HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 72-34; RANCHO LA CUESTA; GEOLOGIC GRADING REPORT; 1976-10-29•
.'
•
•
•
•
e'
•
e
•
•
I I I
'" --_ .. _.-
i I )
\
(
EIOII£Ea,.s
(!-r 1~-31,
J~ /1, 8 ,'f~ fl <¥-8
f)-HfJ-~)ls cI.
'\
FINAll:NGINEERING GEOlQGICQ .0+1 GRADI N.G REPORT: J~
Tract 72-34, lots 99 & ~ ....
106-126 inclusive (Unit 2) ~
0
in the City of Carlsbad, Californio~
for
Newport Shores Builders
October 29 ~ 1976
Pacific SoHs Engineering, Inc.
. Irvine, California
c;
<c
1i,lD mQ)
';Jl'-(l)E -,-m -J~ ;;.-o::m ~~ <c.. O~
:> IL: {O O~ z: ~~ .../ -co o .
(j)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
17921 SKY PARK CIRCLE (SUITE G) IRVINE, CALIF. 92707
TEI,..EPHONE: (714) 557-9450
Newport Shore Build~rs
P.O. Box A
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Attention:
Subject:
Gentlemen:
Mr. Mike Jager
Final Engineering Geologic Grading Report;
Tract 72-34, Lots 99 & 106-126 inclusive'
(Unit 2), in the City of Carlsbad, California
L.A. COUNTY OFFICE
1402 W. 240th Street
Harbor City. Ca. 90710
(213)' 325-7272 or 775-6771
VENTURA COUNTY OFFICE
Post Office Box 75
Thousand Oaks, Ca. 91360
(213) 889-9919
(805i 495-6513
October 29, 1976
Work. Order 100236A
This ~inal geologic report for the subject tract is submitted in accordance with the reqoire-
ments of the: City of Carlsbad. Geologic data are plotted on the.plan included with the
i I
companion Project Grading Report.
Buttr~ss fi lis were requrred for support of ·the rear (east) slope of lots 125 & 126 and fhe
street side slope or'lot 99. Based on our inspection of geologic conditions of the site,
the subject lots are satisfactory for the intended use from a geologic poi'nt of view.
Respectfully submitted,
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING; INC.
By: R ~ (.~ Co r l.-" """* b'1 Co. I). Co,
RICHARD E. LOWNES, E.G. 108
Dist: (10) Addressee
REL:RPK/vll
Revi ewed by:
~Q.h6~
REX P. KETTER, Vice President
•
•
•
•
•
•
pACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING. I!\,IC.
17921 SKY PARK CI RCLE (SUITE G) I RVINE, CALIF. 92707
TELEPHONE: (714) 557·9450
Newport Shores Sui Idel'S
P.O. Box A
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Attention: Mr. Mike Jager
Subject: Project Soil Engineering Grading Report;
Tract 72-34, Lots 99 and 106-126 inclusive
(Unit 2), in the City of Carlsbad, Californ,ia
Reference: Preliminary Soil Engineering and Engineering
Geologic Report and Engineering Geologic
Gentlemen:
, and Soil Engineering Review of Grading Plan
for Tract No. 72-34, dated July 5, 1974 by
Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (W.O. 100236)
L.A. COUNTY OFFICE
. 1402 W .. 240th Street
Harbor City, Ca. 90710
(2i3) 325-7272 or 175-6Th
VENTU.RA COUNTY OFFICE
Post Offi,ce Box 75 . I
Thousand Oaks, Ca. 9-1360
(213) 8!l9-9919
(805) 495-6513
Octo~r ,29, 1976
Work Order 100236 '.. -
This report' presents soil engineering data and test 'results pertaining to the placement of
compacted earth fill on the subject property. Foundation criteria are also included ,in
,this report for the subject residential lots 99 and 106-126 inclusive.
• All fills, cuts or processing' of original ground under the p~rview of fhis report have been
completed under our inspection or accepted by this firm, and are in compliance with F.H.A.
criteria and the Grading Code of the City of Carlsbad, California. All work under our • I .
purview was accomplished in· accordance with the "Earthwork Specifications", contained.
in the, above-referenced investigation report.
• Completed work halil been reviewed and is considered suitable for the construc;tion now
planned. All, slopes are considered grossly and suriicially stable .and will remain so under
• normal 'conditions.
•
• October 29, 1976
Work Order 100236A
Page 2
• Compaction test results are presented in Table I, and approximate locations of tests are
•
•
•
shown on the encl osed'grading plan (2 sheets). Also shown on the plan are locations of
tests taken 1in adjacent areas. These test results will be submit!ed in future 'grading' reports,
as these areas are completed, or have been submitted in previous reports.
Soil Type
D"; Clayey Sand
E -Clay,ey Sand
F -Clayey Sand
G -Sand
H -Clayey Sand
L-Sand
J -Clayey Sand
K -Silty Sand
Laboratory Standard: ASIM: D 1557-70T
Opt. Moist.
(%)
12.5
13.5
15.0
15.0
15.5
13.0
13.0
16.0
Max. Dry Density
(Ibs ./eu. ft. )
118.0
115.5
113.0
108.5
. 111.5
117.0
116.5
106.0
650pSf
0.1
NO
0.,0
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
~~Swell,*
ASCE
ND
8
.No
NO
4
ND
ND
NO
• * -Swell tests were remolded in a one-inch high ring to 90 percent relative compaction
utilizing material at optimum moisture for samples to be surcharged at 650 psf. Samples
were inundated for 24-hours and then amount of swell was recorded. ASCE denotes in
accordance Y"ith ASCE Expansion InClex Test. ND denotes nof determined.
•
•
•
•
•
1 • Prior to the placement of compacted fill, the exposed natural surface was scarified,
watered as necessary and compacted in-.place, suitable to receive fill. Where
necessary, alluvial materials in canyon swale bottoms were removed to either in-place
bedrock, or competent natural soils.
2. 'Fill consisting of the above soils types was then place:d in fhin lifts, watered as
necess~ry and compacted in-place to a minimum of 90 percen,t of the laboratory
standa~d utilizing tractor-drawn sheepsfoot type rollers and heavy' earth movin9
equipment .• Each fill was treated in a like manner.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING; INC.
•
•
•
.'
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
October 29, 1976
Work Order 100236A
Page 3
3. Fill'placed on slope gradients steeper than 5-horizontal to 1-vertical was keyed
and benched into bedrock. The upper soils were stripped al'!d/or benched out on the
\
i
shallower slopes in such a manner that all compacted fill is in contact with intac.t
bedrock or competent soils.
4. . All removals and excavating for canyon cleanouts, 'and processing" in preparing fil.l
areas were inspected and approved by this firm's representativ~ prior to placement
of any fill •
5,. Compaction tests were taken for each one to two feet of fill placed.' The maximum"
J ll1tl!f<Ut !B~,-1(
6.
7.
vertical depth of fill placed is on the order of 15fee~ on;~Ji) The buiJding pad
,_ • t 1$ • J ~_'._""~~---'. tiE; 'C •
areas on lots~8~'iH;~'"116~122,-125-~~d126:~~-in_~t) Random compacti<:m
~ ___ , .... ,-,& -;t"""V:~""'~,,,,~ __ • ;«"-';'_ ~~ .... ~"_-",,,,.~ ...... " ~ ........ -
tests performed at .the finished cut grade indicate a suitable compac~ finished grade.
Based upon preliminary investigation and geologic inspection during grading, 15-foof
base width compacted buttress fills w.ete recommended and constructed for support of , . .
',,---~ -~~~~ .... ~-.
the proposed cut slope at the rear (east) of ~ots 125 and 126 and the side street slope of _~ .... _ ... -~-";:""'i<""""'~;o",,-,,, ... ______ , " ... ~ ~. " __ ~..t ._ ... ~ ~_~ .... _ ..... --..c,-""".;;..,.~~-
lot 99 •. .':The location and qpproximate Umits of the buttre~s fit Is are shown on the, enclosed
plans.
The cut portion of some .transitional lots were over-excavated to a depth of 3O-inches
~ .... '.-. _ ""---_w. _, I "'. __ -----...... ---'V'-. ..-......,.~ .. -........ -~ ....
and replaced as a compacted fi II to provide uniform bearing conditions. This was
accomplished on lots 111, 113, 114 & 123;)as indicated with a "C" on the enclosed
plan.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
October 29, 1976
Work Order 100236A
Page 4
8.
. ,....---.
Th~transition~_wbereJb~_cl1JLfiJLco.ntq~t_is .wIthin tbe hui.lding .. pa~-9.v,-J 07
a a
<: .... ___ T * ...
and 124),"j:md were not .. over-excavated and replaced wi.th compacted fill, wiJi
.. _ .. J 'I5"'i _ ~ t 'if ~ "'" s*@ •. _-____ ""'-v""',-.... ..-,_~~ '" , .. ",-oj """".,'
.",..~~~~.-. ~:~~!.r~~:.c!~,~~.l~q.~.~~E1;_".!S:~' These requirements are presented herein
item 12.,b,l, ~~i~
9. Fill slopes were backrolled as they were brought to grad~ at approximate four-foot
'intervals. At the completion of fill placement, the slope was uniformly compacted
by track-rolling and finished by cutting and trimming back to the compacted core.
Slope tests were made after completion of trimming. All slope densification: hQs'
been completed and the slopes are ·considered stable under normal conditions.
10.. Materials encountered in cut and utilized for compacted fill ranged from non to
*
**
***
·slightly· expansive in nature.
A lot-by-Iot evaluation of the soil conditions were conducted, with the subject
residential lots being considered to be very low to low in expansion potential, .
•
ac~ording to Table 29-C of the 1973 Uniform Sui I ding Code. Results of these
expansion tests are as follows: .
tot No. 's Soil Type *
106-109,
124-126
110, 115-122
111-114, 123.
.99
Expansion Potential
Index** Expansion*** (% Sand, Silt, Clay)
NO Very low 85 9 6
37 Low 63 26 11
NO Very low 81 9 10
NO Very low 80 11 9
Per tabulation (page 2) compaction test soil types, upper three feet
As determined in accordance with ASCE Expansion Potential Method; NO -not determined
Per Table 29-C of the 1973 Uniform Building Code
Design criteria for foundation and slabs-on-grade for the .subject lots, are included
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
.... ----------~-------------------------.-----.
• _ October 29, 1976
Work Order 100236A
Page 5
• in Items 11 and.12 of this report.
•
•
•
•
•
•
••
•
•
11. The fol.lowing criteria should be used in foundation design for the residential .lots.
12.
a) The recommended bearing value for both th~ interior anf) exterior footings is
1500 Ibs./sq.ft. having a minimum embedment depth of 12-inches'and having.
a minimum width of 12-inches.
b) A lateral bearing value of 300Ibs./sq.ft. per foot of depth of a maximum of
1500 Ibs./sq.ft. may be utilized. A lateral sliding coefficient of 0.40 may
be used in design.
The above values may be increased one-third for short, duration loads such as
seismic and wind loads.
Footing and slab-on-grade reinforcement criteria
A summary of foundation requi-rements is presented on Plate A.
a) Compacted fill lots JJ.1-Ui inclusive and mare considered to be slightly
expansive (low) in nature and'therefore the following criteria should .be used
for design:
1)
2)
All footings for the proposed structure shall have a. minimum embedment
of 12-i.nches below grade. Spread or isol,ated footings may be used •
f.llc~f1tLQ.Y2.~.i?~ik~.gs ,s\1a..'l. be, r.ei~~~rcediwith.f:v(~ No •. 4 .. bq~" ,OJI$. ..
placed in the bottom of the footing and one in the top.
.' .,.... _ ~, __ ... __ -.. ___ ~. ~ _ __ _ ~' A. _ _ "-"
All slabs-on.,..grade in Jiving areas shall be reinforced with a minimum
of six-inCA by six-inch, No. 10 by No. 10 welded wire mesh.2!:,
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
•
•
•
•
•
•
e·
•
•
i L, • \i6f () c; r-
""3-
~ i::
I
"" •
October 29, 1976
Work Order_ 100236A
Page 6
" ~;
F-;---
.";c' .' ~,
eguivalent positioned at mid-height of the slabs; 12 by 12, W2.8 by
W2.8 welded wire mesh is considered equivalent reinforcemenf'.
3) A minimum of lO-mil polyvinyl membrane is required under all siabs~
.on-grade in living areas. This membrane shall be covered by a minimum
of one-inch of sand to aid i~ curing of the concrete.
4) Slab subgrade for living areas and garage areas shall be moistened to
at least optimum moisture, to a depth of 12-inches, prior to placing
concrete.
5) No special treatment of the garage areas is required, except that the
garage slab should ·have a .positive separation from th~ stem wall.
b). Cut lots ~9::, .-!9'£'-lJa2 inclusive, W~?.i inclusive anc!)k4:-2~ .i.ncluSive, are
. .
considered to be non-expansive (very low) in nature a~d the following criteria
should be used for design.
1) All footings for the proposed structure shall have a minimum embedment of
12-inches below grade. Spread or isolated footings may be used. The :;:::.:;
'it "4 "W II'
:?nt!'~uou: f~o~~~;~~r~~_~_. However ,for struct!Jres to
be built across cut/fi" lines ~lots ·99 and lO7l, :.9n!iny"qw;_toRtlQff~J.hould r _~
.... tPR_C!r;J9 __ ~qtt9rnsh~JLbe.,I?J~ced~~J!c~tQ the fi~l. ~~~a,-:-q~~.ot Jeas!-:.fg~.!~~t
~ \ PACIFIC SOI~~ ENGINEERtNG, INC. .
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
October 29, 1976
Work Order 100236A
Page 7
2)
3)
4)
beyond in to the cut area. An alternative to this would be to deepen
1 """ .. A--"""'ir: "m~b
the footings in the compacted fill area as described in the previoUS
paragraph. However, this may require footings on the order of 4 to
6 feet deep.
All slabs-on-grade in living areas shall be reinforced with a minimum
of six-inch by six-inch, No. 10 by No. 10 welded wire mesh Qr
eguivalent positioned at the mid-height of the slabs; 12 by 12, W2.8
by W2.8 welded wire mesh is considered· equivalent reinforcement.
A minimum of 10-mil polyvinyl membrane is required under all slabs-on-
grade in living areas. This membrane shall be covered by a minimum
of one-inch of sand to aid in curing of the concrete ~
Slab subgrade for living areas and garage areas shall be moistened to
at least optimum moisture, to a depth of 12-inches, prior to placing
concrete.
5) No special treatment of the garage area is required, except that .the
garage slab should have a posifiVe separation from the stem wall.
13. UHlity trench backfill should be accomplished in accordance with the prevailing
criteria of the City of Carlsbad.
PACIFIC 501l,.5 ENGINEERING,. INC.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I October 29, 1976
Work Order 100236A
Page 8
Respectfu " y subm i tted.,
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Revi ewed by:
~6?J~
REX P. KETTER, Vice President
Oist: (10) Addressee
AJJ:RPK/vll
PACIFIC SDIL$ ENGINEERING, INC.
•
October 29, 1976
Work Order 100236-A •
TABLE
• Date of Test Test Elev. Moisture Dry Density Relative Soil
Test No. Location (feet) (%) (Ibs/cu,~ft) Comp.% Type
9/20/16 299* Lot 112 181.0 14.9 110.4 94.0 SC D
10/8/16 508 Lot 113 187.0 13.6 102.3 94.0 SC G • 509 Lot 113 190.0 10.5 110.2 94.0 SC I
510 Lot 112 184.0 11:.7 . 106.5 91.0 I
511 Lot 112 187.0 13.0 108.0 92 .• 0 I
10/12/16 562 Lot 123 183.0 13.0 106.0 91.0 SC I
563 Lot 123 186.0 14.3 108.4 93.0 SC I • 10/13/16 574 Lot 123 189.0 13.0 107.3 95.0 F
i . 575 Lot 123 192.0 16.3 105.4 93.0 F
10/14/1;6 583 Lot 123 194.0 11 ~ 1 107.0 91.0 I
584 Lot 123 196.0 13.6 110.5 94.0 I
10/23;76 684 Lot 99 158.0 11.1 108.2 92.0 SC I • 685 Lot 99 160.0 13.0 111.4 95.0 SC I
686 Alga Road 195.0 10.5 106.0 91.0 SC I
687 Alga Road 199.0 11.7 109.2 93.0 sc r
688 Alga Road 203.0 12.4 112.0 96.0 sC I
689 Lot 114 200.0 13.6 110.1 94.0 SC I
• 10/26/16 695 Alga Road 206.0 14.3 109.0 93.0 . 0
.696 Lot 113 196.0 13.0 112.3 96.0 SC r
697 Lot] ]3 200.3 13.0 107.0 91.0 SC 'I
698 Lot 112 191.0 15.6 108.2 . 92.0 SC i
699 Lot 112 195.0 14.9 108.0 92.0 SC I
• 700 Lot 111 192.0 11.1 111.3 95.0 SC I
701 Lot 111 . 196.0 12.4 109.5 . 94 .• 0 SC I
10/27;76 705 Lot 107 184.0 12.4 '107.3 92.0 I
706 Lot 106 181.0 10~5 109.0 93.0 . I
707 Lot 107 187.0 13.6 110.8 95 •. 0 I
• 708 Lot 107 190.0 11.1 112.0 96.0 sC I
709 ~ot 106 184.0 14.9 107.4 92.0 SC I
710 Lot 110 196.0 11.7 109.5 94 .• 0 SC I
711 Lot 109 198.0 10.5 lll.0 95 .. 0 I
712 . Lot 126 191.0 15.6 98.2 92.0 K
713 Lot 125 194.0 14.0 .100.4 94.0 K· • 10/28/76 714 Lot 124 196.0 15.6 109.3 93.0 I
715 Lot 124 197.0 11.1 111.2 95.0 I
716 Lot 123 198.0 13.0 106.5 91.0 I .
'. 717 Lot 107 192.0 12.4 11'3.0 96.0 .I
71.8 Lot 112 200.0 14.3 107.5 . 92.0 I > • @ PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERIN~. INC.
• Oci'ober 29 , 1976.
•
•
•
Work Order 100236A
Table I cont.
*
719 Lot 111 199.6
720 Lot 117 197.8
721 Lot 121 196.9
722 Lot 125 194.0'
723 Lot 109 198.2
724-s Lot 113 197.0
725-s Lot 112 193.0
726 Lot 99 163.0
727 Lot 99 167.0
Test in Compacted Natural Ground
Slope Test
14.3
10.5
.11.7
12.4
9.9
10.5
13.0
13 .• 0
11.7
• S
SC Sand Cone Method; remaining tests by drive tub~
108.-0 92.0
109~0 93.0
110.3 94.0
106.0 91.0
105.4 90.0
107.0 91.-0·
110.7 94.0
109.3 .93.0
108.0 92.0
-Areas failing to meet minimum compaction requirements were reworked and retested. Only
passing tes.ts are shown on the above table. .
•
•
•
•
•
• PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
, ~.
•
•
October 29, 1976
Work Order 100236A
TABLE II
Approximate
Lot No. Depth (feet)
99 11
106 '4
107 8
108 Cut
109 Cut
110 Cut
111 8'
112 15
113 13
114 3
115 Cut
116 Cu.t
117 Cut
118 Cut
119 Cut
120 Cut
121 Cut
122 Cut
123 ' 14, '
124 8
125 Cut
126 Cut
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. "
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
•
•
I=IACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
17921 SKY PARK CIRCLE (SUITE G) IRVINE, CALIF. 92714
SUMMARY OF FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS
TELEPHONE: (714) 557·9450 . TRACT NO ._--:....:72::;...,-.;;.,34.:..-......... ____ _
<----~--------~--------~------~--~ FOOTING . r=OOTihiG
. Depth Reinf. Slcib Moist. Depth Relnf. Slab' Moist
Lot Ext. Into -Ext. Int. Reinf. Req't. Lot Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Rein-f. Req't! ~--~--~----~----~---+~--~~~~ 99 -1 A', i A, Z-'" X, Z_· ~'·X:Z~ \ G J,
, 107 I A,Z A,Z X,Z X,z"L G J
109 A A X X G J
110 A A ~ X I G J
111 A AD D'-G J
112 A ADD ,G J
113 A ADD I G J
T14 A ADD ,r G J
116 A A X X G J
117' A A . X X G J
118 A A X X G J
119 A A X X G J
120' A A X X G J
121 A A X .. X G J
122 A A X _. _. X G J
~ ,~<
.0_---, ,. G ,_~J ____ -I
.X,Z ~ G J
123 A ___ ._ ....A~I\._Q~ ."
124 . j:~.,~Z _" .A, Z X, Z
.X: 'G J
-126 A A X X G J
• LEGEND
A -1211i B -1811i C -24" below lowest adjacent grade
o -One. (1) No.4 rebar at top and one (1) at bottom
E -Two (2) .No.4 rebars at top and two (2) at bottom
F -One (1) No. 5 rebar at top and one (1) at bottom
. -~-~ ,-.
. G ~ Six (6) inch by six (6) inch -No. 10 by No. 10 welded wire mesh, or equivalent.
H -Six (6) inch by six (6) inch -No.6 by No.6 welded wire mesh, or equivalent.
I -No. rebars, -inches on center both ways. -
J -A moisture content of optimum moisture required to a depth of l2-inches below slab suograde
K -Pres~turation of slab subgrode required to 105 percent of optimum moisture to a depth of 12-inche
below slab subgrade •
L -Slob subgretde moi'sture to be verified by the soil engineer, prior to placement Qf visqueen. and'
reinforcement.
X -NO SPECIAL REQUIREMENT
Z -See Item i 2, b, 1, on Pages 6 and 7 of this report. • .
Note: 1) Exterior footings for 2-storystructures must have a' minimum embedment of l8-inches
below grade.
Exterior footings for 3-story structures must have a minimum embedment of 2+inches
below gradei interiors, l8-inches below grade. ' ~
-'/ PlATE A &."
. 2)