Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 74-21; Carlsbad Oaks Lots 23 & 38; Soils Report Fine Grading; 1996-12-04L AS-GRADED REPORT OF PROPOSED COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE, LOTS 23 AND 38 OF CARLSBAD OAKS, CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 74-2 1, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FINE-GRADING OPERATIONS, December 4, 1996 Project No. 4960196-002 Prepared For: WHCBO Real Estate Limited Partnership 30 Executive Avenue Park, Suite 100 Imine, California 92713-9693 - 3934 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE 8205, SAN DIEGO, CA 92 I23 (6 19) 292-8030 - (800) 447-2626 FAX (6 19) 292-077 I December 4, 1996 - Project No. 4960196-002 To: WHCBO Real Estate Limited Partnership 30 Executive Avenue Park, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92713-9693 Attention: Mr. Jon Kelly Subject: As-Graded Report of Fine-Grading Operations, Proposed Commercial Structure, Lots 23 and 38 of Carlsbad Oaks East, Carlsbad Tract No. 74-21, Carlsbad, California Introduction In accordance with your request, we have provided geotechnical services during the fine-grading operations of the proposed commercial structure on Lots 23 and 38 of Carlsbad Oaks East (Carlsbad Tract No. 74-21) in Carlsbad, California. The subject site, which is located northeast of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Fuerte Street (and south of Loker Avenue East) was previously graded during the development of the Carlsbad Oaks Business Center in 1985-86 (SDGC, 1987). The fine-grading operations included the removal of desiccated and potentially compressible existing fill soils on the pad, overexcavation of the cut portion of the building pad, excavation of cut material, preparation of areas to receive fill, and fill placement and compaction. This as-graded report summarizes our geotechnical observations and field and laboratory test results completed during the fine-grading operations on the site. The 40-scale grading plans for Lots 23 and 38 of Carlsbad Tract No. 74-21, prepared by Kahr and Associates (Kahr, 1996) was utilized as a base map to present the as-graded geotechnical conditions and approximate locations of the field density tests within the limits of the subject site. The As-graded Geotechnical Map is presented as Plate 1 and is located in the pocket at the rear of this report. Summarv of Fine-Grading Ooerations Fine-grading of the site was performed between November 12 and 30, 1996. Observation of the fine- grading operations and testing of compacted fill were performed by our field technician who was on-site under the supervision of the geotechnical engineer. Geologic observation of the building pad overexcavation was also performed as-needed by a representative of Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton). Plate I presents the as-graded geotechnical conditions encountered during grading and the - 3934 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE B205, SAN DIEGO, CA 92 I23 (6 19) 292-8030 * (800) 447-2626 FAX (6 19) 292-077 I 4960 196-002 approximate locations of the field density tests. included the following: * Specific operations performed during fine grading Site Preparation and Removals of Compressible Fill Soils Site preparation consisted of the removal and/or scarification of desiccated and potentially compressible existing fill soils in the center and eastern portions of the site. Observations during site grading indicated the upper 1 to 2 feet of the existing fill soils on the pad were dry, desiccated, and potentially compressible. As a result, the fill soils in the upper 1 to 2 feet of the pad were scarified andor removed to competent fill, moisture-conditioned to a near optimum moisture content, mixed to obtain a relatively homogeneous fill, and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (based on American Standard of Testing and Materials [ASTM] Test Method D1557-91). Site preparations were performed in general accordance with the project recommendations (Leighton, 1996a). Overexcavation of the Cut Portion of the Building Pad The cut portion of the building pad (Le. the southwest and west portions of the building) was overexcavated a minimum of 15 feet below the planned finish pad grade elevation and at least 10 feet outside the building limits. The overexcavation of the building pad was performed to minimize the fill differential beneath the proposed structures by providing a minimum of 15 feet of fill beneath the building pad (Leighton, 1996~). The approximate bottom removal depths of the overexcavation are shown on Plate 1. Prior to fill placement, the overexcavation bottom was scarified to a minimum depth of 6 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Method Dl557-91. Fill Placement and Compaction After processing the existing finish grade soils on the pad and the bottom of the overexcavation area, native sandy soils were generally spread in 4- to 6-inch loose lifts, moisture-conditioned as necessary to obtain a near-optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the maximum dry density (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Areas of fill in which observations showed nonuniform mixing andor inadequate or excessive moisture, were reworked and recompacted until the fill achieved a minimum 90 percent relative compaction and an adequate moisture content. Compaction of the fill soils was accomplished with heavy construction equipment (including rubber-tire scrapers and compactor) and was performed under the observation and testing of a representative of Leighton. Field and Laboratow TestinP Field and laboratory tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Methods D2922-91 and D3017-88 (Nuclear-Gauge Method). The results of our field density tests are presented in Appendix B. The approximate locations of the field density tests are shown on the As-Graded Geotechnical Map, Plate I. Our observations and test results indicate that the fill soils placed on the -2- 49601 96-002 site were compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Laboratory testing (including maximum dry density/optimum moisture content and expansion index tests) were performed on the fill soils in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557-91 and U.B.C. Standard 18-2, respectively. The expansion index test results indicate the building pad finish grade soils have a medium expansion potential. The results of our testing are presented in Appendix C. Engineering Geologic Summary The geologic units encountered during site grading are generally similar to those described in the project geotechnical investigation report (Leighton, 1996a). The geologic units mapped within the site boundary include the Santiago Formation and existing documented fill (Map Symbol - Afo). The documented fill was encountered in the eastern portion of the site and generally consisted of slightly clayey to silty sands derived from the Santiago Formation. The Eocene-aged Santiago Formation underlies the entire site and was encountered at grade in the southwest and west portions of the site. As encountered, this unit generally consisted of interbedded silty sandstones and minor silty claystones. The approximate location of the geologic units are indicated on the As-Graded Geotechnical Map (Figure 1). Ground Water Ground water was not encountered nor anticipated during the grading operations at the site. Conclusions Based on the results of our observations and field and laboratory test results, it is our opinion that the placement and compaction of fill soils associated with fine-grading operations at the subject site has been performed in general accordance with the recommendations of Leighton and Associates and the City of Carlsbad requirements. The following summarizes our conclusions regarding grading of the site: . Geotechnical conditions encounter during fine-grading were generally as assumed in our geotechnical investigation of the site (Leighton, 1996a, 1996b, and 1996~). The existing fill soils located within the limits of grading were removed andor scarified to a depth of 1 to 2 feet below existing finish grades. These soils were then moisture-conditioned, mixed, and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91). The cut portion of the building pad was overexcavated a minimum of 15 feet below the planned finish pad grade elevation and replaced with compacted fill. Fill soils were derived from on-site soils. Field and laboratory test results of the compacted fill soils at the site indicate the soils were placed to at least a 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557-91. -3- 4960196-002 Expansion potential test results of the finish grade soils within the building limits indicate the fill soils have a medium expansion potential (per U.B.C. Standard 18-2). Based on the results of our geotechnical observations and field and laboratory test results, it is our opinion that the building pad is suitable for its intended use from a geotechnical standpoint. Post-grading and construction related geotechnical recommendations are presented below. Geotechnical Recommendations Earthwork We anticipate that future earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation, trench excavation and backfill, and driveway and parking area subgrade, aggregate base and asphalt concrete preparation and compaction. We recommend that earthwork on-site be performed in accordance with the following recommendations and the City of Carlsbad grading requirements. Site Preparation If additional grading (such as fill placement) is planned on the site, prior to grading, the areas to receive structural fill or engineered structures should be cleared of surface obstructions, potentially compressible material (such as desiccated fill and weathered or disturbed formational material, etc.), and stripped of vegetation. Vegetation and debris should be removed and properly disposed of off-site. Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions which extend below finish site grades should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. Areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to a near optimum moisture condition, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTh4 Test Method D1557-91). * Excavations Excavations of the on-site materials may generally be accomplished with conventional heavy- duty earthwork equipment. It is not anticipated that blasting will be required or that significant quantities of oversized rock (i.e. rock with maximum dimensions greater than 6 to 12 inches) will be generated during future grading. However, localized cemented zones may be encountered that may require heavy ripping. If oversized rock is encountered, it should be hauled off-site or placed in non-structural or landscape areas. Due to the relatively high density characteristics and coarse nature of the on-site soils, temporary excavations such as utility trenches with vertical sides in the onsite soils should remain stable for the period required to construct the utility, provided they are free of adverse geologic conditions. However, in accordance with OSHA requirements, excavations between 5 and 15 feet in depth should be shored or laid back to inclinations of I:1 (horizontal to vertical) if workers are to enter such excavations. For excavations deeper than 15 feet, specific recommendations can be made on a case-by-case basis. -4- 4960196-002 * Fill Placement and Comaaction The on-site soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free of organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 6 to 12 inches in maximum dimension. All fill soils should be brought to near-optimum moisture conditions and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on the laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill soils should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general accordance with the current City of Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound construction practices, and the geotechnical recommendations presented herein. Foundation Design It is anticipated that the proposed building will utilize a combination of continuous perimeter footings and conventional interior isolated-spread footings for support of the building. The following recommendations are based on the presence of medium expansion potential soils (less than 90 per UBC 18-I-B) within the upper 4 feet of the finish pad grade. Footings bearing in competent natural soil materials or properly compacted fill should extend a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. At this depth, footings may be designed using an allowable soil-bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable soil-bearing pressure may be increased by 500 psf for each additional foot of foundation embedment to a maximum allowable-bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. This value may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration including wind or seismic forces. We understand that a conventionally-reinforced foundation system will be utilized on the site. Conventionally-Reinforced Foundation System The proposed conventionally-reinforced foundation system should be designed in accordance with the parameters presented above. In addition, a modulus of subgrade reaction value of 100 tons& may also be assumed by the project structural engineer in the design of the structure’s foundation. Continuous perimeter footings should have a minimum embedment and width of 18 and 15 inches, respectively. Continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of four No. 5 bars, two at the top and two at the bottom. Isolated spread footings should have a minimum base dimension of 30 inches, minimum embedment of 18 inches below adjacent grade and reinforced in accordance with the structural engineer’s recommendations. Interior column footings should be isolated from the floor slab. Slabs on grade should have a minimum thickness of 5 inches and minimal reinforcement consisting of No. 4 bars at 18 inches on center. It should be noted that the foundation dimensions and specified reinforcement are minimums only and should be designed by the structural engineer given the site specific soil conditions and anticipated settlement. -5- 4960 196-002 - Floor Slab The proposed conventionally-reinforced slab should be a minimum of 5-1/2 inches thick and be underlain by a minimum of 2 inches of clean sand (sand equivalent greater than 30) which is in turn underlain by a 6 mil thick or greater vapor barrier. The vapor barrier should be sealed at all penetrations and laps. We recommend that the vapor barrier be also underlain by a 4-inch layer of clean sand (sand equivalent greater than 30) to act as a capillary break. Moisture vapor transmission may be additionally reduced by use of concrete additives. Moisture barriers can retard, but not eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slab. We recommend that the floor coverings installer test the moisture vapor flux rate prior to attempting application of the flooring. A slipsheet or equivalent should be utilized above the concrete slab if crack-sensitive floor coverings (such as ceramic tile, etc.) are to be placed directly on the concrete slab. Our experience indicates that use of reinforcement in slabs and foundations will generally reduce the potential for drying and shrinkage cracking. However, some cracking should be expected as the concrete cures. Minor cracking is considered normal; however, it if often aggravated by a high cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of placement, small aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due to hot, dry, and/or windy conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and moisture fluctuations can also be expected. The use of low slump concrete (not exceeding 4 to 5 inches at the time of placement) can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking and the action of tensioning the tendons can close small shrinkage cracks. Anticipated Settlement Settlement of properly compacted fill has two components; 1) Elastic settlement of soils which occur upon application of structural loads (the majority of which typically occurs during and slightly after construction); and 2) hydroconsolidation settlement which can occur upon saturation due to water infiltration (which typically occurs over a period of many years). The recommended allowable-bearing capacity is generally based on a maximum total and differential (elastic) settlement of 3/4 inch and 1/2 inch in horizontal distance of 100 feet, respectively, upon application of structural loads and upon future soil wetting. Approximately one-half of this settlement is anticipated to occur during construction. Actual elastic settlement can be estimated on the basis that settlement is roughly proportional to the net contact bearing pressure. Slab Subgrade Presaturation The slab subgrade soils present on the site should be presoaked to a minimum moisture content of at least 18 percent to a depth of at least 18 inches. The subgrade soil moisture content should be checked by a representative of Leighton prior to slab construction. Presoaking or moisture conditioning may be achieved in a number of ways, but based on our professional experience, we have found that minimizing the moisture loss of the building pad upon completion of grading (by periodic wetting to keep the upper portion of the pad from drying out) and/or berming the lot and flooding it for a short period of time (a few days) are some of the more efficient ways -6- 4960196-002 Conditions Active to meet the presoaking requirements. If flooding is performed, a couple of days to let the upper portion of the pad dry out and form a crust so equipment can be utilized should be anticipated. Level Backfill 2:1 Sloping Backfill 40 55 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations The recommended lateral pressures for granular soil of low to medium expansion potential (expansion index less than 90 per U.B.C. 18-I-B) and level or sloping backfill are presented on the following table. Lateral Earth Pressures At-Rest I Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) II 60 60 (Maximum 3 ksf) (Maximum 3 ksf) Passive I 300 I 300 II Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can yield under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls founded above the static ground water and backfilled with soils of low to medium expansion potential is provided in the table above. If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical engineer. Surcharge loading effects from the adjacent structures should be evaluated by the geotechnical and structural engineer. All retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately waterproofed. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical wall drainage design is illustrated in Figure 1. The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions. -1- NOT TO SCALE - - SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL Project No. 4960196-002 Engr.lGeol. JGF/RKW RETAINING WALL Scale Not to Scale DRAINAGE DETAIL Drafled By EP 1u2 8-39 flgwe No 1 U.S. Standard Sieve Size X Passing 100 90- 100 40-100 NO. 4 25-40 NO. a No. 30 18-33 5-15 ~~ No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0-3 Sand Equivalent>75 Y COMPE~ENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT *BASED ON ASTM 01667 *IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL (SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF 3/4'-1-1/2' GRAVEL. FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 00 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION NOTECOMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MRADRAIN CLASS 2 INSTALLATION SHOULD BE F'SiFORMD IN ACCORDANCE WlTH MANUFACTURERS SPEUflCATIONS OR J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR 4960 196-002 For sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. In combining the total lateral resistance, the passive pressure or the frictional resistance should be reduced by 50 percent. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. The passive resistance value may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic loads. The horizontal distance between foundation elements providing passive resistance should be a minimum of three times the depth of the elements to allow full development of these passive pressure. The total depth of retained earth for design of cantilever walls should be the vertical distance below the ground surface measured at the wall face for stem design or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning and sliding. Wall back-cut excavations less than 5 feet in height can be made near vertical. For back cuts greater than 5 feet in height, but less than 15 feet in height, the back cut should be flattened to a gradient of not steeper than 1:l (horizontal to vertical) slope inclination. For back cuts in excess of 15 feet in height, specific recommendations should be requested from the geotechnical consultant. The granular and native backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91). The granular fill should extend horizontally to a minimum distance equal to one-half the wall height behind the walls. The walls should be constructed and backfilled as soon as possible after back-cut excavation. Prolonged exposure of back-cut slopes may result in some localized slope instability. Foundations for retaining walls in competent formational soils or properly compacted fill should be embedded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade. At this depth, an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf may be assumed. Type of Cement for Construction Based on the soluble sulfate test result performed during our investigation (Leighton, 1996a) and our professional experience in the vicinity of the site, the on-site soils possess a negligible soluble sulfate content. Therefore, the use of sulfate resistant cement is not warranted. Preliminarv Pavement Design Final pavement recommendations should be provided based on R-value testing of the driveway and parking area subgrade soils once final grades are achieved. The upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91. If fill is required to reach subgrade design grade, fill placement should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the recommendation section on earthwork (page 4). The aggregate base material should be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction. The above pavement sections may be reduced if the subgrade is lime-treated. For the delivery pads, truck ramps and trash enclosures, etc., we recommend 8 inches of Portland Cement Concrete (P.C.C.) on native soils. The P.C.C. in the above pavement sections should be provided with appropriate steel reinforcement and crack-control joints as designed by the project structural engineer. Minimum reinforcement should consist of No. 4 rebars at 18 inches (on center) -9- L 4960196-002 at slab midheight which continues through all crack-control joints but not through expansion joints. If saw-cuts are used, they should be a minimum depth of 114 of the slab thickness and made within 24 hours of concrete placement. We recommend that sections be as nearly square as possible. A 3,000 psi concrete mix should be utilized. Asphalt Concrete (A.C.), Portland Cement Concrete (P.C.C.) and Class 2 base materials should conform to and be placed in accordance with the latest revision of the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (Caltrans) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) codes. If pavement areas are adjacent to landscape areas, we recommend steps be taken to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming saturated. Concrete swales should be designed in roadway or parking areas subject to concentrated surface runoff. Regular maintenance (such as seal coats and crack infilling) is an important part of extending pavement life. - Drainage Control Positive drainage of surface water away from the building and the top of slopes toward the street, driveway or other suitable collection point is very important. No water should be allowed to pond at any location. * Graded SIoDes It is recommended that any re-graded slopes within the development be planted with ground cover vegetation as soon as practical to protect against erosion by reducing runoff velocity. Deep-rooted vegetation should also be established to protect against surficial slumping. Oversteepening of existing slopes should be avoided during post-grading and construction unless supported by appropriately designed retaining structures. Construction Observation and Testing Construction observation and testing should be performed by the geotechnical consultant during future excavations and foundation construction at the site. Additionally, footing excavations should be observed and moisture determination tests of subgrade soils should be performed by the geotechnical consultant prior to the pouring of concrete. -10- 4960 196-002 If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact this ofice. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC A Randall K. Wagner, bEG 1612 (Exp. 3/31/98) Project Geologist Jose G. Franzone, RCE 39552 u ector of Engineering RKWIJGFkar Attachments: Plate 1 - As-Graded Geotechnical Map Appendix A - References Appendix B - Summary of Field Density Tests Appendix C - Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Distribution: (4) Addressee (2) Reno Contracting, Attention: Mr. Craig Hueners (3) City of Carlsbad Engineering Department, Attention: Mr. AI Ludwig 11 - L 4960 196-002 APPENDIX A REFERENCES International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1994, Uniform Building Code, Volume 1 - Administrative, Fire- and Lite-Safety, and Field Inspection Provisions; Volume II- Structural Engineering Design Provisions; and Volume 111-Material, Testing and Installation Provisions: ICBO. Kahr and Associates, 1996, Grading Plans for Lots 23 and 38, Carlsbad Tract 74-21, Lincoln Property Company, Drawing No. 350-2A, 4 Sheets. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1996a, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Officeh4anufacturingWarehouse Facility, Carlsbad Oaks East, Lots 23 and 28, Northeast Corner of El Fuerte Street and Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4960196-001, dated August 2, 1996. , 1996b, Grading Recommendations, Lots 23 and 28, Carlsbad Oaks East, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4960196-001, dated September 26, 1996. , 1996c, Report Addendum, Proposed Building, Carlsbad Oaks East, Lots 23 and 38, El Fuerte and Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4960196-001, dated October 28. 1996. San Diego Geotechnical Consultants (SDGC), Inc., 1987, As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Final Report of Mass Grading, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center, Carlsbad Tract 74-21, Carlsbad, California, Job No. 05-1079-002-00-10, dated February 19, 1987. Ware and Malcomb, Architects, Inc., Sit Plan for the Proposed Lincoln Property Warehouse Facility, Untitled and Undated. A- 1 4960196-002 APPENDIX B EXPLANATION OF SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Test of GRADING Natural Ground Original Ground Existing Fill Compacted Fill Slope Face Finish Grade SEWER STORM DRAIN AREA DRAIN DOMESTIC WATER RECLAIMED WATER SUBDRAIN GAS ELECTRICAL TELEPHONE JOINT UTILITY IRRIGATION Bedding Material Shading Sand Main Lateral Crossing Manhole Hydrant Lateral Catch Basin Riser Invert Check Valve Meter Box Junction Box ETAINING WALL :RIB WALL -OFFELL WALL jTRUCT FOOTING Footing Bottom Backfill Wall Cell Test of Abbreviations NG OG EF CF SF FG B S M L X MH HL CB R I cv MB JB F B C Test of SUBGRADE AGGREGATE BASE CEMENT TREATED BASE PROCESSED BASE ASPHALT CONCRETE Curb Gutter Curb and Gutter Cross Gutter Street Sidewalk Driveway Driveway Approach Spandrel Water Tank Pad Park Lot Electric Box Pad 'RESATURATION Moisture Content NTERIOR TRENCH Plumbing Electrical Test of Abbreviations C G CG XG ST sw D DA D W PL EB M P E N represents nuclear gauge tests that were performed in general accordance with most recent version of ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017. S represents sand cone tests that were performed in general accordance with most recent version of ASTM Test Method D1556. 15A represents first retest of Test No. 15 15B represents second retest of Test No. 15 "0" in Test Elevation Column represents test was taken at the ground surface (e.g. finish grade or subgrade) B- I L. L t .. .. 4960 196-002 Sample Representative Soil Expansion Expansion Number Location Type Index Potential* El East side of building pad Light-brown silty sand 68 Medium E2 Center of building pad Light-brown silty sand 56 Medium ~ APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND TEST RESULTS Sample Location Building Pad Potential Degree of Sample Description Sulfate Content (%) Sulfate Attack* Light-brown silty sand Less than 0.005 Negligible (1 E3 I West side of building pad 1 Light-brown clayey to 1 82 1 Medium 11 Sample Number 1 silty sand Sample Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture Description Density (pcf) Content (%) Light-brown silty sand 115.5 14.0 * Based on the 1994 edition of the Uniform Building Code (U.B.C.) Table 18-I-B (ICBO, 1994) 2 Light-brown clayey to silty sand 108.0 20.0 c- 1