HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 72-11; BUENA WOODS UNIT NO 2; REVIEW OF EXISTING SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT; 1973-01-08• .'
WOODWARD· GIZIENSKI & ASSOCIATES
3467 Ku rtz Street
San Diego
California 92110
(714) 224·2911
CONSULTING SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
An affiliate of Woodward -Clyde Consultants
January 8, 1973
Project No. 72-105-56
Kamar Construction Company, Inc.
325 Elm Avenue
Post Office Box 1155
Carlsbad, California 92008
REVIEW OF EXISTING SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT _
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND EARTH~~ORK SPECIFICATIONS
BUENA WOODS UNIT NO. 2
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
In accordance with your request, we have made a, review of an existin-
preliminary soil investigation report which includes the subject site
and the proposed grading plans pertaining to the subject subdivision.
We also made a recent visual inspection of the site. The purpose of this
work is to make an evaluation from a soil e~gineering standpoint of the
soil and geologic conditions on the site and to relate these to the pro-
posed grading as well as to provide additional recommendations for site
grading. Guide Specifications for Controlled Fill ~re also presented,
which, in our opinion, should be used during the grading of the subdivision.
A IISoil Investigation for the Proposed Hosp Grove Development, Carlsbad,
California,1I prepared by Woodward-Clyde & Associates and dated April 13,
1968 was reviewed. The grading plans entitled "Tentative Map Carlsbad
Tract 72-1111 dat~d May 5, 1972 and prepared by Roy L. Klema Engineers, Inc.
was also reviewed. It is our understanding that single-family, one and
two-story, wood-frame and stucco townhouse-type structures will be placed
on the lots.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject site is located on the east side at the -upper end of a north-
west draining tributary to Buena Vista Lagoon east of the downtown section
of Carlsbad, California. The topography of the s,ite is somewhat rugged
with some vertical sandstone cliffs reaching heights of 10 to 20 fee~ in
localized areas. In elevation the site ranges from approximately 110 to
210 feet plan datum.
-Kamar construction4ltmpany,
Project No. 72-105-56
January 8, 1973
Inc. • P.age 2
A visual inspection was made by a project engineer' of our firm on
December 5, 1972. At the time of this inspection the site was covered
by moderate to dense growth of Euclyptus trees and low brush and weeds.
Some piles of tree stumps were noted in the gullies along the southern
boundary of the site and some minor dumped piles of soil were observed.
Some deep erosion has occurred along. the main' drainage of the tributary
at the north-west corner of the site. Some potentially compressible
~a,l,luv,j.a,l .. $.o,;"ls wer.e .. noted _on .ei th.er s.tde.s .. of the ,eroded .gully.
GRADING PLANS
The grading plans provided us indicate that cut and fill slopes with
maximum heights on the order of 15 and 20 feet, and slope inclinations
of 1-1/2 to 1 and 2 to 1, respectively, are proposed. The plans also
indicate a higher fill slope which will support Elm Avenue at the south-
east corner of the site. It is our understanding that it would be desir-
able to make this slope 1-1/2 to 1 in inclination. It was difficult to
determine the height of the slope from the -plans. sin¢e grades along Elm
Avenue are not known. It is anticipated that the slope could reach heights
on the order of 40 feet.
GENERAL SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS
A study of the preliminary soil investigation report and our visual
inspection of the site indicate that the subsurface soils generally con-
sist of an overburden composed of a residual soil mantle over the side slopes
of the tributary and alluvial soils in the major tributary and draws col-
lectively underlain by dense reddish-browh moderately indurated sandstone
of probable Pleistocene Age. This sandstone extends to approximate ele-
vation of 155 feet where a much lighter colored moderately indurated sand-
stone of possible Eocene Age was encountered.
The residual soil mantle consists of 0 to 24 inches of loose dry porous
silty sand topsoil underlain by 0 to 12 inches of clayey sand or sandy clay.
This latter soil is very patchy in occurrence, and may be low to moderate1y
expansive in nature; however, it is not expected to comprise a major p'ortion
of materials in the cut areas. Alluvial soils are expected along and on either
sides of the deep gullies in the major tributary and in the shallow sub-
tributary draws. The maximum depth indicated is approximately 10 feet.
WOODWARD· GIZIENSI<I & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
. Kamar Construction4llmpany, Inc.
Project No. 72-105-56
January 8, 1973 • P.age 3
The underlying formational soils, the sandstone materials, belong to a
._ terrace deposit of Pleistocene Age and to the underlying Eocene Unit,
which extends to great depth on the site. These materials should provide
significant quantities of select fill material for use in fields and at
finish grade.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Our review of the soil investigation report, the visual inspection of
the site and our knowledge of the geologic formations and soil conditions
in the'area indicate that the existing conditions at the site that will
require special consideration during grading will be primarily the clearing
and preparation of ground prior to constructing fills.
1) It is recommended that all tree stumps and other trash and perishable
materials be gathered and disposed of offsite before earth moving commences.
. 2) It is recommended that tree root systems be excavated from areas to
be filled and roots and stumps resulting be disposeo of offsite before
placing the fill. The disturbed area should be excavated and/or scarified
as required and compacted to 90% relative comapction~
3) It will be necessary to either excavate tree root systems from the
cut area or employ root pickers in the fi 11 area such that excessive
vegetable matter does not collect in the fills.
4) All existing loose, dry or soft and wet alluVial soils should be
excavated properly prepared and recompacted before new fi 11' or foundati ons
are placed. The maximum depth of these soils ;s expected to be on the
order of 10 feet. The actual depth of excavation and compaction should be·
determined in the field at the ti·me of grading by Woodward-Gizienski & .
Associates.
5} All vertical cliffs not excavated by grading operations and that
may exist within lot areas should be reduced in inclination to 1 to l,or
gentler,or be benched into as-the fill progresses. In the latter case, the
guide specifications should be consulted for bench height and width.
6} . It is recommended that any potenti ally expan'si ve soil s exposed at
finish grade in level lot areas be removed to a depth of 2 feet and replaced
with properly compacted nonexpansive soil available in the cut areas. It
is further recommended that the upper 2 feet of fill in level lot areas
WOODWARD· GIZIENSKI & AssociATES'
CONSULTING SOIL ANO FOUNDATION ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
Kamar Construction Itmpany,
Project No. 72-105-56
January 8, 1973
Inc. • P,age 4
be composed of properly compacted nonexpansive soil.
'7) It is recommended that all, grading operations be performed in
accordance with the attached specifications for controlled fill. The pro-
cedures should be under the observation of and compaction tests taken by
... Woodward-Gizienski & Associates.
8) It is our opinion that the proposed cut and fill slopes for the
major portion of the subdivision will have adequate factors of safety under
static conditions against a deep-seated failure, if constructed in accordance
Wfth pTans and s'p-e'ci'fi c-ati-atTs. A mi'n-i-mum "fa-c-uo-f-"o'f' s-a·fety,"of 1.5 'w'a-s used
in our analysis; no siesmic factors were considered. It is also our opinion
that 1-1/2 to 1 fill slopes up to heights of 40 feet will have similar
factors of safety.
9} Conventional spread or continuous footings for one and two story
residential structures founded in properly compacted nonexpansive fill or
natural undisturbed nonexpansive ground may be designed for an allowable
soil bearing of 2000 and 4000 pounds per square foot (total load), respectively.
All footings should have a minimum depth and width of 12 inches. '
LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based on the
information included in the previous soil, report prepared by Woodward-
Clyde & Associates, on a visual inspection of the site and on our knowledge!
and experience of similar soils in the area: It is necessarily assumed
that the subsurface conditions do not deviate appreciable from those dis-
closed by the test borings or outcrops. If variations are encountered dur~ng
grading we should be contacted for additional recommendations, if this is
required.
WOODWARD-GIZIENSKI & ASSOCIATES
RPW/LJL/mf
(4)
WOODWARD· GIZIENSKI & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING SOIL ANO fOUNDATION ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
~ I
I
-j
j
3467 Kurtz Street
San Diego
California 92110
(714) 224·2911
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
April 13, 1968
Project No. 67-223
Kamar Construction Company, Inc.
P. O. Box' 71
Carlsbad, California·92008
Attention: Mr. Jerry L. Rombotis
CTI2r1l
In accordance with your request and our proposal dated October 17,1967,
we have made an investigation of the underlying soil conditions at tne·
site of the proposed development to be known as Hosp Grove in C~rlsbad,
California.
The accompanying report presents the results of the subsurface explora-
ti on and the 1 aboratory tests as we 11 as the concl us ions and recommen-
dations pertaining to this site. It should be. noted that since grading
and construction plans for the development of this property are still
in the preliminary stages, additional studies and recommendations may
. be required in order to obtain the most suitable designs •
. The Project Engineer assigned to this project was Joseph G. Kocherhans,
of our firm. .
JGK/LJL/jsk
Attachment
4 cc
, . . .
! <. ,
ii II
,I'
I
i I
SCOPE
This'report descrtbes an investigation of the underlying soil con-
ditions at the site of a proposed development to be known as Hosp Grove
and to be located south of proposed Marron Road between Jefferson Street
and E1 Camino Real along the nort~ern limits of Carlsbad, California.'
The purpose of the investigation ;s to determine the characteristics of
the subsurface materials in order to provide a basis for conclusions
and recommendations regarding the stability of 'cut and fill slopes, any
required fill foundation treatments and special provisions necessary in
the earthwork specifications, tile most suitable type and depth of foun-
. dation, and the allowable soil bearing pressures for foundations on com-
pacted fill or natural ground in accordance with Federal Housing Admin-
istration requirements.
It is our understanding that the proposed construction will be limited
to relatively light to moderate weight one and two story structures with
either raised, wooden floors or slab-on-grade floors. No plans were
available at the time of our study; however, it is understood that grqd-
ing will be limited to the area east of Jefferson Street and south of the
, ,
proposed Marron Road, as in?icated in the Development Concept. plan of
the Master Planning Study brochure prepared by Campbell and Miller.and
Willson and Williams. It is further understood that approximately 500,000
cubic yards of material will be taken from this site and will be placed
in the low area north of ~1arron Road and west of the commercial site
now under construction. Present plans indicate that this latter mate-
rial will probably be obtained from the eastern portion of the site.
WOODWARD • CLYDE· SHERARD & ASSOCIATES
Comultiflll Soil and Foundation ~ni:inee" Qnd Geolo/l.uu
:> .. ,
:fC;~;~~i.~1:?~~.i~t;;;;~1;;.;fui~~~#,i"."""~~~~:l.:~";.~;;,;t1J;£1;&,1{f,td\i','t\'~~I~l.1'l;'''''''lI&v~;"~~_''''~_'''''') ......... )'.~
,,,.,; f ~ Rl;
. ~"' ,. I
1
'1 ;»
, i"~ .~ ~
••
ld • •
. . , Page 2
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Sixteen test borings were made with a 6-i~ch diameter power auger
at the locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. The drilling was
done bebJeen November 11, 1967 and January 27, 1968, under the super-
vision of a staff engineering geologist. Field logs were prepared by
the geologist on the basis of an inspection of the samples secured and
of the excavated material. The Logs of Test Borings shown on Figures 2
through 15 are based on an inspection of the samples, on the laboratory
test results, and on the field logs. The vertical position of each
sample is shown on the Logs of Test Borings.
The test borings were located in the field with the aid of an un-
dated Master Pla,nning Study plan prepared by Campbell and Miller and
.' Willson and Williams, Planning, Architecture and Engineering.
In addition to this i.nvestigation ,a "Geologic'Report for Hosp Greve
Planning Study -Phase 1111 dated December 11,1967, has been prepared
by F. Beach Leighton.
LABORATORY TESTS
The soils encountered in the test borings were visually classified
and evaluated with respect to strength, swelling and compressibility
characteristics, dry density and moisture content. The classifica:tion
was substantiated by grain size analyses and determination of plasticity
characteristics of r~presentative samples of the soils. The strength of
the soils was 'evaluated by means of u~confined compression tests and
direct shear tests on selected samples and by consideration of the den-
sity and moisture content of the samples and the penetration resist~nce
of the sampler. Swelling characteristics were determined by loaded'swell
WOODWARD • CLYDE· SHERARD & ASSOCIATES
Comulting Soil and Foundlltion Eneineen pnd Geologuu .. ' 7'
!
i
i
i
i ,
I ),'t
?:, .
i I I ~
I '.
j
Page 3
tests on undisturbed samples. Compressibility characteristics were
established by confined compression tests and consolidation tests on
undisturbed samples.
The results of tests on undisturbed samples, except for the loaded
swell test, confine.d compression tests and consolidat~on tests, are
shown with the penetration resistance of the sampler at the corresponding
sample location on the Logs of Test Borings; The grain size distribution
curves and the plasticity characteristics are ind~cated on Figures 16
and 17 and the consolidation test results are reported on Figures 18
and 19. The results of the loaded swell tests and the confined com-
pression tests are reported on Tables 1 and 2,.respectively.
SITE AND SOIL CONDITIONS
The site is situated on the southern side slopes of Marron Canyon
and is typified by numerous north to northeast trending ridges and
valleys which extend into the lagoon located along the 'northern edge
of the property. The ground surface elevations within the site range
from a low of approximately 10 feet in the northwestern portion of the
site up to approximately 210 feet in the central area ~nd approximately
80 feet on the east side of the site along E1 Camino Real. The area
studied is generally undeveloped at the pres~nt time. The eastern.
one-fourth of the site is covered with small weeds, and a scattering
of small brush in the natural drainage channels. The remainder of
.' the site is covered by a very dense growth of .Eucalyptus trees.
The general natural drainage of the eastern one-fourth of the site
is to the northeast over the fairly shallow sloping southern side slopes
of Marron Canyon. Basically the drainage in the' western three-fourths
WOODWARD • CLYDE • SHER.~RO & ASSOCIATES
Consulting Soil and FoundDtion Engineer, ~nd Geologi.rU
.... U;t:lJ d •• Vt ~,!"t'J'I""~~_-"-"~~"""'~~."""I"""_ " ~:: t . . .
•• 1
I"
'I
Page 4
~f the site feeds into a long northwest trending subcanyon which has
very steep \'Iestern side walls with inclinations of betvJeen 1-1/2 to 1
to 3 to 1, and shallow eastern side slopes with inclinations of approx-
imately 6 to 1 to 8 to 1. The eastern side slopes have developed 'some
badland type topography, iD local areas, generally between the elevations
of 140 and 190 feet. The subcanyon bottom slopes down to the north\'Iest
at about 26 to 1, overall ,and terminates at an elevation of approximately
10 feet in ~1arron Canyon, approximately one-fourth mile east of Jefferson
Street in the tidal and marshy flats of Buena Vista lagoon.
High cut slopes have been constructed along the sQuth side of the
project adjacent to the proposed Marron Road. The cuts were made in
conjunction with the grading of the proposed commerical site.
The soils, as encountered in the test borings and as exposed in
the test trenches (the latter of which were made for the geology studies),
indicate that the subsurface materials within the site may be divided
into. 4 basic categories: topsoil, alluvim, bay-deposi.ts,. and older
fo'rmationa 1 materi a 1 s.
A. The topsoils are generally encountered over most of
the site in thicknesses, from 0 to 4 feet and range in consistency
from loose to medium dense. These soils are generally silty
'sands with some areas grading into clayey sands. '
B. The alluvium, for the most part, is situated in the
large western subcanyon and ranges in thickness from absent
6n the canyon sides and south end to over 40 feet near its
northern termination. The soils in these alluvial deposits
consist primarily of loose to medium dense silty sands with
some interbedding of clayey sands. These·soils also have an
. errati c porous structure whi ch extends to': depths of up to
7 feet in some areas.
C. The ~ or lagoonal deposits consist of interbedded
soft to firm silty and sandy clays and very loose to medium dense
silty and clayey sands. The soils are limited to the lower
northwest corner of the site as indicated on F,igure 1.
WOODWARD· CLYDE· SHERARD & ASSOCIATES
Comultin, Soil and Foundation Enjlineetl and GeQlogisU
. t '
f J
l'··
-~,;'
, i
I
1
j
I I ,
~" ~,,' .~ ~, ~ . . ;",';.:i.!.~'+~;~~;~~i..k~~~-'&O-I;'~-i~-~~_"_._:::_:_,",:"",,,,,,,,,," ~'::~::::::-::":::":::=~:::::::-!:.~~~~."i"'~.~~~~;;;;;;¥~~;,:~::.;i~~"
~. ~
d • -
d'
Page 5
D. The basic formatioria1 materials, which u~derlie the
entire site and are the predominant soils, consist of medium
dense to very dense silty sands with $ome interbeds of clayey
sand and scattered thin strata of silty to sandy clay.
Groundwater was encountered in Test Borings 2, 6, 14 and 16 at
depths of 27, 16, 3 and 56 feet, respectively, at the time of drilling.
DISCUSSION
GENERAL -Among the items relating to on-site soil conditions which
should be considered in conjunction with the planning of a development
which ind'udes extensive grading, as well as the constr~ction of various
types of struc~ures,are the following:
1 .. The availability of select fill materials~
2. The safe supporting capacity of both t~e natural soils
-and the proposed fill soils .
. 3. The volum~ change characteristics of the s6ils.
,4., The ease of excavation of the materials in cut areas
and the relative compaction required in fill areas.
&~ The safe hei~hts and inclinations of cut and fill slopes.
6. Development of lagoonal and 'valley areas including, the
_ estimated magnitude and rate of settlement due to compression of
loose, soft or porous deposits under ,the imposed fill and building
loads, as well as methods of reducing or'accelerating such settlements.
SOIL CONDITIONS -The materials encountered on the site, except
for bay deposits and thin lenses of silty clays scattered throughout . the underlying formational units, are basically silty sands. These
silty sands wil) provide a source of suitable select-fill and they have
WOODWARD· CLYDE· SHERARD &. ASSOCIATES
Con.rultini Soil and Fetmdation Engine"". and GeologisU
, '
·~..lL~~.;;~~~~";.,.~~~~,,--~e,"~,,·~ .. -~",~><-~,..-..,,,-~~~~~"e~~~~~~,,·· .. ·;~~~~~~.~::if~
-:..--. . "I
Page 6
good strength parameters in both 'a natural and recompacted state. Such
soils can generally be used for ~he direct support of compacted fill or
structures without special treatments, except in such cases as the'
alluvial deposits on the site which are in some areas quite 106se in
place and have the potentjal to settle under fairly light loading con-
ditions. These loose soils will require excavation and/or compaction
where not removed by normal grading operatiqns.
The silty clays which may be encountered in thin layers and lenses
throughout the site have adequate strength in the undisturbed and'prop-
erly c6mpacted states; however, these clays .exhibit high volume change
characteristics with changes in water contents (potentially expansive)
. and therefore should not be used as select fill and should be undercut
when exposed at finish grade.
All of the above noted materials on the site were drilled with
little difficulty with a 6-inch diameter truck-mounted power aug.er" th~
approximate maximum down force of which is 7000 pounds •. Experience in .
this area indicates that materials that can be drilled with this.equip-
ment can be exoavated by normal heavy grading eqUipment and that no
, ,
bl~sting should be required.
As previously noted, the bay deposits situated in the lower porti.on
of the sit~ consist of very ·loose to loose silty sands interbedded with
very soft to firm silty and sandy clays extending to a depth of approx-
imately 20 feet at the location of Test Boring 14. Below this depth
the soils become very comp~tent and are expected to have little effect
on surface development. The soils in the upper zone are generally weak
and compressible and will have a decided effect on future development.
Results of our studies indicate that sett·lements on the order of 10 to
WOODWARD • CLYDE· SHERARD & ASSOCIATES
Comulting Soil ond Foundotion Enginee" ~nd Geologuu
"
I
~.
~. "
• Page 7
12 inches can be expected under 10 feet of fill. This settlement would
take place over a period of 9 to '12 months. However, it has been our
experience that there is a great variation in thickness of compressible
materials due to interbedding of bay deposits; th~refore, the above figutes .
can be expected to decrease to the south and increase to the north in the
lagoonal area. Preconsolidation of the underlying soils may be necessary
in this area depending on the future plans. , Preconsolidation is usually
attained by surcharge loading the areas affected.
CONSTRUCTION -Results of our field studies indicate that the ex-
cavation and compaction of on-site soils can be accomplished with normal
heavy grading equipment. The major problems regarding construction
that can be anticipated at this time are as follows: .
1. Removal of loose alluvial soils where not removed
during. grading.
2. Complete removal of the existing slide indicated in
the IIGeologic Report ~or Hasp Grove Planning Study -Phase II"
dated December 11, 1967 and prepared 'by F. Beach Leighton, Geologist.
'3 .. The installation of subsurface drains in filled canyons.
4. Preparation and treatment of the steep-walled arroyo.and
,I •
the IIbadland ll areas which will require overexcavation and benching
in order to provide a SUitable' base for fills.
5. Treatment of the lagoonal area which may require additional
study depending on its intended use.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The ground which will receive fill and/or light to moderate
WOODWARD • CLYDE· SHERARD & ASSOCIATES
Comullinll Soil Gnd Foundation Enllinecr, and Ge%gist.
" 11
L
r
I
1
i
~;~~l:i.r;d'~~~~1~~~,:i;;?£.4ik:~;:i.\:,:"·:~,-:e",;';"";:""i";"'~"""""~'t.""":~~""'~(oI""'''~~hl~'''''~e"'''''~~'-''''l»A~~~~~~~
1-'"
Page 8
'structures will have an adequate bearing value to safely support the
anticipated loads when treated as described in this report and in the
attached IIS pec ifications for Controlled Fillil.
2. Footings for stru.ctures planned on nonexpans;ve undisturbed
native soi 1 s or properly compacted nonexpansive fn 1 may be des; gned
for a soil bearing pressure of 1500 psf at ~ depth o~ 8 inches or 2000
psf at a depth of 12 inches below rough lot grade.
3. Some of the natural soils on the site are capable of supporting
higher bearing pressures if required. If the use' of higher values is
desirable, additional recommendations can be made after building de-
signs and locations are determined.
4. The soi 1 s expected to be used in the fi 11s 'wi th the excepti on
of the silty clay lenses i,n the' formational materials and the near sur-
face sandy clays, as encountered in Boring 10, have low volume change
characteristics and should provide suitable se1ect fill material. The
clayey soils exhibit potential expansive characteristics and should be
:used in 'the lower portions of the fill.
5. The porous alluvial soils in the valleys are potentially com-
, pressible upon saturation under load. Special treatment of these ma-
terials will be required.
6, Preliminary studies for planning purposes"indicate that fill
slopes, constructed of materials encountered within the site, and cut
WOODWARD· CLYDE· SHERARD & ASSOCJ.L\TES
COfUulting Soil and Foundation Engineer. and 'Ceolog""
,
I
I i ,"I
I ,
I ,
, , ,
: :
~ i
I;
" ,
I
j ;
I
I·
I I
I
~~~)w;~:Zf"'*"'\ii!I;;&fi"Bl#lfP;."'~~~"-~"",~~~"::,:::,:.',,,:.::,:,:!:."....::.~.:: -: I"""":."~-.:.. ..... ,-.-, h ............... _-_. -'-.•. __
. ~ ~ .
P.age 9
slopes, both having maximum incli~ations of 1-1/2 to 1 (1-1/2 units
horizontal to 1 unit vertical) and unsupported heights up to 50 feet,
.will have an adequate safety factor against slope failure. Deviations
from this criteria may be allowed upon review of plans, the proposed cut
or fill areas, and additional exploration, if required.'
7. Based on the results of our investigation, it is our opinion
that the material in cut areas can be excavated by moderate to heavy
ripping,
'8. The subsurface bay d~posit soils in the lagoonal area are com-
pressible and settlements under both fill and building. loads should be
anticipateq. Additiona~ studies 'will be required in this area after
tentative grading and building plans have been developed. For preliminary
planning, it is suggested that the .area be covered with at least 6 feet
of fill and then either stabilization by surcharge fills or the use of
pile fOLlndations should be considered for' the building areas.
RECor·1MENDATIONS
1 •. Potentially expansive soils may be encountered on cut lots
where the scattered silty clay lens~s may be encountered at finish
grade. If slab-on-grade construction is used, .it is recommended that
the potentially expansive soil be replaced within the entire level lot
pad to a minimum depth of 2 feet below rough lot grade with properly
compacted nonexpansive soil availab.le at the site. If conventional
wooden floors are used, it is recommended that the' fcotings extend . .
.... ~
I !
i'
I, I,
i'
II II
!i "
through the clay or to a maximum depth of 24 inches. Footings resting . !
on clay should be reinforced.
WOODWARD • CLYDE· SHERARD & ASSOC!ATES
Consulting Soil and Foundation Engineer. an~ Ceologuu
; .
I T . f
i
f I l
I
• • -I,
P,age 10
2. It is recommended th~t 100se and/or porous surface soils not
remove~ by gradi.ng oper~tions be excavated or scarified, as required,
and comp~cted' before fill, footings or slabs are placed. The maximum
depth of these loose and/or porous soils encountered in the borings is
about 7 feet in the alluvial deposits and 1 to 3 feet over the remainder
of the site; however, the depth'of compaction should be controlled in
the field by a qualified Soil E,ngineer upon visual examination ,of the
exposed soil.
3. It is recommended that the upper 2 fe~t of fill in bui1di~g
areas be constructed of nonexp~nsiye soil. The potentially expansive,
soils may be spread throu~hou~ the lower portions of the fills.
4. , It is, recommended that the soils in the 'exist~,ng sl ide area·
(see, geology report) be completely removed prior to filling or con?i:ructio,n
of structures in the area. SubSUrface drains wil,l'also be necessary in
thi s general area, if canyons are fi 11 ed •.
5. It i:s recommended that any structure foundations located closer
than 5 feet'from the top of the slope be extended in depth u~til the
outer bottom edge of, the footing is 5 feet horizontally from the out-
side of the slope.
,6. It is recommended that preliminary pJans be reviewed by this
office prior to 'construction so that supplemental recommendations may,
be given, as reqUired •
WOODWARD • CLYDE· SHERARD & ASSOCIATES
Consulting Soil and F~ndation Engineera and GeologilU
II
,
j'
"
~.
Page 11
7. A set of specifications for controlled fill is attached. The
recommendations made as a part of this preliminary soils report shall
become a part of the specifications for controlled fill.
LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations made in this report are based
on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably
from those disclosed by the test borings. If variations are encountered
during construction, \'Ie should be notified so that we may make supple-
mental recommendations if this should be required.
WOODWARD· CLYDE· SHERARD & ASSOCIATES
Conwltin/: Soil and Foundation Enjlineer. and Ceologi61.
.1 <\
1 I
~~--",_""""-_"-,-_~, ___ ""~_---",_""""""""""""""""""_,-",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .""'t........,.,........,..,p.....,G~-..".....,.,......,~-ij--\'I...,~ ~ _ • ...",w) .. ~_ .. ~j • ..........,...~ I~~~ ___ -~ ... --.-.... --........ ' .
• •• ¥"1''! .... ,.,' ,\. ••
t t .
!
!
J
t I
L, . . ~, -'
I
,0".,' • ~~~~~:;;.l:.~""'i' ... ,~i,""""""~"~,,. '~--"""""'"""">"'",",,'A.-,~,-,~~;,, •• ~-~.,,,."~'.'e""~~~~.
-Flq .
cd ....
II>
>-
'..: }
=-.... ,.,. ........ _ m, : we . rt~~·
150
•
Scale: I"=IOOOY
legend
Indicates approximate location of test boring.
"'200 / Indicates approximate existing ground .... " ... ./ surface contour.
Il~l\IU ~~~i8:~g;it~~roximate I imits of
O In9icates approximate area of alluvial sOils. '
.'
WOODWARD, CLYDE, SHERARD & ASSOCIATr:S
. SITE PLAN
HOSP GROVE
PROJECT NO. -223
3-4-68· LQ·l,
,
-
I
]
o -
5 _
-10 -
Itt -
o -
5 -
-.10 -
15 - .
20 -
25 -
29-
Boring
~~ rl ~J-ill ~~~~;:~sel~iPlp~~~~!{ed brown
~ Very stiff, moi st, dark brown sandy
VIC=: 26 -~ clay (CH)
DD= 91 ..1-1111'11 U d d d l' BC:: 18 1111 lviB ium-anse, amp, 0 Ive clayey
-,/11/1 to sandy si 1t (t,1L)
ViC:: 17 -h-i1.~!!!;.J.j.,j --___________ _
DD= 1'0" 1'/11111 Dense, damp, 1 i ght 01 i ve sandy
Be: tt2 J-Ililli, sj 1 t (ML) .-
Boring 2
'riC::. 6 . t:)!!!t· Very loose, damp, light broW1 'si ay.
DD=IOI ~1:.::::i:ii:·::1\ sand (S'~) B~ 18 il:iiiiil~;!:lll: "\-M-,ed-j u-m--d-e-ns-e-, -d-am-p-,-b-r-own--si-l-ty--
OS: . = 26 ::::.:::::::::::: sand (SM) 'l~;;r:1
~~--------------------BC=: 26 :j:~:fIl Dense, IT'D i st, dark brown s i 1 ty ~i~ >_1 sand (~l.
Medium-dense, damp, bro~n'clayey
sand (SC)
BC= 22 y-I
~if¥.8~·~--------------~------
/h Very stiff, moist, olive brovm sandy
clay' (Cl)
BC: 60 ]-Lfllllil ~:~e, (~)urated, light bro\\TI silty
Fig. 2
''T?''t3!';'''''A>Ia_
WOODWARD, CLYDE, SHERARD & ASSOC!ATES
II ,. Note: For Legend, see Fig. 5.
LOGS OF TEST BORINGS 1 & 2
HOS? GROVE
PROJECT NO. 67-223
3-4-68 LQ1
~~~_'t ___ ,.,..,., l~--""' __ -. ~
~~-~~ ._--... ~~ .. ~,.~,---. ---...... -... '-_ .....
fi ,-'
~1 1\
f~' .~
[(l I ~
m1 ~~
+' Q.l
Q.l IJ,..
Q.l g
4-I-
:::l (/)
-0 c
:::l e C:I
5
~
..c:. +' 0.. g
o
V!C= 5
Drr-89
,8C= ILl-
V/C= II
5 DD= 88
BC= 13
10
15
20
25
30
35
lJO -
.
WC=. Ll-
DD:: 10·1
BC= 22
BC= 26
BC= 32
BC= ~5
BC= 62
Note: For Legend, see Fig. 5.
... -------" ~ '-..,.~------....
Boring 3
Medium-dense, darnp, brown silty
sand (SM) (Porous)
Hedium-dense, damp, brC'ln silty
sand (S,f)
Dense, moist, brown silty sand
(SM) wi th clay seams
'-
Very dense, damp, red brown silty
sand (S."4j'
WOOPWARD, CLYDE, SHERARD & ASSOCIATES
LOG OF TEST BOR I NG 3
HOSP GROVE
PROJECT NO. 67-223
3-4-68' La~
-.----~-, ---~-.. --.-----.--. -_. --
! : !'
! i L I ,
1
t t.,
~Y1k~~~~:t~~~~~~~ite~~:.Tb<&"~:f~~~~'<:,:::~'~~~~~.;~~e"'~~""~<II':"~',;..&.,.~~'""'~""
' " • Fig. lj. ,
?K ~
,1:
" •
3: o
o
5
10
15
20
, 25
30
VIC::. 2
DO:: 106
BC:: 26
VIC:: , 8
DO::I09
BC:: 'Z1
\'lC:: 7
DO:: 10 1
BC:: 26
WC::, LJ.
DO:: 106
BC:: 2LJ.
BC:: 29
Boring LJ.
1 ight bro~...,n si lty
Medium-dense, moist, olive broyf\
silty sand ( SM)
Medium-dense, moist, 01 ive silty
sand (S/'4)
Note: For Legend, see Fig. 5.
WOODWARD, CLYDE, SHERARD & ASSOCIATES
LOG OF TEST BORING LJ.
HOSP GROVE
PROJECT NO. 67-223
3-4-68 LQ<1
I
~'b'i!(r-_-4 _ .......... ~ __ -,~~~~~-~.-~.,-.... .-.., -.. -----""'t'
'---.-'-" ----~ __ L ______ -_-"e ___ ~~~_. ~---. ~~'r--
I I ,
!
0-
5-
10 -
-
15 -
2)-
WC=_
DD=I26
-
Boring 5
Medium-dense, damp, light brown silty
sand (SM) (Porous)
LEGEND
WC = Water Content in percent of dry weight •
. DO = Dry Density .in pd.
BC = Number of blows by lIill-Lb. harrmer fall ing
30 inches to drive sa~pler 12 inches.
Sampler Data: 10 = 2.0\ 00 = 2.5".
UCS = Unconfined Comoressive Strength in psf.
OS = Direct Shear Test Data:
¢ = Angle of Apparent Friction'in degrees.
, C = Apparent Cohesion in psf. ~ = \'later Level at time of dri 11 i ng. . .
(SM) = Group classification symbol in accordance with
the Unified Soil Classification System.
WOODWARD, CLYDE, SHERARD & ASSOCIATES
LOG OF TEST BORING 5
HOSP GROVE I
PROJECT NO. 67-223 ~-------~~~~~~~~--~~L~~~I_-3-1.1-68 IAYI
Mr-~~""""'" -~~,-~--.------..... ---... -. -. -----
-~.
l ,
~, ...... ~.~>:~~---~-~~.,..."",
Fig. 6
'I p n£' ..,. ___ """.""""';"'W'Ak 0 t mrs t· t" • -PI T'''« .... UIIA
o
5
10
15
20
25
:P .0.
. Q) c
30
35
WG=.2
DD=IOI
BC= 25
VIC:: .12
OO=ll7
Be= 14-
UCS=5000
\~C:: 2)
OD=lOl
BC:: 22
BC:: 17
Note: For Legend, see Fig. 5.
.~----'~-.. '.
Boring 6
Loose, damp, light brown silty sand
SM
I,jedium-c:ense, damp, brown clayey
sand (SC)
t,ledium-dense, damp, red brO'lln silty
sana (st~) (Sl ightly porous)
Stiff, moist, brown sandy clay
(CL)
I~edium-dense, moist to saturated,
olive clayey sand (SC)
V~ium-dense, saturated, olive
silty sand (SM)
Stiff, moist, ol..ive sandy clay
(CL)
Stiff, moist, dark brown sandy-clay -
(CL)
" WOODWARD, CLYDE, SHERARD & ASSOCIATES
LOG OF TEST BORING 6
HOSP GROVE
PROJECT NO. 67-223
.... 3-4-68 lO~
+' 8S u.. .
I
M .... I-
::l en
"'0 c: ::l e
(!)
~
&
0-
5-
10-
15-
20-
25-
00--
0-
4--
Bori ng 7
t'~8dium-dense, damp, red bro ..... n silty
sand (SM)
Dense, damp, red brown silty sand
'(SM)
Very dense, damp, red brown clayey
sand (SC)
Very dense, damp, red brown silty
sand (SM)
Boring 8
VlC= .2 y-~Ii~:ii~it: ~'~edium-dense, damp, I red brown silty ......... d (~A) BC= 14-1:?;~~~s=a~n~~V~~iL-____________ ~~ __
WC= __ 5 1-2-. Very dense, damp, red brown silty
00=117 sand (S~) B~~61~ ~ ___ ~~ _________________ _
Note: For Legend, see Fig. 5.
WOODWARD, CLYDE, SHERARD &. ASSOCIATES
LOGS OF TEST BORINGS 7 & 8
HOSP GROVE
PROJECT NO. 67-223
3-4-68 LQ·1 \-
. .. --. _ .• -----L....-_________ -... __________ -.
,,~~
[
l:;
I
f
l
j
I
I~~~.-~~~~"~~~~~'f>~ ___ ~~: .... ; , .
.c: +' a. ~
o -
5 -
9 -
---'e
Boring 9
VlC= 3 -I ":-:':/\ Medium-dense, domp, broAn silty sand
DD= I 02 r-I.:.:<...;.' . :-t' _.1: (S,:::.'.i)'-1..-..lJ (p:.::(o~ro~u~s )'---_. ____ _
BC= 25 = .'.:::.<::: Very dense, da'llp, red brown clayey
WC= 10 2. :;:';:':::::;:.: sand (SC) DD=113 1:.:-···::':;·::-~:4::: ___________ _
~~~~ ~,~ 2-LIGI2;L-.~_~_~ __ d(_~_~)_'_d_am_,_p,_re_d_b_r_0Itlo1_"_S_ il_ty_
-
Boring 10
~~llg ~i.J~~~~~um(~~)se, da'llp, red bro\\n sllty
8"-112 ~ v= "t ._ 2 )!ii/if~l\ Hard, damp, ,red brovm sandy clay
WC=. 9 '-~="'''l \\.,\,(~Cl-!..Ln~_--:-__ -:-:-_--:-:-:-_ DD=I!~ Very dense, damp, red brcMl silty
BC=91 /6~ \...:::s:.=!on.!!:!d---L( S?~~!..l-) ______ _
\,Bori ng II
..
,
Note: For Legend, see Fig, 5. .
WOODWARD, CLYDE, SHERARD & ASSOCIATES J
LOGS OF TEST BOR I NGS 9 THROUGH II
HOSP GROVE
PROJECT NO. 67-22 3
3-°.-68 LCM
'. :""-1
)
J ~ ..
1 I
, rd ''1 I I
II il II II II il
I
, f
'''~'-'''''''''''''''-''':-~~~~.~~:~~:'~<.'':''''~~'.::.':''.''~~~~:':'''''''--
• Fig. 9
o
5
10
20
25
30
35
VlC=.6
DD=106
BC= 48
BC=2B/6"
VlC= 5
DD= 99
BC= 4ll/S II
WC= lI-
DD= 99
BC= 60
BC= 55
WC= 27
BC= 66
Note: for Legend, see Fi g. 5.
, damp, red brown silty
Very dense, damp, red ·brown silty
sand (SM)
ravel
Dense, damp, olive silty fine s9nd
(~)
claystone (CH)
. cl.aystone (rn)
"'~01~'"
WOODWARD, CLYDE, SHERARD & ASSOCIATES
LOG OF TEST BORING 12
HOSP GROVE
. PROJECT NO. 67-223
3-4-68 La~
f 1 ,
rJ
!
'f ~
i
I r
i , t
t ~ '-
I
f
o{ ....
Q) ~
Q) u (Ij
'i-~
::J (/.)
"'0 C ::J e
c;:;J
3: 0
~ Q) co
.c -+-' 0-~
0-
5-
10 -
15 -
20 -
33-
VIC=-.
DD=121
. BC:: 88 -
Poring 13
Dense, damp, olive silty sand
(&\1)
Note: For Legend, see Fig. 5.
WOODWARD, CLYDE, SHERARD & ASSOCIATES
LOG OF TEST BORING 13
HOSP GROVE
PROJECT NO 67-2.2l .
3-4-68 I ()4 .
0
WC= 23
5 DO=: 106 I BC:: 3 •
UCs=i700 la
WC:: _19
DO=: III
10 VIC:: 64-
DD::: 63
BC:: I
+-' WC:: I.J.6
Q) DD: n If 15
Q) ~ 'I-l-
:::I C/) 20 -0 c :::I e ~
5
~ 25 WC:: 18
.c DD=115 1 +-' BC= 14-0.. Q)
Q
c ,
VIC: i9 f ' ..
3) 00=113 j ~ BC= 7 i ~ ; -
WC=J7
35 DD=117 ~ BC= 25
WC= .. 20
40 00::11.0
BC= 13
Note: For Legend, see Fig. 5.
.Boring 14-
. .'i:/;.:" Very loose, moist to wet, brown i?/~::' si lty sand (SM) Z:.SZ ,.
.:: .. -:::::'.< Very loose, saturated, gray brown :::',.:':'>;=. .:. :;'.::':':. si lty sand (S~1) ;:::':)\
~ Fi nn, saturated, dark gray sandy &J} clay (CH) ;W ,%
Loose, saturated, 1 ight gray brO'.W'I
clayey sand (SC)
Very soft, saturated, 1 ight gray
bro\t,n s i 1ty clay eCH)
Very loose, saturated, gray silty
to clayey sand (Svl-SC) with layers:
of silty clay (CH)
Very soft, saturated, gray brown
si Hy clay (CH)
Stiff, saturated, olive gray sandy
c1ay (el)
Very loose, saturated, 01 ive brOJ.n
si lty to clayey sand (SM-SC) .
Medium-dense, saturated, brown
sandy clay (Cl)
Loose to medium-dense, saturated,
bro~n silty sand (SM) with lenses
of coarse sand. ( SP)
continued oo:next page,' Fig. 12.
WOODWARD, CLYDE, SHERARD & ASSOCIATES i.
-LOG OF TEST BORING 14-
HOSP GROVE
PROJECT NO. 67-223
3-4-68 LCM
f t
f I til
, " ... .{
~~ i>1
1<1 il
il II
I ! !
(Ii ~~
11 "<' -!'!I :-'''\ ;til
~ ~ • i I ~ l
at ~;t
~ y!' ~.
~ '·I .>
frll , r
q :; ,
J ~ '0;
j,
< ,
i ,. ~" .. ~ ,
1 t
,
i
1 .. ..,..---~-
~~"i-.
40-
1t5 -
50-
~ Q)
Q) L.L.
55 -
Q)
(.) ro 'I-1-
~ en
""0 C ~ 60 -e c::>
:;::
0
&
.c ~ 65 -
0-~
'70 -
75 -
80 -
Boring lit, continued
see Fig.ll, last layer.
. -
. :dliil JV:€OI Ur.l-denSe, saturated, gray
W"-IO(;,f~ 'It (LJU) I,\F . 12 t{:::t::!\ s I l',jj . DD= 116 ............. '-------------__
BC:: 70 :~jijtt; Dense, saturated, brosn si lty sand I (SM)
V,edium-dense, saturated, olive
broWl silty to clayey sand (SM-SC)
. 11111111 Medium-dense, saturated, 01 ive
WC:: 16 -iil ~~ sandy si lt (ML)
Dense, saturated, br~vn silty sand
(SM)
\'IC:: . i 6 -
DD=I20 ~~~Mf Very dense, saturated, broW1 silty
8"-100 15 .;.;.;.; ..... ;.;. d (SP) . th 1 ~_~~~~ . .t~#;~_san __ ~~~w_l~g~r_~_e ________ __
Note: For Legend, see Fig. 5.
WOODWARD. CLYDE. SHERARD & ASSOCIATES.
LOG OF TEST BOR I NG I ~
HOSP GROVE
PROJECT tlO. 67-223
3-5-68 LQv1
0-
10 -
15-
20 -
25 -
30 -
35 -
wc= It}
DD= 95
Be= ILJ.
Boring 15
}-Y~l Loose to medium-dense, moist, 1 ight
brown s i 1 ty sand (&\1)
WC=, 2 -':::;':;:;;?~
~~----------------~~~----DD=106· ':'::":,::"0, Medium-dense, danp, 1 ight brO\..,n
Be= 18 _,..2.. :i; silty sand ( SM)
we= .10 -t0L2l---Lo-o-se-t-o-m-ed-j-u-m--d-en-s-e-, -s-a-tu-r-a-ted-, -
~~I~T 1 i ght brown si lty sand (St.1) ~'1ith
BC= 20
gravel
Medium-dense, saturated, gray brcWn
, clayey sand (SC)
~ Stiff, saturated, 'gray sandy clay ~ (Cl) ~/~
Medium-dense, saturat~, gray s,!lty
sand (Sv1)
Note: For Legend, see Fig. 5.
WOODWARD, CLYDE, SHERARD & ASSOCIATES
I' I l.~';"'i ~--~---~ \
3-5-68
LOG OF TEST BORING 15
HaSP GROVE
PROJECT NO. 67-223
lCM
, ,
~~ ..... ----~. ~;. ....... -~ --.. ~--~-----~ ._----_."'--
'-.-.~~-' .. -.. ---~
, ' t
t k . f.
1 l L,
' ..
, , ,
t 1 1 I
, :
o -
5 -
10 -
15 -
20 -
25 -
30-
35 -
40-
~
Boring 16
Sk-3 -'-" Very loose to loose, moist, dark -=Li= :: -__ -; brovin silty sand (S1:1)
B~ 9~k""~':~' __________________ ~~-
-2 (/~// Stiff, Imist, olive brown sandy
BC= 48 y:--::::_-:-':"J\\.::c~l a::L.Y_...L: (C::.::.L )L--:--_-:--__ :---
. # Dense, da'TIp, brom clayey sand :::-;:::}-il\\..!...(S----:C)~ ______ _
4. i1:fi;i:i·;::'~, Dense, damp, 01 ive clayey sand B~ 36 ]2-::;{?j:) (SC) with 'seams of sandy clay
Dense, da~p, 01 ive silty to clayey
sand (S~-SC)
BC= 69 ~~ Hard, dzmp, olive clay (CH)
Jiiiiiiii!i!!!~\'-------------continued on next page, Fig. 15.
Note: For Legend, see Fig. 5.
"
WOODWARD, CLYDE, SHERARD & ASSOCIATES
LOG OF TEST BORING 16
HOSP GROVE
PROJECT NO. 67-223
3-5-68 LQ.1
-.----.--__ , _______ 1 ____ ~ ___ ~
I
.1
f :' I ,
I i . f
I , f
I
I I
I
I
, ,
: I
• I
-,
Boring 16, continued
40------. .. :.,.,:.:.-.r__----------
:: .. :':.: see Fig. 1lJ., last ·layer,
Dense, damp, 01 ive silty sand
(SM) 4-5 -
00 -
55 _ WC:: . lit -
DO::l 4-7
BC:: 69
DS:
59 -
Note: For Legend, see Fig, 5,·
WOODWARD, CLYDE, SHERARD & ASSOCIATES
LOG OF TEST BORING 16
HOSP GROVE
PROJECT NO. 67-223
3-5-68
.
; ~ ,
i t
i t ,
,I
.. -
'--+_-.1.
O~--~--_I~I~ '1~1_1~~I~I __ -wT~JI~I~I~I~J~ __ ~ull~I~'I~I_~I'_~I~1o
.5 .2 .02 .01 .005 .002 .001 2 .1 .05
GRAIN SIZE -I\rHLLI METERS ·1 ·1
SAMPLE CLASSIFICATION AND SYM80L ! !
. f
I I :!
" .,
'j
f . f
t I f I i
f
j,
WOODWA~D, CLYDE, SHERARD & ASSOCIATES I " I '"
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES ~---------=HO~SP~GR~\OV.~.E----------~I
j :'
j
i • PROJECT NO. 67-223 ! !
4-10-68 LCM
80
30
20
10
o
SAND
Coarse I Mod i lim I Fino
Sieve Number
10 20 60
~&., ....... -"-
I I
140 200
r-,
SILT and
Hydrometer
CLAY
Analysis
~
"\., . i\.. . .
2
SAMPLE
12-lJ.
-12-6
-13-2
14-la
\\ \
\\ \
\\ . ~ .
\\ \ ~~ \
\ \\
~~ \ _\ \
~
'~ ~ . .
~ \
"-" ~ .....
\ '-:: .
~
( i"
I I
JI JI I 1 I I /11 I J
"
'" ., io
" r
'" / 14-4,' "', 7
.
/"Sk 1 -8
~
~C" ----i'-o
~'37'2 -......... .u----·· .... -. -
1 I
~ 16 " . '" ", -........ • ..J
~
o
r---~ -:-:-........ --.... --~ ... ---.. ...
J 11 J I I
............. lA,
:1 J .3
:?I
~
I o ......... ,----..-.... .............
0
.5 .2, .1 .05 .02 .01 .005 .002 .001
GRAIN SIZE -MILLI METERS
CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL *LL *PI
Silty fine sand (S/'~)
Si tty clay (CH) 75 lJ.7
Si tty sand (8M)
Sandy clay (CH) lJ.2 25
, , !
I
I :1 -I ,I
I I
·f
Silty clay (CH) 14-4-63 40
.'14-6 Sandy clay (Cl) -28 10
Sk16-8 Si ltt to clayey sand (S.4-SC)
nL = Liquid Limit
*PI = Plasticity Index
WOODWARD, CLYDE, SHERARD & ASSOCIATES
i ,
! GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
HOSP GROVE
PROJECT UO. 6 -'223 -4-10-68 LCM
-1" ., -'-
j.,
~ ~--~-~~"'~~"~"--.. ~--.. --.-.. ----.. : .. --.. e-~~-'~~~~~~~'~~~~'"'~.~~=:"'."""~'~:~::~:.~~'~'
\ , ' ~~
; . . Fig.. 18
I
I ~
.8
.75
@o
.7 ro--r--. r,.,
i' :--", .. ~'" I 0 ,.. ...
t:i .65 a:: 's..
0 1°J-. r--i"-........ '" ~ .6 !"'oo. --rs-.. ~ !--r-I--'" I'
.55 ~ -'r-'~
.5
.4-5
0.01 0.1 I 10
PRESSURE IN TONS PER SQ. FT.
lni.tiol Dry Density, PCF 9Z Initial Void Rc tio, Eo .732
Initial Water Content, % 26 Final Void Ratio, Ef .628
Init ial Saturation, 0/0 95 Compression Index, Cc . ilt5
-Final Dry Dansity, PCF I Ott Swell· Index, Cs --
Final Water Content, % 23 EXisting ovarburden press"Po,TSF 0.33
Final Saturation, % 100 Max. post pressure, Pc, TSF --
Specific Gravity = 2.70
.
--Sample No. 1lJ-la
WOODWARD, CLYDE, SHERARD & ASSOCIATES
CONSOLI DATI ON TEST
.. HOSP GROVE
PROJECT NO. 67-223 "
11-10-68 LCM
j f 1 )r
; I . !
} ,
>
0
~ 0.:
0 ~.
'~ ... --
Fig 19
DoD' 'W"'"WS'T' H' .
. 1
I I
I
I -1.5
. . r---.e-1.4-5 '"""' , I 0 .......... -"-1.4-0 " !
\~ 1.35 ."" -~ 1.3 \ " ...... -.... ... 1.25 -----'\ '"""'-Cl
1.2
--1.15·
i.'jo
0.01 0.1
PRESSURE IN
Initial Dry Density, PCF 77
Initial Water Content, % 46
Initial Saturation, 0/0 85
Final Dry Density, PCF 93
Final Water Content, % 33
Final Saturation, % 100
Specific Gravity = 2.80
\ , --.. ........ ------........ b--"-" --.. ........ ~ --....:,.
-'1 10
TONS PER SQ. FT. . .
..
Initial Void Ratio, Eo 1.'+25
Final Void Rafio, Ef 1.1l3
Compression Index, Cc .23
Swell Index, Cs --
Existing overburden press.,Pn,TSF 0.9
Max. past pressuro, Pc, TSF --
-Sample No. 14--'+ " WOODWARD, CLYDE, SHERARD &. ASSOCIATES
CONSOLIDATION TEST
HOSP GROVE
PROJECT NO. 67-223
4--10-68 LCM I ! ,
--------......... ~. -'--_. r······· .... r:
i, .
r L r' : t',·
l
I l 1
I
I
I I
I
I I
I ,
l
I . j ,
i • l
i
!
'j
1 I
, I
II
i~<"'!"--"""'-"""'-~-'-"~''''~ '1 l!~:;:: "'~.' " _" . c ,'-~ "',~
-F
? <J)
0:>
-0 AI 2 ~
0 .
~ I ~ w
r 10 0:-
Results of loaded Shiell Test
.
Initial Final
Sample Dry Water Dry \~ater
Number Density Content Saturation Density Content Saturation
." Pef % % Pef % %
----12-1 106 6 28 106 16 73
~ 0
0
0 :r: :t>' ~o
::;0 9 rn (") c:: ~ !:i ,
(I) 0 ::x:: !l'I :::> 0 (/) -n (/) -0 b ::I: G') m . ;-0 » :>oJ C> 0 ;J:;> \ -< tEl rn ~ 0 . : ~ nl ~ F :Po
rri (/)
(/)
~ 0 n ~ fTI en
..... &,.,...,. ........... ~ = x::ce.::;:u:::o .... ~==== ~--:&u
.• ,-.. ,.~~.....wv_~'~".~.,'l. , .• ~~ -.--:-,~""," ... ,..,.,w...,r,:,"'~'>jUIr""1I"!>~-"""'''-''''_~~" __ ''':-_....,.-_~ •. _,,. __ .... _ •. _..,~ __
-
•
Load . Defo mat ion
,
i I
Psf ~ of Initial Heiqht
160 0.05
,
~ e-
, I m
:.~~.:~"'"
~ I 1, "
~f;i
~'.
~'
f' ~ y
~ ~
t ~ I " v t t
.e
f r (
~ l
i I ~ . t :1' t ~ , f
f· · t f t · 1~ r
:f ~~;'
, .
I 1',
I r.' ! ~'
· ,,~ !i . -
~!!:~I!r; 11~"_""""""" -,~-
l .
f !
1 1
1
I ,
I
:
I
.
:
of
l' (J) en
I 2
:
::0 ~ !:j en
-0 0
::0 0 '"T1
c.. 8 m ::c ~ 0 :z en " ~ -0 z C) 0 ~ ~ <: 2 m
~ -0 ::0 m en (/)
0 ::z:
fT1 (/) ~ en
.
Sample
Number
3-1
9-2
:E 0 0 0 ~ ;0
5'
(") r--< 0
!TI
en :!: m ;tJ :t>o ::0 0
~
)l-en (I)
0 (')
.~ 111 (I)
(-<
~1-------.--.. -. ---
~
Results of Confined Compression Test
•
Initial Final -
Dry Water Dry Water load Deformat i on
Density Content· Saturation Density Content Saturation
Pef % % Pef % % Psf % of Initial Height
---89 5 13 . 102 20 83 160-1000 12.0
. . --. -. .
113 10 W 113 17 97 160-1000 ' 1.6
Load (Psf)
-0 500 1000 IWO 2XlO 0 I~J.\ L 9-2 r--swel1 " .. -t 3-i _water added 2
' '
lJ.
+' , , ..c 01 8'(i) .-::x;:
+' ~~
6
O+J '+-.-(J) c: 0-.. 8
't,
~
10
12
~_o:t: l52I#l';!::I:7;li;= _::o:ttz ...... u=~~~
~~ ~~_x",,""~'~I'Ie,pO/$f/l'~tI1'r'Yt'~~_""'~"'_"--
'. i ; l-f , ~ ,
• I I I
,'e
I ! ,
I
I , I i I I
i t
1 i ,
[
.~
;.\---
I • '
j j ,
i :
! , t t i ~
r ~ ~ } : '&: g.: f. ~. i:
(\) i ~ : i t t-'
t ~,
J t
, .. ; ~
o' •
•
WOODWARD· GIZIEN-SKI & ASS·OC·IATES
CONSULTING SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERS AND .GEOLOGISTS
3467 Kurtz Street
San Diego
California 92110
(714) 224-2911
An affiliate of Woodward -Clyde Gomultants
August 28, 1974
Project No. 72-105-56
Kamar Construction Company
325 Elm Street
Post Office Box 1155
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. J. Rombotis
·RECEIVE.D
AUG29 1974 -
CITY' OF CARLSBAD
Engineering Department
BUENA WOODS UNIT ~O. 2
STREET BASE
COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
CTl2-11
..
Attached are the results of field density tests taken ·at the subject
project at the· request and under the direction of Mr. Russ Morrison,
Public Works Inspector for the City of Carlsbad, on the date indicated
and at the locations given. Also attach~d are the.resu1ts of.laboratory
tests performed on a sample of the material used for fill.
These tests represent the relative compaction and water contents at the
locations tested. Opinions as to the 're1ative compaction, 'water c~mtent
or suitability of the fill in areas not tested will be expressed by us
only where we have observed the p1acement'of such fill, and have satis-' -
fied ourselves that construction procedures followed' in other, areas are
represented by the areas tested.
WOODWARD-GIZIENSKI & ASSOCIATES
Louis J. Lee, R.E. 14129 v'
LJLjEHPjen
Attachments
(5) Kamar Construction Company
(1) City of Carlsbad Engineering Department
" ,
j'
. .,
"t'
JOB NAME BUENA WOODS UNIT NO. 2
.10. NUMBER .72-105-56 (STREETS)
PATES COVERED August 19, 1974
DATE
AUG. 1Q
Tll:SY
NUMBER
5-:103
5-104
S-105
RETEST
OF
LOCATION
ELM & MONROE, STA 12+20
MONROE STR~ET, NW '
OPPOSITE LOT 10.
ELM AVENUE OPPOSITE
LOT Z3
ELEVATION
OF TEST
Jop of
Base
II
" ..
MOISTURE
CONTENT
~ DIIY WT.
1L 1
5.1
5.8
: DATe: REPORTEQ,.8,/28/74
PAGE 5-" OJ!' 5-1
.. IELD
DENSITY
PCI'
112.3
119.0
'118.8
LA.OR~TOJ'Y, RELATIVE'
DENalTY COMPACTION" ~I" . 'k 0" LAB. pl;Na. ' -'----'---
1-32.5 84-~5
'132.5. 89 .• 7
132.5 89 .• 6
. ' ,
! ,j .
1
1
i'
, ,
WOODWARD· GIZIENSJO & ASSOCIA'TES
CONSULTING SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
~ • I' I
" ,',),,' 'tI
MECHANICAl.. ANALYSI S
100 : 3 • ~ 10 140 209
DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA
80 ' -Dry Densi ty, pcf C!:J " .. z:
Initial Water Content. % ~ 60 ' '
cC
Final Water Content. % Go
,t-
Ap'parent Cohesion.psf ffil40 <..) , cc. " w
Appareat Friction Angle. c Go 20
0 I I i I I I I 'I I
1110 . 1000 100' 10 1.0 0.1 ,0.01 0.001 \ 1\ f?? t:ERO A I R VO I OS CURVES GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
~ ICOBBLESIGRAVEL " SANr' 'ISILT & C~AYr V' \ clf elm, f .
\ ~ \ -
130
r\"'\/2.70 S.G.
PLAST I CITY CHARACTER I SHCS /V y2.60 S.G.
\ ~v" 2.50 S. G. ,
liquid Limit, % y
'\ \ 1\ " -
Pl~sticity Index~ r.
1\ \ ,Classification by Unified Soil' \ \ r\ ' , .
Classification Sys~em .
120 _\ 1\
\ i\ ~ -....
(J i\ \ \ 0--
\ 1\ 1\
' ,
t-',SWELL TEST DATA :z::
\ \ <!l , ,
110 i:i 3: \ \ 1\ Initial Orr DenSity, pef '= \ ' , " :z: 1\ Initial Water 'Content. % =>
>-\ \ f\ Load. psf 0:: Q f\ 1\\'
Percent Swen -\ \ '\ 100 \ \ \ , \ :,
\ \ ''\ SAMPtE LOCAilOH
\. \.~ "
" " , , .. ; " " MAXIMUM DRY 5 r\ 5 Imported Base I 90
DENSITY. pcf 132.5 ~~ "
OPTIMUM MOISTURE 1\ t\.
CONTENT. % 9.5 r\. I\.. 1\.'
r\.""
-r'\. "
MOISTURE CONTENT % r\. )",1 80 0 10 20 30 40 -
LABORATORY CCM'ACTIOH, TEn "
FI LL SU I TAB I LI TY TESTS I
LABORATORY COMPACTION BUENA WOODS UNIT NO.2 TEST METHOD: ASTM-D 1557-70 A
WOODWARD ~ GIZIENSKI & ASSOC I ATES '
CONSULTI NG SO I L AND FOUNDATION, W~k~,TiRS ANDGEQLOG.I STS SAN 01 EGO CALI
OR. BY: L.S. • SCALE: IPRO;). NO: 72, I05'=-5E:f CK'DBY: E H P. DAT.E: 8/28174 I PAGE'l,nf .1: : '
J
U\S"lENT ron FIRE HYDRANT
CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 72-11
••
A portion' of Lot 61 of Carlsbad Tract No. :72-11 according to
Map No. 7682 filed in the Office of the Cciun~y Recorder of San'
Diego County, state of California, de~cribed as follows:
.~
Beginning at the most Easterly corner cif said ~ot 61; ·thence
South 36°29 T 53" West along the Southeasterly line of said Lot 6f~.
. '. . .. ' '.
191.00 feet; then6e North 82°53'40"'Wast, 55.48 feet; thence·'
.North 7°06'2011 East, 6'.0 feet to the TRUE 'POINT OF BEGINNI.NG;
thence continuing North 7°06'20~ East, 14.00 feet; the~ce' ..... .' . '.'
SO'-!th 820 53' 40 II East, 10.'00 feet;. ~hence. South 76.0'6 t 2Qr.~We-st ~ .
14.00 feet; thence: North 82° 53 J 40" Wast, 1 tJ. 00 feet to :the. Point.
of Beginning.
\
-.
.
-~. (.-"/' . ,
'-' J.' •
--.
,/
/ /;
T I
..
.'
( • • · f
1: ~
~ t l
f r f. ,.
f 1 ~ ~ '-,
.. t
r
,~
WOODWARD· GIZIENSKI & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
3467 Kurtz Street
"-San Diego
California 92110
(714) 224·2911
A",ffa;",otWOOd-a-C1YWC-Z/k ~ f~·¥·
July 5, 1974
Project No. 72-105-56
Kamar Construction Company
325 Elm Street
Post Office Box 1155
Carlsbad, California 92008'
Attention: Mr. J. Rombotis
FINAL REPORT OF ENGINEERING
O!3SERVATIor~ AND Cor.1PACTION TESTING
Sl·JmMING POOL AND CABANA AREA
BUENA WOODS UNIT NO.2
CAH[SUAD, CAtIFomuA
CT-rz.-II
RECEIVED
JUL 9 -1974
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Building 'Department
In accordance with your re~uest and our agreement dated October 2, 1973,
we have provided soil engineering services in conjunction with the
grading of the subject site. These services included:
(1) Periodic engineering observation of the grading operation.
(2) Observation of the removal of loose alluvial soils where encountered
within areas to be filled.
(3) Taking field density tests in the fill placed and compacted.
Current site preparation, compaction, and testing were done on June 12 and
13, 1974 in accordance with the "Specifications for Controlled Fillll in
our report entitled "Reviev1 of Existing Soil Investigation Report, Additional
Recommendations and Earthwork Specifications, Buena Hoods Unit No.2,
Carlsbad, California," dated January 8, 1973.
Fill placed during this phase of grading was compacted and tested on the
pool area and cabana site. Grading of the site consisted of providing a
cut-fill pad to receive the proposed pool and cabana.
As the site grading progressed, .the compaction procedures were observed, and
field density tests were made to determine the relative compaction of the fill
in place. Field observations and field density test results indicate that
the fill has been compacted to 90% or more of maximum laboratory density. The
approximate locations of field density tests and the limits of compacted fill
are shown on the attached Figure 1. The results of field density tests and
Kamar Constructi4lttompany
, Project No. 72-105-56
July 5, 1974 • Page 2
of, relative compaction, expressed as a percent of maximum la~oratory density,
are given on'the attached forms.
laqoratory tests to determi ne moi sture-density rel ati ors'hi ps, maximum dry
density, optimum moisture content, grain size di"stribution, plasticity
chara~teristics, and strength, and swell characteristics were performed on
representative samples of the material used for fill. The results of
laboratory tests are given on the attached forms. '
. Laboratory tests, observations during grading, and visual inspection indicate
that all the fill placed is essentially nonexpansive in nature. No expansive
soil s were evi dent at fi ni sh grade in the cyt P.orti on of the MiL.
.~Jructures that wi 11 not tol erate differenti al settl ements (such as foundati ons,
swimming pools, concrete decks, wa1ls, etc.) should not b'e located within
5 feet of the to~ of a sloee. Footings located closer than 5 feet from the
top of a slope s ould be extended in depth until the outer bottom edge of the
footing is 5 feet horizontally from the outside face of the slope.
The elevations of compaction tests, shollm as finished grade (FG) tests,
correspond to the elevations shown on an undated sketch provided us by your
office. Elevations Here established in the field by the contractor1s grade
checker. I f an as -buil t plan is made of the s He we shou 1 d be furni shed \IJith
a copy so that'our records are complete. Elevations and locations shown in
this report are based on field surveys established by others.
This report covers the fill placed under our observation during the dates
specified herein. Additional filtplaced after these dates, as well as the
backfill in utility trenches located within 5 feet of a building and greater
than 12 inches deep, or any trench 5 feet or more from a building and in
excess of 5 feet in depth, should be compacted 'under the observation of this
office and tested to assure compliance with the earthwork specifications for
the project. 'This office should be contacted at least 24 hours prior to
backfilling operations. Utility service trenches within 5 feet of a building
that are perpendicular to the building footings and are less than 12 inches
wide and less than 3 feet deep are not subject to this recorrmendation.
The inspections of foundation preparation, types of materials and soil place-
ment and compaction as well as tests of compaction made during the period of
our services on the subject site were in accordance with the locally
acceptable standards for this period. The conclusions or opinions drawn
from the tests and site inspections apply only to our work with respect to
grading and represent conditions at the date of our final inspection.
WOODWARD· GIZIENSIH & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERS ANO GCOlOGISTS
Kamar constructi~ompany
Project No. 72-105-56
·July 5, 1974
Page 3
He '\'1i 11 accept no res pons ibil i ty for any subsequent .. c,b.aI19.e .. s_made to the si te
by others or' by-uncontrolled act; on of \'later or by fai 1 ure of others to
.properly repai r damages caused by uncontrolled acti on of Vlater.
",
woom~ARD-GIZIENSKI & ASSOCIATES
LJ L/ J LH/ RPW/ CFM/mf
(5)
Attachments
WOODWARD· GIZIENSKI & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERS AND ~COlOGISTS
-.-:
,a. • 1 " , --
JOB NAME
JOB NUMBER
BUENA WOODS UNIT NO. 2
72-1'05-56 (SWIMMING POOL & CABANA)
DATESCOVEREO June 12 through 13, 1974
DATE
JUNE 12
JUNE .13
TEST
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
RETEST
OF
FIGURE #1
II II
II II
II II
II II
FIGURE #1
II II
II II
LOCATION . ELEVATION
OF TEST
117,0'
114.0'
118.-0 (
118.0'
119.0'
FG 120.0'
123.0'
FG.125.0'
NOIBTURI:
CONTENT
"'" DRTWT.
7.5
9.9
9.-3
10 •. 5
10.5
9.3
7;5
8.2
DATEREPORTEO July 5,. 1974
PAGE 1 OF 1
!'IELD
DENSITY
Fel'
114.9
115.6
110,.9
111..1
110.6
111.5
115.4
114.2
LABORATORY RELATIVE
DENSITY COMPACTION
-PCI' % OF LAB. DENS.
125:0 91.9
125.0 92.6 122',5 ,90.4
122.5 90.7
122.5 90.5
122.5 90.9
125.0 92.4
125.0 91. 6
WOODWARD· GIZIENSKI & ASSOCIATES·
CONSUL TlNG SOIL AND rOUNOATlON ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGIST S_
Fe
DIRECT Sl-:EAR TEST DATA 1
Dry Density. pcf -
Initial Water Content. % -
Final Water Content. % -
Apparent Cohesion. psf -
Apparent Friction Angle. e -
2 3
--
--
--
- -
--
100
80
~ 60 -< 0..
I-ffilIO <...> 0:. w
0-20
MECH~ I C~ AtlA!.. YS IS
3 f -"10 Ij(j 200
~,
~ .\ ' \~ 2 '\». ! 7
1-~\'i! '\:i", -X ,,~
3 ''':'--., I --.....!
.1 1 I I I I I I I r~
1110 .--..-....-~
.........,r-+-'.\,-;-l\-\-\-i. ,ZERO AIR \'OIDS CURVES
o
1000 100 10 I 0 O. I 0.01 0 001
120
110
100
V\\
... U
Q.
I-
8
p.l ;>I'
I--Z :::>
>-e-.< Q
DENSI TY. pcf
OPTH-:J14 ~OISTURE
COmnlT. 'f.
\1\ f\
, \ \
\I\r\
\.~
FlO I STURE COHTE1H, %
GRAIH SIZE I" MILLlh~TERS
(COBBLESIORAVEL I SAliWSILT" CLAyj clfclm '=
PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS
Liqui~ Limit. 1.
Plasticity Index. r.
Classification by Unified Soil
Classification System
SWELL TEST DATA
Initial Dry Density. pcf
Initial Water Cont~nt. %
Load. psf
Percent Swe 11
1
NP
1 ,
-
--
-
SAMPLE LOCATION
1 on site
sc
? ~
--
--
--
--
10 W W
LABORATORY CO;'iPACTI~~ TES"T~ ___________________ -._-
LABORATORY W,(PACTIOt4 TEST~lETHOD:ASn1-D 1557=70T A
FILL SUITABILITY TESTS
BUENA WOODS UNIT #2
WOOm~,QRD - G I Z I rnSl< I & ASSOC I ATES
CONSULTING SOIL AIm FOU:iDATlON f11GIHEERS M:O GEOLOI1ISTS SAN DIEGO, CALIFO~~IA
· ,
Dlr-ECT SHE1.R TEST DATA 4
Dry Density. pcf 115 5
Initial Water Content. % 9 1
Final Water Content. % 15' 3
~pparent Cohesion. psf 160
.Apparent Friction Angle. -=-lR
'c:;
110n
9.8
16.2
190
32
100
80
en ~ 60
"-
I-ffillO <..> ex. UJ
"-20
ANALYSI S
qd 200
~ y
" " 1\ \<-~4'
\. ",,-
\ ~
t:: -~ r--....
, ""
......... ---...: I I I I I , f f I
Jll.Q ...--,r--r....-..--. I--.(.--Jf-\~-II\J<~-W!Z E R 0 A I R V 0 IDS CUR V E S
o
1000 100 10 1.0 o I ill' 0.01 0 001 I
0'\
130
<'1
120
.... v a..
...: :c <!)
110 "J ;;::
I---:;c =>
>-0:: Cl
100
90 HAX I !I.UM DRY
DENSITY. pcf
1\ \ ~
1\ 1\
\ \ \
\[\\
10. f
GRAItI SIZE It: MILLIMETERS Ii
ICOBBtES\GRAVEL I SA~{O lSILT & CLAY f; I' '1 c J t) c I m r f ,I II
PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS
"liquid Limit, ~
Plasticity index. r.
Classification by Unified Soil
Classification System
SWELL TEST DATA
Initial Dry Density, pcf
Initial Water Content. ~
Load. psf
Percent Swell
4, 5
27 ND
13 NP
-SC
' -
4-5
117.2 -
9.2 -
160 -
2.8 -
SAHPLE LOCATION
4 Lot JL 27
5 Lot #12
' "
i' f~ t! E; i;
~ ~~I' f ~ f'. \-. . f
!J.OISTUf-E CONTENT. % r'\..~1 !
10 20 30 L!O !
LABORATORY W\PACTION TESr..:T _____ ,...-_______ ---------.
, LABORATORY CO~IPACTIOM
TEST METHOD:.ASH1-0 1557-70I-A
FILL SUITABILITY TESTS
BUENA HOODS
WOODWARD -GIZIENSI<I & ASSO"CIATp
CONSULTING SOIL AHD FOUHDATIOH ENGIHEER-S AHD GEOLOGISTS SAN DIEGO. CALIFO~HIA
OR. BY: SCALE:
CK'D BY: "I :": .'! DAiE:
•• .1 ....
,
! 1 :
Subdivision
Boundary
19
~
\
LEGEND .
Indicates approximate location e of Field Density Test.
~EP'ndicate~ approximate 1 imits of
lili.ill:iliITested Fill.
LOCATION OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
BUENA WOODS UNIT 2
\"OODI,.JARD -GIZI ENSKI & ASSOCI ATES
COtlSULTlIlG SOIL AND FOUIWATlO!4 EMGIMEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORHIA
'to ....
/ .'
WOODWARD· GIZIENSKI & ASSOCIAtES
CONSULTING SOIL AND FOUNDATION EN~INEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
3467 Kurtz Street
San Diego
California 92110
(714) 224·2911
An affiliate of Woodward -Clyde Consultants
January 16~ 1974
Project No. 72-105-56
Kamar Construction Company, Inc.
325 Elm Street~ P.O. Box 1155
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. J. Rombotis
FINAL REPORT OF ENGINEERING
OBSERVATION AND.COMPACTION TESTING
BUENA WOODS UNIT NO. 2
LOTS 1 THROUGH 63
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
CT12·11
o '. . In accordance with your req~est, and our agreement dated October 2, 1973,
we have pro.Vic\ec\ soil engineeriy]g services in conjunction with thegtading
of the subject site. These servi.ces included:
(1) Periodic engineering' observation of the grading operation.
(2) Observation of the disposal of trees~ stumps and oth~r petfshable
materials from the site prior to placing,fill.
(3) Observation of the removal of looSe alluvial soils where encountered~2
~ ~;.;;.'" t; .
(4) Taking field density tests in the fnl placed and compacted . .
(5) Performing laboratory tests on representat;vesamples of th'e material
usec\ for fill. .
Site preparation, compaction and testing were d<!ne between August 13 and
November 6, 1973, in accordance with the "S pec ifi·cations for Control1ed
Filll1 in our report entitled "Review' of Existing Soil Investigation Report
.... <+: ·-·'f:'
~'f'
Kamar construction~mpany, Inc.
Project No. 72-105
,January 16, 1974 • Page 2
Additional Recommend'ations and Earthwork Specifications, Buena Woods Unit No.2,
Carlsbad, California," dated January 8, 1973.
Fill was placed, compacted and-tested on Lots 1 through 6, 10 through 20,
25 through 28, 30, 31, 32, 35 through 39, 49 through 52, 61, 62 arid 63. Portions
of Lots 61 and 62, 'which are large irregular open space lots, were left
"in their natural state. Also. left in their natural state,'were portions of
Lots 25 through 48 and Lots 50.through 52.
As the site grading progressed, the compaction procedures were observed j and
. field density tests ~ere made to determine the relative compaction of the fill
in place. Field observations and field density tests results indicate that
the fill has been compacted to 90% or more of maximum laboratory density .
. The approximate locations of field density test 'and the limits· of compacted
fill have been recorded on a copy of the grading plan for .reference. The
results of field density tests and of relative compaction, expressed as a
percent of maximum laboratory density, are given on the attached forms.
Laboratory tests to determine moisture-density relationships, maximum dry
density, optimum moisture content, grain size.distributi.on, plasticity ..
characteri sti cs, and strength and swell characteristics were performed on
representative samples of the material used for f,ill. The.results of labora-
tory tests are given on the attached forms.
Laboratory tests and a visual inspection indicate that nonexpansive fill was·
placed within ~ feet of rough grade on all fill lots noted herein. . '
A visu~l: inspection of cut Lots 7, 8, 9, 21 through 24,.2~,_33, 34; 40 through.48,
and 53 thfough· 60 at completion of grading indicates that.potentially expansive
soil is not evident at rough grade surface. .
, .
Foundations 'for single or two-story structures placed on nonexpansive undis-
turbed soil or nonexpansive properly ~ompacted ftll ~ay be designed for a .
bearing pressure of 2,000 psf at a depth of 12 inches below compacted fi11.
or undisturbed cut lot grade. Footings should h~ve a minimum width of ~~
12 inches. These pressures may be increased by one-third for loads tha~-f,~ntlude
wind or sei smi c forces. -.;#;.
'Structures that will not tolerate differential settlements (such as foundations,
swimmi ng pools, concrete decks, wall s, etc.) shoul d .not be located withi n 5 feet
of the top of a slope. Footings located closer than 5 feet from the top of a
slope should be extended in depth until the outer bottom edge of the footing is
5 feet horizontallY,from the outside face of the slope.
rhe elevations of compaction tests, sh~~n as finished grade (FG) tests, corres-.
fiond to t~e elevations shown on the grading plans for IlCarlsbad Tract No. 72-1111
with the-:;11atest revision dated October 12, 1973, prepared by Roy L. Klema;
~ngineers Inc., Escondido, California. Elevations and locations shown.;n this
report are based on field surveys established by others •
;.J.,
-Kamar Constructio.ompany, Inc.,
Project No. 7Z-l~6
. Januar.y 16, 1974 ';" • Page 3
This report covers the fill placed under our observation ,during the 'dates
specified herein. Additional fill placed after these dates, as well as
the backfill in utility trenchs located within 5 feet of a building and
greater than 12 inches deep, or any trench 5 feet or ,more from a building
and in excess of 5 feet in depth, should be compactec\under the observation
, of thi s office and tested to assure compl iance with the earthwork specifi c-
ations for the project. This office should be contacted at least 24 hours
prior to backfilling operations. Utility service trenches within 5 feet
of a -building that are perpendicular to the building footings and are less
than 12 inches wide and less than,3 feet deep are not subject to this recom-
mendations.
The inspections and tests of co~paction made during the period of our ser-
. vices on the subject site were in accordance with the local acceptable
standards for this period. The conclusions or opinions drawn from the
,tests and site inspections apply only to our work wi'th respect to grading
and represent conditions at the date of our final inspe'ction.
We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to the
sit'e 'by others or by uncontroll ed action of water or by fai 1 ur-e of others
to properly repair damages caused by uncontrol1e~,action of water.
WOODWARD-GIZIENSKI & ASSOCIATES
,Louis J. ~iI, I.'i4l29
LJL/JLH/RPW/EHP/we
Attachments
(6)
.'
WOODWARD· GIZIENSKI-& ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING SOIL AND FOUNDATION t:NGINEEIIS AND GEOLOGISTS
,"
100
01 RECT SHEAR TEST DATA 1 2 3
Dry Density, pcf ---80
Initial Water Content. % ---(I) ~ 60
Final Water Content. % . ' ---Go.
~
Apparent Cohesion. pst -- -
ffillO (,) a. w
Apparent Friction Angle. 0 ---0..20
o ,I
-
~CHJJ41 CAl. ANAL YS rs
3 f ~ 10 110 ' ,200 _., . " .
~ t.
.\
l. 2
~. r
1-f.+\\' IJ'
'\:, ",
, ", ,.
' ~ ,-
i"
3 :"~
I I I I I 1 " '1 1
..........
r-.~
IIW ,--.--,....-r""'\
',':, \ .~f?ZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES
1000 100 JO ! ,0 0.1 0.01' 0;001
t-+--+---t'~t-+-\\ .
120
.... U Q.
~ a
110 .~
\1\ i\
\
~
% :::l \ \
.>0 , -= Q
100 \ \I~
\\\
GRAIN ,SIZE III MILLIMETERS
-PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS
Liquid Limit. 'f.
Plasticity Index. %
Classification by Unified Soil
Classification System
SWELL TEST DATA
I", t ial Dry"Densoity. pet
Initial Water Content. "f,
Load. psf
Percen t Swe IJ
1 ?
NP SC
1. ?
--
------
SM
':!
-
-
-
-
\' ~~. r-.. ----,r--__ S_AM_P_L_E....;.· L_OC_A_T_1.0_" ___ -i
~r__+-+-+_+_-+-_+_-+-_+_+-+--i__l~\.-'t\~\ 1: on 5 i te .' , •
1 ? ':! 1\ 2' Borrmv area (off ~:i tf")
DENSITY, pet hi""" ,... " ,...~I,\
90 MAX I MUM DRY
~-.---~~ ,----ifL'1 /-'·'''1 ..... ~''''"', .... 1''"''')~1 h-.4,,~12=..i~~~."""'1 ...... ~ 3 80 rrow a Y"f"ri f "ff c:: it?' -'. OP'ri"'-lM MOISTURE I"i", '
COOTEMT, ~ 9 • 5 1 O. a 11. a\.'-,
MO I STURE CONTENT, !/o ,hl
. 10 20
LABORATORY C()PACTIa4
LASORATORY COMPACTION
TEST METHOD: ASJM-O 1557=70T A
·30
FILL SU'ITABI1IlY TESTS
. : BUENA WOODS UNIT #2
.[...JOOQWARD - G I Z I I & ASSOC I ATES·
CONSULTING SOIL AND .SAN
, ,
.... ,':.tr'1._."L,.J • • • --..
f'
MECHAlHCAL ANALYSIS'
100 ' '3 a q'IO Ij() 200
Dl;-(ECT SH~~.R TEST DATA LI. f\
, '\ 80 r Dry Density. pcf -CI z:
Initial Water Content. ri CI) \ JO -~ 60
II
.. c.. \ Final Water Content. % -I-\ ffilj() Apparent Cohesion. pst -u ,1\ .I 0<-w ' .' " II Apparent Friction Angle. 0 c..2Q -\ ..
I ' I ' ,t I I I I I I I ' , -0 IqQ 1000 100 10 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.001 i 5 \ r\ ~ZbRO AIR,VOIDS CURVES GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS I ~ 'ICOBBLESI GRAVEL r" 'St.H'D I~'~T & CLAY I r ' . . ' ~I\ t ~, :", , ,c L f~J.m L
II \ 1\ V2.70 S.G. \ \ .1 130 \ rv2.60 S.G. PLASTICI1Y CHARAC1'ERISTICS 4 ~I : V 2.50 S.G. liquid Limit, 'j. l, \ ~~ -L
" Plasticity Index. r. I 1\ '\ Classification by Unif!ed Soil
120 \ \ ~ CI assi ti cation System SP \ \ 1\ , , \ '\ 1\ " .... 1\\ \ (,)
Q, ,
~ \ 1\ 1\ SWELL TEST ,DATA . 4 :z:: \' -0
110 u:i ~ \ \r-.. Ini tial Dry Density, pcf -I--,f\. \ '" % Initial ~ater Content. ,,,, -::>
>-'\ '\ 1\ . cr: Load, pst -0
r\f\. Percent Swe II \ \ r\ -,
100 \ r\ i\ -
~ ,SAMPLE LO,CATION ..
\\ 1\ ' '
! 1\ r\ '" 4 Bob ,Lynch Pit· V:lsta
90 MAXIHUM DRY 4" '[\ " , .. " , ..
DENSITY, pet ,127 • ~ ~~: ',-' , _,_ --0. • T,)';o " ,. , .
... ,. .... ---'~ , . ... . ... , , ' . , OPTI~IUM MOISTURE 9. t CONTENT. r. t\.' ~ r\.,
~' r\. \..,
MOISTURE CONTENT 1-' ~'K~ 80 0 10 20 30 40
LAOORA TORY ca·p ACT ION TEST' . , , j • FILL SUITABILITY TESTS
, LABORATORY COMPACTIOK I ' TEST METHOD: ASn~-O 1557-70A BUENA \·1000S #2 .. ~
00 WOODWARD -GIZIENSKI & ASSOCIATES • , I'
CONSULTING SOIL A!lD FOUNDATION ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS i '
" SAN DIEGO •• CALIFORNIA ' ,r
DR. BY: GS' I SC~LE: ----PR~J. NO:72-105-5.6;.1
CK'D BY: d/7 _.L~~~JQJ_2)jJ.J at:r .... ~:~ u !~~_=-Ej·
,. ..
.'
•
DIRECT ~~EAR TEST DATA 4 5
Dry Dellsi ty, pcf 115 5 110 0
Initial Water Content. % '9 1 9.8
Final Water Content. % 15 3 16.2
Apparent Cohesion. psf 160 190
Apparent Friction Angle. 0 18 32
IIlO \ ~ ,
f?"ZERO AIR VOIDS 'CURV-ES . \
V' \
\ !\ ' \ ~~2. 70 S. G.
[\/2.60 S. G.
K\~v 2. 50 S. G.
130
14 -f.I \l\\ 1\
If ~\ L ..... \~~ [l .' I r~ E ~\\ \ 120
'+-'\ 1\ 1\
u .\ \ Q. 1\
110
t-. , \ 1\ f\ ::z::
1\ \ \ (!)
~ . ,
\ \l\ t-
Z f\ '\ :::>
>-\ \ r\ e<: 0 1\1\ • \ \ 1\
\ \ \ . 100
\. \
\ \ '\.
100
'.
80
C!:I . z:
en ~ 60
Cl-
t-ffillO (,,) "" UJ /)..20
o t t
MEClfAN I CAL ANAL YS I S
3 f "10 110 200
"\
\
\
" i\~ 1-4·
\. ";-...
\ " r:: .. -~ .... .....-
L J I , , , .,
. i'--.....
-:-
1000 100 10 I 0 0 I 0 01 0 001 . .
GRAt'N SIZE IN MilLIMETERS.
.(C{;g~~~SI:G~AVE¥.Ie S:XO f 'Is I LT & ClAY I . ...... . , . .J .. "..I. J .
PLASTI C I TV' CHARACTER I STI CS 4 5
Liquid limit, 'r, 27 ~lP
Plasticity Index. % 13 NP
Classification by Unified Soil
Classification System SC -
SWELL TEST DATA . 4 5
Initial Dry Density, pcf 117.2 -
Initial Water Content. ~ 9.2 :/u -
Load. psf 160 -
Percent Swell 2.8. -
SAMPLE LOCATION
\. \\ 4 Lot It 27 ..
90 MAX W,uM DRY 4 ·5
DENSITY. pcf 128 ( 122 F
OPTIMUM t-iOISTURE
CONTENT • .,. 9 ( 10. :
MOISTURE CONTEHT, %
10 20
LABORATORY cw.PACTION
. LABORATORY COMPACTION
TEST METHOD: ASrt1-D ,] 557 -70T -A
~ ..
~~~
i\. ~
1'\.'
30
5 L,ot #.12
~.
r'\.\..
f\..~)
FILL SUITABI LIlY TESTS
BUENA· WOODS
WOODWARD -GI ZI. 8~SI(-I. & ASSOC I ATES
CONSULTING SOIL AND FOU/WATIOH EHGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
SAN 01 CALI FORHI
<> e:OMPACTION TEST RESUL.
JOB NAME' BUENA WOODS UNIT #2 DATE REPORTED 1/16/74
, JOB NUMBER 72-105-56 (STREETS)
OATES COVERED August 18, 1973 through 'December 5, 1973 PAGE l' oP" 4
M9IS1't,lR& .. IELD LABORATORY RELATIVE,
DATE nST RETEST LOCATION ELEVATION CONTENT DENSiTY DENSiTY CO,.JOACTION
NUMBER Of' OF TEST ~·DRYWr. PCP' ~I' % 01' u.o,ll. DltN~.
18 AUG. . S-l MONROE STREET
STATION 13+00 130' 8.1 1.16.7 129.5 90.4
S-2 STATION 13+50 128" '9.3 117.0 '129.5 90.6
S-3 STATION 13+00 132' 9.3 119.5 129.5 ' 92.3
,20 AUG. S-4 STATI,ON 14+00 126' 9.9 117.0 129.5 90.5
S-5 STATION 14+50 1241 8.1 118.3 129.5 91.7
S-6 'STATION 15+00 122' 9.9 ,1.18.6 129.5 9i.8
21 AUG. S-7 STATION 15+50 120' 9.3' '117.1 129.5 90.7
S-8 STATION 16+00 118' 8.1 116.5 129.5 90.7
. '22' AUG •. S-9 STATION 16+50 116' ll.l 114.B 125 • .0 92.1.
S-10 STATION 17+00 114' 10.5 115.2 125.0 92.6
S-11 STATION 1B+00 lOB' ,11 .1 11B.2 125.0 94.7
23 AUG. S-12 STATION 1B+B5 108' 9.'9 ' 113.9 125.0 9l.4
S-13 STATION 13+50 130' 10.5 112.9 125.0 90.6
S-14 STATION 14+50 128' 11. 1 116.9 125.0 93.7
, 24 AUG. S-15 STATION 14+00 130' 10 •. 5 119.3 ' 125.0 95.8
S-16 STATION 15+00 -126', 9.9 118.8 125.0 95.3
27 AUG. S-17 STATION 13+00 136 1 10.5 124.6 125.0 99.8
S-18 STATION 13+50 134' 10.5 116.5 125.0 93.5
S-19 STATION 15+50 124' J1.1 -115.8 125~0 92.6
~
28.AUG,. S'-20 STATION 17+50 112' i 2.3 . 115.5 122.0 94.3
S-21 STATION 18+50 112' 11.7' 117.1 122.0 95.7
S-22 STATION 13+00 138' 11.1 118.4 122.0 96.7
S-23 ELM STREET OPPOSITE
LOT #49 202' i10 .• 5 115.3 .125.d 92.6'
S-24 -#49 208' 11.1 116.1 125.0 93.3
'S-25 MONROE STREET
STATION 13t50 .140' 10.5 114.B 122.0 94.3
S-26 STATION 14+50 134' 11.1 116.0 122.0. " 95.2
S-27 STATION '14+00 134' ll.l 116.0 122.0 95.1
S-2B ELM AVENUE OPPOSITE
LOT #49 212' 10.5 119.9 125.0 96.2
S-29 LOT #49 216' 11.l 117~1. 125.0 94.1
WOODWARD· GIZIENSKI & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING SOIL,AND fOUNDATION [NOINUIIS AND O[OLOGISTS
. ., .OMPACTION TEST RESUL4
JOB NAME BUENA·WOODS UNIT #2 DATE REPORTED 1/16/74
'JOB NUMBER 72-105-56 (STREETS)
DATES COVERED August 18 through December 5, 1"973 PAGE 2 OF 4
MOI.TUItI: . P'II:LD LAIlOItATOIlY ItJJ:LATIVI:
DATI: TEST RETEST LOCATION ELEVATION CONTENT gEN.ITY gl:t,j.ITY COM .. ACTION
NUMBER 0' O'-TEST .. gIlYWT. PCP' PC, % O,-LAB. g~ ••
.-30 AUG. S-30 MONROE STREET
STATION 16+00 1241 12.3 112.8 122.0 92.7
S-31 STATION 17+00 120 1 11.7 117.2 122.0 96.2
S-32 STATION 16+50 1221 11. 1 .115.2 122.-0 94.3
'S-33 ELM AVENUE OPPOSITE
LOT #49 220 1 -9.9 118.2 125.0 95.0
5-34 LOT #50 226 1 10.5 118.6 125.0 95.7
31 AUG. S-35 MONROE STREET ~ . ~
STATION 18+00 1141 la.5 116. O· 122.0 95.4
S-36 STATION 19+10 1141 11.1 114.0 122.0 93.4
S-37 STATION 17+50 116 1 11.7 117.8 122.0 96.6
S-38 ELM AVENUE OPPOSIiE
LOT #49 2241 10.5 119.0 125.0 95.6
S-39 LOT #50 230 1 9.9 116.1 125.0 93.4
4 SEPT. S-40 MONROE STREET . --
STATION 13+00 1441 11.1 . 112.2 122.0 92.4
S-41 STATION 14+00 136 1 10.5 117.8 122. O· 96.7
S-42 STATI ON 15+00 1:32 1 11.7 115.2 122.0 94.7
-5 SEPT. S-43 MONROE STREET . '
STATION 17+65 1181 12.3 116.4 122.0 95.6
S-44 STATION 15+60 128 1 11.7 116. 1 122.0 95.3
S-45 STATION 13+70 l401 11.7 116.1 122.0 93.8
6 SEPT. S-46 STATION 13+00 1441 11. 1 -117.7 122.5 96.0
S-:47-STATI ON 15+50 ~.301 11.1-115.9 122.5 . 94.5
7 SEPT. S-48 STATION 41+50 15 1 10.5 125.7 129.5 96.9
S-49 STATION 40+36 171 11.1 122.3 • 129.5 94.5
10 S.EPT._ S-50 STATION 22+50 .941 11.-1 116.2 125.0 93.0
, S-51 STATION 19+50 '98 1 12.3 -115.8 125.0 92.5
~
J1 SEPT. S-52 STATION-20+40 . 100 1 -10.5 114.3 125.0 91.5 .
S-53 STATION 19+60 105 1 11.1 121.5 129.5 93.8
12 SEPT. S-54 STATION 21+60 101 1 12.3 120.0 125.0 96.0
S-55 STATION 19+80 110 1 11.7 118.2 125.0 94.5
WOODWA·RD·· GIZIENSKI & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING SOIL AND FOUNDATION lNGINUIIS AND GEOLOGISTS
_OM~ACTION TEST RES;ULTe,
JOB NAME BUENA WOODS UNIT #2 ' DATE REPORTED 1/16/74
'-JOB NUMBER 72-105-56 (STREETS)
OATES COVERED August 18 through December 5, 1973 , PAGf; 3 OF 4,
MO'STUIUI: FIELD 1oA.0RATORY ,RELATIVE
DATE nST RETEST LOCATION ELEVATION CONTll:NT DENSITY DENSITY COMPACTION
NUMBER 0' 0' TEST "lit IIRY WT. PC, PC" % 01' LAD',PENS.
, 17 SEPT. S-56 MONROE STREET ' ,'" _:-~,~
STATION 22+50 94' 12.3 125.0 129.5 96.5
S-57 STATION'19+20 98 1 11.1 121.8 '129.5 93.9
lB, SEPT. S-58 STATION 20+50 100' 10.5 117.5 125.0 94.1
S-59 STATION 19+70 105' 11. 1 1'20.B 129.5 93.2
19 SEPT., S-60 STATION 21 +60 101' 11.1 ' 11B.8, 125.0 95.0
S-61 STATION 19+75 110' 11..7 118.1 125.0 94.5
24 SEPT. S-62 ELM AVENUE OPPOSITE
LOT 51 230' 1) .7 122.3 129.5 94.5 '
5-63 LOT 49 232' 10.5 120.5 129.5 93.0
25 SEPT.; S .. 64 ~OT 50 231' 13.0 120.2 129.5' 92.8
5-65 LOT 53 2'17' 11.1 117.5 125.0 94.1
26 SEPT. S-66 OPPOSITE LOT 10
(UNNM1ED STREET) 142' 10.5 115.7 125.0 92.5
27 SEPT. S-67 OPPOSITE LOT 1 128' 11.1 115.0 125.0 91.9
S-68 OPPOSITE LOT 4 139' 9.9 ' 120.0 125.0 96.0
28 SEPT. 5-69 OPPOSITE LOT 2 132' ' 10.5 ] 15.7 125.0 92.5
S-70 OPPOSITE LOT· 6 142' 11.1 11.4.9 125.0 91.8
2 OCT S,..71 , OPPOSITE LOT 10 "37' 11. 7~ 120'.8 125.0 96.5
S-72 OPPOSITE LOT 11 147' 13.0 117.3 125.0 93.9
S-73 OPPOSITE LOT 1 136' 12.3 114.9 125.0 91.8
S-74 OPPOSITE LOT 3 142' 11.1 118.8 125.0 95.1
12 NOV S-75 ~10NROE ST. STA 17+50 121' 10.5 115.1 122.5 93.9
S-76, MONROE ST. STA 16+00 130' 10.5 '112.1 1'22.5 91.5
S-77 MONROE ST. STA 14+50 138 1 11,. 1 118.9 122.5 97.0
S-78 , r',10NROE 5T. STA 13+00 146' 9.9 117.8 122.5 96.1 '
13"NOV 5-79 MONROE 5T. 5TA 18+50 118' 11.1 115.1 122.5 93.9
5-80 MONROE ST. 5TA 17+00 126' 10.5 113.6, 122.5 92.7
5-81 ~,10NROE ST. STA 15+50 135' 9.1 116.5 122 .. 5 95.1
5-82 r40NROE 5T. STA 14+00 143' 9.9 114.1 122.5 ' 93.2
S-83 MONROE 5T. 5TA 12+70 150' 10.5 119.0 122.5 91.8 '
WOODWARD· GIZIENSKI & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING 5011, AND rOU"'DA1IDN £NGI"'E£IIS AND G~OLOGIS1S
'OMPACTION TE'ST :RESrn:.TSe ·
JOB·NAME BUENA HOODS UNIT #2 ,D~ TE REPORTED 1 / l6j74
J98 NUMBER 72-105-56 (STREETS)
DATES COVERED August 18 through December 5, 1973 PAGE 4 : 0 ... 4
MOISTURIC .. IELD LA.OltATORY ItICUTIVE
. DATIC ':"It&T RETEST LOCATION ELEVATION CONTENT ~ENSITY DENSITY COMPACTION
NUMBEit OF' . O .. TEST ~'DRY'WT, PC .. PCP % '0" LAS. OEMS,
, '14' NOV. S-84 r·10NROE ST. STA 18+00 123 1 11.1 113.;~ 122.5 92.5
S-85 MONROE ST. STA 16+50. 1311. 8.1 112.7 125.0 91.8
S-86 MONROE ST. STA 15+00 139' 10,.5 111..3 125.0 90.9
S-87 MONROE ST. STA 13+50 1471 11 ... .7 117.8: 125.0 96.1
S-88 r·1ONROE ST. STA 14+50 143' 12.3 113.7 125.0 92.7
S-89 MONROE ST. STA 13+00 1'52'/ 11.1 11'5.1 125.0 93.9
15 NOV S-90 ~10NRO[ ST. STA 12+70 156 1 10.5 113.8' 125.0 92.8
S-91 MONROE ST. STA 14+00 148' II ~ 1 111.5 . 122.5 91.0
.S-92 t~ONROE ST. STA 16+00 136 1 11.1 ' 117.0 125.0 95.5
21 NOV S-93 EU~ AVE 'STA 85+00 SG 217.5' 11.1 119.0 129.5 91.8
S-94 EU1 AVE STA 86+10 SG 226.0' 11.1 '123.2. 129.5 95.2
S-95 RAMP OPP LOT 54 SG 205 .• 51 10.5 121.1 129.5 93.5
S-96 OPPOSITE LOT 18 SG 167.0' 10.5 , 120.3 . 129.5 92.9
. 27 NOV S-97 OPPOSITE LOT 13 SG 152 •. 0 I 11. 1 116.9 125~0 93.5
S-98 OPPOSITE LOT 10 SG 147'.51 10.5 115 •. 9 125.0 92.7
S-99 OPPOSITE LOT 2 ,SG 144.0' 9.9 114.8 125.0 91.8
5 DEC S-100 MONROE ST. STA'13+00 SG 160.0' ll.1 1.14.8 . 122.5 93.5'
S-101 ~·10NROE ST. STA 14+50 SG 148.0' 12 •. 3 . 116.1 122.5 94.8
S-102 MONROE ST. STA 16+00 SG 140.0' 10.5· 115.9 . 1-2.5 93.5'
S-103 t10NROE ST. ST A 18+00 'SG 126 .• .5' 9.,9 , '115.0 125.0 92.0
" "
, .
WOODWARD· GIZI,ENS:KI .& ASSOCI'ATES
CONSULTING SOIL AND rOUNOATION ENGINUIIS. AND GEOLOGISts
• _OMPACTIC?N'TEST RESU.LT.,
JOB NAME BUENA WOODS UNIT #2 DATE REPORTED 1/16/74
JOB N,UMBER 72-105-56
DATES COVERED September 4 through December 5, 1973 PAGE i OF 2
DATE TIlST
,MOISTURE FIELD , LABORATORY RELATIVE
RETEST LOCATION ELEVATION 'CONTENT DENalTY DIENalTY COMPACTION
NUMBi:R OF OI"TEST '!It OilY WT. pel' PCI' % 01' LAB. DENa.
'4 SEPT. 1 LOT 1 SEWER EASEMENT
AREA 116~ 11.1 112.2 122.0 92.1
2 LOT 1 1141 '12.3 112.3 122.0 92.4
5 SEpT. 3 LOT 1, SEWER EASEMENT
AREA 118' 11.1 120.0 125.0 95.9
13 SEPT. 4 LOT 1 1221 11. 1 120.5 129.5 93. 1
5 LOT 2 1'25 1 10.5 119.9 129.5 92.5
6 LOT 1 1281 11.7 117.7 125.0 94.1
14 SEPT.' 7 LOT 2 130' 12.3 115.1 125.0 92.0
8 LOT 1 133 1 ' 13.0 117.3 125.0 93.9
9 LOT 2 136 1' 12.3 116.1 125.0 92.8
20 SEPT. 10 LOT 16 162 1 11.1 121.8 129.5 94.0
11 LOT 18 169 1 ,10.5 120.8 129.5 93.2
12 LOT 17 166 1 13.0 118.7 '129.5 91.5
21 SEPT. 13 LOT 3 1421 12.3 117.0 125.0 ' 93.5
14 LOT 1 _140 1 , '11.7 115.2 125.0 92.2
15 LOT 4 1-42,1 10.5 117.8 125.0 94.1
24 SEPI. 16 LOT 10 138' 11.1 122.3 129.5 94.5
17 LOT 13 '1471 . 11.1 124.6 129.5 ' 96.2
26 SEPT. 18 LOT 11 140 1 10'.5 113.8 125.0 91.0
19 LOT 12 1421 11.1 120.2 129.5 92.8
27 SEPT. 20 LOT ,10 ' 140'" 11.7 121. 1 ., 129.5 93.5
21 LOT 14 150 1 13.0' 117.9 . 129.5 90.9
'28' SEPT. 22 LOT 12 141 1' 12~3 116.3 125.0 93.1
'1 OCT. 23 10 143 1 11.7 117.3 125.0 93.9
24 13 149'1 12.3 113.1 125.0 90.5
25 15 158 1 13.0 113.,8 '125.0 91.0
10 OCT. 26 14 153 1 14.9 115.8 ' 125.0 92.5
\' 27 11 146 1, 11.1 119.0 129.5 91.8
" 28 10 148 1, 12.3 116.9 125.0 93.5
29 51 196 1 13.0 117.6 ' 125.0 94. ,1 '
WOODWARD· GIZiENSKI & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING SOIL AND, fOUNDATION UiGINUII' AND GEOLOGISlS
, . ,
tlOMPACTION TEST RESULT_ c}o
JOII NAME . BUENA WOODS UNIT 2 DATE REPORTED 1/16/74.
JOB NUMBER 72-105-56
OATES COVERED September 4 through December' 5', 1973 PAGE 2' OF 2
MO'8TURIt .. IItLD LA_O'RATORY RItLATIVIt DAn: n8T RETEST LOCATION ItLEVATION CONTItNT· DI:N81TY DI:N81TY COMI'ACTION
HUMBER 01'" OP"TEST .. CRYwi-. PC .. PC" % 0" LAII. DENS.
13 NOV. 30 REAR OF LOT 12 152 1 11.1 111.2 122.5 90.8
31 14 154 1 9.1 '114.1 122.5 93.2
15 NOV. 32 13 155" 10.5 115.2 122.5 94.2
33 LOT 11 .. 1541. 11.1 117.8 122.5 96.1
34 REAR OF LOT 14 157' 11.7 112.7 122.5 91.9
35 13 158 1 13.0 111 .5 122.5 91.0
·16 NOV. 36 LOT 49 FG 191 .7 1 9.1 120.2 129.5 92.8
37 50 FG 192.3 r 10.5 . 121.1 129.5 93 .. 5
38 51 FG . 198.2 11.1 119.2 129.5 92.0
39 39 FG 197.0 10.5 118.7 129.5 91.5
40 38 FG 196.0 1 9.1 124.2 129.5 96 .. 0
41 37 FG 1'95.5' 9.9 118.0 129.5 91.2
19 NOV. 42 36 FG 194.5 1 12.3 119.0 129.5 91.8
43 35 FG 193.9' 11.7 121 .1 ·129.5 93.6
44 16 FG 164.9' . 11. 1 118.5 129.5 9'1.5
45 17 FG . 168.3' 11.1 117.2 . 129.5 90.5 .. : 46 18 FG 170.9' 12.3 120.8 129.5 93.2
·47 '19 FG 173.5 1 12.3 125.8 129.5 97.0
48 20. FG 177.3' 11.7 121.8 129.5 93.9
20 NOV. 49 30 "FG 185.8' 11. T 119.2 129.5 92.0
50 31 PG 186.3' 11.7 117.9 129.5 . 90.9
51 32 FG 186.3 1 1'2.3 119.0 129.5 91.8
52 .25 . FG :194.8 ' 10.5 125.0. 129.5 96.5
53 26 FG 194.5' 11.1 ; .121.1 129.5 93.5
54 27 FG " "94.2' 9.9 120.3 129.5 92·.9
55 28 FG 193.7' 9.9 119-. O' 129.5 91.8
56 1 FG 144.2' 10.5· . 117.2· 122.5 95.2'
57 2 . FG 144.8' 11.7 119.0 129.5 ·9l.8
58 3 FG 145.4' . 11.1 120.8 129.5 93.2
.'
. 21 NOV .. 59 4 FG . 145.9' 12·.3 118.5 129.5 91.5
60 5 FG 146.6' 11.7 121.1 129.5 93.5
61 6 FG 147.1'· 11.7 114.0 122.5 93.0
5 DE"C. 62 10 FG· 152.0' 10.5 114.7 125.0 91.7
63 11 FG . 155.0' . n.1-113.9 122.5 92.8
64 12' FG . 158.0' 9.1 111.3 122.5 90.9
65 13 FG 159.0 1 9.9 117.0 122.5 95.2'
66 14 FG 160.b l 10.5 '114.1 122.5 93.2
67 15 FG 161.0' 10.5 114.6 122.5 93.5
I .. 68 9 FG 151 .2' 11.1' 112.9 122.5 92.1
" ~ .. -FG '198.2 1 . 12.3 115 .. 0 125.0 92 .• 0 69 52
WOODWARD· • GIZIENSKI & ASSOCIATES
CON5UkTlNG SOIL AND-FOUNDATION 'NGIN£E"S ANO GEOLOGISTS
I .1
m' ~
~ JJ
j
CT12-11
. .
SOIL INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED
HOSP GROVE DEVELOPMENT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA·
KAMAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY" INC.
Post Office Box 71
Carlsbad, California '92008.
by
WOODWARD, CLYDE.AND ASSOCIATES .
.,
Consulting Soil and Foundation Engineers and Geologists' .. . ..
cnY Of CARLS~AD .
Engineering Department
i
I .
, ,
~ til"
I
I
I
I .. II
I
I ,. '.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
SCOPE
FIELD INVESTIGATION
LABORATORY TESTS
SITE AND SOIL CONDITrONS
DISCUSSION
General
Soil Conditions
Construction
CONCLUSIONS
RECOMt~ENDATIONS
LIMITATIONS
FIGURE 1 ~ SITE PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURE 2 -LOGS OF TEST BORINGS 1 & 2
FIGUREi 3 -LOG OF TEST BORING 3
FIGURE 4 -LOG OF TEST BORING 4
FIGURE 5 -LOG OF TEST BORING 5
FIGURE 6 -LOG OF TEST BORING 6
FIGURE 7 -LOGS OF TEST BORINGS 7 & 8
FIGURE 8 -LOGS OF TEST BORINGS 9 THROUGH 11
FIGURE 9 -LOG OF TEST BORING 12
FIGURE 10 -LOG OF TEST BORING 13
FIGURE 11 -LOG OF TEST BORING 14
PAGE
1
2
2
3
5
5
.5
7
7
9
11
FIGURE 12 -LOG OF TEST BORING 14 (CONTINUATION)
FIGURE 13 -LOG OF TEST BORING 15
FIGURE 14 -LOG OF TEST BORING 16
FIGURE~15 -LOG OF TEST BOR~NG 16 (CONTINUATION)
WOODWARD. CLYDE· SHERARD & ASSOCIATES
. Comulting Soil lind Foundation Engineetl and Ge%gi$u
~-~_1lJ .,.".,._. """f flI."..., ...... 'P __ , •• ~.,...,.,.,..,,~..,..,....-_~_~......-...~~~~---..,..............,.....,,~-.........-~--.,....----.-...-..... ~--~--...... -'. 'I!(o
.~ ___ .~----1._ ._-----"',,.....', _____ _ ---------. ...:.---~;
;
; ...
; , ,. ,
, . • I . ,
1'~~~~~~~~·r#,,;;&l..~~~1:..ici~~ii~4-»4.~r~~ ~:~~~~~~llr;4!'~...,~ .... ::,~·,;~~a;t~ ~~~~'l...~~~"Gt...t&~~~~
.. ..!,. . ...J ., '., • • • . -7
~ &
I
I: .
> •
18
• •
II
\
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
FIGURE 16'~ GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
FIGURE 17 -GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
fIGURE 18 -CONSOL1DATION TEST
FIGURE 19 ~ CONSOLIDATlON TEST
TABLE 1 -RESULTS OF LOADED SWELL TEST
PAGE
TABLE 2 -RESULTS Of CONFINED COt1PRESSION TESTS
ATTACHMENT 1 -SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONTROLLED FILL
WOODWARD • CLYDE· SHERARD & ASSOCIATES
Comulline Soil /lnd F(Iljndlltion Enginee1'1 /lTld Ge%gistl
/lyP/.!.~t.cJ&'/
4r.z-t;T/} # /
• C!4;ttS$fjIJ /l~-# ?z-...,. -II
;17 ,0/2.(.), o~ 'j l..f .l!z..,I)/lAtJ.?IC.J
cp ... ~/~ ~ ... /! I, I /., /f~S/~
yo: (1;-0,77 -=-5/ (0 / r X J -;. I Z. 0
// y"'l... 4'tf"rl" -= /, t? ~ -= ,56 '
S r .; r: ';:;r~ ~) '2... -.:; , 3'7%
l/Y ~ ,a077 ~ z-o~~ · &7 ft~tTl(pl) ?!itX/
RECEIVED
DEC 1 5 1972.
city OF CARLSBAD
Ensineerlng, Department
--/.
',c,o
.I
o
\..J '-./.
:. ... ,? ,;.... ,. ~.
HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE
CALCULATION SHEET
~---------;;;:::], .... ~.
, ,,' ...
VPrTi p.I<:'''f, FrDl'v1 /MV'Tb H.:~,t..(J.t-. ..
'1!<li~
Sht_of_
PROJECT !..QI ~:J;'~~~~Od Control District LINE .
CALCULATED BY.
STA. IELEV.
INV.
O+&OIII$,U
t) + ;8.{ll~4/)
l> .J,.C1& I 17~.01
0* I ELEV.j SEC"
H.G.L TlON
()
d o
•
·Conduit unseals when 0 IS less than d DATE
d I A I Q I V I 2": I K II lit· I ~;. ~~-' "I .~f~
1q '2 I 11. ~ I
Is·cd ",071
1" .. I 1 I ." .," ::! I".'.., , , .11. r. "., .' , -.:.
.P ... i~ -t I ... .. _ '-I. . • ,.,..1. L-:' .......... ', ,... l ""1: I
2'&P ~ .• ,'t41 /6;4.,£ t? .. ? to 1.-\4,1; .(jt!J.d I I .".-_. -
} l!> M 1.1'7 , .4 a. " (), "'to I D r,t> I ~ 7
-
hb bj ~ ELEV.
-t· E.O.L. , .. ,"" I I h;!~ ,Dz,; i; ,,-:,)
I 13. ~ I f:·:"d.~
I ,
f----
I t,--.. ~"" I-.. . I ..
"
. i I ,. " .,' ):. l~ . I; < ~.;1:~ ,,'J t',
-0 111 to
(1)
C>. . r
~;
"
. ,
1 i-t
\
'.\
;r
"
, . , . '.
f . ' .
. . . ~ ~." .
. '
.. ' _ .3Yz-p;:'/i/ VIN r (A ~tf;. j);4.,,)
2 y AVG .iJ47 .:.:,' ,_ ..... ,
. : "
,;,' ..
•••• , <','7,,,;' •
~ ~ ':;"_" ,_ )I
~." : -': . '.-
'1"·
" .:'"
~ -,
:1.:
;;
Ii i' )2e:-r ?0If"Jr
31 . ~ ~',,; " .
¥I
~ II
/1
I
, :.? I
... . . .
~~). ';~.
. I
.'
. l' ~ " ',.
-', ... \; .-'.-~ :
" '. ',~ . ·~:.:j::S~ :.: ... "
. , ".'
· ... ·-!..:.L~:: ... : /:--2
: .-. -.' ~~ :.:~ .
. : \~.;~:~ :~ ... ~: .z -':J
.; .-:.:>:';::,: .. '.
: ~:.~-, '-:' '. --~'.
. !l
',' ." .: ." -'.'~ "':"." .~," .. : . ".-.
".::-....
';' ""J
--,'
. '. ,'" ...... : ~ '. . .. ' ,
. ,
. ., . .. .. ~ ........ ~ .... -.... ',.-,.,' ........ .
~ .'~'
~ ... , .. -. ';'
'.;:' .. "., .. _'" h"
-' ... :, .... ., . ... ... '-
......
',' .
..
!.
-,', -
<:-
' .. : . '. ,.; .. ~:
. '-:"'" . ~ ,
'.~
:
. " '.,.:
:"
i'
l
f
I· .
I I
.\
'.:' ,
. I .-.:.
. ·1
I , '
,',
62
HEAD LOSS
FACTORS
FOR
VALUES OF ~CH
140:54
130.S2 120 .71 110 .84
100 1.00 90 1.22 801.51 70 1.94 60 £,58
503.62
4105.44
WITH SAME
HEAD LOSS
Q VARIES
DIRECTLY WITH~C"
Q-Q.P.W.
12,000
10,000
8,000
1,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,500
I,ggg
.800
700
SaO
500
400
300
200
150
100 . 90
80
70
60
_. "..,l.
' fo-
1.65 Q..
1.0
.8
.S
.5
.4,
, I .3 ,\
.2
.15
.10
.03 .OS ":-04
.·04
10 .03
5 .02
3
2 .010
.009
.006 .005 .004
.003 .
;002
.001
V' C RO.Ci3 SO.S4-O.ooCO.O,," H-W
C~NVERSION fACTORS fOR PIPES
Of VARIOUS SIZES
L-H:U
12,000-
10.000
8.000
7.000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1.000 .900
800
700
600
~OO
·400
300
200
150
100 90 .80
70.
.60
FLOW DATA
Z ..'i t.,; -·W
" :::I> ,u..
::I 0;-"'0 0«( ,0 "'0 co-00 i5 !« ~-
2. 98 336
4 390 160
6 880 95
8 1565 67
10 2450 52
12 3530 42
14 4800 35 ", --IS ~200 30
189000 27 2C 9800 24
I • ~ -• : )'''':.: '. ~ ... " ,'.,':: .. ~.
" !,"-' '~" ... " '.~
. .. .' . '50 I 24000 ;; 4.06 18 I~ 50 3500 8 \.00 20
: t' • ',.
40 Z 840 10 0.34, 21 .
zY;I. 28S 12 0.\4 22 40
'3 120 14 .066. 24 . 30 4 29 15 .041 30
, 7\'. ~ '. !.':>i":' . ,:' ~
5 9.7 16 .034 36
20 MULTIPLY LENGTH Of PIPE BY ITS 20
PROPER fACTOR TO OBTAIN THE
EQUIVALENT LENGTH OF 8 INCH 15 PIPE FOR SAME FRICTION LOSS 15
FIcunE 1.
No~ograph for the Rapid Calculation of Loss of H,ead in Pipes.
The use of this chart enables one to see at a 'glance after the firs~ " .
correction where the system is over or under designed and these li:nes .~.
'can be changed before too much work is done on the probl~m. ' ~
When several corrections have brought the unbalanced head losses
below 5 or 10 feet, a quick check can be· made of the losses from the '.
source to the farthest point of discharge, following at least 'two paths.
. Thus it may h~ found that the losses are well under the head available
. and the system need not be' 9hecked' further.': ·This .is valuable in cases
-~ . ':. . . . '. ; '. . .' . ~ '.
. ,:.' .
• 1." ".::
: ':-. i:' : ...
" :
i
(
,.. •
; ,
,'1'. Go ;.r-.::,..".,.' ! /I :: 1.:.10 • .) • -'f -i I
S /C?8 '" )c. 3 r 3 : II ,
C;. 8"1 I. :. ,£1. 7 I,
7. J:l.'/ ~ /;20 ¥;;;-tI
I
8. /20 I, /Jt; .-II , (,;)--
f~ i
2/:.. II ;1OC" • I -I
'I 16. ! I ---/CJ , 7 II
-,
,$ c,,<{ II ,?,:.S/-i'::l'
1 j. I, -~~'--!!:---:.I "
.\., .
. 1
'.' ,
.. --.
,
;,
! .... --
i-_ .
.J.
I I.
. l' I
: -
--.--~ ~
~ -i .. l-I I I
-_. i I .I .. ! j' i "\ I ,
I I i !
i I I
I i ! "1
I I
.i I
I
I , ~ • t .. i j I
I . i ,-' . .. j 'r I ! I I
'.
• , 'I
CT12-1I,
, ,
. " . ~,
.' ",' --':;:-. . .':.' -
~ "', •• #,~ ~ .,." -~".' ~
',' , .. ,
' ... y " . '-. . -_ ............... ..:-.. .... :: ~~:-. '.'.
~ .' -t:'t:',,; ~.: ~:, _ .. ' -.. -....... -._--, -,
" ~ ." ' ':~ t~.~~'.~:.~;..::; .. ~, ~:' .
," .... "-~--::-'.~ " .. _ . __ ~'_.~"'~~~l~~., ...
9'Y;.P" tEtfJ'""a"~11
8 il ¢.
, n .
. ' .;. . -~
'{
j(
:2, '7 0 O. fI
.3.5' 3 c If
. . . .• -. ,-~~·;)-.;r·-~
. "
-": C.:'
.......... -.
. "." . --.. ~:~-
. '-.;"" , "
~:...,,-. -
... ... -'.
--
.-... -. --"' -... . ,'
.. ..... '." I .,$ ,-. E v.~" ~ <::> I J -/ /\ J /; .J _ ' ,
.. '~:,''''' -c:; ~. -/t..J/ ~'$ •. -.
. -~ ... ~. :. -'
. '
..
~ -4 -.:. ,;; .. ~ .... ~ .:-
, .' -::-:-.:..~: > ':." ~ •• ' ~
. . .--~ .... --' -i ~ ... ...:~~: :'':::'''::~'':::':-::'_-:~-7:-~~;':;~:=.''''''':':'~: ~_-_;~:I>:'~~::L'i~
-'"t~ '.~:, 9
.. ', -,-
. ,:"';: -.
. ' "'-,':'.-..... -' ...... , . . .
:;', .: ~ '. -~. . . '" .. .~
~,' ¥ -. -.'"
-
8
.... "~." ~ .... ,
t -11
I. d --
t' .. / I ;l
H t,
d
"
.. lJ .'
·c~ :.
>tt.. t =-
It S '"
II i ::
;/#J? 6,eot/t? A;2I:/.I :.. $A%!Z Sj';TEH
. .& lit/I-! A tI./&(Jt)S;¢..zz:·
77,1'$-. ,.5~S-+ 7,if?-=-?(),~J--;£».'1:
?
3" tJ, t, ~ -;, ~ .1-.. , 12,/:J =;{li~fi .
,.p-;;.-3<;;
u(;,%7 -~/J'" -:: -.li1..J? -;.&1' .~-~
... . .. . '~., .
" ~ ... , .....
. ' ". Bc:"Yt;I/'J/.) !'3-,1Vo , .*, •. ,:
.' --.... ?~.
'$,et:> Rooore., "' .
:= 38,/ PSI': .
,.
," ..
. : " " !i ;
" 'I ii
:1.
!
:1
" .i
Ii
I: " I: i ~
i ~
" :i ii il q ,.
:! :i
.d E(' ';:l -.z,t:r~~
.~ .... :. -r6"7
.... ?;"?' ,1.19 ~ s -:: -/-4,-,3-/'S,'
. ~/#/,.v. £eif)Z:>
/0 ~ =: 77-/.f, 3 -20 -==-?z, 7 psi :::-97-3. ~r,
/ .'
/
I
/
i'
-:-...
. -<
8 lip V e,';'--/2 25" c.?."..-/. e <? y...u.<..:;=
It) \tJ V c!' ~a .. -:::: /92~f~.
7()7!!· .
12 "¢ V ~ "8;:; "-e-. = 2'700 c.:.,F:M.
r .,' _
. tl
'. , . -.
I,
.\
;' I, '; ;t-I, /0 II II p 'J i! . !i( ;Ii 6' .) -, "I< I ~ _.t
;: . ..:. .... ~.-.~...::-............. ~~-........
" '".-.
. ,,'. ,:,,;\' ::':',::;
. -",' -~-.. -~. ~,-.~
" 'I t:t. ? !. I
it S '~,
,
,\
·1 L
i,
I
.1
'I
i\ II I !;rr -;:; I r&J ,
,I '.
e.
z ~ A·
;r'" /#,1M' ,/1 E"ifJ ~
77-/-f, S -20 ~ ~z, 7 ?.s-I ~ .-'
'. ,
.:,,' .. _ .. '.-.. ---v--': . (\ \tV : .... ·~~I
~.: ., -.
.
! " ,
f' tl I
, r -
, '
I i
J ....
j
)
}
)
1 l "
1 '
' .. ,
1 j
(
:. ,,\:~ ... \ ~
~ ,
, , ..
,.
t
. , '~.
~i '.-lrl
, "! I
"or
.3
10
q
8
I,
II
I
i I I
I I I
I I I I
II
If II II
II II
:1 I,
r II
11
II
It:)
It:)
It:)
It?
B
8
d 7 ;:.
Jt 6' -:.
rt. ? ~
Ci :;--;.
IZ r ::
/S-~O 5/0
7Z() 2~S
IJ~O /ft!-Z"
Zi"() 9.s-
g~ 3s-0
21 :,-() ZIS"O
32 .s ..... ~
••
/ '2 S~ /,2. tf
./'ZdtY
/IJq3
6'77
796
6ZS'
5;~ "o/C. , .' ~,' ... ;-. .
7;';'6 .t7z7
liz"" , --~ '.' .'
J.13 /
1'>;/' ... ," ,'-
4 /"'7t:?~/fl ~.(fJ .3'z to ~ M,O'
,#; J/.~o!-i4-·' &:!?":r6~ =.4,31
,
-'
,7{)7~
.'. r~ -'<
"
77 -9;68 -r.?7 ::-7.1'.17 ':; . ,~-. .. "
</()-s,4 -6,,j-::; 61',/
77,1? - , J .... ,s-.;. -"tl7 -:. ?t),~J-,
!f tJ, C. ::-_ ;, t, -1--12,13' =-~tt, 8' 7
6~, J? -c;, J'"... 1i7..?Y -;. 4 g
.IJ.'( 1".·-.. ··
;)' Q
J.
,,' l.'
. I
" . ~.~ .. ~ ..
:~:...".,'.: ..
'/0
~<fi.;: ; :.
... ':':':~
-~ ... ~-
/'
/,
/'
, : , -8--
1 /0
19.)
J' , '
! .
;q!J;.-J''/.:
J
I ,
720
--.. _-_ .. _-_. __ ._------"""'"----...... --;::-------... ~~
'", .:.. ' _ ' 714· . •tJ 1 ---.,----=--,---7;~:-~--~ --.. -, .. .:. .-.. ----_'-____ p?:~r,,? .. wI.... ·a7~, ..' .. ' '.
..-----.. _. . ..... -. ~
(St!! .. :, ..... ~ ...... .. . :.. ~ ';::-'j r:'~~~
/ll/ca, .or-/!IP~ ,p.' ;eE'4''a_··L:> __ la~_1._:r:~_~o~'r/ ____ pft:..J?._:''_-4-~I!!~,.., '/0.'',-.,. 8 ;, _,' .: .. :~.:.~~
-./-":. • .7 COr-".t!'~':T/ />,t...J ~ CP" " (~~.-~~"*Z t,l7..*!.~_7(.j ~_ ~:!! y,;Z3~_:S-O~~~(/..[c:._ 4-S: CJ" , .. ~. ' •. J'~.. .: ~~_; .. _~, ~,
"Q ''',.""-~~~4 ~~!~#.z.:ts:~~~GJ-~~.t/~€_·~>,:~.t;>-. :_~ ___ ._. __ .... :.~: ," '.' ',',
,
f·:,.,p
,2 co ... ·./:'f:i'.:'T/o"v
. '. .' -~ "
~s .J I
,
::: '7 7 ~/ ... _ ..
:, ' . ' " 'i . .~ ___ '_"8e ~"5S !J~C:~.!!!J. p_=.77,z1-/1 y.t ""'.~ I>
~ 2 ::: 72:71" ?s/ .. _-=3,--~ ~2q,,-?-__ ' ._ . .:_. _ . .:; .. , .9.3; i 5?S-L.,
I • ?
; ~ '/
1/ ~ -
I • c;
" 6
h. 9
; <
.... ' .
. \ ._. -"-
! "
, , '
. Z'<:r::r-----
1<;'0 '--->'8"'2"0,8
, "
\ .'
11
.i ! ;
I .1
.j
·e·
~ .' ". .
"_ ·/0
, '. .
..
"' . . ,
----:----.-~ .. -:----, .-....... ..:...--:.~---.
~"~ -.. :~ ..... . ..