed, probed, and tested for in-place density and moisture content (ASTM Test Method D6938).
Where tested, results indicate that joint utility backfill was compacted in general accordance with the
project specifications. Field density test results are presented in Appendix B.
2.5 Pavement Section
Subgrade soils within city sidewalk, curb, gutter, and pavement areas were processed, moisture-
conditioned to near-optimum moisture content and recompacted. Where tested, field density tests
indicated that 90 percent relative compaction or greater was achieved (ASTM Test Method D693 8).
Crushed Miscellaneous Base (CMB) material was moisture-conditioned, as needed, and placed over the
compacted subgrade soils. Where tested, field density tests indicated that a 95 percent minimum relative
compaction was achieved (ASTM Test Method D6938).
Asphalt concrete paving operations were observed and are considered acceptable from a geotechnical
viewpoint. Geotechnical field operations during paving included observation, periodic temperature
readings, and compaction testing. Where tested, the asphalt was found to have a minimum relative
compaction of 95 percent (ASTM Test Method D6938). Maximum density results for the asphalt
concrete used onsite were obtained from the materials distribution plant through the paving contractor.
Line, grade, and thickness of street sections were not the purview of the geotechnical consultant.
The results of the subgrade soil, crushed miscellaneous base, and asphalt concrete density tests are
summarized in Appendix B. Laborato1y test results (maximum densities) are summarized in
AppendixC.
Project No. 13200-01 Page3 April 6, 2018
2. 6 Interior Plumbing Trench Backfill
In general, interior plumbing lines were backfilled with clean sand to the surface. Where observed, the
sand was jetted for densification. Interior plumbing trench backfill was periodically observed to verify
that the trench backfill was suitable for its intended purpose.
2. 7 Foundation and Retaining Wall Footings
Where probed, the retaining wall and foundation footings were excavated into firm and unyielding
existing engineered fill. Footings were probed in random locations to evaluate the suitability of the
onsite soils. At the time of our observation, the subject footings were relatively clear of loose soil
material and construction debris. Where tested, results indicate that retaining wall backfill was
compacted in general accordance with the project specifications. Field density test results are
presented in Appendix B.
2.8 Sidewalk. Approach, and Drivewav Subgrade
2.9
In general, some subgrade soils below sidewalk, approach, and driveway areas were reprocessed in
order to achieve required relative compaction and moisture content. Where tested, results indicate
that subgrade soils were compacted in general accordance with the project specifications. Field
density test results are presented in Appendix B. Subgrade soils are considered geotechnically
suitable for their intended purpose.
Field and Laboratorv Testing
Field density tests were performed during emthwork operations were in accordance with the Nuclear-
Gauge Method (ASTM Test Methods D6938). The results of the field density tests petformed are
summarized in Appendix B. Field density tests were pe1fonned on a periodic basis and distributed
tlu-oughout the work area in general accordance with the current standard of care in the industry to form
an opinion of the work petformed. It is ultimately the contractor's responsibility to ensure that all work
is performed to the applicable codes and specifications. Due to the nature of soil testing, some variation
in moisture content and relative density reported herein should be expected.
Representative soil samples were tested for maximum dry density and optimum moisture content in
accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557.
Expansion potential was pe1fonned on representative soil samples of finish grade soils. The test results
indicate "Medium to Ve1y High" expansion potential (per ASTM D4829). See revised geotechnical
recommendations from memorandum dated 1/22/2015.
Although not corrosion engineers (LGC Geotechnical is not a corrosion consultant), several governing
agencies in Southern California require the geotechnical consultant to determine the cmrnsion potential
of soils to buried concrete and metal facilities. We therefore present the results of our testing with
regard to corrosion for the use of the client and other consultants, as they determine necessmy.
Project No. 13200-01 Page4 April 6, 2018
Corrosion testing of soil samples obtained from finish grade indicated a soluble sulfate contents less
than 0.02 percent, a chloride content between 81 and 204 paits per million (ppm), pH values between
7.7 and 8.4, and a minimum resistivity value between 619 ohm-cm and 1277 ohm-cm. Previous
corrosion testing indicated a soluble sulfate content of less than approximately 0.05 percent, a chloride
content of 639 and 1890 paits per million (ppm), pH of 8.3 and 8.0, and a minimum resistivity of 1821
ohm-centimeters and 1012 ohm-centimeters (LGC Geotechnical, 2014). Caltrans defines a corrosive
area as one where any of the following conditions exist: the soil contains more than 500 ppm of
chlorides, more than 2,000 ppm (0.2 percent) of sulfates, or a pH of 5.5 or less (Caltrans, 2012). Based
on Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines, site soils are considered corrosive due to chloride test results.
Based on laborato1y sulfate test results, the near-smface soils have an exposure class of "S 1 to S3" per
ACI 318-14, Table 19.3.1.1 with respect to sulfates.
A summaiy of the laborat01y test results are presented in Appendix C.
Project No. 13200-01 Page 5 April 6, 2018
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of our periodic testing and observation, it is our professional opinion that postgrading
operations for the State Street Townhomes were pe1formed in general accordance with the referenced rep011s
and geotechnical recommendations made during construction. Units 1 through 47 of State Street Townhomes
located at 2521 through 2589 State Street in Carlsbad, California, are considered suitable for their intended
purpose from a geotechnical viewpoint.
Project No. 13200-01 Page6 April 6, 2018
4.0 LIMITATIONS
Our services were pe1fonned using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar
circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this rep01t.
Our services were provided in order to form an opinion concerning the suitability of the proposed development
relative to the geotechnical aspects of the site. The data and information provided in this repo1t are based on
periodic tests and observations made by representatives of our firm at the times you requested during the
grading and construction operations pe1formed by others. This rep01t is not a warranty of the work pe1formed
by others. The presence of our personnel during the work process did not involve the direction or supervision of
the contractor.
Project No. 13200-01 Page 7 April 6, 2018
Approxim~te -,'6·
Site Location
, . State Stroet, Carlsbad moo NAME I Taylor Momson -L--------=7 ----:::;:-;--~PROJECT 13200-01
~P§:R~O~J,EC=T~N==O·j,T~JiLi~~~~~~~~~===== FIGURE 1 ~G!GEOL. 1"=2,000' UGC Site Location Map ~~~~E Aprit201a • 1 Inc.
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 61)00 7000 0000
rm
9000 ~000
t echn1ca' Geo
t
,_
---
/
/
LGC
Gaotechnlcal, Inc.
--
--lSS)-----
LGC Geotechnical, Inc.
131 Calle Iglesia, Ste. 200
San Clemente, CA 92672
TEL (949) 369.6141 FAX (949) 369·6142
S-26 •
SD-6 •
DW-9 •
AB-5 AC-3 AC-10 AC-4 • • •
I
LEGEND
Approximate Location of
Field Density Test of Sewer Line Backfill
Approximate Location of
Field Density Test of Storm Drain Line
Backfill
Approximate Location of
Field Density Test of Domestic Water
Line Backfill
U-2 Approximate Location of
• Dry Utilities Line Backfill
State
A13~~ AC-5 AC• 11 AC-6 AC-12 AC-7-AB-23 AC-1-
• • AB~22 e • • • •
'-..._ --i._sS)--
--r_ss)---
(~S)--
SG-18 •
AB-23 •
AC-14 •
RTW-2 •
Approximate Location of
Field Density Test of Subgrade
Approximate Location of
Field Density Test of Aggregate Base
Approximate Location of
Field Density Test of Asphalted Concrete
Approximate Location of
Retaning Wall Backfill ~
PROJECT NAME I State Street -Carlsbad
FIGURE 2 PROJECT NO. I 13200-01
Field Density Test Location Map ENG.IGEOL. TJL
SCALE NTS
DATE April 2018
Appendix A
References
APPENDIXA
References
Adams Streeter Civil Engineers, Inc., 2014, Precise Grading Plan, State Street Townhomes, Carlsbad,
California, date plotted October 14, 2014.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock (I): D420 -D5876.
California Building Standards Commission, 2013, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations
Title 24, Volumes 1 and 2, dated July 2013.
California Depaiiment of Transpo1iation (Caltrans), 2012, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 2.0, dated
November 2012.
LGC Geotechnical, Inc., 2013 , Geotechnical Due Diligence, Proposed State Street Townhomes, City of
Carlsbad, California, Project No. 13200-01, dated December 12, 2013.
--~ 2014a, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for the Proposed State Street Townhomes, 2531
through 2589 State Street, City of Carlsbad, California, Project No. 13200-01, dated July 3, 2014.
___ , 2014b, Geotechnical Recommendations for Trench Excavation to Expose Existing 66-inch Storm
Drain after Construction of the Proposed Development, State Street Townhomes, 2531 through 2589
State Street, City of Carlsbad, California, Project No. 13200-01, dated October 9, 2014.
--~ 2014c, Geotechnical Recommendations for Proposed Deepened Caisson Footings Adjacent to the
Existing 66-inch Storm Drain Easement, State Street townhomes, 2531 through 2589 State Street,
City of Carlsbad, California, Project No. 13200-01, dated October 15, 2014.
___ , 2015, Removal of Caisson Support of Perimeter Retaining Walls, State Street Townhomes, 2531
through 2589 State Street, City of Carlsbad, California, Project No. 13200-01 , dated February 5,
2015.
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI), 2008, Standard Requirements for Analysis of Shallow Concrete Foundations
on Expansive Soils, Third Edition (2004), with Addendum No. 1 (May 2007) and No. 2 (May 2008).
Project No. 11094-07 A-1 Februmy 6, 2018
AppendixB
Explanation & Summary of Field Density Test
Results
APPENDIX.B
Explanation & Summarv of Field Densitv Test Results
Test No. Test of Test No. Test of
Prefix Test of Abbreviations Prefix Test of Abbreviations
(none) GRADING
Natural Ground NG (SG) SUBGRADE
Original Ground 00 (AB) AGGREGATE BASE
Existing FiII EF (CB) CEMENT TREATED BASE
Compacted FiII CF (PB) PROCESSED BASE
Slope Face SF (AC) ASPHALT CONCRETE
Finish Grade FG
(S) SEWER Curb C
(SD) STORM DRAIN Gutter G
(AD) AREA DRAIN Curb and Gutter CG
(DW) DOMESTIC WATER Cross Gutter XO
(RW) RECLAIMED WATER Street ST
(SB) SUBDRAIN Sidewalk SW
(G) GAS Driveway DW
(E) ELECTRICAL Driveway Approach DA
(T) TELEPHONE Parking Lot PL
(U) JOINT UTILITY Electric Box Pad EB
(I) IRRIGATION
Bedding Material B
Shading Sand s
Main Backfill M
Lateral Backfill L
Crossing X
Manhole MH
Catch Basin CB
Inve1t I
Check Valve CV
Meter Box MB
Junction Box JB
(RTW) RETAINING WALL (P) PRESATURATION
Footing Bottom F
Backfill B Moisture Content M
Wall Cell C
(IT) INTERIOR TRENCH
Plumbing p
Electrical E
N represents nuclear gauge tests that were performed in general accordance with most recent version of ASTM Test Methods D6938.
15A representsfirstretestofTestNo. 15
"O" in Test Elevation Column represents test was taken at the ground surface (e.g. finish grade or subgrade)
"-1" in Test Elevation Column represents test was taken one foot below the ground surface.
Project No. 13200-01 B-1 April 6, 2018
AppendixB
Summary o(Field Density Test Results
Moisture
Test Dry Densi~ Content Relative
Test Test Test Test Test Elev. Soil (pcf) (%) Compaction
Prefix No. Method Date of Tech Location (feet) Type Field Field (%) Remarks
Retaining Wall
RTW 1 N 5/18/2015 B TIP Adj to Lot 25 FG B-1 112.2 12.2 90
RTW 2 N 5/18/2015 B TIP Adi to Lot 30 FG B-1 113.4 13.3 90
Sewer
s 1 N 2/18/2015 M CDH Lot 17 STA 2+00 -8 3 113.5 18.5 87 F s 1A N 2/18/2015 M CDH Lot 17 STA 2+00 -8 3 121.9 16.1 93 RT s 2 N 2/19/2015 M CDH Lot 24 STA 2+20 -4 3 126.0 19.0 96 s 3 N 2/19/2015 M CDH Lot 25 STA 2+30 -6 1 112.9 19.0 90
s 4 N 2/20/2015 M CDH Lot 25 STA 2+30 -2 1 113.7 18.2 90
s 5 N 2/20/2015 M CDH Lot 26 STA 2+50 -4 4 106.5 16.4 89 F s 5A N 2/21/2015 M CDH Lot 26 STA 2+50 -4 4 108.6 16.5 90 RT s 6 N 2/23/2015 M CDH Lot 28 ST A 3+00 -6 4 109.3 17.2 91
s 7 N 2/23/2015 M CDH Lot 28 STA 3+15 -4 4 108.9 16.5 91 s 8 N 2/24/2015 M CDH Lot 29 STA 3+25 -4 4 110.3 17.7 92 s 9 N 2/24/2015 M CDH Lot 29 STA 3+30 2 4 108.6 18.4 90 s 10 N 3/6/2015 M CDH South of SD STA 3+60 -6 4 112.1 19.9 93
s 11 N 3/10/2015 M CDH Lot 32 STA 4+10 -4 4 108.2 17.6 90 s 12 N 3/11/2015 M CDH MH#1 -5 CMB-1 111 .8 12.9 90 s 13 N 3/11/2015 M CDH MH#1 -2 CMB-1 111.4 11 .8 90
s 14 N 3/12/2015 M CDH Lot 35 ST A 4+60 -6 4 105.0 17.0 87 F s 14A N 3/12/2015 M CDH Lot 35 ST A 4+60 -6 4 111.0 17.0 92 RT s 15 N 3/12/2015 M CDH Lot 36 ST A 4+80 -4 4 108.2 17.2 90 s 16 N 3/12/2015 M CDH Lot 38 STA 5+30 -2 4 108.4 17.6 90
s 17 N 3/13/2015 M CDH MH#3 -4 4 113.8 14.9 95
s 18 N 3/13/2015 M CDH MH#3 -1 4 111.2 13.2 93 s 19 N 3/16/2015 M CDH Lot 43 ST A 6+50 -4 4 113.4 16.3 94 s 20 N 3/16/2015 M CDH Lot 45 STA 6+10 -3 4 112.7 14.2 94
s 21 N 3/16/2015 M CDH Lot 42 Sta 6+60 -1 4 111 .7 14.5 93
s 22 N 3/23/2015 M CDH Line A STA 1+25 -5 4 106.7 18.7 89 F s 22A N 3/23/2015 M CDH Line A STA 1+25 -5 4 108.8 18.5 91 RT
s 23 N 3/23/2015 M CDH Line A STA 1 +60 -2 4 110.3 15.2 92
s 24 N 3/23/2015 M CDH Line A STA 1+79 -4 4 108.2 16.7 90 s 25 N 3/25/2015 M CDH Line B STA 1+25 -4 4 107.9 18.2 90 s 26 N 3/25/2015 M CDH Line B STA 1+35 -2 4 110.0 20.2 92
Storm Drain
SD 1 N 3/31/2015 M CDH Allioned Lot 31 -1 4 107.9 16.2 90
SD 2 N 3/31/2015 M CDH Alliqned Lot 25 -1 4 111 .9 17.5 93
SD 3 N 3/31/2015 M CDH Alligned Lots 27/28 -1 4 108.8 16.7 91
SD 4 N 3/31/2015 M CDH Lot 37 -1 4 112.7 15.9 94
Project No. 13200-01 B-1 April, 2018
AppendixB
Summary o(Field Density Test Results
Moisture
Test Dry Densit) Content Relative
Test Test Test Test Test Elev. Soil (pcf) (%) Compaction
Prefix No. Method Date of Tech Location (feet) Type Field Field (%) Remarks
SD 5 N 4/9/2015 M CDH Manhole -4 4 113.5 13.6 94
SD 6 N 4/9/2015 M CDH Manhole -2 4 112.9 14.2 94
Domestic Water ow 1 N 4/17/2015 M CDH Sta 3+50 -1 4 110.4 11 .5 92 ow 2 N 4/17/2015 M CDH Sta 3+25 -1 4 108.4 12.5 90
ow 3 N 4/20/2015 M CDH Sta 2+10 -1 4 107.9 13.1 90
OW 4 N 4/20/2015 M CDH Sta 2+30 -1 4 109.8 13.7 91 ow 5 N 4/22/2015 M CDH Sta 4+20 -2 4 107.7 12.6 90 ow 6 N 4/22/2015 M CDH Sta 5+00 -1 4 108.4 16.2 90
ow 7 N 4/23/2015 M CDH Line B "O" Tires Sta 11 +50 -2 4 105.5 18.6 88 F ow 7A N 4/23/2015 M CDH Line B "O" Tires Sta 11 +50 -2 4 110.4 17.4 92 RT ow 8 N 4/27/2015 M CDH Line Next to Soil Rect. Sta 2+10 -2 4 113.7 14.4 95 ow 9 N 4/27/2015 M CDH Line Next to Soil Rect. Sta 11 + 70 -2 4 112.2 13.7 93
Dry Utilities
u 1 N 5/19/2015 M TIP Adj. to Lot 42 FG B-1 119.1 11.6 95
u 2 N 5/19/2015 M TIP Adi. to Lot 45 FG B-1 114.2 11.0 91
Subgrade
SG 1 N 7/31/2015 SG TIP Phase 1 Alley FG B-2 117.5 12.1 97
SG 2 N 7/31/2015 SG TIP Models Alley FG B-2 114.8 12.4 95
SG 3 N 7/31/2015 SG TIP Ph 2 Alley FG B-2 115.3 12.7 96
SG 4 N 8/4/2015 SG TIP Site Entrance Between Models & Ph 2 FG B-2 106.1 12.2 88 F
SG 4A N 8/5/2015 SG TIP Alley at Phase 4 FG B-2 114.5 13.6 95 RT
SG 5 N 8/25/2015 SG TIP Alley at Phase 5 FG B-2 115.8 11.1 96
SG 6 N 8/25/2015 SG TIP Alley at Phase 6 FG B-2 116.3 11 .8 96
SG 7 N 8/25/2015 SG TIP City Sidewalk Building #5 FG B-2 114.9 12.1 95
SG 8 N 12/3/2015 CG SPR City Sidewalk Building #5 SG B-2 109.4 14.0 91
SG 9 N 12/3/2015 CG SPR Approach Ooo Lot 1 SG B-2 110.4 13.5 92
SG 10 N 12/7/2015 ST SPR Site Entrance Between Models & Ph 2 SG B-2 111.9 12.1 93
SG 11 N 12/7/2015 ST SPR Approach Opp Lot 17 SG B-2 109.6 13.8 91
SG 12 N 12/21/2015 SW SPR Opp Lot4 SG B-2 110.5 14.5 92
SG 13 N 12/21/2015 SW SPR Opo Lot 9 SG B-2 108.2 15.0 90
SG 14 N 3/3/2017 CG SPR Front of Building# 2 SG B-2 108.5 14.6 90
SG 15 N 3/3/2017 CG SPR Front of Building# 3 SG B-2 109.5 15.2 91
SG 16 N 3/3/2017 SW SPR Front of Buildino # 4 SG B-2 109.8 16.0 91
SG 17 N 3/3/2017 SW SPR Front of Building # 5 SG B-2 110.8 13.6 92
SG 18 N 4/3/2017 CG SPR Paseo Walkway between Building 30/31 SG B-2 108.2 15.0 90
Aaaregate Base
AB 1 N 8/6/2015 CG TIP Approach at Bldg 1 &2 (Between Ph 1 &2) FG CMB-1 118.6 11.6 96
AB 2 N 8/17/2015 ST TIP Adi to Phase 2 FG CMB-1 119.3 13.0 96
Project No. 13200-01 B-2 April, 2018
AppendixB
Summary ofField Density Test Results
Moisture
Test Dry Densit) Content Relative
Test Test Test Test Test Elev. Soil (pcf) (¾) Compaction
Prefix No. Method Date of Tech Location (feet) Type Field Field (¾) Remarks
AB 3 N 8/17/2015 ST TTP Adi to Phase 2 FG CMB-1 118.9 12.6 96
AB 4 N 8/18/2015 ST TTP Adi to Phase 1 FG CMB-1 119.6 13.2 96
AB 5 N 8/18/2015 ST TTP Adi to Phase 1 FG CMB-1 121 .0 12.8 97
AB 6 N 8/18/2015 ST TTP Adi to Models FG CMB-1 111.6 12.7 90 F
AB 6A N 8/18/2015 ST TTP Adj to Models FG CMB-1 119.0 13.4 96 RT
AB 7 N 8/18/2015 ST TTP Adi to Models FG CMB-1 120.1 11.9 97
AB 8 N 8/27/2015 ST TTP Adj to Phase 4 FG CMB-1 117.4 12.0 95
AB 9 N 8/27/2015 ST TTP Adj to Phase 5 FG CMB-1 119.1 9.9 96
AB 10 N 8/27/2015 ST TTP Adi to Phase 6 FG CMB-1 117.6 10.2 95
AB 11 N 9/10/2015 ST TTP Alley Adj. to Phase 4 FG CMB-1 119.2 12.0 96
AB 12 N 9/10/2015 ST TTP Alley Adj. to Phase 5 FG CMB-1 117.6 11 .9 95
AB 13 N 9/10/2015 ST TTP Alley Adj. to Phase 6 FG CMB-1 118.3 12.4 95
AB 14 N 12/8/2015 ST SPR Approach Opp to Lot 17 AB CMB-1 118.9 11.5 96
AB 15 N 12/8/2015 ST SPR Approach Opp to Lot 1 AB CMB-1 117.6 12.8 95
AB 16 N 3/8/2017 ST SPR Front of Building # 2 AB CMB-1 121 .7 11 .8 98
AB 17 N 3/8/2017 ST SPR Front of Buildino # 3 AB CMB-1 117.6 12.6 95
AB 18 N 3/8/2017 ST SPR Front of Buildinq # 4 AB CMB-1 118.0 13.1 95
AB 19 N 4/3/2017 ST SPR Paseo Walkway between Building 30/31 AB CMB-1 118.5 12.5 95
AB 20 N 8/31/2017 ST SPR Opp #47 AB CMB-1 118.8 12.1 96
AB 21 N 8/31/2017 ST SPR Opp#5 AB CMB-1 117.5 11 .0 95
AB 22 N 8/31/2017 ST SPR Opp #11 AB CMB-1 118.1 11 .2 95
AB 23 N 8/31/2017 ST SPR Opp #16 AB CMB-1 119.4 12.7 96
Asphalt Concrete
AC 1 N 8/31/2017 AC SPR Base Pave Opp #47 AC AC1 138.5 95
AC 2 N 8/31/2017 AC SPR Base Pave Opp #2 AC AC1 139.7 96
AC 3 N 8/31/2017 AC SPR Base Pave Opp #6 AC AC1 142.8 98
AC 4 N 8/31 /2017 AC SPR Base Pave Opp #8 AC AC1 139.4 96
AC 5 N 9/1/2017 AC SPR Base Pave #10 AC AC1 143.5 98
AC 6 N 9/1 /2017 AC SPR Base Pave #13 AC AC1 138.5 95
AC 7 N 9/1/2017 AC SPR Base Pave #16 AC AC1 140.9 97
AC 8 N 9/5/2017 ST SPR State Street #4 7 AC AC 139.4 98
AC 9 N 9/5/2017 ST SPR State Street Opp #3 AC AC1 137.0 94 F
AC 9A N 9/5/2017 ST SPR State Street Opp #3 AC AC 142.5 100 RT
AC 10 N 9/5/2017 ST SPR State Street Opp #7 AC AC1 140.8 97
AC 11 N 9/5/2017 ST SPR State Street Opp #12 AC AC1 145.5 100
AC 12 N 9/5/2017 ST SPR State Street Opp #15 AC AC1 140.2 96
AC 13 N 9/5/2017 ST SPR State Street Opp Street AC AC1 139.9 96
AC 14 N 9/5/2017 ST SPR State Street Opp #18 AC AC1 142.8 98
Project No. 13200-01 B-3 April, 2018
Appendix C
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
APPENDIXC
Laboratorv Testing Procedures and Test Results
Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dty density and optimum moisture content of typical materials were
determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method Dl557. Maximum densities were corrected for rock content
as identified. The results of these tests are presented in the table below.
Soil Type Soil Maximum Dry Optimum
or Location Description Density (oc0 Moisture (%)
CMB-1 Crushed Miscellaneous Base (CMB) 121.5 11.5
1 Brown Clayey Fine Sand 125 .0 10.5
2 Brown Clayey Sand 120.0 13.0
3 Brown Clayey Sand 130.0 10.0
4 Olive Grey Sand wl Brown Clay 119.5 12.5
B-1 Brown Clayey Fine Sand 125 .0 10.5
B-2 Brown Clayey Sand 120.0 12.0
AC Asphalt Concrete 141.5 NIA
ACl Asphalt Concrete 145 NIA
Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected representative samples was evaluated by the Expansion
Index Test per ASTM D4829. The results are presented in the table below.
4-!.-.m!lle Location Expansion Index Expansion Poten . .
1 75 Low
2 28 Medium
3 138 Ve1yHigh
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were detennined by standard geochemical
methods (CTM 417). The test results are presented in the table below.
Sample Sulfate Content (%) Location
1 <0.02
2 <0.02
3 <0.02
Project No. 13200-01 C-1 April 6, 2018
Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested in accordance with Caltrans Test Method (CTM) 422. The
results are presented below.
Sample Location I Chloride Content (ppm)
I
1
I
204
I
2 81
3 84
Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance
with CTM 643 and standard geochemical methods. The results are presented in the table below.
Sample Location pH Minimum Resistivity (ohms-cm)
1 7.9 753
2 7.7 1277
3 8.4 619
Project No. 13200-01 C-1 April 6, 2018